Nazir 12b — the Talmud in English

Rather

necessarily

this is what he is saying:

one who undertook to shave a nazirite:

if I find that he is a nazirite, I will shave him,

that is: if I find any nazirite at the time when I come to fulfill my undertaking, I will shave him, even though he has not yet become a nazirite.

And if so,

here too—

with regard to the sender who sends his agent to betroth a woman for him—

also

let us say that the sender’s intention is not specifically regarding women who are already presently fit for betrothal, but

this is what he says to him

the sender to the agent:

if you find one who has been divorced, betroth her for me,

if you find a woman who is divorced at the time when you come to betroth her for me, betroth her for me.

And if so, the question has returned to its place: why is the sender permitted to marry a woman whose sister was married at the time of the appointment of the agency, even though she was subsequently divorced!?

Rather,

they said

the members of the academy to explain that indeed the agent cannot betroth a woman who was married to a man at the time of the appointment of the agency; but the reason is not because of an assessment of the sender’s intention, rather it is a law, and even if the sender explicitly said to the agent that he should betroth for him a woman who is now married when she becomes divorced, the agent cannot betroth her.

And because

not

is able

a person can appoint an agent only

for a matter that he is able to perform

the sender

now [in a matter that the sender is able to perform now, at the time of the appointment of the agency], namely, to betroth an unmarried woman, for the sender too was able to betroth her now.

But

in a matter that

he is not able to perform for him

the sender

now,

for she is a married woman and is not fit for betrothal, and even to betroth her after some time she is not fit, for a person cannot betroth a thing that has not yet come into the world,

not

is able

to appoint

the sender

an agent

to betroth her, even to betroth her when she becomes divorced.

A. A woman who vowed a vow that is affliction of the soul for her, or who vowed a vow concerning matters between her and her husband, her husband is able to annul her vow.

B. If the husband wishes, he “upholds” his wife’s vows, and he is then no longer able to annul those vows.

The Gemara was astonished at this principle that we stated concerning the law of appointing an agent:

Is that so!?

Can it truly be that a person cannot appoint an agent for a matter that he cannot perform at the time of the appointment of the agency!? But

come and hear

it is not so:

For it was taught in a beraita: A husband—who is about to leave his house for an overseas country, and appointed a guardian over his property to provide sustenance for his wife and children —

who says to his guardian: “

All vows that my wife will vow from here

[from the time that I leave here] and

until I return from a certain place

where I am going,

annul them”!

And

indeed

annulled

the guardian

for her

her vows,

can they be annulled?

The verse says: “

Her husband may uphold it and her husband may annul it,”

and therefore Scripture said “her husband” twice to teach: “her husband,” and not the agent,

the words of Rabbi Yoshiyya.

Rabbi Yonatan says:

Behold,

we find everywhere that “

a person’s agent is like himself,”

and here too the guardian can annul by the agency of the husband.

And now there is a difficulty from the words of Rabbi Yoshiyya against the principle that was explained: for

the reason that the Merciful One said “

Her husband may uphold it and her husband may annul it”

is to exclude the agent; therefore the guardian cannot annul.

If not so,

here—that the Torah excluded the agent—

even

the guardian

is able

to annul.

But whereas it concerns him

the husband,

it was taught [whereas concerning the husband himself we learned] that he cannot annul today the vows that his wife will vow, and nevertheless he can appoint an agent!?

For thus we learned in tractate Nedarim 75a:

“The one who says

to his wife

when he is leaving his house: “

All vows that you will vow from here

[from the time that I leave]

until I return from a certain place shall be upheld”

has said nothing.”

And if he said: “All vows that you will vow from here until I return from a certain place,”

behold, they are annulled,

the tannaim disagreed concerning the matter:

Rabbi Eliezer says: They are annulled,

and the reason is explained in the Mishna there, namely, by means of a kal va-chomer: if he annuls vows that have come to the status of prohibition, should he not annul vows that have not come to the status of prohibition?

And the Sages say: They are not annulled,

for thus the Torah said: “Her husband may uphold it and her husband may annul it.” Scripture juxtaposed annulment to upholding, to teach: that which has come to the status of upholding comes to the status of annulment, and that which has not come to the status of upholding does not come to the status of annulment, as the reason is explained in the Mishna there.

And the Gemara concludes the objection from Rabbi Yoshiyya’s words against the principle that was explained:

It enters the questioner’s mind

of the one who raised the objection:

when Rabbi Yoshiyya said—

that only because of the exclusion in Scripture can the guardian not annul—

it is according to the Rabbis

that he stated his words,

who say

the Rabbis:

he is not able

the husband

to annul

today the vows of his wife that she has not yet vowed.

And

nevertheless Rabbi Yoshiyya holds that

if the Merciful One had not said “

Her husband may uphold it and her husband may annul it,”

the guardian would annul.

We have therefore learned: although the husband himself cannot annul at the time of the appointment of the agency, he can appoint an agent who will annul later.

And we answer:

perhaps

Rabbi Yoshiyya

is according to Rabbi Eliezer—

it is he who said that because of the verse “Her husband may uphold it and her husband may annul it,” the guardian cannot annul—

who says:

even the husband himself

is able to annul

today when his wife will vow.

And we challenge: But it is proven from the matter itself that the husband cannot annul today, for

if so,

as you say, that even the husband himself can annul today when his wife will vow, then

why does

the husband

need to appoint an agent? Let him annul it himself

[let the husband himself annul it] when he sets out on the road!?

And we answer: In fact, the husband too can annul today, and therefore he can also appoint the guardian for this purpose. And the reason that the husband himself does not annul—when he sets out on the road—when his wife will vow is because

he holds

the husband:

perhaps I will forget or become angry

or become preoccupied

[perhaps I will forget, become angry, or be preoccupied].

That is: he does not wish to rely on his annulment when he sets out on the road, lest at that time he forget or be preoccupied.

Mishna:

One who says: “

It is incumbent upon me to shave half a nazirite,”

and his fellow heard and said: “

And I, and it is incumbent upon me

to shave half a nazirite.”

Behold,

This

the first

the first

shaves a complete nazirite, and this

the second

shaves a complete nazirite, the words of Rabbi Meir,

and this will be explained in the Gemara.

And the Sages say: This one shaves half a nazirite, and this one shaves half a nazirite.

And the same law applies when one said, “It is incumbent upon me to shave half a nazirite.”

Gemara:

Rava said

to explain the dispute of Rabbi Meir and the Sages:

Everyone

Rabbi Meir and the Sages

agrees:

That

wherever he says: “

Half the offerings of a nazirite are incumbent upon me,”

that

half an offering

alone is what he

brings [he brings], for since he distanced the word “half” from “nazirite,” it implies that “half” refers not to a nazirite but to the offerings; therefore he becomes obligated in half the offerings, as he said.

And everyone agrees that if he said, “

The offerings of half a nazirite are incumbent upon me”—

“the offerings of half a nazirite”, meaning: I accept upon myself the offerings of “half a nazirite,” for he attached the word “half” to “nazirite”—that

he must bring the entire offering [he brings all the offerings of a nazirite].

And

why is it so? If he obligated himself in the offerings of “half a nazirite,” why is he obligated in a complete offering?

And

what is the reason

that if he obligated himself in the offerings of “half a nazirite,” he is obligated in a complete offering?

Because

we do not find naziriteship for half [there is no obligation of any half-nazirite in the world],

and therefore it is as though he accepted upon himself the offerings of a complete nazirite.

And when they disagree,

Rabbi Meir and the Sages:

It is in a case where he said

in the wording of the Mishna [in the wording taught in our Mishna], namely, he said: “It is incumbent upon me to shave half a nazirite,” that they

[in the wording taught in our Mishna], namely: “I undertake to shave half a nazirite”; this is when

disagree.

And because in this wording the word “half” refers to “incumbent upon me,” as though he said, “Half the offerings of a nazirite are incumbent upon me,” he should, according to everyone, be obligated only in half the offerings of a nazirite. Nevertheless, Rabbi Meir and the Sages disagree concerning the matter, because we divide his words into two:

A. “It is incumbent upon me to shave,” which implies a complete shaving.

B. “Half a nazirite,” by which it implies that he became obligated only in half the offerings of a nazirite.

And

Rabbi Meir holds:

Since he said

the first statement: “

It is incumbent upon me

to shave”—he has already

become obligated in the entire offering of naziriteship, for “we seize the first wording.”

When he said

“half a nazirite,”

it is not within his power.

And when he said “half a nazirite,” implying that he became obligated in only half of its offerings, he cannot contradict his first words.

And

the Rabbis

hold: “

It is a vow with its opening alongside it” [this was explained on page 9a].

Mishna:

One who said: “

Behold, I am a nazirite

for

when I have a son,”

and a son was born to him, behold, he is a nazirite.

But if

a son is born to him, he is a nazirite.

a daughter was born to him

or

a

tumtum [whose genitalia are covered]

or an androgynos [or an androgynos who has male and female sexual characteristics]

he is not a nazirite,

because these are not considered significant, and he accepted naziriteship upon himself as praise and thanksgiving for the fact that God graced him and granted him a son, and he intended only to count.

And if he said: “ Behold, I am a nazirite when I see

because these are not considered [a son]. He accepted nazirite status as praise and thanksgiving for having been granted and blessed with a son, and he intended only to count [a male child].

a child,”

then

even

if

a daughter was born to him

or

a tumtum or an androgynos, behold, he is a nazirite.

He said: “I am a nazirite when I will have a son”, or he said, “when I will have a child,” and

a daughter is born to him

or

an indeterminate-sex child or a child of both sexes, he is a nazirite.

He said: “I am hereby a nazirite when I have a son,”

We learned in the Mishna:

And he sprinkles on the third and on the seventh, and it invalidates the earlier days

and he begins counting only after he becomes pure:

The tannaim disagreed: from when does a nazirite who became impure begin counting his purity naziriteship? There are four methods concerning this matter [as explained above, page 18]:

The view of Rabbi: from the time when he is fit to bring his offerings, even if he has not brought them; that is, on the eighth day [and it was explained there: if “night is not considered a lack of time,” he begins counting from the night of the eighth; and if “night is considered a lack of time,” he begins counting from the morning of the eighth day].

The view of the Sages: after he has brought his sin-offering, even if he has not yet brought his guilt-offering and his burnt-offering.

The view of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Eliezer: from the seventh day of his impurity, after the shaving, the sprinkling, and the immersion, even before sunset.

The view of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka: after he has brought his sin-offering and his guilt-offering, even though he has not brought his burnt-offering.

They raised a dilemma:

This that it teaches

in our Mishna, “And he does not begin counting—purity naziriteship—except

until he becomes pure,”

to which purity did the tanna refer? Is it that

on the

day

seven he stands,

that is, the tanna is speaking about the nazirite on the seventh day—on which the nazirite shaves, receives the second sprinkling from the water of purification, and immerses—and says that he should not begin counting until he becomes pure on that day, namely, through immersion?

And whose [view] is it,

who is the tanna of our Mishna?

It is Rabbi Eliezer,

who said above, 18b, “He begins and counts immediately,” that is, on the seventh day after he immerses.

Or perhaps: he stands on the eighth,

that is, the tanna is speaking about the nazirite on his eighth day and says to him that he should not begin counting immediately.

And

if so,

what does “until he becomes pure” mean? Until he brings his offerings,

which he must bring on the eighth day.

And whose [view is it

of our Mishna]?

It is the view of the Sages,

who hold above, 18b, that the nazirite does not begin counting purity naziriteship until he brings his sin-offering on the eighth day.

And the Gemara resolves it:

Come and hear: since it teaches in the latter clause

of the following Mishna—which is principally intended to explain the differences in the laws between the impurities taught in our Mishna and other impurities taught there—“But for the overshadowing branches and the protruding stones, he does not invalidate the earlier days and

he begins and counts immediately” [

on the seventh day, since for those impurities he does not bring an impurity offering at all], and it did not say “until he becomes pure”—

If so, one must necessarily infer:

the first clause

which the tanna taught with the wording, “And he does not begin counting until he becomes pure,” and did not use the same wording that he used in the latter clause, “And he begins and counts immediately”—

What does “

until he becomes pure” mean?

Until he brings his offerings,

because if in our Mishna too the intention is the seventh day after the immersion, then that time is the same as in the latter clause; why did the tanna alter his wording?

And

necessarily,

whose [view is it

of the Mishna?

It is the view of the Sages, who say: purity naziriteship does not take effect until the eighth day

that is, until he brings his offerings on the eighth day.

. The Mishna before us is a continuation of the preceding Mishna, in which the impurities were explained, such that if the nazirite became impure through them, he invalidates the count of his naziriteship, shaves, brings an impurity-offering, and begins counting after he has brought the offering.

. And our Mishna comes to explain that with other impurities the law is not so. Rather, even though the days of impurity do not count for him toward the count of his naziriteship, nevertheless he does not invalidate the preceding days, and he is not even obligated in shaving and in an impurity-offering.

Mishna:

But:

the overhangs and the protrusions

and a beit ha-peras, a field in which a grave was plowed, and one who enters there is impure by rabbinic decree, lest the plow have loosened bones and scattered them throughout the field, and a barley-sized bone remained there, which imparts impurity through contact and carrying.

and a field of uncertain impurity,

a field in which a grave was plowed, and one who enters it becomes ritually impure by rabbinic decree. This is because perhaps the plow moved bones and scattered them throughout the field, leaving there a bone the size of a barley grain, which transmits ritual impurity through contact and carrying.

and the land of the nations,

for the Sages decreed impurity upon outside the Land of Israel if one touched or carried its soil.

And it will be explained in the Gemara in what manner the land of the nations imparts impurity when one enters it and did not touch or carry its soil.

and the golel

[the monument lying upon the surface of the grave].

and the dofek

For thus the Sages expounded: “And whoever touches upon the face of the field—to include a golel and a dofek—shall be impure for seven days.”

For the Sages expounded the verse: “And whoever touches anything that is on the open field—including a covering stone and supporting stones—shall be impure for seven days.”

and a quarter-log of blood

from the dead, which imparts impurity through contact, carrying, and a tent, but he shaves only for a half-log of blood, as explained in the preceding Mishna.

and a tent and a quarter

of a kav

of bones

of a dead person, that is, that he became impure through a quarter of bones with tent impurity alone.

and vessels

of wood

that touch a dead person,

for they become a primary source of impurity, and one who touches them is impure with “evening impurity.”

a. “When there shall be a mark of leprosy upon a person, he shall be brought to the koen.”

And the koen sees the mark, and if there are in it signs of impurity, the koen declares him impure immediately, and he is a confirmed leper.

And at times the koen confines him for seven days, once or twice, to see whether there will be signs of impurity in him, and after them the koen declares him confirmed or purifies him.

And those days during which he is confined are called “the days of his confinement.”

b. Those days from the time the koen declares him impure and confirms him until the leprosy mark is healed from the leper are called “the days of his confirmation” [or “the days of his being confirmed”].

c. Once the mark is healed, the leper brings two birds. One is slaughtered over living water.

And in the water mixed with the blood of the slaughtered bird, the koen dips the living bird, together with cedar wood, crimson stuff, and hyssop.

And he sprinkles from the water upon the leper.

And the living bird is sent away upon the face of the field.

And the leper shaves all his hair, and afterward immerses in a ritual bath, and counts seven days during which he sits outside his tent, and they are called “the days of his counting.”

And on the seventh day he shaves a second time, and afterward immerses.

And on the eighth day he brings his offerings.

And

leper

during the days of his counting

[during the seven days that he counts after the mark is healed],

and during the days of his confirmation

[during the days after his being confirmed as impure by the koen and until the mark is healed].

for

all

these

that were mentioned, if the nazirite became impure through them:

the nazirite does not shave

an impurity-shaving.

and he sprinkles

the nazirite

on the third and on the seventh

of his impurity, from the waters of purification of the red heifer, like other impure persons.

And it will be explained in the Gemara with regard to which impurities—from those taught in our Mishna—the Mishna says that he requires sprinkling on the third and the seventh.