Nazir 14b (יד:) — the Talmud in English

We have also found that Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish disagreed concerning a similar matter:

a. A nazir who became afflicted with leprosy does not invalidate his naziriteship, since invalidation was stated only with regard to impurity imparted by a corpse.

b. Until the leper becomes pure, he is prohibited in all the laws of naziriteship. Nevertheless, the days of his impurity as a leper [after he has been declared definitively impure] are not counted toward his naziriteship, and once he becomes pure, he completes the count of his naziriteship.

c. And if

he became impure

through contact with a corpse

during the days of his leprosy:

Rabbi Yohanan said:

he

invalidates

his naziriteship.

Reish Lakish said: He does not invalidate it.

And the Gemara explains their rationales:

Rabbi Yohanan said: He invalidates it, for he is in a state of naziriteship

even during the days of his leprosy.

Reish Lakish said: He does not invalidate it,

because

leprosy is one matter, and naziriteship is another matter.

And it was necessary!

For if it had been stated

that their dispute concerned only

the first case

[the first of these cases,] namely, one who became impure during the days of his son’s naziriteship, I would have said:

In that case

it is that

Rabbi Yohanan said,

that he

invalidates

even his own naziriteship, since

the naziriteship—

his and his son’s—

is one and the same.

But in this case,

that of leprosy,

say that he agrees with Reish Lakish,

since

the nazir is one matter and the leprosy is another matter.

And if it had been stated

that their dispute concerned only

this case

of leprosy, I would have said:

In this case

it is that

Reish Lakish said

that he does not invalidate it, since the nazir is one matter and the leprosy is another matter;

but in the first case,

that of his son’s naziriteship,

say that he agrees with Rabbi Yohanan,

that he invalidates it, since it is one naziriteship.

Therefore,

it was necessary!

One whom bandits shaved during the days of his ordinary naziriteship [or when there are not thirty days from the day on which they shaved him until the day on which he brings his offerings and shaves] invalidates his naziriteship,

that is, since his hair has not reached the growth of thirty days, it is not suitable for the purification shaving, and he must observe naziriteship until his hair grows and becomes suitable for shaving.

But

hair growth

is not complete naziriteship; rather,

it is the completion of the naziriteship

so that he can perform the shaving of the mitzva.

Rav said: He does not invalidate

the essential period of his naziriteship.

For

even according to Rabbi Yohanan, who said

above that if one became impure during the days of his son’s naziriteship, he

invalidates

his own naziriteship—

this applies only when he is observing naziriteship

[that is, only where he is still in a state of naziriteship, meaning that he has not yet completed the original days of his naziriteship].

If bandits shaved him in the middle of his days of naziriteship, and he is now—after having already completed the essential days of his naziriteship—observing a supplementary naziriteship so that his hair will be suitable for purification shaving, and

he became impure on the day

[that is, during the days of]

this hair growth

:

And Shmuel said: He invalidates

the essential period of his naziriteship.

For

even according to Reish Lakish, who said:

if one became impure during the days of his son’s naziriteship,

he does not invalidate it—

there,

it is specifically because

they are two naziriteships,

his own naziriteship and his son’s naziriteship, whereas

here it is one naziriteship

.

Rav Ḥisda said:

Everyone agrees that if he sanctified the hair with the blood,

that is, the blood had already been sprinkled, but he became impure before shaving,

there is no remedy for him.

The initial assumption was to explain that since he became impure and can no longer perform the purification shaving, he would remain prohibited forever under all the laws of naziriteship. He cannot shave now for the offerings he brought, since he is impure; nor can he become pure, bring offerings on another day, and shave for them, since he has already brought his offerings and they were brought in purity. Therefore, he would remain forever subject to the prohibition of naziriteship, for if he does not shave, his naziriteship does not lapse. This was the initial assumption; and therefore the Gemara asks:

According to whose opinion!?

We learned in a beraita below, 46a: The Sages taught: “And afterward the nazir may drink wine”—after all the acts have been performed [including the shaving], this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Sages say: after a single act, meaning that once one of the bloods of the offerings has been sprinkled upon him, the nazir is already permitted to drink wine and become impure through contact with the dead.

We also learned in a Mishna below, 47a: One upon whom one of the bloods has been sprinkled and who then became impure—Rabbi Eliezer says: He invalidates everything; and the Sages say: He brings his remaining offerings and becomes pure.

And the Gemara explains this: Rabbi Eliezer did not say that he invalidates his entire count as though he had become impure within the days of his naziriteship. Rather, “he invalidates his offerings,” meaning that even the offerings he had already brought do not count for him. The rationale of Rabbi Eliezer—as apparently emerges from the passage here—is that Rabbi Eliezer follows his own position, maintaining that he is permitted to drink wine and shave only after all the acts have been performed. Consequently, if he became impure after only one of the bloods had been sprinkled upon him, since he is still observing his naziriteship, his status is that of a “nazir who became impure,” who “invalidates” his naziriteship. However, he does not invalidate the days that have elapsed, since he is no longer within the count of the days of naziriteship; he invalidates only the offerings he brought.

If it is according to Rabbi Eliezer,

who maintains that the sprinkling of one of the bloods does not permit him and release him from his naziriteship until he performs all the acts, including the shaving, and therefore he indeed has no remedy, as explained—

This cannot be, for

since

Rabbi Eliezer said: “

The shaving is indispensable,”

and he is not permitted until after it, then it is like

within the full term

and he invalidates

his offerings, as Rabbi Eliezer explicitly maintains in the Mishna below, 47a.

Rather,

interpret Rav Ḥisda’s statement

according to the Sages,

who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer.

For they say

that the Sages maintain:

The shaving is not indispensable,

and he is permitted to drink wine once one of the bloods has been sprinkled; so why should he have no remedy!?

And we answer:

Actually, it is according to the Sages,

who maintain that the shaving is not indispensable,

and what is meant by “there is no remedy for him” -

for the mitzva of shaving,

which he can no longer perform, since his offerings count for him, while he cannot shave on that day, because shaving is performed only in a state of purity.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said:

A nazir whose days have been completed,

who has counted all the days of his naziriteship and is standing on the day of bringing his offerings, while not even one of the bloods has yet been sprinkled upon him, he

is flogged for impurity, but is not flogged for shaving, nor for wine.

And we challenge this:

What is different about impurity, for which he is flogged

even though his days of naziriteship have already been completed? Since

the verse says: “

All the days of his abstinence to the Lord

he shall not come near a dead person,” and therefore Scripture said “all” the days,

to include the days after the completion of the term

—until one of the bloods has been sprinkled upon him —

as the days before the completion of the term,

when he is prohibited and flogged for impurity.

If so, he should likewise be liable for shaving, for

with regard to shaving as well

the Merciful One said: “

All the days of his vow of naziriteship

a razor shall not pass over his head,”

to make the days after the completion of the term like the days before the completion of the term.

And furthermore,

the same difficulty should be raised concerning Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina’s statement that he is not flogged for wine, for:

It is also written: “

All the days of his naziriteship, from everything that he may make from the grapevine

from grape seeds to grape skin he shall not eat,”

to make the days after the completion of the term like the days before the completion of the term!?