Nazir 15a — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

Here is different

with regard to impurity, for which he is flogged, since

the Merciful One said: “

And if a dead person dies upon him suddenly, unexpectedly,

and the head of his nazirite status becomes impure,”

and the verse teaches:

The impurity of

one whose nazirite status

is

not dependent for him

except

upon his head—

that is, he has still not brought his sacrifices and has not shaved—is impurity; but for shaving the hair and drinking wine he is not flogged when his nazirite status is dependent for him only upon his head, for it was not said concerning them what was said concerning impurity.

He raises an objection:

A nazirite whose days have ended,

he

is forbidden to shave, to drink wine, and to become impure through the dead; and if he shaved, drank wine, or became impure through the dead, he receives the forty lashes.

And we conclude: Indeed,

a tiyuvta!

Mishna:

One who says

“I shall be a nazirite when I have a son, and a nazirite for one hundred days”:

He began counting his own [period], and

a son was born to him,

and he must interrupt the counting of his own nazirite status and begin that of his son, since he accepted that of his son first, as was explained in the previous Mishna. If the son was born

by seventy

days [with the seventieth day included] from the day on which he began counting his own nazirite status, and it turns out that in the time remaining to him from his own nazirite status there is enough for the measure of conducting the ordinary nazirite status that he accepted upon himself when his son would be born—

he

has lost nothing

through accepting upon himself his son’s nazirite status, and he does not need to add anything to his previous nazirite status. Rather, the two nazirite statuses are included within one another, so that the remaining days count for him both toward completing his own nazirite status and toward his son’s nazirite status. But if the son was born

after seventy

days from the beginning of the counting of his own nazirite status, so that the number of days remaining for completing his own nazirite status is not enough for the measure of conducting the ordinary nazirite status that he accepted for his son,

he

interrupts,

that is: he sets aside his own nazirite status and conducts his son’s nazirite status; only when he completes his son’s nazirite status does he return to completing his own nazirite status, and at its end he brings two sacrifices and shaves once.

And the reason is: because

there is no shaving [that is: a measure of nazirite status at whose end there is shaving]

of less than thirty days.

That is: since he said, “I shall be a nazirite when I have a son,” he is obligated to conduct nazirite status for his son for thirty days, which is the minimum measure of nazirite status. It follows that if the son was born after seventy, his son’s days of nazirite status are not included within the days remaining for his own nazirite status, because his son’s nazirite status is thirty days, and before the completion of his own nazirite status fewer than thirty days remain. In every such case the nazirite statuses do not overlap.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “I shall be a nazirite when I have a son, and a nazirite; if he was born by seventy, he has lost nothing”:

One who accepted upon himself nazirite status for one hundred days can bring his sacrifices and shave on the day his nazirite status is completed, that is, on the hundredth day, because “part of the day is like all of it.” However, ab initio he does not bring his sacrifices until the hundred-and-first day, as was explained in the earlier sugya, on page 5b, according to Rav Mattana. And this law—that ab initio he does not shave on the day the nazirite status is completed—is rabbinic according to the Tosafot in our sugya.

Rav said:

If the son was born on the seventieth day itself:

The

seventy

th day counts for him

its first part

here,

that is, for the nazirite status of one hundred days, and it is considered as though he has already counted seventy days, for “part of the day is like all of it,”

and

the end of that seventieth day itself also counts for him

here,

that is, for his son’s nazirite status, to count part of the seventieth day as the first day of his son’s nazirite status. And when twenty-nine additional days pass, that is, on the ninety-ninth day from his acceptance of nazirite status, the counting of the days of his son’s nazirite status will end— Therefore, just as he brings his sacrifices for his son’s nazirite status ab initio on the hundredth day from his acceptance of nazirite status, since it is the thirty-first day in the count of the days of his son’s nazirite status [which began, according to Rav, on the seventieth day], he may also bring on that day the sacrifices for the nazirite status of one hundred days, even though ab initio he should have brought them only on the following day, that is, on the hundred-and-first day of his nazirite status.

The Gemara raises an objection to this: But

we learned

in our Mishna:

If a son was born to him

a

by seventy

with the seventieth day included,

he has lost nothing

through adding to his own nazirite status for the sake of his son, because the nazirite statuses overlap.

And if it enters your mind

that if the son was born on the seventieth day, this day

counts here and there,

and if so he can also bring the sacrifices of his own nazirite status on the hundredth day, it follows that through the additional nazirite status that he accepted upon himself for the sake of his son, he not only did not lose anything by adding nazirite status upon himself, but he also

profits

[he gains]—

For if he had not accepted nazirite status upon the birth of his son, he would have had to wait with the sacrifices of his nazirite status until the hundred-and-first day, and until one of the bloods was sprinkled upon him on the hundred-and-first day he would be forbidden under all the laws of nazirite status. But once he added a vow because of his son, he can—according to Rav—sacrifice his sacrifices already on the hundredth day and remove his nazirite status from himself.

And since we learned “he has lost nothing,” and we did not learn, “he gained through the birth of the son,” it follows that the ruling is not according to Rav!?

And we explain:

Rather,

indeed,

it is the law that it should not have taught

in our Mishna

“by seventy”

“he has not lost”,

since if the son was born on the seventieth day itself, it is not merely that he has not lost; he has also gained, in accordance with Rav, and the tanna should have stated that on the seventieth day he gains.

And because the latter clause teaches: “after seventy”

“he interrupts,”

that is, the nazirite statuses do not overlap and he “lost” through accepting his son’s nazirite status—therefore it

also teaches

in the

first clause: “by seventy he has not

lost”

anything,

even though on the seventieth day itself he not only did not lose but gained.

Come and hear that it is not according to Rav

from

the

rom

latter clause

of our Mishna:

If he was born after seventy,

he

interrupts

and counts two separate nazirite statuses. It is explained that if the son was born on the seventy-first day, his son’s nazirite status is not included within the completion of his own nazirite status—and this is a difficulty for Rav, who holds that one day can be considered as counting here and there, for if so, it follows that even if the son was born on the seventy-first day, the nazirite statuses overlap and he loses nothing—

for the seventieth day counts at its beginning toward his own naziriteship, and at its end toward his son's naziriteship [according to Rav]. It follows that his son's naziriteship ends on the hundredth day of his own naziriteship, which is the thirtieth day of his son's naziriteship [since you say that the first day of his son's naziriteship is the seventy-first day]. It follows that he loses nothing; rather, the two periods of naziriteship overlap, since his son's naziriteship is contained within his own naziriteship!?

And we answer:

What

“after”

seventy

does the Mishna mean, for it teaches: “he invalidates”—

It does not mean literally after, but

“after after”

seventy; that is, only if he was born on the seventy-second day does he invalidate and lose.

And we raise an objection against this:

But

if he was born

after

seventy

literally,

that is, on the seventy-first day,

what

will his law be?

Is it also that he—

according to your words—

does not invalidate!?

If so, why specifically does it teach

in our Mishna,

“was born by

seventy, he lost nothing,”

whereas

even after seventy,

that is, on the seventy-first day,

you also said

that he

does not invalidate!?

Rather, infer from this:

the “after seventy” that we teach, that he invalidates, is

literally after,

because the seventy-first day counts only toward his own naziriteship and does not count toward his son's naziriteship, for one day cannot count here and there. It follows that the beginning of the count of his son's naziriteship is the seventy-second day, and it ends on the hundred-and-first day; it is not contained within the completion of his own naziriteship. Therefore, he invalidates and loses, having to count a separate naziriteship for his son.

And likewise

it is certainly that

the Mishna according to Rav, infer from this,

that is: from our Mishna there is a contradiction to Rav, who holds that the day of the birth counts here and there; whereas according to our Mishna, the day of the birth is entirely drawn after the days that have passed, and it is not considered the beginning of naziriteship for his son.

And Rav—

who holds that the seventieth day counts here and there, unlike our Mishna—

according to whom does he state his teaching

[and according to whose view does he hold]?

If you say: according to Abba Shaul.

For it was taught:

One whose relative died observes mourning for seven days from the day of the burial of his deceased relative, and this is called here “the decree of seven”; and until thirty days from the burial of his deceased relative he is still forbidden to bathe, to wash clothes, to launder, and to cut his hair, and this is called here “the decree of thirty.”

One who buried his deceased relative three days

before the Festival,

that is, the Festival began from the fourth day onward,

the decree of

mourning of

seven

is annulled for him, but it does not annul the decree of thirty, since he has not yet begun it.

And if he buried his deceased relative

eight days before the Festival,

that is, the Festival began from the ninth day onward, and the decree of thirty had already taken effect upon him on the eve of the Festival,

the decree of

mourning of

thirty is annulled for him.

And he is permitted—

the one who buried his deceased relative eight days before the Festival—

to cut

his head on

the eve of the Festival.

And if

he did not concern himself with the honor of the Festival and

did not cut his hair on the eve of the Festival,

this person is

forbidden to cut his hair after the Festival

since he did not accord honor to the Festival.