Nazir 15a (טו.) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Here it is different

with regard to ritual impurity, for which he is liable to lashes, since

the Torah says: “

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

and the head of his naziriteship becomes impure,” and

the verse teaches:

The impurity of

one whose naziriteship

is

dependent upon him

only

upon his head—

that is, he has still not brought his offerings and has not shaved—is [still considered] impurity. But for shaving the hair and drinking wine, he is not liable to lashes when his naziriteship is dependent upon him only upon his head, for the same expression stated with regard to impurity was not stated concerning them. Here it is different, for it is written: “and the head becomes impure,” [meaning] one whose naziriteship is dependent upon his head is to say that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, was not referring to a case before one of the bloods had been thrown, but to one upon whom one of the bloods had already been thrown, who had still not shaved, and whose naziriteship is dependent upon his head in the plain sense. The verse comes to teach that after the throwing of one of the bloods, when he is forbidden in all of them, as Maimonides wrote, if he becomes impure he is liable even to lashes; but if he violates the other prohibitions of a nazirite, he is not liable to lashes for them. The Gemara raises an objection against Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, from the beraita, which did not distinguish between impurity and the other prohibitions and made him liable to lashes for all of them equally. This indicates that there is no distinction between them: just as he is liable to lashes for impurity, he is liable to lashes for the others, and when he is not liable to lashes for the others, he is not liable to lashes even for impurity. And we conclude with tiyuvta: This is the ruling issued by Maimonides—that after the throwing of one of the bloods he is forbidden in all of them, but is not liable to lashes for them.

The Gemara raises an objection:

A nazirite whose days have been completed,

he is

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

And we conclude: Indeed,

it is a tiyuvta!

Mishna:

One who says

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

The words of the Tosafot on this Mishna were printed on page 13b.

He began counting his own [naziriteship], and

a son was born to him,

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

by the seventieth day

from the day on which he began counting his own naziriteship [with the seventieth day included], so that the time remaining in his own naziriteship is sufficient for the period of ordinary naziriteship that he accepted upon himself for when his son would be born—

he

has lost nothing by accepting the naziriteship of his son. He need not add anything to his previous naziriteship; rather, the two naziriteships are subsumed within one another, so that the remaining days count both toward completing his own naziriteship and toward the naziriteship of his son.

But if the son was born

after the seventieth

day from the beginning of his own naziriteship, so that the number of days remaining for the completion of his own naziriteship is insufficient for the period of ordinary naziriteship that he accepted for his son,

he

interrupts [his own naziriteship],

that is, he sets aside his own naziriteship and observes that of his son. Only when he completes his son’s naziriteship does he return to complete his own naziriteship, and at its conclusion he brings two offerings and shaves once.

The reason is

that there is no shaving [that is, no period of naziriteship at the end of which there is shaving]

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

of less than thirty days.

a. The Tosafot wrote: The wording “shaving” is not precise, for it would have been more appropriate to say that there is no nazirite status of less than thirty days. And it used “there is no shaving” to say that when he completes the thirty days of his son, he returns to his counting and completes the nazirite status of one hundred days, and shaves once at the end of the entire counting for all of them. But at the end of the counting of his son he does not shave, for if so, he would not be able afterward to complete his own nazirite status, since there are not thirty days of nazirite status. See the Tosafot, 44a, s.v. “the stringency,” where they wrote, “We require hair growth equal to the hair growth of ordinary nazirite status.” It is explained that the measure of thirty days for hair growth is equal to the measure of ordinary nazirite status. It follows that included in the law is that hair growth is not less than thirty days, and there is no nazirite status of less than thirty days; through this the wording of the Mishna here is better explained. This also explains their wording here,

That is: Since he said, “I shall be a nazirite when I have a son,” he is obligated to observe naziriteship for his son for thirty days, which is the minimum period of naziriteship. It follows that if the son was born after seventy days, his son’s naziriteship is not subsumed within the days remaining from his own naziriteship, since his son’s naziriteship is thirty days, whereas fewer than thirty days remain until the completion of his own naziriteship. In any such case the naziriteships do not overlap.

Gemara:

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

One who accepted a naziriteship of one hundred days may bring his offerings and shave on the day his naziriteship is completed, that is, on the hundredth day, because “part of the day is considered like the entire day.” Nevertheless, ideally he does not bring his offerings until the hundred-and-first day, as explained in the earlier sugya, on 5b, according to Rav Mattana. This law—that ideally he does not shave on the day his naziriteship is completed—is rabbinic according to Tosafot in our sugya.

Rav said:

If the son was born on the seventieth day itself:

The

seventieth

day counts for him

its first part

here,

that is, toward the one-hundred-day naziriteship, and it is considered as though he has already counted seventy days, for “part of the day is considered like the entire day”;

and

the end of that seventieth day itself also counts

here,

that is, toward his son’s naziriteship, to regard part of the seventieth day as the first day of his son’s naziriteship. When twenty-nine additional days have passed, that is, on the ninety-ninth day from his acceptance of his own naziriteship, the count of the days of his son’s naziriteship will be complete— Therefore, just as he ideally brings his offerings for his son’s naziriteship on the hundredth day from his acceptance of naziriteship, since it is the thirty-first day in the count of his son’s naziriteship [which began, according to Rav, on the seventieth day], he may also bring on that day the offerings for the one-hundred-day naziriteship, even though ideally he should bring them only on the following day, that is, the hundred-and-first day of his naziriteship.

The Gemara challenges this: But

we learned

in our Mishna:

If a son was born to him

a

by the seventieth

day, with the seventieth day included,

he has lost nothing

by adding naziriteship for the sake of his son, because the naziriteships overlap.

And if it enters your mind

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

counts both here and there,

and consequently he can also bring the offerings for his own naziriteship on the hundredth day, it follows that through the additional naziriteship he accepted upon himself for the sake of his son, he not only has not lost anything by adding naziriteship upon himself, but he also

profits [that is, he gains]—

he gains ]—

For if he had not accepted naziriteship upon the birth of his son, he would have had to wait until the hundred-and-first day to bring the offerings for his naziriteship, and until one of the bloods was thrown upon him on the hundred-and-first day he would remain forbidden in all the laws of naziriteship. But once he added a vow because of his son, he can—according to Rav—bring his offerings already on the hundredth day and release himself from his naziriteship.

And since we learned “he has lost nothing,” and did not learn, “he profited from the birth of the son,” it follows that the Mishna is not in accordance with Rav!?

And we answer:

Rather,

indeed,

by rights it should not have taught

in our Mishna

“by the seventieth”

“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 naziriteships do not overlap and he “loses” by accepting his son’s naziriteship—therefore

it also teaches

in the

first clause: “by the seventieth he has not

lost”

anything,

even though on the seventieth day itself he has not merely failed to lose but has gained.

Come and hear

that the Mishna is not in accordance with Rav

f

rom

the latter clause

of our Mishna:

If the son was born after seventy,

he

interrupts

and counts two separate naziriteships. It is clear that if the son was born on the seventy-first day, his son’s naziriteship is not subsumed within the completion of his own naziriteship. This is a difficulty against Rav, who holds that one day can be counted both here and there, for if so, even if the son was born on the seventy-first day, the naziriteships should overlap and he should lose nothing—

For the seventieth-first day counts as the beginning of his own naziriteship, and its end as part of his son's naziriteship [according to Rav]. Thus, 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 seventieth-first day]. Consequently, he loses nothing; rather, the two periods of naziriteship overlap, since his son's naziriteship is subsumed within his own naziriteship!?

And we answer:

What

“after”

seventy

does the Mishna mean when it teaches: “He must begin counting anew”—

It does not mean literally after, but

after after

seventy; that is, only if the child was born on the seventy-second day does he begin counting anew and lose the days already counted.

And we challenge this:

But

if the child was born

after

seventy

literally,

that is, on the seventy-first day,

what

will his law be?

Would it indeed be that—

according to your words—

he would not have to begin counting anew!?

If so, why does it specifically teach

in our Mishna:

“If he was born by

the seventieth day, he loses nothing,”

whereas

even after seventy,

that is, on the seventy-first day,

you have likewise said

that he

does not have to begin counting anew!?

Rather, conclude from this:

The “after seventy” that we teach means

literally after,

because the seventy-first day counts only toward his own naziriteship and not toward his son's naziriteship, since one day cannot count in both directions. Thus, the counting of his son's naziriteship begins on the seventy-second day and ends on the hundred-and-first day; it is not subsumed within the completion of his own naziriteship, and therefore he must begin counting anew and loses the opportunity to count a separate naziriteship for his son.

And so

it is certainly the case that

the Mishna according to Rav, conclude from it,

that is: Our Mishna contradicts Rav, who holds that the day of the birth counts in both directions, whereas according to our Mishna the day of the birth is entirely drawn after the days that have already passed, and is not considered the beginning of the naziriteship of his son.

And Rav—

who holds that the seventieth day counts in both directions, contrary to our Mishna—

in accordance with whom did he state his teaching

[and whose view does he follow]?

If we say, in accordance with Abba Shaul.

As it is taught:

One whose relative has died observes mourning for seven days from the day his relative is buried; this is referred to here as “the decree of seven.” Until thirty days from the burial of his relative, he is still prohibited from bathing, washing clothes, pressing garments, and cutting his hair; this is referred to here as “the decree of thirty.”

One who buries his dead relative three days

before a Festival

that is, when the Festival begins on the fourth day or later,

the decree of

mourning for

“seven”

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

And if he buried his relative

eight days before a Festival,

that is, when the Festival begins on the ninth day or later, and the decree of thirty had already taken effect upon him on the eve of the Festival,

the decree of

mourning for

“thirty” is annulled for him.

And he is permitted—

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

to cut

the hair on his head on

the eve of the Festival.

And if

he did not show concern for the honor of the Festival and

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

he is

prohibited from cutting his hair after the Festival,

since he did not accord honor to the Festival.