Nazir 15b — the Talmud in English

Abba Shaul says

and he differs in two matters from the First Tanna:

a.

Even if he did not shave before the Festival, he is permitted to shave after the Festival,

for the Festival completely nullifies the decree of thirty days, even if he did not shave in honor of the Festival—

for just as

the fulfillment of

the mitzva

of mourning for

three

days before the Festival

nullifies the decree of seven,

and he does not return to complete the seven after the Festival, even though he did not shave on the eve of the Festival, since he was forbidden to shave because of the decree of thirty, which was not nullified—

so

the fulfillment of

the mitzva

of mourning for

seven

before the Festival

nullifies the decree of thirty,

even though he did not shave on the eve of the Festival.

And Abba Shaul included in his wording an additional dispute with the First Tanna.

b. For according to the First Tanna: only a Festival that began on the ninth day nullifies the decree of thirty, but if the Festival fell on the eighth day, it does not nullify it, since the decree of thirty had not yet begun.

But according to Abba Shaul: even the fulfillment of the mitzva of seven alone before the Festival, when the eighth day had not begun before the Festival, also nullifies the decree of thirty, as he explains the reason below according to his view: the decree of thirty had already begun at the end of the seventh day, on the eve of the Festival.

What is the reason of Abba Shaul

in his second dispute with the First Tanna?

And is it

not because he holds

that the

seventh

day from the day on which he buried his dead,

partakes

of part of the first day

here,

for the decree of seven,

and

part of the second day

here,

for the decree of thirty, and it follows that he began the decree of thirty before the Festival, and therefore it is nullified by the Festival?

And Rav holds like Abba Shaul, and therefore he says: “the seventieth day counts here and there.”

And we reject this:

perhaps Abba Shaul said this only—

that one day counts here and there—

with regard to mourning,

which is

rabbinic,

but with regard to a nazirite, which is Torah-based,

no.

Rather, Rav,

who holds that one day counts here and there,

spoke in accordance with Rabbi Yosei.

For it was taught: Rabbi Yosei says:

a. A woman who saw blood is a menstruant, and is impure for seven days; she immerses on the night of the eighth, and she is pure.

After seven days from the beginning of her seeing, she stands in “the eleven days of ziva,” and this is her law during those days: if she saw during these days three sightings on three consecutive days one after the other, she is a major zava, and her law is that she counts seven clean days; on the seventh day she immerses and becomes pure at sunset of the seventh day, and on the eighth day she brings her sacrifices. Until she has brought her sacrifices, she is one lacking atonement and is forbidden to eat sacrificial food.

If she saw blood for only one day or two days, she is a minor zava, and she must be one who observes one day corresponding to one day; that is, she must count only one clean day, and on this day, which is the day of observing, she immerses, and she becomes pure at sunset of that day.

b. One does not slaughter or sprinkle the blood of the Paschal offering on behalf of an impure person unless he is fit to immerse that day and become pure at sunset, and he is likewise forbidden to eat the Paschal offering; and an impure person who was not fit to offer his Paschal offering on the fourteenth of the month of Nisan is deferred to the Second Passover on the fourteenth of Iyar.

A woman who observes one day corresponding to one day, for whom they slaughtered and sprinkled

the Paschal offering

on the second

of hers [that is, on the day of observing], which fell on the eve of Passover, and even before she immersed,

and afterward

on that day

she saw

blood.

She does not eat

the Paschal offering in the evening, since she is impure, because the day of observing was not clean;

and

however

she is exempt

from

from making the Second Passover,

because at the time of the slaughter of the Paschal offering she was fit to immerse and become pure at sunset.

What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei,

for since she saw blood on that day, it follows that she did not observe a clean day, and she was impure [requiring another day of observing] at the time of the sprinkling of the blood of the Paschal offering; why is she not obligated in the Second Passover? Is it

not because “

part of the day—

which she observed on the second day until she saw—

is like the whole,”

as though the entire day of observing had passed in purity?

And

therefore she is not impure retroactively from the beginning of the day, as though she had not yet observed any day at all, but

“from here onward,

from the time she saw on the second day,

she renders impure,”

and we regard the latter part of that day as a day of impurity requiring observance on the following day.

Tosafot added an explanation of the resemblance of this law to Rav’s law: “It follows that on this second day we regard part of the day as a pure day, so that it may serve as observance for the previous day; therefore the slaughter and sprinkling were in purity [not literally, but that he was like one impure from a creeping creature], and part of it we regard as a day of impurity, so that the following day may serve as observance for this part of the day. But the Rabbis disagree and render him impure retroactively, and regard this day as entirely impure, like the previous day. And Rav spoke in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, and although here too there was reason to regard the day as entirely impure, like the day before it, in accordance with the reasoning of the Rabbis, nevertheless Rabbi Yosei regards it as counting here and there, and this is like Rav’s reasoning.”

The Gemara is astonished:

And did Rabbi Yosei indeed hold so,

that “part of the day is like the whole and from here onward he renders impure”!?

For it was taught: Rabbi Yosei says:

One who sees ziva once, this is nothing but impurity like that of a seminal emission; he immerses and becomes pure at sunset.

One who sees two sightings counts seven clean days and does not require a sacrifice.

A man with three sightings counts seven clean days, and on the eighth day he brings a sacrifice; until he has brought his sacrifice, he is lacking atonement and is forbidden to eat sacrificial food.

A man with two sightings,

who is required to count seven clean days,

who

immersed on the seventh day after counting part of the day in purity, and

for whom they slaughtered and sprinkled

the Paschal offering

on the seventh—

and likewise a woman who observes one day corresponding to one day, who

observed part of the day and immersed, and

for whom they slaughtered and sprinkled

the Paschal offering on the day of observing—

and afterward they saw

this one ziva and that one blood—

even though they render a bed and a seat impure,

according to the law of a man with a flux and a woman with a flux,

retroactively

from the time they immersed.

These

are exempt from making the Second Passover,

even if they did not immerse before they saw. It follows that Rabbi Yosei holds that he renders impure retroactively, whereas according to what was explained above, both the man with a flux and the woman who observes one day corresponding to one day render impure only from here onward, since part of the day that they counted in purity counts for them as a complete day!?

And we answer:

What does “retroactively” mean

when Rabbi Yosei said that they render a bed and a seat impure?

Rabbinically

alone!

And this applies only with regard to the impurity of a bed and a seat, but with regard to the obligation of the Second Passover, they are impure only from here onward.

This too is logically evident,

that they are not impure retroactively except rabbinically:

For if it enters your mind that they are impure retroactively by Torah law,

they are impure retroactively,

why are they exempt from making the Second Passover!?

The Gemara rejects the necessity of the inference from Rabbi Yosei’s statement itself, that he renders impure retroactively only rabbinically:

For

in truth, I can tell you that the impurity

retroactively is

by Torah law, and as for what is difficult for you—if so, why are they exempt from making the Second Passover?—I can tell you: the impurity of the

depth of ziva has been permitted,

that is, the frontplate on the head of the High Priest effects acceptance for bodily impurity when the impurity is unknown; and this too was an unknown impurity at the time, for who knew that they would see and that their counting would be concealed?

That is, the forehead plate worn by the High Priest atones for bodily impurity when the impurity is unknown. This too was an unknown impurity at the time, since who knew that they would see a discharge and that their counting would be concealed?

And Rabbi Oshaya too held,

in explaining Rabbi Yosei’s words, who said

“retroactively,”

that is,

rabbinically.

For it was taught: Rabbi Oshaya says:

But

one who sees a flux

[a flux]

on

the

seventh day of his

after part of the day has passed,

invalidates

all seven days

before him.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: It invalidates only the day

And Rabbi Yohanan said to him: Let him invalidate only his day

on which he saw!?

And we raise a difficulty concerning Rabbi Yohanan’s words: But

if it invalidates—

if the sighting invalidates, even after he counted part of the day—then

it all invalidates

[she must invalidate all the days]—

and

if it does not invalidate—

since he already counted part of the day and “part of the day is like the whole”—then

let it invalidate neither, nor his day,

that is, he need not invalidate even that day on which he saw, since part of the day has already counted for him, his counting has been completed, and he has left the category of ziva; and the present sighting is only like the first sighting of a man with a flux, which is nothing but like a seminal emission!?

Rather, say

this is what Rabbi Yohanan said:

Let him invalidate neither, nor his day,

that is, let him invalidate nothing!