Nazir 15b (טו:) — the Talmud in English

Abba Shaul says

and differs from the first tanna in two respects:

a.

Even if he did not shave before the Festival, he may shave after the Festival

because the Festival completely nullifies the decree of thirty days, even when 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 days,

and he does not return to complete the seven days after the Festival, even though he did not shave on the eve of the Festival, since he was prohibited from shaving because of the decree of thirty days, which had not been nullified—

so too

the fulfillment of the

mitzva

of mourning for

seven

days before the Festival

nullifies the decree of thirty days,

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

And Abba Shaul included in his wording another dispute with the first tanna.

b. According to the first tanna, only a Festival that begins on the ninth day nullifies the decree of thirty days. But if the Festival begins on the eighth day, it does not nullify it, since the decree of thirty days has not yet begun.

But according to Abba Shaul, even the fulfillment of the mitzva of seven days alone before the Festival—when the eighth day had not yet begun before the Festival—also nullifies the decree of thirty days. He explains the reason for his opinion below: The decree of thirty days had already begun at the end of the seventh day, on the eve of the Festival.

What is the reason for Abba Shaul’s opinion

in his second dispute with the first tanna?

Is it

not because he holds that

the

seventh

day from the day on which he buried his dead,

counts

partly as the first day

here,

for the decree of seven days,

and

partly as the second day

here,

for the decree of thirty days? Consequently, the decree of thirty days began before the Festival, and therefore the Festival nullifies it.

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

And we reject this:

Perhaps Abba Shaul said

only that one day counts both here and there

with regard to mourning,

which is

rabbinic,

but with regard to a nazir, whose law is from the Torah—

no.

Rather, Rav,

who holds that one day counts both here and there,

speaks in accordance with Rabbi Yosei.

As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says:

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

After seven days from the beginning of her seeing, she enters the “eleven days of zivah.” Her law during those days is as follows: If she sees blood on three consecutive days, she is a “major zavah.” 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 offerings. Until she brings her offerings, she is one who lacks atonement and is prohibited from eating consecrated food.

If she saw blood for only one day or two days, she is a “minor zavah,” and she must be a “watcher of one day for one day”: That is, she must count only one clean day, and on that day, which is the day of observation, she immerses and becomes pure at sunset of that day.

b. The Paschal offering is not slaughtered or its blood sprinkled on behalf of an impure person unless he is fit to immerse that day and become pure at sunset. He is likewise prohibited from eating the Paschal offering. An impure person who was not fit to offer his Paschal offering on the fourteenth of Nisan is deferred to the Second Pesaḥ on the fourteenth of Iyyar.

In the case of a watcher of one day for one day, on whose behalf they slaughtered and sprinkled

the Paschal offering

on the second

of her days—that is, on the day of observation—which occurred on the eve of Pesaḥ, even before she immersed—

and afterward,

on that same day,

she saw

blood,

she may not eat

the Paschal offering that evening, since she is impure, as the day of observation was not clean,

but

she is nevertheless

she is

from

exempt from preparing the Second Pesaḥ,

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

What is the reason for Rabbi Yosei’s opinion

? Since she saw blood on that day, it turns out that she did not observe a clean day, and she was impure—requiring another day of observation—at the time the blood of the Paschal offering was sprinkled. Why, then, is she not obligated to observe the Second Pesaḥ? Is it

not because “

part of the day”—

the part that she observed on the second day before she saw—

is like the whole,”

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

And

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

from this point onward,

from the time she saw on the second day,

she imparts impurity.”

We consider the latter part of that day to be a day of impurity requiring observation on the following day.

It follows that Rav’s opinion accords with Rabbi Yosei, and he stated his teaching in accordance with his view.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

And did Rabbi Yosei really hold this way,

that “part of the day is like the whole, and from this point onward she imparts impurity”?

But it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says:

One who sees zivah once has only the impurity of a seminal emission; she immerses and becomes pure at sunset.

One who sees two sightings counts seven clean days and does not require an offering.

A zav who has three sightings counts seven clean days, and on the eighth day he brings an offering. Until he brings his offering, he lacks atonement and is prohibited from eating consecrated food.

A zav 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 on whose behalf they slaughtered and sprinkled

the Paschal offering

on the seventh day—

and likewise a watcher of one day for one day, who,

after observing part of the day, immersed, and

on whose behalf they slaughtered and sprinkled

the Paschal offering on the day of observation—

and afterward they saw,

the former zivah and the latter blood—

even though they render a bedding and a seat impure,

as is the law of a zav and zavah,

retroactively,

from the time they immersed,

these people

are exempt from observing the Second Pesaḥ,

even if they had not immersed before they saw. Thus, Rabbi Yosei holds that they are retroactively impure, whereas according to what was explained above, neither the zav nor the watcher of one day for one day becomes impure except from that point onward, since the part of the day that they counted in purity counts for them as an entire day. This is difficult!

And we answer:

What does “retroactively” mean

when Rabbi Yosei says that they render a bedding and a seat impure? It is

merely rabbinic

impurity!

This applies only with regard to the impurity of bedding and a seat; but with regard to the obligation to observe the Second Pesaḥ, they are impure only from that point onward.

This is also logically compelling

that they are not retroactively impure except by rabbinic law:

For if it enters your mind that it is from the Torah

that they are retroactively impure,

why are they exempt from observing the Second Pesaḥ!?

The Gemara rejects the inference from Rabbi Yosei’s position itself, namely, that the retroactive impurity is only rabbinic:

For

I could actually say to you that the impurity

retroactively is

from the Torah,

and as for your difficulty—if so, why are they exempt from observing the Second Pesaḥ?—I could say to you: The

impurity of the hidden depths of zivah is permitted,

that is, the tzitz, worn on the forehead of the High Priest, effects acceptance for bodily impurity when the impurity is unknown. This too was an unknown impurity at the time, since who could know that they would see and that their count would be concealed?

And Rabbi Oshaya likewise held,

in explaining Rabbi Yosei’s statement that says

“retroactively”,

namely,

rabbinically.

As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Oshaya says:

But

one who sees a discharge [zivah]

[a flux]

on

the

seventh day of his count,

after part of the day has passed,

invalidates

all seven days

preceding it.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: He should invalidate only the day

on which he saw the discharge!

We raise a difficulty concerning Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement:

In either case!?

If it invalidates—

if the sight invalidates the count even after he counted part of the day—then

it invalidates all of them [that is, he must invalidate all the days]—

[that is, he must invalidate all the days]—

and

if it does not invalidate—since he had already counted part of the day and “part of the day is like the whole”—then

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

it should invalidate neither, not even the day,

that is, he need not invalidate even the day on which he saw, because part of that day has already counted for him, his count has been completed, and he has left the category of zivah; the present sight is merely like the first sight of a zav, which is nothing more than the impurity of a seminal emission!?

Rather, say

that this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

It should invalidate neither, not even the day,

that is, it should not invalidate anything at all!