Nazir 16a — the Talmud in English

And he said to him

Rabbi Oshaya to Rabbi Yohanan:

Rabbi Yosei agrees with you

[Rabbi Yosei holds according to your words],

for

Rabbi Yosei

says: from here onward

he

renders impure.

And from these words of Rabbi Oshaya the Gemara proves that he too held, in understanding the words of Rabbi Yosei, that he renders impure retroactively only by rabbinic enactment, for the following difficulty may be raised against the words of Rabbi Oshaya, who said in the name of Rabbi Yosei, “From here onward he renders impure”:

But Rabbi Yosei is the one who said retroactively

as the Gemara brought from a beraita that Rabbi Yosei said so!?

Rather, certainly Rabbi Oshaya holds that

what

“retroactively”

Rabbi Yosei said means—

by rabbinic enactment.

The Gemara raises a difficulty according to the method of Rabbi Yosei, who holds: “A part of the day is like the whole day”; and when she saw at the end of the day, we consider the first half of that day, which was clean, as an entire day of purity; if so, the same should apply when she sees at the beginning of the day and stops: we consider the clean half of the day—after she stopped seeing—as a day of purity that counts for her as preservation of her seeing on that day, for the second part of the day is the same for me as the first part of the day:

And

if so, this is difficult for

Rabbi Yosei:

Since he holds “

a part of the day is like the whole day,”

if so,

a complete zava

[a major zava] who sees three sightings on three consecutive days,

who brings an offering

[whose law is to bring an offering]—

how can you find it?

How is it possible that there should be such a case!? For:

Once she sees during the first half of the day

[once she sees blood during the first half of the day], then

the other half of the day

[the second half of the day, when she has already stopped seeing]

counts for her as preservation

[counts for her as preservation of the seeing during the first half of the day]!?

That is to say: since she does not pour forth blood until the end of the day, the part of the clean day after the cessation of the blood is considered an entire day of purity, since “a part of the day is like the whole day”; and it follows that between one seeing and the next there is a day of purity interrupting, and this is as though she saw on the first, third, and fifth days, for the clean days in between interrupt the continuity of her sightings and she does not become a major zava.

And if so, how will a major zava be found—according to Rabbi Yosei!?

And we answer:

When she sees on three days adjacent to sunset,

that is: for example, when she saw on the first day close before sunset and after it [these are two days], and also on the day after it she saw close before sunset and after it [this is the third day],

so that there is no interval

that is, an interval that would be considered preservation,

for

in such a case

it counts for her

her sightings

for the count

[her three sightings count toward the count] to make her a major zava.

That is to say: since she sees on the first day before and after sunset, she has two consecutive sightings on two days [before and after sunset] between which there is neither preservation nor interruption.

And since she saw on the second day also close to sunset, it follows that the second day cannot count for her as preservation, and since she continues to see also at the beginning of the third day—for she sees even on the second day close to sunset after it—she has a third sighting between which and her preceding sightings there is no interruption or preservation at all.

We shall return to you, chapter “I am a nazirite.”

Mishna:

One who said

I am a nazir,”

and did not say [for] how long, but undertook an unspecified nezirut, which is thirty days, behold he

shaves [brings his offerings and shaves] on the

brings his offerings and shaves] on

day

the

thirty-one,

because the time of shaving is after the days of the nezirut have ended.

And if he shaved on the day

the

thirty,

behold he

has fulfilled,

because “part of the day is like all of it,” and since he practiced nezirut at the beginning of the thirtieth day, it is as though he practiced nezirut for a full day, and it follows that he shaved after completing the nezirut.

But if he said: “

I am a nazir for thirty days,”

although he did not need to say anything except “I am a nazir,” since even unspecified nezirut is thirty days, and he added and said, “thirty days”—

if he shaved on the day

the

thirty, he has not fulfilled,

because we interpret his addition of the words “thirty days” as meaning that he obligated himself to practice nezirut for thirty “complete” days, in which “part of the day is like all of it” is not said, and therefore he has not fulfilled, for he shaved before he completed his days of nezirut.

One who undertook two periods of nezirut [in an unspecified manner],

each one of which is thirty days:

behold he

shaves

the

first period of

first

on the

period of

the

nezirut on the thirty-first day, and the second

he may shave even initially on the

day

the

sixty-one

of the first nezirut, which is the thirty-first day of the second nezirut, because on the thirty-first day of the first, after the shaving, he began the counting of the second nezirut, and it follows that on the sixtieth day thirty days of the second nezirut were completed, and behold he shaves on the following day, on the sixty-first day.

And if he shaved the first

on the

on the day

the

thirty—

because he has fulfilled after the fact, since “part of the day is like all of it”— \-

behold he

shaves

initially

the second

on the

on the day

the

sixty,

which is the thirty-first day from the beginning of the count of the second nezirut.

And if he shaved

the second on the

day

the

fifty-nine—

after he shaved the first on its thirtieth day—behold he

has fulfilled,

like any nazir who shaves on the thirtieth day, who has fulfilled.

And this is the testimony that Rabbi Pappias testified: concerning one who undertook two periods of nezirut

unspecified:

that if he shaved the first

on the

on the day

the

thirty,

behold he

shaves

initially

the second

on the

on the day

the

sixty.

And if he shaved

the second

on day

the

fifty-nine,

behold he

has fulfilled.

That the thirtieth day

for the count of the first nezirut

is counted for him in the count

in both directions, that is, both for the first nezirut and for the second nezirut: its beginning is counted for him toward completing the thirty [days] of the first nezirut, and its end is counted for him toward the beginning of the count of the second nezirut.

One who said, “I am a nazir,”

unspecified nezirut:

if he

became impure

on the

on the day

the

thirty—

before bringing the offerings and shaving—behold he

invalidates everything,

since he is still within the days of his nezirut, which are thirty days.

Rabbi Eliezer says: He invalidates only seven

days, meaning: he waits seven days until he becomes pure and brings his offerings in purity; and his reason is that, in his view, we say “part of the day is like all of it” even for this matter, so that the invalidation is considered as though it occurred after he had already practiced his entire nezirut.

“I am a nazir for thirty days,”

although he unnecessarily added in his wording to say “thirty days,” for it would have sufficed for him to say “I am a nazir,” since unspecified nezirut is thirty days, necessarily he intended to obligate himself to practice thirty complete days in which there is no “part of the day is like all of it.”

And therefore if he

became impure

on the

on the day

the

thirty,

behold he

invalidates everything by Torah law, even according to Rabbi Eliezer, for it is impossible to say “part of the day is like all of it,” since the implication of his words is that they should be complete.

by Torah law, even according to Rabbi Eliezer, since “part of the day is like the whole day” cannot apply: the meaning of his words is that the days must be complete.

“I am a nazir for one hundred days”:

If he

became impure

on the

on the day

the

one hundred,

behold he

invalidates everything,

for according to the Sages “part of the day is like all of it” is not effective concerning invalidation, and he is within the days of his nezirut and invalidates everything.

Rabbi Eliezer says: He invalidates only thirty

days, and although according to Rabbi Eliezer we say “part of the day is like all of it” even concerning invalidation, Rabbi Eliezer learns from the verse, “And this is the law of the nazir on the day when the days of his nezirut are completed,” to impose stringency upon one who undertook explicitly stated nezirut and became impure on the day of completion, that he be given the law of a nazir, namely, an additional nezirut of the measure of unspecified nezirut, which is thirty days.

And if he

became impure

on the

on the day

the

one hundred and one,

behold he

invalidates thirty days,

and although it is after completion, the Sages decreed on the one-hundred-and-first day on account of the thirtieth day of unspecified nezirut. Just as on the thirtieth day of unspecified nezirut he invalidates all of it, namely thirty days, so too if he became impure on the one-hundred-and-first day, he invalidates thirty days.

Rabbi Eliezer says: He invalidates only seven,

for according to his view, even if he became impure on the thirtieth day of unspecified nezirut, he invalidates only seven, and all the more so on the one-hundred-and-first day.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

One who said, “I am a nazir,” and became impure on the thirtieth day, invalidates everything; Rabbi Eliezer says: He invalidates only seven: