Nazir 17a (יז.) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

here

the beraita

is dealing with one who went out

from the state of ritual impurity [from which he had become pure],

and

again

entered

a place of ritual impurity—that is: in fact, as long as he has not again accepted the naziriteship upon himself, he does not receive forty lashes. Rather, the beraita is dealing with a case in which he has already become pure from his impurity and has again accepted the naziriteship upon himself. And it teaches us that if he now again enters a place of ritual impurity, he is lashed for the impurity. Likewise, if he did not enter a place of ritual impurity, but violated the other prohibitions of a nazir, he receives forty lashes.

He raised an objection

to Reish Lakish, who holds that naziriteship does not take effect upon him until he accepts it:

There is no difference between one who became impure and accepted naziriteship and a pure nazir who became impure, except:

that

the seventh day of one who became impure and accepted naziriteship

after the sprinkling and immersion

counts toward

the days of naziriteship that he must count.

And a pure nazir who became impure,

since he must bring offerings on the eighth day,

his seventh day does not count toward the total,

and he counts only from the eighth day. And it follows that the seventh day counts toward his total even before he has again accepted naziriteship upon himself.

And if it enters your mind that it does not take effect

upon him until he accepts it,

why does

the seventh day

count toward the total

before he accepted it!?

By virtue of this difficulty,

Mar bar Rav Ashi said

to explain the dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish differently:

With regard to initiating

naziriteship for one who is impure,

everyone

—both Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish—

agrees that it takes effect

immediately, prohibiting him from wine and hair-cutting and making him liable to lashes for them; and once he leaves the cemetery, he need not again accept naziriteship upon himself.

Thus the beraita is resolved: “His seventh day counts toward the total” even without acceptance, because he indeed does not require acceptance.

Rather, when they disagree

—Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish—

is with regard to lashes

for impurity, if he was warned to leave the cemetery and did not leave, or for another impurity with which he becomes impure before becoming pure.

Rabbi Yohanan holds: Since it takes effect

with regard to all the other prohibitions of a nazir,

he is lashed

also for impurity.

And Reish Lakish holds: He is not lashed

for impurity

even

though

his naziriteship takes effect,

because included in the Torah’s exclusion from the impurity-offering is an exclusion from lashes as well. Nevertheless, the impurity is prohibited. And according to Rav Ashi, this is how

Rabbi Yohanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish

from our Mishna:

One who accepted nazirite status while he was in a cemetery, even if he was there for thirty days, does not have those days counted toward his total, and he does not bring an impurity offering.

And it follows:

It is only that he does not bring an impurity-offering; does he, in fact, receive lashes for it

[for the impurity], for if this were not so, the tannai should have taught, “He is not lashed,” and this would be a difficulty for Reish Lakish, who holds that he is not lashed for impurity!?

And we answer: Indeed,

it would have been appropriate for him to teach

also, “and

he is not lashed.”

But because

[incidentally]

he teaches in the latter clause, “

He left and entered; it counts toward his total, and he brings an impurity-offering,”

it is automatically known that he is lashed, and it is unnecessary to write this explicitly. Therefore, the

tannai

also in the

first clause

taught only, “and

he does not bring an impurity-offering,”

and the tannai did not also teach, “and he is not lashed.”

Rabbi Yohanan further added to say to Reish Lakish,

Come and hear:

There is no difference between one who became impure and accepted naziriteship and a pure nazir who became impure, except that the seventh day of one who became impure and accepted naziriteship counts toward his total

because he does not bring an impurity-offering on the eighth day,

whereas the seventh day of a pure nazir who became impure does not count toward his total,

because naziriteship of purity does not take effect upon him until he brings his offerings on the eighth day.

With regard to lashes

—for impurity if he becomes impure again—

this one and that one

[one who became impure and accepted naziriteship, and a pure nazir who became impure]

are equal,

because since the tannai stated the distinctions between them, if you should say that there is also a distinction between them with regard to lashes, he should have stated this distinction as well!?

He said to him

Reish Lakish to Rabbi Yohanan:

No, it is not as you said, that with regard to lashes for impurity they are equal. Rather,

not as you said, that they are equal with regard to lashes for ritual impurity. Rather,

with regard to the obligation of

hair-cutting,

this one and that one are equal,

as even one who became impure and accepted naziriteship must cut his hair on the seventh day.

The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning Reish Lakish:

But with regard to lashes

for impurity,

what

is the law according to Reish Lakish!?

For

this one

—a pure nazir who became impure—

is lashed, whereas that one

—one who became impure and accepted naziriteship—

is not lashed!?

If so,

let him teach it,

let the tannai state this distinction as well.

And we answer: The tannai did not state this distinction as well because

he is dealing with the remedy,

that is, the beraita is dealing only with teaching us the remedy for the nazir—when he begins his naziriteship of purity.

But

with deterioration

[teaching us what the law is for one who intentionally violates the prohibition of impurity]

he is not dealing

[the beraita is not dealing with this].

Come and hear:

One who was impure and accepted naziriteship is prohibited from cutting his hair, drinking wine, and becoming impure through contact with the dead; and if he cut his hair, drank wine, or became impure through contact with the dead, he receives forty lashes,

in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan’s position in all respects.

And we conclude: Indeed,

a refutation

of Reish Lakish, who holds that one who became impure and accepted naziriteship is not lashed for impurity. a. One who is impure and enters the Temple, if he entered inadvertently [whether because he forgot his impurity or because he forgot that it was the Temple], is liable to a sliding-scale sin-offering. If he entered intentionally and had been warned, he is liable to lashes; and if he had not been warned, he is liable to karet. These liabilities apply even if he entered and immediately left without remaining there at all.

b. One who became impure in the Temple courtyard itself involuntarily is not liable to an offering until he prostrates himself, even if he did not remain there for the time required for prostration, or until he remains there for the time required for prostration. This is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai concerning one who became impure in the Temple, as explained in the Mishna in Shevuot 14b and in Maimonides, Laws of Entry into the Temple, chapter 3, sections 22–23.

c. The Gemara in Shevuot 16b records a dispute as to the measure of prostration. Maimonides ruled there that the measure is the time required to recite: “And they bowed with their faces to the ground upon the pavement and prostrated themselves and gave thanks to the Lord, for He is good, for His kindness endures forever.”

Rava raised a question:

A nazir

who is in a cemetery—what is the law—

Does a nazir also

require remaining

for the time required for prostration

for lashes—

Or not

does he require remaining for the time of prostration in order to be liable to lashes? The Gemara proceeds to explain the question.

The Gemara raises an objection to this: What are the circumstances?

What are the circumstances

in which Rava raised his question?

If we say that

he was in the cemetery and

they said to him

the witnesses, in order to warn him: “

Do not accept naziriteship,”

and he disregarded their words and accepted naziriteship, but did not remain there for the time required for prostration—and this is what Rava questioned: Just as one who becomes impure in the Temple courtyard is not liable until he remains there for the requisite time, so too, perhaps, this nazir is not liable until he remains there for the time required for prostration—

If so,

why do I need remaining

in the cemetery at all!?

But what of

a ritually pure nazir

who entered a cemetery?

Why does he not require a period of remaining?

Because

they warn him [that he must not enter]!?

[They warned him] not to enter!?

Here, too,

when he takes his vow of naziriteship in a cemetery, they

warn him

[not to take the vow]. If so, even if he did not remain in the cemetery at all, he is liable; and since he does not require any period of remaining whatsoever, certainly no prescribed measure of remaining should have been stated in his case!?

That is to say: We have heard thus far that there is a prescribed measure for remaining only where the liability is for remaining itself—[for example, where the impurity itself, through which he became impure in the Temple courtyard, came about through circumstances beyond his control, so that his entire liability is for remaining]. And with regard to remaining, a halakha was stated that it has a prescribed measure. But when he deliberately renders himself impure in the Temple courtyard, he is liable immediately, without remaining for the prescribed period. If so, why should one who takes a vow of naziriteship in a cemetery require a prescribed period of remaining? He is liable for the very acceptance of naziriteship, for what difference is there whether the nazir became impure or whether one who was already impure took a vow of naziriteship? In either case, he is a “ritually impure nazir,” and whenever we do not hold him liable for remaining, no halakha concerning a prescribed measure of remaining was stated at all.