Nazir 17a — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

here

in the beraita

what are we dealing with? With one who exits

from the impurity [from which he became pure],

and

again

enters

a place of impurity—that is to say: in truth, as long as he has not again accepted the naziriteship upon himself, he does not receive the forty lashes. Rather, the beraita is dealing with a case where he has already become pure from his impurity and again accepted the naziriteship upon himself, and it teaches us that if he now again enters the place of impurity, he is lashed for the impurity; and likewise, if he did not enter a place of impurity, but transgressed the other prohibitions of a nazir, he is lashed 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 was impure and took a nazirite vow and a pure nazir who became impure, except that:

that

the seventh day of one who was impure and took a nazirite vow

after he was sprinkled and immersed

counts for him toward the tally

of 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 for him toward the tally,

and he counts only from the eighth day. And it follows that the seventh day counts for him in the tally even before he again accepts naziriteship upon himself.

And if it should enter your mind that it does not take effect

upon him until he accepts it,

why does it count for him

the seventh day

toward the tally

before he accepted it upon himself?!

And on the strength of this question

Mar bar Rav Ashi said

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

To initiate

naziriteship upon one who is impure,

everyone

both Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish—

does not dispute that it takes effect

immediately, to prohibit wine and shaving to him and to make him liable to lashes for them; and once he exits the cemetery, he no longer needs to accept naziriteship upon himself.

And the beraita has thereby been resolved: “his seventh day counts for him in the tally” without acceptance, because in fact he does not require acceptance.

Rather, when they disagree—

Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish—

is regarding being lashed

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

Rabbi Yohanan holds: Since it takes effect

the naziriteship with regard to all the other prohibitions of a nazir,

he is lashed

even for the impurity.

And Reish Lakish holds: He is not lashed

for impurity

and

even though

his naziriteship takes effect,

because included in the Torah’s exclusion from the impurity offering there is also an exclusion from lashes; however, there is a prohibition. And according to Rav Ashi, this is how

Rabbi Yohanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish

from our Mishna:

One who took a nazirite vow while he was in the cemetery—even if he was there for thirty days—his days do not count for him in the tally, and he does not bring an impurity offering.

And it follows:

It is the impurity offering that he does not bring; but he is lashed for it

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

And we explain: Indeed,

it would be proper for him to teach

also, “and

he is not lashed”;

but because

[incidentally]

he taught in the latter clause, “

He exited and entered; it counts for him in the tally and he brings an impurity offering,”

and we consequently know 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.”

And Rabbi Yohanan further added to say to Reish Lakish,

ta shma:

There is no difference between one who was impure and took a nazirite vow and a pure nazir who became impure, except that the seventh day of one who was impure and took a nazirite vow counts for him in the tally

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 for him in the tally,

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

As for lashes—

for impurity, if he becomes impure anew—

this one and that one

[one who was impure and took a nazirite vow and a pure nazir who became impure]

are equal,

because since the tannai taught the distinctions between them, if you would say that there is also a distinction between them regarding lashes, he should have taught this distinction as well?!

He said to him

Reish Lakish to Rabbi Yohanan:

No,

not as you said, that this one and that one are equal regarding lashes for impurity, but rather

for the

obligation of

shaving, this one and that one are equal,

for one who was impure and took a nazirite vow also needs to shave on the seventh day.

The Gemara wondered about Reish Lakish:

But regarding lashes

for impurity,

what

will the law be according to Reish Lakish?!

For

this one—

a pure nazir who became impure—

is lashed, while that one

one who was impure and took a nazirite vow—

is not lashed?!

If so,

let him teach it,

the tannai should also teach this distinction.

And we explain: The tannai did not teach this distinction as well because

he is dealing with rectification,

that is to say: the beraita is dealing only with informing us of the rectification of the nazir—when he begins the naziriteship of purity.

But

with deterioration

[to inform us what the law is for one who intentionally transgresses the prohibition of impurity]

he is not dealing

[the beraita is not dealing].

ta shma:

One who was impure and took a nazirite vow is forbidden to shave, to drink wine, and to become impure through the dead; and if he shaved, drank wine, or became impure through the dead, he receives the forty lashes,

and this is in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan in all his statements.

And we conclude: Indeed,

tiyuvta

of Reish Lakish, who holds that there are no lashes for impurity in the case of one who was impure and took a nazirite vow. A. One who is impure and enters the Temple, if he entered inadvertently [whether the impurity escaped him or the Temple escaped him], is liable for an ascending and descending sin-offering; and if he entered intentionally and they warned him, he is liable for lashes, while if they did not warn him, he is liable for excision. These liabilities apply even if he entered and exited immediately and did not remain at all.

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

C. Regarding the measure of prostration, the Gemara in Shevuot 16b disagrees how long it is, and 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 is forever.”

Rava raised a question:

A nazir

who is in the cemetery—what is the law—

Does also regarding a nazir

a duration need to be present

the measure of prostration

for lashes—

or not

does a duration need to be present, the measure of prostration, for lashes? And the Gemara proceeds to explain it.

And we challenge this:

What are the circumstances

in which Rava was uncertain?

If we say that

he was in the cemetery and

they said to him

the witnesses, in order to warn him: “

Do not take a nazirite vow,”

and he transgressed their words and took a nazirite vow, but did not remain there for the measure of prostration—and this is what Rava was uncertain about, whether just as one who became impure in the Temple courtyard is not liable until he remains for the measure, so too this nazir is not liable until he remains for the measure of prostration—

if so,

why do I need duration

at all in the cemetery?!

And yet

a pure nazirite

who entered a cemetery—

what is the reason that he does not require staying?

Because

they warn him [that is, they warned him] not to enter!?

[that he was warned] not to enter!?

Here too,

when he took his naziriteship in a cemetery,

they warn him

[not to take naziriteship], and if so, even if he stayed in the cemetery not at all, he is liable; and since he does not require staying at all, certainly no measure for staying was stated with regard to him!?

That is to say: We have heard up to this point that there is a measure for staying only in a case in which the liability is for the staying, [such as where the impurity itself, by which he became impure in the Temple courtyard, occurred through duress, so that his entire liability is for the staying], and with regard to staying it was stated as a halakha that it has a measure. But when he deliberately made himself impure in the Temple courtyard, he is liable immediately, without staying for the measure of staying. If so, when he took naziriteship in a cemetery, why should he require a measure for staying? He is liable for the very acceptance of naziriteship, for what difference is there whether the nazirite became impure or whether the impure person took naziriteship? In either case, he is a “defiled nazirite,” and wherever we do not impose liability for staying, no halakha concerning it was stated.