Nazir 17b (יז:) — the Talmud in English

Rather

this is the manner in which Rava raised his doubt:

For example, a pure nazirite entered

a pure nazirite

in a chest, box, or tower

[types of portable tents that intervene between the impurity and the person sitting inside them] into a cemetery,

and his fellow came and removed from above him

against the nazirite’s will the

ceiling

of the roof of the tent, and he became impure through the airspace of the cemetery—

It follows that he performed no action at all; rather, we hold him liable for remaining there, and the question is whether he must remain there for the duration necessary for prostration.

Rava’s doubt is based on whether we should say that

when the halakha was given

[that a halakha was transmitted to Moses from Sinai] that

remaining

in the Temple

alone is required—

but outside

[outside the Temple],

no.

Or perhaps: Is there no difference?

And we conclude:

Teyku!

Rav Ashi asked

raised the following doubt:

Rav Ashi:

If he made a nazirite vow while he was in a cemetery,

does

he require

a

a haircut

[“a haircut for impurity”] like any other nazirite who became impure, who cuts his hair on the seventh day,

or does he not require a haircut,

because one might say: There is no haircut without an impurity offering, and since he does not bring an offering, he likewise need not cut his hair? The Gemara explains the doubt:

Should we say that

when a haircut is required,

it is specifically a

pure nazirite who became impure, thereby rendering his naziriteship impure

[who caused impurity to his naziriteship]—

But an impure person who made a nazirite vow

without rendering his naziriteship impure—

no.

Or perhaps: Is there no difference,

and even an impure person who made a nazirite vow requires “a haircut for impurity”?

Come and hear

a proof that he does not require a haircut, from our Mishna:

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

The implication is:

It is an impurity offering that he does not bring

[he does not bring it],

but he does require haircuts

[he requires a haircut], since the Mishna did not state: “And he does not cut his hair on his seventh day.”

The Gemara rejects this:

What reason

did he state

the tanna?

The reason he does not bring an impurity offering is that he does not require haircuts,

meaning that the haircut and the impurity offering are interdependent.

That is, according to Rav Ashi’s reasoning—that he does not require a haircut—the reason is that there is no haircut without an impurity offering. If so, one may say that this reasoning was obvious to the tanna, to the point that he did not need to state it explicitly. Once the tanna said that he does not require an offering, we know automatically that he does not cut his hair, since the two are interdependent.

Come and hear

from the beraita cited above on 17a:

There is no difference between an impure person who made a nazirite vow and a pure nazirite who became impure

except

that the

seventh day of the impure person who made a nazirite vow counts for him in the tally

because he does not need to bring an offering,

whereas the seventh day of a pure nazirite who became impure does not count for him in the tally,

since he does not begin his naziriteship until the day on which he brings his offerings.

The Gemara infers:

Is it not the case that with regard to the haircut

for impurity,

the two are equal,

in that both require a haircut? For if not, the tanna should have added a distinction between them concerning the haircut, stating: “This one cuts his hair, and that one does not”!

We have therefore learned that even an impure person who made a nazirite vow requires a haircut for impurity, and Rav Ashi’s question is resolved.

The Gemara rejects this:

No;

do not infer this. Rather, infer:

With regard to lashes

for impurity,

the two are equal.

The Gemara asks:

But

with regard to

the haircut, what

is the case? Is it indeed that

this one cuts his hair and that one does not?

If so:

let him teach it,

let the tanna also state this distinction between them!?

And we answer: This distinction too is included in the tanna’s words, for he taught:

“The seventh day of his”

“counts for him in the tally,”

counts for him in the tally,

“and every matter.”

That is, since the tanna says, “The seventh day of his counts for him in the tally,” and the reason is that he does not need to bring an offering, it follows that the tanna’s words include the fact that he does not need to bring an offering. And since he does not need to bring an offering, we know automatically that he does not need to cut his hair, since the two are interdependent.

a. “When a person has a mark of leprosy, he shall be brought to the priest,” and the priest examines the mark. Sometimes he renders him impure immediately, when the mark contains signs of impurity, and he is a confirmed leper; and sometimes the priest confines him for seven days, once or twice, in order to determine whether signs of impurity will appear in him, and afterward declares him a confirmed leper or purifies him. Those days during which he is confined are called “the days of his confinement.”

b. The period beginning when the priest renders him impure and declares him a confirmed leper and ending when the leprosy affliction heals is called “the days of his confirmed status” [or “the days of the completion of his status”].

c. Once the affliction has healed, the leper brings two birds. The priest slaughters one of them, dips the other in its blood, and sprinkles some of that blood upon the person undergoing purification. The second bird is then sent away into the open field. The leper shaves all his hair and afterward immerses in a ritual bath. He counts seven days, which are called “the days of his counting.” On the seventh day he shaves a second time and afterward immerses; on the eighth day he brings his offerings, an animal if he is wealthy and birds if he is poor.

d. A leper who is a nazirite does not invalidate the days he already counted, since invalidation was stated only with regard to impurity from a corpse.

e. The following beraita teaches that although the days during which he is a confirmed leper do not invalidate the days he already counted, those days nevertheless do not count toward his naziriteship, and he must complete those days afterward. All the detailed restrictions of naziriteship, however, apply to him during those days as well. The beraita also explains later [in a passage not cited here in the Gemara, but below, 56a] that “the days of his counting” do not count toward his days of naziriteship, whereas the days of his confinement do count toward them.

f. The beraita derives this law—that the days of his confirmed status do not count for him—from the case of a nazirite who became impure through contact with a corpse, for the days of his impurity likewise do not count for him. The beraita calls the days during which he is impure because of the corpse “the days of his impurity,” and the days during which he is a confirmed leper because of his leprosy “the days of his confirmed status.”

Come and hear:

I have derived only that the days of his impurity

of a nazirite who became impure through a corpse

do not count for him

toward the days of his naziriteship.

But

the days of his confirmed status

of a leper who is a nazirite—

from where

do we derive that they do not count for the nazirite, and that once the leper who is a nazirite has been declared a confirmed leper, he does not include the days of his confirmed status in the tally of his days of naziriteship?

The beraita proceeds to derive this law by means of a kal va-chomer.

Before the tanna finished explaining the source of this law, he explains:

Perhaps you will say: Why do I need a kal va-chomer?

And

does

the logical derivation

not establish that the days of his confirmed status should not count for him, by means of the principle of “what we find in one case” from the days of his impurity due to a corpse? Since the laws in the two cases are alike, one may derive one from the other even with regard to not counting toward the tally. This is what the logical derivation would teach:

Just as during the days of his impurity he cuts his hair

the nazirite on their seventh day

and brings an offering

on their eighth day—

so too, during the days of his confirmed status

he

cuts his hair

at the conclusion of the days of his confirmed status,

and brings an offering

on the eighth day of his counting.

And

if so, we have grounds to compare them as well to our matter and say:

Just as the days of his impurity do not count for him, so too the days of his being confirmed as a leper do not count for him.

And the tanna explains that this matter cannot be derived by this reasoning:

You can say

with regard to the days of his impurity from contact with a corpse, which do not count for him, because

they annul

i.e., invalidate]

the

days

preceding

of his naziriteship, as it is stated concerning a nazir who became impure through contact with a corpse: “And the first days shall fall away”; and

therefore

even

they do not count for him.

Can you say

that in the days of his being confirmed as a leper, when he does not annul

the preceding

days of his naziriteship, and

therefore

it may be said that

they do count for him,

these days

toward the count?

Therefore, we must derive by another principle that the days during which a leper is confirmed do not count for a nazir:

and thus we must learn as follows:

You can say:

And if a nazir

who undertook naziriteship

in a grave [in a cemetery],

and

whose hair is fit to be shaved

with the shaving of impurity, as is the case with any impure nazir, nevertheless

the days of his impurity do not count for him

the days of impurity

toward the count—

the days during which he is confirmed as a leper, when his hair is not fit to be shaved

by virtue of his naziriteship

surely do not count for him toward the count.

And from this beraita the Gemara resolves Rav Ashi’s uncertainty:

For

if

is it not

the case that when the beraita states, “A nazir in a grave whose hair is fit to be shaved,” it means

the shaving of impurity,

as explained!?

If so, we have learned that one who undertakes naziriteship in a cemetery must undergo the shaving of impurity, like any other impure nazir, and Rav Ashi’s question is resolved.

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

not as you interpreted the shaving mentioned in the beraita, that it is “the shaving of impurity.” Rather, when the beraita states, “A nazir in a grave whose hair is fit to be shaved,” it means

the shaving of purity,

after he completes the count of his period of pure naziriteship. And this is the meaning of the beraita:

If a nazir in a grave does not need to shave the shaving of impurity, with the result that his present hair is fit for the shaving of purity that follows the counting of the days of pure naziriteship, and nevertheless the days during which he is impure do not count for him;

then in the case of a leper nazir, whose hair is not fit for the shaving of purity, since he will have to shave it when he becomes pure from his leprosy, like any other leper, is it not all the more so that the days during which he is confirmed as a leper do not count for him?

So too, it is reasonable

that the beraita is discussing “the shaving of purity”—