Nazir 17b — the Talmud in English

Rather

this is the manner of the uncertainty raised by Rava:

For example, when a pure nazirite enters

in a chest, box, or tower [

types of movable tents that separate between the impurity and the one sitting inside]

to the cemetery, and his fellow comes and removes from above him

against the nazirite’s will the

ceiling material

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

It follows that he performed no action at all; rather, we make him liable for remaining there, and it is uncertain whether he requires a measure of remaining equivalent to the time of bowing.

The basis of Rava’s uncertainty is whether we say that

when the halakha was transmitted [

the halakha was stated to Moses at Sinai] that

remaining

in the Temple

alone—

but outside [

outside the Temple],

no.

Or perhaps: Is there no difference?

And we conclude:

teyku!

Rav Ashi asked

raised the following uncertainty:

Rav Ashi:

If he vowed while he was in the cemetery,

does

he require

a

shaving [“impurity shaving”]

as does any other nazirite who became impure, who shaves on the seventh day,

or does he not require shaving,

because one may say: There is no shaving without an impurity offering, and since he does not bring an offering, he likewise does not require shaving? And the Gemara explains the uncertainty:

Is it to be said that

when shaving is required,

it is specifically a

pure nazirite who became impure, for he renders his naziriteship impure [

who rendered his naziriteship impure]—

But an impure person who vowed

and his naziriteship did not become impure—

no.

Or perhaps: There is no difference,

and even an impure person who vowed requires “impurity shaving”?

ta shma

to resolve that he does not require shaving, from our Mishna:

One who vowed while he was in the cemetery, even if he remained there for thirty days, it does not count for him, and he does not bring an impurity offering.

And it implies:

It is an impurity offering that he does not bring [

he does not bring]

but shaving he requires [

he requires shaving], since we did not teach: “And he does not shave on his seventh day.”

And we reject this:

“What is the reason”

does the

tanna say?

What is the reason he does not bring an impurity offering? Because he does not require shaving,

that is, shaving and the impurity offering are dependent upon one another.

That is, since according to Rav Ashi’s reasoning he does not require shaving, the reason for this is that there is no shaving without an impurity offering. If so, one may say that this reasoning was obvious to the tanna, to the extent that he did not need to state it explicitly; and since the tanna said that he does not require an offering, we automatically know that he does not shave, because one depends upon the other.

a. “When a person has a leprous mark and he is 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 quarantines him for seven days, once or twice, in order to determine whether signs of impurity will appear in him, and afterward he declares him confirmed or purifies him. Those days during which he is quarantined are called “the days of his quarantine.” ta shma

from the beraita brought above on page 17a:

There is no difference between an impure person who vowed and a pure nazirite who became impure—

except

that the

seventh day of the impure person who vowed counts for him in the count

because he does not need to bring an offering,

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

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

And the Gemara infers:

Is it not that with regard to shaving

for impurity,

both this one and that one are equal,

in that they require shaving? For otherwise, the tanna should have added a distinction between them with regard to shaving, saying: “This one shaves and that one does not shave”?

We have therefore learned that even an impure person who vowed requires impurity shaving, and Rav Ashi’s question has been resolved.

And we reject this:

No,

do not infer this; rather, infer:

With regard to lashes

for impurity,

both this one and that one are equal.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But

with regard to

shaving, what?

Indeed,

this one shaves and that one does not shave!?

If so,

let him teach it,

let the tanna also teach this distinction between them!?

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

taught: “

His seventh day

counts for him in the count,”

and everything.

That is, since the tanna says, “His seventh day counts for him in the count,” and the reason for this is that he does not need to bring an offering, it follows that the tanna’s words automatically include that he does not need to bring an offering; and since he does not need to bring an offering, we automatically know that he does not need to shave, because one depends upon the other.

a. “When a person has a mark of leprosy, he shall be brought to the priest,” and the priest examines the mark. Sometimes he declares him impure immediately when the mark contains signs of impurity, making him a confirmed leper. At other times, the priest confines him for seven days, once or twice, to determine whether signs of impurity will appear. He then declares him a confirmed leper or declares him pure. Those days during which he is confined are called “the days of his confinement.”

b. Those days from the time the priest rendered him impure and declared him confirmed until the leprous mark healed from the leper are called “the days of his confirmed status” [or “the days of his completion”].

c. Once the mark has healed, the leper brings two birds. The priest slaughters one of them, dips the other in its blood, and sprinkles its blood upon the one being purified; and the second bird he sends 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, and on the eighth day he brings his offerings, the wealthy person from an animal and the poor person from birds.

d. A leper who is a nazirite does not invalidate the preceding days that he has already counted, for invalidation was stated only with regard to impurity from a dead person.

e. The following beraita comes to teach that those days during which he is in a confirmed state—even though the leprosy does not invalidate the days he has already counted—nevertheless those days do not count for him in his naziriteship, and he must complete them afterward; but all the details of naziriteship apply to him even on those days. The beraita likewise explains later [which is not brought here in the Gemara, but below, 56a] that “the days of his counting” do not count for him in the count of his days of naziriteship, whereas the days of his quarantine do count for him.

f. The law that the days of his confirmed status do not count for him is learned by the beraita from a nazirite who became impure through a dead person, whose days of impurity likewise do not count for him. The beraita calls the days during which he is impure because of the dead person “the days of his impurity,” and the days during which he is in a confirmed state because of his leprosy “the days of his confirmed status.”

ta shma:

I have only the days of his impurity

of a nazirite who became impure through a dead person,

that they do not count for him in the count

of the days of naziriteship.

But

the days of his confirmed status

of a leper who is a nazirite—

from where

do we know that they do not count for the nazirite in the count, and once the leper-nazirite has been declared confirmed, he does not include the days of his confirmed status in the count of his days of naziriteship?

The beraita subsequently learns this law by means of a kal va-chomer.

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

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

And

surely

it is a logical inference

that the days of his confirmed status should not count for him in the count, by means of the principle “what do we find” from the days of his impurity from a dead person. Since they are equal in their laws, you can learn one from the other even with regard to “they do not count in the count”; and this is what we would learn by logical inference:

Just as during the days of his impurity he shaves

on their seventh day

and brings an offering

on their eighth day—

so too, during the days of his confirmed status

he

shaves

at the end of the days of his confirmed status,

and brings an offering

on the eighth day of his counting.

And

if so, we have reason to compare them also to our matter, and to say:

Just as the days of his impurity do not count for him toward the count, so too the days of his being quarantined do not count for him toward the count.

And the tanna explains that it is impossible to derive this law

by saying: If you said this with regard to the days of his impurity

for contact with a dead person, that they do not count for him toward the count, because

it nullifies

[contradicts]

within him the

days

that preceded

the days of the naziriteship, as it is stated with regard to a nazirite who became impure through contact with a dead person, “and the first days shall fall away,” and

therefore

even

they do not count for him toward the count.

Can you say this with regard to the days of his being quarantined, when he does not nullify the

days

that preceded

the days of his naziriteship, and

therefore

it may be said that even

they count for him

these days

toward the count.

Therefore, we need to derive by another law that the days of a leper’s being quarantined do not count for the nazirite toward the count:

“You have said”:

And what of a nazirite

who became a nazirite

in a grave

[in a cemetery]

whose hair is fit for shaving

with the shaving of impurity, like any impure nazirite, and nevertheless

they do not count for him

the days of impurity

toward the count—

the days of his being quarantined, whose hair is not fit for shaving

because of the naziriteship

all the more so, they do not count for him toward the count.

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

For

what, is it not so

that when they said in the beraita, “a nazirite in a grave whose hair is fit for shaving,” this means

the shaving of impurity

, as was explained!?

And if so, we have learned that one who becomes a nazirite in a cemetery requires the shaving of impurity, like any impure nazirite, and Rabbi Ashi’s problem is resolved.

And we reject this:

No

, not as you explained the shaving mentioned in the beraita, that it is “the shaving of impurity,” but rather, when they said in the beraita, “a nazirite in a grave whose hair is fit for shaving,” this means

the shaving of purity

, after he counts the days of pure naziriteship; and this is the explanation of the beraita:

And what of a nazirite in a grave, who does not need to shave the shaving of impurity, with the result that his present hair is fit for carrying out with it the shaving of purity after counting the days of pure naziriteship, and nevertheless the days during which he is impure do not count for him toward the count.

A leper nazirite, whose hair is not fit for carrying out with it the shaving of purity, since he will have to shave it when he becomes pure from his leprosy, like any leper,

is it not the law that the days of his being quarantined should not count for him toward the count? This too is evidently so that the beraita is dealing with “the shaving of purity”—

So too, it is reasonable

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