Nazir 18a (יח.) — the Talmud in English

If you should assume

that

the impurity shaving

is the subject of the beraita, and that it distinguishes between the days of his impurity, which require shaving, and the days of his confirmed status as a leper, which do not require shaving, then this is difficult:

And

do the days of his confirmed status not require shaving

at the conclusion of those days? After all, this is the law of a leper: He shaves at the conclusion of the days of his confirmed status!?

The Gemara rejects the necessity of this inference:

No,

you cannot prove from here that the subject is the purification shaving, because when we said that during the days of his confirmed status he does not require shaving,

it is the shaving of naziriteship that is taught,

as he is not obligated to shave by virtue of the law of naziriteship; rather, he is no better than any other leper who requires shaving.

And this is what the beraita distinguishes between: a nazir who became impure through contact with a corpse, who requires impurity shaving by virtue of the law of naziriteship, and a nazir who is a leper, who requires shaving only like any other leper and not by virtue of the law of naziriteship.

Come and hear

a proof to resolve that one who undertakes naziriteship in a cemetery is not required to shave:

It is written: “And if a person should die upon him suddenly,

and he becomes impure, the head of his naziriteship

and he shall shave his head on the day of his purification; on the seventh day he shall shave it. And on the eighth day he shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons, etc.”

And therefore the verse says, “and he becomes impure, the head of his naziriteship,” although it should have said only: “And if a person should die upon him suddenly, and he shall shave his head on the day of his purification,” in order to teach that only

a

nazir

who was pure and became impure is being discussed by the verse—

as it says: “And the earlier days shall fall away,” indicating that he undertook naziriteship before his impurity—

that he requires the removal of his hair and the bringing of birds [

a shaving and birds as an offering for impurity, and likewise a guilt-offering ]—

And in order to exempt

the verse comes

the nazir in the grave, who does not require the removal of his hair and the bringing of birds [

nor a guilt-offering ]. And had the verse not excluded him, I would have said:

Is this not a kal va-chomer

that he is obligated to bring an impurity offering?

And if one who was pure and became impure requires the removal of his hair and the bringing of birds, is it not logically the case that one who was impure from the outset should require the removal of his hair and the bringing of birds?

Therefore,

the Torah states: “

And he becomes impure, the head of his naziriteship,”

the verse is speaking of one who was pure and became impure, who requires the removal of his hair and the bringing of birds, and in order to exempt

from these

the nazir in the grave.

And we conclude:

Learn from this

that the nazir in the grave is not required to shave.

Who is the tanna

of

that which the Sages taught [

that is, who taught the beraita cited above ]:

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

that

the

seventh day of one who undertook naziriteship while impure counts for him

toward the count of his purification naziriteship, because he is not obligated to bring an impurity offering—

whereas

if

a pure nazir who became impure, his seventh day does not count for him

because he is obligated to bring an impurity offering on the eighth day.

And we learn from the opinion of the tanna of the beraita that the nazir does not begin counting “purification naziriteship” before the eighth day, on which he brings his offerings. And who is the tanna who holds this view?

Rav Ḥisda said: It is Rabbi, who says

in the beraita brought immediately below:

A nazir who became impure, was sprinkled on the third and seventh days, and immersed on the seventh day,

the “

purification naziriteship”

takes effect only on

the

eighth day.

For if you say that it is Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda,

who disagrees with him in that same beraita,

he says: Purification naziriteship takes effect from the seventh day

after the sprinkling and immersion—

it takes effect

and the seventh day counts for him, whereas in our Mishna we learned that the seventh day does not count for him.

The Gemara explains:

What are Rabbi and what are Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda—that is, in what did they disagree, and where is their disagreement recorded?

It is

as it was taught:

It is written in the passage concerning the nazir: “And if a person should die upon him suddenly, and he becomes impure, the head of his naziriteship, and he shall shave his head on the day of his purification; on the seventh day he shall shave it. And on the eighth day he shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons to the priest, to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. And the priest shall prepare one as a sin-offering and one as an elevation-offering, and he shall atone for him for the sin that he committed through the person, and he shall consecrate his head on that day [to return and begin counting his naziriteship anew, Rashi]. And he shall rededicate to the Lord the days of his naziriteship, and he shall bring a year-old lamb as a guilt-offering; and the earlier days shall fall away, because his naziriteship became impure.”

It is written: “

And he shall consecrate his head on that day,”

to return and begin counting his purification naziriteship. And which day is the verse discussing?

The day on which he brings his offerings,

on the eighth day, and even before he has brought his offerings,

the words of Rabbi.

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda says: On the day of his shaving,

that is, on the seventh day, after the second sprinkling and the immersion.

Rav Ḥisda further explains a Mishna in tractate Keritot, which likewise can be explained only according to one of the tannaim mentioned above:

And that which we learned

in tractate Keritot 9a:

A nazir who became impure through many instances of impurity,

that is, he became impure and became pure, began counting purification naziriteship, and became impure again; then he again began counting purification naziriteship and became impure again,

brings only one offering

of

impurity

for all the instances of impurity, if he did not become obligated to bring an offering for the earlier instances of impurity when he became impure again, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

Who is the tanna,

that is, who is the tanna who taught this Mishna, which states that for “many instances of impurity”—that is, each of which occurred after the beginning of the count of purification naziriteship following the preceding impurity—he brings only one offering?

Rav Ḥisda said: It is Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda, who says: Purification naziriteship takes effect from the seventh day—

before the time when he becomes obligated to bring the offering—

it takes effect.

And

according to his view,

you can find [

the case of ] many instances of impurity for which he brings only one offering:

For example, he became impure

a second time

on the seventh day

following the first impurity, after he became pure through sprinkling and immersion and purification naziriteship took effect;

and he again became impure

a third time

on the seventh day

following the second impurity, after the sprinkling and immersion and the beginning of purification naziriteship—thus he became impure through “many instances of impurity.”

And

since he did not reach

for any of the instances of impurity

the time at which he was fit to bring an offering [

that is, he did not become obligated to bring an offering ] before the subsequent impurity occurred, which would obligate him to bring an additional offering, since the offering obligation is on the eighth day, whereas the impurity occurred already on the seventh day—

therefore,

he is liable for only one offering

for the three instances of impurity.

For if you say that it is Rabbi,

who holds that naziriteship takes effect upon him only on the eighth day, then you will not find a case in which he became impure through “many instances of impurity,” meaning that each instance occurred after purification naziriteship had already taken effect, on the one hand, while he had not yet become obligated to bring an offering for one instance before the subsequent impurity occurred, on the other hand.

For

if he became impure

a second time

on the seventh day

following his first impurity,

and he again became impure

a third time

on the seventh day

following his second impurity—

then

all of them—

the three instances of impurity—

constitute one extended impurity, that is, since purification naziriteship had not yet begun before he became impure the second and third times, his many instances of impurity are considered only one long instance of impurity, and these are not the “many instances of impurity” mentioned in the beraita.

that is, since purification naziriteship had not yet begun before he became impure the second and third times, his many acts of impurity are regarded as one long period of impurity, and these are not the “many acts of impurity” mentioned in the beraita.

And if he became impure

a second time

on the eighth day—

before he brought the impurity offering, when purification naziriteship had already begun—

and he again became impure

a third time

on the eighth day

before he brought the impurity offering,

then there elapsed

for the first and second instances of impurity

a time at which he was fit to bring an offering

before he became impure with the subsequent impurity, and he is not exempted by one offering for several instances of impurity.

Here the Gemara returns to explain the reason for the disagreement between Rabbi and Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda as to whether purification naziriteship takes effect on the seventh or eighth day:

What is Rabbi’s reason,

who holds that purification naziriteship takes effect only on the eighth day?

For

the verse says: “

the verse says: “

And he shall atone for him for the sin that he committed through the person,”

that is, through the impurity offering,

and afterward [

that is, afterward ] “

and he shall consecrate his head,”

that is, he shall begin counting purification naziriteship.

And as for Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda—

who holds that he begins counting purification naziriteship from the seventh day, after sprinkling and immersion—what is his reason?

If so—

if he begins counting only on the eighth day—

let the verse say: “

And he shall consecrate his head”

alone, and we would know that he begins counting after the atonement for the person, since this is the order of the verses—