Nazir 18b (יח:) — the Talmud in English

And

“on that day”—

which the Torah stated—

why do I need this!?

Rather, necessarily:

if

“on that day”

does not refer to the eighth day,

for it has already been stated: “And he shall effect atonement for him,” and afterward, “And he shall consecrate,”

refer it to the seventh day.

And we raise a difficulty:

But Rabbi, too, what does he do with the verse

“on that day”?

That is to say: Why do I need “on that day”!?

And we explain:

Rabbi can say to you:

That phrase comes for this purpose

[the verse comes for this purpose],

to teach you:

Once the “day” has arrived—that is, the eighth day—he begins counting his purity naziriteship

even though

he has still

not brought his offerings.

And it teaches you not to say: It is written, “And he shall effect atonement for him for the sin that he committed because of the dead,” and afterward, “And he shall consecrate his head,” implying that he must first effect atonement and only afterward count his purity naziriteship. Therefore, the verse teaches us “on that day”—namely, the day on which he brings his offerings—that he begins counting his purity naziriteship from the beginning of the eighth day.

And since the Gemara explained that according to Rabbi the offerings themselves do not prevent the purity naziriteship from taking effect, the Gemara returns to the statement of Rav Ḥisda, who explained the Mishna in Karetot as referring to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and challenges him:

And what difficulty did Rav Ḥisda have

[what compelled him]

to establish

that Mishna

as referring to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda,

on the grounds that according to Rabbi it is impossible for one impurity to occur after the beginning of the purity naziriteship that follows an earlier impurity unless the first impurity had already reached the time at which he was fit to bring an offering, since the purity naziriteship takes effect only at the time of bringing the offering, on the eighth day—

For according to what was explained regarding Rabbi, that for the purity naziriteship to take effect he does not require the offering itself, but rather the eighth day, which is the day on which he brings his offerings, this time precedes the time at which he is fit to bring an offering. For the purity naziriteship begins on the night of the eighth day, since the night follows the subsequent day, whereas the time at which he is fit to bring an offering is only in the morning of the day, since offerings may not be sacrificed at night. If so:

Let Rav Ḥisda establish it

[let Rav Ḥisda establish that Mishna]

as referring to a case where he became impure

twice

on the night of the eighth day

of his earlier impurity,

and it is Rabbi’s opinion!?

It would then follow that each impurity occurred after the purity naziriteship had taken effect, which is at night, but before he had reached the time at which he was fit to bring an offering, which occurs only during the day.

And

since Rav Ḥisda did not establish it

as Rabbi’s opinion,

let us say

[shall we say] that he

holds

that Rav Ḥisda maintains:

Nighttime—

which prevents him from sacrificing the offering—

is not

a case of one who lacks the proper time

for it

to be considered at night as though he had not yet reached the time at which he was fit to bring an offering!?

That is to say: Since, with regard to the naziriteship, the time for bringing the offering has already arrived on the night of the eighth day, which is “the eighth day,” but from another perspective he cannot bring the offering because offerings may be sacrificed only during the day, the beginning of the night is nevertheless considered the time at which he is fit to bring an offering. If so, this time overlaps with the time at which the purity naziriteship takes effect, and an impurity occurring after this time occurs after the time at which he was fit to bring an offering.

He said

[he rejected this argument],

Rav Adda bar Ahava:

You cannot prove from Rav Ḥisda’s words that nighttime is not considered a lack of the proper time, because

these matters are interdependent

[the time at which the purity naziriteship takes effect depends on the time at which he is fit to bring an offering; the time of one is the same as the time of the other]—

That is to say: The time at which he begins counting his purity naziriteship does not depend on “the eighth day,” so that one might say: Once the eighth day arrives, he counts his purity naziriteship, whereas “the time at which he is fit to bring an offering” has not yet arrived because nighttime is a time at which he lacks the proper time. Rather, the Mishna in Karetot is consistent with Rabbi.

Instead, the time at which the purity naziriteship begins depends on the time at which he is fit to bring an offering, and the times of both coincide.

It follows that

if you say:

nighttime is considered a lack of the proper time,

when is he fit to bring the offering—

from when is he fit to bring an offering, such that that time will be “the time at which he is fit to bring an offering”?

In the morning

[of the eighth day]. If so,

the purity naziriteship

does

not take effect until the morning

[it too does not take effect until the morning].

And if you say that

nighttime is not considered a lack of the proper time,

and “the time at which he is fit to bring an offering” begins in the evening, then

the purity naziriteship takes effect from the evening

[from nighttime].

Therefore, according to Rabbi, you will never find a case in which the purity naziriteship following the first impurity takes effect before the time at which he is fit to bring an offering has arrived.

The Sages taught:

The words of the first tanna are explained according to the version and interpretation of Tosafot.

If he became impure

a second time

on the seventh day

of the first impurity, after the sprinkling and immersion, once the purity naziriteship had begun,

and he again became impure on the seventh day

of the second impurity,

he brings only one offering,

since the time at which he was fit to bring an offering—which is only on the eighth day—had not yet arrived.

But

if he became impure on the eighth day

of the first impurity [even before he began bringing his offerings], once the purity naziriteship had already begun,

and he again became impure on the eighth day

of the second impurity,

he brings an offering for each and every one,

because the time at which he was fit to bring an offering had already arrived.

And he begins—

every nazirite who became impure—

and counts

his purity naziriteship

immediately,

on the seventh day after the sprinkling and immersion,

the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

And the Sages say:

Even if he became impure on the eighth day, since he had not yet begun bringing his offerings, he

brings one offering for all of them, until he brings his sin offering,

because the Sages

hold that until he brings his sin offering, he does not count his purity naziriteship. Consequently, the second impurity is considered one extended impurity together with the preceding impurity, and he brings one offering.

If he brought his sin offering

for the first impurity [and even though he had not brought his burnt offering and guilt offering], and the purity naziriteship began,

and he became impure

a second time,

and he brought his sin offering

for the second impurity,

and he became impure

a third time, he

brings an offering

[the offerings that he had not yet brought]

for each and every one,

because the purity naziriteship begins after the sin offering is brought, and he becomes liable for an offering for all three impurities. Since the time at which he was fit to bring an offering had already arrived, he brings his offerings for each and every one.

If he brought his sin offering but did not bring his guilt offering

[and likewise if he did not bring his burnt offering], he

counts

his purity naziriteship, because the guilt offering does not prevent the purity naziriteship from taking effect.

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says:

Just as his sin offering prevents him

from counting his purity naziriteship until he brings it,

so his guilt offering prevents him

from counting his purity naziriteship until he brings it.

And we raise a difficulty:

Granted, according to Rabbi Eliezer,

who holds that the purity naziriteship takes effect from the seventh day, his reason is that

the verse says:

“And he shall consecrate his head on that day

and consecrate himself to the Lord for the days of his naziriteship.” Therefore, the verse added “on that day,” to teach you that he consecrates his head on the day of his shaving

even though he has not brought his offerings,

that is, even though the day fit for bringing his offerings has not yet arrived.

And

even according to

the Sages,

who hold that his sin offering prevents the process, it is understandable that the verse says “on

that” day,

for it comes to teach

even though he has not brought his guilt offering,

and to teach that this guilt offering is not like all guilt offerings elsewhere, which prevent the process.

But according to Rabbi Yishmael

[son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka], who holds that even his guilt offering prevents the process, if so, “on

that” day

why do I need it!?

The verse should state only: “And he shall effect atonement for him for the sin that he committed because of the dead, and he shall consecrate his head. And he shall consecrate himself to the Lord for the days of his naziriteship”!

He can say to you

Rabbi Yishmael: “On

that” day

comes to teach

even though he has not brought his burnt offering.

And

we challenge

the Sages:

From where do they derive that he may count even though he has not brought his guilt offering? Perhaps the verse comes only to exclude the burnt offering, whereas the guilt offering indeed prevents the process!?

And we answer: The Rabbis hold that

the burnt offering does not require an exclusion

because it is not indispensable, for

it is merely a gift

and nowhere effects atonement, and it is obvious that it is not indispensable; but Rabbi Yishmael holds that the burnt offering is not merely a gift.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason of the Rabbis

who hold that the guilt offering is not indispensable?

And we explain:

as it is taught: “

You shall set apart for the Lord

the days of his naziriteship, and he shall bring a yearling sheep as a guilt offering

what does this teach?”

Since we find that all guilt offerings mentioned in the Torah are indispensable, one might think that this one, too, is indispensable.