Nazir 18b — the Talmud in English

And

“on that day”—

which the Torah stated—

why do I need it!?

Rather, necessarily:

if

“on that day”

does not refer to the eighth

—for it has already been stated, “and he shall effect atonement for him,” and afterward, “and he shall consecrate his head”—

make it refer to the seventh.

And we challenge this:

But Rabbi too—does the verse not write

“on that day”?

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

And we explain:

Rabbi can say to you:

That phrase came for this purpose

[the verse came for this],

to tell you:

once the “day in question” arrived, which is the eighth day, he begins counting his purity naziriteship

even though

he still

has not brought his offerings.

And to teach you that you should not say: It is written, “and he shall effect atonement for him for the sin that he committed through the dead,” and afterward, “and he shall consecrate his head,” implying that first he effects atonement and afterward counts purity naziriteship. Therefore it teaches us “on that day”—that is, the day on which he brings his offerings—that he begins counting 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 beginning of purity naziriteship], the Gemara returns to the words of Rav Hisda, who explained the Mishna in Keritot as [following the opinion of] Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda, and challenges him: And what compels Rav Hisda

Since the Gemara has explained that according to Rabbi the offerings themselves do not prevent the counting from beginning, the Gemara returns to the statement of Rav Ḥisda, who explained that the Mishna in Tractate Karetot follows the view of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and raises a difficulty against him:

[what forced him]

to establish it

as that Mishna

according to Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda

,

and because according to Rabbi it is impossible for one impurity to occur after the beginning of the purity naziriteship of the preceding impurity unless the time fit for bringing an offering had already arrived for him in regard to the first impurity—for the purity naziriteship takes effect only at the time of bringing the offering on the eighth day—

But 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 of bringing his offerings, this time precedes the time fit for bringing an offering. For the purity naziriteship begins on the night of the eighth day, since the night follows the day that comes after it, whereas the time fit for bringing an offering is only in the morning of the day, since offerings are not sacrificed at night. If so:

Let Rav Hisda establish it

[let Rav Hisda establish that Mishna]

as, for example, he became impure

two times

on the night of the eighth

of his preceding impurity,

and it is Rabbi’s [view]!?

It follows that every impurity occurred after the purity naziriteship had taken effect, which is at night, and before the time fit for bringing an offering had arrived in regard to the preceding impurity, which is only during the day.

And

since Rav Hisda did not establish it

according to Rabbi,

let us say

[shall we say] that

Rav Hisda holds:

Rav Hisda holds that

the night—

which prevents him from bringing an offering—

is not

a state of “lacking time”

for him,

so that the night is considered a time when the time fit for bringing an offering had not yet arrived!?

That is to say: Since, from the perspective of the naziriteship, the time for bringing the offering had already arrived on the night of the eighth day, which is “the eighth day,” but from another perspective he cannot bring an offering because offerings are sacrificed only during the day, the beginning of the night is therefore considered a time fit for bringing an offering. If so, this time overlaps with the time when the purity naziriteship takes effect, and the impurity that occurs after this time occurs after the time fit for bringing an offering.

He said

[he rejected this,]

Rav Adda bar Ahava:

Do not prove from Rav Hisda’s words that the night is not a state of lacking time, because

these depend on one another

[the time when the purity naziriteship takes effect depends on the time fit for bringing an offering; the time of one is the same as the time of the other]—

That is to say: The time when he begins counting the purity naziriteship does not depend on “the eighth day,” so that one might say: Once the eighth day has arrived, he counts purity naziriteship, whereas the “time fit for bringing an offering” has not yet arrived because the night is a state of lacking time; and the Mishna in Keritot is according to Rabbi.

Rather, the time when the purity naziriteship begins depends on the time fit for bringing an offering, and the times of these two overlap.

It follows that

if you say:

the night is a state of lacking time,

when is it fit for an offering

—from when is he fit to bring an offering, so that that time will be “the time fit for bringing an offering”—

in the morning

[of the eighth day]. If so,

the naziriteship

of purity

also does not take effect until the morning

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

And if you say

the night is not a state of lacking time,

and the “time fit for bringing an offering” is from the evening,

the purity naziriteship takes effect from the evening

[from the evening].

Therefore, according to Rabbi, you will never find that the purity naziriteship of the first [impurity] takes effect while the time fit for bringing an offering has not yet 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

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

and he again became impure on the seventh

in regard to the second impurity,

he brings only one offering,

since the time fit for bringing an offering, which is only on the eighth day, had not yet arrived.

But

if he became impure on the eighth

in regard to the first impurity [and even before he began bringing his offerings], when the purity naziriteship had already begun,

and he again became impure on the eighth

in regard to the second impurity,

he brings an offering for each and every one,

because the time fit for bringing an offering had already arrived.

And he begins

every nazir 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, until he brings his sin-offering,

because the Sages

hold: Before he has brought his sin-offering, he does not count purity naziriteship. It follows that the second impurity is 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 brought his sin-offering

for the second impurity,

and became impure

a third time, he

brings an offering

[those offerings that he has still not brought]

for each and every one,

because the purity naziriteship begins after bringing the sin-offering, and he becomes liable for an offering for all three impurities. Since the time fit for bringing 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

purity naziriteship, since the guilt-offering does not prevent purity naziriteship from taking effect.

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

Just as his sin-offering prevents him

from counting purity naziriteship until he brings it,

so his guilt-offering prevents him

from counting purity naziriteship until he brings it.

And we challenge this:

Granted, according to Rabbi Eliezer,

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

the verse says:

“And he shall consecrate his head on that day,

and he shall be a nazirite for 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 to say: even though the day fit for bringing his offerings has not arrived.

And

even for

the Sages,

who hold that his sin-offering prevents him, it is satisfactory 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 relevant matter].

But Rabbi Yishmael

[son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka], who holds that even his guilt-offering prevents him—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 through the dead, and he shall consecrate his head. And he shall be a nazirite for 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 learn: even though he has not brought his guilt-offering? Perhaps the verse came only to exclude the burnt-offering, whereas the guilt-offering indeed prevents [purity naziriteship from taking effect]!?

And we answer: The Rabbis hold that

an olah does not require exclusion

, since it does not impede, because

it is merely a gift

and nowhere does it effect atonement, and it is obvious that it does not impede; but Rabbi Ishmael holds that an olah is not merely a gift.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason of the Rabbis

, who hold that the asham does not impede?

And we explain:

For it was taught:

“And he shall set apart for the Lord

the days of his naziriteship, and he shall bring a year-old male lamb as an asham”

What is the purpose of stating this?

Since we find that all ashamot in the Torah impede, one might have thought that this one, too, impedes.