Nazir 19a (יט.) — the Talmud in English

The verse states: “

and he shall undertake naziriteship and bring”

even though he did not bring

his guilt-offering,

he undertook naziriteship

that is, the status of pure naziriteship took effect upon him.

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

and he shall undertake naziriteship and bring”—

when did he undertake naziriteship? When he brought.

Who is the tanna for that which the Sages taught

who is the tanna among those mentioned who taught the following beraita:

A woman who took a nazirite vow and became impure,

and set aside for her impurity-offering two doves, one as a sin-offering and one as a burnt-offering, and also an animal as a guilt-offering,

and afterward her husband annulled her vow,

she

brings

the

bird sin-offering

that she had set aside,

but does not bring

the

bird burnt-offering.

She likewise does not bring her guilt-offering, as the Gemara proceeds to explain the reason.

Rav Hisda said: It is Rabbi Yishmael

son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka

who holds

that the burnt-offering is not a gift.

For according to the Rabbis, who hold that the burnt-offering is a gift, there could be no reason for her not to bring the burnt-offering that she had set aside, since it is not an unconsecrated offering in the Temple courtyard: she can always bring it as a gift. Necessarily, then, the burnt-offering is not a gift, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka. The Gemara now explains the fundamental reason for the beraita: She brings the bird sin-offering but does not bring the bird burnt-offering since it is not a gift.

What does

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, who is the tanna of the beraita, as the Gemara explained,

hold?! If he holds: “

The husband uproots”

the naziriteship retroactively, so that it is as though she had never been a nazirite—

then all her obligations resulting from the naziriteship are automatically nullified, and

she should not bring the bird sin-offering either

she should not bring even the bird sin-offering, since she is not an impure nazirite who brings a bird sin-offering.

And

if he holds, Rabbi Yishmael,

that the

husband severs

the naziriteship from that point forward and does not uproot it retroactively, and we therefore still regard her as a nazirite who became impure, which is why she brings her sin-offering—

then

the bird burnt-offering

and the guilt-offering

should also be brought

she should also bring the bird burnt-offering, and likewise the guilt-offering. For although the burnt-offering is not a gift, nevertheless it is certainly no less required than the bird sin-offering, which she must bring because she is a nazirite who became impure?!

The Gemara explains:

Actually, he holds

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, that the

husband uproots

the naziriteship retroactively, as though she had never been a nazirite, and therefore she does not bring her burnt-offering or her guilt-offering; but she does bring her sin-offering—

and

because

Rabbi Yishmael

son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka

agrees with Rabbi Elazar Ha-Kappar, who holds that a nazirite is a sinner because he afflicted himself by abstaining from wine, and the offerings are brought for that reason. Thus, although her husband annulled her vow and uprooted the naziriteship retroactively, so that according to the fundamental law she certainly should not bring a sin-offering, she nevertheless has a tenuous reason to bring one, since in the end she did afflict herself by abstaining from wine. Therefore:

The bird sin-offering, which we find is brought even when there is no fully established reason to bring it, since at times it is brought even in a case of uncertainty, is brought even when the naziriteship was uprooted retroactively, since there is at least some reason for doing so, because she afflicted herself by abstaining from wine.

But she does not bring the bird burnt-offering or the guilt-offering,

since the naziriteship was uprooted retroactively.

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Elazar Ha-Kappar the son

the foremost sage of his generation

says:

What does the verse state

with regard to a nazirite who became impure: “

And he shall make atonement for him for what he sinned by reason of the dead”?

The expression “by reason of the dead” implies that he sinned with regard to a human being,

and with regard to which soul

of a human being

did he commit this sin!?

Rather, he afflicted himself by abstaining from wine.

And

from here you learn by means of a

kal va-chomer

not to sit in fasting:

If this one,

the nazirite,

who afflicted himself only by abstaining from wine is called a sinner,

as it is stated, “for what he sinned,”

one who afflicts himself by abstaining from everything, all the more so

is called a sinner.

The Gemara is astonished:

But “

for what he sinned by reason of the dead”

is written with regard to an impure nazirite, whereas we—

that is, Rabbi Elazar Ha-Kappar—

are speaking even of a pure nazirite, and he said that even a pure nazirite is a sinner?!

That is to say: If Rabbi Elazar Ha-Kappar explained the sin in this manner, it applies equally to a pure nazirite, and the Torah should not have written this expression in the passage concerning a nazirite who became impure. Necessarily, then, it refers to another sin that applies to an impure nazirite but not to a pure nazirite.

The Gemara explains:

Rabbi Elazar Ha-Kappar holds: A pure nazirite is also a sinner; and this is the reason it is written “for what he sinned by reason of the dead”

with regard to an impure nazirite: Since he repeated the sin,

“for what he sinned by reason of the dead,”

as he sinned again,

because he was not careful to avoid ritual impurity, thereby prolonging his naziriteship and his abstention from wine.

We learned in the Mishna:

If he left and entered, those days count toward his tally

and he brings an impurity-offering.

The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning that which it

teaches

in our Mishna: If he left and entered,

they count for him

the seventh day

toward his tally of pure naziriteship. That is, once he leaves, he begins counting pure naziriteship:

But

is it

because he left

the cemetery

that naziriteship takes effect upon him!?

He still needs to become pure, and as long as he is impure he cannot count pure naziriteship.

Shmuel said: This is referring to a case in which he left, had the sprinkling performed, performed the second sprinkling, and immersed,

and became pure from his ritual impurity. Since he does not need an impurity-offering, the naziriteship takes effect upon him.

The Gemara nevertheless raises a further difficulty concerning the wording of the Mishna: If he left “and entered”

rather,

only if

he entered does the day count toward his tally,

but

if he did not enter, the day does not count toward his tally. Yet the opposite should be true: If he did not reenter the cemetery after becoming pure, then certainly the seventh day should count toward his tally!?

The Gemara explains:

It is not necessary—

this is what it means; it is not necessary

that if he

left

and did not reenter, the seventh day counts toward his tally, since he practiced naziriteship from the middle of the day until its end, and “a part of the day is like the entire day”—

but even

if he

entered

the cemetery on that day, so that he practiced naziriteship for only half the day, even so

the day counts toward his tally,

since even half the day is like the entire day.

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav,

who was their teacher:

Why did you not explain these matters to us

why did you not explain it to us in this manner?!

He said to them,

Rav:

When I said

to myself,

perhaps you do not need it

because I said to myself that you did not need me for this, as you would understand it on your own!

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says: Not on that very day

on which he began counting pure naziriteship,

as it is stated: “

And the first days shall fall”

until there are first days. Ulla said: Rabbi Eliezer stated this

that there is no interruption of the naziriteship and no impurity-offering unless two days of pure naziriteship have elapsed

only with regard to one who became impure and then undertook naziriteship,

and became pure, for he does not interrupt his naziriteship and bring an offering until two days of pure naziriteship have elapsed—

but with regard to a pure nazirite who became impure,

after accepting naziriteship,

even if

he counted only

one day

of his naziriteship and became impure, he

interrupts

that count and brings an impurity-offering.