Nazir 19a — the Talmud in English

The verse states: "

and he shall consecrate himself and bring"

even though he did not bring

his guilt-offering,

he has consecrated himself

that is: the naziriteship of purity has taken effect.

Rabbi Ishmael, the son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, says: "

and he shall consecrate himself and bring"—

when did he consecrate himself? When he brought.

Who is the tanna for this which the Sages taught

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

A woman who vowed to be a nazirite and became impure,

and designated for her impurity-offering two birds, one a sin-offering and one a burnt-offering, and likewise an animal for a guilt-offering,

and afterward her husband annulled her vow,

she

brings

the

bird sin-offering

that she had designated,

but does not bring

the

bird burnt-offering.

And likewise she does not bring her guilt-offering, as the reason is explained and proceeds.

Rav Hisda: Rabbi Ishmael

the son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka

is the one,

for he holds that a burnt-offering is not a gift—

For according to the Rabbis, who hold that the burnt-offering is a gift, there can be no reason that she should not bring the burnt-offering, since it is not an unconsecrated animal in the Temple courtyard, for she can always bring a gift; and necessarily the burnt-offering is not a gift, in accordance with Rabbi Ishmael, the son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka. And here the Gemara explains the essential reason for the beraita: that she brings the bird sin-offering and does not bring the bird burnt-offering, since it is not a gift.

What does he hold,

Rabbi Ishmael, the son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, who is the tanna of the beraita, as the Gemara explained?!

If he holds: "

the husband completely uproots"

the naziriteship retroactively, and it turns out that she was as though she had never been a nazirite—

If so, all her obligations arising from the naziriteship have consequently been uprooted, 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 Ishmael, that the

husband cuts off

from this point onward and does not uproot retroactively, and we still treat her as a nazirite who became impure, and therefore she brings her sin-offering—

If so,

the bird burnt-offering

and guilt-offering

should also be brought

she should also bring the bird burnt-offering, and likewise the guilt-offering; for even though the burnt-offering is not a gift, nevertheless it is no less than the bird sin-offering, which she must bring since she is a nazirite who became impure?!

And we explain:

actually, he holds

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

husband completely uproots

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

And

because

Rabbi Ishmael

the son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka

agrees with Rabbi Eleazar ha-Kappar,

that the nazirite is a sinner because he afflicted himself by abstaining from wine, and for this reason the offerings come; it follows that even though her husband annulled her vow and uprooted the naziriteship retroactively, and according to the essential law she certainly should not bring a sin-offering, nevertheless she does have a weak reason to bring it, since in the end she afflicted herself by abstaining from wine, and therefore:

The bird sin-offering, which we find is brought even when there is no complete reason to bring it—for it sometimes comes even in a case of doubt—is brought even when the naziriteship was uprooted retroactively, since there is at least some reason, 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: Rabbi Eleazar ha-Kappar, the son of Rabbi

the greatest in his generation

says:

What does the verse state concerning a nazirite who became impure: "

and he shall make atonement for him for that wherein he sinned concerning the dead"

and he shall make atonement for him for that wherein he sinned concerning the dead"

and the expression "concerning the dead" implies that he sinned concerning a human life,

and concerning which life

of a human being

did this one sin!?

Rather, because he afflicted himself by abstaining from wine.

And

from here you learn by

kal va-chomer

not to sit in a fast:

And what of this one,

the nazirite,

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

as it is said, "that wherein he sinned,"

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

that he is called a sinner.

The Gemara is astonished:

But "

that wherein he sinned concerning the dead"

is written concerning an impure nazirite, whereas we—

that is, Rabbi Eleazar ha-Kappar—

are speaking even of a pure nazirite,

for he said that even a pure nazirite is a sinner?!

That is: If Rabbi Eleazar ha-Kappar explained the sin in this way, it applies also to a pure nazirite, and the Torah should not have written this in the section of the nazirite who became impure; necessarily, it is another sin that applies to an impure nazirite but not to a pure nazirite.

And we explain:

Rabbi Eleazar ha-Kappar holds: a pure nazirite is also a sinner, and this is the reason that it is written "

that wherein he sinned concerning the dead"

concerning an impure nazirite: since he repeated the sin,

for he was not careful concerning impurity and prolonged his naziriteship and his affliction from wine.

We learned in the Mishna:

He went out and entered, they count for him in the count

and he brings an impurity-offering:

And the Gemara is astonished concerning that which it

teaches

in our Mishna: "He went out and entered,"

they count for him

the seventh day

in the count"

of the naziriteship of purity; that is: since he went out, he begins counting the naziriteship of purity:

But

because he went out

from the cemetery,

does naziriteship take effect upon him!?

For he must become pure, and as long as he is impure he cannot count naziriteship of purity.

Shemuel said: This is referring to a case where he went out, was sprinkled, was sprinkled again, and immersed

and became pure from his impurity; and since he does not require an impurity-offering, the naziriteship takes effect upon him.

We still raise a difficulty concerning the wording of the Mishna: He went out "and entered" [the cemetery], they count for him in the count;

rather,

only if

he entered is it that they count for him in the count,

but

if he did not enter, they do not count for him in the count; yet, on the contrary, if he did not enter the cemetery after becoming pure, all the more so the seventh day should count for him in the count!?

Но ведь наоборот: если после очищения он не вошёл на кладбище, тем более седьмой день должен засчитываться ему в счёт?!

And we explain: "

It is not necessary"

he said; it is not necessary

that if he

went out

and did not enter, the seventh day counts for him in the count, since he practiced naziriteship from the middle of the day until its end, and "part of the day is like the whole day"—

but even

if he

entered

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

they count for him in the count,

for even the middle of the day is like the whole 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 to us in this manner?!

He said to them,

Rav: Because

I said

in my heart:

perhaps you do not need it

for I said in my heart that you do not need me for this, since you would know it yourselves!

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says: Not on that very day

on which he began counting the naziriteship of purity,

as it is stated "

and the first days shall fall away"—

until there are first days: Ulla said: Rabbi Eliezer spoke

that there is no interruption and no impurity-offering if two days of naziriteship of purity have not passed—

only concerning one who was impure and undertook naziriteship

and became pure, that he does not interrupt and bring an offering until two days have passed from the naziriteship of purity—

but concerning a pure nazirite who became impure,

after accepting naziriteship,

even if

he counted only

one day

of his naziriteship and became impure, he

interrupts

it and brings an impurity-offering.