Nazir 19b — the Talmud in English

Rava said: What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer

according to Ulla’s method:

For when

the verse says: “

And the first days shall fall

because his naziriteship was impure,”

it implies that at the time when he took the naziriteship he was already impure. And to teach

because he took naziriteship in impurity: therefore he requires two days for invalidation; but a pure nazir who became impure does not require two days.

he must have two days for the impurity to invalidate his count; but a pure nazir who became impure does not require two days.

Abaye raised an objection

to Ulla’s words from that which was taught: One who says: “

I am a nazir for one hundred days,”

and became impure at the beginning of the hundred

on the first day of his naziriteship,

might it be that he invalidates

that day and brings an impurity offering?

The verse says: “

And the first days shall fall,”

until he has

two

first days, and this one does not have

two

first days.

If he became impure at the end of the hundred

on the last day of his naziriteship,

might it be that he invalidates

all the days preceding it and brings an impurity offering? —

The verse says: “

And the first days shall fall.”

And since the verse said “the first” and did not say “and the days shall fall,”

it follows that there are

at the time when he became impure, first days [before he became impure] and

last

[after he became impure, which he has not yet counted];

and this one does not have last days.

If he became impure on day one hundred less one, might it be that he does not invalidate

the days that have already passed? —

The verse says: “

And the first days shall fall,”

it follows that there are last days, and this one has last days—

the day on which he became impure and the hundredth day after it.

And from this beraita the Gemara proves that it is not according to Ulla’s method, for he holds: “Two days” was said only with regard to one who took naziriteship while impure.—

But

behold, this beraita

you cannot say is about one who took naziriteship while impure

[you cannot explain it as referring to one who took naziriteship while impure],

since it teaches: I am a nazir for one hundred days, and became impure at the beginning of the hundred

—he first vowed to be a nazir and only afterward became impure, and was not impure at the time of the beginning of his naziriteship.—

And

nevertheless

it teaches

that he does not invalidate, since it is said, “And the first days shall fall,”

until he has first days

—thus, even a nazir who became impure requires two days for invalidation, contrary to Ulla’s words.

And we conclude: Indeed,

a refutation

of Ulla from this beraita.

He said:

Rabbi Pappa was uncertain

to Abaye

about the interpretation of Rabbi Eliezer’s law, who holds that he requires two first days in order for the law of invalidation and the impurity offering to apply:

These

[these] “

days

first”

that we say

according to Rabbi Eliezer—how are they counted? Is it

that one has gone out and two have begun

[one day has gone out and the second day has begun]? That is, is half the day sufficient, from when he began counting the naziriteship, and another half of the day until he became impure, and this is considered “two first days,” so that one who became impure on the second day of his naziriteship invalidates?

Or perhaps

two half-days are not sufficient, but at least one of the two days must be completely whole.—

If so, he invalidates only when

two have gone out

[when two days have passed from the beginning of the count]

and three have begun

[and the third day has begun]; that is, he invalidates only if he became impure on the third day from the beginning of his naziriteship, since one complete day has already passed in addition to half of the first day or half of the last day.

And the reason for the uncertainty is that with regard to the last days, you will always find one complete day, because the last day is complete, and perhaps the first days must be like the last days.

He did not have it in his hands

[Abaye did not have an answer] to Rabbi Pappa’s uncertainty.

Rabbi Pappa came

before Rabbi Pappa

and asked Rava

[Rabbi Pappa came before Rava and asked him].

He said to him

Rava: “And the first days

shall fall”

is written;

and “shall fall” implies any falling whatsoever, even though there is no complete day here.

And the Gemara explains:

And it was necessary to write “

days,”

which implies two days,

and it was necessary to write

also

“shall fall.”

For if the Merciful One had written “

days”

and had not written “

shall fall,”

but had said: “And he shall sanctify his head on that day, and consecrate to the Lord the days of his naziriteship, and so on, except for the first days”:

I might have said

[I would have said]: He does not invalidate

until two have gone out and three have entered

[two days have passed and the third has entered], like the last days, which are two days, one of which is complete.

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote “

shall fall,”

which implies any falling whatsoever, as Rava expounded.

And if He had written

the Merciful One only “

shall fall,”

and had not written “

days,”

but had said: “And the first shall fall”:

I might have said: Even one

day invalidates; and what is written “shall fall” in the plural does not mean two days in every naziriteship, but individual days in several naziriteships, so that in each naziriteship one day falls.—

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote “

days,”

which implies two days.

a. The Sages decreed impurity upon the land of the nations, and made one decree after another decree: initially they decreed impurity upon one who touches or carries its earth [its solid mass], and then they further decreed impurity even upon its air, as explained in Shabbat 15b. The first decree concerning contact with and carrying a solid mass of the land of the nations also remains in force.

b. The Gemara was uncertain below, 54b, concerning this second decree that they made concerning its air: Did they decree upon everyone who enters his head and most of his body into the air of the land of the nations, even if he does not overarch its solid mass [ground], for example, where a tent separates him from the ground of the land of the nations, because the reason for the decree is so that people should not leave the Land of Israel for outside the Land [and this position is called in the language of the Gemara “they decreed upon it because of its air”]; or did they decree only when his head and most of his body overarch the solid mass of the land of the nations without a tent separating him from the solid mass, because the reason for the decree is the dead buried there, and he is impure only when he overarches them, like the impurity of a corpse [and this position is called in the language of the Gemara “they decreed upon it because of the solid mass”].

c. It is explained in the Mishna below, 54a, that a nazir who enters the land of the nations and becomes impure does not have the days of his impurity counted toward his naziriteship until he becomes pure. In our Mishna, the law of one who takes naziriteship in the land of the nations for that same matter is explained, and the Mishna explains that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel dispute it, with Beit Shammai being lenient, so that part of his days of impurity count toward the count.

Mishna:

One who took naziriteship

outside the Land

for many naziriteships

[more than the thirty days of ordinary naziriteship],

and completed his naziriteship

outside the Land, which is impure with the impurity of the land of the nations—

and afterward came to the Land,

that is, he is required to come to the Land to practice naziriteship in the Land of Israel, which is free of impurity; and Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel dispute how many days of naziriteship he must practice in the Land of Israel when his naziriteship was greater than thirty days:

Beit Shammai say:

It is sufficient for him that he be

a nazir for thirty days

additional, for they did not impose stringency with regard to the impurity of the land of the nations—when he took naziriteship outside the Land—which is rabbinic impurity, except to complete thirty days from the count of his days of naziriteship, the measure of ordinary naziriteship.

And Beit Hillel say: He is

indeed

a nazir from the beginning—that is, he begins counting anew the days of his extended naziriteship, since he practiced naziriteship in impurity, and those days do not count for him by rabbinic law.

то есть начинает заново отсчитывать весь длительный срок назорейства, поскольку соблюдал назорейство в состоянии нечистоты, а эти дни, согласно постановлению Мудрецов, ему не засчитываются.

It happened with Queen Helena, whose son went to war, and she said: “

If my son returns from the war in peace, I shall be a nazirite for seven years,”

and

indeed

her son returned from the war

in peace,

and she was a nazirite for seven years

outside the Land,

and at the end of seven years

of her naziriteship

she went up to the Land.

And Beit Hillel instructed her that she should be a nazirite for another seven years,

in accordance with their position that they said: A nazir from the beginning.

And at the end of seven years

during which she practiced her naziriteship in the Land

she became impure,

and she was required to practice another seven years,

and she was found to be a nazirite

in all

twenty-one years.

Rabbi Judah said: She was a nazirite only for fourteen years,

and its reason will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

It teaches at the beginning

[we learned at the beginning of our Mishna]:

Beit Shammai say: A nazir for thirty days, and Beit Hillel say: A nazir from the beginning:

Shall we say that they disagree about this,

that this is what Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel dispute: Everyone agrees that according to the strict law there is no need to impose stringency with regard to this impurity, which is only rabbinic, except for invalidating thirty days; rather, they dispute whether to be concerned about mistaken people who hold that this impurity is from the Torah, and will come to be lenient even with regard to Torah impurity through this leniency. And the reason for their dispute is:

For Beit Shammai hold: The impurity of the air of the

The impurity of the airspace of

land of the nations is “

because of the air

[the air of the land of the nations]

they decreed upon it.”

It is not because he overarches the ground [solid mass] of the land of the nations; even when he did not overarch it—for example, when there was a tent separating him from the ground—he is impure. From this everyone knows that the impurity of the land of the nations [in all its details, even through contact and carrying] is only rabbinic impurity, for with Torah impurity, since he does not overarch the ground, he would not become impure. If so, they will not come to learn from the impurity of the land of the nations concerning other Torah impurities, to invalidate only thirty days.

Consequently, everyone knows that the impurity of the land of the nations [in all the details of its impurity, even through contact and carrying] is only rabbinic impurity. For with regard to Torah impurity, since he does not overhang the ground, he would not become impure. Therefore, people will not infer from the impurity of the land of the nations to other Torah impurities that one need invalidate only thirty days.