Nazir 19b (יט:) — the Talmud in English

Rava said: What is the reason for Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling

according to Ulla’s approach?

Because

the verse says: “

And the first days shall fall away

because his naziriteship was impure,”

which implies that at the time he undertook naziriteship he was already impure. And this teaches us:

because he undertook naziriteship in a state of impurity,

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 challenged Ulla

with the following beraita: If one says, “

I am a nazir for one hundred days,”

and he became impure at the beginning of the hundred,

on the first day of his naziriteship,

one might have thought that he invalidates

that day and brings an offering for impurity.

The verse states: “

And the first days shall fall away”

until he has

two

first days, but this man does not have

two

first days.

If he became impure at the end of the hundred,

on the last day of his naziriteship,

one might have thought that he invalidates

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

The verse states: “

And the first days shall fall away.”

Since the verse says “the first” rather than merely “and the days shall fall away,”

it follows that there are

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

last days [

after he became impure, which he has not yet counted], but

this man has no last days.

If he became impure on the ninety-ninth day, one might have thought that he does not invalidate

the days that had already elapsed—

The verse states: “

And the first days shall fall away,”

which implies that there are last days, and this man does have last days—

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

And from this beraita the Gemara proves that Ulla’s approach is incorrect, for he maintains that the requirement of “two days” applies only to one who undertook naziriteship while impure—

but

this beraita

cannot be said to concern one who undertook naziriteship while impure

[you cannot interpret it as referring to one who undertook naziriteship while impure],

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

he first undertook naziriteship and only afterward became impure, and was not impure at the beginning of his naziriteship—

and

nevertheless

it teaches

that he does not invalidate his count, because it is stated, “And the first days shall fall away,”

until he has first days.

Thus, even a nazir who became impure requires two days for invalidation, contrary to Ulla’s statement.

And the Gemara concludes: Indeed,

this is a refutation

of Ulla from this beraita.

Rabbi Pappa said:

He was uncertain,

Rabbi Pappa, regarding the meaning of Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling

that two first days are required for the laws of invalidation and an offering for impurity to apply:

These [

these] “

days

first”

that we are discussing

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

that one has elapsed and two begin

[one day has ended and the second day has begun]? That is, is half a day sufficient from the time he began counting his naziriteship, together with the remaining half of the day until he became impure, for this to be considered “two first days”? If so, one who becomes impure on the second day of his naziriteship invalidates his count.

Or perhaps

two half-days are insufficient; rather, at least one of the two days must be entirely complete—

If so, he invalidates his count only when

two have elapsed

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

and three begin

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

The reason for the uncertainty is that with regard to the last days, there is always one complete day, since the last day is complete, and perhaps the first days must be like the last days.

It was not in his possession

[Abaye had no answer in his possession] to Rabbi Pappa’s uncertainty.

Rabbi Pappa came

to

ask Rava

[Rabbi Pappa came before Rava and asked him].

He said to him:

Rava said: “And the first days

shall fall”

is written.

The word “shall fall” implies any kind of falling, even when there is no complete day.

And the Gemara explains:

It was necessary for the Merciful One to write “

days,”

which implies two days, and

it was necessary for the Merciful One to write

also “

shall fall.”

For if the Merciful One had written “

days”

but 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 … apart from the first days”—

I would have said [

I would have thought]: He does not invalidate his count

until two have elapsed and three have begun

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

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote “

shall fall,”

which implies any kind of falling, as Rava explained.

And if

the Merciful One had written only

“shall fall,”

but had not written

“days,”

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

I would have said: Even one

day invalidates his count. And the plural form “shall fall” would not mean two days in every naziriteship, but separate days in several naziriteships, so that in each naziriteship one day falls away—

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote “

days,”

which implies two days.

a. The Sages decreed impurity upon the land of the nations, and issued successive decrees concerning it. Initially, they decreed impurity upon one who touches or carries its soil [its clod], and afterward they added a decree even concerning its airspace, as explained in Shabbat 15b. The initial decree concerning contact with and carrying a clod of the land of the nations remains in force.

b. Later, on page 54b, the Gemara was uncertain with regard to this second decree, by which they decreed impurity upon the airspace: Did they decree impurity upon anyone who enters with his head and the majority of his body into the airspace of the land of the nations, even if he does not overhang its soil [ground], for example, if a tent intervenes between him and the ground of the land of the nations? The reason for the decree would then be that people should not leave Eretz Yisrael for outside the Land; this view is called in the language of the Gemara, “They decreed it because of its airspace.” Or perhaps they decreed impurity only when his head and the majority of his body overhang the soil of the land of the nations without a tent intervening between him and the clod, because the reason for the decree is the dead buried there, and he becomes impure only when he overhangs them, as with other forms of impurity imparted by a corpse. This view is called in the language of the Gemara, “They decreed it because of the clod.”

c. It is explained in the Mishna below, on page 54a, that a nazir who enters the land of the nations and becomes impure does not count the days of his impurity toward his naziriteship until he becomes pure. Our Mishna explains the law concerning one who undertakes naziriteship in the land of the nations for the same matter, and the Mishna explains that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree about it, with Beit Shammai being lenient, holding that some of the days of his impurity count toward his naziriteship.

Mishna:

One who undertook

na​​ziriteship abroad,

a lengthy naziriteship

[more than the thirty days of ordinary naziriteship],

and completed his naziriteship

abroad, which is impure with the impurity of the land of the nations—

and afterward came to the Land,

that is, he must come to the Land to observe naziriteship in Eretz Yisrael, which is free of this impurity. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree as to how many days of naziriteship he must observe in Eretz Yisrael when his naziriteship was longer than thirty days:

Beit Shammai say:

It is sufficient for him to be

a nazir for thirty days

additional days. They did not impose the stringency of the impurity of the land of the nations—when he undertook naziriteship abroad—which is rabbinic impurity, beyond completing thirty days of his naziriteship, the measure of ordinary naziriteship.

And Beit Hillel say: He is

a nazir at the outset,

that is, he begins counting anew the days of his lengthy naziriteship, since he observed naziriteship in a state of impurity, and those days do not count toward his naziriteship by rabbinic decree.

An incident occurred involving Queen Helene, whose son went to war, and she said: “

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

And

indeed

her son returned from the war

safely,

and she was a nazirite for seven years

abroad,

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 view that one is “a nazir at the outset.”

And at the end of seven years

during which she observed naziriteship in the Land,

she became impure,

and was required to observe naziriteship for another seven years,

and she was a nazirite

in all

for twenty-one years.

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

and the reason for his statement will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

It teaches in the first clause

[we learned in the first clause of our Mishna]:

Beit Shammai say: A nazir for thirty days, and Beit Hillel say: A nazir at the outset:

Shall we say that this is the basis of their dispute

—that this is what Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree about? Everyone agrees that, strictly speaking, there is no reason to impose a stringency with regard to this impurity, which is only rabbinic, beyond invalidating thirty days. Rather, they disagree over whether to be concerned about mistaken people who think that this impurity is a Torah impurity and will consequently come to be lenient even with regard to Torah impurity on the basis of this leniency. The basis of their dispute is:

For Beit Shammai maintain:

The impurity of the airspace of

the land of the nations was imposed

“because of the airspace

[the airspace of the land of the nations]

they decreed it,”

and not because he overhangs the ground [the clod] of the land of the nations. Even when he does not overhang it—for example, when a tent separates him from the ground—he is impure.

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.