Nazir 44a (מד.) — the Talmud in English

One might have thought:

The Torah permitted him to become impure through the spine, skull, majority of the bones, and majority of the limbs only in the case of his sister; however,

he may not become impure through the spine, skull, majority of the bones, or majority of the limbs of

other relatives,

either.

You say

say it yourself]:

Just as his sister is distinguished in that his physical obligation is dependent upon her

he is obligated to bury her],

and he becomes impure through her spine, skull, majority of her bones, and majority of her limbs,

so too, every

relative

whose burial is his obligation,

he

becomes impure through his spine and skull

of that relative,

and through the majority of his bones and the majority of his limbs.

We have therefore learned that he becomes impure through the majority of the bones or the majority of the limbs of all relatives, whereas Rav said that even if only his father’s head was severed, he does not become impure for him!?

And we answer:

That

beraita

also—

it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

And

if

Rav

as Rav Ḥisda stated in his name—

said in accordance with this tanna,

as it was taught:

It once happened that Rabbi Tzadok’s father died,

who was a kohen,

in Ginzak

a place],

and they came and informed

Rabbi Yitzḥak

after three years

had passed since his father’s death.

And

Rabbi Yitzḥak

came and asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Elisha and the four Elders who were with him

whether he was permitted to become impure for him,

and they said

to him: “

For his father

when he is whole, but not when he is incomplete,”

and it is impossible that by this time nothing of him is missing.

Mishna:

There are three categories that are forbidden to a nazirite: ritual impurity, shaving, and products of the grapevine.

a.

There is a stringency with regard to impurity and shaving over products of the grapevine: impurity and shaving—

if he became impure or was shaved—

invalidate

his naziriteship,

whereas products of the grapevine do not invalidate it,

for one who drinks wine during his naziriteship does not invalidate any of the days of his naziriteship.

b.

There is a stringency with regard to products of the grapevine over impurity and shaving:

Products of the grapevine are not permitted in any circumstance

even in the case of wine associated with a mitzva. For if one swore, “I shall drink,” and then said, “I am a nazirite,” the naziriteship takes effect upon the oath and he is forbidden to drink wine.

And

if

impurity and shaving were permitted in certain circumstances, in the case of the mitzva shaving

of a nazirite afflicted with tzara’at,

and in the case of an unattended corpse.

c.

And there is a stringency with regard to impurity over shaving:

Impurity invalidates everything

all the days of naziriteship that he counted],

and one is liable to bring an offering for it,

as stated in the passage concerning a nazirite;

whereas shaving invalidates only thirty

days,

and one is not liable to bring an offering for it.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses all the laws stated in the Mishna—

a.

And impurity should not be permitted in any circumstance

in the case of an unattended corpse—

from

a kal va-chomer from wine,

which is not permitted in any circumstance, even in the case of wine associated with a mitzva!?

And this is how the kal va-chomer is derived:

And if wine, which does not invalidate—

is not permitted in any circumstance

in the case of wine associated with a mitzva—

impurity, which invalidates—

is it not logical that it should not be permitted in any circumstance

in the case of an unattended corpse!?

The verse states: “

For his father or his mother he shall not become impure,”

to teach:

but he does become impure for an unattended corpse, as explained below, on page 48a.

The exposition is explained below, on page 48a.

b.

And wine should be permitted in certain circumstances

in the case of wine associated with a mitzva, from

a kal va-chomer from impurity,

which is permitted in the case of an unattended corpse!?

And this is how it is derived:

Just as impurity, which invalidates,

is permitted in certain circumstances, so wine, which does not invalidate, should logically be permitted in certain circumstances!?

The verse says: “

From wine and strong drink he shall abstain,”

to teach:

to prohibit wine associated with a mitzva

of an oath

like

ordinary

wine.

c.

And wine should invalidate everything

from

a kal va-chomer from impurity,

which invalidates!? And this is how it is derived:

Just as impurity, which is permitted in certain circumstances,

invalidates everything, so wine, which is not permitted in any circumstance—

all the more so should it invalidate!?

The verse says: “

And the first days shall fall away because his consecration became impure,”

and the verse did not need to add “because his consecration became impure,” except to teach:

impurity invalidates, but wine does not invalidate.

d.

And shaving should invalidate everything

and not only thirty days],

by a kal va-chomer from impurity!?

And this is how it would be derived:

And this is how it is derived:

And if impurity, in which the one who renders impure is not treated like the one rendered impure,

for one who renders a nazirite impure does not violate a negative commandment—

invalidates everything,

shaving, in which the one who shaves is treated like the one being shaved,

since even one who shaves a nazirite violates a negative commandment, as we will derive below,

is it not logical that it should invalidate everything!?

The verse says: “

And the first days shall fall away because his consecration became impure,”

so we have learned:

impurity invalidates everything, but shaving does not invalidate everything.

e.

And with regard to impurity, the one who renders impure should be treated like the one rendered impure, by a

kal va-chomer from shaving,

since even one who shaves a nazirite violates a negative commandment!?

And this is how it is derived:

And if shaving, which invalidates only thirty—

the one who shaves is treated like the one being shaved, then impurity, which invalidates everything, should logically treat the one who renders impure like the one rendered impure!?

The verse says: “

And if a person dies suddenly beside him

and he renders impure the head of his consecration,”

it is the one who renders impure

the

head of his consecration

whom the Torah warns, but not others, since the verse did not say, “and he renders it impure for him.”

f.

And with regard to shaving, the one who shaves should not be treated like the one being shaved

as violating a negative commandment,

by a kal va-chomer from impurity,

since the one who renders impure does not violate a negative commandment!

And this is how it is derived:

And if impurity, which invalidates everything, does not treat the one who renders impure like the one rendered impure, then shaving, which invalidates only thirty days, all the more so should it not treat

the one who shaves

like the one being shaved!?

The verse says: “

A razor shall not pass over his head.”

Read it as: “

He shall not pass,”

and “

another shall not pass it over him.”

g.

And shaving should not be permitted in any circumstance

in the mitzva shaving of a person afflicted with tzara’at, from

a kal va-chomer from wine!?

And this is how it is derived:

And if wine, which does not invalidate,

is not permitted in any circumstance, then shaving, which invalidates, should logically not be permitted in any circumstance!?

The verse says, with regard to a person afflicted with tzara’at: “And he shall shave all his hair,

including

his head,”

and the Merciful One said

further, with regard to a person afflicted with tzara’at: “And he shall shave all his hair, including his head and

his beard,”

to teach that even a nazirite afflicted with tzara’at shaves his head.

h.

And shaving should not invalidate at all,

from

a kal va-chomer from wine!?

And this is how it is derived:

And if wine, which is not permitted in any circumstance, does not invalidate, then shaving, which is permitted in certain circumstances, should logically not invalidate!?

We require hair growth, and that is absent.

i.

And wine should invalidate thirty days

from

a kal va-chomer from shaving!?

And this is how it is derived:

And if shaving, which is permitted in certain circumstances, invalidates, then wine, which is not permitted in any circumstance, should logically invalidate!?

Is that the reason

after all, the entire reason that shaving invalidates is not]

except because of hair growth,

so that he will have it for mitzva shaving; but

with regard to wine, his hair is already standing

his hair is present and fit for shaving].