Nazir 44a — the Talmud in English

It could be said that Scripture permitted him to become impure for the spinal column, the skull, and the majority of the structure and the majority of the number only in the case of his sister, but

but

he may not become impure for the spinal column and the skull, and for the majority of the structure and the majority of the number of

other relatives

? -

You say [

say it yourself]:

Just as his sister is distinguished, in that his obligation is dependent upon her body [

for he is obligated to bury her],

and he becomes impure for the spinal column and the skull, and for the majority of her structure and the majority of her number,

so too every

relative

whose body is dependent upon him,

he

becomes impure for the spinal column and the skull

of that relative,

and for the majority of its structure and the majority of its number.

We have thus learned that he becomes impure for the majority of the structure or the majority of the number of all the 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 Rabbi Judah’s view.

And

if

Rav—

as Rav Hisda said in his name—

said, in accordance with this tanna.

For it was taught:

An incident occurred: Rabbi Zadok’s father died

who was a priest—

in Ginzak [

a place-name],

and they came and informed him

Rabbi Isaac

after three years

since his father had died,

and

Rabbi Isaac

came and asked Rabbi Joshua 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 lacking,”

and it is impossible that by this time nothing is lacking from him.

Mishna:

Three categories are forbidden to a nazirite: impurity, shaving, and that which comes from the vine.

a.

There is a stringency with impurity and shaving over that which comes from the vine: impurity and shaving—

if he became impure or was shaved—

invalidate

the naziriteship,

whereas that which comes from the vine does not invalidate it,

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

b.

There is a stringency with that which comes from the vine over impurity and shaving:

For that which comes from the vine was not permitted in any respect

even in the case of mitzva wine: if one swore an oath, “I shall drink,” and afterward said, “I am hereby a nazirite,” the naziriteship takes effect upon the oath, and he is forbidden to drink wine.

And

if

impurity and shaving were permitted in some respect through mitzva shaving

of a leprous nazirite,

and through an unattended corpse.

c.

And there is a stringency with impurity over shaving:

For impurity invalidates everything [

all the days of naziriteship that he counted],

and one is liable to bring a sacrifice for it

as it is stated in the section concerning the nazirite

; whereas shaving invalidates only thirty

days,

and one is not liable to bring a sacrifice for it.

Gemara:

And the Gemara discusses all the laws stated in the Mishna—

a.

And impurity was not permitted in some respect

in the case of an unattended corpse—

from

a kal va-chomer from wine,

which was not permitted in any respect, even in the case of mitzva wine!?

And this is what we learn by a kal va-chomer:

And just as wine, which does not invalidate—

was not permitted in any respect

in the case of mitzva wine,

impurity, which invalidates—

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

in the case of an unattended corpse!?

The verse therefore states: “

For his father and for his mother he shall not become impure,”

to teach:

but he does become impure for an unattended corpse,

and the exposition is explained below, page 48a.

b.

And wine was permitted in some respect

in the case of mitzva wine, from

a kal va-chomer from impurity

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

And this is what we learn:

Just as impurity, which invalidates—

was permitted in some respect, is it not logical that wine, which does not invalidate, should be permitted in some respect!?

The verse says: “

From wine and strong drink he shall abstain,”

to teach:

to forbid mitzva wine

of an oath

like

the wine of

permission.

c.

And wine should invalidate everything

from

a kal va-chomer from impurity

which invalidates!? And this is what we learn:

Just as impurity, which was permitted in some respect—

invalidates everything, wine, which was not permitted in any respect—

all the more so should it invalidate!?

The verse says: “

And the former days shall fall, because his consecration was impure,”

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

impurity invalidates, whereas 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 what we learn:

And just as impurity, with which the one who renders impure was not made like the one rendered impure,

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

invalidates everything,

shaving, with which the one who shaves was made like the one shaved,

for even one who shaves a nazirite transgresses a negative commandment, as we derive below,

is it not logical that it should invalidate everything!?

The verse says: “

And the former days shall fall, because his consecration was impure,”

so we have learned:

impurity invalidates everything, whereas shaving does not invalidate everything.

e.

And with impurity the one who renders impure should be made like the one rendered impure, a kal

va-chomer from shaving,

for even one who shaves a nazirite transgresses a negative commandment!?

And this is what we learn:

And just as shaving, which invalidates only thirty—

the one who shaves was made like the one shaved, impurity, which invalidates everything, is it not logical that the one who renders impure should be made like the one rendered impure!?

The verse says: “

And when a person dies suddenly beside him

and renders impure the head of his consecration,”

the one who renders impure

it

the head of his consecration

is the one whom Scripture warned, but not others, since Scripture did not say: “and he renders impure for him the head of his consecration.”

f.

And with shaving the one who shaves should not be made like the one shaved

to transgress a negative commandment,

a kal va-chomer from impurity,

for one who renders impure does not transgress a negative commandment!

And this is what we learn:

And just as impurity, which invalidates everything, did not have the one who renders impure made like the one rendered impure, shaving, which invalidates only thirty days, all the more so should the one who shaves not be made

with it

like the one shaved!?

The verse says: “

A razor shall not pass over his head.”

Read it in it: “

He shall not pass over”

and “

another shall not pass it over for him.”

g.

And shaving should not be permitted in some respect

in mitzva shaving of a leper, from

a kal va-chomer from wine!?

And this is what we learn:

And just as wine, which does not invalidate—

was not permitted in any respect, shaving, which invalidates, is it not logical that it should not be permitted in any respect!?

The verse says

concerning a leper: “And he shall shave all his hair, the

head,”

and the Merciful One said

further concerning a leper: “And he shall shave all his hair, the head, and his

beard,”

to teach that even a leprous nazirite shaves his head.

h.

And shaving should not invalidate at all,

from

a kal va-chomer from wine!?

And this is what we learn:

And just as wine, which was not permitted in any respect, does not invalidate, shaving, which was permitted in some respect, is it not logical that it should not invalidate!?

We require hair growth, and there is none.

i.

And wine should invalidate thirty days

from

a kal va-chomer from shaving!?

And this is what we learn:

And just as shaving, which was permitted in some respect, invalidates, wine, which was not permitted in any respect, is it not logical that it should 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, behold, his hair remains [

for his hair remains and is fit for shaving].