Nazir 45b (מה:) — the Talmud in English

The reason for the verse is that if the nazirite woman were to shave at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, there would be concern

that they might be incited by her—

the young priests

who are present there. Therefore, she shaves in the countryside, in a secluded place, so that the young priests will not see her.

The Sages said

to Rabbi Shimon Shezuri:

According to your words—

the sota proves otherwise,

meaning: the sota proves that your statement is incorrect:

As it is written concerning her: “

And he shall place her before the Lord,”

meaning that he places her at the Nicanor Gate,

yet we are not concerned that the young priests might be incited by her.

He said to them:

That is not comparable, because

this woman—

the nazirite—

applies eye makeup

to her eyes

and adorns

[braids] her hair.

But

if

this woman—

the sota—

does not apply eye makeup or adorn herself,

but stands there in a disgraceful manner, as we learned [Sota 7b]: “And afterward, he brings a rope made of Egyptian material and ties it above her breasts.”

Mishna:

Our Mishna continues the procedure of the shaving of purity, which the previous Mishna began. That Mishna explained the sacrifices that he brings and when the nazirite’s shaving is performed; the present Mishna now explains what is done with the hair:

After the nazirite has been shaved,

the

nazirite

takes

the

hair of his consecrated head and sends

it

under the pot

[the vessel in which the meat is cooked] of the peace-offering.

But if he shaved in the countryside,

outside Jerusalem,

he did not send it under the pot.

The Meiri wrote in the name of the Tosafot: “If he shaved in the country, he would not place it”—that is, under the pot. In other words, we find the placing only in the case of one who shaved in the Temple courtyard, meaning the Women’s Courtyard, since this is the purpose served by the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.” [The wording of the Tosafot available to us is unclear; see Arzei HaLevanon on this matter, and see carefully at the end of the discussion, “because he shaved in accordance with its requirement,” and the note there.] What the Meiri wrote in their name, that “the country” means outside the Temple, is explicitly explained in the Tosafot available to us to mean outside Jerusalem;; ;

When are these words stated,

that he sends it under the pot?

In the shaving of purity.

But in the shaving of impurity, he did not send it under the pot,

for the verse made the placing of the hair under the pot contingent only upon the shaving of a pure nazirite.

Rabbi Meir says:

Everyone—

whether pure nazirites who shaved in Jerusalem, pure nazirites who shaved in the countryside, or impure nazirites—

sends it under the pot, except for the impure one who

shaved

in the countryside

alone,

for he does not send it under the pot, because his hair is buried.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

The nazirite would take the hair of his consecrated head

and send it under the pot:

The Sages taught:

And afterward

he takes the broth

of the peace-offering

and places it on the hair of his consecrated head, and sends

the hair

under the pot of the peace-offering.

The Rosh wrote: “This is the conclusion of the beraita,” meaning that beforehand the beraita taught the order of all the actions, and concludes: “And afterward, and so on”; ;

And if he sent

the hair

under the pot of the sin-offering or guilt-offering—

it is valid.

a. The Minḥat Ḥinukh, mitzva 377 [section 13 in the new editions], wrote: “It appears that what is stated concerning placing the hair under the sin offering—that he has fulfilled his obligation—means that if he did not place it under the fire at all, he has not fulfilled his obligation. This applies only as an ideal mitzva requirement. But as a matter that invalidates the procedure, even if he did not place it at all, it does not invalidate it, since the entire shaving does not invalidate the process.” It may be inferred from his wording that according to Rabbi Eliezer—below, 46a, who maintains that he may not drink wine until after all the actions—the placing of the hair likewise invalidates the process;; ;

The Gemara raises a difficulty: The beraita is dealing with a pure nazirite, who brings a peace-offering; if so,

is there a guilt-offering for a pure nazirite

[does a pure nazirite have a guilt-offering]!? How, then, did the beraita say that if he sent it under the pot of the guilt-offering, it is valid!?

He said—

he answered—

Rava: This is what it means:

See the Shita Mekubetzet in the name of Rabbi Azriel; the wording there contains textual corruptions.

And if an impure nazirite

sends

the hair of his head

under the pot of the guilt-offering, it is valid.

On a straightforward reading, Rava intends to explain this beraita in accordance with Rabbi Meir in our Mishna, who says that an impure nazirite places the hair under the pot. But see the Shita Mekubetzet in the name of Rabbi Azriel, and in the wording of Maimonides also On a straightforward reading, Rava intends to explain this beraita in accordance with Rabbi Meir in our Mishna, who says that an impure nazirite places the hair under the pot. But see the Shita Mekubetzet in the name of Rabbi Azriel, and see the wording of the Rambam [Nazirite 6:14] and Keren Ora. On a straightforward reading, it appears that ideally he does not place the hair under the pot of the guilt offering. It must therefore mean that he places it under the pot of the sin offering, although it has not been explained why ideally he places it under the pot of the sin offering;; ;

The Gemara explains:

From where are these matters?

From where do we know that he places some of the broth of the peace-offering on the hair before sending it under the pot?

Rava said, the verse states:

“Then he shall take the hair of his consecrated head and place it on the fire

that is under the peace-offering,”

whereas it should have said only: “And place it on the fire that is under the peace-offering.”

The superfluous word “offering” teaches:

From its offering—

it shall be under it

[under the peace-offering there shall be something from the offering]. Necessarily, this refers to broth, since the offering itself cannot be burned while it is fit to be eaten.

We learned in a beraita:

And if he sent it under the pot of the sin-offering or guilt-offering—

it is valid.

The Gemara explains:

What is the reason?

After all, the verse mentions only the fire that is under the peace-offering!?

For

the verse states: “

Offering,”

which is superfluous. The verse could have said, “that is under the peace-offerings”; therefore, it made the word “offering” superfluous in order to teach that every offering is included,

to include the sin-offering

of a pure nazirite

and the guilt-offering

of an impure nazirite.

We challenge this:

But you have already extracted this “

offering”

for the broth

[after all, we have already learned from the superfluous word “offering” that he places some of the broth, as above], so there is no longer any superfluous wording from which to include the sin-offering and guilt-offering!?

We answer:

If so,

if “offering” came only to teach that he places broth,

the verse should say “

from the broth of the peace-offering.”

It should not have mentioned the word “offering,” since he does not place part of the offering itself, but rather its broth.

What is the meaning of “

offering,”

why did the verse use the word “offering”?—

Rather,

infer from it

that it comes

to include the sin-offering and guilt-offering.

But the difficulty remains:

Perhaps the entire word “

offering”

comes only for the sin-offering and guilt-offering

[it comes to include the sin-offering and guilt-offering], and we should not learn from it that he places broth under the offering!?

We answer:

If so, let

the

verse say, “

peace-offerings and offering.”

What is

“the offering of the peace-offering”,

why did the verse juxtapose “under” with “offering”?—

Necessarily,

infer two things

[the two derivations].

The Sages taught:

Everyone,

whether pure or impure,

would send it under the pot.

Except for an impure nazirite who shaved in the countryside, because his hair is buried; these are the words of Rabbi Meir.

This is as he said in our Mishna.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

Rabbi Yehuda’s approach is a third approach, which was not mentioned in our Mishna.

The pure ones, in both places,

in the Temple and in the countryside,

would send it.

This was explained in accordance with the Tosafot here; see what was explained in the note at the end of the beraita.

But

the impure ones, in both places, would not send it.

And the Sages say:

Everyone would not send it under the pot, except for the pure one who

shaved

in the Temple, because it was performed in accordance with its mitzva,

for he shaved in the Temple in accordance with its mitzva.

Mishna:

Our Mishna continues the procedure of the “shaving of purity,” after the preceding mishnayot explained the sacrifices that he brings and the procedure of his shaving; it explains:

If he was cooking the peace-offerings, or scalding them

[cooking them excessively], that is, after the nazirite had put the peace-offerings on to cook, placed his hair under the pot, and their cooking, or scalding, was completed—

Afterward,

the priest would take the foreleg

that

had been cooked from the ram

of the peace-offerings, and the priest would likewise take

one unleavened loaf from the basket,

and one unleavened wafer,

and place them on the nazirite’s palms,

and wave them.

The wording of the Mishna follows the wording of the verse: “The priest shall take the cooked foreleg from the ram, one unleavened cake from the basket, and one unleavened wafer.” This wording implies that the unleavened cake was in the basket, whereas the wafer was not in the basket. This also somewhat follows from the wording of the verse: “And a basket of unleavened cakes of fine flour, cakes mixed with oil, and wafers of unleavened cakes of unleavened cakes spread with oil.” If “a basket of unleavened cakes” referred also to the wafers, the verse should have said: “And a basket of fine-flour unleavened cakes mixed with oil and wafers spread with oil,” and it would not have needed to repeat: “And wafers of of unleavened cakes unleavened cakes spread with oil,” since it had already said, “a basket of unleavened cakes.” But the Rambam [Nazirite 8:1] explains that all the cakes and wafers were in a single vessel. In Kesef Mishne, he cited as the source of the Rambam’s words the verse: “And he shall make the ram a peace offering to the Lord with the basket of unleavened cakes,” meaning that this necessarily refers to all the unleavened cakes that he brings, since from here we learn that slaughtering the peace offering sanctifies the bread. This is what must be said. It was written here in the name of Rabbi Yitzhak Ze’ev Soloveitchik that placing the items on the nazirite’s palms is an independent requirement and is not part of the act of waving. See his proof there. This also follows from the wording of the Rambam—Nazirite 8:5—“Once one of the bloods has been sprinkled on him, he is permitted, even though he did not place them on his palms or wave them.”

The priest places his hands beneath the owner’s hands and waves everything.

And afterward—

after the shaving, the waving, and the sprinkling of the blood of all the sacrifices—

the nazirite is permitted to drink wine and become impure through contact with the dead.

a. Rambam, chapter 9 of The Procedure of the Offerings, halakha 9. b. The Meiri wrote: He likewise waves the breast, the thigh, and the portions offered on the altar [and waves everything together], as it is written: “The priest shall wave them as a wave offering,” and so on, “with the breast of the wave offering and the thigh of the gift offering.” This is all the more so regarding the portions offered on the altar. He mentioned only what is unique in this case compared with other peace offerings. [See Rashi in the Torah, who implies that “with the breast of the wave offering and the thigh of the gift offering” does not continue the phrase “the priest shall wave them””; ;