Nazir 46a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Shimon says:

Once one of the bloods

of the offerings

has been sprinkled on him, the nazirite is permitted to drink wine and become impure through contact with the dead.

Gemara: The Gemara, the Talmudic discussion of the Mishna, asks:

The Sages taught:

It is written in the passage concerning the nazirite: “

And afterward the nazirite may drink wine.”

And this means:

after

all

the acts

[mentioned in the Torah in the passage concerning the nazirite’s purification haircut]

in their entirety—

namely, bringing all the offerings, the haircut, and the waving—

the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

And the Sages say:

Even

after a single act,

such as the sprinkling of the blood of one of the offerings. And the Gemara explains:

What is the reasoning of the Sages?

Doesn’t the plain meaning of the verse indicate that the nazirite may drink wine only after all the acts in their entirety?

Because

here it is written: “

And afterward the nazirite may drink wine”—

and there it is written: “

He shall place them on the palms of the nazirite,

after he shaves his consecrated hair”—

And we derive a comparison based on the identical expression, “after, after”:

Just as

in

that passage—

concerning the waving—

after a single act,

for the verse mentions only the haircut, which is a single act,

so too here—

concerning permitting the nazirite to drink wine—

after a single act,

namely, one of the acts mentioned in the passage concerning the nazirite.

And we challenge this: Doesn’t “after he shaves his consecrated hair” necessarily mean after the offerings and the haircut, since the haircut is written in the Torah after the sacrificial service?

And if so,

If so, say

that it means only

until both are present

[until there are both the offerings and the haircut]?

And we answer:

If so, why do we need the comparison based on the identical expression

[if that is the case, why was the comparison necessary]?

Rav said:

The waving

of the foreleg cooked in water from the peace offering ram, and the waving of the bread,

in the case of a nazirite, is indispensable

for permitting him to drink wine and become impure through contact with the dead.

And we challenge this:

According to whose view

[according to the view of the Sages or according to the view of Rabbi Eliezer] did Rav say that the waving is indispensable?

If you say

that

according to the Sages,

who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer and permit him after a single act—

that cannot be said.

For if

the haircut—

which is performed on the nazirite’s body—

the Sages say

that it

is not indispensable, then the waving—

which does not prevent atonement anywhere—

need one ask

whether it is not indispensable?

Rather,

perhaps you might say that

according to Rabbi Eliezer

Rav said that the waving is indispensable—

but

it is obvious

that this is what Rabbi Eliezer holds, and Rav did not need to state it!

For

Rabbi Eliezer said: “

After all the acts,”

including the waving!

And we answer:

Lest you say,

perhaps,

since

the waving

with regard to atonement

is merely in the category of

a remnant

of a commandment

itself,

and therefore, even if it is not performed, it does not prevent atonement, then

here too

we might say that it

does not prevent

the nazirite from becoming permitted from all the prohibitions of naziriteship.

Rav teaches us

that with regard to permitting the nazirite to drink wine, the waving is indeed indispensable.