Nazir 46a (מו.) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Shimon says:

;

Once one of the bloods

of the offerings

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

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is written in the passage concerning the nazir: “

And afterward the nazir shall drink wine.”

And this means:

after

all

the acts [

mentioned in the Torah in the passage concerning the purification haircut]

in their entirety,

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

the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

According to the method of the Rambam as brought in the Mishna, and as explained in the novellae of Maran R.Y.Z. Halevi, Rabbi Eliezer differed with the Sages in the exposition of the verse. According to Rabbi Eliezer it indeed delays the release from the naziriteship, whereas the Sages who disagree with him derive from a gzera shava that it does not delay except when all the acts are performed. In any event, they agree that "And afterwards the nazir shall drink wine" means after all the acts in general, but that it is only a positive act and does not delay the termination of the naziriteship. And according to what was explained there, Rabbi Eliezer's principal basis is the verse cited in the Yerushalmi: "and the nazir shall shave the head of his consecration" — the Torah attached the naziriteship to his hair. And this verse is, according to Rabbi Eliezer, an explicit indication to "And afterwards the nazir shall drink wine", which indicates delay. Whereas according to the Sages it is only an act of a mitzva.

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?!

For the plain meaning of the verse indicates that the nazir shall drink wine only after all the acts in their entirety!?

Because

here it is written: “

And afterward the nazir shall drink wine”—

And there it is written: “

And he shall place them upon the palms of the nazir,

after he has shaved his consecrated hair”—

And we derive a gzera shava based on the repeated term “after”:

Just as

in

that case—

with regard to the waving—

after a single act,

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

so too here—

with regard to permitting the nazir to drink wine—

after a single act,

namely, one of the acts in the passage concerning the nazir.

And we raise an objection: “After he has shaved his consecrated hair” itself necessarily means after the offerings and the haircut, since the haircut is written in the Torah after the offering procedure—

And if so,

let us say,

say that it is only

when there are both [

when both are present, all the offerings and the haircut]!?

And we answer:

If so, why do I need the gzera shava

if so, why was the gzera shava necessary!?

Rav said:

The waving

of the foreleg from the ram of the peace-offering and the waving of the bread

in the case of a nazir prevent him

from drinking wine and becoming impure through contact with the dead.

And we raise an objection:

According to whose opinion

did Rav say that the waving is preventive

if you say,

if we say

according to the Sages,

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

It is impossible to say this.

For if

the haircut—

which is performed on the nazir's body—

the Sages say that it is

not

preventive, is the waving—

which is not preventive with regard to atonement anywhere—

a matter requiring discussion

that it is not preventive!?

Rather,

perhaps you might say that

according to Rabbi Eliezer

Rav said that the waving is preventive—

But

it is obvious

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

For

Rabbi Eliezer said: “

After all the acts,”

and the waving is included among them!?

And we answer:

Lest you say,

perhaps you might say:

Since

the waving

with regard to atonement

is merely in the category of

the remainder

of a mitzva

itself,

and therefore, even if it was not performed, it does not prevent atonement, if so,

here too

let us say that

it does not prevent

the nazir from becoming permitted from all the prohibitions of nazirite status.

Rav teaches us

that with regard to permitting the nazir to drink wine, the waving is indeed preventive.