Nazir 46b — the Talmud in English

And we challenge:

And does it prevent

[is it indeed so, that the waving prevents according to Rabbi Eliezer], even though it is a remnant of a mitzva?

But it was taught:

It is written at the end of the passage of the nazirite:

“This is the law of the nazirite”,

to teach:

whether he has palms,

and can wave, and

whether he does not have palms,

and cannot wave.

And it entered our minds that this is the intention of the beraita: just as when he does not have palms he does not wave, since it is impossible for him to wave, so too, when he has palms, he does not wave, to say that the waving does not prevent.

And necessarily this beraita is according to Rabbi Eliezer, for according to the Sages there is no need to teach us that the waving does not prevent, since it is learned by a kal va-chomer from shaving, which according to the Sages does not prevent.

It is thus explicit that even according to Rabbi Eliezer the waving does not prevent, because it is a remnant of a mitzva; and this is a difficulty against Rav!?

But the Gemara is astonished at the questioner’s understanding of the words of the beraita, that it comes to teach that the waving does not prevent:

And

according to your words:

rather, as for that which was taught: “

This is the law of the nazirite”—

whether he has hair,

and is fit for shaving,

whether he does not have hair

and is not fit for shaving—

is it

likewise,

also here you will explain that the intention of the beraita is

that

shaving

does not prevent!?

But it is impossible to say so, as the Gemara will immediately prove from the beraita below.

And if so, also what they said in the beraita—whether he has palms and whether he does not have palms—the beraita did not come to say that waving does not prevent, but to say: just as when he has palms he must wave, so when he does not have palms he must wave upon his arm.

And the Gemara proves from another beraita that regarding hair, necessarily the beraita does not come to say that shaving does not prevent, just as it does not prevent in the case of a nazirite who is bald, who has no hair:

But it was taught: A nazirite who is bald,

who has no hair at all:

Beit Shammai say: He need not pass a razor over his head.

And Beit Hillel say: He must pass a razor over his head.

And Ravina said: What is “

he need not”

according to Beit Shammai?—

He need not, and he has no remedy!

That is to say: even if he passes a razor over his head, this is not shaving; and according to Rabbi Eliezer he does not emerge from his naziriteship, while according to the Sages he has not fulfilled the mitzva of shaving.

And if so, it follows:

but according to Beit Hillel, he has a remedy,

and if he passes a razor over his head, he has thereby fulfilled the mitzva of shaving.

And if so, necessarily the intention of the beraita is not to equate one who has hair with one who does not have hair and to say that even one who has hair does not have shaving prevent, for both according to Beit Shammai and according to Beit Hillel, when he does not have hair he is not exempt from the mitzva of shaving.

Rather, certainly the intention of the beraita is to say: just as when he has hair he must shave, so when he does not have hair he must pass a razor over his head, and likewise, regarding waving, the beraita comes to teach us that he should wave upon his arm, because “we do not require the verse as it is written.”

The Gemara adds and explains,

and this is—

the words of Ravina, who said according to Beit Shammai, “he need not, and he has no remedy”—like what

that

Rabbi Pedat

said!

For Rabbi Pedat said: Beit Shammai—

who said concerning one who has no hair that he requires shaving and has no remedy—

and Rabbi Eliezer,

concerning a leper,

said the same thing!

What is Rabbi Eliezer?—

For it was taught: A leper who

does not have

the thumb of his hand or the great toe of his foot

upon which to place the blood and the oil,

has no purification ever,

because he must fulfill the law of the Torah as it is written, and this means specifically upon the thumb of the hand and the great toe of the foot,

the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

Rabbi Shimon says: He shall place it,

the priest shall place the blood and the oil,

in its place,

of the thumb,

and he shall emerge,

thereby having fulfilled his obligation.

And the Sages say: He shall place

the priest shall place the blood and the oil

upon

the thumb of the hand and foot

of the left, and he shall emerge,

thereby having fulfilled his obligation.

There is another version of the matter:

Rava said: Waving in the case of a nazirite prevents.

And the Gemara explains:

According to whose view!?

If according to Rabbi Eliezer,

this seemingly cannot be said, for

it is obvious, as Rabbi Eliezer said: after all the acts.

Rather,

perhaps you will say that

according to the Sages

Rav said that waving in the case of a nazirite prevents; this too cannot be said, because:

Now, it can be said: regarding shaving, the Sages say that it does not prevent

[if shaving does not prevent according to the Sages];

regarding waving, is it necessary to say so!?

[It is all the more so that it does not prevent]!?

Rather, certainly Rav stated his words according to Rabbi Eliezer. And as for your difficulty—“But it is obvious”—this is not so. For I might have said: since waving does not prevent the atonement, it also does not prevent the nazirite’s permission.

And we challenge:

And does waving not prevent

according to the Sages, because it is a kal va-chomer from shaving!?

But it was taught

in a beraita that there is a special teaching that waving prevents:

For it was taught: “

This is the law of the nazirite,”

whether he has palms and whether he does not have palms,

that is to say: just as when he does not have palms he is not permitted to drink wine, since he did not wave and is also not fit to wave, so when he has palms and did not wave, the waving prevents; and the verse comes to teach that you should not say: whoever is fit for waving, the waving does not prevent him.

And necessarily it is according to the view of the Sages.

For according to Rabbi Eliezer there is no need to learn this from “This is the law of the nazirite,” since he interprets “and afterward the nazirite shall drink wine” as meaning after all the acts, including that the waving prevents.

And if so, it is explicit in the beraita that even according to the Sages waving prevents, and how was it obvious to you that Rav did not say, “Waving in the case of a nazirite prevents,” according to the Sages!?

The Gemara answers, by expressing astonishment at the questioner’s understanding of the beraita, that it comes to teach that waving prevents:

Rather, as for that which was taught: “

This is the law of the nazirite,”

whether he has hair and whether he does not have hair.

Likewise,

will you also explain here that the verse comes to say

that

shaving

prevents

just as it prevents in the case of one who does not have hair!?

But it is impossible to say this!

For

it was taught: A nazirite who is bald: Beit Shammai say, he need not pass a razor over his head, and Beit Hillel say: he must.

And

Rabbi Avina said: What is “

he must”

according to Beit Hillel? He must, and he has no remedy,

whereas

according to Beit Shammai he has a remedy,

that is to say, to pass a razor over his head.

And the Gemara thought that the reason of Beit Shammai is from the exposition of “This is the law of the nazirite,” that the verse comes to equate one who does not have hair with one who has hair; and just as when he has hair he has a remedy, so too when he does not have hair. And the beraita of “This is the law of the nazirite” is according to Beit Shammai.

Therefore the Gemara asks: if so, also regarding what the beraita equated—one who does not have palms with one who has palms—it may be said that when he does not have palms he must wave upon his arm, just as he waves when he has palms, and the verse did not come to equate one who has with one who does not have, to say that waving prevents. The Gemara adds and explains:

And it disagrees,

Rabbi Avina, who said that according to Beit Shammai he has a remedy, to pass a razor over his head, disagrees with

the

words of

Rabbi Pedat,

who said: Beit Shammai and Rabbi Eliezer said the same thing. For according to Rabbi Pedat, Beit Shammai hold that “we require the verse as it is written,” and passing a razor over his head is ineffective, just as for Rabbi Eliezer it is ineffective to place the blood and oil upon the place of the thumb or upon the left thumb.

Mishna:

It has already been explained that shaving is valid only if he first sprinkled one of the bloods of the sacrifices of the peace-offerings, sin-offering, and burnt-offering that he must bring, and therefore:

If he

shaved upon the sacrifice

[he slaughtered one of the sacrifices and afterward shaved],

and it was found that

the sacrifice was

invalid,

for the blood was spilled, or the blood became impure, or the blood went outside and thereby became invalid as yotzei, then

his shaving is invalid,

for it was not upon one of the bloods.

And since his shaving is invalid, the nazirite is found to be like one whom bandits shaved, who must count thirty days of naziriteship until his hair is fit for shaving, and he brings his sacrifices after completing thirty days. And therefore, even the rest of

his sacrifices

that he brought after the shaving

do not count for him,

but only once he completes thirty days of naziriteship.

We learned in the Mishna in Zevahim 2a: “All sacrifices that were slaughtered not for their sake [one slaughtered a burnt-offering for the sake of peace-offerings] are valid [to sprinkle their blood and burn their portions and eat what is eaten, even though their mitzva is to slaughter them for their sake], except that they do not count for the owners as an obligation [and he must bring another sacrifice for his obligation or for the fulfillment of his vow, and slaughter it for its sake], except for the Paschal offering and the sin-offering [for if he slaughtered them not for their sake, they are entirely invalid].”

And likewise, if he

shaved upon the sin-offering

[he slaughtered the sin-offering first and shaved],

which

he made

not for its sake,

which is invalid,

and afterward

[after his shaving]

he brought

the rest of

his sacrifices

and made them

for their sake—

then

his shaving is invalid,

because the sacrifice upon which he shaved was invalid.

And

therefore also

his sacrifices do not count for him.

For the invalid shaving causes him to retract thirty days, so that his hair may grow, and then he brings his sacrifices.

And even if he

shaved upon the burnt-offering or upon the peace-offerings

[he first brought a burnt-offering or peace-offerings and shaved upon them] and made them

not for their sake,

which are valid, except that they do not count for the owners as an obligation,

and afterward brought his sacrifices for their sake—

then

his shaving is invalid,

since he shaved upon a sacrifice that did not count for him as an obligation,

and

therefore also

his sacrifices do not count for him,

since his shaving was invalid.

Rabbi Shimon says:

If he shaved upon the burnt-offering or upon the peace-offerings not for their sake,

that sacrifice

indeed

does not count for him—

but

his shaving is not invalid.

And therefore,

the rest of the sacrifices

that he brought after the shaving for their sake

do count

for him, and its reason will be explained in the Gemara.

And if he shaved upon all three of them,

that he first brought all three sacrifices and afterward shaved,

and one of them was found to be valid,

while the others were invalid, then

his shaving is valid

according to everyone, since one of the sacrifices is sufficient for him to shave upon them,

and he shall bring

again

the rest of

the

sacrifices

that became invalid.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Shimon says: That sacrifice does not count for him, but the rest of the sacrifices do count:

Rav Adda bar Ahava said:

This says

[you learn from our Mishna] that

he holds

Rabbi Shimon: A nazirite who shaved upon

a burnt-offering or upon

voluntary peace-offerings, has fulfilled his obligation.

For if not, his shaving that he performed upon sacrifices slaughtered not for their sake would not be effective, since they are like voluntary offerings, because they did not count for the owners as an obligation.

And we explain:

What is the reason

of Rabbi Shimon?

For the verse says: [Leviticus 7] “And this is the law of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings. If he offers it for a thanksgiving-offering, he shall offer with the sacrifice of the thanksgiving-offering, upon cakes of leavened bread he shall offer his sacrifice

upon the sacrifice of the thanksgiving-offering of his peace-offerings,”

and it should have said: upon the sacrifice of the thanksgiving-offering of “the peace-offerings.”

,

And from this verse they learned in Menahot 78a to compare the peace-offerings of the nazirite to a thanksgiving-offering with regard to several matters.

And they likewise learn from this verse that if he shaved upon a thanksgiving-offering, and likewise upon other voluntary peace-offerings, he has fulfilled his obligation, just as when he shaved upon the peace-offerings of a nazirite.

This verse also teaches that if he shaved on a thanksgiving-offering, and likewise on other voluntary peace-offerings, he has fulfilled his obligation, just as if he had shaved on the nazirite’s peace-offerings.