Nazir 46b (מו:) — the Talmud in English

And we challenge this:

But does it prevent fulfillment

[Is it indeed so that the waving prevents fulfillment according to Rabbi Eliezer], despite the fact that it is a residual mitzva

? But it was taught:

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

“This is the law of the nazirite”,

to teach:

whether he has hands,

and can wave,

or whether he has no hands,

and cannot wave.

And it might have entered our minds that this is the intention of the beraita: Just as when he has no hands he does not wave, since it is impossible for him to wave so too, when he has hands, he does not wave, to say that the waving does not prevent fulfillment.

And necessarily this beraita is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, because according to the Sages there would be no need to teach that waving does not prevent fulfillment, as it can be derived by a kal va-chomer from shaving, which according to the Sages does not prevent fulfillment.

It is therefore established that even according to Rabbi Eliezer, waving does not prevent fulfillment because it is a residual mitzva; yet this is a difficulty for Rav!

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

And

according to your statement,

but what of that which was taught: “

This is the law of the nazirite”—

whether he has hair,

and is fit for shaving,

or whether he has no hair,

and is not fit for shaving—

does

even here

you likewise interpret the beraita as intending to say

that

shaving

does not prevent fulfillment?

But this cannot be said, as the Gemara will immediately demonstrate from the following beraita.

And if so, even what they said in the beraita—whether he has hands or whether he has no hands—the beraita does not intend to say that waving does not prevent fulfillment. Rather, it intends to say: Just as when he has hands he must wave, so too, when he has no hands he must wave over his forearm.

The Gemara proves from another beraita concerning hair that the beraita necessarily does not intend to say that shaving does not prevent fulfillment, just as it does not prevent fulfillment in the case of a nazirite who is completely bald and has no hair:

And it was taught: A nazirite who is completely 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 considered shaving; and according to Rabbi Eliezer he has not exited his naziriteship, while according to the Sages he has not fulfilled the mitzva of shaving.

And if so, it is implied:

But according to Beit Hillel, he has a remedy,

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

And if so, the intention of the beraita necessarily cannot be to equate one who has hair with one who has no hair and to say that even one who has hair is not prevented from fulfilling the mitzva of shaving. For according to both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, when he has no 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 too, when he has no hair he must pass a razor over his head, and likewise, concerning waving, the beraita comes to teach us that he must wave over his forearm, because we do not require the verse to be fulfilled exactly as written.

The Gemara adds and explains,

and this is

what Ravina said according to Beit Shammai, that he need not do it and has no remedy—like

what

Rabbi Pedat

said!

For Rabbi Pedat said: Beit Shammai—

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

and Rabbi Eliezer,

concerning a leper,

said the same thing!

What is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer?

As it was taught: A leper who

has

no thumb of his hand or big toe of his foot

upon which to place the blood and the oil—

has no purification ever

because the law of the Torah must be fulfilled exactly as it is written, namely, specifically on the thumb of the hand and the big toe of the foot;

these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

Rabbi Shimon says: He shall place it

the blood and the oil

on its location

of the thumb,

and he has fulfilled

his obligation thereby.

And the Sages say: He shall place

the blood and the oil

on

the thumb of the hand and the big toe

of the left side, and he has fulfilled

his obligation thereby.

There is another version of the statement:

Rava said: Waving by a nazirite prevents fulfillment.

And the Gemara explains:

In accordance with whose opinion?

If in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer,

this apparently cannot be said, for

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

Rather,

perhaps you will say that

it is in accordance with the opinion of the Sages

that Rav said that waving by a nazirite prevents fulfillment. This too cannot be said, because:

Now, it may be said: Regarding shaving, the Sages say it does not prevent fulfillment

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

is it necessary to say this regarding waving?

[Certainly waving does not prevent fulfillment, all the more so!]

Rather, certainly Rav stated his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. And as for the difficulty: Is it not obvious? This is not so, because I might have said that since waving does not prevent atonement, it likewise does not prevent the nazirite from being permitted to drink wine.

And we challenge this:

But does waving not prevent fulfillment

according to the Sages, since this can be derived by a kal va-chomer from shaving?

But it was taught

in a beraita that there is a special derivation showing that waving does prevent fulfillment:

It was taught: “

This is the law of the nazirite”—

whether he has hands or whether he has no hands,

that is to say: Just as when he has no hands he is not permitted to drink wine because he did not wave and is not fit to wave, so too, when he has hands but did not wave, waving prevents fulfillment. The verse comes to teach that one should not say: In every case where he is fit to wave, waving does not prevent fulfillment.

And necessarily this is the opinion of the Sages.

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

And if so, it is explicit in the beraita that even according to the Sages waving prevents fulfillment; how then can it be obvious to you that Rav did not say, “Waving by a nazirite prevents fulfillment,” in accordance with the opinion of the Sages?

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

But then what of that which was taught: “

This is the law of the nazirite,”

whether he has hair or whether he has no hair?

Even here,

do you likewise interpret that the verse comes to say

that

shaving

prevents fulfillment

just as it prevents fulfillment in the case of one who has no hair?

But this cannot be said!

For

it was taught: A nazirite who is completely 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 pass a razor over his head.

And the Gemara assumes that the reason of Beit Shammai is based on the exposition of “This is the law of the nazirite”: The verse comes to equate one who has no hair with one who has hair. Just as one who has hair has a remedy, so too, one who has no hair has a remedy; and the beraita of “This is the law of the nazirite” is according to Beit Shammai.

Therefore the Gemara asks: If so, regarding what the beraita equated one who has no hands with one who has hands, one should likewise say that when he has no hands he must wave over his forearm, just as he waves when he has hands; the verse does not come to equate one who has hands with one who has no hands in order to say that waving prevents fulfillment. The Gemara adds and explains:

And it disagrees,

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

the

statement of

Rabbi Pedat,

who said that 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 according to Rabbi Eliezer it is ineffective to place the blood and the oil on the location of the thumb or on the left thumb.

Mishna:

It has already been explained that shaving is valid only if one of the bloods of the offerings that the nazirite is required to bring—the peace-offering, sin-offering, or burnt-offering—was first sprinkled. Therefore:

If he

shaved over the sacrifice

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

it was found that the

sacrifice was

disqualified,

because its blood was spilled, or the blood became impure, or the blood left [and was thereby disqualified as yotze], then

his shaving is invalid,

since it was not performed over one of the bloods.

And since his shaving is invalid, the nazirite is considered like one whose hair was shaved by bandits: He must count thirty days of naziriteship until his hair is fit for shaving, and he brings his offerings after completing the thirty days. 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 own sake [that is, an olah was slaughtered for the sake of a peace-offering] are valid [for sprinkling their blood, burning their sacrificial portions, and eating those portions that are eaten, even though the mitzva is to slaughter them for their own sake], except that they do not count for their owners as fulfillment of their obligation [and he must bring another sacrifice for his obligation or to fulfill his vow, and slaughter it for its proper designation], except for the Paschal offering and the sin-offering [which, if slaughtered not for their own sake, are entirely disqualified].

And likewise, if he

shaved over the sin-offering

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

which

he made

not for its own sake,

and it is disqualified,

and afterward

[after his shaving]

he brought

the rest of

his offerings

and made them

for their own sake—

then

his shaving is invalid,

because the offering over which he shaved was disqualified.

And

therefore also

his sacrifices do not count for him.

For the invalid shaving invalidates thirty days, so that his hair can grow, and then he brings his offerings.

And even if he

shaved over the burnt-offering or over the peace-offering

[he first brought an olah or a peace-offering and shaved over it] and made them

not for their own sake,

which are valid but do not count for their owners as fulfillment of their obligation,

and afterward brought his offerings for their own sake—

then

his shaving is invalid,

since he shaved over a sacrifice that did not count for him as fulfillment of his obligation,

and

therefore also

his sacrifices do not count for him,

since his shaving was invalid.

Rabbi Shimon says:

If he shaved over the burnt-offering or over the peace-offering not for their own sake,

that sacrifice

indeed

does not count for him—

but

his shaving is not invalid.

Therefore,

the rest of the sacrifices

that he brought after the shaving for their own sake

do count

for him, and the Gemara will explain the reason.

And if he shaved over all three of them,

having first brought all three offerings and then shaved,

and one of them was found to be valid,

while the others were disqualified, then

his shaving is valid

according to everyone, since one offering is sufficient for him to shave over,

and he shall bring again

the

other

the

sacrifices

that were disqualified.

Gemara:

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

Rav Adda bar Ahava said:

This teaches

[you learn from our Mishna] that

Rabbi Shimon holds:

A nazirite who shaved over

an olah or over

a peace-offering brought as a voluntary offering has fulfilled his obligation.

For if this were not so, his shaving over sacrifices slaughtered not for their own sake would not have been effective, since they are like voluntary offerings, as they did not count for their owners as fulfillment of their 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, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of the thanksgiving-offering, with loaves of leavened bread he shall offer his offering

with the sacrifice of the thanksgiving peace-offering,”

with the sacrifice of the thanksgiving peace-offering

,

whereas it should have said: with the sacrifice of the “peace-offerings.”

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

They likewise learn from this verse that if he shaved over a thanksgiving-offering, and likewise over other peace-offerings brought as voluntary offerings, he has fulfilled his obligation, just as if he had shaved over the nazirite’s peace-offering.