Nazir 55b — the Talmud in English

Rather, is it not the case of

one who undertook

an extended naziriteship

of more than thirty days that our Mishna is discussing, such as when he became afflicted with tzaraat in the middle of his days of naziriteship, and he still had thirty days remaining to count? For then, indeed, those days that he had already counted before he became afflicted with tzaraat are included in his reckoning and do not fall away.

And

nevertheless

it teaches

in our Mishna:

he begins and counts immediately

after the days of his confinement and counting, whereas the days of his counting and confinement themselves are not included for him in the reckoning.

We have thus learned that even in an extended naziriteship they are not included for him in the reckoning; and this is difficult for Rav Hisda!?

He

Rav Sharya

raises the objection against him

he posed the difficulty against Rav Hisda],

and he

himself

resolves it

he resolves the difficulty]:

That which Rav Hisda said, to distinguish between a short naziriteship and an extended naziriteship, does not refer to the measure of the naziriteship that he undertook, whether it was extended or short, but rather to the measure of the naziriteship that remained for him when he became afflicted with tzaraat, whether it was extended or short. And this is what Rav Hisda said:

They taught in our Mishna that the days are not included for him in the reckoning only

in the case of

one who undertook

a naziriteship of fifty days, who observed twenty

he conducted himself in naziriteship for twenty days],

and

only then

he became afflicted with tzaraat

the tzaraat arose in him], so that only the measure of a “short naziriteship” remained for him to count; for then:

He

shaves his tzaraat

at the end of the days of his confinement and at the end of the days of his counting] first,

and afterward

only afterward]

he observes thirty days of a nazir

he observes the thirty days of the naziriteship], for what he counted during the days of his confinement and counting, although they counted for him toward his naziriteship, he must count again in order to grow his hair.

But if, when he became afflicted with tzaraat, an extended measure of naziriteship remained for him to count, then the excess over the measure of a short naziriteship he counts during the days of his confinement and counting.

And since this is the “short naziriteship” that we taught in our Mishna even according to Rav Hisda, the difficulty is no longer raised: how did we teach that he does not invalidate the earlier days?

For

in this manner, when thirty days remained for him to count,

he has

after his shaving for tzaraat

hair growth,

and those days that he had already counted are included for him in the reckoning and are not invalidated.

Rami bar Hama raises an objection

from what we taught in the Mishna below, 59b:

c. The Keren Ora raised the following difficulty: What does our Mishna come to teach according to Rav Hisda? We already learned above [39a] that shaving invalidates thirty days!? And he answered that our Mishna comes to teach that even shaving that is permitted nevertheless invalidates; but he raised the following difficulty against this: since logically it invalidates on account of “hair growth,” what difference is there between permitted shaving and prohibited shaving [although according to the method of Maimonides—and as the later authorities wrote in understanding his words—that this is not merely a law of hair growth, but rather a law of “invalidation” through shaving, there is room to uphold the answer of the Keren Ora] ; and see what will be explained at the end of the discussion in the name of the “Hazon Ish.” d. If so, one must examine what the distinction is that they stated in our Mishna between the days of his confinement and the days of his confinement and counting. For if he was confined when only a short naziriteship remained for him to count, they do not count for him in the reckoning, since at the end of the days of his tzaraat he will shave, just as when he was declared definitively afflicted or when his days of counting began at that time, they do not count for him!? However, according to the implication of the words of Tosafot in our Mishna [see the note in the Mishna], that “the days of his confinement” means when he was not declared definitively afflicted at their end, this is satisfactory ; and even if in truth this is not so, as Rabbi Yosef Dov wrote [brought in the note above], in any event this is not a difficulty against Rav Hisda, since “Rav Hisda could say to you: Here, with what are we dealing? With the days of his confinement after which he was not declared definitively afflicted” ; and see what will be explained at the end of the discussion, with the name of the “ Hazon Ish.” e. Maimonides and the Raavad [Nazir 7:15] disputed for what reason every nazir and person afflicted with tzaraat is permitted to shave for his tzaraat, which is only a positive mitzva, and thereby set aside the prohibition against shaving for a nazir, which is prohibited by both a negative and a positive commandment ; Maimonides’ view is that it is because the days of his confinement do not count for him, and “he shall be holy; he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow” is not fulfilled through them, so there is here only a negative commandment, and a positive commandment overrides a mere negative commandment. Whereas the view of the Raavad is that it is because a nazir is subject to annulment, and the positive commandment of a person afflicted with tzaraat overrides the negative and positive commandments of a nazir who is subject to annulment. And now, according to the method of Maimonides, the difficulty arises: this is satisfactory according to us, that the days of his confinement do not count for him; but according to Rav Hisda, that the days of his confinement count for him, how is the person afflicted with tzaraat permitted to shave!? a. A person afflicted with tzaraat is forbidden to eat sacrificial food until the days of his confinement end and he shaves, counts seven days and shaves on the seventh, and on the eighth day brings his offerings, for the person afflicted with tzaraat lacks atonement offerings and is forbidden to eat sacrificial food until he brings his offerings; and if he delayed his shaving, he brings his offerings only on the following day.

But one impure through contact with a corpse may eat sacrificial food when the sun sets at the end of the seventh day of his impurity, whether he was not a nazir and is not liable for an offering, or whether he was a nazir impure through contact with a corpse who is liable for an impurity offering, for his impurity offering does not prevent him from eating sacrificial food.

b. One who was liable for two shavings, such as one for tzaraat and one for “impurity shaving,” or one for tzaraat and one for “purity shaving,” cannot perform one shaving that counts for both purposes; rather, he must perform a separate shaving for each matter.

c. The Mishna brought here [and this is the Mishna below, 59b] discusses a nazir who had two uncertain impurities, one of a person afflicted with tzaraat and one of impurity through contact with a corpse, and the Mishna explains when he becomes pure from his tzaraat and is permitted to eat sacrificial food, and when he fulfills his naziriteship and becomes permitted with regard to all the prohibitions of naziriteship.

d. The “impurity shaving” of a nazir impure through contact with a corpse precedes the bringing of the impurity offerings, and a nazir impure through contact with a corpse does not begin counting pure naziriteship until he brings an impurity offering.

e. A nazir impure through contact with a corpse differs from a person afflicted with tzaraat: a person afflicted with tzaraat who delays shaving for his tzaraat until after the seventh day brings his offerings only on the day after his shaving, as stated above in section a, whereas the impure nazir who delayed his impurity shaving until after the seventh day may bring his offerings on that very day, provided that he immersed before that day.

f. The explanation of the Mishna will be given according to Rav Hisda; and according to one approach of Tosafot in explaining the Mishna.

g. In our discussion, only the main laws will be explained in order to interpret the wording of the Mishna, and additional details concerning the laws of the offerings will be explained below, 60a.

A nazir —

an unspecified one who is liable for a naziriteship of thirty days —

who was impure

through contact with a corpse

uncertainly, and

also

declared definitively afflicted

with the impurity of tzaraat

uncertainly

on the first day of his naziriteship: