Nazir 56a — the Talmud in English

For this leper

eats sacrificial food

only

after sixty days

, that is: on the sixtieth day itself, and even if his leprosy had already healed on the first day of his Nazirite status.

How so? You cannot permit him to eat sacrificial food—even in doubt—until he undergoes two hair-cuttings for his leprosy and brings an offering on the day after his second hair-cutting.

And this leper, whose impurities are only doubtful, cannot undergo the first hair-cutting until the days of his Nazirite status have been completed, because perhaps he is a pure Nazirite and is forbidden to undergo a hair-cutting until the thirtieth day; and on the thirtieth day he undergoes the hair-cutting, and this hair-cutting counts for him as the days of his confinement if indeed he is a leper; [and if he is not a leper, this hair-cutting counts for him for his impurity if he is one impure through contact with a corpse, or for his Nazirite status if he is completely pure].

And although he underwent the hair-cutting and immersed on the thirtieth day, he is still forbidden to eat sacrificial food, because, since he is a doubtful leper, he must count another seven days after the first hair-cutting, and undergo a hair-cutting and immersion on the seventh day [and bring an offering on the following day]—

And since we are in doubt: perhaps he was one impure through contact with a corpse and not a leper, it follows that he cannot undergo the second hair-cutting for his leprosy until he undergoes an “impurity hair-cutting,” brings the offerings of a Nazirite impure through contact with a corpse, and counts a pure Nazirite status after it, for throughout this time he is forbidden to undergo a hair-cutting, since he is not certainly a leper; and he could not bring his offerings, since he was forbidden to undergo an “impurity hair-cutting” because of the doubt that perhaps he was not impure through contact with a corpse, and the hair-cutting did not count for him for his impurity until the thirtieth day, for if indeed he is one impure through contact with a corpse and not a leper, this hair-cutting is his impurity hair-cutting.

Therefore, on the thirtieth day, after he undergoes the hair-cutting, he brings the impurity offering, and then begins to count a pure Nazirite status in doubt; and when it is completed, he can undergo a second hair-cutting for his doubtful leprosy. This Nazirite status ends on the fifty-ninth day, and the hair-cutting that he performs on that day counts for him as a doubtful pure hair-cutting and as the doubtful second hair-cutting of a leper.

And since he underwent the hair-cutting only on the fifty-ninth day, he cannot bring his leprosy offering until the day after the hair-cutting, for a leper always brings his offerings only on the day after the hair-cutting, even when he delayed his hair-cutting. Therefore, he brings his offerings for his doubtful leprosy on the sixtieth day, and then he is permitted to eat sacrificial food.

And drinks wine and becomes impure through contact with the dead

only

after one hundred twenty days

[that is, on the one hundred twentieth day]. That is: he does not emerge from the doubt of being a Nazirite until the one hundred twentieth day.

How so? Until the fifty-ninth day he was forbidden by the prohibitions of Nazirite status, as explained; and with regard to those two hair-cuttings that he performed, there is concern that perhaps they were the hair-cuttings of a leper and did not count for him as the hair-cutting of his Nazirite status. If so, he requires another thirty days of Nazirite status in order to fulfill a pure hair-cutting.

And he cannot begin these thirty days on the fifty-ninth day, but only on the sixtieth day, after bringing the leprosy offerings, and necessarily he must wait until the ninetieth day, which is the thirty-first day of his Nazirite status, and then he undergoes a hair-cutting.

And when he undergoes a hair-cutting on the ninetieth day, he has still not emerged from his Nazirite status, because perhaps he was both a Nazirite impure through contact with a corpse and a leper, and those first hair-cuttings were for his leprosy; and he requires an impurity hair-cutting, which is fulfilled by this third hair-cutting. After it, he must count the days of the pure Nazirite status that he vowed, which end on the thirty-first day, namely, the one hundred twentieth day. On that day he undergoes a hair-cutting and brings a pure offering, and is permitted the prohibitions of Nazirite status. And this is what we learned: “And drinks wine and becomes impure through contact with the dead after one hundred twenty days.”

And it was taught concerning it

and we learned concerning this in a beraita that explains the Mishna:

In what case are these words

that he waits sixty days to eat sacrificial food and one hundred twenty days for the permitting of the prohibitions of Nazirite status applicable?

With a short Nazirite status

of thirty days.

But with a year-long Nazirite status

this is the case:

He eats sacrificial food after two years

How so?

Those first thirty days during which he waited in a short Nazirite status for his first hair-cutting [because of the doubt that perhaps he was a pure Nazirite and forbidden to undergo a hair-cutting] are equivalent, in this Nazirite status that is for a year, to one year.

And those other thirty days during which he waited for his second hair-cutting [because of the doubt that perhaps he was one impure through contact with a corpse and not a leper, and the first Nazirite status did not count for him and he must count it anew] are likewise equivalent, in this Nazirite status, to one year. And this is what they said: He eats sacrificial food after two years.

And drinks wine and becomes impure through contact with the dead after four years—

And this latter clause is explained only not according to the method of Rav Hisda. How so?

After two years, you cannot permit him with regard to the prohibitions of Nazirite status, because perhaps he was a leper, and all the days that he counted until he underwent the second hair-cutting and became pure did not count for him, and he is still obligated in a year-long pure Nazirite status, which he is now counting [if he was not also one impure through contact with a corpse]. There you have three years.

And at the end of the third year, we again are in doubt that, in addition to being a leper, he was also one impure through contact with a corpse, who has still not undergone an “impurity hair-cutting,” because the hair-cuttings that he performed for his leprosy do not count for him for his impurity. Now he undergoes a hair-cutting for his doubtful impurity, and then begins to count a year-long pure Nazirite status. There you have four years.

And if it should enter your mind

that

the days count for him

and [that it is] according to Rav Hisda [that even the days of his leprosy count for him among the days of his Nazirite status], surely there is a difficulty:

It should suffice for him to observe the prohibitions of Nazirite status for three years and thirty days

[three years and thirty days should suffice for him] to observe the prohibitions of Nazirite status!? How so?

When you examine this Nazirite at the end of two years, during which he has already observed Nazirite status, you will find:

If he is a pure Nazirite and was never impure at all, he is already permitted.

And if he was a leper and not one impure through contact with a corpse, he requires only thirty days for hair growth, for he has already counted the main part of his Nazirite status during his days of leprosy, according to Rav Hisda.

And if he was one impure through contact with a corpse and not a leper, his first hair-cutting was for his impurity and his second hair-cutting was for his Nazirite status, and he is already permitted.

And if he was both one impure through contact with a corpse and a leper, he now needs to undergo a hair-cutting for his impurity, since the hair-cutting that he performed for his leprosy does not count for him, and after it to count a year-long pure Nazirite status.

And if so, although you cannot say that he should undergo a hair-cutting at the end of seven days and count another year, since we say: perhaps he is not one impure through contact with a corpse, but rather a pure Nazirite who was a leper, underwent a hair-cutting, and is now waiting for hair growth and is forbidden to undergo another hair-cutting—in any event, at the end of thirty days he can undergo a hair-cutting for his doubtful impurity; and when he undergoes a hair-cutting after thirty days and counts a year of “pure Nazirite status” after it, he has certainly already emerged from his Nazirite status. There you have only three years and thirty days.

And further, Rav Ashi raised an objection

to the words of Rav Hisda:

I have derived only the days of his impurity

of a Nazirite who became impure through contact with a corpse

that they do not count for him among the count

of the days of his Nazirite status.

But

the days of his confinement

of a leper Nazirite—

from where

do we know that they do not count for the Nazirite among the count, and once the leper Nazirite has been confined, he does not include the days of his confinement in the count of his Nazirite days?

And afterward the beraita derives this law by a kal va-chomer.

And before the tannai finished explaining the source for this, the tannai explains:

Lest you say: Why do I need a kal va-chomer!?

And

is it not

a legal inference

that the days of his confinement should not count for him among the count, by the principle of “what do we find” from the days of his impurity through contact with a corpse? Since they are equal in their laws, one may learn this from that even with regard to “they do not count among the count.” And thus we would learn it by legal inference:

On the days of impurity he undergoes a hair-cutting

the Nazirite on their seventh day

and brings an offering

on their eighth day—and

on the days of his confinement

he

undergoes a hair-cutting

at the end of his days of confinement

and brings an offering

on the eighth day of his counting—

And

if so, we should compare them also with regard to our matter and say:

Just as the days of his impurity do not count for him among the count, so the days of his confinement do not count for him among the count.

And the tannai explains that one cannot derive this law:

It is not so: when you said concerning the days of his impurity

through contact with a corpse, that they do not count for him among the count, it is because

he nullifies

[cancels]

through them the

preceding

days

of the Nazirite status, as it says concerning a Nazirite who became impure through contact with a corpse: “the first days shall fall away”; and therefore they likewise do not count for him among the count.

Say concerning the days of his confinement, for he does not nullify through them the

preceding

days

of his Nazirite days, and therefore one may say that these days also count for him among the count.

Therefore we must learn that the days of a leper’s confinement do not count for the Nazirite among the count by another law, from one who took a Nazirite vow in a cemetery, for whom there is no cancellation of preceding days, and who undergoes no hair-cutting and brings no impurity offering [as explained above, on pages 16 and 17 ].

You say: Just as a Nazirite

who took a vow

in a grave

[in a cemetery]

whose hair is fit for the hair-cutting of pure Nazirite status

for he does not need to undergo a hair-cutting for his impurity, and nevertheless

the days of impurity do not count for him

among the days of his Nazirite status

among the count—

Days of his confirmed leprosy, during which his hair is not fit for the shaving of naziriteship

purification—for he must first shave for his leprosy—

all the more so

that they do not count toward his count.

The tanna of the beraita adds and explains:

And I have only [established] the days of his confirmed leprosy

that they do not count toward his count, as we learned from [the case of] a nazirite in a grave.

The days of his counting—from where [do we derive this]

that they do not count toward the count of the days of his naziriteship?

And the beraita explains:

And it is a logical inference: