Nazir 57a — the Talmud in English

Gemara

We learned in the Mishna: He said to me: “What is this, Akiva?! Here one does not derive by a kal va-chomer, [since one does not derive a kal va-chomer from a halakha]”:

It was asked of them

to explain the words of Rabbi Akiva: Is his intention that

a barley-sized bone

upon contact with which the nazir shaves

is a halakha

given to Moses at Sinai, for according to the fundamental law the nazir should not have had to shave on account of it,

and a quarter-log of blood

we are coming to derive

a kal va-chomer

from a barley-sized bone, that the nazir should shave even on account of it,

and one does not derive a kal va-chomer from a halakha.

Or perhaps: a quarter-log of blood

which imparts impurity through a tent

is a halakha

given to Moses at Sinai and has no source in the Torah,

and

from

a barley-sized bone

we are coming to derive

a kal va-chomer

concerning a quarter-log of blood, since it is more stringent than it with regard to impurity through a tent—

and one does not derive a kal va-chomer from

the force of a stringency that is

a halakha

given to Moses at Sinai; that is to say: if the stringency is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai, it is not considered a stringency by means of which to derive a kal va-chomer.

Come and hear

as it was taught explicitly:

A barley-sized bone is a halakha

that the nazir shaves on account of contact with it and on account of carrying it,

and a quarter-log of blood

from

a kal va-chomer

we are coming to derive it,

and one does not derive a kal va-chomer from a halakha.

We shall return to you, chapter “The High Priest”

Introduction to the following two Mishnayot:

a. A nazirite who became impure thereby nullifies his preceding days, and shaves on the seventh day and brings the impurity offerings on the following day; and if he delayed his shaving, he brings his offerings even on that very day, provided that he first shaves—and some of the later authorities hold that this is indispensable. And afterward he counts a period of purity naziriteship and brings his offerings: a sin-offering, a burnt-offering, and a peace-offering, all from animals.

b. The impurity offerings are: a bird sin-offering, a bird burnt-offering, and a guilt-offering. And according to our Mishna: the sin-offering prevents the taking effect of the purity naziriteship, whereas the burnt-offering and the guilt-offering do not prevent it.

c. The bird sin-offering is brought everywhere, even for a doubt, but it is not brought as a voluntary offering. And a person may also bring a bird burnt-offering—if he wishes—for a doubt, provided that he brings it on the condition that if he is not obligated in it, it shall be voluntary, for the burnt-offering is brought as a voluntary offering. But the guilt-offering, according to our Mishna, is not brought on the condition of a voluntary offering.

d. A nazirite who is possibly impure cannot shave for his impurity until the days of his naziriteship are completed, for he is uncertain whether he is pure, and therefore he is forbidden to shave. And even when his days of naziriteship are completed, he must first bring at least one offering, and afterward shave, for if he is a pure nazirite, this shaving will be a “purity shaving.”

Mishna:

Two Nazirites —

who jointly accepted an unspecified naziriteship of thirty days —

to whom one person said

until

“I saw that one of you became impure, but I do not know which of you.”

And each of them is consequently a possible impure nazirite, who is obligated to shave and bring an impurity offering. And both of them cannot bring an impurity offering as a mandatory offering, because only one of them is impure, and the offering of the other would consequently be unconsecrated in the Temple courtyard.

And they also cannot shave after seven days, since one of them is indeed pure, and until the blood of one purity offering has been sprinkled, he cannot shave. And this offering they cannot both bring as a mandatory offering in order to permit themselves to shave, for one of them is impure, and he is still not obligated in a purity offering until he brings an impurity offering and counts a new naziriteship, since the initial days have fallen away; and therefore: these two require the sprinkling of the third and seventh [days], immersion, and

shave

when the days of their naziriteship are completed; and this shaving is a purity shaving for one and an impurity shaving for the other —

And they bring

both together

an impurity offering and a purity offering,

so that one will be for the impure one and the other for the pure one, as will be explained below.

And he says

each one concerning his fellow:

If I am the one

who was

impure,

then

the impurity offering

shall be

mine, and the

purity

offering

of

purity

shall be

yours.

And if I am the pure one,

the purity offering

shall be

mine, and the offering

of

impurity

shall be

yours.

And they count

both of them

thirty days

for purity naziriteship, since one of the naziriteships was nullified because of the impurity, and we do not know whose it was;

and they bring

when the days of the naziriteship are completed

one purity offering

which will be for the one who had been impure and now requires a purity offering, as will be explained below.

And he says: If I am the impure one [

who was impure],

the impurity offering

that we already brought

was mine, and the offering

of

purity

that we already brought was

yours,

for so we stipulated at the outset;

and this

that we are bringing now shall be for

my purity offering.

And if I am the pure one, the offering

of

purity

that we already brought was

mine, and the impurity offering

that we already brought was

yours —

for so we stipulated;

and this

that we are bringing now shall be for

your purity offering.

Gemara:

It is established for us: A doubt of impurity in a private domain is impure; a doubt of impurity in a public domain is pure.

The source of the law that a doubt of impurity in a private domain is impure is from a sota who secluded herself and it is uncertain whether she had relations, for the Torah said [Numbers 5:13], “and she became impure”; and from her we learned regarding every doubt of impurity in a private domain that it is impure.

The view of Tosafot in our passage is that the reason a doubt of impurity in a public domain is pure is that we establish it on its presumption of purity.

The Gemara raises an objection:

It teaches

in our Mishna: “

Two Nazirites to whom [

one]

said: I saw that one of you became impure, but I do not know which of you

shave and bring an impurity offering”:

And

why!?

For behold,

every doubt of impurity in a private domain

which is impure —

from where do we derive it [

from where do we learn it]?

From a sota, who is impure because of a doubt! And if so:

who is impure because of uncertainty. If so,

Just as a sota

has there—in the place of seclusion, which is the place of the doubt—only

the man who had relations and the woman with whom he had relations, so too every doubt of impurity in a private domain

which is impure is only

in a case where there are two [

people] only.

But here, behold:

there are:

two

of the

Nazirites and this one who stands with them [

the witness who stands near them]—

there are three [

people].

And if so:

it is a doubt of impurity in a public domain, and every doubt of impurity in a public domain

is

pure in its doubt;

why, then, do they need to bring an impurity offering!?

Rabba bar Rav Huna said:

Our Mishna is dealing

with [the witness] saying:

the witness,

“I saw

from a distance

impurity thrown between you,”

and since he was not at the place of the doubt, this is not a doubt of impurity in a public domain.

Rav Ashi said

to support [this]:

It is also precise

from the wording of our Mishna, in accordance with the answer of Rabba bar Rav Huna: