Nazir 57a (נז.) — the Talmud in English

Gemara

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

It was raised as a dilemma

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

a bone the size of a barley-grain

for which the nazirite shaves

is a halakha

transmitted to Moses from Sinai, because according to the basic law the nazirite should not have had to shave for contact with it, and

a quarter-log of blood

we are seeking to derive

by means of a kal va-chomer

from a bone the size of a barley-grain that the nazirite should also shave for contact with it,

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

Or perhaps: A quarter-log of blood

which imparts impurity in a tent

is a halakha

transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and has no source in the Torah;

and

from

a bone the size of a barley-grain

we are seeking to derive

a kal va-chomer

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

and one does not derive a kal va-chomer from

the force of a stringency that is

a halakha

transmitted to Moses from Sinai; that is to say, if the stringency is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, it is not considered a stringency on the basis of which to derive a kal va-chomer.

Come and hear

as it is taught explicitly:

A bone the size of a barley-grain is a halakha

that the nazirite shaves for contact with it and for carrying it,

and a quarter-log of blood

from

a kal va-chomer

we are seeking 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 invalidates his preceding days, shaves on the seventh day, and brings the offerings for impurity on the following day. If he delayed his shaving, he nevertheless brings his offerings even on that same day, provided that he shaves first; and some of the later authorities maintain that the shaving is indispensable. He then counts a period of naziriteship in purity and brings his offerings: a sin-offering, a burnt-offering, and a peace-offering, all from animals.

B. The offerings for impurity are: a bird sin-offering, a bird burnt-offering, and a guilt-offering. According to our Mishna, the sin-offering prevents the naziriteship in purity from taking effect, whereas the burnt-offering and the guilt-offering do not prevent it.

C. The bird sin-offering is brought in every case, even in a case of uncertainty, but it is not brought as a voluntary offering. A person may also bring a bird burnt-offering, if he wishes, in a case of uncertainty, provided that he brings it on condition that, if he is not obligated to bring it, it is a voluntary offering, since a burnt-offering may be brought voluntarily. But according to our Mishna, the guilt-offering may not be brought on the condition that it is voluntary.

D. A nazirite who is uncertain whether he became impure may not shave for his impurity until his days of naziriteship have been completed, since he is uncertain whether he is pure and therefore remains prohibited from shaving. Even when his days of naziriteship have been completed, he must first bring at least one offering and only then shave, so that, if he is a pure nazirite, this shaving will be a “shaving of purity.”

Mishna:

Two nazirites –

who jointly accepted an unspecified naziriteship of thirty days –

whom one

witness told:

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

Consequently, each of them is a nazirite uncertainly impure, who must shave and bring an offering for impurity. They cannot both bring an offering for impurity as an obligatory offering, because only one of them is impure, and the offering of the other would consequently be a non-sacred offering in the Temple courtyard.

Nor can they shave after seven days, since one of them is in fact pure, and he may not shave until the blood of one offering of purity has been sprinkled. They cannot both bring this offering as an obligatory offering in order to permit themselves to shave, since one of them is impure and is not yet obligated to bring an offering of purity until he brings an offering for impurity and counts a new period of naziriteship, since his initial days have been invalidated; and therefore these two must undergo the sprinkling on the third and seventh days and immersion, and

shave

when their days of naziriteship are completed. This shaving is a shaving of purity for one and a shaving for impurity for the other –

And they both bring

together

an offering for impurity and an offering of purity,

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

And

each one says concerning his fellow:

“If I am the one

who was

impure, then

the

offering for impurity

shall be

mine, and the

offering of

purity

shall be

yours.”

shall be

yours.”

And if I am the pure one,

“And if I am the pure one, the offering of purity

shall be

mine, and the offering

of

impurity

shall be

yours.”

And they count

both

thirty days

for naziriteship in purity, since one of the periods of naziriteship was invalidated because of the impurity, and we do not know whose it was;

and they bring

when the days of naziriteship are completed

one offering of purity,

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

“And if I am the impure one”

who was impure,

the offering for impurity

that we already brought

was mine, and the offering

of

purity

that we already brought was

yours,

for that is what we stipulated initially;

and this

that we are bringing now shall be for the

offering of my purity.

“And if I am the pure one, the offering

of

purity

that we already brought was

mine, and the offering for impurity

that we already brought was

yours –

as we stipulated –

and this

that we are bringing now shall be for the

offering of your purity.

Gemara:

It is established: Uncertain impurity in a private domain renders the person impure; uncertain impurity in a public domain leaves the person pure.

The source of the law that uncertain impurity in a private domain renders one impure is the case of a sota who secluded herself and it is uncertain whether she had relations with the suspected adulterer. The Torah says [Numbers 5:13], “and she became impure,” and from this we learned that every case of uncertain impurity in a private domain renders one impure.

The opinion of the Tosafot in our discussion is that the reason uncertain impurity in a public domain leaves one pure is that we establish the person as having a presumption of purity.

The Gemara asks:

It is taught

in our Mishna: “

Two nazirites whom”

one

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

shave and bring an offering for impurity”:

And

why!?

For

every case of uncertain impurity in a private domain

renders one impure—

from where do we derive this

[that it renders one impure]?

From the sota,

who is impure due to uncertainty! And if so,

just as in the case of a sota

there are present, at the place of seclusion where the uncertainty arose, only

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

that renders one impure is only

when there are two people

[present] alone.

But here,

there are:

two

of the

nazirites and the one standing with them

[the witness standing beside them],

so there are three

[people].

And if so,

it is a case of uncertain impurity in a public domain, and every case of uncertain impurity in a public domain

leaves

the uncertainty pure;

why, then, must they bring an offering for impurity!?

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 where the uncertainty arose, this is not a case of uncertain impurity in a public domain.

Rav Ashi said

in support:

It is also precise

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