Nazir 5b — the Talmud in English

And Bar Padda —

who derives from the “nazir—nizro” stated in the section a count of twenty-nine days of nezirut, even though some of the expressions were stated for exposition —

would say to you:

Surely there is

not one of them

[one of the expressions “nazir, nizro” in the Torah] or more,

that is not for exposition

[that does not come for exposition] but only for counting —

Rather, just as that “nazir nizro”

that does not come for exposition

comes for counting,

so do

all of them,

the “nazir nizro” stated in the section,

also come for counting,

besides their coming for exposition.

And the Gemara raises an objection to Bar Padda from this, that

we learned

in our Mishna:

“The unspecified nezirut is thirty days”!

Granted, according to Rav Mattana,

who derives from “He shall be holy,” which signifies thirty days,

it is satisfactory

our Mishna according to its simple meaning.

But according to Bar Padda,

who derives from “nazir nizro” and holds that there is no nezirut except twenty-nine days, corresponding to the “nazir nizro” stated in the section,

it is difficult

for our Mishna, in which it is explained that the count of unspecified nezirut is thirty days!?

Bar Padda would say to you:

In truth, the nezirut is only twenty-nine days, but

since there is a thirtieth day

[since there is a thirtieth day]

on which he shaves

his head

and brings

on it

his offerings, and atonement is effected for him

through the offerings, and until he has brought his offerings he remains forbidden to drink wine and to become impure through the dead —

For this reason the tanna taught

in our Mishna: unspecified nezirut is

thirty

days.

The Gemara further raises an objection to Bar Padda from this, that

we learned

in the Mishna below, 16a:

One who said

“I am a nazirite”

and did not specify the number of days of his nezirut,

shaves

[brings his offerings and shaves]

on the thirty-first day.

Granted, according to Rav Mattana, it is satisfactory

this Mishna, since the nezirut is thirty days and the shaving is on the day after it.

But according to Bar Padda,

who holds that the nezirut is only twenty-nine days, and if so the shaving is on the following day, on the thirtieth day,

it is difficult

from this Mishna, in which it is explained that the shaving is on the thirty-first day!?

And the Gemara resolves the position of Bar Padda:

Bar Padda would say to you: Say the latter clause

of that same Mishna:

If he shaved on the thirtieth day —

he has fulfilled his obligation.

If so, on the contrary, it implies according to my position: that the nezirut is only twenty-nine days, and therefore, when he shaved on the thirtieth day, he fulfilled his obligation.

Rather,

surely, since

the latter clause supports him

Bar Padda —

necessarily, the reason for

the first clause,

that initially he shaves only on the thirty-first day, is because

it is treated as though he said

“complete.”

That is to say: Since, had he said, “I am a nazirite for thirty complete days,” he would have had to shave only on the thirty-first day, therefore the Sages decreed that even with unspecified nezirut he should initially shave only on the thirty-first day.

And the Gemara again raises an objection:

And according to Rav Mattana, the latter clause is difficult,

for if he shaved on the thirtieth day itself, he fulfilled his obligation, yet the time of shaving is only after the count of the nezirut, which according to his position is thirty days!?

And the Gemara answers:

He holds,

Rav Mattana,

“Part of the day is like the entirety of the day,”

and the beginning of the thirtieth day on which he observed nezirut counts for him as a complete day; therefore, if he shaved on the thirtieth day after observing nezirut for part of the day, he fulfilled his obligation.

And the Gemara further raises an objection to Rav Mattana:

This, that

we learned

in that same Mishna:

If he said

“I am a nazirite for thirty days,”

if he shaved on the thirtieth day, he has not fulfilled his obligation.

And granted, according to Bar Padda it is satisfactory that if he shaved on the thirtieth day he did not fulfill his obligation, because since he specified the count of his nezirut as thirty days, and Bar Padda does not hold “part of the day is like the entirety of the day” at the end of the count of the nezirut, therefore, if he shaved on the thirtieth day he did not fulfill his obligation, for the time of shaving is always only after he has completed his nezirut.

But according to Rav Mattana, it is difficult: Why should we not say, “Part of the day is like the entirety of the day”?

For what difference is there between one who undertook unspecified nezirut, which is also thirty days, and concerning which we say “part of the day is like the entirety of the day” and he shaves on the day on which his days of nezirut are completed, and one who undertook thirty days explicitly, concerning whom he cannot shave on the thirtieth day itself!?

And we answer:

When he says “complete.”

That is to say: Since he added in his speech by saying, “I am a nazirite for thirty days,” when it would have been sufficient for him to say, “I am a nazirite,” for even then he would have had to observe nezirut for thirty days, we therefore interpret his words as meaning that he intended to say that he would be a nazirite for thirty complete days, and “part of the day is like the entirety of the day” is not said concerning them.

And the Gemara raises another objection to Bar Padda from this, that

we learned

in that same Mishna:

One who undertook two periods of nezirut:

He counts thirty days for the first nezirut, and

shaves for the first one on the thirty-first day,

and then counts a thirty-day nezirut, since its first day is the thirty-first day of the first nezirut,

and

shaves the

second one on the sixty-first day,

which is the thirty-first day of the second nezirut.

Granted, according to Rav Mattana, it is satisfactory

that he shaves the second one only on the sixty-first day.