Nazir 61a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Hiyya taught:

A nazirite who became impure through contact with a corpse and is also afflicted with leprosy cannot have one shaving count for both purposes, because

this one,

the person afflicted with leprosy,

shaves before immersion in water, whereas this one,

the impure nazirite,

shaves after immersion in water.

A pure nazirite who is also afflicted with leprosy during the days of his counting cannot have one shaving count for both purposes, because

this one,

the person afflicted with leprosy,

shaves before

the sprinkling of the blood, whereas this one,

the pure nazirite,

shaves after the sprinkling of the blood.

We learned in the Mishna, the foundational compilation of the early rabbinic teachings:

the shaving for the affliction

overrides the shaving of the nazirite, and so on. And we learned in a beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna: “And he performs four shavings.”

Rami bar Hama asked:

These four shavings that it says

in the beraita—namely: the first shaving is performed because of the uncertainty whether he is a person afflicted with leprosy, an impure nazirite, or a pure nazirite; the second shaving is performed because of the uncertainty whether he is a person afflicted with leprosy or a pure nazirite; the third shaving is performed because of the uncertainty whether he is an impure nazirite; and the fourth shaving is performed because of the uncertainty whether he is a pure nazirite—

Are all the shavings—including the third shaving, which is performed only because of the uncertainty whether he is an impure nazirite—

for the sake of a mitzva

meaning, is it a mitzva to perform the act of shaving itself—

Or

the third shaving, which is performed only because of the uncertainty whether he is an impure nazirite, is performed only

to remove the hair of impurity

[in order to remove the hair of impurity]?

And the Gemara explains:

What practical difference does it make

whether the shaving for impurity is for the sake of a mitzva or is performed in order to remove the hair of impurity?

To remove it with a depilatory substance

[to perform the shaving for impurity with a depilatory substance]; because:

If you say that it is for the sake of a mitzva,

then

to remove it with a depilatory substance—

no,

rather, it must be done with a razor.

And if you say

that the shaving is not a mitzva, but is performed

to remove the hair of impurity,

then

even applying a depilatory substance would also suffice.

The Gemara returns to its uncertainty and asks:

What

is the status of the shaving for impurity: Is it for the sake of a mitzva or in order to remove the hair of impurity?

Rava said

the following answer:

Come and hear a proof

from the beraita itself:

“And he performs four shavings,”

which indicates that all the shavings are equivalent. Just as the first, second, and fourth shavings must necessarily be performed with a razor, since a person afflicted with leprosy and a pure nazirite shave only with a razor, so too the third shaving, which is performed only because of the shaving for impurity—

But if it enters your mind that the shaving for impurity is only for the purpose of removing the hair of impurity, then even three shavings with a razor would be sufficient for him [that would suffice for him]. Since the third shaving, which he performs only because of the possibility that he is an impure nazirite, could be performed even with a depilatory substance—rather,

learn from this:

the shaving for impurity is

for the sake of a mitzva

and is valid only when performed with a razor.

Learn from this.

We have completed the second chapter, “Two Nazirites.”

Mishna:

Gentiles do not have naziriteship.

But

women and slaves

of Israelites

do have naziriteship.

There is a stringency with women

who accepted naziriteship upon themselves

over slaves

who accepted naziriteship upon themselves:

that he—

the master—

forces his slave,

that is: he can object to his naziriteship,

but he does not force his wife

except when he nullifies it for her with the language of annulment.

Gemara:

It teaches

in our Mishna

“Gentiles do not have naziriteship”: From where are these words derived

that they do not have naziriteship? For it is written [Leviticus 22:18]: “Any man of the house of Israel, etc., who brings his offering for all their vows and for all their voluntary offerings, which they shall bring to the Lord as a burnt offering,” and the Sages expounded [below, 62a]: “Why does the verse say ‘any man’? To include gentiles, that they make vows and voluntary offerings like Israel”; and naziriteship too is included among vows

; The Sages taught:

It is stated in the section of the nazirite: “Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: When a man or a woman shall expressly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lord”:

And we expound: “

Speak to the children of Israel”

and not to gentiles. “

And say to them”—

which is superfluous, for it already said “Speak to the children of Israel”—

to include slaves.

And we object:

Why do I need a verse

to include slaves!?

But we say:

Every mitzva in which a woman is obligated, a slave is obligated in it!?

He said—

he answered—

Rava:

Here it is different

with regard to the nazirite,

for the verse says

in the section of vows of prohibition: “

To prohibit a prohibition upon his soul,”

so we have learned that the verse speaks only

of one whose soul belongs to him; excluding a slave, whose soul does not belong to him—

And since his soul does not belong to him, say that with regard to a nazirite also it is not so,

that the slave is included in naziriteship, for naziriteship was likened to vows, as it is stated in the section of the nazirite: “To make a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself”— therefore

it teaches us

that slaves do have naziriteship.

The master said: “

Speak to the children of Israel”

and not to gentiles:

And we object:

And

is it so that

wherever it is written “

Israel,”

gentiles are not?

That is: on the other hand, the Torah said, “When a man shall expressly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lord,” and we have to include gentiles from the word “man”!?

But concerning valuations, where it is written: “

Speak to the children of Israel

and say to them: When a man expresses a vow, your valuation of persons to the Lord”

; and it was taught:

The children of Israel assign valuations

to others

but gentiles do not assign valuations

to others, and a gentile who said, even concerning an Israelite, “His valuation is upon me,” is not obligated.

It might have been thought that they would not be

the gentiles

valued, and an Israelite who said, “The valuation of so-and-so, a gentile, is upon me,” would not be obligated!?

The verse says: “

A man,”

which implies: anyone who is called “a man,” even gentiles.

And if so, this is what we should likewise say concerning the nazirite: since it says “children of Israel,” implying and not gentiles, we exclude gentiles from bringing the nazirite sacrifice; and since it says “man,” we include gentiles in the prohibitions of wine and impurity.

And we answer:

Here it is different

with regard to the nazirite,

for

the verse says: “

For his father and for his mother he shall not render himself impure,”

so we have learned that the verse speaks only

of one who has a father,

and

excluding a gentile, who has no father.

And we object:

For

the matter of

what—

“has no father”!?

If you say, with regard to inheritance,

that he does not inherit his father—for ordinarily, wherever “father” is stated, it refers to inheritance—!?

But Rabbi Hiyya bar Avin said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: A gentile inherits his father by Torah law, as it is stated: “ For an inheritance to Esau”—

who was a gentile—

I gave Mount Seir.”

Rather,

this is how you should learn that a gentile does not have naziriteship: since it says “for his father,” we have learned that the verse speaks only

of one who is warned concerning honoring his father;

excluding a gentile, who is not warned concerning honoring his father.

The Gemara is astonished at this interpretation:

Is it written “

Honor your father”

concerning a nazirite!?

For it says only “for his father,” and since a gentile has a father with regard to inheritance, from where do you derive that one who is not warned concerning honoring his father is excluded!?

Rather,

this is how one should learn that a gentile does not have naziriteship, because

the verse says, “

For his father and for his mother he shall not render himself impure,”

so we have learned that the verse speaks only

of one who has impurity

through touching or overshadowing the corpse—

Folio 61b