Nazir 61a (סא.) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Ḥiyya taught:

A nazirite who became impure through contact with a corpse and is also a leper does not fulfill both requirements with one shaving, because

this

leper shaves

before immersion in water, whereas this

impure nazirite shaves

after immersion in water.

A pure nazirite who is also a leper during his days of counting does not fulfill both requirements with one shaving, because

this

leper shaves

before

the sprinkling of the blood, whereas this

pure nazirite shaves

after the sprinkling of the blood.

This was explained on the basis of the Mefareish.

We learned in the Mishna:

the shaving for the affliction

takes precedence over the nazirite’s shaving, etc.; and we learned in a beraita: And he performs four shavings:

Rami bar Ḥama inquired:

These four shavings that he mentions

in the beraita are as follows: The first shaving is performed because of the uncertainty whether he is a leper, an impure nazirite, or a pure nazirite; the second shaving is performed because of the uncertainty whether he is a leper 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—and even the third shaving, which is performed only because of the uncertainty whether he is an impure nazirite—

for the sake of a mitzva

and therefore it is a mitzva to perform the act of shaving itself—

Or

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

in order to remove the hair of impurity [

in order to remove the hair of impurity ]?

The Gemara explains:

What practical difference

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

Concerning removing it with a depilatory agent [

shaving the shaving for impurity with a depilatory agent]; for:

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

then

removing it with a depilatory agent—

no,

but it must be performed with a razor.

And if you say

that the shaving is not a mitzva, but is performed

in order to remove the hair of impurity,

then

even applying a depilatory agent is also sufficient.

a. Tosafot write that the Gemara could likewise have raised the uncertainty concerning shaving with scissors in a manner similar to a razor; ;

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, resolving the matter:

Come and hear

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 leper and a pure nazirite shave only with a razor, so too the third shaving, which is performed only because of the shaving for impurity—

And if it enters your mind that the shaving for impurity is performed only in order to remove the hair of impurity, then even three shavings with a razor would suffice for him, whereas the third shaving, which is performed only because of the uncertainty whether he is an impure nazirite, could be performed even with a depilatory agent—but

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.

See the novellae of Maran Rabbi Yitzḥak Zev Soloveitchik, p. 52, where he explains the Rambam’s understanding of the Gemara’s proof differently, so that there is no need for the forced explanation offered by Tosafot.

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

Mishna:

Gentiles do not have naziriteship.

But

Jewish women and slaves

of Jews

do have naziriteship.

There is a stringency with regard to women

who accepted naziriteship upon themselves

over slaves

who accepted naziriteship upon themselves:

That he—

the master—

can compel his slave,

meaning that he can protest his naziriteship,

but he cannot compel his wife,

except when he annuls it for her using the language of annulment.

Gemara:

It teaches

in our Mishna

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

that they do not have naziriteship? For it is written: “Any man of the House of Israel, etc., who presents his offering for all his vows and for all his freewill offerings, which they present to the Lord as a burnt offering” [Leviticus 22:18]. And the Sages expounded [below, 62a]: “Why does the verse say ‘any man, any man’? To include gentiles, who make vows and freewill offerings like Jews.” And naziriteship is also included among vows

; and in light of what the later authorities wrote here [see “Arzei HaLevanon”] and elsewhere, their words are difficult ; For the explanation of the law concerning gentiles who make vows and freewill offerings like Jews cannot mean that they transgress “He shall not profane his word” if they do not fulfill their vows, as Tosafot explains below, 62a, s.v. Hanicha, that a gentile is not subject to “He shall not profane,” and this is obvious, since it is not among the Seven Noahide Laws ; It must necessarily be explained in one of two ways. The first is that the offering is accepted from him [see “Mishneh LaMelekh,” Kings 10:7, s.v. Veda shema, who explains it this way]. The second is that he has no mitzva to fulfill his vow, but he does incur a monetary obligation to fulfill it ; as appears from the words of Tosafot in Avoda Zara 5b, s.v. Minayin, who wrote: “For from ‘any man, any man’ we include that gentiles make vows and freewill offerings like Jews, etc.; we say to him, ‘Arise and bring a complete offering.’” [See “Mishneh LaMelekh” there, and Rabbi Akiva Eiger’s glosses to the Talmud, who raised a difficulty with their words.] “Avnei Miluim” [2b, s.v. Ulefi aniyut daati] explained their intent as meaning that he incurs a monetary obligation to fulfill his vow. [This also apparently follows from their statement that they make “vows and freewill offerings” like Jews: If there is no obligation at all, what is the difference between a vow and a freewill offering? and they are permitted to drink wine This is not implied by the wording of Tosafot ; and the wording of Tosafot at the end of s.v. Veha is likewise: “Perhaps they should not make vows at all to prohibit themselves from wine and impurity.” See all that is brought in “Arzei HaLevanon” here. The Sages taught:

It is stated in the passage concerning a nazirite: “Speak to the Children of Israel and say to them: When a man or woman clearly utters a vow, the vow of naziriteship, 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, since it has already said “Speak to the Children of Israel”—

to include slaves.

And we challenge this:

Why do I need a verse

to include slaves

? For we say:

Every mitzva that a woman is obligated to observe, a slave is obligated to observe as well!

Rava said—

he answered:

I

Here it is different,

with regard to a nazirite,

for the verse says

in the passage concerning vows of prohibition: “To prohibit a prohibition upon himself”;

“to prohibit a prohibition upon himself.”

We have thus learned that the verse speaks only

of one who owns himself; excluding a slave, who does not own himself—

And since he does not own himself, say that with regard to a nazirite too he is not included,

that the slave should not be included in naziriteship, since naziriteship is juxtaposed to vows, as it is stated in the passage concerning a nazirite: “To utter the vow of naziriteship, 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 challenge this:

And

is it so that

wherever it is written “

Israel”—

gentiles are not included?

That is, on the other hand, the Torah says, “When a man clearly utters a vow of naziriteship, to consecrate himself to the Lord,” and we should 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 explicitly makes a vow of valuation, the valuation of persons to the Lord,”

; and it was taught:

The Children of Israel may assign valuations

of others,

but gentiles may not assign valuations

of others, and if a gentile says even concerning a Jew, “His valuation is upon me,” he is not obligated.

One might have thought that gentiles would not be

valued,

and that if a Jew said, “The valuation of a certain gentile is upon me,” he would not be obligated

?

The verse therefore says: “

man,”

which implies: Anyone who is called “man,” including gentiles.

If so, we should say the same with regard to a nazirite: Since “the Children of Israel” is stated, implying but not gentiles, we exclude gentiles from bringing a nazirite offering; and since “man” is stated, we include gentiles with regard to the prohibitions against wine and impurity.

And we answer:

Here it is different,

with regard to a nazirite,

for the verse says: “

He shall not become impure for his father or his mother,”

from which we learn that the verse speaks only

of one who has a father,

and

excluding a gentile, who has no father.

And we challenge this:

For

the matter of

what does “

he has no father” mean?

If you say it means with regard to inheritance,

that he does not inherit his father—for ordinarily, whenever “father” is mentioned, 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 I have given Mount Seir

—which belonged to Esau, who was a gentile—

as an inheritance to Esau.”

Rather,

this is how you should learn that a gentile does not have naziriteship: Since “his father” is stated, we learn that the verse speaks only

of one who is commanded concerning honoring his father,

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

The Gemara is astonished at this derivation:

Is it written “

Honor your father”

with regard to a nazirite?

The verse 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 commanded to honor his father is excluded ?

Rather,

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

the verse says, “

He shall not become impure for his father or his mother”;

from this we learn that the verse speaks only

of one who can contract impurity

through touching a corpse or overshadowing it—