Nazir 61b (סא:) — the Talmud in English

excluding a gentile, who cannot contract impurity

from a corpse; and the Gemara proceeds to explain this.

The Gemara asks:

From where do we know that they do not have

gentiles

impurity?

And we explain:

For the verse says

in the passage concerning those rendered impure by a corpse and their purification with the waters of the red heifer: “

And the person who becomes impure and does not cleanse himself

with the waters of the red heifer and enters the Temple,

that person shall be cut off from among the congregation”—

We learn that the passage concerning those rendered impure applies only

to one who has a congregation, excluding a gentile, who has no congregation,

for a gentile congregation is not called a “congregation.” And we challenge this:

From what

do you derive that a gentile has no impurity ?

But

perhaps

with regard to

karet alone he is not liable,

the gentile, since he is excluded by “from among the congregation,”

but they do contract impurity

[gentiles do have impurity from a corpse] ?

Rather, from here we can learn that gentiles do not have impurity from a corpse, because

the verse says

in that same passage: “

And the pure person shall sprinkle

the waters of purification

upon the impure person”;

the verse juxtaposes the impure person to the pure person, in order to teach:

Anyone who can become pure can become impure—

but anyone who cannot become pure,

such as a gentile—and as it is stated in that same passage, “It shall be a keepsake for the congregation of the Children of Israel, for the waters of impurity; it is a purification”—

cannot become impure.

Perhaps,

although the verse says “the pure person shall sprinkle upon the impure person,”

it is purification that he does not have,

the gentile, but

he does have impurity,

the gentile; for “the pure person shall sprinkle upon the impure person” is not superfluous, since it is expounded for other matters, as explained in Yoma 14a ?

And we answer:

The verse says

in that same passage: “

And the person who becomes impure and does not cleanse himself,”

for it should have said only, “And the person who does not cleanse himself.” Therefore the verse added the words “becomes impure” in order to teach: One who can be cleansed with the waters of purification has impurity; excluding a gentile, who cannot be cleansed with the waters of purification—for it is stated, “It shall be a keepsake for the congregation of the Children of Israel, for the waters of impurity; it is a purification”—and he therefore has no impurity.

Here the Gemara returns to the derivation learned above from “his father,” that a gentile does not have naziriteship because he has no father with regard to inheritance. The Gemara rejected that derivation above because a gentile inherits his father by Torah law; and Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov comes to resolve the derivation from “his father”:

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said:

The difficulty raised against you—that a gentile inherits his father—is no difficulty, because the meaning of the verse is that he has a father for all matters of inheritance. If so,

here it is different

with regard to a gentile, since

the verse says

concerning the inheritance of slaves: “

You shall give them as an inheritance to your sons after you”;

yet a gentile does not bequeath his slave to his son, for the law of inheritance was stated only concerning slaves in whom their master has ownership of the person, whereas a gentile acquires a slave only for his labor—

And therefore you can learn:

Anyone who has

a father with regard to

the inheritance

of slaves

has impurity.

And anyone who has no inheritance

of slaves

has no impurity,

and the gentile, who has no inheritance, is excluded.

And we challenge this:

If so, slaves should not have naziriteship either,

for they too do not acquire other slaves through ownership of the person, so as to bequeath them to their sons ?

Rather, Rava said

to explain the source that a gentile is not included in naziriteship: It is indeed because it is stated, “Speak to the Children of Israel.” And as for the difficulty raised against you [on the previous side] from what was said concerning valuations—that “the Children of Israel” excludes a gentile with regard to one matter, while “man” includes a gentile with regard to another matter—and we should likewise say this concerning naziriteship, that “the Children of Israel” excludes them from the nazirite offering, while “man” includes them in the essential naziriteship, prohibiting them from wine and hair-cutting—this is not difficult, because:

Granted, with regard to valuations,

since it is stated

“the Children of Israel,”

we may say that the verse comes to exclude:

The Children of Israel may assign valuations, but gentiles may not assign valuations—

whereas concerning the inclusion derived from “man,” we may say that it comes to teach:

One might have thought that they may not be valued;

therefore

the verse says “

man.”

But

here,

with regard to a nazirite, how shall we interpret the inclusion and the exclusion? Perhaps you will say: “The Children of Israel” comes to exclude:

The Children of Israel become nazirites and bring an offering, but gentiles neither become nazirites nor bring an offering—

whereas the inclusion derived from “man” comes to say:

One might have thought that even

the gentiles

would not be nazirites at all;

therefore

the verse says “

man”

?

They said—the scholars of the academy—that this cannot be said, because:

that it is impossible to say this, because:

For

if it is because of the offering,

that is, if you wish to say that “the Children of Israel” comes to exclude a gentile from a nazirite offering, this law

is not derived from here, but from there

[this law is not learned from here but from another place]. That is, we already know from another source that a gentile is excluded from bringing a nazirite offering, and “the Children of Israel” is not needed to exclude him—

For it was taught in Menahot 73b: It is written, “Any man, any man, of the Children of Israel who presents his offering for all their vows and for all their freewill offerings, which they present to the Lord as a burnt offering.” And we expound: Why does the verse say “any man, any man”? To include gentiles, who make vows and freewill offerings like Jews. “Which they present to the Lord as a burnt offering”: I have derived only a burnt offering, etc. If so, why does the verse say

“as a burnt offering”?

To teach:

excluding a

sacrifice of

naziriteship,

which a gentile does not bring,

the words of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

We still ask: