Nazir 61b — the Talmud in English

from a corpse, and it explains this further.

The Gemara asks:

From where do we know that they do not have

for gentiles

impurity?

And we explain:

For the verse says

in the section of those impure from a corpse and their purification with the water of the cow: “

And the person who becomes impure and does not purify himself” [

with the water of the cow and enters the Temple]

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

so we have learned that the section of those impure speaks only

of one who has a congregation; excluding a gentile, who has no congregation

, for a congregation of gentiles is not called “congregation.”

And we object: From what—

from where do you derive from here that a gentile has no impurity!?

For

perhaps

it is only that

he is not liable for excision

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

but they do become impure

[they have corpse impurity as gentiles]!?

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

the verse says

in that section: “

And the pure one shall sprinkle” [

the water of purification]

upon the impure one,”

and the verse likened the impure one to the pure one in order to teach:

Anyone who has purification has impurity—

and anyone who has no purification,

such as a gentile—and because it is stated in that section, “It shall be for the congregation of the children of Israel as a safeguard, as water of impurity; it is a sin”—

has no impurity.

But perhaps—

although the verse said “And the pure one shall sprinkle upon the impure one”—

it is purification that he does not have,

for the gentile, but

he does have impurity,

for “And the pure one shall sprinkle upon the impure one” is not superfluous, as it is expounded for other matters, as explained in Yoma 14a!?

And we answer:

the verse says

in that section: “

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

for it need only have said “and the person who does not purify himself”; therefore the verse added and said “becomes impure,” to teach: one who has purification with the water of purification has impurity; excluding a gentile, who has no purification with the water of purification—for it is stated: “It shall be for the congregation of the children of Israel as a safeguard, as water of impurity; it is a sin”—who has no impurity.

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

Rav Aha bar Yaakov said:

As for what is difficult for you—that a gentile inherits his father—this is not a difficulty, for the meaning of the verse is that he has a father for all matters of inheritance; and if so,

here it is different

with regard to a gentile, since

the verse says

concerning the inheritance of slaves: “

And you shall bequeath them to your children after you,”

but a gentile does not bequeath his slave to his son, for 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 if so, 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 object:

If so, slaves also should not

have naziriteship, for they too do not acquire other slaves with ownership of the person, to bequeath them to their sons!?

Rather, Rava said

to explain the source that a gentile is not included in naziriteship, which is indeed because it is stated “Speak to the children of Israel”; and as for what was difficult for you [on folio a], from what they said concerning valuations, that “children of Israel” comes to exclude the gentile with regard to one matter, and “man” comes to include the gentile with regard to another matter, so too we might say this concerning naziriteship, that “children of Israel” comes to exclude them from the nazirite sacrifice, and “man” comes to include them in the essential naziriteship, to prohibit them in wine and shaving; this is not difficult, because:

Granted, concerning valuations,

since it says “

children of Israel,”

we can say that the verse came to exclude:

The children of Israel assign valuations, but gentiles do not assign valuations—

whereas the inclusion from “man” we can say comes to teach:

It might have been thought that they would not be valued,

therefore

the verse says “

man.”

But

here,

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

The children of Israel become nazirites and bring a sacrifice, but gentiles do not become nazirites and bring a sacrifice—

whereas the inclusion from “man” comes to say:

It might have been thought that even gentiles would not be

nazirites

at all,

therefore

the verse says “

man”!?

They said

?

the members of the academy that this cannot be said, because:

For

if it is because of the sacrifice,

that is: if you come to say that “children of Israel” comes to exclude the gentile from the nazirite sacrifice, 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 to exclude the gentile from the nazirite sacrifice from another place, and “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 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 we expound: Why does it say “any man, any man”? To include gentiles, who make vows and voluntary offerings like Israel; “which they shall bring to the Lord as a burnt offering”—I have only a burnt offering, etc.; if so, why does it say

“

as a burnt offering”?

To teach:

excluding the

sacrifice of

naziriteship,

which a gentile does not bring,

the words of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean.

And since “the children of Israel” was not needed in order to exclude a gentile from a nazirite offering, it necessarily comes to exclude them from naziriteship itself, and this is what we learned in our Mishna: Gentiles have no naziriteship.

And we still raise an objection:

Suppose

we expound the verse concerning naziriteship as we do concerning valuations, where “the children of Israel” comes to exclude, and “a man” comes to include, and we expound as follows:

The Torah therefore excluded “the children of Israel” in order to teach:

The children of Israel undertake lifelong naziriteship, but gentiles do not undertake lifelong naziriteship—

One might have thought that they would not be

gentiles

nazirites

at all, even naziriteship for a fixed period; therefore

the verse teaches: “

a man”?!

He said

in reply,

Rabbi Yohanan: Is it written

there

“a lifelong nazirite”,

that it should be said that the verse comes to exclude gentiles only from lifelong naziriteship?!

And we still raise an objection:

Suppose

the Torah therefore excluded “the children of Israel” in order to teach:

The children of Israel may make their sons nazirites

as explained in the Mishna above, 28b,

but gentiles may not make their sons nazirites.

One might have thought that they would not be

gentiles

nazirites

at all; therefore

the verse teaches: “

a man,”

and in the manner in which we expounded concerning the passage of valuations?!

And we answer:

For Rabbi Yohanan said: “

It is halakha

given to Moses at Sinai

concerning a nazirite,”

that a father makes his son a nazirite; and if so, it is impossible to exclude this law in the case of a gentile from the verse.

And we still raise an objection:

Suppose

the Torah therefore excluded “the children of Israel” in order to teach:

The children of Israel shave on account of the naziriteship of their fathers,

bringing from the money that their father set aside for the offerings of his naziriteship for their nazirite offering, when they were nazirites, as explained in the Mishna above, 30a,

but gentiles do not shave on account of the naziriteship of their fathers.