Nazir 6b — the Talmud in English

Bar Padda could say to you:

On the contrary,

say the latter clause

of that same Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says:

If he became impure on the thirtieth day,

he invalidates only seven

days.

And if it enters your mind that thirty

days

are required

to complete the count of the naziriteship, then

let him invalidate all of them [he should invalidate everything] —

what, then, is the reason for Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion?!

Rather, certainly, according to Rabbi Eliezer, twenty-nine days suffice to complete the count of the naziriteship. Therefore, if he became impure on the thirtieth day, he invalidates only seven days; that is: he waits until he becomes pure and is able to bring his sacrifices, and at that time he practices naziriteship for seven days, like any other person who has not brought his sacrifices, who is required to practice naziriteship.

And since according to Rabbi Eliezer it is necessarily the case that the count of the naziriteship is twenty-nine days, and the first tanna did not disagree with him on this, it is necessary that naziriteship is twenty-nine days. And the explanation of the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Eliezer is:

The first tanna holds: the Sages decreed, concerning an ordinary Nazirite who became impure on the thirtieth day, that he should invalidate thirty days, as a preventive measure because of one who expressly vowed a naziriteship of thirty days, who invalidates thirty days [that is, the entire naziriteship, since the thirtieth day is within the days of the naziriteship]. But Rabbi Eliezer does not decree this, and he invalidates only seven days in order to become pure.

Here the Gemara returns to explain the position of Rav Mattana. For from Rabbi Eliezer’s words—that one who became impure on the thirtieth day of ordinary naziriteship invalidates only seven—there is a difficulty against his position that the count of ordinary naziriteship is thirty days: if so, why does he invalidate only seven? And the Gemara explains:

Rav Mattana could say to you:

Rabbi Eliezer holds: “

Part of the day is like the whole day,”

that is: even with regard to invalidation, we say “part of the day is like the whole day,” and it is as though he became impure after he completed his naziriteship. But the Sages hold: we do not say “part of the day is like the whole day” except with regard to the fact that he may shave after the beginning of the day; but if he became impure on the thirtieth day before his shaving and bringing of sacrifices, we do not say “part of the day is like the whole day.”

The Gemara further raises a difficulty, both against Rav Mattana and against Bar Padda, from what

we learned

in that same Mishna:

“I am a Nazirite for one hundred days; if he became impure on the hundredth day, he invalidates everything.”

Rabbi Eliezer says: He invalidates only thirty days.

And it is difficult against Rav Mattana:

And if it enters your mind

as Rav Mattana explained, that

Rabbi Eliezer holds “

part of the day is like the whole day”

even with regard to invalidation, then when he became impure on the hundredth day, let us say “part of the day is like the whole day,” and

let him invalidate

only

seven

days, in order to become pure and bring his sacrifices.

And it is likewise difficult against Bar Padda:

And if he does not hold “

part of the day is like the whole day,”

and this is the position of Bar Padda, then

let him invalidate all

the days, for he still stands within the days of his naziriteship.

And the Gemara resolves the Mishna both according to Rav Mattana’s view and according to Bar Padda’s view:

In fact, we never say that part of the day is like the whole day. If so, let him invalidate all of them!?

Reish Lakish said: This is the reason for Rabbi Eliezer,

because

the verse says: “

This is the law of the Nazirite on the day when the days of his naziriteship are completed.”

And what the Torah said, “This is the law of the Nazirite,” is superfluous — rather,

the Torah said: If he became impure on the day when they are completed, give him the law of a Nazirite,

that is, thirty days.

That is: according to Bar Padda, although by strict law he should have invalidated everything, the Torah came and decreed leniently that he invalidate only thirty days.

Therefore, when he vowed one hundred days, and the hundredth day is the day when they are completed, he invalidates thirty days, but if he vowed ordinary naziriteship, where the thirtieth day is “after completion,” since naziriteship is only twenty-nine days, then according to Rabbi Eliezer he invalidates only seven days.

And according to Rav Mattana, the Mishna is resolved as follows:

In fact, according to Rabbi Eliezer, concerning one who became impure on the hundredth day, we should say “part of the day is like the whole day,” and consider him as one who became impure after completion, so that he should invalidate only seven days, just as he holds concerning one who became impure on the thirtieth day of ordinary naziriteship—

rather, there is a scriptural decree to be stringent: if he vowed an expressly specified naziriteship for a number of days and not ordinary naziriteship, if he became impure on the day when they are completed, “give him the law of a Nazirite,” that is, thirty days.

Shall we say

that the dispute between Rav Mattana and Bar Padda

is a dispute between tannaim

[is it necessary that the tannaim too disagreed in their dispute]?!

It is written in the Torah: “

Until the days are completed”;

I would understand the least

of the days

as two,

and therefore I would say that ordinary naziriteship is two days?

Therefore,

the teaching of the verse says: “

He shall be holy; he shall let the hair of his head grow wild,” and “he shall be” has the numerical value of thirty,

in order to teach:

There is no growth of hair for less than thirty days; these are the words of Rabbi Josiah.

Rabbi Jonathan says: It is not necessary

for this teaching:

For it says: “All the days of his vow of naziriteship, a razor shall not pass over his head;

until the days are completed

which he vowed to the Lord, he shall be holy”—and

which are the days that must be completed

[become full]?

[literally, brought to fullness]?

You must say: thirty

days. That is: a lunar month is twenty-nine and a half days, but we count only complete days. Sometimes we omit this day and the month is deficient [twenty-nine days], and sometimes we add this day and the month is full [thirty days]. The Torah said that until this day, which we sometimes add and sometimes omit, he shall practice the days of naziriteship. Thus, naziriteship is only twenty-nine days.

What, is it not—

Rav Mattana speaks in accordance with Rabbi Josiah,

who likewise expounds “he shall be” as thirty days.

And Bar Padda speaks in accordance with Rabbi

Jonathan, who says that naziriteship is only twenty-nine days.

Rav Mattana could say to you:

For

everyone—

both according to Rabbi Josiah and according to Rabbi—

thirty

days

are required

for the count of ordinary naziriteship.

And here they disagree about “

until, and including the endpoint”:

Rabbi Josiah holds: “until,” but not including the endpoint,

and it follows that if we had learned from “until the days are completed,” it would have implied that the naziriteship is twenty-nine days, and therefore he learns from “he shall be” that the count of the naziriteship is thirty days.

And Rabbi holds: “until, and including the endpoint”,

and it follows that from “until the days are completed” Rabbi learns that naziriteship is thirty days, because the meaning of the verse includes even the thirtieth day.

But according to Bar Padda, indeed it is a dispute between tannaim: according to Rabbi Josiah, ordinary naziriteship is thirty days, whereas according to Rabbi, ordinary naziriteship is twenty-nine days.

The Master said:

Which are the days that must be completed? You must say: thirty.

The Gemara asks: From where do you know that the intention is the days of the month and the thirtieth day?

And say

that “the days that must be completed” refers to

Shabbat

[literally], that is: that he should be prohibited from shaving only until Shabbat, for Shabbat completes the week?! And we answer:

Is there deficiency with regard to Shabbat?!

That is: Is there a week that is not seven days long? For then it would indeed be appropriate to call Shabbat the day that completes the week. But since there is no week without seven days, Shabbat is not called the day that completes the week. This is unlike a month, which is sometimes full and sometimes deficient, and it follows that the thirtieth day completes the month.