Nazir 6b (ו:) — the Talmud in English

? Bar Padda could have said to you:

On the contrary,

come and hear the latter clause

of that same Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says:

If he became impure on the thirtieth day,

he negates only seven

days.

And if it enters your mind that thirty

days

are required

to complete the count of the naziriteship, then

let him negate all of them [he should negate everything]. And what is the reason for Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling!?

Rather, it is certainly the case that 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 negates only seven days, meaning: he waits until he becomes pure and can bring his offerings,

and during that period he observes naziriteship for seven days, like anyone who has not brought his offerings, who must observe naziriteship.

Since according to Rabbi Eliezer the count of the naziriteship must be twenty-nine days, and the first tanna did not disagree with him on this point, it follows necessarily that naziriteship is twenty-nine days. The explanation of the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Eliezer is as follows:

The first tanna holds that the Sages decreed that an ordinary nazir who became impure on the thirtieth day must negate thirty days, as a preventive measure because of one who explicitly undertook a naziriteship of thirty days, who negates thirty days [that is, the entire naziriteship, since the thirtieth day is included among the days of his naziriteship]. Rabbi Eliezer does not issue this decree, and he negates only seven days, in order to become pure.

Here the Gemara returns to explain Rav Mattana’s position. For Rabbi Eliezer’s statement that one who becomes impure on the thirtieth day of an ordinary naziriteship negates only seven days contradicts Rav Mattana’s position that the count of an ordinary naziriteship is thirty days: if so, why does he negate only seven? The Gemara explains:

Rav Mattana could have said to you:

Rabbi Eliezer holds:

part of the day is equivalent to the entire day,

meaning: even with regard to negation, we say that part of the day is equivalent to the entire day, as though he became impure after completing his naziriteship. But the Sages hold that we say “part of the day is equivalent to the entire day” only with regard to his ability to shave after the beginning of the day; but if he became impure on the thirtieth day before shaving and bringing his offerings, we do not say “part of the day is equivalent to the entire day.”

The Gemara raises another difficulty, both according to Rav Mattana and according to Bar Padda, from that which

we learned

in that same Mishna:

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

Rabbi Eliezer says: He negates only thirty days.

This is difficult for Rav Mattana:

And if it enters your mind

as Rav Mattana explained, that

Rabbi Eliezer holds

that part of the day is equivalent to the entire day

even with regard to negation, then when he became impure on the hundredth day, we should say “part of the day is equivalent to the entire day,” and he should

negate

only

seven

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

This is also difficult for Bar Padda:

And if he does not hold

that part of the day is equivalent to the entire day,

and his position is as Bar Padda’s, then

he should negate all

the days, since he is still within the days of his naziriteship.

The Gemara resolves the Mishna both according to Rav Mattana and according to Bar Padda:

Actually, we do not say that part of the day is equivalent to the entire day. If so, he should negate all of them!?

Reish Lakish said: This is the reason for Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling:

because

the verse says:

“This is the law of the nazir on the day when the days of his naziriteship are completed,”

and the Torah’s statement, “This is the law of the nazir,” is superfluous — rather,

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

that is, thirty days.

That is, according to Bar Padda, although strictly speaking he should have negated everything, the Torah came and issued a lenient decree that he negate only thirty days.

Therefore, when he undertook a naziriteship of one hundred days, and the hundredth day is the day on which they are completed, he negates thirty days, whereas if he undertook an ordinary naziriteship, whose thirtieth day is “after completion,” since the naziriteship is only twenty-nine days, according to Rabbi Eliezer he negates only seven days.

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

According to Rabbi Eliezer, we should indeed have said, with regard to one who became impure on the hundredth day, “part of the day is equivalent to the entire day,” and considered him like one who became impure after completion, so that he would negate only seven days, as he holds with regard to one who became impure on the thirtieth day of an ordinary naziriteship—

but there is a decree of the Torah to be stringent: if he undertook an explicitly defined naziriteship for a specified number of days and not an ordinary naziriteship, if he became impure on the day of completion, “give him the law of a nazir,” that is, thirty days.

Shall we say

that the dispute between Rav Mattana and Bar Padda

is a dispute between tannaim [that it is necessary to say that the tannaim too disagreed in their dispute]!?

It is written in the Torah:

“

Until the days are completed”;

I would infer a minimum of “

days”

as two,

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

Therefore,

the verse states: “

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

to teach: Hair growth is not less than thirty days; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiyya.

There is no period of hair growth shorter than thirty days; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshya.

Rabbi Yonatan 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 days are those that must be completed [

to be filled]?

You must say: thirty

days. That is: a lunar month is twenty-nine and a half days, but we count only complete days. Sometimes this half-day is omitted and the month is deficient [twenty-nine days], and sometimes this day is added and the month is full [thirty days]. The Torah says that he shall observe the days of his naziriteship until this day, which is sometimes added and sometimes omitted; thus naziriteship is only twenty-nine days.

Is it not the case that—

Rav Mattana stated his view in accordance with Rabbi Yoshiyya,

who also expounds “he shall be” as indicating thirty days?

And Bar Padda stated his view in accordance with Rabbi

Yonatan, that naziriteship is only twenty-nine days.

Rav Mattana could have said to you:

For

everyone—

both Rabbi Yoshiyya and Rabbi— \-

thirty

days

are required

for the count of an ordinary naziriteship.

And here they disagree over “

until—and including the endpoint”:

Rabbi Yoshiyya holds: ‘until’ excludes the endpoint,

so that if we were to derive the law from “until the days are completed,” it would indicate that the naziriteship is twenty-nine days, and therefore he derives from “he shall be” that the count of the naziriteship is thirty days.

And Rabbi holds: ‘until’ includes the endpoint,

so that from “until the days are completed” Rabbi derives that naziriteship is thirty days, because the meaning of the verse includes the thirtieth day as well.

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

The Master said:

“Which days are those that must be completed? You must say: thirty.”

The Gemara asks: From where do you know that this refers to the days of the month and to the thirtieth day?

And say

that “the days that must be completed” refers to

Shabbat [

literally], meaning: that he should remain prohibited from shaving until Shabbat, since Shabbat completes the week!? And we answer:

Is there any deficiency with regard to Shabbat!?

That is: Is there a week that is not seven days long? If so, 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 differs from a month, which is sometimes full and sometimes deficient, so that the thirtieth day completes the month.