Talmud Nazir (E)

 
    We learnt: IF [A SON] BE BORN TO HIM BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF SEVENTY DAYS,
HE LOSES NONE OF THIS PERIOD. Now if you assume that [the day of birth] is reckoned as part
of both periods,[not only does he not lose but] he actually profits!
6
 — Strictly speaking there should
have been no mention of the period-before the seventieth day,
7
 but because it says in the subsequent
clause [of the Mishnah], that [birth] after the seventieth day renders these seventy days void, the
period before the seventieth day is mentioned in the first clause.
 
    Come [then] and hear the subsequent clause: ‘IF IT BE BORN AFTER THE SEVENTIETH
DAY,
8
 THE SEVENTY DAYS ARE VOID
9
 — The meaning of ‘AFTER’ is, after [the day] after
[the seventieth day] ,
10
 You say then that [a birth on] the day after [the seventieth day] itself,
11
 would
not render void [the previous period]. But if this is so, why should we be told that if the birth occurs
before the seventieth day none of the period is lost, seeing that the same is true [of a birth occurring]
on the day after the seventieth day? — It is consequently to be inferred that ‘AFTER’ means [the
day] after literally, and thus the Mishnah unquestionably [contradicts] Rab.
 
    Whose authority was Rab following in making this assertion? Shall we say it was Abba Saul, [in
connection with whom] we have learnt: If a man bury his dead three days before a festival, the
enactment of seven days’ [full mourning] ceases to apply to him, if eight days before the festival, the
enactment of thirty days [halfmourning] ceases to apply, and he may trim his hair on the eve of the
festival. Should he, however, fail to trim his hair on the eve of the festival, he is not permitted to do
so afterwards [until the thirty days’ half-mourning elapse].
____________________
(1) Num. VI, 9.
(2) I.e., as long as his head is unpolled. though the ‘days of his consecration are fulfilled’.
(3) I.e., He counts a naziriteship of thirty days on account of his son, and then completes the hundred days on his own
account.
(4) And since there are not thirty days left over from the first naziriteship, the whole of it becomes void, and he has to
start his one hundred days over again.
(5) So that on the one hand seventy days of his own naziriteship are completed, and on the other he need only reckon
twenty-nine more days for the naziriteship following the birth of his son. The same will of course be true of the last day
of this naziriteship, when he must again commence the remainder of his own (Rashi).
(6) For each of the days between the naziriteships counts as two.
(7) Because there is no manner of doubt as to what the law should be and he does in fact gain.
(8) I.e., as we should suppose on the seventy-first.
(9) Whereas if Rab be right, a birth on the seventy-first day should not render void the previous period, since reckoning
both ways, thirty days remain.
(10) I.e., The seventy-second day, which on any reckoning would not leave more than twenty-nine.
(11) I.e., seventy-first day.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 15b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 15b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 15b
Abba Saul said: Even if he should fail to trim his hair before the festival, he is permitted to do so
afterwards,for just as the observance of three days [before the festival] causes the enactment of seven
days [full mourning] to lapse, so the observance of seven days [full-mourning before the festival]
causes the enactment of thirty days [half-mourning] to lapse. Now, Abba Saul's reason is surely that
the seventh day is reckoned as part both of [the full-mourning] and of [the halfmourning]!
1
  —
Possibly Abba Saul only makes this avowal in connection with the periods of the seven days’
2
mourning which are a rabbinic enactment, whereas he would not do so in connection with
naziriteship, a scriptural enactment?
3
 It must therefore be that Rab follows R. Jose. for it has been
taught: R. Jose said that a woman, ‘on the wait’ for gonorrhoenic issue,
4
 on whose behalf [the
paschal lamb] has been slaughtered and [its blood] sprinkled, on the second day [of her waiting], and

---

who later [in the same day] observes an issue, may not eat [of the passover],
5
 and does not have to
prepare the second passover.
6
 Now R. Jose's reason is surely because in his opinion, part of the day
counts as a whole day, so that she becomes unclean only from the moment [of observing the issue]
and thereafter.
7
 
    Is this indeed R. Jose's opinion?
8
 Has it not been taught: R. Jose said that a sufferer from
gonorrhoea who has observed unclean issue on two occasions, and on whose behalf [the paschal
lamb] has been slaughtered and [its blood] sprinkled ‘on the seventh day [of his impurity], and
Similarly a woman, on the wait’ for gonorrhoeic issue on whose behalf [the paschal lamb] has been
slaughtered and [its blood] sprinkled — if they afterwards observe an unclean issue, then even
though they render unclean couch and seat
9
 retrospectively, they are not obliged to offer the second
passover?
10
 — [The uncleanness] is retrospective only by enactment of the Rabbis. This is indeed
evident, for if it were scriptural, on what grounds would they be exempt from the second passover?
11
[No!]
12
 In point of fact it would be possible for the uncleanness [to be retrospective] in biblical law
also, the concealed impurity
13
 of gonorrhoea not being reckoned a ban [to the offering of the
passover].
 
    R. Oshaya. too, is of the opinion that the retrospective incidence is rabbinic in origin,
14
 for it has
been taught:
15
 R. Oshaia said that one who observes a gonorrhoeic issue on his seventh day, renders
void the preceding [seven days]. R. Johanan said to him: Only that day itself becomes void. But
consider! [What is R. Johanan saying?] If it renders void at all, it should render all [seven days] void,
otherwise it should not render void even the same day? — Read therefore: [R. Johanan said that] it
does not even render void the same day,
____________________
(1) In the same way as Rab reckons the 70th day twice over.
(2) The argument applying with greater force to the period of half-mourning.
(3) Hence Rab cannot appeal to his authority.
(4)  V. Lev. XV, 25ff. Should a woman observe issue after her menstrual period, she becomes unclean until evening.
From that time she is ‘on the wait’, and if there is an issue on the second day, she becomes unclean for seven days. A
third day certifies her as gonorrhoeic, and she must then bring a sacrifice after purification; v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 577.
n. i. Whilst unclean she must not eat the flesh of sacrifices.
(5) For she is now unclean for seven days.
(6) On the 14th day of the following month, Iyar; v. Num. IX, 9ff.
(7) She was fit to offer the Passover, although she cannot now eat it. Adopting the reading of Tosaf., Asheri and others.
(8) That she becomes unclean only from that moment.
(9) Cf. Lev. XV, 4.
(10)  Since they render unclean couch and seat retrospectively, the day must count as belonging wholly to the unclean
period!
(11) Since they were already unclean when the paschal lamb was killed.
(12) This would afford no proof.
(13) Lit., ‘impurity of the abyss’, a technical term for an impurity of which there is no sign until its issue.
(14) In the opinion of R. Jose.
(15) [var. Iec.: For R. Oshaia said].
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 16a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 16a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 16a
. [R. Oshaia] replied: You have on your side R. Jose, who said that the uncleanness is incident
[according to the Scripture] from the moment [of observation] and thereafter. Now was it not R. Jose
who said that the uncleanness was retrospective? We see therefore that the retrospective incidence
must [in his opinion] be rabbinic.
1
 
    Now seeing that R. Jose is of the opinion that part of a day counts as a whole day, how is it ever

---