Talmud Nazir (E)

then he again contracts defilement on the seventh day [following], he is only required to offer one
sacrifice. If he contracts defilement on the eighth day, and then once more on the eighth day
[following], he is required to offer a sacrifice for each [defilement]. He begins to reckon [the new
naziriteship] immediately;
9
 this is the opinion of R. Eliezer, but the Sages say: He is required to offer
but one sacrifice for all [the defilements] so long as he has not yet offered his sin-offering.
10
 If he
has brought his sin-offering and then contracts defilement, and again offers his sin-offering and
again contracts defilement, he is required to furnish a [full] sacrifice for each defilement. If he has
furnished his sin-offering, but not his guilt-offering, he [nevertheless] commences to reckon [the new
naziriteship]. R. Ishmael, the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka said: Just as his sin-offering estops him
[from commencing to reckon the new naziriteship], so does his guilt-offering.
 
    Now, all is in order according to R. Eliezer, for the verse says, And he shall hallow his head that
same day,
11
 even though he may not yet have provided the sacrifices. [And likewise] the Rabbis
[explain] ‘that [day]’, [implying], even though he may not yet have provided the guilt-offering.
12
 But
what does R Ishmael, the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka make of the words ‘that [day]’? — He will
reply: [His naziriteship commences] ‘that [day]’, even though he may not yet have provided the
burnt offering. And the Rabbis? — They do not consider it necessary to have an excluding phrase for
[permission to dispense with] the burnt offering, since it is [brought] simply as a gift.
13
 
    What is the Rabbis’ reason [for stating that the guilt-offering is no bar]? — It has been taught:
What is the implication of the verse, And he shall consecrate unto the Lord the days of his
Naziriteship, and shall bring a he-lamb of the first year for a guilt-offering?
14
 Since we find that all
other guilt-offerings mentioned in the Torah are a bar [to atonement so long as they are not brought],
it might have been thought that this one is also a bar,
____________________
(1) For if it did, it would be superfluous.
(2) I.e., the night preceding the eigth day.
(3)  So that the defilements are separate, though in regard to sacrifices they would be considered one, seeing that no
sacrifice can be brought at night.
(4) Lit., ‘wanting time. Although the sacrifice cannot be brought till the next day.
(5) So that there would still be only one defilement.
(6) And he would have to bring, according to Rabbi, a sacrifice for each defilement.
(7)  [So Rashi; cur. edd., read, ‘The text (states)’. This term, however, would not have the same meaning here as
elsewhere in the Talmud where the reference is to a text previously cited; v. Asheri.]
(8) Who became unclean.
(9) Though he has not yet offered his sacrifices.
(10)  The sacrifice of a nazirite who had become unclean consisted of two doves, one a sin-offering, the other a
burnt-offering, and also a he-lamb as a guilt-offering. V. Num. VI, 10-12.
(11) Num. VI, 11.
(12) But the new naziriteship cannot commence till he has brought the others.
(13) [And not to effect atonement, as the other sacrifices, v. Zeb. 7b.]
(14) Num. VI, 12.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 19a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 19a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 19a
and so the text says, ‘And he shall consecrate . . . and shall bring [a guilt-offering]’ implying that
even though he may not yet have brought [the guilt-offering], he is to consecrate. R. Ishmael, son of
R. Johanan b. Beroka said: ‘And he shall consecrate . . . and shall bring’. When does he consecrate?
After he has brought.
1
 
    Who is the Tanna of the following [teaching] taught by the Rabbis: ‘If a woman undertakes a
nazirite vow, and contracts ritual defilement, and then her husband declares [her vow] void, she must

---

bring the sin-offering of a bird, but not the burnt-offering of a bird’? — R. Hisda replied: It is R.
Ishmael.
2
 How comes [R. Ishmael] to this ruling? — If he holds that the husband nullifies [his wife's
vow],
3
 then she should not be required to bring the sinoffering of a bird, whilst if he holds that the
husband only terminates
4
 [the vow],
5
 why should she not be required to bring the burnt-offering of a
bird as well? — Actually he is of the opinion that a husband nullifies [his wife's vow], and he further
agrees with R. Eleazar ha-Kappar. For it has been taught: R. Eleazar ha-Kappar, Berabbi,
6
 said: Why
does the Scripture say, And make atonement for him, for that he sinned by reason of the soul.
7
Against what ‘soul’ did he then sin? It can only be because he denied himself wine.
8
 If then this man
who denied himself wine only is termed a sinner, how much more so is this true of one who is
ascetic in all things!
 
    But the verse is referring to an unclean nazirite,
9
 whilst we are applying it even to a ritually clean
nazirite? — R. Eleazar ha-Kappar
10
 is of the opinion that a ritually clean nazirite is also a sinner, and
the reason that Scripture teaches this [lesson in connection] with a defiled nazirite is that he repeats
his sin.
11
 
    IF HE LEAVES IT AND RE-ENTERS, THE DAYS ARE RECKONED. It is stated that they are
reckoned.
12
 Does then the naziriteship begin to operate merely because he has left [the graveyard]?
13
— Samuel said: [We are speaking of] where he has left it, been sprinkled [a first and] a second time
and bathed.
14
 But [are we to infer that] if he re-enters, then only are they reckoned, whilst if he does
not re-enter, they are not reckoned? — The argument is progressive. Not only [do they count] if he
leaves, but [they count] also if he re-enters [immediately after purification].
15
 
    R. Kahana and R. Assi asked Rab: Why have you not explained [the Mishnah] to us in this
manner? — He replied: I was under the impression that you did not require [to be told]. R.ELIEZER
SAID: NOT IF HE DOES SO ON THE SAME DAY, FOR IT SAYS, AND THE FORMER DAYS
SHALL BE VOID, IMPLYING THAT THERE MUST BE FORMER DAYS. ‘Ulla said: R. Eliezer
was referring only to a ritually defiled person who makes a nazirite vow, but a ritually clean nazirite
who contracts ritual defilement, makes [his naziriteship] void, even on the first day.
16
____________________
(1) The naziriteship begins anew after he has brought the guilt-offering.
(2) [Who, in contradistinction to the Rabbis, holds that the burnt-offering is not brought as a mere gift, but specifically as
a sacrifice of a nazirite, and since her naziriteship is void, she brings no sin-offering.]
(3) Lit., ‘uproots , i.e., that his action is retrospective and the vow has never been valid.
(4) Lit., ‘cuts off’.
(5) When he disallows it; until then it was effective.
(6) [Or ‘Berebi’. Designation by which Bar Kappara is known in order to distinguish him from his father who bore the
same name. The meaning of the title is uncertain: (a) a compound of ‘house’, be, and ‘rabbi’, i,e., belonging to the
school of an eminent teacher (Jast.), or (b) a compound of ‘son’, ‘bir’, and ‘rabbi’, ‘a son of a scholar’, i.e., ‘a scholar’,
v. J.E. III, 52.]
(7) 
apb
, E.V.: ‘dead’. Num. VI, II.
(8) And so the woman must bring the sin-offering because she wished to deny herself wine.
(9)  The section of which it forms part begins (Num. VI, 9), If any man die suddenly upon him, so that he becomes
defiled,. . .he shall bring two turtle doves, of which one was a sin-offering brought because, . . .he sinned by reason of
the soul.
(10) Cf., however, supra 3a, where R. Eleazar ha-Kappar is reported as saying that a ritually clean nazirite is not a sinner.
(11) For the period before defilement is void and he must now recommence to count thirty days.
(12) So that he must bring the sacrifices of a nazir who becomes unclean.
(13) For he is still unclean.
(14) I.e., undergone the purification rites. V. Num. XIX, 19.
(15) In which case we might think that he is as at first.
(16) When there are no ‘former days’.

---