Talmud Nazir (E)

Talmud - Mas. Nazir 19b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 19b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 19b
Raba added: R. Eliezer's reason
1
 is that the text continues, Because his consecration was defiled,
2
i.e., because he undertook the naziriteship during defilement.
 
    Abaye raised an objection [from the following]. [If a man says,] ‘I wish to be a nazirite for one
hundred days,’ and contracts ritual defilement at the very beginning of them, it might be held that
this makes void [the naziriteship], but the text reads, ‘And the former days shall be void’; there must
first be ‘former days’, and here there are no former days. If he contracts ritual defilement at the end
of the hundred days, it might be held that this makes void [the naziriteship], but the text reads, ‘And
the former days shall be void’, implying that there are later days too’ and here there are no days to
come. If he contracts ritual defilement on the ninety-ninth day. It might be held
3
 that he should not
make void the naziriteship, but the text reads, And the former days shall be void, implying that there
must be days to come, and here there are both former days
4
 and days to come. Now it cannot be said
that we are dealing with a ritually defiled person who makes a nazirite vow, since the account
begins. "’I wish to be a nazirite for a hundred days," and he contracts defilement at the very
beginning of them,’ and yet it says that former days are necessary. — This indeed is a refutation [of
‘Ulla].
 
    R. Papa asked Abaye: Regarding the days that are required, is it sufficient if one has passed and
[the defilement occurs when] the second begins, or must two pass, and [the defilement occur when]
the third has begun? — [Abaye] had no information on the subject, so [Rab Papa] went and asked
Raba. He replied: The text reads they shall fall away.
5
 
    Both the word ‘days’, and the [plural] form, ‘they shall fall away’ are needed,
6
 for if the Divine
Law had used the word ‘days’ and not the form ‘they shall fall away’, it might have been held that it
is sufficient if one day has passed, and the second begun,
7
 and so the Divine Law wrote ‘they shall
fall away’. And if it had used the form ‘they shall fall away’, and not [the plural] ‘days’, it might
have been held that even one day is sufficient, and so the Divine Law uses the word days.
 
    MISHNAH. IF A MAN VOWS A NAZIRITESHIP OF LONG DURATION AND COMPLETES
IT AND THEN ARRIVES IN THE LAND [OF ISRAEL], BETH SHAMMAI SAY THAT HE IS A
NAZIRITE FOR THIRTY DAYS, BUT BETH HILLEL SAY THAT HIS NAZIRITESHIP
COMMENCES AGAIN AS AT FIRST. IT IS RELATED THAT QUEEN HELENA,
8
 WHEN HER
SON WENT TO WAR,
9
 SAID: ‘IF MY SON RETURNS IN PEACE FROM THE WAR, I SHALL
BE A NAZIRITE FOR SEVEN YEARS. HER SON RETURNED FROM THE WAR, AND SHE
OBSERVED A NAZIRITESHIP FOR SEVEN YEARS. AT THE END OF THE SEVEN YEARS,
SHE WENT UP TO THE LAND [OF ISRAEL]
10
 AND BETH HILLEL RULED THAT SHE
MUST BE A NAZIRITE FOR A FURTHER SEVEN YEARS. TOWARDS THE END OF THIS
SEVEN YEARS, SHE CONTRACTED RITUAL DEFILEMENT, AND SO ALTOGETHER SHE
WAS A NAZIRITE FOR TWENTY-ONE YEARS. R. JUDAH SAID: SHE WAS ONLY A
NAZIRITE FOR FOURTEEN YEARS.
11
 
    GEMARA. The first clause reads: BETH SHAMMAI SAY [HE] IS A NAZIRITE FOR THIRTY
DAYS, BUT BETH HILLEL SAY THAT HIS NAZIRITESHIP COMMENCES AGAIN AS AT
FIRST. May we say that the ground on which they differ is that Beth Shammai are of the opinion
[Rabbis declared] foreign lands [to be unclean] on account of their soil,
____________________
(1)  For making a distinction between one who undertook the naziriteship in purity, and an unclean person who
undertakes a naziriteship, where we require former days’.
(2) Num. VI, 12.

---

(3) Since there is only one day to come and not ‘days’.
(4) Viz., part of the ninety-ninth and the hundredth.
(5) Meaning that two complete days must have passed. So Rashi.
(6) [The text could have read ‘And he shall hallow his head on that day apart from the previous days’ (Tosaf.)]
(7) Because part of a day is like the whole. The reading of Rashi and the Bah. has been adopted. Our printed text reads:
It might have been held that it is necessary for two days to have passed and the third begun, and so the Divine Law used
the form ‘they shall fall away’. Thus the inference conflicts with the usually accepted interpretation of Raba's reply. The
objection to it is that the Gemara above appears to imply that the two phrases are weak forms needing to be strengthened
by the appearance of both. The printed text, on the other hand, at the last treats ‘days’ as a strong form.
(8) Queen of the Adiabene, circa 40 C.E., Mother of Izates, V. Josephus Ant. XX, 2-4.
(9) Possibly the war of the restoration of Artabanus as King of Parthia. Ibid. 3.
(10) Also recorded by Josephus 2, 5.
(11) V. the Gemara, infra.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 20a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 20a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 20a
whilst Beth Hillel are of the opinion that it was on account of the air also?
1
 — No! All are agreed
that the enactment was because of the soil, but Beth Shammai are of the opinion that we penalise
2
him by [the imposition of] a naziriteship of normal length, whilst Beth Hillel are of the opinion that
he is penalised from the very commencement of his naziriteship.
 
    IT IS RELATED THAT QUEEN HELENA etc.: The question was asked: [Does R. Judah agree
that] she contracted impurity, in which case his statement concurs with Beth Shammai's opinion,
3
 or
does he ‘deny that she contracted impurity, in which case his statement concurs with Beth Hillel's
opinion?
4
 
    Come and hear: SHE WENT UP TO THE LAND [OF ISRAEL]. AND BETH HILLEL RULED
THAT SHE MUST OBSERVE NAZIRITESHIP FOR A FURTHER SEVEN YEARS ETC. Now if
you assume that she did contract impurity, and that [R. Judah] concurs with Beth Shammai, then the
text should read: R. Judah said: She was a nazirite for fourteen years and thirty days, instead of
[simply] fourteen years! There has also been taught in the same sense: R. Judah quoting R. Eliezer
said that the implication of the verse, And this is the law of the Nazirite [on the day when the days of
his separation are fulfilled]
5
 is: the Torah says that if he contracts ritual defilement on the day of his
fulfilment, he is to be given the law of a nazirite.
6
 
    MISHNAH. WHERE TWO GROUPS OF WITNESSES GIVE EVIDENCE CONCERNING A
MAN, ONE SAYING THAT HE VOWED TWO NAZIRITESHIPS
7
 AND THE OTHER THAT HE
VOWED FIVE, BETH SHAMMAI SAY THAT THE EVIDENCE IS CONFLICTING [IN TOTO],
AND NO NAZIRITESHIP OPERATES AT ALL, BUT BETH HILLEL SAY THAT ‘FIVE’
INCLUDES ‘TWO’, SO THAT HE BECOMES A NAZIRITE FOR TWO PERIODS.
 
    GEMARA. The Mishnah disagrees with the following Tanna. For it has been taught: R. Ishmael,
the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka, said that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel did not dispute that five
included two where there are two groups of witnesses one saying five and one two. Where they
differed was when of a single pair of witnesses, one says five and the other two, Beth Shammai
averring that this is conflicting evidence, whilst Beth Hillel maintained that [here also], five includes
two.
 
    Rab said: All are agreed that where [the witnesses] enumerate [the evidence is conflicting]. R.
Hama said to R. Hisda: What does this mean? It cannot mean that one says it was five and not two,
and the other it was two and not five, for they plainly contradict each other. And if again it means
that one says, [he vowed] a first and a second time, and the other a third, fourth and fifth time.

---