Talmud Nazir (E)

(12) And since no other opinion is mentioned, it is to be presumed that no-one disagrees with the statement; and thus R.
Hisda is contradicted.
(13) V. Mishnah infra 49b.
(14) Each of these counts as a whole corpse for the purposes of defilement in a tent.
(15) Lev. XXI. 1. The phrase is superfluous, for the verse begins, Speak unto the priests . . . .
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 44a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 44a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 44a
It might be thought [further] that he is not to defile himself for the spinal column, or the skull, or the
greater part of the bodily frame or the majority of the bones of the other [relations],
1
 but I will tell
you [why that is not so]. His sister is distinguished [from strangers] by the fact that her body depends
on him [for its burial], and he is required to defile himself for the spinal column, or the skull, or the
greater part of its bodily frame or the majority [of its bones], and so in all cases where the body
depends on him [for burial], he is required to defile himself, for its spinal column, or its skull, or the
greater part of its bodily frame, or the majority [of its bones]. [This contradicts Rab, does it not?]
2
 —
The author of this [Baraitha] too is R. Judah, whereas Rab agrees with the following Tanna. For it
has been taught: The story is told that the father of R. Isaac [the priest]
3
 died at Ginzak
4
 and he was
informed three years later. He went and asked R. Joshua b. Elisha and the four Elders with him,
5
 and
they replied: For his father
6
 when he is whole, but not when he is defective.
7
 
    MISHNAH. THREE THINGS ARE FORBIDDEN THE NAZIRITE, VIZ: — DEFILEMENT,
POLLING AND PRODUCTS OF THE VINE. DEFILEMENT AND POLLING HAVE A
STRINGENCY NOT POSSESSED BY PRODUCTS OF THE VINE IN THAT DEFILEMENT
AND POLLING RENDER VOID [THE PREVIOUS PERIOD], WHEREAS [PARTAKING OF]
PRODUCTS OF THE VINE DOES NOT DO SO. PRODUCTS OF THE VINE HAVE A
STRINGENCY NOT POSSESSED BY DEFILEMENT OR POLLING IN THAT PRODUCTS OF
THE VINE PERMIT OF NO EXCEPTION FROM THE GENERAL PROHIBITION,
8
 WHEREAS
DEFILEMENT AND POLLING ARE ALLOWED AS EXCEPTION FROM THE GENERAL
PROHIBITION IN THE CASE WHERE POLLING IS A RELIGIOUS DUTY,
9
 OR WHERE
THERE IS A METH MIZWAH
10
 . DEFILEMENT ALSO HAS A STRINGENCY NOT
POSSESSED BY POLLING, IN THAT DEFILEMENT RENDERS VOID THE WHOLE OF THE
PRECEDING PERIOD,
11
 AND ENTAILS THE OFFERING OF A SACRIFICE, WHEREAS
POLLING RENDERS VOID ONLY THIRTY DAYS AND DOES NOT ENTAIL A SACRIFICE.
 
    GEMARA. Why should not defilement also permit of no exception from the general prohibition,
in virtue of the following a fortiori argument from wine? Seeing that wine which does not render
void [the previous period] permits of no exception from the general prohibition, then defilement
which does render void [the previous period] should certainly not permit of an exception from the
general prohibition? — The text says, Nor defile himself for his father or for his mother,
12
 signifying
that it is only for his father or for his mother that he is forbidden to defile himself, whereas he is
required to defile himself for a meth mizwah.
 
    Then why should not wine permit of an exception from the general prohibition because of the
following a fortiori argument from defilement? Seeing that defilement, which renders void [the
previous period], permits of an exception from the general prohibition, then wine which does not
render void [the previous period] should certainly permit of an exception from the general
prohibition? — The verse says, He shall abstain from wine and strong drink,
13
 thus forbidding wine
that should be drunk as a ritual obligation
14
 as well as wine that he might drink from choice.
15
 
    Then why should not wine render void the whole [of the previous period] because of the following
a fortiori argument from defilement? Seeing that defilement which permits of an exception from the
general prohibition renders void [the previous period], then wine which permits of no exception

---

should certainly render void [the preceding period]? — The verse says, But the former days shall be
void because his consecration was defiled,
16
 signifying that defilement renders void, but wine does
not do so.
 
    Why should not polling render void the whole [of the previous period]
17
 because of the following
a fortiori argument from defilement? Seeing that defilement, the agent of which is not subjected to
the same [penalty] as the patient,
18
 renders void the whole [of the previous period], then polling
where the agent is subject to the same penalty as the patient,
19
 should certainly render void the whole
[of the preceding period]? — The verse says, But the former days shall be void because his
consecration was defiled
20
 signifying that defilement renders void the whole [of the preceding
period], but polling does not do so.
 
    Why should not the agent be subject to the same [penalty] as the patient in the case of defilement,
because of the following a fortiori argument from polling? Seeing that in the case of polling, where
only thirty days are rendered void, the agent is subject to the same [penalty] as the patient, then in
the case of defilement where the whole [of the preceding period] is rendered void, the agent should
certainly be subject to the same [penalty] as the patient? The verse says, And he defile his
consecrated head
21
 signifying [that the penalty is only] for him who defiles his [own] consecrated
head.
 
    Then polling should not result in the agent being subject to the same [penalty] as the patient,
because of the following a fortiori argument from defilement. Seeing that in the case of defilement,
where the whole [of the preceding period] is rendered void, the agent is not subject to the same
[penalty] as the patient, then in the case of polling, which does not render void the whole [of the
preceding period], the agent should certainly not be subject to the same [penalty] as the patient? —
The verse says, There shall no razor come upon his head,
22
 and can be read as signifying that he
shall not make it come himself, and that no other shall make it come either.
23
 
    Polling should not permit of an exception from the general prohibition because of the following a
fortiori argument front wine. Seeing that wine which does not render void [the preceding period]
permits of no exception from the general prohibition, then polling which does render void [the
preceding period] should certainly permit of no exception? — The All-Merciful mentions both his
hair and his beard.
24
 
    Then polling should not render void any [of the preceding period] because of the following a
fortiori argument from wine. Seeing that wine which permits of no exception does not render void,
polling which does permit of an exception from the general prohibition should certainly not render
void? — We require a sufficient growth of hair and this would be lacking.
25
 
    Why should not wine render void thirty days because of the following a fortiori argument from
polling? Seeing that polling, which permits of an exception from the general prohibition, renders
void [thirty days], then wine which permits of no exception from the general prohibition should
certainly do so? — Is not the only reason
26
 because there must be a sufficient growth of hair? After
wine his hair is still intact.
27
____________________
(1) Mentioned in the verse before the one dealing with his spinster sister.
(2)  For according to this Baraitha, too, he is permitted to defile himself for a part of the body, in contradiction to the
statement made by R. Hisda in the name of Rab. The Baraithas of R. Eliezer b. Jacob were highly esteemed and that is
why this one is quoted, although the reply may seem obvious. It would now be necessary to show some other Baraitha
agrees with Rab.
(3) Var. lec. R. Zadok the priest. [V. Tem. XII. Hyman, Toledoth, I, p. 202 gives preference to our text, since R. Zadok
was present at his father's death.]

---