Talmud Nazir (E)

atonement, he is not to enter [into the Temple precincts].
7
 For seeing that the reference is to the
Camp of the Levites,
8
 why is it called [in the verse], ‘the Tent of Meeting’? To tell us that just as one
who lacks atonement might not enter there,
9
 so one who lacks atonement may not enter the Camp of
the Levites.
10
 
    How is it known in that case?
11
 — It has been taught: He shall be unclean,
12
 includes also a tebul
yom; his uncleanness is yet upon him
13
 includes also one who lacks atonement.
 
    MISHNAH. HOW WAS [THE RITE OF] POLLING IN RITUAL PURITY
14
 PERFORMED? HE
WOULD BRING THREE ANIMALS, A SIN-OFFERING, A BURNT-OFFERING, AND A
PEACE-OFFERING, SLAUGHTER THE PEACE-OFFERING AND POLL THEREAFTER. THIS
IS THE OPINION OF R. JUDAH. R. ELEAZAR SAID: HE WOULD POLL ACTUALLY AFTER
THE SIN-OFFERING, FOR IN ALL CASES [THE SACRIFICE OF] THE SIN-OFFERING
TAKES PRECEDENCE.
15
 BUT IF HE POLLED AFTER [THE SLAUGHTER] OF ANY ONE OF
THE THREE HIS OBLIGATION WOULD BE DISCHARGED.
16
 
    R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: IF HE BROUGHT THREE ANIMALS WITHOUT
SPECIFYING [WHAT THEY WERE FOR],
17
 THE ONE SUITABLE FOR A SIN-OFFERING
18
WAS TO BE SACRIFICED AS A SIN-OFFERING, FOR A BURNT-OFFERING
19
 AS A
BURNT-OFFERING, AND FOR A PEACE-OFFERING
20
 AS A PEACEOFFERING.
 
    GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: [When it says], And the nazirite shall shave at the door of the tent
of meeting,
21
 Scripture is speaking of the peace-offering
22
 of which it is said, And kill it at the door
of the tent of meeting.
23
 You say that Scripture is speaking of the peace-offering, but may it not
mean literally ‘at the door of the tent of meeting’?
24
 I will explain. If that were its meaning, it would
show contempt [for the Sanctuary] — R. Josiah said: It is unnecessary [to rely on a mere assertion]
—
25
 For the Torah says, Neither shalt thou go up by steps upon Mine Altar,
26
 and how much more
so should it be forbidden to show contempt.
27
 
    R. Isaac said: This argument is unnecessary.
28
 For the verse continues, And shall take the hair of
his consecrated head and put it on the fire [which is under the sacrifice of peace-offerings),
29
referring to one who needs only to take it and put it [on the fire], and thus excluding [the case
contemplated],
30
 where he would need to take it, fetch it,
31
 and put it [on the fire].
 
    Another version [of R. Isaac's dictum].
32
 R. Isaac said: Scripture is there
33
 speaking of the
peace-offering. You say it is speaking of the peace-offerings but may it not mean literally ‘at the
door of the tent of meeting’? The verse continues, And shall take the hair of his consecrated head
[etc.], signifying that he shaved where he broiled [the peace-offering].
34
 
    Abba Hanan, on behalf of R. Eliezer, said: ‘And the nazirite shall shave at the door of the tent of
meeting’ signifies that whenever the door of the tent of meeting is not open,
35
 he is forbidden to
shave.
 
    R. Simeon [of] Shezuri said: ‘And the nazirite shall shave at the door of the tent of meeting’, but
not a female nazirite,
____________________
(1) It was to the Gates of Nicanor, which separated the Women's Court from the rest of the Temple precincts, that the
sacrifices were brought. [The Nicanor Gate was situated on the West of the Women's Court, and was an entrance to the
Inner Court. For a full discussion of the apparent discrepancies between the Talmudic sources and Josephus on the
situation of the Nicanor Gate, v. Buchler, JQR, 1898, 687ff, and Hollis, F. J., The Archaeology of Herod's Temple. pp.
180ff.]
(2) The division of the encampment of the Israelites in the wilderness into three camps of varying degrees of sanctity,

---

viz.: (i) The Camp of Israel. (ii) The Camp of the Levites, (iii) The Camp of the Divine Presence, was transferred to the
Temple at Jerusalem, the three divisions being known by the same names (v. Sifre Num. I, 1).
(3) Ex. XIII, 19.
(4)  Thus the nazirite even before purification could enter the Camp of the Levites, which makes the above deduction
after the fashion of the colleagues of R. Nathan b. Hoshaya absurd. (V. Tosef. Kelim Kamma, I, 7.)
(5) What follows is the text and version of Tosaf. That of Rashi is given below, note 8.
(6) And might have a Paschal lamb slaughtered on his behalf.
(7) I.e. , he is forbidden to enter the Camp of the Levites to give his sacrifices to the priest, not because he is treated as
though he were still suffering from the issue, but because he is lacking in atonement, i.e., has not yet offered the
necessary sacrifices. And although, in general, a person lacking in atonement was not forbidden to enter the Camp of the
Levites, but only the Camp of the Divine Presence, here for the reason to be given immediately entry even into the Camp
of the Levites is forbidden until after sunset.
(8) For the sacrifices had only to be taken as far as the Gates of Nicanor in the Camp of the Levites.
(9) The proof is given below.
(10) Whereas the nazirite is not considered lacking in atonement since his defilement arose from external causes (contact
with the dead) and not from internal ones (leprosy or issue). Thus far the version of Tosaf. Rashi reads as follows: ‘(The
colleagues of R. Nathan replied): As a matter of fact, a tebul yom after gonorrhoea does count as a sufferer from
gonorrhoea, whilst even in the case you mention (of the nazirite) he should not enter (the Camp of the Levites, although
a corpse itself might do so) because he lacks atonement. For if it is only the Camp of the Levites that is in question (i.e.,
if in any case the defiled nazirite can enter the Camp of the Levites and has to penetrate no further), why is it referred to
in the verse as ‘the Tent of Meeting’ (which is part of the Camp of the Divine Presence)? To tell us that just as one who
lacks atonement may not enter (the latter place), so he may not enter the Camp of the Levites’. It will be observed that
apart from the obvious difference at the beginning, Tosaf. does not consider a defiled nazirite as coming within the
category of ‘lacking atonement’ whilst Rashi does.
(11) I.e., how do we know that one who lacks atonement is forbidden to enter the Camp of the Divine Presence?
(12) Num. XIX, 13; this refers to a person defiled by a corpse who has not bathed; and in the context he is forbidden to
enter the Sanctuary. The use of the future tense in the verb is taken as a sign that even a tebul yom must not enter there.
(13) Ibid. The inference is from the redundancy of these words.
(14) At the termination of the naziriteship; v. Num. VI, 14ff.
(15) V. Zeb. 900.
(16)  I.e., the opinions of R. Judah and R. Eleazar give the normal procedure, but a variation in the order would not
invalidate the polling.
(17) Cf. supra 28b.
(18) A ewe-lamb in its first year.
(19) A he-lamb in its first year.
(20) A two-year old ram.
(21) Num. VI, 18.
(22) I.e., the nazirite is to shave after the slaughter of the peace-offering.
(23) Lev. III, 2.
(24) And so be referring to the place, not the time of polling.
(25)  We can infer directly from the Torah that a disdainful proceeding is not to be allowed, and need not rely on our
feelings on the subject.
(26) ‘That thy nakedness be not uncovered there’, Ex. XX, 23.
(27) We have given our printed text as interpreted by the early commentators (Rashi, Asheri). In Sifre Num. Sect. 34 (in
VI, 28), the words ‘R. Josiah said: It is unnecessary’ are lacking. Recent Talmud editions insert in square brackets an
alternative text from the Midrash Rabbah on Numbers, beginning with ‘R. Josiah said: Scripture is speaking etc.’ There
is also a version of the Wilna Gaon (v. Ed. Romm, Marginal Annotations), concluding, ‘This is the opinion of R. Josiah’.
All these alternatives make what our text gives as two opinions, one opinion.
(28)  I.e., It is unnecessary to make use of the argument that to shave at the door of the tent of meeting would show
contempt.
(29) Num. VI, 18.
(30) I.e. , that the nazirite should shave at the door of the tent of meeting.

---