Talmud Nazir (E)

so just as there [‘after’] means after the single act, here too it means after a single act.
 
    But may it not mean after both acts?
7
 — If that were so, there would be no need for the similarity
of phrase.
8
 
    Rab said: The rite of ‘waving’ in the case of the nazirite is indispensable.
9
 
    Whose opinion does this follow? Shall I say that of the Rabbis? Surely, since the Rabbis do not
consider polling indispensable, the ‘waving’ is certainly not so!
10
 It must therefore be that of R.
Eliezer. But then it is obvious, for R. Eliezer has said that [the verse
11
 means] ‘after all that has to be
done’? — It might be thought that since in the matter of atonement it is merely a non-essential
feature
12
 of the [sacrificial] rite,
13
 it is also not indispensable here, and so we are told [by Rab that
this is not so].
14
____________________
(1) I.e., the blood of any one of the three sacrifices.
(2) He did not have to wait until the whole rite was completed.
(3) Num. VI, 20.
(4) I.e., all the rites of the preceding verses.
(5) After even the first of the acts, viz.: the sprinkling of one kind of blood (Tosaf.).
(6) Num. VI, 19.
(7) I.e., after the polling of the preceding verse, as well as the sacrifice.
(8) The Gezerah Shawah, v. Glos. For it would have been more natural for the verse to have said simply ‘and then he
may drink etc.’ instead of ‘and after etc.’
(9) Lit., ‘holds up’ the nazirite from wine and defilement,
(10) V. Num. VI, 19-20, for the ‘waving’ follows the polling.
(11) ‘And after that the nazirite may drink wine’ ibid. 21.
(12) Although part of the normal procedure; v. Yoma 5a.
(13) Lit., ‘relics of a precept’.
(14) And that it is here indispensable, in the view of R. Eliezer.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 46b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 46b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 46b
But is it in fact indispensable? Has it not been taught: This is the law of the nazirite
1
 [signifies]
whether he has hands or not?
2
 — But then, when we are taught: ‘This is the law of the nazirite’
signifies whether he has hair or not,
3
 would this also mean that [polling] can be dispensed with?
4
 Are
we not taught further: A bald nazirite, say Beth Shammai, need not pass a razor over his head,
whereas Beth Hillel say that he must pass a razor over his head;
5
 and Rabina has explained that Beth
Shammai's ‘need not’ signifies that he has no remedy,
6
 whilst in Beth Hillel's view there is a
remedy?
7
 
    The above interpretation [by Rabina of the Baraitha] agrees with that of R. Pedath. For R. Pedath
has said that Beth Shammai [in this Baraitha] and R. Eliezer hold the same opinion. The [dictum of]
R. Eliezer referred to [is the following]. It has been taught: If [the leper] has no [right] thumb or
great toe
8
 he can never become clean. This is the opinion of R. Eliezer. R. Simeon said that [the
blood] should be put on their place and this would be valid, whilst the Sages said that it should be
put on his left [thumb and great toe] and this would be valid.
9
 
    Another version.
10
 Raba
11
 said: The rite of ‘waving’ in the case of the nazirite is indispensable.
 
    Whose opinion does this follow? Shall I say that of R. Eliezer? It would be obvious. Since R.
Eliezer said that [the nazirite cannot drink wine until] after [the completion of] all that has to be
done! Therefore it must be that of the Rabbis. But seeing that the Rabbis say that polling [itself] is

---

not indispensable, certainly the waving’ [which follows polling] can be dispensed with?
 
    But can it be dispensed with? Has it not been taught: ‘This is the law of the nazirite’ signifies
whether he has hands or no?
12
 — But then when we are taught: ‘This is the law of the nazirite’
signifies whether he has hair or no, would this also mean that [polling] is indispensable?
13
 Have we
not been taught further: A bald nazirite, say Beth Shammai, need not pass a razor over his head
whilst Beth Hillel say that he must pass a razor over his head?
14
 — R. Abina replied: ‘Must’
according to Beth Hillel signifies that he has no remedy,
15
 whereas according to Beth Shammai he
has a remedy.
 
    This interpretation [of the Baraitha by R. Abina] differs from that of R. Pedath.
16
 
    MISHNAH. SHOULD HE POLL AFTER ONE OF THE SACRIFICES AND THIS BE FOUND
INVALID,
17
 HIS POLLING IS INVALID
18
 AND HIS SACRIFICES
19
 DO NOT COUNT:
[THUS]
20
 SHOULD HE POLL AFTER THE SIN-OFFERING, WHICH WAS NOT OFFERED AS
SUCH,
21
 AND THEN OFFER THE OTHER SACRIFICES UNDER THEIR CORRECT
DESIGNATIONS, HIS POLLING IS INVALID AND [NONE OF] HIS SACRIFICES COUNTS
FOR HIM. [SIMILARLY], SHOULD HE POLL AFTER THE BURNT-OFFERING OR THE
PEACE-OFFERING, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN OFFERED AS SUCH, AND THEN OFFER
THE OTHER SACRIFICES UNDER THEIR CORRECT DESIGNATION, HIS POLLING IS
INVALID AND [NONE OF] HIS SACRIFICES COUNTS FOR HIM. R. SIMEON SAID: THAT
PARTICULAR SACRIFICE DOES NOT COUNT,
22
 BUT HIS OTHER SACRIFICES DO
COUNT.
 
    SHOULD HE POLL AFTER ALL THREE SACRIFICES AND ONE OF THEM BE FOUND
VALID, HIS POLLING IS VALID AND HE HAS [ONLY] TO BRING THE OTHER
SACRIFICES.
 
    GEMARA. R. Adda b. Ahaba said: This [Mishnah] tells us that R. Simeon is of the opinion that a
nazirite who polls after offering a voluntary peace-offering has fulfilled his religious obligation.
23
Why is this so? Because the verse Says, And put it on the fire which is under the sacrifice of
peace-offerings,
24
 and not ‘his peaceofferings’.
25
____________________
(1) Num. VI, 21.
(2)  Tosef. Naz. I, 6. The meaning is here assumed to be, ‘if he has no hands, the waving-rite can be omitted’, so that
even if he has hands it does not prevent him from drinking wine before it has taken place.
(3) Tosef. Naz. I, 6.
(4) By the same argument as before, assuming that if he has no hair the ceremony of shaving need not be performed.
(5) Tosef. Naz. I, 7 and Yoma 61b with the ascriptions reversed. Nazir contains a number of such passages both tannaitic
and of later date (e.g. supra 38b. Abaye and Raba reversed in Pes. 41b). Cf. Tosaf. Men. 58b, s.v. 
tfhtu
 .
(6) Since he can never shave, he will never be able to drink wine.
(7) He can perform the motions of the rite — pass a razor over his head — although the actual shaving is impossible.
And so above the true interpretation is that he must do what is possible consistent with his lack of hands, e.g.. use his
arms. But the ‘waving’ can by no means be dispensed with,
(8) One of the rites to be performed during the purification of the leper was the sprinkling of blood of the sacrifice on his
right thumb and great toe; Lev. XIV, 14.
(9) Neg. XIV, 9.
(10) Of the dictum attributed above to Rab, and of the discussion round it.
(11) Our printed text has Rab. But all the commentators appear to have had Raba, not Rab.
(12) The ceremony must be performed, and thus is indispensable. Here the interpretation is the reverse of what it was in
the earlier version.
(13) I.e., whether he has hair or not, shaving must be done.

---