Talmud Nazir (E)

(14) So that the act of polling is not indispensable according to Beth Hillel, and consequently the waving should also be
considered not indispensable.
(15)  For he has no hair to shave, and therefore can never terminate his naziriteship. Similarly the wave-offering is
indispensable.
(16) For according to R. Abina, Beth Shammai allow him a remedy, whereas R. Pedath (v. supra) says that they do not
allow him a remedy.
(17)  As explained later in the Mishnah (Rashi); or by the blood being upset before the sprinkling, or the sacrifice
becoming defiled (Tosaf.).
(18)  And he must wait thirty days according to the Rabbis, or seven according to R. Eliezer before bringing fresh
sacrifices; v. Mishnah supra 39a.
(19) Other sacrifices offered after the polling.
(20) The word ‘thus’ is added by Rashi, who considers what follows explanatory of the opening phrase of the Mishnah.
Tosaf. considers it a new section, explaining the first clause differently: (v. note 5).
(21) But was sacrificed as a peace-offering instead.
(22)  Where the burnt-offering or peace-offering was sacrificed under an incorrect designation (Rashi); they count as
voluntary peace-offerings (v. Zeb. 2a), but for the purpose of liberating the nazirite must be replaced by other animals.
[A sin-offering, however, sacrificed under an incorrect designation is entirely disqualified. v. Zeb. ibid.]
(23) Since R. Simeon's dictum refers to a nazirite who polled after a voluntary-offering (v. previous note).
(24) Num. VI, 18.
(25) Hence any peace-offering is valid.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 47a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 47a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 47a
MISHNAH. IF [A NAZIRITE] ON WHOSE BEHALF ONE KIND OF BLOOD
1
 HAS BEEN
SPRINKLED BECOMES UNCLEAN, R. ELIEZER SAID EVERYTHING IS RENDERED VOID,
2
WHILST THE SAGES SAID: HE IS TO BRING HIS REMAINING SACRIFICES AFTER
PURIFICATION. THEY SAID TO [R. ELIEZER]: IT IS RELATED OF MIRIAM OF TARMOD
3
THAT ONE KIND OF BLOOD WAS SPRINKLED ON HER BEHALF WHEN SHE WAS TOLD
THAT HER DAUGHTER WAS DANGEROUSLY ILL. SHE WENT AND FOUND HER DEAD,
4
AND THE SAGES TOLD HER TO OFFER HER REMAINING SACRIFICES AFTER
PURIFICATION.
 
    GEMARA. The Mishnah says: R. ELIEZER SAID EVERYTHING IS RENDERED VOID. But
R. Eliezer has said that whatever occurs after the fulfilment [of the nazirite period] renders void
seven days?
5
 — Rab replied: By ‘IS RENDERED VOID’ here, R. Eliezer means ‘renders his
sacrifices void’.
6
 This is also clear from the sequel. viz: — WHILST THE SAGES SAID: HE IS TO
BRING HIS REMAINING SACRIFICES AFTER PURIFICATION.
7
 IT IS RELATED FURTHER,
OF MIRIAM OF TARMOD, THAT ONE KIND OF BLOOD WAS SPRINKLED ON HER
BEHALF WHEN SHE WAS TOLD THAT HER DAUGHTER WAS DANGEROUSLY ILL. SHE
WENT AND FOUND HER DEAD, AND THE SAGES TOLD HER TO OFFER THE
REMAINING SACRIFICES AFTER PURIFICATION. This proves it.
8
 
    C H A P T E R  V I I
 
    MISHNAH. A HIGH PRIEST AND A NAZIRITE MAY NOT DEFILE THEMSELVES [BY
CONTACT] WITH THEIR [DEAD] RELATIVES, BUT THEY MAY DEFlle THEMSELVES
WITH A METH MIZWAH.
9
 
    IF THEY WERE WALKING BY THE WAY AND FOUND A METH MIZWAH, R. ELIEZER
SAYS THAT THE HIGH PRIEST SHOULD DEFILE HIMSELF BUT NOT THE NAZIRITE, BUT
THE SAGES SAY: THE NAZIRITE SHOULD DEFILE HIMSELF BUT NOT THE COMMON
PRIEST.
10
 R. ELIEZER SAID TO THEM: RATHER SHOULD THE PRIEST, WHO DOES NOT

---

OFFER A SACRIFICE ON DEFILEMENT, DEFILE HIMSELF, THAN THE NAZIRITE WHO
MUST OFFER A SACRIFICE ON DEFILEMENT.
11
 THEY REPLIED: RATHER SHOULD THE
NAZIRITE WHOSE CONSECRATION IS NOT PERMANENT,
12
 DEFILE HIMSELF, THAN
THE PRIEST WHOSE CONSECRATION IS PERMANENT.
13
 
    GEMARA. It is clear that as between a High Priest and a nazirite, the one [authority]
14
 is of the
opinion that the High Priest is of superior sanctity,
15
 and the other
16
 that the nazirite is of superior
sanctity.
17
 
    As between [a High Priest] anointed with the anointing oil,
18
 [
____________________
(1) I.e., the blood of one of the three sacrifices.
(2) Explained in the Gemara.
(3) A nazirite, Tarmod or Tadmor Palmyra. (V. I Kings, IX, 18).
(4) Thus becoming accidentally unclean.
(5) Supra 16a-b. If then ‘EVERYTHING’ means the nazirite period, R. Eliezer is contradicting himself.
(6)  I.e., the sacrifice the blood of which had been sprinkled is invalid and must be replaced, in accordance with R.
Eliezer's view that the whole termination ceremony of the nazirite hangs together; v. supra 46a.
(7) The words in cur. edd. ‘This proves it’ are to be deleted.
(8) That the point at issue was only the validity of the first sacrifices.
(9) I.e., a corpse without relatives at hand to bury it; v. Glos.
(10) Some versions read ‘High Priest’. The argument is not affected.
(11) V. Num. VI, 9ff.
(12) It lapses at the end of the period of his naziriteship, or he can obtain release from his vow by application to a sage
(Tosaf.).
(13) It is a result of his birth.
(14) I.e., the Sages.
(15) I.e., if both come upon a corpse which has no relatives to bury it, the nazirite must defile himself in order to bury it.
(16) R. Eliezer.
(17) And the High Priest must bury the corpse.
(18) V. Ex. XXX, 30. The High Priest ceased to be consecrated with this oil in the days of Josiah (c. 620 B.C.E.); v. Hor.
120 and Yoma 52b. After this, consecration took place by investing the priest with the garments of a High Priest.

---