Talmud Nazir (E)

(18) Since all princes poll weekly.
(19) In II Sam. XV, 7.
(20) V.I Sam. VIII, 5’
(21) V. Seder ‘Olam XIV.
(22) Num, VI, 5.
(23) Gematria, v.Sanh. (Sonc.ed.),p. 121, n. 4.
(24) 
vhvh
 Y = 10; H= 5; Y=10; H= 5. In Hebrew, as in Greek, the letters have numerical values.
(25) I.e., in the section on the nazirite vow. Num. VI, 1ff. Parts of the root nadar are included in the computation, but the
nazar of verse 7 is omitted since it does not mean ‘separation’, but ‘crown’.
(26) V. infra.
(27) Num. VI, 3.
(28) V. supra p. 8.
(29) Ibid. VI, 2.
(30) If he repeats the vow, he becomes a nazirite twice.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 5b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 5b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 5b
To which Bar Pada can reply: Is there not even one [recurrence of a part of nazar] that is not needed
for a special lesson? Since this one may be used for computation. ail may be used for computation.
1
We have learnt: A NAZIRITE VOW OF UNSPECIFIED DURATION [REMAINS IN FORCE]
THIRTY DAYS. Now, this fits in well enough with the view of R. Mattena, but how can it be
reconciled with Bar Pada's view?
2
 — Bar Pada will tell you that because [the period of the vow
closes with] the thirtieth day, on which the nazirite polls and brings his sacrifices, [the Mishnah] says
thirty [days].
 
    We have learnt: If a man says, ‘I declare myself a nazirite,’ he polls on the thirty-first day.
3
 Now,
this fits in well enough with the view of R. Mattena, but how is it to be reconciled with Bar Pada's
view? — Bar Pada will say: Consider the clause which follows, [viz.:] Should he poll on the thirtieth
day, his obligation is fulfilled. We see, then, that the second clause [of this Mishnah] lends support to
his view, whilst the original clause [must be read] as though it contained the word [I declare myself a
nazirite for thirty] ‘whole’ [days].
4
 Does not this second clause need to be reconciled with R.
Mattena's view?
5
 — He considers part of a day equivalent to a whole day.
6
 
    But have we not learnt: ‘[Should someone say,] "I intend to be a nazirite for thirty days," and poll
on the thirtieth day, his obligation is not fulfilled’?
7
 — [We presume that] he said, ‘whole days’.
 
    We have learnt: If a man undertakes two naziriteships, he polls for the first one on the thirty-first
day, and for the second on the sixty-first day.
7
 This fits in well enough with the view of R. Mattena
____________________
(1) As well as for teaching special lessons.
(2) According to which the period should be 29 days.
(3) V. infra 162.
(4) And therefore he polls on the 31st day.
(5) According to which the polling should he on the thirty-first day.
(6) Thus though he polls on the thirtieth day, he has kept thirty days of naziriteship.
(7) Infra p. 53.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 6a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 6a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 6a
but how is it to be reconciled with Bar Pada's view? — Bar Pada will say: Consider the clause which
follows, [viz.:] If, however, he should poll for the first on the thirtieth day, he can poll for the second
on the sixtieth day. Thus the second clause lends support to his view, whilst the original clause [must

---

be read] as though it contained the words ‘whole days’.
 
    Is not R. Mattena in conflict with this second clause?
1
 — R. Mattena can reply: This must be
interpreted in the light of the next clause, which says that the thirtieth day counts as belonging to
both periods.
2
 This is taken to signify then that part of a day is equivalent to a whole day. But has he
[the Tanna] not stated this once already?
3
 — It might be thought that this is only true for one
naziriteship but not for two, and so we are told [that it is also true for two].
4
 
    We have learnt: Should he poll on the day prior to the sixtieth, he has fulfillied his obligation.
since the thirtieth day is included in the [required] number.
5
 Now, this fits in well enough with the
view of R. Mattena, but for Bar Pada what necessity is there [for this statement], since he says that
[the normal duration] is thirty days less one? — He will say: This is the very passage on which I rely
for my opinion.
 
    We have learnt: If a person says, ‘I intend to be a nazirite’ and contracts ritual defilement on the
thirtieth day, the whole period is rendered void.
5
 Now, this fits in well enough with the view of R.
Mattena, but does it not conflict with that of Bar Pada? —
____________________
(1) Cf. 11. 4.
(2) As end of the first and beginning of the second naziriteship.
(3) As an inference from another clause of the same Mishnah (v. supra, p. 17); what necessity is there then for this latter
clause?
(4) That one part of the day belongs to one and the other to the second period.
(5) Infra p. 53.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 6b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 6b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 6b
Bar Pada will say: Consider the subsequent clause [which reads]: R. Eliezer says: Only the [next]
seven days are void.
1
 Now if you assume that thirty days are necessary [as the minimum period of
nazirite separation], should not all be void?
2
 [R. Mattena, however, will reply:] R. Eliezer is of the
opinion that part of a day is equivalent to the whole.
3
 
    We have learnt: [If a man says] ‘I intend to be a nazirite for one hundred days,’ and contracts
ritual defilement on the hundredth day, the whole period is rendered void. R. Eliezer said that only
thirty days are rendered void.
4
 Now, if we assume
5
 that R. Eliezer considers part of a day to be
equivalent to a whole day, surely only seven days should be annulled?
1
 Again [on the other hand] if
we assume
6
 that he does not regard part of the day as equivalent to a whole day, should not the
whole period be annulled?
7
 — In point of fact, we do not regard part of a day as equivalent to a
whole day. In that case, why is not the whole period annulled? — Said Resh Lakish: R. Eliezer's
reason is as follows: Scripture says, And this is the law of the nazirite, [on the day] when the days of
his consecration are fulfilled.
8
 Thus the Torah expressly declares that if he contracts ritual defilement
on the day of fulfilment, the law for a nazirite vow [of unspecified duration] is to be applied to him.
9
May we say [that the difference between R. Mattena and Bar Pada] is the same as that between the
following Tannaim? [For it was taught:] From the verse, Until the days be fulfilled,
10
 I can only infer
that the vow must continue in force at least two days,
11
 and so the text adds, He shall be holy; he
shall let the locks grow long,
12
 and hair does not ‘grow long’ in less than thirty days. This is the view
of R. Josiah. R. Jonathan, however, said that this [reasoning] is unnecessary, for we have the text,
Until the days be fulfilled.
12
 What days then are those which have to be ‘fulfilled’? You must say the
thirty days [of the lunar month].
13
 May we assume that R. Mattena agrees with R. Josiah, and Bar
Pada with R. Jonathan? — R. Mattena can maintain that both [authorities] agree that thirty days is
the necessary period and the point at issue between them is whether the word ‘until’ [preceding a
number] signifies the inclusion or exclusion [of the last unit of that number].
14
  R.  Josiah  is  of  the

---