Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nazir

Folio 19a

Who is the Tanna of the following [teaching] taught by the Rabbis: 'If a woman undertakes a nazirite vow, and contracts ritual defilement, and then her husband declares [her vow] void, she must bring the sin-offering of a bird, but not the burnt-offering of a bird'? — R. Hisda replied: It is R. Ishmael.²  How comes [R. Ishmael] to this ruling? — If he holds that the husband nullifies [his wife's vow],³  then she should not be required to bring the sinoffering of a bird, whilst if he holds that the husband only terminates⁴  [the vow],⁵  why should she not be required to bring the burnt-offering of a bird as well? — Actually he is of the opinion that a husband nullifies [his wife's vow], and he further agrees with R. Eleazar ha-Kappar. For it has been taught: R. Eleazar ha-Kappar, Berabbi,⁶  said: Why does the Scripture say, And make atonement for him, for that he sinned by reason of the soul.⁷  Against what 'soul' did he then sin? It can only be because he denied himself wine.⁸  If then this man who denied himself wine only is termed a sinner, how much more so is this true of one who is ascetic in all things!

But the verse is referring to an unclean nazirite,⁹  whilst we are applying it even to a ritually clean nazirite? — R. Eleazar ha-Kappar¹⁰  is of the opinion that a ritually clean nazirite is also a sinner, and the reason that Scripture teaches this [lesson in connection] with a defiled nazirite is that he repeats his sin.¹¹

IF HE LEAVES IT AND RE-ENTERS, THE DAYS ARE RECKONED. It is stated that they are reckoned.¹²  Does then the naziriteship begin to operate merely because he has left [the graveyard]?¹³  — Samuel said: [We are speaking of] where he has left it, been sprinkled [a first and] a second time and bathed.¹⁴  But [are we to infer that] if he re-enters, then only are they reckoned, whilst if he does not re-enter, they are not reckoned? — The argument is progressive. Not only [do they count] if he leaves, but [they count] also if he re-enters [immediately after purification].¹⁵

R. Kahana and R. Assi asked Rab: Why have you not explained [the Mishnah] to us in this manner? — He replied: I was under the impression that you did not require [to be told].

R. ELIEZER SAID: NOT IF HE DOES SO ON THE SAME DAY, FOR IT SAYS, AND THE FORMER DAYS SHALL BE VOID, IMPLYING THAT THERE MUST BE FORMER DAYS. 'Ulla said: R. Eliezer was referring only to a ritually defiled person who makes a nazirite vow, but a ritually clean nazirite who contracts ritual defilement, makes [his naziriteship] void, even on the first day.¹⁶

1. The naziriteship begins anew after he has brought the guilt-offering.
2. [Who, in contradistinction to the Rabbis, holds that the burnt-offering is not brought as a mere gift, but specifically as a sacrifice of a nazirite, and since her naziriteship is void, she brings no sin-offering.]
3. Lit., 'uproots' i.e., that his action is retrospective and the vow has never been valid.
4. Lit., 'cuts off'.
5. When he disallows it; until then it was effective.
6. [Or 'Berebi'. Designation by which Bar Kappara is known in order to distinguish him from his father who bore the same name. The meaning of the title is uncertain: (a) a compound of 'house', be, and 'rabbi', i.e., belonging to the school of an eminent teacher (Jast.), or (b) a compound of 'son', 'bir', and 'rabbi', 'a son of a scholar', i.e., 'a scholar', v. J.E. III, 52.]
7. [H], E.V.: 'dead'. Num. VI, II.
8. And so the woman must bring the sin-offering because she wished to deny herself wine.
9. The section of which it forms part begins (Num. VI, 9), If any man die suddenly upon him, so that he becomes defiled, … he shall bring two turtle doves, of which one was a sin-offering brought because, … he sinned by reason of the soul.
10. Cf., however, supra 3a, where R. Eleazar ha-Kappar is reported as saying that a ritually clean nazirite is not a sinner.
11. For the period before defilement is void and he must now recommence to count thirty days.
12. So that he must bring the sacrifices of a nazir who becomes unclean.
13. For he is still unclean.
14. I.e., undergone the purification rites. V. Num. XIX, 19.
15. In which case we might think that he is as at first.
16. When there are no 'former days'.

Abaye raised an objection [from the following]. [If a man says,] 'I wish to be a nazirite for one hundred days,' and contracts ritual defilement at the very beginning of them, it might be held that this makes void [the naziriteship], but the text reads, 'And the former days shall be void'; there must first be 'former days', and here there are no former days. If he contracts ritual defilement at the end of the hundred days, it might be held that this makes void [the naziriteship], but the text reads, 'And the former days shall be void', implying that there are later days too' and here there are no days to come. If he contracts ritual defilement on the ninety-ninth day. It might be held³  that he should not make void the naziriteship, but the text reads, And the former days shall be void, implying that there must be days to come, and here there are both former days⁴  and days to come. Now it cannot be said that we are dealing with a ritually defiled person who makes a nazirite vow, since the account begins. "'I wish to be a nazirite for a hundred days," and he contracts defilement at the very beginning of them,' and yet it says that former days are necessary. — This indeed is a refutation [of 'Ulla].

R. Papa asked Abaye: Regarding the days that are required, is it sufficient if one has passed and [the defilement occurs when] the second begins, or must two pass, and [the defilement occur when] the third has begun? — [Abaye] had no information on the subject, so [Rab Papa] went and asked Raba. He replied: The text reads they shall fall away.⁵

Both the word 'days', and the [plural] form, 'they shall fall away' are needed,⁶  for if the Divine Law had used the word 'days' and not the form 'they shall fall away', it might have been held that it is sufficient if one day has passed, and the second begun,⁷  and so the Divine Law wrote 'they shall fall away'. And if it had used the form 'they shall fall away', and not [the plural] 'days', it might have been held that even one day is sufficient, and so the Divine Law uses the word days.

MISHNAH. IF A MAN VOWS A NAZIRITESHIP OF LONG DURATION AND COMPLETES IT AND THEN ARRIVES IN THE LAND [OF ISRAEL], BETH SHAMMAI SAY THAT HE IS A NAZIRITE FOR THIRTY DAYS, BUT BETH HILLEL SAY THAT HIS NAZIRITESHIP COMMENCES AGAIN AS AT FIRST. IT IS RELATED THAT QUEEN HELENA,⁸  WHEN HER SON WENT TO WAR,⁹  SAID: 'IF MY SON RETURNS IN PEACE FROM THE WAR, I SHALL BE A NAZIRITE FOR SEVEN YEARS. HER SON RETURNED FROM THE WAR, AND SHE OBSERVED A NAZIRITESHIP FOR SEVEN YEARS. AT THE END OF THE SEVEN YEARS, SHE WENT UP TO THE LAND [OF ISRAEL]¹⁰  AND BETH HILLEL RULED THAT SHE MUST BE A NAZIRITE FOR A FURTHER SEVEN YEARS. TOWARDS THE END OF THIS SEVEN YEARS, SHE CONTRACTED RITUAL DEFILEMENT, AND SO ALTOGETHER SHE WAS A NAZIRITE FOR TWENTY-ONE YEARS. R. JUDAH SAID: SHE WAS ONLY A NAZIRITE FOR FOURTEEN YEARS.¹¹

GEMARA. The first clause reads: BETH SHAMMAI SAY [HE] IS A NAZIRITE FOR THIRTY DAYS, BUT BETH HILLEL SAY THAT HIS NAZIRITESHIP COMMENCES AGAIN AS AT FIRST. May we say that the ground on which they differ is that Beth Shammai are of the opinion [Rabbis declared] foreign lands [to be unclean] on account of their soil,

1. For making a distinction between one who undertook the naziriteship in purity, and an unclean person who undertakes a naziriteship, where we require former days'.
2. Num. VI, 12.
3. Since there is only one day to come and not 'days'.
4. Viz., part of the ninety-ninth and the hundredth.
5. Meaning that two complete days must have passed. So Rashi.
6. [The text could have read 'And he shall hallow his head on that day apart from the previous days' (Tosaf.)]
7. Because part of a day is like the whole. The reading of Rashi and the BaH. has been adopted. Our printed text reads: It might have been held that it is necessary for two days to have passed and the third begun, and so the Divine Law used the form 'they shall fall away'. Thus the inference conflicts with the usually accepted interpretation of Raba's reply. The objection to it is that the Gemara above appears to imply that the two phrases are weak forms needing to be strengthened by the appearance of both. The printed text, on the other hand, at the last treats 'days' as a strong form.
8. Queen of the Adiabene, circa 40 C.E., Mother of Izates, V. Josephus Ant. XX, 2-4.
9. Possibly the war of the restoration of Artabanus as King of Parthia. Ibid. 3.
10. Also recorded by Josephus 2, 5.
11. V. the Gemara, infra.