קָסָבַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: כׇּל אַחַר מְלֹאת שִׁבְעָה — סוֹתֵר. ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם״, וְנִטְמָא יוֹם שְׁלֹשִׁים — סוֹתֵר אֶת הַכֹּל, לָא פְּלִיג רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דְּאָמַר שְׁלֵימִין. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Eliezer holds that when anyone becomes ritually impure after the completion of his term of naziriteship, but before he brought his offerings, only seven days are negated, and the thirtieth day is after the completion of his term. The mishna then teaches that one who said: I am hereby a nazirite for thirty days, and became impure on the thirtieth day, it negates the entire tally. Rabbi Eliezer does not disagree in this case, since it is an instance where he explicitly said that he accepts naziriteship on himself for a full thirty days, and his ritual impurity therefore occurs during his naziriteship period.
״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מֵאָה יוֹם״, וְנִטְמָא יוֹם מֵאָה — סוֹתֵר אֶת הַכֹּל, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ סוֹתֵר אֶלָּא שְׁלֹשִׁים. וְכוּלָּהּ כְּדַהֲוֵינַן בָּהּ אַלִּיבָּא דְּבַר פַּדָּא וְרַב מַתְנָא. The mishna also taught that if one said: I am hereby a nazirite for one hundred days, and he became impure on the one hundredth day, it negates the entire tally. Rabbi Eliezer says it negates only thirty. And this entire mishna should be explained as we discussed it, in accordance with the opinions of bar Padda and Rav Mattana earlier (5a–6b).
מַתְנִי׳ מִי שֶׁנָּזַר וְהוּא בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת, אֲפִילּוּ הָיָה שָׁם שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם — אֵין עוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן, וְאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קׇרְבַּן טוּמְאָה. יָצָא וְנִכְנַס — עוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן, וּמֵבִיא קׇרְבַּן טוּמְאָה. MISHNA: One who took a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery, even if he was there for a full thirty days without leaving, those days he spent in the cemetery do not count as part of his tally, since his naziriteship has not yet gone into effect. And he therefore does not bring the three offerings of impurity, brought by a nazirite when rendered ritually impure by contact with a corpse, despite having been in a cemetery. If he left the cemetery and entered it again, those days do count as part of his tally, meaning the naziriteship takes effect, and he does bring the offerings of impurity for reentering the cemetery.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לֹא בּוֹ בַיּוֹם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהַיָּמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים יִפְּלוּ״, עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ לוֹ יָמִים רִאשׁוֹנִים. Rabbi Eliezer says: This halakha does not apply to one who entered the cemetery on the very day that he left it, as it is stated with regard to the halakhot of a ritually impure nazirite: “But the first days shall be void” (Numbers 6:12), which indicates that he does not bring the offerings until he will have “first days” of purity, during which he observed his naziriteship.
גְּמָ׳ אִיתְּמַר, מִי שֶׁנָּזַר וְהוּא בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: נְזִירוּת חָלָה עָלָיו, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אֵין נְזִירוּת חָלָה עָלָיו. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר נְזִירוּת חָלָה עָלָיו, סָבַר: מִיתְּלָא תַּלְיָא וְקָיְימָא, כֵּיוָן דְּמַשְׁכְּחָא טׇהֳרָה, חָיְילָא. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אֵין נְזִירוּת חָלָה עָלָיו. אִי הָדַר וְאָמַר — חָיְילָא עֲלֵיהּ, וְאִי לָא — לָא. GEMARA: It was stated that the amora’im disagree with regard to one who vowed to be a nazirite while in a cemetery. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Naziriteship takes effect for him, and Reish Lakish said: Naziriteship does not take effect for him. The Gemara clarifies their respective opinions: Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said naziriteship takes effect for him, holds that from the moment he accepts naziriteship upon himself it is pending, so that when it is found that he is in a state of ritual purity it takes immediate effect. The vow registers from when he states it, but it cannot take effect in practice as long as he stands in a ritually impure location. And Reish Lakish said that naziriteship does not take effect for him at all. Consequently, if he again said after leaving the cemetery that he accepts a vow of naziriteship, it takes effect for him; but if he does not repeat his vow, he is not a nazirite.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מִי שֶׁנָּזַר וְהוּא בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת, אֲפִילּוּ הָיָה שָׁם שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם — אֵין עוֹלִין מִן הַמִּנְיָן, וְאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קׇרְבַּן טוּמְאָה. קׇרְבַּן טוּמְאָה הוּא דְּלָא מַיְיתֵי, הָא מֵיחָל — חָיְילָא עֲלֵיהּ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵינוֹ בְּתוֹרַת טוּמְאָה, וְאֵינוֹ בְּתוֹרַת קׇרְבָּן. Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from the mishna: One who took a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery, even if he was there for a full thirty days without leaving, those days he spent in the cemetery do not count as part of the tally, since his naziriteship has not yet gone into effect. And he therefore does not bring the offerings of impurity despite having been in a cemetery. Rabbi Yoḥanan infers from this: It is the offerings of impurity that he does not bring, but as far as the issue of the naziriteship taking effect, it does take effect for him. Reish Lakish said to him: It means he is not included in the law of prohibited ritual impurity, and therefore he is not included in the law of the offerings. He is not a nazirite at all.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: מִי שֶׁהָיָה טָמֵא וְנָזַר, אָסוּר לְגַלֵּחַ וְלִשְׁתּוֹת יַיִן וְלִיטָּמֵא לְמֵתִים. וְאִם גִּילַּח וְשָׁתָה יַיִן וְנִטְמָא לְמֵתִים — הֲרֵי זֶה סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא חָיְילָא — הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּסוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לָא חָיְילָא, אַמַּאי סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים? Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from what was taught in a baraita (Tosefta 2:14): One who was impure and took a vow of naziriteship must still observe the halakhot of a nazirite: He is prohibited from shaving, and from drinking wine, and from becoming impure from a corpse. And if he shaved, or if he drank wine, or if he became impure from a corpse, he incurs [sofeg] the forty lashes administered to one who actively transgresses a negative Torah prohibition. Rabbi Yoḥanan asks: Granted, if you say that naziriteship takes effect despite his ritual impurity, that is the reason that he incurs the forty lashes, similar to any nazirite who transgresses the prohibitions of naziriteship. But if you say the naziriteship does not take effect while he is ritually impure, why does he incur the forty lashes?
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — בְּיוֹצֵא וְנִכְנָס. Reish Lakish responded: With what are we dealing here in this baraita? With one who left and entered, meaning that after having left the cemetery and purifying himself, he then vowed again to be a nazirite and subsequently reentered the cemetery.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: אֵין בֵּין טָמֵא שֶׁנָּזַר לְנָזִיר טָהוֹר שֶׁנִּטְמָא, אֶלָּא טָמֵא שֶׁנָּזַר — שְׁבִיעִי שֶׁלּוֹ עוֹלֶה לוֹ לַמִּנְיָן, וְנָזִיר טָהוֹר שֶׁנִּטְמָא — אֵין שְׁבִיעִי שֶׁלּוֹ עוֹלֶה לוֹ לַמִּנְיָן. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ לָא חָיְילָא, אַמַּאי עוֹלֶה לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן? Rabbi Yoḥanan raised another objection to Reish Lakish’s opinion from a different source: The difference between a ritually impure person who took a vow of naziriteship and a ritually pure nazirite who became impure is only the following halakha: If a ritually impure person took a vow of naziriteship, his seventh day of purification counts as part of his tally of his term of naziriteship, since he starts counting his term of naziriteship as soon as he becomes pure. But with regard to a ritually pure nazirite who became impure, his seventh day of purification does not count as part of his tally. Rather, he starts counting his days of naziriteship from the following day, which is the day on which he brings his offerings. And if it enters your mind that a vow of naziriteship stated while ritually impure does not take effect, why does the baraita state that the seventh day counts as part of his tally, indicating that the naziriteship takes effect without a need for him to restate his vow?
אָמַר מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי: מֵיחָל — כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּחָיְילָא, אֶלָּא כִּי פְּלִיגִי לְמִלְקֵי: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּחָיְילָא — לָקֵי. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ סָבַר: לָא לָקֵי, וְחָיְילָא. As a result of this question, the Gemara offers a different interpretation of their dispute. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: The dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish is not as stated above. With regard to the question of the vow of naziriteship taking effect, everyone agrees that it takes effect from the moment of his acceptance of naziriteship, even if he was in the cemetery. Rather, when they disagree it is with regard to being flogged, as follows: Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that since the vow takes effect, he is therefore flogged for becoming impure, and Reish Lakish holds that he is not flogged for becoming impure, but the vow does take effect with regard to the prohibitions of naziriteship.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מִי שֶׁנָּזַר וְהוּא בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת, אֲפִילּוּ הָיָה שָׁם שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם — אֵין עוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן, וְאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קׇרְבַּן טוּמְאָה. קׇרְבַּן טוּמְאָה הוּא דְּלָא מַיְיתֵי, הָא מִילְקֵי, לָקֵי עֲלֵיהּ! According to this version of the dispute as well, Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from the mishna, which states: One who took a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery, even if he was there for a full thirty days without leaving, those days he spent in the cemetery do not count as part of his tally, since his naziriteship has not yet gone into effect. And he therefore does not bring the offerings of impurity, despite having been in a cemetery. Rabbi Yoḥanan infers from this: It is the offerings of impurity that he does not bring, but he is flogged for contracting impurity, which is not in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish.
בְּדִין הוּא דְּלִיתְנֵי ״אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה״, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא בָּעֵי לְמִיתְנֵא סֵיפָא ״יָצָא וְנִכְנַס — עוֹלֶה לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן, וּמֵבִיא קׇרְבַּן טוּמְאָה״, תְּנָא רֵישָׁא ״אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קׇרְבַּן טוּמְאָה״. The Gemara answers: This inference is not correct, as by right the mishna should teach: He is not flogged, but due to the fact that the tanna wants to teach the latter clause of the mishna, which states: If he left the cemetery and entered it again, those days do count as part of his tally, meaning the naziriteship takes effect, and he does bring the offerings of impurity for reentering the cemetery, the tanna therefore taught a similar phrasing in the first clause of the mishna: He does not bring the offerings of impurity, so this should not be seen as an indication that he is not flogged.
תָּא שְׁמַע: אֵין בֵּין טָמֵא שֶׁנָּזַר לְנָזִיר טָהוֹר שֶׁנִּטְמָא, אֶלָּא שֶׁטָּמֵא שֶׁנָּזַר — שְׁבִיעִי שֶׁלּוֹ עוֹלֶה לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן, וְנָזִיר טָהוֹר שֶׁנִּטְמָא — אֵין שְׁבִיעִי שֶׁלּוֹ עוֹלֶה לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן. הָא לְמַלְקוּת — זֶה וָזֶה שָׁוִין! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא, לְתִגְלַחַת זֶה וָזֶה שָׁוִין. The Gemara suggests another proof in support of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion. Come and hear a proof from another baraita: The difference between an impure person who took a vow of naziriteship and a pure nazirite who became impure is only the following halakha: That in the case of an impure person who took a vow of naziriteship, his seventh day of purification counts as part of his tally of the term of naziriteship. But in the case of a pure nazirite who became impure, his seventh day of purification does not count as part of his tally. The Gemara infers: But with regard to flogging, this nazirite and that nazirite are equal. Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: This is not a correct inference; rather, it is with regard to shaving on the seventh day of purification that this nazirite and that nazirite are equal, since even a ritually impure person who took a vow of naziriteship must shave on that day.
אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן מַלְקוֹת מַאי — זֶה לוֹקֶה וְזֶה אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה? לִיתְנְיֵיהּ! בְּתַקַּנְתֵּיהּ קָא מַיְירֵי, בְּקִלְקוּלֵיהּ לָא קָא מַיְירֵי. The Gemara asks: But in that case, according to Reish Lakish, what is the halakha with regard to flogging? This nazirite is flogged, and that nazirite, who was ritually impure when he vowed, is not flogged? If so, let him teach this difference as well; why does the baraita state that there is only one difference between them? The Gemara answers: This baraita is speaking of his remedy; it is not speaking of a matter that is detrimental to him. Consequently the baraita does not discuss a nazirite’s punishments and discusses only the means by which he can resume his observance of naziriteship.
תָּא שְׁמַע: מִי שֶׁהָיָה טָמֵא וְנָזַר — אָסוּר לְגַלֵּחַ וְלִשְׁתּוֹת יַיִן, וְאִם גִּילַּח וְשָׁתָה יַיִן וְנִטְמָא לְמֵתִים — הֲרֵי זֶה סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים! תְּיוּבְתָּא. The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a proof from that which is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 2:14): One who was ritually impure and took a vow of naziriteship must still observe the halakhot of a nazirite. He is prohibited from shaving and from drinking wine. And if he shaved, or if he drank wine, or if he became ritually impure from a corpse, he incurs the forty lashes administered to one who actively transgresses a negative Torah prohibition. The Gemara concludes: This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Reish Lakish, as explained by Mar bar Rav Ashi.
בָּעֵי רָבָא: נָזִיר וְהוּא בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת, מַהוּ? בָּעֵי שְׁהִיָּיה לְמַלְקוּת, אוֹ לָא? § After concluding that one who takes a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery is liable to receive lashes, Rava asks: What is the halakha if one took a vow to be a nazirite while standing in a cemetery: Is it necessary that his exit from the cemetery be delayed for a specific period of time for him to become liable to receive lashes, just as one who becomes ritually impure while in the Temple receives lashes only if he remains there for a specific period of time, or is it not necessary?
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּאָמְרִי לֵיהּ ״לָא תִּינְזוֹר״, לְמָה לִי שְׁהִיָּיה? נָזִיר מַאי טַעְמָא לָא בָּעֵי שְׁהִיָּיה — דְּקָא מַתְרִי בֵּיהּ. הָכָא נָמֵי קָא מַתְרִי בֵּיהּ! The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances in which this question is relevant? If we say that they said to him in warning: Do not take a vow of naziriteship in the cemetery, and he ignored their warning and took a vow of naziriteship, why do I need him to delay his exit? What is the reason that one who was already a nazirite when he entered a cemetery does not need to delay his exit in order to be liable to receive lashes? Because they warn him not to enter, and if he enters he has transgressed a prohibition and is flogged. Here too, they warn him not to take the vow, and he should therefore be liable to receive lashes if he does take the vow.
אֶלָּא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּכְנַס בְּשִׁידָּה תֵּיבָה וּמִגְדָּל, וּבָא חֲבֵירוֹ וּפָרַע מֵעָלָיו מַעֲזִיבָה. Rather, Rava’s question should be understood to refer to a case where one entered the cemetery in a chest, box, or cabinet, i.e., in large wooden containers that do not contract ritual impurity. One can enter a cemetery in such a container without becoming impure. If one was carried into a cemetery inside one of these containers, then took a vow of naziriteship, and another came and removed the top [ma’aziva] from above him, he would become ritually impure by virtue of being in the cemetery.
כִּי גְּמִירִין שְׁהִיָּיה, בְּבֵית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, אֲבָל אַבָּרַאי — לָא. אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא? תֵּיקוּ. If he was then warned to leave the cemetery, the question is as follows: When we learned by tradition that one is liable to receive lashes for delaying his exit, does that apply only to the Temple, but outside the Temple, such as when a nazirite is in a cemetery, does the halakha not apply, so that he is liable to receive lashes even if he did not delay his exit? Or perhaps it is not different, and a nazirite in a cemetery is flogged only if he remains there for a specific period of time. The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: נָזַר וְהוּא בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת, טָעוּן גִּילּוּחַ, אוֹ לָא? כִּי בָּעֵי תִּגְלַחַת טָהוֹר שֶׁנִּטְמָא, דְּקָא מְטַמֵּא לִנְזִירוּתֵיהּ, אֲבָל טָמֵא שֶׁנָּזַר — לָא. אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא? § Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: If one took a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery, is he required to shave upon becoming ritually pure, before starting his term of naziriteship, or not? The Gemara explains the two sides of the question: When a ritually impure nazirite is required to shave before starting his tally, does that refer only to a ritually pure nazirite who became impure, who has defiled his naziriteship? But a ritually impure person who only took a vow of naziriteship, and whose naziriteship has not yet begun, is he not obligated to shave? Or perhaps it is not different.
תָּא שְׁמַע: מִי שֶׁנָּזַר וְהוּא בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת, אֲפִילּוּ הָיָה שָׁם שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם — אֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן, וְאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קׇרְבַּן טוּמְאָה. קׇרְבַּן טוּמְאָה הוּא דְּלָא מַיְיתֵי, אֲבָל גַּלּוֹחֵי בָּעֵי! ״מַה טַּעַם״ קָאָמַר: מַה טַּעַם אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קׇרְבַּן טוּמְאָה — מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא בָּעֵי גַּלּוֹחֵי. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: One who took a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery, even if he was there for a full thirty days without leaving, those days he spent in the cemetery do not count as part of his tally, since his naziriteship has not yet gone into effect, and he therefore does not bring the offerings of impurity. The Gemara infers from this: It is the offerings of impurity that he does not bring, but he is required to shave. The Gemara rejects this proof: It is possible that the mishna is saying: What is the reason, as follows: What is the reason that he does not bring the offerings of impurity? Because he does not require shaving. This indicates that the naziriteship has not yet begun, therefore, he does not bring the offerings either.
תָּא שְׁמַע: אֵין בֵּין טָמֵא שֶׁנָּזַר לְנָזִיר טָהוֹר שֶׁנִּטְמָא, אֶלָּא טָמֵא שֶׁנָּזַר — שְׁבִיעִי שֶׁלּוֹ עוֹלֶה לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן, וְנָזִיר טָהוֹר שֶׁנִּטְמָא — אֵין שְׁבִיעִי שֶׁלּוֹ עוֹלֶה לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן. מַאי לָאו, הָא לְתִגְלַחַת זֶה וָזֶה שָׁוִין? לָא: הָא לְמַלְקוּת זֶה וָזֶה שָׁוִין. The Gemara suggests another proof. Come and hear a proof from another baraita: The difference between a ritually impure person who took a vow of naziriteship and a ritually pure nazirite who became impure is only the following halakha: With regard to an impure person who took a vow of naziriteship, his seventh day of purification counts as part of his tally of the term of naziriteship, but with regard to a pure nazirite who became impure, his seventh day of purification does not count as part of his tally. The Gemara infers: What, is it not so that with regard to shaving, this and that are equal, and he must shave in either case? The Gemara rejects this: No, there is a different inference: It is with regard to flogging that this and that are equal, but one who took a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery does not have to shave.
אֲבָל תִּגְלַחַת מַאי — זֶה מְגַלֵּחַ, וְזֶה אֵינוֹ מְגַלֵּחַ? לִיתְנְיֵיהּ! תְּנָא שְׁבִיעִי שֶׁלּוֹ וְכׇל מִילֵּי. The Gemara questions this answer: But what is the halakha concerning shaving? Does this one, who became ritually impure, shave, and that one, who vowed while in a cemetery, not shave? If so, let him teach this difference as well. The Gemara answers: The tanna taught: His seventh day, and all matters relevant to it, including the halakha of shaving. Once it says that the seventh day is part of the tally of the ritually impure nazirite who became pure, it can be inferred that he does not bring the offerings of impurity on the eighth day, and therefore he does not shave on the seventh day.
תָּא שְׁמַע: אֵין לִי אֶלָּא יְמֵי טוּמְאָתוֹ שֶׁאֵין עוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן, יְמֵי חִלּוּטוֹ, מִנַּיִן? וְדִין הוּא: מָה יְמֵי טוּמְאָתוֹ מְגַלֵּחַ וּמֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן — אַף יְמֵי חִלּוּטוֹ מְגַלֵּחַ וּמֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן, וּמָה יְמֵי טוּמְאָתוֹ אֵין עוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן — אַף יְמֵי חִלּוּטוֹ אֵין עוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן. The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a proof from the following baraita: I have derived only that a nazirite’s days of ritual impurity do not count as part of his tally; from where do I derive that his days of confirmed leprosy, in a case where a nazirite became a leper during his term, do not count toward his tally of naziriteship? And it would seem that by right it should be so: Just as at the end of his days of ritual impurity the nazirite shaves and brings offerings, so too at the end of his days of confirmed leprosy the halakha is that he shaves and brings offerings for his leprosy. And this comparison can be extended: Just as the days of his ritual impurity do not count as part of his tally, so too his days of confirmed leprosy do not count as part of his tally.
לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִּימֵי טוּמְאָתוֹ, שֶׁכֵּן מְבַטֵּל בָּהֶן אֶת הַקּוֹדְמִין — לְפִיכָךְ אֵין עוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן, תֹּאמַר בִּימֵי חִלּוּטוֹ, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְבַטֵּל אֶת הַקּוֹדְמִין — לְפִיכָךְ עוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן. The baraita continues: No, if you say so with regard to his days of ritual impurity, in that case it is because with them, the previous days of his naziriteship observed in ritual purity are negated. Therefore, those days do not count as part of his tally. But will you say the same with regard to his days of confirmed leprosy, which do not negate the previous days? If thirty days, enough time for his hair to regrow, remain in his term of naziriteship after becoming purified from his leprosy, the days before he contracted leprosy are not negated. It is therefore possible to argue that they do count as part of his tally.
אָמַרְתָּ: וּמָה נָזִיר בְּקֶבֶר שֶׁשְּׂעָרוֹ רָאוּי לְתִגְלַחַת — אֵין עוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן, יְמֵי חִלּוּטוֹ שֶׁאֵין רָאוּי לְתִגְלַחַת, לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁאֵין עוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן? The baraita continues: But you can say that just as with regard to a nazirite who was in the grave, i.e., a cemetery, whose hair is fit for shaving, those days spent in the cemetery do not count as part of his tally, his days of confirmed leprosy, which are not fit for counting as part of the tally required for the shaving, since he must first shave as part of the purification process for his leprosy, is it not all the more so that they do not count as part of his tally? This concludes the baraita.
מַאי לָאו, תִּגְלַחַת טוּמְאָה? לָא, תִּגְלַחַת טׇהֳרָה. הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, The Gemara now attempts to prove from the baraita that one who took a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery must shave at the close of his process of purification: What, is it not so that when the baraita mentions shaving, it is referring to the shaving of impurity, and it is teaching that one who took a vow of naziriteship in a cemetery must shave at the end of his purification process? The Gemara rejects this: No, it is referring to the shaving of purity, meaning the shaving done after one completes his term of naziriteship. He then will shave all of his hair, including that which grew during the time he was ritually impure due to his presence in the cemetery. The Gemara adds: So, too, it is reasonable to say that this is the correct interpretation,
דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ תִּגְלַחַת טוּמְאָה, יְמֵי חִלּוּטוֹ מִי לָא בָּעֵי תִּגְלַחַת? לָא, תִּגְלַחַת דִּנְזִירוּת קָתָנֵי. as if it enters your mind to say that the baraita is discussing the shaving done as a result of the nazirite’s impurity, and contrasts a nazirite with a leper, do the end of a leper’s days of confirmed leprosy not require shaving? A leper must shave when he is purified from his condition, so how can he be described as unfit for shaving? Rather, the baraita must be referring to the nazirite’s shaving of purity, as suggested above (17b). The Gemara rejects this: No, it could be that the baraita is discussing the shaving done as a result of the nazirite’s impurity, and when it states that a leper is unfit for shaving, the baraita is teaching about the shaving of naziriteship, and the baraita is stating that a leper is unfit for any shaving of a nazirite, since he must first shave for his leprosy.
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וְטִמֵּא רֹאשׁ נִזְרוֹ״, בְּטָהוֹר שֶׁנִּטְמָא הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, שֶׁהוּא טָעוּן הַעֲבָרַת שֵׂעָר וַהֲבָאַת צִיפֳּרִין. וְלִפְטוֹר אֶת הַנָּזִיר בְּקֶבֶר — שֶׁאֵין טָעוּן הַעֲבָרַת שֵׂעָר וַהֲבָאַת צִיפֳּרִין. The Gemara suggests another proof to answer the question of whether one who vows naziriteship while in a cemetery must shave upon undergoing purification. Come and hear a baraita: The verse states: “And he defiles his consecrated head, he shall shave his head on the day of his purification, on the seventh day shall he shave it” (Numbers 6:9). The baraita explains: The verse is speaking of a ritually pure nazirite who became impure, who requires hair removal and the bringing of birds as offerings. And this verse comes to exempt a nazirite who vowed while in the grave, i.e., a cemetery, that he does not require hair removal and the bringing of birds.
וַהֲלֹא דְּבָרִים קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה טָהוֹר שֶׁנִּטְמָא — טָעוּן הַעֲבָרַת שֵׂעָר וַהֲבָאַת צִיפֳּרִין, מִי שֶׁהָיָה טָמֵא מִתְּחִלָּה — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיְּהֵא טָעוּן הַעֲבָרַת שֵׂעָר וַהֲבָאַת צִיפֳּרִין? The baraita continues its analysis of this halakha. For one might have explained differently: And are these matters, the ruling that such a nazirite is exempt, not inferred with an a fortiori inference to reach the opposite conclusion: Just as a nazirite who was pure from the outset and who subsequently became impure requires hair removal and the bringing of birds, if one was impure from the outset, as he took a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery, is it not logical that he should require hair removal and the bringing of birds?
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְטִמֵּא רֹאשׁ נִזְרוֹ״, בְּמִי שֶׁהָיָה טָהוֹר וְנִטְמָא הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, שֶׁיְּהֵא טָעוּן הַעֲבָרַת שֵׂעָר וַהֲבָאַת צִיפֳּרִין, וְלִפְטוֹר אֶת הַנָּזִיר בְּקֶבֶר. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ. Therefore the verse states: “And he defiles his consecrated head,” indicating that the verse speaks only of one who was a pure nazirite and later became impure, and that only he requires hair removal and the bringing of birds. And the verse serves to exempt the nazirite who vowed while in a place of a grave, who was ritually impure from the outset. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this that a nazirite who was ritually impure from the outset does not have to shave; this answers the question of Rav Ashi.
מַאן תְּנָא הָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין בֵּין טָמֵא שֶׁנָּזַר לְנָזִיר טָהוֹר שֶׁנִּטְמָא, אֶלָּא שֶׁטָּמֵא שֶׁנָּזַר — שְׁבִיעִי שֶׁלּוֹ עוֹלֶה לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן, וְנָזִיר טָהוֹר שֶׁנִּטְמָא — אֵין שְׁבִיעִי שֶׁלּוֹ עוֹלֶה לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן? § After resolving the question, the Gemara discusses additional halakhot involving a ritually impure person who took a vow of naziriteship. Who is the tanna who taught this baraita that the Sages taught in the previous discussion: The difference between an impure person who took a vow of naziriteship and a pure nazirite who became ritually impure is only the following halakha: That with regard to an impure person who took a vow of naziriteship, his seventh day of purification counts as part of his tally of the term of naziriteship. But with regard to a pure nazirite who became impure, his seventh day of purification does not count as part of his tally.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: רַבִּי הִיא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי: אֵין נְזִירוּת טׇהֳרָה חָלָה אֶלָּא עַד שְׁמִינִי. דְּאִי תֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, הָאָמַר נְזִירוּת דְּטׇהֳרָה מִשְּׁבִיעִי הוּא דְּחָיְילָא. Rav Ḥisda said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Naziriteship of purity takes effect only from the eighth day. When a nazirite becomes impure during his term, he begins to count his term of observing naziriteship in purity only on the day following his purification. For if you say it follows the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, didn’t he say that the naziriteship of purity takes effect from the seventh day of his purification process?
מַאי רַבִּי וּמַאי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה — דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְקִדַּשׁ אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא״ — בְּיוֹם הֲבָאַת קׇרְבְּנוֹתָיו, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּיוֹם תִּגְלַחְתּוֹ. The Gemara clarifies: What is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and what is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, that Rav Ḥisda referred to? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to a ritually impure nazirite who underwent the purification rite: “And he shall sanctify his head on that day” (Numbers 6:11). This means that he renews the sanctity of his hair growth, i.e., begins observing his naziriteship in purity, on the day of the bringing of his offerings, the eighth day of his purification. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: This means that he renews the sanctity of his hair growth on the day of his shaving, the seventh day of his purification.
וְהָא דִּתְנַן: נָזִיר שֶׁנִּטְמָא טוּמְאוֹת הַרְבֵּה — אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא אֶלָּא קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד, מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר: נְזִירוּת טׇהֳרָה מִשְּׁבִיעִי חָיְילָא. וּמַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּטְמָא בַּשְּׁבִיעִי, וְחָזַר וְנִטְמָא בַּשְּׁבִיעִי. (וּמַנִּי, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא) כֵּיוָן דְּלֹא יָצָא שָׁעָה הָרְאוּיָה לְהָבִיא קׇרְבָּן — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד. § The Gemara cites a related halakha: And that which we learned in a mishna (Karetot 9a): If a nazirite became impure by contracting many consecutive impurities, he brings only one set of offerings. Who taught that? Rav Ḥisda said: It is Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who said the naziriteship of purity takes effect from the seventh day of his purification process. And you find this, that he contracts ritual impurity several times consecutively, in a case where he became ritually impure on the seventh day and, after undergoing the purification process, again became ritually impure on the seventh day. And whose opinion is it? It is that of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. Since the appropriate time to bring an offering had not yet arrived, as all agree that his offerings are only brought on the eighth day, if he became ritually impure a second time he is obligated to bring only one set of offerings.
דְּאִי תֵּימָא רַבִּי הִיא, אִי דְּנִטְמָא בַּשְּׁבִיעִי, וְחָזַר וְנִטְמָא בַּשְּׁבִיעִי (וְחָזַר וְנִטְמָא בַּשְּׁבִיעִי) — כּוּלְּהוּ טוּמְאָה אֲרִיכְתָּא הִיא. וְאִי דְּנִטְמָא בַּשְּׁמִינִי, וְחָזַר וְנִטְמָא בַּשְּׁמִינִי — הֲרֵי יָצְתָה שָׁעָה שֶׁרְאוּיָה לְהָבִיא קׇרְבָּן. For if you say it follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, how can this mishna be explained? If it deals with a nazirite who became ritually impure on the seventh day, and, after undergoing the purification process, again became ritually impure on the seventh day, and, after undergoing the purification process, again became ritually impure on the seventh day, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would hold that all these impurities are in fact one long ritual impurity, because he never reached the eighth day, which would renew his observance of naziriteship in ritual purity, so the mishna would not refer to this as a case of multiple impurities. And if the mishna is referring to a nazirite who became ritually impure on the eighth day and, after undergoing the purification process, again became ritually impure on the eighth day, the appropriate time to bring an offering had already arrived, and if he becomes ritually impure at that stage, it is not viewed as a continuation of the previous ritual impurity, and he is obligated to bring another set of offerings.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי? אָמַר קְרָא ״וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו מֵאֲשֶׁר חָטָא עַל הַנָּפֶשׁ״, וַהֲדַר ״וְקִדַּשׁ אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ״. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אִם כֵּן — לֵימָא קְרָא: ״וְקִדַּשׁ אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ״. The Gemara clarifies the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s ruling that he begins counting only from the eighth day? The Gemara answers: The verse states: “And the priest shall prepare one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering, and make atonement for him, for he sinned by the soul” (Numbers 6:11), and the same verse again states immediately afterward: “And he shall sanctify his head.” This shows that the naziriteship of purity commences only after he has brought his offerings. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says in response: If so, if the verse intended to teach us that his naziriteship starts only on the eighth day, let the verse merely state: “And he shall sanctify his head,” since that phrase addresses the bringing of his offerings, which is on the eighth.