Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nazir

Folio 46a

GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: And after that the nazirite may drink wine³  means after [the performance of] all that has to be done.⁴  This is the opinion of R. Eliezer, but the Sages said that [it means] after any Single act.⁵

What is the Rabbis' reason? — In this verse it is written, 'And after that the nazirite may drink wine,' whilst in the preceding verse occur the words, After he has shaven his consecrated head,⁶  and 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 verse¹¹  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 feature¹²  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.

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 toe⁸  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  Raba¹¹  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 INVALID¹⁸  AND HIS SACRIFICES¹⁹  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. [H].
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.
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.