MISHNAH. THREE THINGS ARE FORBIDDEN THE NAZIRITE, VIZ: — DEFILEMENT, POLLING AND PRODUCTS OF THE VINE. DEFILEMENT AND POLLING HAVE A STRINGENCY NOT POSSESSED BY PRODUCTS OF THE VINE IN THAT DEFILEMENT AND POLLING RENDER VOID [THE PREVIOUS PERIOD], WHEREAS [PARTAKING OF] PRODUCTS OF THE VINE DOES NOT DO SO. PRODUCTS OF THE VINE HAVE A STRINGENCY NOT POSSESSED BY DEFILEMENT OR POLLING IN THAT PRODUCTS OF THE VINE PERMIT OF NO EXCEPTION FROM THE GENERAL PROHIBITION,8 WHEREAS DEFILEMENT AND POLLING ARE ALLOWED AS EXCEPTION FROM THE GENERAL PROHIBITION IN THE CASE WHERE POLLING IS A RELIGIOUS DUTY,9 OR WHERE THERE IS A METH MIZWAH.10 DEFILEMENT ALSO HAS A STRINGENCY NOT POSSESSED BY POLLING, IN THAT DEFILEMENT RENDERS VOID THE WHOLE OF THE PRECEDING PERIOD,11 AND ENTAILS THE OFFERING OF A SACRIFICE, WHEREAS POLLING RENDERS VOID ONLY THIRTY DAYS AND DOES NOT ENTAIL A SACRIFICE.
GEMARA. Why should not defilement also permit of no exception from the general prohibition, in virtue of the following a fortiori argument from wine? Seeing that wine which does not render void [the previous period] permits of no exception from the general prohibition, then defilement which does render void [the previous period] should certainly not permit of an exception from the general prohibition? — The text says, Nor defile himself for his father or for his mother,12 signifying that it is only for his father or for his mother that he is forbidden to defile himself, whereas he is required to defile himself for a meth mizwah. Then why should not wine permit of an exception from the general prohibition because of the following a fortiori argument from defilement? Seeing that defilement, which renders void [the previous period], permits of an exception from the general prohibition, then wine which does not render void [the previous period] should certainly permit of an exception from the general prohibition? — The verse says, He shall abstain from wine and strong drink,13 thus forbidding wine that should be drunk as a ritual obligation14 as well as wine that he might drink from choice.15 Then why should not wine render void the whole [of the previous period] because of the following a fortiori argument from defilement? Seeing that defilement which permits of an exception from the general prohibition renders void [the previous period], then wine which permits of no exception should certainly render void [the preceding period]? — The verse says, But the former days shall be void because his consecration was defiled,16 signifying that defilement renders void, but wine does not do so. Why should not polling render void the whole [of the previous period]17 because of the following a fortiori argument from defilement? Seeing that defilement, the agent of which is not subjected to the same [penalty] as the patient,18 renders void the whole [of the previous period], then polling where the agent is subject to the same penalty as the patient,19 should certainly render void the whole [of the preceding period]? — The verse says, But the former days shall be void because his consecration was defiled20 signifying that defilement renders void the whole [of the preceding period], but polling does not do so. Why should not the agent be subject to the same [penalty] as the patient in the case of defilement, because of the following a fortiori argument from polling? Seeing that in the case of polling, where only thirty days are rendered void, the agent is subject to the same [penalty] as the patient, then in the case of defilement where the whole [of the preceding period] is rendered void, the agent should certainly be subject to the same [penalty] as the patient? The verse says, And he defile his consecrated head21 signifying [that the penalty is only] for him who defiles his [own] consecrated head. Then polling should not result in the agent being subject to the same [penalty] as the patient, because of the following a fortiori argument from defilement. Seeing that in the case of defilement, where the whole [of the preceding period] is rendered void, the agent is not subject to the same [penalty] as the patient, then in the case of polling, which does not render void the whole [of the preceding period], the agent should certainly not be subject to the same [penalty] as the patient? — The verse says, There shall no razor come upon his head,22 and can be read as signifying that he shall not make it come himself, and that no other shall make it come either.23 Polling should not permit of an exception from the general prohibition because of the following a fortiori argument front wine. Seeing that wine which does not render void [the preceding period] permits of no exception from the general prohibition, then polling which does render void [the preceding period] should certainly permit of no exception? — The All-Merciful mentions both his hair and his beard.24 Then polling should not render void any [of the preceding period] because of the following a fortiori argument from wine. Seeing that wine which permits of no exception does not render void, polling which does permit of an exception from the general prohibition should certainly not render void? — We require a sufficient growth of hair and this would be lacking.25 Why should not wine render void thirty days because of the following a fortiori argument from polling? Seeing that polling, which permits of an exception from the general prohibition, renders void [thirty days], then wine which permits of no exception from the general prohibition should certainly do so? — Is not the only reason26 because there must be a sufficient growth of hair? After wine his hair is still intact.27
Nazir 44bMISHNAH. HOW WAS [THE RITE OF] THE POLLING AFTER DEFILEMENT [PERFORMED]? HE WOULD BE SPRINKLED ON THE THIRD AND SEVENTH DAYS,1 POLL ON THE SEVENTH DAY AND BRING HIS SACRIFICES ON THE EIGHTH DAY. IF HE POLLED ON THE EIGHTH DAY,2 HE WOULD BRING HIS SACRIFICES ON THAT SAME DAY. THIS IS THE OPINION OF R. AKIBA. R. TARFON ASKED HIM: WHAT DIFFERENCE IS THERE BETWEEN THIS [NAZIRITE] AND A LEPER?3 HE REPLIED: THE PURIFICATION OF THIS MAN DEPENDS ON THE [LAPSE OF SEVEN] DAYS ONLY], WHEREAS THE PURIFICATION OF A LEPER DEPENDS [ALSO] ON HIS POLLING,4 AND HE CANNOT BRING A SACRIFICE UNLESS THE SUN HAS SET UPON HIM [AFTER HIS RITUAL BATH].5
GEMARA. Did [R. Tarfon] accept this answer or not?6 — Come and hear: Hillel7 learnt: If [the nazirite] polled on the eighth day, he was to bring his sacrifices on the ninth. Now if you assume that he accepted the answer, should he not bring his sacrifices on the eighth day?8 — Raba said: This creates no difficulty,9 for the one case10 assumes that he bathed on the seventh day, and the other11 that he did not bathe on the seventh day.12 Abaye said: I came across the colleagues of R. Nathan b. Hoshaia, seated [at their studies] and reporting the following [teaching]. [Scripture says,] And come before the Lord unto the door of the tent of meeting and give them unto the priest.13 When is he to come?14 If he has bathed and waited until after sunset he may [come], but if he has not bathed and waited until after sunset he may not do so. Thus we see [they said] that [this Tanna] is of the opinion that a tebul yom15 after gonorrhoea is still like a sufferer from gonorrhoea.16 I [Abaye] then said to them: If that is so,17 then in the case of a defiled nazirite where we find the verse, He shall bring too turtle doves … to the priest to the door of the tent of meeting18 [we should also say] that he is to come only if he has bathed and waited until after sunset.19 - To Next Folio -
|
||||||