Nazir 61aנזיר ס״א א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Nazir 61a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
61aס״א א
1 א

תני רבי חייא זה לפני ביאת מים (חיים) וזה לאחר ביאת מים זה לפני זריקת דמים וזה לאחר זריקת דמים:

Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches the same halakha: The shaving of a leper does not count for the shaving of naziriteship, as this one, a leper, shaves before immersion in water, and that one, an impure nazirite, shaves after immersion water. This one, the leper, shaves before the blood is sprinkled, and that one, the pure nazirite, shaves after the blood is sprinkled.

2 ב

שתגלחת הנגע וכו': בעי רמי בר חמא הני ארבע תגלחיות דקאמר משום מצוה או משום אעבורי שיער טומאה

§ The mishna taught that the shaving of leprosy overrides the shaving of a nazirite only when he is a confirmed leper. Rami bar Ḥama raises a dilemma: Those four shavings about which the tanna spoke, the four that a nazirite performs for his leprosy and impurity, are they all due to the mitzva of shaving, or are some of them not performed for the sake of a mitzva, but for the sake of removing hair that grew in impurity, so that other hair can grow?

3 ג

למאי נפקא מינה לעבורי בנשא אי אמרת משום מצוה לעבורי בנשא לא ואי אמרת משום אעבורי שיער טומאה אפילו סכיה נשא נמי

The Gemara asks: What is the difference whether he shaves for one reason or another? The Gemara explains: It is relevant with regard to removing hair with a depilatory. If you say that the reason is due to a mitzva, removing with a depilatory is not an option, as the mitzva is specifically to shave. But if you say the reason is due to the removal of hair of impurity, even if he rubs it with a depilatory that is also effective.

4 ד

מאי אמר רבא ת"ש ומגלח ארבע תגלחיות אי סלקא דעתך משום עבורי שיער טומאה אפילו בשלש נמי סגיא ליה שמע מינה משום מצוה שמע מינה:

What then is the halakha? Rava said: Come and hear a resolution from a baraita (Tosefta 6:1): And he shaves with four acts of shaving. Now if it should enter your mind that the reason is for the sake of removing hair of impurity, even three shavings should be enough for him, two for his leprosy, and the last one for his naziriteship of purity. Since the third shaving is performed only to remove his hair of impurity so that he can start his pure naziriteship afresh, why is it included? Conclude from the baraita that all four shavings are due to the mitzva of shaving. The Gemara says: Conclude from the baraita that this is the case.

5 ה

הדרן עלך שני נזירים

6 ו

מתני׳ הכותים אין להם נזירות נשים ועבדים יש להן נזירות חומר בנשים מבעבדים שהוא כופה את עבדו ואינו כופה את אשתו:

MISHNA: Gentiles do not have naziriteship, i.e., the halakhot of naziriteship do not apply to gentiles. They are not subject to the prohibitions of a nazirite, nor does one accept their offerings at the end of naziriteship. However, women and Canaanite slaves do have naziriteship. The mishna adds: There is a greater stringency in the case of women than in the case of slaves, as a master may force his slave to drink wine, shave his hair, or become ritually impure from a corpse, despite the slave’s vow of naziriteship, but a husband cannot force his wife to transgress her naziriteship.

7 ז

גמ׳ קתני הכותים אין להם נזירות מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן (במדבר ו, ב) דבר אל בני ישראל ולא לעובדי כוכבים ואמרת אליהם לרבות את העבדים למה לי קרא האמרת כל מצוה שהאשה חייבת בה עבד חייב בה

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that gentiles do not have naziriteship, whereas women and slaves can be nazirites. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? It is as the Sages taught, that the beginning of the passage about naziriteship, which states: “Speak to the children of Israel” (Numbers 6:2), serves to emphasize that these halakhot apply to Jews, but not to the gentiles. Furthermore, the continuation of the verse: “And say to them, when a man or woman shall clearly utter a vow,” serves to include slaves. The Gemara asks: Why do I need a verse to include slaves? Haven’t you said the following principle: Any mitzva that a woman is obligated in its performance, a slave is also obligated in its performance? Since the halakhot of naziriteship apply to a woman, they should likewise apply to slaves.

8 ח

אמר רבא שאני הכא דאמר קרא (במדבר ל, ג) לאסור איסר על נפשו במי שנפשו קנויה לו יצא עבד שאין נפשו קנויה לו הואיל ואין נפשו קנויה לו אימא גבי נזיר נמי לא קמשמע לן

Rava said: Here it is different, as with regard to vows the verse states: “To bind his soul with a bond” (Numbers 30:3), and the Sages expounded that this is referring only to one whose soul is in his possession, i.e., who is under his own jurisdiction. This excludes a slave, whose soul is not in his possession, but who is under his master’s control. The verse from Leviticus is necessary, lest you say that since a slave’s soul is not in his possession, one should say that with regard to the halakhot of a nazirite as well, he cannot undertake this vow notwithstanding the principle that slaves have similar halakhot to women with regard to obligations, who can become nazirites. The aforementioned verse teaches us that a slave can in fact take a vow of naziriteship.

9 ט

אמר מר דבר אל בני ישראל ולא לעובדי כוכבים וכל היכא דכתיב ישראל עובדי כוכבים לא והא גבי ערכין דכתיב (ויקרא כז, ב) דבר אל בני ישראל ותניא בני ישראל מעריכין ואין העובדי כוכבים מעריכין

The Gemara returns to the earlier exposition of the verse. The Master said in the baraita that the verse specifies: “Speak to the children of Israel,” but not to the gentiles. The Gemara asks: And anywhere that “Israel” is written, are gentiles not included in that verse? But there is a counterexample in the verse written with regard to the halakhot of valuations, as it is written: “Speak to the children of Israel” (Leviticus 27:2), and it was taught in a baraita: The children of Israel can take a valuation vow but gentiles cannot take a valuation vow. If a gentile declares: I undertake to donate the value of so-and-so, his vow does not take effect.

10 י

יכול לא יהו נערכין ת"ל איש

The baraita continues: One might have thought that this means that gentiles cannot be the subject of a valuation either, i.e., if a Jew says: I am obligated to give the value of so-and-so the gentile, his vow would not take effect. Therefore, the verse states the inclusive expression: “When a man shall clearly utter a vow of persons to the Lord, according to your valuation” (Leviticus 27:2), to teach that in this regard, every “man,” even a gentile, is included in halakhot of valuations. Inasmuch as the Torah also states with regard to a nazirite: “When a man or woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite” (Numbers 6:2), perhaps one should include gentiles in the halakhot of naziriteship as well.

11 יא

שאני הכא דאמר קרא (במדבר ו, ז) לאביו ולאמו לא יטמא במי שיש לו אב יצא עובד כוכבים שאין לו אב למאי אילימא לענין ירושה והא"ר חייא בר אבין א"ר יוחנן עובד כוכבים יורש את אביו דבר תורה שנאמר (דברים ב, ה) כי ירושה לעשו נתתי את הר שעיר

The Gemara answers: Here, in the case of naziriteship, it is different, as the verse states: “For his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, he shall not defile himself” (Numbers 6:7). From here it is derived that this mitzva applies only to one who has a father. This excludes a gentile, who does not have a father. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha does a gentile lack a father? If we say it is with regard to inheritance, but didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A gentile inherits the estate of his father by Torah law, as it is stated: “Because I have given Mount Seir to Esau as an inheritance” (Deuteronomy 2:5)?

12 יב

אלא במי שמוזהר על כיבוד אביו מי כתיב כבד אביך גבי נזיר אלא אמר קרא לאביו ולאמו לא יטמא במי שיש לו טומאה

Rather, this mitzva of naziriteship applies to one who is warned concerning the honor of his father, and as the mitzva to honor one’s father does not apply to a gentile, it is as though he has no father. The Gemara asks: Is it written: Honor your father, in the context of a nazirite? What is the connection between these two issues? Rather, the verse states with regard to a nazirite: “For his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, he shall not defile himself” (Numbers 6:7), and it should be understood as referring to one who has the potential to become ritually impure,