## Nazir Daf 17a

###### Nazir 17a:1
[Nazir 17a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/17a:1)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — בְּיוֹצֵא וְנִכְנָס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nazir 17a:2
[Nazir 17a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/17a:2)

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?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Nazir 17a:3
[Nazir 17a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/17a:3)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nazir 17a:4
[Nazir 17a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/17a:4)

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!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nazir 17a:5
[Nazir 17a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/17a:5)

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״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nazir 17a:6
[Nazir 17a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/17a:6)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nazir 17a:7
[Nazir 17a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/17a:7)

אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן מַלְקוֹת מַאי — זֶה לוֹקֶה וְזֶה אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה? לִיתְנְיֵיהּ! בְּתַקַּנְתֵּיהּ קָא מַיְירֵי, בְּקִלְקוּלֵיהּ לָא קָא מַיְירֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nazir 17a:8
[Nazir 17a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/17a:8)

תָּא שְׁמַע: מִי שֶׁהָיָה טָמֵא וְנָזַר — אָסוּר לְגַלֵּחַ וְלִשְׁתּוֹת יַיִן, וְאִם גִּילַּח וְשָׁתָה יַיִן וְנִטְמָא לְמֵתִים — הֲרֵי זֶה סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים! תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nazir 17a:9
[Nazir 17a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/17a:9)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: נָזִיר וְהוּא בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת, מַהוּ? בָּעֵי שְׁהִיָּיה לְמַלְקוּת, אוֹ לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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?


###### Nazir 17a:10
[Nazir 17a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/17a:10)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּאָמְרִי לֵיהּ ״לָא תִּינְזוֹר״, לְמָה לִי שְׁהִיָּיה? נָזִיר מַאי טַעְמָא לָא בָּעֵי שְׁהִיָּיה — דְּקָא מַתְרִי בֵּיהּ. הָכָא נָמֵי קָא מַתְרִי בֵּיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.