## Nazir Daf 19a

###### Nazir 19a:1
[Nazir 19a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/19a:1)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהִזִּיר ... וְהֵבִיא״, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא — הִזִּיר. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר: ״וְהִזִּיר ... וְהֵבִיא״, אֵימָתַי הִזִּיר — בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵבִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**the verse** therefore **states: “And he shall consecrate** to the Lord the days of his naziriteship, **and he shall bring** a lamb in its first year for a guilt-offering,” indicating: **Even though he has not brought** his guilt-offering **he has** nevertheless **consecrated** his days for the start of a new term of **naziriteship.** The opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka,** is as follows: **The verse states: “And he shall consecrate** to the Lord the days of his naziriteship, **and he shall bring,”** which means: **When has he consecrated** his days of **naziriteship,** i.e., when does his new term of naziriteship begin? It begins **when he has** already **brought** his guilt-offering.


###### Nazir 19a:2
[Nazir 19a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/19a:2)

מַאן תְּנָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: אִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּדְרָה בְּנָזִיר וְנִטְמְאָה, וְאַחַר כָּךְ הֵפֵר לָהּ בַּעֲלָהּ — מְבִיאָה חַטַּאת הָעוֹף, וְאֵינָהּ מְבִיאָה עוֹלַת הָעוֹף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara poses a question: **Who** is the *tanna* who **taught this that the Sages taught:** With regard to **a woman who vowed to be a nazirite and became ritually impure,** leading her to designate a bird for a sin-offering, a bird for a burnt-offering, and a sheep for a guilt-offering, **and afterward her husband nullified** her vow of naziriteship **for her, she brings the bird sin-offering and she does not bring the bird burnt-offering?**


###### Nazir 19a:3
[Nazir 19a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/19a:3)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥisda said: It is** the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael,** son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka. According to the opinion of the Rabbis, the burnt-offering is a gift, and she would bring it despite the fact that her naziriteship was nullified. According to Rabbi Yishmael, the burnt-offering is part of the atonement process, and since her naziriteship was nullified, there is no longer a need for atonement.


###### Nazir 19a:4
[Nazir 19a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/19a:4)

מַאי קָסָבַר? אִי קָסָבַר בַּעַל מִיעְקָר עָקַר — חַטַּאת הָעוֹף נָמֵי לָא לַיְיתֵי. אִי קָסָבַר בַּעַל מִיגָּז גָּיֵיז, עוֹלַת הָעוֹף נָמֵי לַיְיתֵי! לְעוֹלָם קָסָבַר בַּעַל מִיעְקָר עָקַר, וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What does he hold? If he holds** that the **husband uproots** a vow entirely when he nullifies it, and she is considered not to have vowed at all, **she should not bring the bird sin-offering,** as she was never a nazirite, and she does not need atonement. Conversely, **if he holds** that the **husband severs** the vow from that point onward, but it did take effect beforehand, **she should also bring the bird burnt-offering,** as she requires atonement for becoming impure while she was a nazirite. The Gemara answers: **Actually, he holds** that the **husband uproots** the vow, **and** why is she obliged to bring a sin-offering? **Rabbi Yishmael holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar HaKappar.**


###### Nazir 19a:5
[Nazir 19a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/19a:5)

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר בְּרַבִּי אוֹמֵר: מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו מֵאֲשֶׁר חָטָא עַל הַנָּפֶשׁ״? וְכִי בְּאֵיזוֹ נֶפֶשׁ חָטָא זֶה? אֶלָּא שֶׁצִּיעֵר עַצְמוֹ מִן הַיַּיִן. וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה זֶה שֶׁלֹּא צִיעֵר עַצְמוֹ אֶלָּא מִן הַיַּיִן נִקְרָא חוֹטֵא, הַמְצַעֵר עַצְמוֹ מִכׇּל דָּבָר עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Elazar HaKappar, the esteemed one, says: What** is the meaning when **the verse states** with regard to a nazirite: **“And make atonement for him, for he sinned by the soul”** (Numbers 6:11)? **And with which soul did this** person **sin** by becoming a nazirite? **Rather,** in **afflicting himself** by abstaining **from wine,** he is considered to have sinned with his own soul, and he must bring a sin-offering for the naziriteship itself, for causing his body to suffer. **And an *a fortiori*** inference can be learned from this: **Just as this** person, in **afflicting himself** by abstaining **only from wine, is** nevertheless **called a sinner,** in the case of **one who afflicts himself** by abstaining **from everything,** through fasting or other acts of mortification, **all the more so** is he described as a sinner. According to this opinion, Rabbi Yishmael holds that since the woman afflicted herself by abstaining from wine she must bring a sin-offering, even though, due to her husband’s nullification, she did not actually become a nazirite.


###### Nazir 19a:6
[Nazir 19a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/19a:6)

וְהָא בְּנָזִיר טָמֵא כְּתִיב, וַאֲנַן אֲפִילּוּ נָזִיר טָהוֹר קָאָמְרִינַן! קָסָבַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר נָזִיר טָהוֹר נָמֵי חוֹטֵא הוּא, וְהַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דִּכְתִיב בְּנָזִיר טָמֵא — הוֹאִיל וְשָׁנָה בַּחֵטְא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty with Rabbi Elazar HaKappar’s dictum: **But this** verse, labeling the nazirite a sinner, **is written with regard to an impure nazirite, and we are saying** that **even a pure nazirite** is a sinner. The Gemara answers: **Rabbi Elazar HaKappar holds** that **a pure nazirite is also a sinner. And this is the reason that** the statement that a nazirite is a sinner **is written** in reference **to an impure nazirite** rather than a pure one: **Since he repeated his sin,** as his impurity causes him to start his naziriteship again, he thereby deprives himself for a longer period. He should have taken extra care to prevent this from happening.


###### Nazir 19a:7
[Nazir 19a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/19a:7)

יָצָא וְנִכְנַס — עוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן. קָתָנֵי עוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן. מִשּׁוּם דְּיָצָא חָל עֲלֵיהּ נְזִירוּת? אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כְּגוֹן שֶׁיָּצָא וְהִזָּה וְשָׁנָה וְטָבַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught that if one took a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery, **left** the cemetery, **and** then **entered** it again, the days he spent outside **do count** as part **of his tally** of his term of naziriteship, and he is obligated to bring the offerings of ritual impurity upon reentering the cemetery. The mishna **teaches: They do count** as part **of his tally.** The Gemara questions the meaning of this linkage: **Does naziriteship take effect for him because he** merely **left** the ritually impure place? He is still ritually impure, and he cannot begin counting his term of naziriteship until after he has undergone the purification process. **Shmuel said:** The mishna is referring to a case **where he left and** received the **sprinkling** of the ashes of the red heifer on the third day, **and** he **again** received the sprinkling on the seventh day **and immersed,** after which he entered the cemetery a second time. Since he is now ritually pure, his naziriteship takes effect.


###### Nazir 19a:8
[Nazir 19a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/19a:8)

אֶלָּא נִכְנַס הוּא דְּעוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן, לֹא נִכְנַס אֵין עוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן?! לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא יָצָא, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ נִכְנַס — עוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara poses another question: According to the precise reading of the mishna, his term of naziriteship starts only if he reentered the cemetery; **however,** is it only if he returned and **entered** the cemetery that those days **count** as part **of his tally,** but if he did **not enter,** and remained outside the cemetery, those days **do not count** as part **of his tally?** Why should the start of the naziriteship be dependent upon his reentering the cemetery? The Gemara answers: The *tanna* **is speaking** utilizing the style of: **It is not necessary,** as follows: **It is not necessary** to state this *halakha*, that those days count as part of his tally, in the case of one who **left** the cemetery and began his naziriteship, **but even if he entered** the cemetery again immediately after his purification, those days **count** as part **of his tally,** and he will be obligated to bring the offerings of ritual impurity upon his reentry.


###### Nazir 19a:9
[Nazir 19a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/19a:9)

אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב אַסִּי לְרַב: מַאי טַעְמָא לָא מְפָרְשַׁתְּ לַן כְּהָלֵין מִילֵּי? אָמַר לְהוֹן: אָמֵינָא דִּלְמָא לָא צְרִיכִיתוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: What is the reason you did not explain** it **to us with these words** of Shmuel, as explained above? **He said to them: I said** to myself that **perhaps you do not require that** explanation, as I thought it was apparent that this is the proper explanation of the mishna.


###### Nazir 19a:10
[Nazir 19a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/19a:10)

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לֹא בּוֹ בְּיוֹם — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהַיָּמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים יִפְּלוּ״ — עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ יָמִים רִאשׁוֹנִים. אָמַר עוּלָּא: לָא אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אֶלָּא בְּטָמֵא שֶׁנָּזַר, אֲבָל בַּנָּזִיר טָהוֹר שֶׁנִּטְמָא — אֲפִילּוּ יוֹם אֶחָד סוֹתֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna also taught an additional *halakha*: **Rabbi Eliezer says:** This *halakha* does **not** apply to one who entered the cemetery **on that very day** that he left it, **as it is stated** with regard to the *halakhot* of an impure nazirite: **“But the first days shall be void”** (Numbers 6:12), which indicates that he does not bring the offerings **unless he had** his **“first days”** of ritual purity, during which he observed his naziriteship. **Ulla said: Rabbi Eliezer said** this *halakha*, that one day of naziriteship in purity is not sufficient to obligate him to bring offerings if he becomes impure, **only with regard to an impure** person **who took a vow of naziriteship, but a pure nazirite who became impure, even** if he was only pure for **one day** of naziriteship, **it negates** that day of his tally and he must bring the offerings of an impure nazirite.