## Nazir Daf 46b

###### Nazir 46b:1
[Nazir 46b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/46b:1)

וּמֵי מְעַכְּבָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַנָּזִיר״, בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ כַּפַּיִם, בֵּין שֶׁאֵין לוֹ כַּפַּיִם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty against Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion: **And does** a lack of waving **preclude** the performance of the purification ritual of a nazirite? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 1:5): The inclusive phrase: **“This is the law of the nazirite,”** (Numbers 6:21) teaches that all nazirites are bound by the same *halakha*, **whether he has palms,** or **whether he does not have palms.** Since one who is lacking palms certainly cannot wave, this indicates that waving is not essential.


###### Nazir 46b:2
[Nazir 46b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/46b:2)

וְאֶלָּא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַנָּזִיר״, בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שֵׂעָר, בֵּין שֶׁאֵין לוֹ שֵׂעָר — הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא מְעַכְּבָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: נָזִיר מְמוֹרָט, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַעֲבִיר תַּעַר עַל רֹאשׁוֹ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: צָרִיךְ לְהַעֲבִיר תַּעַר עַל רֹאשׁוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this proof: **But** what about **that which is taught** in a similar *baraita* (*Tosefta* 1:5): **“This is the law of the nazirite” whether he has hair** or **whether he does not have hair; so too,** will you explain that lack of shaving does **not preclude** the ritual in the case of one who has no hair? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 1:6): With regard to an entirely **bald nazirite,** who cannot shave his hair with a razor as required, **Beit Shammai say: He need not pass a razor over his head, and Beit Hillel say: He must pass a razor over his head.**


###### Nazir 46b:3
[Nazir 46b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/46b:3)

וְאָמַר רָבִינָא: מַאי ״אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ״ לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ — אֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה. הָא לְבֵית הִלֵּל יֵשׁ לוֹ תַּקָּנָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Ravina said: What** is the meaning of the term: **Need not,** stated **by Beit Shammai?** It means that **he need not** shave, and **he has no remedy,** and he has no way to complete his naziriteship. This indicates that **according to Beit Hillel he does have a remedy,** i.e., he can pass a razor over his head and thereby fulfill the mitzva, despite the fact that he does not have any hair. Similarly, one can say that Rabbi Eliezer holds that waving is indispensable, and when the baraita states: Whether he has palms or whether he does not have palms, could mean that waving is indispensable.


###### Nazir 46b:4
[Nazir 46b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/46b:4)

וְהַיְינוּ דְּרַבִּי פְּדָת. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי פְּדָת: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **And this** interpretation, that Beit Shammai and Rabbi Eliezer maintain one who is unable to perform the action mandated by the Torah has no remedy and cannot complete his naziriteship, **is** in accordance with a statement **of Rabbi Pedat. As Rabbi Pedat said: Beit Shammai and Rabbi Eliezer said the same thing,** i.e., they follow the same principle.


###### Nazir 46b:5
[Nazir 46b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/46b:5)

מַאי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין לוֹ בֹּהֶן יָד וָרֶגֶל — אֵין לוֹ טׇהֳרָה עוֹלָמִית, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: יַנִּיחֶנּוּ עַל מְקוֹמוֹ וְיֵצֵא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יַנִּיחַ עַל שֶׁל שְׂמֹאל וְיֵצֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
To **what** statement of **Rabbi Eliezer** is Rabbi Pedat referring? **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: A leper who **does not have a thumb or big toe,** upon both of which he must place the blood and oil of his purification ritual (Leviticus 14:14) can **never** attain **ritual purity.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Shimon says:** The priest **puts it on the spot** of the missing thumb, **and** the leper thereby **fulfills** his obligation. **The Rabbis say: Let him put it on the left** thumb **and** thereby **fulfill** his obligation. According to Rabbi Pedat, Rabbi Eliezer and Beit Shammai both maintain that if the ritual cannot be performed in the precise manner delineated, one cannot fulfill his obligation and has no remedy. This is one version of the discussion.


###### Nazir 46b:6
[Nazir 46b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/46b:6)

לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא אָמְרִי לַהּ, אָמַר רַב: תְּנוּפָה בְּנָזִיר מְעַכֶּבֶת. אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן? אִילֵימָא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר — פְּשִׁיטָא, הָאָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אַחַר מַעֲשִׂים כּוּלָּם! אֶלָּא אַלִּיבָּא דְרַבָּנַן: הַשְׁתָּא יֵשׁ לוֹמַר תִּגְלַחַת אָמְרִי רַבָּנַן לָא מְעַכְּבָא, תְּנוּפָה מִיבַּעְיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites **another version** of this discussion. **Some say** that **Rav said:** The priest’s lack of **waving** of the offering **of a nazirite precludes** the release of the prohibitions of his naziriteship. The Gemara asks: **According to whose** opinion did he state this *halakha*? **If we say** that he spoke **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Eliezer,** this **is obvious; didn’t Rabbi Eliezer say** that he is permitted to drink wine only **after all** his **actions,** including waving? **Rather,** you will say that Rav spoke **in accordance with** the opinion **of the Rabbis.** However, this too is puzzling: **Now** that **one can say** that with regard to **shaving,** a central part of the naziriteship ritual, **the Rabbis say** that its omission **does not preclude** the fulfillment of his ritual, **is** it **necessary** to state that **waving** is not essential?


###### Nazir 46b:7
[Nazir 46b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/46b:7)

וּמִי לָא מְעַכְּבָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַנָּזִיר״ — בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ כַּפַּיִם וּבֵין שֶׁאֵין לוֹ כַּפַּיִם! וְאֶלָּא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַנָּזִיר״ — בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שֵׂעָר וּבֵין שֶׁאֵין לוֹ שֵׂעָר, הָכִי נָמֵי דִּמְעַכְּבָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And doesn’t** the lack of waving **preclude** a nazirite’s ritual? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 1:5): The inclusive phrase: **“This is the law of the nazirite,”** teaches that **whether he has palms** or **whether he does not have palms** waving is always required, and a nazirite is not exempted by a lack of palms. The Gemara questions this interpretation of the *baraita*. **But** what about **that which is taught** in the same *baraita* (*Tosefta* 1:5): **“This is the law of the nazirite,” whether he has hair or whether he does not have hair; so too,** will you say **that** the lack of shaving **precludes** his ritual?


###### Nazir 46b:8
[Nazir 46b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/46b:8)

וְהָתַנְיָא: נָזִיר מְמוֹרָט, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַעֲבִיר תַּעַר עַל רֹאשׁוֹ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: צָרִיךְ! אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבִינָא: מַאי ״צָרִיךְ״ לְבֵית הִלֵּל — צָרִיךְ, וְאֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 1:6): With regard to an entirely **bald nazirite, Beit Shammai say: He need not pass a razor over his head, and Beit Hillel say: He must** pass a razor over his head. This *baraita* indicates that even according to the opinion of Beit Hillel a nazirite does not have to actually shave. **Rabbi Avina said: What is** the meaning of: **He must,** as stated **by Beit Hillel?** It means that **he must** shave, and if he fails to do so **he has no remedy,** and can never drink wine.


###### Nazir 46b:9
[Nazir 46b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/46b:9)

לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי יֵשׁ לוֹ תַּקָּנָה. וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי פְּדָת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Conversely, **according to** the opinion of **Beit Shammai he has a remedy,** as he does not have to use a razor at all. **And** this interpretation **disagrees** with the opinion of **Rabbi Pedat.** Rabbi Pedat claims that both Beit Shammai and Rabbi Eliezer maintain that if the ritual cannot be performed in the precise manner delineated, one cannot fulfill his obligation and has no remedy. By contrast, Rabbi Avina contends that Beit Shammai exempt the nazirite from this obligation, while Beit Hillel say that he has no remedy.


###### Nazir 46b:10
[Nazir 46b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/46b:10)

**מַתְנִי׳** גִּילַּח עַל הַזֶּבַח, וְנִמְצָא פָּסוּל — תִּגְלַחְתּוֹ פְּסוּלָה, וּזְבָחָיו לֹא עָלוּ לוֹ. גִּילַּח עַל הַחַטָּאת שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ הֵבִיא קׇרְבְּנוֹתָיו לִשְׁמָן, תִּגְלַחְתּוֹ פְּסוּלָה, וּזְבָחָיו לֹא עָלוּ לוֹ. גִּילַּח עַל הָעוֹלָה אוֹ עַל הַשְּׁלָמִים שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, וְאַחַר כָּךְ הֵבִיא קׇרְבְּנוֹתָיו לִשְׁמָן — תִּגְלַחְתּוֹ פְּסוּלָה, וּזְבָחָיו לֹא עָלוּ לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** As taught earlier (45a) the nazirite shaves after having brought one, or all, of his offerings. This mishna discusses what the *halakha* is if the offering was found to be invalid after the nazirite had shaved. If a nazirite **shaved** based **upon the** requisite **offering, and** afterward the offering **was found** to be **invalid** for any reason, **his shaving is invalid and his offerings do not count** toward the fulfillment of **his** obligation. If he **shaved** based **upon the sin-offering, that** was found to have been sacrificed **not for its own sake,** which invalidates the offering, **and afterward he brought his** other **offerings for their own sake, his shaving is invalid and his** other **offerings do not count** toward the fulfillment of **his** obligation. If he **shaved** based **upon the** requisite **burnt-offering or** having **brought the** requisite **peace-offering,** and **these** were offered **not for their own sake, and afterward he brought his** remaining **offerings for their own sake, his shaving is invalid and his offerings do not count** toward the fulfillment of **his** obligation.


###### Nazir 46b:11
[Nazir 46b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/46b:11)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אוֹתוֹ הַזֶּבַח לֹא עָלָה לוֹ, אֲבָל שְׁאָר זְבָחִים עָלוּ. וְאִם גִּילַּח עַל שְׁלָשְׁתָּן, וְנִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶן כָּשֵׁר — תִּגְלַחְתּוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה, וְיָבִיא שְׁאָר זְבָחִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon says:** In the case of one who shaved based upon a burnt-offering or a peace-offering that was sacrificed not for its own sake, **that offering,** which was performed incorrectly, **does not count** toward the fulfillment of **his** obligation; **however,** his **other offerings do count. And** everyone agrees that **if he shaved** based **upon all three of them,** i.e., he brought all three offerings, without specifying which offering he is basing his shaving upon, **and** even **one of them was found valid, his shaving is valid, but he must bring** the **other offerings** in order to fulfill his obligation.


###### Nazir 46b:12
[Nazir 46b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/46b:12)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת, קָסָבַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: נָזִיר שֶׁגִּילַּח עַל שַׁלְמֵי נְדָבָה יָצָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְנָתַן עַל הָאֵשׁ אֲשֶׁר תַּחַת זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים״, וְלֹא כָּתַב ״עַל שְׁלָמָיו״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav Adda bar Ahava said: That is to say** that **Rabbi Shimon maintains** that **a nazirite who shaved** based **upon voluntary peace-offerings has fulfilled** his obligation. A peace-offering that was sacrificed not for its own sake does not count toward the fulfillment of one’s obligation but is considered a voluntary gift-offering. It is clear from the mishna that Rabbi Shimon maintains that shaving based upon any valid offering, even a peace-offering of this type, is effective. **What is the reason** for this? It is **as the verse states: “And put it on the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace-offering”** (Numbers 6:18), **and it is not written: On his peace-offering.** This indicates that he fulfills his obligation with any type of peace-offering.