Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nazir

Folio 42a

The Master said: 'If any one of them polled without a razor, or left behind two hairs, his act is invalid.'²  R. Aha the son of R. Ika said: This implies that Torah-law accepts [the principle that] the majority³  counts as the whole.⁴  In what way [does this follow]? — From the fact that the All-Merciful reveals in the cafe of the nazirite that, On the seventh day he shall shave it,⁵  [for we infer that] here only [is his duty unfulfilled] until the whole [has been shaved],⁶  whilst elsewhere the majority counts as the whole.

R. Jose son of R. Hanina demurred to this: But this [verse] is speaking of a defiled nazirite?⁷

In the West⁸  they laughed at this [objection]. Consider, [they said]. That a defiled nazirite is required to use a razor [in shaving his head] is inferred from a ritually pure nazirite.⁹  [It stands to reason then that] we can now infer the rule of the ritually pure nazirite from the defiled nazirite, viz. that just as when the latter leaves two hairs standing his act is invalid, so when the former leaves two hairs standing his act is invalid.

Abaye propounded [the following question]: What [would be the Law] if a nazirite shaved and left two hairs standing, and then when his head showed a new growth shaved off [those two hairs], would this hold up [the termination of the naziriteship] or not?

Raba propounded [the following question]: What [would be the law] if a nazirite shaved, leaving two hairs standing,¹⁰  and then shaved one and one fell out?¹¹

R. Aha of Difti¹²  asked Rabina: Has Raba any doubt in the case where hair is shaved one at a time?¹³  — [He replied], We must say then, [the question arises if] one fell out and he shaved the other.¹⁴

He then replied:¹⁵  Here is no polling, for here is no hair.

But if there is no hair here, then polling has been performed?¹⁶  — The meaning is: Although there is no hair left, the duty to poll has not been validly observed.¹⁷

MISHNAH. A NAZIRITE MAY SHAMPOO [HIS HAIR] AND PART IT [WITH HIS FINGERS] BUT MAY NOT COMB IT.¹⁸

GEMARA. HE MAY SHAMPOO [HIS HAIR] AND PART IT [WITH HIS FINGERS]. Who is the author of this opinion? — It is R. Simeon who says a breach of the law which is not intended is allowed.¹⁹  BUT HE MAY NOT COMB IT; here we come round to the opinion of the Rabbis.²⁰  [Are we then to understand that] the first clause is by R. Simeon and the next one by the Rabbis? — Rabbah replied: The whole is by R. Simeon, [for] a man who combs his hair intends to remove loose strands.²¹

MISHNAH. R. ISHMAEL SAID: HE IS NOT TO CLEANSE IT WITH EARTH BECAUSE IT CAUSES THE HAIR TO FALL OUT.

GEMARA. The Academy wished to know whether we read 'because it causes the hair to fall out,' or 'because of [the kinds of earth that] cause the hair to fall out.' Where would a practical difference arise? In the case where there is a variety of earth that does not cause it to fall out. If you say that we read 'because it causes it to fall out,' then wherever we know that it does not cause it to fall out, it could be used. But if you say 'because of [the kinds of earth that] cause it to fall out' that he may not use any kind at all! This was left undecided.

MISHNAH. A NAZIRITE WHO HAS DRUNK WINE ALL DAY LONG HAS INCURRED A SINGLE PENALTY ONLY. IF HE WAS TOLD 'DO NOT DRINK,' 'DO NOT DRINK' AND HE DRANK,²²  HE HAS INCURRED A PENALTY FOR EACH [WARNING].

FOR POLLING ALL DAY LONG HE INCURS ONE PENALTY ONLY. IF HE WAS TOLD, 'DO NOT POLL,' 'DO NOT POLL AND HE DID POLL,²²  HE HAS INCURRED A PENALTY FOR EACH [WARNING]. FOR DEFILING HIMSELF [BY CONTACT] WITH THE DEAD ALL DAY LONG HE INCURS ONE PENALTY ONLY. IF HE WAS TOLD, DO NOT DEFILE YOURSELF, DO NOT DEFILE YOURSELF, AND HE DID DEFILE HIMSELF,²³  HE HAS INCURRED A PENALTY FOR EACH [WARNING].

1. From the juxtaposition of the two laws it is inferred that the second is to be carried out even at the cost of transgressing the first. A further discussion of this point will be found infra (58a-b).
2. Supra 40a.
3. Or the larger portion.
4. I.e., is legally equivalent to the whole.
5. Num. VI, 9. This sentence is a superfluous repetition of the previous one, 'He shall shave his head on the day of his cleansing', and is therefore taken as indicating that the whole head must be shaved
6. Because here we have a special indication that the larger portion is insufficient
7. Whereas according to the Baraitha, even a clean nazirite who leaves two hairs standing has not shaved effectively.
8. I.e., the Palestinian Academies. [The reference elsewhere is to R. Jose b. Hanina. Here it may be to R. Eleazar. V. Sanh. 17b.]
9. The razor mentioned in Num. VI, 5, refers to an undefiled nazirite.
10. So that the polling is invalid and must be repeated on the remaining two hairs.
11. So that he had not polled two hairs validly.
12. [Dibtha below the Tigris, S.E. Babylon, Obermeyer, op. cit. 197.]
13. There would finally remain two as in the present instance, and the polling of one would, R. Aha assumes, certainly complete the polling.
14. Thus when he commenced the final polling, there were not two hairs left, but one.
15. I.e., Raba answered his own problem (v. the parallel text in B.K. 105a).
16. For he is only required to poll what is actually there.
17. Since there were not two hairs when he started. He should therefore poll again later (v. Asheri and Maimonides, Yad Neziruth, VIII, 7); Rashi, here, does not require him to poll again.
18. I. e., may not use a comb, because hair will come out.
19. Provided that the act he is doing is permitted, he is not made to refrain because he may unintentionally also do something forbidden (v. Shab. 50b). So here, although hairs may detach themselves even if he uses only his fingers, we do not forbid him to use them.
20. For here too it is not his intention to detach hairs.
21. And this is forbidden.
22. After each warning.
23. After each warning.

GEMARA. It was stated: Rabbah, citing R. Huna, said: Scripture [speaking of the nazirite] makes the comprehensive statement, He shall not make himself unclean;¹  when it adds, He shall not enter [by a dead body],²  [its intention is] to utter a [separate] warning against defilement [by contact] and a [separate] warning against entering [a tent],³  but not against defilement [by contact] from two scources [at the same time].⁴  R. Joseph, however, said: By God! R. Huna said that even for defilement [by contact] from two sources [at the same time there are separate penalties]. For R. Huna has said that a nazirite, standing in a cemetery, who was handed the corpse of his own [relative] or some other corpse, and touched it incurs a penalty.⁵  Now why should this be so? Is he not actually being defiled all the time?⁶  It follows therefore that R. Huna must have said that even for defilement [by contact] from two sources [he is to receive separate penalties].

Abaye raised an objection from the following. [A Baraitha teaches:] 'A priest,⁷  carrying a corpse on his back, who was handed the corpse of his own [relative] or some other corpse and touched it, might be thought to have incurred a penalty,⁸  but the text says, Nor profane [the sanctuary]⁹  [prescribing a penalty] for one not already profaned [and thus] excluding this man who is already profaned?¹⁰  — [R. Joseph] replied: But our Mishnah should cause you the same perplexity, for we learn [there], FOR DEFILING HIMSELF [BY CONTACT] WITH THE DEAD ALL DAY LONG HE INCURS ONE PENALTY ONLY. IF HE WAS TOLD, 'DO NOT DEFILE YOURSELF,' 'DO NOT DEFILE YOURSELF,' AND HE DID DEFILE HIMSELF, HE HAS INCURRED A PENALTY FOR EACH [WARNING]. But why should this be so? Is he not already defiled? We can therefore only conclude that [the Mishnah and the Baraitha] contradict each other.¹¹

[Abaye retorted:] There is no difficulty [in reconciling the Mishnah and the Baraitha]. The latter assumes that there is concatenation,¹²  the former that there is no concatenation.

Is then defilement through concatenation a Torah enactment? Has not R. Isaac b. Joseph said: R. Jannai said that defilement through concatenation was held to be effective only as it affects terumah and sacrificial meats,¹³  but not the nazirite or a celebrant of the passover?¹⁴  Now, if as you assert, it is a Torah [defilement], why should there be this difference?¹⁵  — There concatenation of one man with another is meant;¹⁶  in our case concatenation of the man with the corpse.¹⁷

'But not against defilement [by contact] from two sources [at the same time,'¹⁸  said Rabbah] because he is actually defiled already. But in the case of defilement [by contact] and entering [a tent containing a corpse] is he not also already defiled?¹⁹  — R. Johanan replied: In the latter case [he is supposed to enter] a house [whilst undefiled];²⁰  in the former, [which takes place] in the open [there cannot be two penalties].²¹

1. Num. VI, 7.
2. E.v. 'come near to', Num. V. 6.
3. Containing a dead body. So that a nazirite, duly warned, who enters a covered place containing a corpse and actually touches the corpse is scourged twice.
4. I.e., for touching two corpses at the same time he is scourged only once, even if warned against each separately.
5. I.e., a penalty for touching the corpse.
6. By being in the cemetery.
7. Some versions (including Tosaf. and Asheri) read 'a nazirite'.
8. I.e., a further penalty for the second contact.
9. Of the High Priest. Lev. XXI, 12; so our text. Tosaf. and others read the verse, 'to profane himself' (Ibid. 4) spoken of an ordinary priest. In either case it is presumed that the same is true of the nazirite.
10. Whereas according to R. Joseph there should be an extra penalty. Hence the contradiction.
11. And I, says R. Joseph, agree with the Mishnah which is more important.
12. I.e., that the person and the two corpses are in contact at the same time, and that is why there is no extra penalty. Where there is contact at different times there is an additional penalty.
13. I.e., a person defiled through concatenation (in what way is explained below) is forbidden to eat terumah (v. Glos.) or sacrificial meats for seven days, as though there had been direct contact with the corpse.
14. These observe defilement for one day only.
15. Hence concatenation is not a Torah enactment, and why should there be the difference between the Mishnah and the Baraitha.
16. I.e., a man touching a second man in contact with a corpse. Here the defilement for seven days instead of one is rabbinic.
17. If he then touches a second corpse there is no further defilement and so no further penalty.
18. The Torah does not prescribe two scourgings in such a case, v. supra.
19. Why then does Rabbah say that he is to receive two scourgings in this case?
20. So that he both enters the house of the dead and becomes defiled at the same instant. Hence both prohibitions are transgressed together.
21. Because he becomes unclean by the first contact and then no further penalty can lie for contact or entering a tent of the dead.