Nazir 17a

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — בְּיוֹצֵא וְנִכְנָס.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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״.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

§ 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?

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

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.