Nazir 46a

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּזְרַק עָלָיו אֶחָד מִן הַדָּמִים — הוּתַּר הַנָּזִיר לִשְׁתּוֹת בְּיַיִן וּלְהִיטַּמֵּא לְמֵתִים.

Rabbi Shimon says: Once the blood of one of the offerings has been sprinkled on the nazirite’s behalf, the nazirite is permitted to drink wine and to contract ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. The rest of the ritual is not indispensable for his purification.

גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְאַחַר יִשְׁתֶּה הַנָּזִיר יַיִן״ — אַחַר הַמַּעֲשִׂים כּוּלָּן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אַחַר מַעֲשֶׂה יְחִידִי.

GEMARA: The Sages taught: It states at the end of the passage dealing with naziriteship: “And after that the nazirite may drink wine” (Numbers 6:20), which means after all the actions, i.e., after he has sacrificed all the offerings and shaved, thereby completing the entire ritual of a nazirite. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say: After a single action. He may drink wine after sacrificing one offering, even if he has yet to shave, as shaving is not indispensable for being permitted to drink wine.

מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן? כְּתִיב הָכָא ״וְאַחַר יִשְׁתֶּה הַנָּזִיר יָיִן״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם ״אַחַר הִתְגַּלְּחוֹ אֶת נִזְרוֹ״. מָה הָתָם ״אַחַר״ — מַעֲשֶׂה יְחִידִי, אַף כָּאן ״אַחַר״ — מַעֲשֶׂה יְחִידִי.

The Gemara clarifies: What is the reason of the Rabbis? It is written here: “And after that the nazirite may drink wine,” and it is written there, in the previous verse: “And the priest shall take the cooked foreleg…and place it on the palms of the nazirite after he has shaven his naziriteship” (Numbers 6:19). It is derived by verbal analogy: Just as there the term “after” means after a single action, i.e., shaving, here too, the term “after” means after a single action, sacrificing one offering.

אֵימָא עַד דְּאִיכָּא תַּרְוַויְיהוּ! אִי הָכִי, גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה לְמָה לִי?

The Gemara asks: Perhaps one can say that a nazirite is not permitted to drink wine until there are both actions, i.e., sacrificing an offering and shaving, as implied by a straightforward reading of the verse. The Gemara answers: If so, why do I need this verbal analogy? It must be teaching that a nazirite can drink wine after the performance of a single action.

אָמַר רַב: תְּנוּפָה בְּנָזִיר מְעַכֶּבֶת. אַלִּיבָּא דְמַאן? אִילֵימָא אַלִּיבָּא דְרַבָּנַן — תִּגְלַחַת אָמְרִי רַבָּנַן לָא מְעַכְּבָא, תְּנוּפָה מִיבַּעְיָא?

§ 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 Rav state this halakha ? If we say that he spoke in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, this is difficult, as the Rabbis say that even lack of shaving does not preclude the completion of his naziriteship. Is it necessary, then, to state that waving, which is not indispensable in the case of other offerings, is not essential for the ritual of a nazirite?

אֶלָּא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר — פְּשִׁיטָא, הָאָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: אַחַר מַעֲשִׂים כּוּלָּם! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דִּלְעִנְיַן כַּפָּרָה שְׁיָרֵי מִצְוָה הִיא, הָכָא נָמֵי לָא תְּעַכֵּב, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

Rather, will you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who permits a nazirite to drink wine only after he has completed the entire ritual? This is obvious; didn’t Rabbi Eliezer say that he is permitted to drink wine only after all the actions are completed? The Gemara answers that the statement is necessary, lest you say: Since with regard to the atonement effected by all other offerings, waving is considered a peripheral aspect of the mitzva, i.e., one achieves atonement even if he did not perform the ritual of waving, here too its lack does not preclude the release of a nazirite’s prohibitions. Rav therefore teaches us that according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer waving is essential in the case of a nazirite.