Nazir - Daf 19
- Rebbe Elazar Hakappar’s opinion that a nazir is a sinner
Rebbe Elazar Hakappar Beribi said: What does the passuk mean in saying, וכפר עליו מאשר חטא על הנפש – “And he shall atone for him having sinned regarding the soul”? וכי באיזו נפש חטא זה – Regarding which soul did this one sin? אלא שציער עצמו מן היין – Rather, because he deprived himself from wine. וקל וחומר, ומה זה שלא ציער עצמו אלא מן היין נקרא חוטא – And there is a kal vachomer: If this one, who only deprived himself of wine, is called a sinner, המצער עצמו מכל דבר על אחת כמה וכמה – then one who deprives himself of all things, all the more so! The Gemara asks: the passuk above is discussing a nazir who became tamei, yet Rebbe Elazar Hakappar seems to consider every nazir a sinner for having deprived himself from wine! It answers that although every nazir is called a sinner in his opinion, the reason the phrase is written about a nazir who became tamei is: הואיל ושנה בחטא – because he repeated the sin by having to begin his abstention anew.
- Analysis of Rebbe Eliezer’s opinion that tumah on the first day does not cause forfeiture
Ulla said that Rebbe Eliezer’s opinion, that tumah on the first day does not cause forfeiture (and does not require korbanos for tumah), was only said for a tamei who declared nezirus. אבל בנזיר טהור שנטמא - But a nazir tahor who became tamei, אפילו יום אחד סותר – even on the first day, would forfeit that day and require korbanos. This statement is refuted from a Baraisa which proves that Rebbe Eliezer holds that even for a nazir tahor, there is no forfeiture for a first-day tumah.
Rav Pappa asked Abaye if the “days” required by Rebbe Eliezer mean that a second day has begun, or that two days have passed, and the third day has begun. The Rosh explains: Regarding the end of his term, only tumah on the penultimate day, which has a full final day after it, causes forfeiture of the whole term. So too, tumah at the start of the term may only cause forfeiture if it is preceded by a full day (i.e., upon reaching the third, since the nezirus began during the first day). Rava answered that the passuk says יפלו – ”[the days] will fall away,” which implies even a minimal “falling,” so tumah on the second day would suffice for forfeiture.
- A nazir in chutz la’aretz who came to Eretz Yisroel
The next Mishnah states: מי שנזר נזירות הרבה והשלים את נזירותו – One who declared a lengthy nezirus and completed it, ואחר כך בא לארץ – and afterwards came to Eretz Yisroel, Beis Shammai say he must again observe a thirty-day term of nezirus. Beis Hillel say he must start his entire term anew. A story is recounted of Queen Helena, who declared a nezirus of seven years if her son would return safely from war, which he did. She observed seven years, and upon coming to Eretz Yisroel, was instructed by Beis Hillel to observe another seven. She did, and became tamei at the end, requiring an additional seven, for a total of twenty-one years. (Rebbe Yehudah says it was fourteen, which the Gemara will explain).
The Gemara on the next Daf explains that the point of contention is the extent of the penalty the Rabbis imposed on a nazir for observing nezirus in chutz la’aretz, which Rabbinically is tamei. Beis Shammai held that they required a standard nezirus, and Beis Hillel held that they required his full nezirus.
