Talmud Jerusalem
Talmud Jerusalem

Talmud for Nazir 3:1

כאומר מפחזנא אילין אינון כינויי כינויין על דעתיה דרבי יוסי הדא היא דתנינן הרי עלי ציפורין רבי מאיר אומר נזיר וחכמים אומרים אינו נזיר אמר ר' יוחנן משום כינויי כינויין (דנייאל ד) עד די שעריה כנישרין רבא וטיפרוהי כציפורין. הריני כזה. אמר ר' יוסי בר חנינה בתפוש בשערו והוא אמר הריני כזה הריני מסלסל הריני מכלכל כאומר הריני מן המסלסלין מן המכלכלין הריני מסלסל ומכלכל כאומר לא אסלסל ולא אכלכל פחות משלשים אלא שלשים הרי עלי שלא אסלסל שלא אכלכל כאומר לא אסלסל ולא אכלכל יותר על שלשים אלא שלשים הרי עלי לשלח פרע הרי אני מסלסל מכלכל הרי עלי שלא אסלסל ושלא אכלכל הרי עלי לשלח פרע הרי עלי ציפורין ר' מאיר אומר נזיר וחכמים אומרים אינו נזיר א"ר יוחנן משום כינויי כינויין עד די שעריה כנישרין רבא וטיפרוהי כציפורין רשב"ל אמר משום נזיר טמא מביא עוף וכי ציפורין הוא מביא תורין ובני יונה הוא מביא אית תניי תני כל עוף טהור קרוי ציפורין ואית תניי תני כל עוף בין טמא בין טהור קרוי ציפורין מן דמר כל עוף טהור קרוי ציפורין (דברים י״ד:י״א) כל צפור טהורה תאכלו ומן דמר כל עוף בין טמא בין טהור קרוי ציפורין (יחזקאל ל״ט:י״ז) אמור לצפור כל כנף מה טעמא דרבנין נעשה כמתנדב ציפורין לבדק הבית מ"ט דר"מ נעשה כמתנדב אשם לבדק הבית מה נפק מביניהון אמר הרי עלי אשם על דעתיה דר' מאיר מאחר שאינן מתנדבין אשם לבדק הבית נזיר על דעתין

a creative task, he should bring a sin offering. Two--he should bring a conditional sin offering. Three--he is exempt [from bringing a sacrifice of any sort.]” Rabbi Yose bar Bon raised the question [thus]: “If you were to say that two [stars indicate] doubt [as to whether it is day or night, then] if one saw two stars on the eve of the Sabbath and [others] warned him [that it was the Sabbath, thus making him liable for its violation], yet he [nonetheless] performed a creative task; [and if he subsequently] saw two stars on the departure of the Sabbath and [others] warned him [that it was still the Sabbath], yet he performed a creative task; then either way you like [he is liable for a violation of the Sabbath]. If the first [set of stars] were [an indication that it was still] daytime [and not yet the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was still] daytime [and still the Sabbath], then he is liable [for a violation of the Sabbath] on account of the last set [of stars]. If the last [set of stars] were [an indication that it was now] night time [and the Sabbath had begun], then the first stars were also [an indication that it was now] night time [and no longer the Sabbath], then he is liable [for a violation of the Sabbath] on account of the first set [of stars]. [Another example:] If he saw two stars on the eve of the Sabbath and partially harvested a fig, [and] if he [subsequently returned] in the morning and harvested another part, and if he saw two stars on the departure of the Sabbath and harvested the [last] part of the fig, then either way you like [he is liable for a sin offering]. If the first [set of stars] were [an indication that it was still] daytime [and not yet the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was still] daytime [and still the Sabbath] and the morning harvest joins with that of the departure of the sabbath, and he is liable [for a sin offering] on account of the last set [of stars]. If the last [set of stars] were [an indication that it was] night time [and now the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was] daytime [and no longer the Sabbath] and the morning harvest joins with that of the night of the Sabbath, and he is liable [for a sin offering] on account of the first set [of stars].” These [stars] that you are speaking of are [only] those whose way is not to appear in the daytime. However, we do not count those whose way is to appear in the daytime. Rabbi Yose bar Bon said: “Just so long as three stars may be seen aside from that [one we call] Kokhvata (prob. Venus).” (This may be a scribal error and the original version may have been: “Just so long as three stars may be seen [in one place, just] as one star [can be so seen.]”) Rabbi Yaakov of Romana in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Pazi: “One star, surely day. Two, night.” But does he [truly] have no [time period of] doubt!? He has doubt about [discerning] one star from another. A baraita teaches: “So long as the eastern horizon is reddened, it is daytime. What has been said about the stars, applies to those which are not generally seen until nightfall; for, no note is taken of those which appear before the day is terminated. Therefore, R. Yosse bar R. Aboon says: It means three stars not counting, R. Jacob from Darom (south) says: One star indicates that it is still day; but two stars certainly show that it is night. Is there any doubt of this? No; the doubt can only exist between the stars visible by day, and the other stars. With regard to this, we are taught that it is still day as long as the sky is red towards the east; SIGN OF [GOD'S] ANGER3 WHY MAKE MENTION OF IT? THEREUPON R. ELIEZER SAID TO HIM: I ALSO DID NOT SAY TO PRAY4 BUT TO MAKE MENTION [IN THE WORD] ‘HE CAUSETH THE WIND TO BLOW AND THE RAIN TO FALL’5 -IN ITS DUE SEASON. HE [R. JOSHUA] REPLIED TO HIM: IF THAT IS SO ONE SHOULD AT ALL TIMES MAKE MENTION OF IT. WE PRAY FOR RAIN ONLY CLOSE TO THE RAINY SEASON. R. JUDAH SAYS: THE LAST TO STEP BEFORE THE ARK6 ON THE LAST DAY OF THE FEAST MAKES MENTION, THE FIRST DOES NOT; ON THE FIRST DAY OF PASSOVER THE FIRST MAKES MENTION, THE LAST DOES NOT. GEMARA. What has the Tanna [in mind] when he teaches WHEN etc.?7 -The Tanna refers to [a Mishnah] elsewhere which teaches: We make mention of the Power of Rain in the [benediction of] the Revival of the Dead,8 and we pray for [rain] in the Benediction of the Years9 and [we insert] the Habdulah10 in [the benediction] ‘Thou favourest man with knowledge’.11 [With that passage in mind] the Tanna now teaches: When do we [begin] to make mention of the Power of Rain? Would it not have been more appropriate to teach it there, why did he leave it until now? — [Say] rather, because the Tanna had just completed [learning the Tractate] Rosh Hashanah12 where we have learnt: And on the Feast [the world] is judged through water. And, [as there] he taught: ‘And on the Feast [the world] is judged through water,’ therefore there he teaches: When do we [begin] to make mention of the Power of Rain. But let him teach: When do we [begin] to make mention of Rain: why, the Power of Rain?-R. Johanan said: Because Rain comes down by the Power [of God], as it is said, Who doeth great things und unsearchable, marvellous things without number.13 And it is [further] written, Who giveth rain upon the earth, and sendeth waters upon the fields.14 Where [in these verses is this idea] implied? — Rabbah b. Shila replied: It is derived from the analogous use of the word heker in verses treating of Creation. Here it is written, ‘Who doeth great things and unsearchable’. And there it is written, ‘Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard that the everlasting God, The Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? His discernment is past searching out.15 And [of Creation] it is [also] written, Who by Thy strength settest fast the mountains, Who art girded about with might.16 Whence do we know that mention of Rain is to be made in the Prayer?17 - It has been taught: To love the Lord your God and to serve Him with all your heart.18 What is Service of Heart? You must needs say, Prayer. And the verse following reads, That I will give the rain of your land in its season, the former rain and the latter rain.19 R. Johanan said: Three keys the Holy One blessed be He has retained in His own hands and not entrusted to the hand of any messenger, namely, the Key of Rain, the Key of Childbirth, and the Key of the Revival of the Dead. The Key of Rain, for It is written, The Lord will open unto thee His good treasure, the heaven to give the rain of thy land in its season,20 The Key of Childbirth, for it is written, And God remembered Rachel, and God hearkened

Jerusalem Talmud Nazir

“Impurity and shaving are more severe than produce of the vine.” Impurity, as it is written: “All the days he vowed to the Eternal.” And shaving, as it is written: “The earlier days fall away177Cf. Halakhah 3:5, Note 57., for his vow in impure.178This verse proves that the impure nazir has to start again from the beginning. One is tempted, with the classical commentators, to move this verse to the previous sentence and find an appropriate verse for shaving. The problem is that no biblical verse requires the shaved nazir to start counting anew, as explained in Halakhah 3. The reference is to an argument, reproduced in extenso in the Babli 44a and Sifry Num. 31, shortened in Num. rabba 10(34), on exactly the quoted verse, Num. 6:12: “ ‘For his vow is impure’, impurity requires him to start from the beginning, shaving does not require him to start from the beginning, but he has to repeat 30 days.””
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

115From here to the end of the Halakhah, the text is also in Nazir 3:7, Sanhedrin 5:2. There, we have stated116Mishnah Nazir 3:7.: “If two groups of witnesses testified about him, one group testifying that he vowed two periods of nezirut117The vow to abstain from grape products, from impurity of the dead, and from hair cutting, Num. 6:1–21. If the person making the vow does not indicate the duration of the vow, it is for a period of 30 days (Mishnah Nazir3:1)., the other group testifying that he vowed five periods of nezirut.118“The House of Shammai say, this is conflicting testimony, there is no nezirut, the House of Hillel say, two is included in a totality of five, he must be a nazir for two periods.”” Rav said, they differ in the overall testimony. But in detail, everybody agrees that five contains two, that he has to be a nazir for two periods119What Rav calls detail, R. Joḥanan calls counting. Rav holds that the Houses of Shammai and Hillel disagree if one group of witnesses say that he vowed two periods and the other group say five periods. But if the first group testify that he vowed a first and a second time separate 30-day periods of nezirut, and the other group confirm this but add that he also vowed third, fourth, and fifth periods, then the testimony for the first two periods is concurrent and valid according to everybody. The Babli agrees, Nazir 20a/b, in the names of Rav and the Galileans.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they differ in counting. But in an overall testimony, everybody agrees that the testimonies contradict one another and there is no nezirut120R. Joḥanan holds that the testimony of 5 contradicts the testimony of 2 and the House of Hillel will agree that both testimonies are invalid. He holds that the House of Hillel consider a testimony on (1,2) to be contained in the testimony about (1,2,3,4,5), but the House of Shammai see the testimonies as contradicting one another.. What is overall and what is counting? Overall, this one says two, the other one says five. Counting, this one says one, two, the other one says three, four, five.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Moed Katan

137This paragraph is copied from Nazir 3:1 (Notes 7–16, ז). Something happened to Rebbi Immi and he shaved on the 30th day. Something happened [to one rabbi] and he shaved on the 31st day138The editor’s insert declares the question of the first day when shaving is permitted to be open, different authorities following different rules. The text in Nazir and the scribe’s text here note that R, Immi himself was inconsistent in this matter. S. Lieberman (Tarbiz 3) accepts the editor’s addition as genuine (but more likely would be חד בירבי). The only certain statement is that the Venice text is not a genuine version of the Yerushalmi.. Rebbi Zeriqan said, Rebbi Immi learned this from our Mishnah, as we have stated there139Mishnah Nazir 3:2.: “If somebody vowed two neziriot140If somebody declares himself a nazir without indicating the duration of his vow, it is automatically interpreted to mean that he is nazir for 30 days. If the 30th day could not possibly be a day for shaving, he should be able to shave only on the 62nd day. Therefore if the rabbinic rules for mourning are modelled on the biblical of the nazir, the Mishnah gives support both for the 30th and the 31st as days of shaving by the mourner., he shaves for the first on the 31st day, for the second on the 61st day.” Rebbi Yose said, there after it happened, here from the start141R. Yose criticizes R. Immi. The Mishnah requires the nazir to shave on his 31st day; it only legitimizes shaving on the 30th after the fact. But R. Immi shaved on the 30th on his own initiative. R. Zeriqan seems to hold that what is acceptable after the fact in biblical rules is permitted from the start in rabbinic usage.. Rebbi Jeremiah instructed Rebbi Isaac from Aṭoshia, and some say, Rav Ḥiyya ben Rebbi Isaac from Aṭoshia, to shave on the 30th day, following the Mishnah: “Eight days, the decree of 30 days is waived for him.” The eighth has the same status as the 30th day142The argument here goes as follows: If the 8th day of mourning was holiday eve, the mourner can shave in the afternoon in preparation for the holiday. The time elapsed from dawn to the afternoon is counted as a full day for him. Therefore, the person who shaves on the 30th day can nevertheless count the entire 30th day as being part of his mourning period.. Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference; there they permitted in order to honor the holiday. You should know this, since Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: If his eighth day fell on the Sabbath, he shaves Friday. If you say that they did permit not in order to honor the holiday, then even if his 30th day falls on the Sabbath, he should shave Sabbath eve143Nobody permits shaving on the 29th day.. In addition, from what was stated144Babli 22b. In the Babli and in Nazir this is an Amoraic statement.: “For all deceased he stitches together after seven days and mends after 30.” Why should he not stitch on the seventh day and mend on the 30th day145For the seven-day period, the mourner is required to wear the garment torn before the burial. He can stitch together the tear after the end of the seven-day period (after 30 days for father or mother) and invisibly mend it after thirty days (never mending invisibly for father or mother.) Why does one not allow stitching or mending on the last day of a period if “part of the day is counted as a whole day”?? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, this has been transmitted in this way and that has been transmitted in that way146Since one tradition is in from the school of Rav and the other (in the formulation of Nazir) of the school of R. Joḥanan, the two formulations of old (pre-)tannaitic traditions do not have to be coherent..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Nazir

Available for Premium members only
Full Chapter