Talmud for Nazir 7:1
שלשים יום נזיר שמשון נזיר מכבר אמר ר' חיננא מסתברא שתדחה נזירות תורה לנזירות שמשון מה טעמא (במדבר ו׳:כ״א) כן יעשה על תורת נזרו את שנזירותו תורה יצאה נזירות שמשון שאינה תורה. ניטמא אינו מביא קרבן טומאה. לא אמר אלא אינו מביא קרבן טומאה הא ללקות לוקה מתניתא דרבי יודה דתני בשם ר' יודה נזיר שמשון מטמא למתים שכן היה שמשון עצמו מיטמא למתים ר' שמעון אומר אמר כשמשון לא אמר כלום שלא חלה נזירותו מפיו עליו מאי טעמא כפי נזרו את שנזירותו חלה מפיו עליו יצא נזירות שמשון שלא חלה מפיו עליו אלא מפי הדיבור מאי טעמא (שופטים י״ג:ה׳) כי נזיר אלהים יהיה הנער מן הבטן:
R. Aha said: It is written (in Gen. xliv. 3): "As soon as the morning was light." The Tori calls the light "morning." R. Ishmael taught: It is written "every morning," so as to give a limit for him who desires to know when the morning commences. R. Yosse bar R. Aboon said: If you think to call night, the time that the sun takes to traverse the heavens (from dawn to radiancy), it would be equivalent to saying that the day and the night do not resemble each other (the night would lengthen out to the morning by this addition; but we are taught that on the first day of the Equinox of Nissan ', and on the first day of the Equinox of Tissri, the day and the night are equal). R. Hoona says: One can accept the usual custom as a term of comparison. Thus, when the king starts to go out, he is said to be out; but when he commences to return, he is not said to be returned, until it is an accomplished fact (it is the same with the sun).
Jerusalem Talmud Nazir
HALAKHAH: “But for overhanging branches, or protuberances,” etc. What is the status of the undistributed middle150Mishnah 2 spells out for which biblical impurities the nazir has to shave; the implication is that for anything less he does not have to shave. Mishnah 3 has a list of rabbinic impurities for which the nazir does not have to shave; the implication is that for anything more he has to shave. We are left without instructions for cases which fall in between.? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the undistributed middle is judged leniently151Anything not covered by Mishnah 2 is not biblical; the nazir is prevented from shaving.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the undistributed middle is judged restrictively152Anything not exempted by Mishnah 3 requires shaving and a new start. The Babli, 53b, reports the same opinions, limited to the case taken here as illustration.. What is the undistributed middle? That is a limb from a corpse or a limb from a living body which is not sufficiently62“Sufficient flesh” is enough left on a limb connected to a living body that it could heal. covered by flesh153Mishnah Ahilut 1:8 spells out that such a limb induces impurity by touch or carrying but not in a tent.. Rebbi Yose asked154He questions R. Simeon ben Laqish’s position.: From where [do we infer that] a bone [induces impurity in the size of] a barley grain? Not from that verse, “or a person’s bone155Num. 19:16. In v. 18, only “bone” is mentioned but not “human”. This is interpreted in Sifry Num. #127,129 to cover bones coming from both living or dead persons; cf. Babli 54a, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Num. 19:16,18.”? Here you require a barley grain, there you do not require a barley grain156For a bare bone, everybody agrees that a barley grain represents the minimum size which induces impurity. According to R. Simeon ben Laqish, a bone fragment with some flesh is not subject to a legal minimum.! Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon stated: “A slain one”, anything from a slain person157Without a minimum; Sifry Num. #127., that is a limb from a corpse or a limb from a living body which is not sufficiently covered by flesh.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Nazir
He is permitted commanded shavings. Not only to signify his skin disease181Since in an oath formula, the positive stands for the negative. but also to signify his scall, to know whether it spread or did not spread182The shavings needed for diagnostic purposes, Lev. 13:33. “And a corpse of obligation.” That is what we have stated: “If they were walking and came upon a corpse of obligation.183Mishnah 7:1.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim
147This paragraph is a reformulation of one in Nazir 8:1 (Notes 56–63) but, as the quotes in the paragraph show clearly, the source is Nazir, in contrast to the next paragraph which in Nazir is a copy from Pesaḥim. A nazir who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain148The general principle is that a doubt about impurity arising in a private domain is treated as certain impurity, in the public domain as certain purity. The rule becomes void if the character of the place itself is doubtful. (on Oassover) [not related to the Pesaḥ.149The scribe wrote “on Pesaḥ” and the corrector inserted “not”. Both words should be deleted.] The great Rebbi Hoshaia said, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the nazir does not shave150The essence of a vow of nazir is that the person must let his hair grow, abstain from all products of the vine, and avoid any impurity of the dead. If he should become impure in this impurity, he has to shave, bring required sacrifices, and start his nezirut all over again., since we have stated there151Mishnah Nazir 7:4. In Mishnah 7:2 it is explained that the Nazir shaves only if the cause of the impurity is a verified part of a corpse; the cases of doubt enumerated in Mishnah 7:3 are excluded. The liability for entering the Sanctuary in impurity is for a sacrifice if inadvertent or for extirpation if intentional.: “For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, [one is liable] if entering the Sanctuary, but any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, [one is not liable] if entering the Sanctuary.” What kind of doubt? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the start of the Chapter152Mishnah Nazir 8:1: A person saw that one of two nezirim became impure but he cannot identify whom he saw. Then there certainly is impurity but it is not known to whom it refers.. The great Rebbi Hoshaia said, the one here153One of the cases of Mishnah Nazir 7:3, where t is not known whether actually impurity was created.. A person who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Hoshaia said, he should be pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one sends him on a far journey154For him also the person has to bring the Second Pesaḥ, but he holds that like any other sacrifice it may be brought for a certain, rather than a possible, obligation.. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he became impure by the impurity of the broken field155A field which contained a grave ploughed under. Not only is the suspected place of the grave impure by biblical standards but the entire field is rabbinically impure since the plough might have caught a bone and transported it to another part of the field., one sends him on a far journey. The community who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain on Passover. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they should present it in their doubt156If the majority of the public is certainly impure, all Pesaḥim are made in impurity. If the majority is in doubt whether they are impure, the pure minority brings their offerings in purity and the possibly impure majority theirs in possible impurity.. Does the great Rebbi Hoshaia say, it should be made in impurity? Rebbi Hoshaia (said) [also agrees] that it should be presented in their doubt; what Rebbi Hoshaia said referred only to restrictions.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy