תלמוד על נזיר 3:1

“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.””

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.

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..