The Eddie and B Sit edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, Masechet Nazir, has been dedicated by our good friends Chaimy and Dina Dana. May Hashem watch over them and grant them success for all their children, that they should be raised according to our holy Torah, growing up to merit Torah, mitzvot, chuppah, and good deeds. In particular, we pray for complete healing for Moshe ben Dina and Penina bat Esther. May their recovery come swiftly, and may it be God's will, and let us say Amen. Additionally, today's daf is being studied for the elevation of the soul of my beloved grandfather, Nir ben Yosef ben Sarah. May his soul be at rest in Gan Eden, Amen. We also remember Avraham ben Esther and Sarah Ruchama bat Rachel, praying for their complete healing as well. May their recovery come swiftly, and let us say Amen.
We begin today's daf on 16b, starting three, four, or five lines from the bottom, from the point of Eitvei. We learned in our Mishna a very fundamental machloket, which actually comes from the Gemara. A fellow made a nezirot while he was in the beit hakevarot, in the cemetery, a place of tumah. Rabbi Yochanan stated that the nezirot is chal on him even though he accepted it in a place of tumah, while Resh Lakish argued that nezirot does not take effect until he re-accepts it upon himself when he leaves the cemetery and becomes tahor. This represents the machloket between Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish.
Now, we find ourselves in the midst of a series of questions that the Gemara is asking. The Gemara poses a question according to Resh Lakish's view. Eitvei, we have a question from a beraita: "Whoever was tamei and accepted upon himself nezirot is forbidden to cut his hair, drink wine, or become tamei to the dead." If he did cut his hair, drank wine, or became tamei to the dead, he indeed receives malkut for any of these transgressions. The Gemara then states, "If you say that nezirot is chal, we understand why he receives malkut for these actions." This indicates that according to Rabbi Yochanan, he is considered a nazir and therefore subject to malkut for transgressing any of the prohibitions of nezirot.
However, if we follow Resh Lakish, who claims that nezirot does not take effect until he re-accepts it upon himself after becoming tahor, then why does he receive malkut? The Gemara answers this by clarifying the case: we are discussing a scenario where he accepted nezirot while in a state of tumah and subsequently left the cemetery, became tahor, and then re-accepted nezirot. Therefore, once he re-accepts the nezirot, he is indeed a nazir. If he then becomes tamei again, he would receive malkut for cutting his hair, drinking wine, or becoming tamei.
We must understand the beraita that states: "Whoever was tamei and accepted nezirot" implies that he was tamei at the time of the nedar. If he subsequently left and re-accepted nezirot, then he would indeed be subject to malkut. Thus, Resh Lakish must explain his position accordingly.
The Gemara continues with another question against Resh Lakish: "There is no difference between a tamei who accepted nezirot and a tahor nazir who became tamei, except that the tamei who accepted nezirot counts his seventh day as part of his count." The chiddush here is that he must wait seven days for tahara, but on the seventh day, while he is completing his process of tahara, it can also count as the first day of his nezirot. However, if a tahor nazir becomes tamei, he must reset his nezirot, and his seventh day does not count towards his nezirot. The Torah clearly states that he must start his count again on the eighth day.
This distinction has practical implications: whether day seven counts as part of the minyan of nezirot. The Gemara then challenges Resh Lakish further: if you are saying that nezirot is not chal at all, why does it count at all? If his nezirot is not chal, how can you say that day seven is counted? This implies that nezirot does indeed take effect.
The Gemara then revises the machloket between Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish. Mar Bar Rav Ashi states that everyone agrees that if someone accepts nezirot while in a state of tumah, that nezirot is chal on him. Even according to Resh Lakish, he does not need to re-accept it. Thus, the nezirot and all its prohibitions take effect immediately. The machloket is whether he receives malkut for tumah. Rabbi Yochanan maintains that since the nezirot is chal on him, if he drinks wine or cuts his hair, he receives malkut. Resh Lakish, however, argues that even though the nezirot is chal, the Torah teaches that a nazir who accepts nezirot in the cemetery does not bring korbanot for tumah.
Normally, a nazir who becomes tamei must bring korbanot for tumah and reset his nezirot. However, one who accepted nezirot in tumah does not bring a korban for that tumah. Resh Lakish holds that just as he is exempt from bringing a korban for tumah, he is also exempt from receiving malkut for the tumah incurred. This is the crux of the machloket between Resh Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan.
We have established that nezirot is upon him, and he receives malkut for transgressions. The machloket centers on whether he receives malkut for tumah. Rabbi Yochanan asserts that he does, especially if he was warned to leave the cemetery and did not heed the warning, which would indicate a level of intention. Resh Lakish argues that he does not receive malkut under those circumstances.
The Gemara then presents a challenge from Rabbi Yochanan to Resh Lakish, asking about the case of someone who accepted nezirot while in the cemetery. Even if he remained there for thirty days, the count does not start, and he does not bring a korban for the tumah incurred during that time. The Gemara deduces that while he does not bring a korban for tumah, it implies that he will receive malkut. This contradicts Resh Lakish's position.
Resh Lakish responds that the Mishnah could have stated that he does not receive malkut but chose not to, as the latter part of the Mishnah focuses on the case where he leaves the cemetery and becomes tahor. In that scenario, he counts the days and brings a korban for tumah. The Gemara clarifies that the Mishnah's structure indicates that the discussion is centered around the corrective actions taken rather than the failures.
Next, the Gemara poses a new question regarding a nazir in the cemetery. Rava asks: "What is the ruling regarding a nazir who is in the cemetery? Does he need to remain there for a certain amount of time to receive malkut?" The implication is whether he must stay for the time it takes to bow, similar to the laws concerning the Beit HaMikdash. The Gemara seeks to clarify whether the same rules apply to a nazir in the cemetery.
The discussion continues, exploring various scenarios and the implications of being tamei while in the cemetery. The Gemara examines whether the nazir must leave immediately or if he has a grace period, similar to the rules in the Beit HaMikdash. Ultimately, the Gemara concludes with a teiku, leaving the question unresolved.
Another question arises: does a nazir who accepted nezirot while in the cemetery need to take a haircut? The law states that he must purify himself before starting the count, but he cannot drink wine or become tamei. The Gemara questions whether he must take a haircut before he starts his count, given that he is in a state of nezirot but has not yet begun counting days.
Ultimately, the Gemara arrives at the conclusion that while a nazir who becomes tamei must take a haircut, the nazir who accepted nezirot in tumah does not bring korbanot for tumah and does not take a haircut until he has completed the process of tahara. The discussion highlights the nuances of halachic rulings regarding nezirot and the implications of being in a state of tumah.
In conclusion, the Gemara emphasizes the importance of understanding the distinctions between the various cases of nezirot, tumah, and the associated halachic consequences. Through careful analysis, we see how these rulings affect the individual and their obligations, reinforcing the significance of intention and awareness in the observance of Torah law.