Torah Community Connections

Week 77 - Sunday - 13 May 2001

NAZIR: CHAPTER 6: MISHNAH 4

A nazir who drank wine all day, is liable only once. If they said to him, "Do not drink, do not drink," and he drank - he is liable for each one. If he shaved all day, he is liable only once. If they said to him, "Do not shave, do not shave," and he shaved - he is liable for each one. If he became unclean by a corpse related uncleanness all day, he is liable only once. If they said to him, "Do not become unclean, do not become unclean," and he becomes unclean - he is liable for each one.

Kehati

This mishnah teaches the laws of lashes for the three types of prohibitions that apply to a nazir, all of which are equal regarding this matter. The law is that if a person commits a transgression punishable by lashes, he is liable only if he was warned beforehand not to commit the transgression, and that if he does he will be liable to lashes (see Rambam, Hil. Sanhedrin 12:2).

A nazir who drank wine all day - and was warned only once, is liable - to lashes - only once. If they said to him, "Do not drink, do not drink" - they warned him between drinks - and he drank - he did not refrain from drinking, he is liable - to lashes - for each one - for each drink. The same applies to shaving: If he shaved all day - and he was warned only once, he is liable - to lashes - only once. If they said to him, "Do not shave, do not shave" - they warned him about each and every hair, and he shaved - continued to shave, he is liable - to lashes - for each one - as he was warned. And the same applies to the prohibition of becoming unclean: If he became unclean by a corpse related uncleanness all day - and he was warned only once, he is liable - to lashes - only once. If they said to him, "Do not become unclean, do not become unclean" - they warned him about each and every instance of becoming unclean, and he - continues to - become unclean - he is liable - to lashes - for each one - for each instance of becoming unclean, e.g., if he became unclean by a corpse related uncleanness and went away, and then again came into contact with a corpse or entered under a roof under which there was a corpse etc. (Gemara). The law of lashes applies to every instance of becoming unclean with a corpse related uncleanness, even for those cases for which the nazir does not perform the tiglahat of uncleanness (Hameiri; see our introduction to 3:5, above).

Rambam writes in his commentary on this mishnah: "That which we said in these cases, "he is liable only once," refers only to human law, i.e., he is liable to lashes only after warning, and therefore requires warning for each set of lashes... but regarding Heavenly law, each time he drinks a revi'it of wine constitutes a transgression, and each shaving [of a hair) constitutes a transgression, and each uncleanness that he contracts constitutes a transgression, and from this you may draw an analogy regarding all Torah prohibitions; there is no distinction in this matter between a simple prohibition, and a prohibition punishable by karet, or capital punishment. But know that a person who engages in prohibited cohabitation, whatever prohibited cohabitation it may be, is liable for each and every sexual act, and if we are able to impose on him only one punishment, the Holy One, blessed be He, punishes him for each and every transgression. And if the Court executed him for one of these transgressions, and he confessed - he gains full atonement for several transgressions by virtue of repentance, and not by virtue of the one punishment imposed on him by the Court."

NAZIR: CHAPTER 6: MISHNAH 5:

Three things are forbidden to a nazir: uncleanness and shaving and that which comes from the grapevine. Greater stringency applies to uncleanness and shaving than to that which comes from the grapevine, for uncleanness and shaving cause forfeiture, and that which comes from the grapevine does not cause forfeiture. Greater stringency applies to that which comes from the grapevine than to uncleanness and shaving, for that which comes from the grapevine was not released from its general rule, and uncleanness and shaving were released from their general rules regarding obligatory shaving and an abandoned corpse. And greater stringency applies to uncleanness than to shaving, for uncleanness causes forfeiture of all, and one is thereby liable to a sacrifice, and shaving causes forfeiture only thirty days and one is thereby not liable to a sacrifice.

Kehati

Three things are forbidden to a nazir: uncleanness and shaving and that which comes from the grapevine - as was already taught in mishnah 1 in this chapter. Greater stringency applies to uncleanness and shaving than to that which comes from the grapevine - the prohibitions of uncleanness and shaving are more stringent than the prohibition of eating and drinking whatever comes from the grapevine, for uncleanness and shaving cause forfeiture - of the days which he has already counted, for if a nazir becomes unclean by a corpse related uncleanness, he completely forfeits the period of his nezirut, as will be explained below, but if he shaved within the term of nezirut, he forfeits thirty days, as was explained in mishnah 3, above, and that which comes forth from the grapevine does not cause forfeiture - for if a nazir ate or drank from anything which comes from the grapevine, he does not forfeit any of the days of his nezirut.

Greater stringency applies to - the prohibition of eating or drinking that which comes from the grapevine than to - the prohibition of- uncleanness and - to the prohibition of - shaving, for that which comes from the grapevine was not released from its general rule - of being prohibited; for a nazir may never drink wine, not even obligatory wine, for the Sages learned from the passage, "he shall abstain from new wine and aged wine" (Num. 6:3), that obligatory wine is prohibited just as discretionary wine is prohibited. The Gemara explains that this refers to a case in which he took an oath to drink wine, and as a consequence he is obligated to drink wine, and afterwards he undertook nezirut; the nezirut is effective on his oath, and he is forbidden wine; it goes without saying that he is forbidden the wine of kiddush and of havdalah (the ceremony separating between Shabbat and the rest of the week), for the obligation to recite kiddush over wine is only a Rabbinical requirement (Tosafot; Rambam, Hil. Nezirut 7:11),

and the uncleanness and the shaving were released from their general rules - of being prohibited, regarding obligatory shaving - for if a nazir contracts tzara'at (a skin disorder usually translated erroneously "leprosy"; see Lev. 13:2-14:57), and was healed within the term of his nezirut, he must shave all his hair, because the shaving by a metzora is a positive Torah Commandment, as it is written, "And he shall shave off all his hair" (Lev. 14:8), and in every instance where there is both a positive Torah Commandment and a Torah prohibition and it is not possible to observe both, then the positive commandment overrides the prohibition; the positive obligation of shaving the metzora therefore overrides the prohibition stated regarding the nazir, "no razor may come over his head" (Num. 6:5) (Rambam Mishnah Commentary; Mishneh Torah, Hil. Nezirut 7:15), and an abandoned corpse - the nazir is permitted to become unclean for an abandoned corpse, e.g., he was on a journey and came across a corpse, and there is no one else who can attend to his burial, then he may become unclean for the corpse and bury him, as it is written regarding the nazir, "He shall not make himself unclean for his father, or for his mother" (Num. 6:7), from which it is learned (by an oral tradition), he may not become unclean for his father, but he may become unclean for an abandoned corpse (Rambam; Bartenura).

And greater stringency applies to uncleanness than to shaving, for uncleanness causes forfeiture of all - if the nazir became unclean by a corpse related uncleanness, the uncleanness causes forfeiture of all the days of nezirut that he had counted until he became unclean, as it is written, "but the former days shall be forfeit" (Num. 6:12, as has already been explained (3:34, above), and one is thereby liable to a sacrifice - the sacrifices of the tiglahat of uncleanness: two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a hatat and one for an olah, and a male lamb for an asham (Num. 6:10-12), as will be explained in the following mishnah, and - if the nazir shaved his hair within the period of his nezirut, shaving causes forfeiture only thirty days - so that he may fulfill the obligation, "he shall let grow long the hair of his head" (Num. 6:5) of an unspecified nezirut, which is for thirty days, as was explained above (mishnah 3), and one - i.e., the nazir who shaved within the period of his nezirut is thereby not liable to a sacrifice - any sacrifice at all.

In explaining the law that the nazir is permitted obligatory shaving, we have cited the reason given by Rambam, that the positive Torah Commandment of the metzora to shave overrides the prohibition applying to the nazir, "no razor may come over his head." But there is a difficulty here, Rambam continues: "For the nazir who shaved during the period of his nezirut has violated a Torah prohibition and a positive Torah Commandment, as it is written, 'All the days of his nezirut no razor may come over his head (which is a prohibition) ... he shall grow long the hair of his head' (which is a positive commandment), and a positive commandment never overrides a prohibition joined with a positive commandment.

And why does the positive commandment of a metzora shaving override nezirut?" The answer is as follows: "Because the nazir has already become unclean with tzara'at and the days of his confinement are not credited to him, and he is not consecrated during them, and the positive commandment is automatically cancelled, and only the Torah prohibition, which is 'no razor may come over his head,' remains; therefore, the positive commandment of shaving after tzara'at comes and overrides it" (Hil. nezirut 7:15; see also Tosafot Yom Tov) Ravad, however, raises an objection to Rambam's reasoning, and gives another reason: as was stated at the beginning of Tractate Yevamot, since one can be released from the nezirut it is less stringent and the positive commandment of shaving after tzara'at can therefore override the prohibition and positive commandment of nezirut (see the commentaries on Rambam).

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives