Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 2:10:2-3

Sugya Map

This sugya in Yerushalmi Nazir 2:10 delves into the complex halachot surrounding a unique double nezirut vow: "הריני נזיר אם יולד לי בן, ונזיר מאה יום" (I shall be a nazir if a son is born to me, and a nazir for 100 days). The father undertakes an immediate 100-day nezirut for himself, alongside a conditional 30-day nezirut for his future son.

• Core Issues:

  • Overlap of Neziruyot: How are the days counted when the conditional nezirut (for the son, 30 days) begins during the father's 100-day nezirut?
  • The Shiur of "לא הפסיד כלום" and "מפסיד עד שבעים": Determining when the father "loses" days from his 100-day count, specifically tied to the 30-day minimum period required between consecutive giluchim (shavings).
  • Mekzat Hayom Kekulo: Does a partial day count as a full day for the commencement of nezirut (e.g., if the son is born at the start of a day)?
  • Tumah during Overlap: What is the effect of tumah (impurity) on the father's nezirut when it occurs after the son's nezirut has begun, but before the father's 100 days are fully completed and shaved?
  • Combining Giluchim: Can a single giluach serve for multiple neziruyot (e.g., the father's and son's, or two neziruyot of the same person)? What about a giluach for nezirut and for a metzora (leper)?

• Nafka Mina(s):

  • Duration of Nezirut: The exact number of days the father must observe nezirut.
  • Timing of Korbanot and Giluach: When the father brings his korbanot and shaves for his neziruyot.
  • Impact of Tumah: Whether tumah requires a complete restart of the 100-day nezirut or only a shorter period of purification.
  • Validity of Giluach: The halachic efficacy of a single shaving for multiple obligations.

• Primary Sources:

  • Yerushalmi Nazir 2:10:2-3
  • Mishnah Nazir 2:10
  • Bavli Nazir 15a, 20b, 60b (as parallel sugyot)
  • Tosefta Nazir 5:2
  • Sifrei Bamidbar 38
  • Vayikra 14 (laws of Metzora)

Text Snapshot

The sugya begins with a Mishnah and continues with a Halakha section, which elaborates and discusses various scenarios.

Mishnah (Yerushalmi Nazir 2:10:2)

מִשְׁנָה: "הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר אִם יִוָּלֵד לִי בֵּן וְנָזִיר מֵאָה יָמִים." נִוָּלַד לוֹ עַד שִׁבְעִים [יוֹם] – לֹא הִפְסִיד כְּלוּם. לְאַחַר שִׁבְעִים [יוֹם] – סוֹתֵר עַד שִׁבְעִים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין תִּגְלַחַת פְּחוּתָה מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם.

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance:

• "הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר אִם יִוָּלֵד לִי בֵּן וְנָזִיר מֵאָה יָמִים": This establishes two distinct neziruyot: one conditional (30 days for the son's nezirut) and one absolute (100 days for the father). The conjunction "וְנָזִיר" (and a nazir) indicates a simultaneous undertaking, though the son's nezirut only begins upon birth.
• "נִוָּלַד לוֹ עַד שִׁבְעִים [יוֹם] – לֹא הִפְסִיד כְּלוּם": If the son is born within the first 70 days of the father's 100-day nezirut, no days are "lost." The father can complete the son's 30 days, shave, and still have at least 30 days remaining from his own 100-day count, allowing for the required interval between shavings.
• "לְאַחַר שִׁבְעִים [יוֹם] – סוֹתֵר עַד שִׁבְעִים": If the son is born after 70 days, the father "loses" days, effectively reducing his counted days for his 100-day nezirut back to 70. This ensures a 30-day minimum between the son's giluach and the father's giluach. The term "סוֹתֵר" (destroys/invalidates) here means to nullify the counting of those specific days, not necessarily to restart the entire nezirut.
• "מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין תִּגְלַחַת פְּחוּתָה מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם": This klal (rule) is fundamental: a nazir cannot shave twice within a 30-day period, as 30 days is the minimum shiur for gedul sear (sufficient hair growth) for a giluach to be considered halachically significant.

Halakha (Yerushalmi Nazir 2:10:3)

הֲלָכָה: "הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר אִם יִוָּלֵד לִי בֵּן", כו'. פְּשִׁיטָא שֶׁבְּסוֹף הַיּוֹם עוֹלֶה לוֹ כְּכוּלּוֹ. הַתְחָלַת הַיּוֹם עוֹלָה לוֹ כְּכוּלּוֹ? לֹא מִן הַמִּשְׁנָה: "לְאַחַר שִׁבְעִים [יוֹם] סוֹתֵר עַד שִׁבְעִים", וְלֹא מִקְצָת? הָא מִתְמַשְׁמְעָא דְּהַתְחָלַת הַיּוֹם עוֹלָה לוֹ כְּכוּלּוֹ. נִוָּלַד בַּשְּׁמוֹנִים – סוֹתֵר עֲשָׂרָה. נִוָּלַד בַּתִּשְׁעִים – סוֹתֵר עֶשְׂרִים. הִנִּיחַ נְזִירוּתוֹ וּבָא לְהַשְׁלִים נְזִירוּת בְּנוֹ וְנִטְמָא תּוֹךְ עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים – סוֹתֵר הַכֹּל. תּוֹךְ עֶשְׂרִים יָמִים הָאַחֲרוֹנִים? רִבִּי אַבָּא בְּשֵׁם רַב וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין: סוֹתֵר שְׁלֹשִׁים. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: סוֹתֵר שִׁבְעָה בִּלְבַד. שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַבָּא שָׁאֵל קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי: רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָבַר דְּתִגְלַחַת בְּתַעַר מִן סְתִירָה בְּגוּפוֹ? רִבִּי זְעִירָא אָמַר: אִלּוּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָבַר דְּתִגְלַחַת בְּתַעַר מִן סְתִירָה בְּגוּפוֹ, לָמָּה הוּא אָמַר סוֹתֵר שְׁלֹשִׁים? לֹא יִסְתּוֹר הַכֹּל? רִבִּי אָבִין בַּר חִיָּא אָמַר קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא: פַּשְּׁרָהּ בְּשֶׁנּוֹלַד בְּיוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְהָבִיא קָרְבָּן. תְּרִי וְלֹא נִוָּלַד בַּלַּיְלָה? וְלֹא שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְהָבִיא קָרְבָּן? רָאוּי. הַלַּיְלָה גָרְמָה. תְּרִי וְלֹא נִוָּלַד בְּשַׁבָּת? וְלֹא שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְהָבִיא קָרְבָּן? רָאוּי. שַׁבָּת גָּרְמָה. הִשְׁלִים נְזִירוּתוֹ וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לְגַלֵּחַ בְּשֶׁנּוֹלַד בְּשַׁבָּת. וְלֹא שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְהָבִיא קָרְבָּן? רָאוּי. שַׁבָּת גָּרְמָה. הִשְׁלִים נְזִירוּתוֹ וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לְגַלֵּחַ קוֹדֶם שֶׁנּוֹלַד בְּנוֹ – מְגַלֵּחַ אַחַת לִשְׁתֵּי נְזִירוּת. קִדֵּשׁ קָרְבְּנוֹתָיו וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לְגַלֵּחַ קוֹדֶם שֶׁנּוֹלַד בְּנוֹ. תַּמָּן אָמְרִין: מְגַלֵּחַ אַחַת לִשְׁתֵּי נְזִירוּת. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מְגַלֵּחַ וּמְגַלֵּחַ שְׁתַּיִם. פְּלִיגָא בֵּיהּ בְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בָּרַיְיתָא: "שָׁאֲלוּ לְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה נָזִיר וּמְצוֹרָע, מְגַלֵּחַ אַחַת לִשְׁתֵּיהֶן? אָמַר לָהֶם: אִם הָיָה מְגַלֵּחַ לְהוֹצִיאָה – דִּבְרֵיכֶם קַיָּימִין. אֶלָּא נָזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ לְהוֹצִיאָה וּמְצוֹרָע מְגַלֵּחַ לְהַצְמִיחַ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אִם אֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה בִּימֵי גְמָרוֹ – לֹא יַעֲלֶה בִּימֵי סְפִירוֹ? שְׁנֵיהֶם מְגַלְּחִין לְהוֹצִיאָה. (אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אִם שְׁנֵיהֶם מְגַלְּחִין קוֹדֶם הֲזָאָה דָּם – דִּבְרֵיכֶם קַיָּימִין. אֶלָּא נָזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ קוֹדֶם הֲזָאָה דָּם וּמְצוֹרָע מְגַלֵּחַ לְאַחַר הֲזָאָה דָּם! אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אִם אֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה בִּימֵי גְמָרוֹ – לֹא יַעֲלֶה בִּימֵי סְפִירוֹ? שְׁנֵיהֶם מְגַלְּחִין קוֹדֶם הֲזָאָה דָּם!) אָמַר לָהֶם: אִם שְׁנֵיהֶם מְגַלְּחִין קוֹדֶם שֶׁיִּטְבְּלוּ בַּמַּיִם – דִּבְרֵיכֶם קַיָּימִין. אֶלָּא נָזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ קוֹדֶם שֶׁיִּטְבּוֹל בַּמַּיִם וּמְצוֹרָע מְגַלֵּחַ לְאַחַר שֶׁיִּטְבּוֹל בַּמַּיִם! אָמְרוּ לוֹ: נִיתְקַן הַדָּבָר. אֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה בִּימֵי גְמָרוֹ, אֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה בִּימֵי סְפִירוֹ. אֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה בְּטָהֵר, אֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה בְּטָמֵא. זֶה אִם הָיָה נָזִיר וּמְצוֹרָע. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה נָזִיר וְנָזִיר – מְגַלֵּחַ אַחַת לִשְׁתֵּיהֶן." וּמַה רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן עָבֵיד לָהּ? מְתָרֵץ לָהּ וְהֵן פְּלִיגִין עַל רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ.

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance:

• "פְּשִׁיטָא שֶׁבְּסוֹף הַיּוֹם עוֹלֶה לוֹ כְּכוּלּוֹ. הַתְחָלַת הַיּוֹם עוֹלָה לוֹ כְּכוּלּוֹ?": This is a classic mekzat hayom kekulo inquiry. The Gemara affirms that the end of a day counts as a full day (for the son's birth), and then infers from the Mishnah's "סוֹתֵר עַד שִׁבְעִים" that even the beginning of a day counts as a full day, as otherwise, no day would be "lost" if the son was born on the 71st day.
• "הִנִּיחַ נְזִירוּתוֹ וּבָא לְהַשְׁלִים נְזִירוּת בְּנוֹ": This phrasing is crucial. It suggests the father's 100-day nezirut is temporarily paused or "put aside" while he observes the son's 30-day nezirut. This implies the son's 30 days are not counted concurrently towards the father's 100 days.
• "נִטְמָא תּוֹךְ עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים – סוֹתֵר הַכֹּל": This is a severe ruling. If tumah occurs in the initial days of the son's nezirut (which the father is now observing), it invalidates everything – implying even the prior days of the father's 100-day nezirut. This is a major point of contention and interpretation.
• "תּוֹךְ עֶשְׂרִים יָמִים הָאַחֲרוֹנִים? רִבִּי אַבָּא בְּשֵׁם רַב וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין: סוֹתֵר שְׁלֹשִׁים. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: סוֹתֵר שִׁבְעָה בִּלְבַד.": A machloket arises regarding tumah in the later stages. R. Yochanan and Rav say 30 days are lost (requiring a new 30-day nezirut from scratch), while R. Shmuel says only 7 days (the standard for an impure nazir to purify and restart his minyan). This machloket hinges on the status of the father's 100-day nezirut at this point.
• "תִּגְלַחַת בְּתַעַר מִן סְתִירָה בְּגוּפוֹ": This kushya by Shmuel bar Abba asks if giluach (shaving for metzora, or an unauthorized shaving for nazir) has the same halachic force as tumah (impurity to the body from a corpse). The implication is that unauthorized shaving (which invalidates 30 days) is distinct from corporeal tumah (which often invalidates all previous days).
• "פַּשְּׁרָהּ בְּשֶׁנּוֹלַד בְּיוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְהָבִיא קָרְבָּן": R. Avin bar Chiya attempts to explain R. Yochanan's "סוֹתֵר שְׁלֹשִׁים" by suggesting a scenario where korbanot cannot be brought immediately, creating a delay. This line of questioning is rejected.
• "הִשְׁלִים נְזִירוּתוֹ וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לְגַלֵּחַ קוֹדֶם שֶׁנּוֹלַד בְּנוֹ – מְגַלֵּחַ אַחַת לִשְׁתֵּי נְזִירוּת.": This is a pivotal statement. If the father's 100 days are complete but he hasn't shaved, and then the son is born (triggering the son's 30-day nezirut), he can perform one giluach for both. This implies the two neziruyot can be combined under specific conditions.
• "רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מְגַלֵּחַ וּמְגַלֵּחַ שְׁתַּיִם.": R. Yochanan disagrees with the above, requiring two separate shavings. This sets up a machloket with the implicit stama de'Yerushalmi or a different tanna.
• "פְּלִיגָא בֵּיהּ בְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בָּרַיְיתָא": The Gemara brings a Baraita (from Tosefta Nazir 5:2 and Sifrei Bamidbar 38) that challenges R. Yochanan's view, by discussing combining giluach for a nazir and a metzora.
  • The Baraita contains textual difficulties, specifically the parenthetical section, as noted by the Sefaria footnotes. The original machloket between R. Shimon ben Yochai and his students revolves around three distinctions:
    1. Purpose of shaving: lehotziah (to remove hair) vs. lehatzmiach (to grow hair).
    2. Timing relative to blood sprinkling (hazat dam).
    3. Timing relative to immersion (tevila).
  • R. Shimon ben Yochai argues that these differences prevent combining the giluchim. The students initially challenge him but ultimately concede, then conclude: "זֶה אִם הָיָה נָזִיר וּמְצוֹרָע. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה נָזִיר וְנָזִיר – מְגַלֵּחַ אַחַת לִשְׁתֵּיהֶן." This final clause explicitly contradicts R. Yochanan's stance regarding two neziruyot.
• "מְתָרֵץ לָהּ וְהֵן פְּלִיגִין עַל רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ": The Yerushalmi's resolution to the Baraita contradicting R. Yochanan is to attribute the Baraita's final clause to R. Shimon ben Lakish, thereby dismissing it as a minority opinion (machloket amora'im attributed to a baraita). This is a common terutz in the Yerushalmi to reconcile Amoraic statements with Baraitot.

Readings

The sugya presents intricate calculations and halachic principles concerning overlapping neziruyot and the conditions for giluach. Key Rishonim and Acharonim offer distinct approaches to these complexities.

Rambam: Precise Interruption and Separate Completion

The Rambam in Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Nezirut 4:4-5 provides a highly structured and precise explanation of the Mishnah's calculations, which is reflected in the commentaries of Penei Moshe and Korban HaEdah, and discussed by Sheyarei Korban.

Rambam's Chiddush: The Rambam's central chiddush is his interpretation of "לא הפסיד כלום" and "סותר עד שבעים." He understands that the father's 100-day nezirut is interrupted by the son's birth, requiring a temporary pause in the father's count to observe the son's 30-day nezirut. Critically, the days of the son's nezirut do not count towards the father's 100-day tally. Instead, the father must complete the son's 30 days, bring sacrifices, and shave, then return to complete any remaining days of his own 100-day nezirut, followed by his own sacrifices and shaving.

Let's break down his calculation (as described by Sheyarei Korban and the MT itself):

• "נולד לו עד שבעים יום – לא הפסיד כלום": If the son is born on or before the 70th day of the father's 100-day nezirut, the father has completed, say, 70 days. He then pauses his own nezirut for 30 days for his son. After his son's giluach and korbanot, the father still has 30 days left of his 100-day nezirut (100 - 70 = 30). Since this is exactly 30 days, it satisfies the rule of "אין תגלחת פחות משלושים יום" between the son's giluach and the father's giluach. Thus, he "loses nothing."
  • Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Nezirut 4:4: "מהו זה שאמר הריני נזיר כשיוולד לי בן והריני נזיר מאה יום, מתחיל למנות נזירותו ונולד לו בן, אם נשאר משלשים יום ומעלה ממאה יום שנדר בהן אחר שנולד בנו, לא הפסיד כלום. שגומר נזירותו, ומתחיל למנות של בנו, ומגלח ומביא קרבנותיו, וגומר שלשים יום או יותר שנשארו לו מנזירותו, ומגלח."
• "לאחר שבעים יום – סותר עד שבעים": If the son is born after the 70th day (e.g., on the 80th day), the father has already counted 80 days for himself. If he then observes the son's 30 days and shaves, only 20 days would remain for his own 100-day nezirut (100 - 80 = 20). This is less than the required 30-day interval between shavings. Therefore, the father "loses" the extra days he counted beyond 70. He reverts to having completed only 70 days, so that after the son's 30-day nezirut and giluach, he will still have a full 30 days to complete for his own nezirut. For example, if born on the 80th day, he loses 10 days (80-70=10), so he "סותר עשרה" (loses ten).
  • Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Nezirut 4:5: "כיצד, נולד לו בן ביום שמונים, מונה של בנו וגומרה ומגלח, ומתחיל למנות שלשים יום אחר תגלחת זו, ונמצא מפסיד עשרה ימים שקדמו ללידת בנו, והם הימים שמיום השבעים עד שנולד הבן. וכן על דרך זו בכל הדומה לה."

The Rambam's explanation for "סותר" is not that the entire prior nezirut is nullified, but that specific days counted beyond the threshold (70 days) are not recognized for the purpose of ensuring the 30-day interval between shavings. This is a very pragmatic and mathematical approach.

Tosafot (via Sheyarei Korban): Concomitant Counting and Single Shaving

The Tosafot (specifically referenced by Sheyarei Korban as Nazir 13b, s.v. לאחר) offer a differing interpretation, which forms a major point of friction with the Rambam.

Tosafot's Chiddush: According to Tosafot, the days of the son's 30-day nezirut do count towards the father's 100-day nezirut. This means the two neziruyot run concurrently for the 30-day period of the son's nezirut.

• "נולד לו עד שבעים יום – לא הפסיד כלום": If the son is born on the 70th day, the father has 30 days left (100-70=30). He observes the son's 30 days. These 30 days are also the remaining 30 days for his own nezirut. At the end of these 30 days, both neziruyot are complete. He can then perform a single giluach for both. This aligns with the Yerushalmi's conclusion "אבל אם היה נזיר ונזיר – מגלח אחת לשתי נזירות."
• "לאחר שבעים יום – סותר עד שבעים": If the son is born on the 80th day, the father has 20 days left of his own 100-day nezirut. However, he must observe a 30-day nezirut for his son. Since these 30 days also count for his own nezirut, he essentially "completes" his 100 days after 20 more days. Yet, he still has 10 days remaining of the son's nezirut (30-20=10) during which his own 100-day nezirut is already complete. This creates an issue, as the son's giluach would then happen after the father's 100-day nezirut is complete, but the father still needs to shave for his own. The 30-day rule between shavings for different neziruyot would still apply to the father's giluach. The Tosafot's interpretation must grapple with the exact mechanism of "losing" days.

The chiddush of Tosafot (as presented by Sheyarei Korban) allows for a single shaving for both neziruyot when the father's 100 days conclude simultaneously or after the son's 30 days. This makes the Gemara's discussion of "מגלח אחת לשתי נזירות" much more straightforward.

Penei Moshe and Korban HaEdah: Elucidating the 30-Day Constraint

Penei Moshe and Korban HaEdah focus primarily on explaining the Mishnah's rationale for the "לא הפסיד כלום" and "סותר עד שבעים" rules, emphasizing the "אין תגלחת פחות משלושים יום" principle.

Penei Moshe's Chiddush: Penei Moshe clarifies that the 30-day minimum between giluchim is the key.

• Penei Moshe on Yerushalmi Nazir 2:10:1:1: "לפי שכשהוא מפסיק נזירותו למנות נזירות בנו נשארו לו עדיין מנזירותו שלשים יום שהן כדי גידול שער ולפיכך אינו מפסיד כלום אלא מונה נזירות בנו ומגלח וחוזר להשלים נזירותו עד מאה יום ומגלח שהרי יש כאן בין תגלחת נזירות בנו לתגלחת נזירותו שלשים יום." (When he pauses his nezirut to count his son's nezirut, he still has 30 days remaining from his nezirut, which is the measure for hair growth. Therefore, he loses nothing; rather, he counts his son's nezirut and shaves, and returns to complete his nezirut to 100 days and shaves, for there are 30 days between his son's shaving and his own shaving.)
• Penei Moshe on Yerushalmi Nazir 2:10:1:2: "ואם מנה יותר משבעים קודם שנולד לו הבן ועכשיו כשהפסיק נזירותו למנות של בנו וכשיגלח על נזירות בנו ובא להשלים נזירותו עד מאה יום נמצאו פחות משלשים יום בין תגלחת נזירות בנו לתגלחת נזירותו ואי אפשר להיות בין תגלחת לתגלחת פחות משלשים יום ולפיכך הוא מפסיד כל אותן ימים שמנה אחר שבעים קודם שנולד לו הבן." (If he counted more than 70 before the son was born, and now that he pauses his nezirut to count his son's, and when he shaves for his son's nezirut and comes to complete his nezirut to 100 days, there are less than 30 days between his son's shaving and his own shaving. It is impossible for there to be less than 30 days between shavings. Therefore, he loses all those days he counted after 70 before the son was born.)

Korban HaEdah's Chiddush: Korban HaEdah largely echoes the Penei Moshe, reiterating the practical calculation.

• Korban HaEdah on Yerushalmi Nazir 2:10:1:1: "כלומר כשהוא מפסיק נזירותו ומונה נזירות בנו ומגלח וחוזר ומשלים את שלו לתשלום נזירותו לשבעים שמנה כבר עד המאה שנדר הם ל' יום נמצא בין תגלחת נזירות בנו ובין תגלחת נזירותו ל' יום ואינו מפסיד כלום אבל אם מנה יותר מע' יום קודם שהתחיל נזירת בנו נמצא מתגלחת בנו עד תשלום מאה יום אינן ל' יום וא"א לגלח לנזירותו סוף מאה יום דאין בין תגלחת לתגלחת פחות מן ל' יום נמצא מפסיד כל אותן הימים שמנה יותר מן שבעים יום." (Meaning, when he pauses his nezirut and counts his son's nezirut and shaves, and returns to complete his own nezirut to 70 days he already counted up to 100 days, which are 30 days, there are 30 days between his son's shaving and his own shaving, and he loses nothing. But if he counted more than 70 days before his son's nezirut began, it means from his son's shaving until the completion of 100 days are not 30 days, and it's impossible to shave for his nezirut at the end of 100 days, for there is not less than 30 days between shavings. Thus, he loses all those days he counted more than 70 days.)

Both Penei Moshe and Korban HaEdah confirm the Rambam's understanding of the Mishnah's logic, that the father's 100-day nezirut is distinct from the son's 30-day nezirut, and the 30-day interval between giluchim is the primary driver of the "losing" of days. They do not explicitly engage with the Tosafot's view, as their role is typically to clarify the Yerushalmi text itself.

Friction

The sugya presents several points of friction, but the most potent revolves around the nature of the dual neziruyot and the implications for giluach and tumah.

The Dual Nature of "נזיר מאה יום" and "נזיר אם יולד לי בן"

The central kushya lies in the machloket between the Rambam (as elucidated by Penei Moshe and Korban HaEdah, and discussed by Sheyarei Korban) and Tosafot regarding whether the 30 days of the son's nezirut count towards the father's 100-day nezirut.

• Rambam's View (Separate Counts): As outlined above, the Rambam holds that the father's 100-day nezirut is paused for the son's 30 days. The son's days do not count for the father. This necessitates two distinct giluchim: one for the son (after his 30 days) and one for the father (after completing his remaining 30 days of the 100-day vow). This interpretation underpins the "סותר עד שבעים" rule, ensuring a minimum 30-day interval between the two shavings.

  • Kushya on Rambam: The Yerushalmi states, "הִשְׁלִים נְזִירוּתוֹ וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לְגַלֵּחַ קוֹדֶם שֶׁנּוֹלַד בְּנוֹ – מְגַלֵּחַ אַחַת לִשְׁתֵּי נְזִירוּת." This statement, which permits a single giluach for both neziruyot, directly contradicts the Rambam's premise of separate counts and, implicitly, separate shavings. If the son's days don't count for the father's, and two full 30-day periods of nezirut are required, how can one giluach suffice for both?
  • Further Kushya on Rambam (from Sheyarei Korban): The Gemara states, "הִנִּיחַ נְזִירוּתוֹ וּבָא לְהַשְׁלִים נְזִירוּת בְּנוֹ וְנִטְמָא תּוֹךְ עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים – סוֹתֵר הַכֹּל." If, according to Rambam, the father's 100 days are completed (even if not yet shaved) before he embarks on the son's 30 days, why would tumah during the son's nezirut invalidate "everything" from the father's already completed 100 days? Sheyarei Korban articulates this: "קשיא להרמב"ם דהא לאו נזירותו הוא."
    • He further asks, if we say the father's nezirut is still ongoing because he hasn't shaved, then why does tumah in the "עשרים ימים האחרונים" only invalidate 30 days (according to R. Yochanan), and not "everything" (like in the "עשרה ימים הראשונים")? This inconsistency is problematic for Rambam's framework.

• Tosafot's View (Concomitant Counts): Tosafot (as interpreted by Sheyarei Korban) maintains that the son's 30 days do count towards the father's 100 days. This allows for the possibility of a single giluach if the 100 days conclude with or after the son's 30 days.

  • Kushya on Tosafot: If the son's 30 days count for the father's 100, then the Mishnah's "סותר עד שבעים" (losing days) becomes more difficult to explain. Why would days be "lost" if they are counting towards both? The need for a 30-day interval between shavings would still apply, but the mechanism for "losing" days might differ. Furthermore, the phrase "הניח נזירותו ובא להשלים נזירות בנו" seems to imply a cessation of the father's count, not a continuation.

The Best Terutz (Sheyarei Korban for Rambam)

Sheyarei Korban's Terutz for Rambam: Sheyarei Korban offers a nuanced terutz to reconcile Rambam's position with the Gemara's discussion of tumah. He suggests that when the Gemara states, "הִנִּיחַ נְזִירוּתוֹ וּבָא לְהַשְׁלִים נְזִירוּת בְּנוֹ וְנִטְמָא תּוֹךְ עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים – סוֹתֵר הַכֹּל," it refers to a case where the father's 100 days are not yet completed. This allows for the tumah to invalidate the entire prior count. However, for the case of "תוֹךְ עֶשְׂרִים יָמִים הָאַחֲרוֹנִים" where R. Yochanan says "סוֹתֵר שְׁלֹשִׁים," Sheyarei Korban explains this refers to a situation where the father's 100 days have already been completed. In this scenario, the father's original 100-day nezirut is immunized from the tumah. The "סוֹתֵר שְׁלֹשִׁים" then refers only to the remaining 30 days that the father needs to observe after the son's nezirut (to satisfy the 30-day hair growth rule for his own shaving). This is a chiddush that views these "remaining 30 days" as a distinct, new nezirut period that, if defiled, must be restarted from scratch for 30 days.

• Sheyarei Korban on Yerushalmi Nazir 2:10:1:1: "וי"ל כיון דשלמו המאה יום שנדר ה"ל כאלו כבר נשלמה הנזירות אע"ג דאין מנין הבן עולה לו דצריך למנות ל' שלאחר נזירת בנו מ"מ נשלם הנדר משא"כ בעשרים ימים האחרונים אינו סותר אלא כטומאה שלאחר מלאת א"נ י"ל לשיטת הרמב"ם דה"נ השלים נזירת בנו ובא להשלים נזירתו נטמא תוך עשרה ימים הראשונים כו'. והשתא הא דפליגי בנטמא תוך כ' ימים האחרונים אי סותר ל' או שבע דוקא קאמרי דנזירות בנו ודאי דלא סתר. וא"צ למה שדחקתי בפי' בקונטרס דהני סתירות מלבד נזירות בנו איירי. וכולא סוגיא מתפרשת יפה לפי הג"ה זו."
  • The "עשרים ימים האחרונים" tumah only invalidates 30 days, because the 100-day vow is considered fulfilled. The tumah affects only the additional 30 days the father must observe for his shaving, which is treated like a nezirut that started after the initial vow was complete, thus only requiring a 30-day restart upon tumah.

This terutz allows the Rambam to maintain his rigorous calculation of separate counts while accounting for the Gemara's tumah scenarios. It distinguishes between tumah during the original 100-day nezirut (which would invalidate "everything") and tumah during the subsequent 30-day period the father observes to enable his giluach (which is treated as a new, 30-day nezirut that, if defiled, needs to be restarted for 30 days).

The Friction of Combining Giluchim

Another significant friction point is the explicit machloket regarding combining giluchim:

• "הִשְׁלִים נְזִירוּתוֹ וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לְגַלֵּחַ קוֹדֶם שֶׁנּוֹלַד בְּנוֹ – מְגַלֵּחַ אַחַת לִשְׁתֵּי נְזִירוּת." (The stama de'Yerushalmi or a different tanna).
• "רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מְגַלֵּחַ וּמְגַלֵּחַ שְׁתַּיִם." (R. Yochanan holds two separate shavings are required).
• The Baraita concerning Nazir and Metzora, after a detailed shakla ve'tarya, concludes: "זֶה אִם הָיָה נָזִיר וּמְצוֹרָע. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה נָזִיר וְנָזִיר – מְגַלֵּחַ אַחַת לִשְׁתֵּיהֶן." This final clause directly supports the first opinion and challenges R. Yochanan.

Terutz for R. Yochanan: The Yerushalmi itself provides the terutz: "וּמַה רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן עָבֵיד לָהּ? מְתָרֵץ לָהּ וְהֵן פְּלִיגִין עַל רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ." R. Yochanan would explain that the Baraita, particularly its concluding clause about "Nazir and Nazir," reflects the individual opinion of R. Shimon ben Lakish (Reish Lakish), which is a minority view. This is a common terutz in the Yerushalmi to explain how an Amoraic ruling can stand in the face of a seemingly contradictory Baraita. Reish Lakish was a contemporary and frequent disputant of R. Yochanan, so attributing the Baraita to him effectively dismisses it in R. Yochanan's legal framework. This terutz demonstrates the Yerushalmi's methodology of reconciling seemingly contradictory sources by identifying the Amoraic or Tannaic authority behind them, thus defining the halachic landscape.

Intertext

The sugya in Yerushalmi Nazir 2:10 offers several rich opportunities for intertextual comparison, particularly with the Bavli, Tosefta, and Sifrei.

Bavli Nazir 60b: Combining Giluchim for Nazir and Metzora

The Baraita quoted in our Yerushalmi concerning a nazir and a metzora shaving appears in a more complete and coherent form in Bavli Nazir 60b and its primary sources, Tosefta Nazir 5:2 and Sifrei Bamidbar 38. The Yerushalmi's text of this Baraita is explicitly noted by Sefaria to be "hopelessly corrupt" in the parenthetical section, requiring emendation to align with the parallel sources. Comparing these texts illuminates the Yerushalmi's challenges and the importance of manuscript tradition.

• The Shared Core Inquiry: Both Talmuds present the fundamental question: can a single giluach fulfill the obligations of both a nazir and a metzora?

• R. Shimon ben Yochai's Distinctions: The Baraita, in all its iterations, presents R. Shimon ben Yochai arguing against combining the shavings, based on three key distinctions:

  1. Purpose of Shaving:
     • Yerushalmi: "נָזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ לְהוֹצִיאָה וּמְצוֹרָע מְגַלֵּחַ לְהַצְמִיחַ." (Nazir shaves to remove, Metzora shaves to grow).
     • Bavli Nazir 60b: "נזיר מגלח להוציא, מטהר מצרעת מגלח להצמיח." (Same idea).
     • This distinction is fundamental. A Nazir shaves to end his nezirut and remove the hair accumulated during it. A Metzora's first shaving (on the 7th day) is to remove the hair before it grows back for his final shaving, part of the purification process (Vayikra 14:8-9). This indicates different halachic intents.
  2. Timing Relative to Hazat Dam (Blood Sprinkling):
     • Yerushalmi (emended per Sefaria): "נָזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ לְאַחַר הֲזָאָה דָּם וּמְצוֹרָע מְגַלֵּחַ קוֹדֶם הֲזָאָה דָּם." (Nazir shaves after blood, Metzora shaves before blood).
     • Bavli Nazir 60b: "נזיר מגלח לאחר הזאת דם, מטהר מצרעת מגלח קודם הזאת דם." (Same idea).
     • The Nazir shaves after bringing his sacrifices (Numbers 6:18), which includes sprinkling the blood. The Metzora shaves on the 7th day, before his purification sacrifices on the 8th day (Vayikra 14:9-10). The order of ritual elements is distinct.
  3. Timing Relative to Tevila (Immersion):
     • Yerushalmi (emended per Sefaria): "נָזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ לְאַחַר שֶׁיִּטְבּוֹל בַּמַּיִם וּמְצוֹרָע מְגַלֵּחַ קוֹדֶם שֶׁיִּטְבּוֹל בַּמַּיִם." (Nazir shaves after immersion, Metzora shaves before immersion).
     • Bavli Nazir 60b: "נזיר מגלח לאחר טבילה, מטהר מצרעת מגלח קודם טבילה." (Same idea).
     • A Nazir shaves in the Temple courtyard, which requires prior immersion for ritual purity. A Metzora shaves on the 7th day before immersing, as part of shedding his tumah (Vayikra 14:9).

• The Conclusion: All sources agree that for a Nazir and Metzora, the shavings cannot be combined due to these fundamental differences.

• The Critical Postscript: The Yerushalmi adds a crucial line not found in the Bavli or Tosefta: "זֶה אִם הָיָה נָזִיר וּמְצוֹרָע. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה נָזִיר וְנָזִיר – מְגַלֵּחַ אַחַת לִשְׁתֵּיהֶן." This specific clause is what puts the Baraita in direct opposition to R. Yochanan's stance ("מְגַלֵּחַ וּמְגַלֵּחַ שְׁתַּיִם") regarding two neziruyot. The Bavli, lacking this clause, doesn't directly present R. Yochanan's machloket with a Baraita in this precise manner concerning "Nazir and Nazir." This highlights a unique development in the Yerushalmi's sugya.

Bavli Nazir 15a: Mekzat Hayom Kekulo

The discussion in the Yerushalmi about mekzat hayom kekulo ("פְּשִׁיטָא שֶׁבְּסוֹף הַיּוֹם עוֹלֶה לוֹ כְּכוּלּוֹ. הַתְחָלַת הַיּוֹם עוֹלָה לוֹ כְּכוּלּוֹ?") finds a parallel in Bavli Nazir 15a.

• The Bavli's Formulation: The Bavli states directly: "אמר רב מקצת היום ככולו" (Rav said, a part of the day is like a whole day). This is attributed to Rav, a leading Amora.
• The Yerushalmi's Derivation: The Yerushalmi, rather than stating it as a direct teaching, derives the principle for the start of the day from the Mishnah: "לֹא מִן הַמִּשְׁנָה: "לְאַחַר שִׁבְעִים [יוֹם] סוֹתֵר עַד שִׁבְעִים", וְלֹא מִקְצָת? הָא מִתְמַשְׁמְעָא דְּהַתְחָלַת הַיּוֹם עוֹלָה לוֹ כְּכוּלּוֹ." The fact that the Mishnah says days are "lost" even if the son is born on the 71st day (implying the 70th day counted as full) indicates that "the start of the day counts as a full day." This difference in presentation (direct statement vs. derivation) showcases varying talmudic methodologies for establishing halachic principles.

Sifrei Bamidbar 38 & Tosefta Nazir 5:2: Source for the Baraita

These are the primary Tannaic sources for the Baraita concerning Nazir and Metzora.

• Sifrei Bamidbar 38: This Midrash Halacha provides the earliest and often most authoritative version of Tannaic teachings. Its text is generally considered more reliable than later talmudic quotations.
• Tosefta Nazir 5:2: The Tosefta, a compilation of Tannaic teachings parallel to the Mishnah, also presents this Baraita. Its text is quite similar to the Sifrei. Comparing the Yerushalmi's version to the Sifrei and Tosefta is crucial for textual emendation, as noted by Sefaria's footnotes. For instance, the Sifrei's wording for the students' retort: "תַּקִּין הַדָּבָר. לֹא עוֹלֶה בִּימֵי גְמָרוֹ עוֹלֶה בִּימֵי סְפִירוֹ. לֹא עוֹלֶה בְטָהֵר עוֹלֶה בְטָמֵא" provides a logical flow not present in the Yerushalmi's corrupt parenthetical section. This intertextual comparison allows for a reconstruction of the original Tannaic argument, enhancing our understanding of the Yerushalmi's discussion.

Psak/Practice

The sugya presents several halachic conclusions and disagreements that impact halacha lema'aseh and meta-psak heuristics.

The Calculation of Overlapping Neziruyot (Rambam vs. Tosafot)

The fundamental machloket between the Rambam and Tosafot regarding whether the son's 30-day nezirut counts towards the father's 100-day nezirut has direct ramifications.

• Rambam's Psak: The Rambam rules in Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Nezirut 4:4-5, explicitly following his interpretation that the father's 100-day nezirut is paused, and the son's 30 days do not count towards it. This means the father must complete the son's 30 days, shave, and then separately complete any remaining days of his own 100-day nezirut, followed by another shaving.
  • Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Nezirut 4:4: "...גומר נזירותו, ומתחיל למנות של בנו, ומגלח ומביא קרבנותיו, וגומר שלשים יום או יותר שנשארו לו מנזירותו, ומגלח." This clearly mandates two distinct periods of nezirut and two giluchim (unless the 100 days were fully completed and shaved before the son's birth, which is a different case).
  • This psak emphasizes the independent nature of each nezirut and the strict adherence to the 30-day interval for hair growth between shavings.
• Tosafot's View: While the Tosafot's view (that the son's days do count) offers a simpler path to combining giluchim, it is not the explicit psak of the Rambam, who is a primary posek.
• Meta-Psak Heuristics: In cases where there's a machloket between Rishonim like Rambam and Tosafot, later poskim (e.g., Shulchan Aruch, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch) often lean towards the stricter opinion (chumra) when a nezirut is involved, especially concerning korbanot and giluchim which have severe implications. Thus, the Rambam's approach, requiring separate counts and potentially separate shavings, would likely be followed.

Combining Giluchim for "Nazir and Nazir"

The Yerushalmi concludes its discussion of combining giluchim by stating: "זֶה אִם הָיָה נָזִיר וּמְצוֹרָע. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה נָזִיר וְנָזִיר – מְגַלֵּחַ אַחַת לִשְׁתֵּיהֶן." This, despite R. Yochanan's initial dissent, seems to be the Yerushalmi's ultimate conclusion, as it dismisses R. Yochanan's contrary view by attributing the Baraita to R. Shimon ben Lakish (a meta-halachic move rather than a rejection of the Baraita's content for "Nazir and Nazir").

• The Psak: The psak within the Yerushalmi is that if a person has two neziruyot that conclude at the same time (e.g., the father's 100 days are complete, and the son's 30 days are complete, and the father is shaving for both), he can perform one giluach for both. This is consistent with the general principle that if two mitzvot require the same action, and the conditions are met for both simultaneously, one action can fulfill both.
  • This psak is found in Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 316:3, which rules that one who has two neziruyot may shave one shaving for both, provided both are complete and ready for shaving. This generally follows the Baraita's conclusion for "Nazir and Nazir."

Combining Giluchim for "Nazir and Metzora"

For the case of a nazir and a metzora, the Baraita (and both Talmuds) concludes that the shavings cannot be combined. The distinct reasons for shaving (removing vs. growing hair), and the different timings relative to hazat dam and tevila, prevent a single giluach from fulfilling both mitzvot.

• The Psak: This is an undisputed halacha lema'aseh. One who is both a nazir and a metzora must perform separate giluchim for each obligation, following their specific procedural requirements. This demonstrates that halachic equivalence of the physical act (shaving) is insufficient if the underlying halachic intent, timing, or nature of the obligation differs.

Mekzat Hayom Kekulo

The Yerushalmi's inference that "הַתְחָלַת הַיּוֹם עוֹלָה לוֹ כְּכוּלּוֹ" (the start of the day counts as a full day) is a foundational principle in halacha.

• The Psak: This principle is widely accepted and applied in various areas of halacha, particularly in counting days for nezirut, nidda, tumah, and other timed mitzvot. The Bavli (Nazir 15a) states it explicitly, and the Yerushalmi derives it, but both agree on its validity.

In sum, the sugya in Yerushalmi Nazir 2:10, through its intricate discussions and machloket, lays down crucial principles for calculating nezirut days, dealing with tumah during complex vows, and the conditions under which halachic actions can be combined. The Rambam's detailed psak serves as a primary guide, even as the Yerushalmi offers its own internal conclusions and methodologies for reconciling Tannaic and Amoraic views.

Takeaway

This sugya highlights the meticulous precision required in halachic timekeeping for nezirut, emphasizing that halachic fulfillment hinges not just on the passage of time but on the sequential integrity and distinct halachic intent of each obligation. The nuanced debate over combining giluchim underscores that even identical physical acts must align in purpose, context, and timing to satisfy multiple mitzvot.