Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 3:2:2-4:1

Sugya Map

• Issue: The precise counting of days and applicability of sacrifices when one vows two consecutive periods of nezirut. This includes scenarios of early completion, annulment of one vow, and the transferability of sacrifices between vows.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • Determining the exact day one is permitted to shave and exit nezirut for each period.
  • The validity of using sacrifices prepared for a second nezirut period for an earlier, annulled first nezirut period.
  • The ramifications of impurity within a nezirut period, particularly on the final day, and whether it necessitates a full restart or a partial extension.
  • The legal basis for Rabbi Eliezer's differing opinions on impurity, and the sources he derives them from.
• Primary Sources:
  • Mishnah Nazir 3:2-4:1 (Yerushalmi)
  • Tosefta Nazir 2:15
  • Numbers 6:1-21 (Parashat Nazir)
  • Yerushalmi Nazir 2:9, 2:10, 6:2, 6:9

Text Snapshot

Mishnah (3:2:2):

“If somebody vowed two neziriot, he shaves for the first on the 31^st day, for the second on the 61^st day, but if he shaved for the first on the 30^th day, he shaves for the second on the 60^th, and if he shaved on the day before the 60^th, he has fulfilled his obligation since the 30^th day is counted for him.”

• Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: The phrase "since the 30th day is counted for him" (שהוא מודה יום שלשים לו) is crucial. It signifies that the final day of the first nezirut can simultaneously serve as the first day of the second, effectively compressing the timeline. This hinges on the principle that "part of a day is counted as an entire day" (כל יום של נזיר הרי הוא כיום שלם)¹ which is explained in the footnote to be applicable even when the last day of one period is the first of the next.

Halakha (3:2:2):

“If he finished his first period of nezirut and started to lean on the second, when they did not find an opening for the first while they found an opening for the second, the second can be used for the first.”

• Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: "Started to lean on the second" (בא להישען על השניה) is an uncommon idiom, noted as unique. It implies anticipation and preparation for the subsequent nezirut. The core issue here is the transferability of sacrifices when the first vow is annulled after preparation for the second has begun. The concept of "finding an opening" (פתח) refers to the annulment of a vow by an elder, as seen in Nedarim.

Readings

Penei Moshe on Yerushalmi Nazir 3:2:1:1

The Penei Moshe elucidates the Mishnah's calculation regarding shaving on the 31st versus the 30th day.

"When he shaved the first [nezirut] on the 31st day, the first nezirut was completed, and the second nezirut began on that very day, as with a person who accepted upon himself nezirut mid-day, for that day counts for him as a full day. Consequently, on the 60th day, both nezirut periods are completed, and on the 61st day, he shaves for the second, thus all shaving is on the 31st day."¹ This commentary highlights the cumulative nature of consecutive nezirut periods. The key is that the completion of the first period marks the commencement of the second. If the first nezirut concludes on the 31st day, that same 31st day initiates the second, pushing the second shave to the 61st. However, if the first is completed on the 30th, the 30th itself starts the second, thus the second shave falls on the 60th. The Penei Moshe's explanation clarifies the logic behind the specific day counts, emphasizing the principle of "part of a day counts as a full day" in the context of nezirut timelines.

Korban HaEdah on Yerushalmi Nazir 3:2:1:1

The Korban HaEdah offers a concise explanation of the temporal overlap.

"The 30th day of the first [nezirut] is also counted for the second nezirut, thus the 30 days are completed on the 60th day, one day short of the start of his first nezirut."² This commentary focuses on the mathematical compression. The critical insight is that the 30th day, which concludes the first nezirut, also serves as the first day of the second. This means the 30 days of the first and the initial day of the second are both encompassed within the same calendar day. Therefore, the 30 days of the first nezirut plus the first 30 days of the second nezirut sum to 60 days, not 61, if the first shave occurs on the 30th. The phrase "one day short of the start of his first nezirut" is a bit confusing in its phrasing, but the core point is the temporal economy achieved by the overlap.

Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Nezirut 4:2

Maimonides codifies the Mishnah's ruling, reflecting the established halakha.

"When a person takes two nazirite vows, he should perform the shaving for the first one on the thirty-first day and the second on the sixty-first day. For the thirty-first day is considered as the first day of the second vow. If he performed the first shaving on the thirtieth day, he should perform the second on the sixtieth. In this instance, the thirtieth day is considered as the first day of the second vow. If he performed the [second] shaving on the fifty-ninth day, he fulfills his obligation, for the thirtieth day is counted also for the second nazirite vow. For a portion of the day is considered as the entire day."³ The Rambam's presentation is clear and direct. He reinforces the principle that the final day of the first nezirut is also the initial day of the second. This allows for the combined periods to conclude earlier than if they were strictly sequential without overlap. The allowance for shaving on the 59th day in the case where the first shave was on the 30th is a direct consequence of this temporal overlap: the 30th day counts as the first day of the second vow, meaning the 30 days of the second vow are completed by the 59th day (day 30 + 29 days).

Friction

The most significant friction arises in the Halakha section concerning the transferability of sacrifices when the first nezirut is annulled, and the second has already begun. The Gemara states:

"If he finished his first period of nezirut and started to lean on the second, when they did not find an opening for the first while they found an opening for the second, the second can be used for the first."⁴ This presents a scenario where the first vow is declared invalid after the individual has begun fulfilling the second vow, potentially even having prepared its sacrifices. The question is whether the sacrifices prepared for the second vow can retroactively fulfill the requirement for the first, now-annulled vow.

The friction emerges with the subsequent distinction:

"Where do we hold? If he said, 'I am a nazir twice,' a vow which is partially annulled is totally annulled... If he said, 'I am a nazir for these 30 days and those 30 days,' in this case the second cannot be used for the first."⁵ This highlights a crucial distinction based on the formulation of the vow. If the vow is understood as a singular declaration of "twice nazir," then an annulment of one part renders the entire vow void. However, if the vows are seen as two distinct, sequential obligations ("for these 30 days and those 30 days"), then the sacrifices for the second cannot be used for the first.

The Strongest Kushya: How can we reconcile the principle that "a vow which is partially annulled is totally annulled" with the allowance that the second set of sacrifices can be used for the first nezirut if the first is annulled? If the first nezirut is annulled, it seems the entire vow should be void, and no sacrifices would be needed for either period. Yet, the text explicitly allows for the second sacrifices to cover the first.

The Best Terutz: The Yerushalmi's explanation lies in the timing and nature of the annulment relative to the vow's formulation. The case where "the second can be used for the first" applies when the individual has vowed "I am a nazir and nazir" (אני נזיר ונזיר). This formulation, the Yerushalmi explains (though the explicit explanation is a bit compressed), implies a singular commitment to nezirut, with the second mention serving as emphasis or a continuation, rather than a distinct, independent vow. Therefore, when the first is annulled, the second (which is still a valid nezirut obligation) can retroactively be applied to fulfill the now-nullified first obligation. The crucial factor is that the individual is still considered to be under a nezirut obligation, even if the specific period is altered. The sacrifices are thus not being used for a voided obligation entirely, but rather for a valid nezirut obligation that has been retroactively reassigned. The initial statement, "a vow which is partially annulled is totally annulled" likely refers to a situation where the entirety of the vow, not just a portion of its fulfillment, is annulled ab initio or where the vows are clearly distinct. In contrast, the case discussed here is one of annulment after commencement, where the individual is still bound by nezirut.

A secondary, though related, terutz is suggested by Rabbi Ḥinena:

"Explain it for his nezirut and the nezirut he pledged for his son. In that, the second can be used for the first."⁶ This suggests that in cases where the two neziriot stem from a common, complex source (like a vow for oneself and one for one's son), they might be treated as a unified obligation, making the sacrifices more transferable. This aligns with the idea that the distinction between "I am a nazir twice" and "I am a nazir for X days and Y days" is paramount.

Intertext

Numbers 6:10-11

The underlying principle of nezirut and its invalidation by impurity is found in the Torah itself:

"And for the impure nazir, behold, they shall bring his sacrifice to the Eternal on the day of his cleansing, and the days that were before are invalidated, and he shall renew the days that were before." (וְלַנָּזִיר הַטָּמֵא, בְּיוֹם טָהֳרָתוֹ יָבִיא אֶת קָרְבָּנוֹ, וְהַיָּמִים הָרִאשֹׁנִים הֻפְרְעוּ, וְיִתְחַדֵּשׁ בַּיָּמִים הָרִאשֹׁנִים) This verse is the bedrock for the discussion in the Yerushalmi concerning impurity on the 30th day. It explicitly states that "the days that were before are invalidated" (והימים הראשונים הופרעו), requiring a renewal of the nezirut period. The debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer in the Yerushalmi hinges on the interpretation of "renew the days" and what constitutes the "day of his cleansing" in various scenarios, especially when the impurity occurs near the end of a vow.

Yerushalmi Nazir 2:10:3

The Yerushalmi itself references a similar concept regarding the sufferer from skin disease (metzora), which Rabbi Abbahu uses to explain Rabbi Eliezer's position:

"Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Rabbi Eliezer learned from the sufferer from skin disease, for whom we find seven days between shaving and shaving."⁷ This intertextual connection is vital. The metzora undergoes periods of purification involving seven days of quarantine and subsequent offerings and shavings. Rabbi Eliezer's rationale for invalidating only seven days in certain impurity scenarios is linked to the metzora's purification process, which involves discrete periods of seven days. The Yerushalmi questions why Rabbi Eliezer doesn't learn from the impure nazir directly, suggesting a deeper conceptual link between different purification statuses and their respective timelines. This highlights how the laws of nezirut are interwoven with other halakhic categories concerning purity and impurity.

Psak/Practice

The meticulous counting of days and the precise formulation of vows are paramount. The Yerushalmi's discussion on the transferability of sacrifices when a vow is partially annulled underscores the importance of careful vow construction. The distinction between "I am a nazir twice" and "I am a nazir and nazir" has significant halakhic ramifications for sacrifice transferability.

In practice, when dealing with multiple nezirut vows, clarity is essential. If one intends sequential periods, it is safer to explicitly state so, as implied by "for these 30 days and those 30 days." If a vow is annulled, and sacrifices were prepared for a subsequent period, the posek must carefully analyze the original vow's wording and the circumstances of the annulment to determine if the sacrifices are transferable. The lenient view of Rabbi Simeon, allowing transfer with just one sacrifice, is contrasted with Rabbi Joḥanan's insistence on all sacrifices, reflecting the broader halakhic debate about leniency versus stringency in such cases.

Takeaway

The precise wording of vows dictates their divisibility and the transferability of their attendant obligations, particularly regarding sacrifices. Consecutive nezirut periods are temporally compressed, demanding meticulous calculation to avoid invalidating the vow or prematurely shaving.

---

¹ Yerushalmi Nazir 3:2:1:1, Penei Moshe. ² Yerushalmi Nazir 3:2:1:1, Korban HaEdah. ³ Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Nezirut 4:2. ⁴ Yerushalmi Nazir 3:2:2, Halakha. ⁵ Ibid. ⁶ Yerushalmi Nazir 3:2:2, Halakha, Rabbi Ḥinena. ⁷ Yerushalmi Nazir 3:2:3, Halakha, Rabbi Abbahu.