Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 3:5:3-7

Sugya Map

• Issue: The validity and counting of nezirut days when the vow is taken within a cemetery, specifically dealing with the nazir's impurity and the potential for repeated defilement.
• Nafka Mina:
  • When do nezirut days begin to count if the vow is made while impure in a cemetery?
  • Under what circumstances does a nazir who vows in a cemetery incur lashes (malkot) or require impurity sacrifices (korbanot hatum'ah)?
  • What is the precise definition of "impurity" that invalidates nezirut days or requires a sacrifice in this context?
  • Does the timing of re-entry into the cemetery, relative to purification, affect the counting of days and sacrifice obligations?
• Primary Sources:
  • Mishnah Nazir 3:5
  • Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 3:5 (entirely)
  • Torah: Bamidbar (Numbers) 6:1-21 (laws of nezirut), 19 (laws of purification from corpse impurity).
  • Leviticus 21:4 (Cohen's defilement).
  • Ezekiel 44:26 (prophetic usage of purification terms).

Text Snapshot

מתני׳: הכוֹל בֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת, אֲפִילוּ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, לֹא עוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן, וְאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קָרְבַּן טוּמְאָה. יָצָא וְנִכְנַס, עוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן, וּמֵבִיא קָרְבַּן טוּמְאָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לֹא בּוֹ בַיּוֹם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ו, יב): "וְהַיָּמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים יִפְּלוּ", עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ לוֹ יָמִים רִאשׁוֹנִים.

Mishnah: If he [made a vow of] nazir while in a cemetery, even thirty days, they do not count for him from the total, and he does not bring an impurity sacrifice. If he left and re-entered, they count for him, and he brings an impurity sacrifice. Rabbi Eliezer says: Not on that day, for it is said (Num. 6:12): "And the first days shall fall," until he has first days.

• Leshon Nuance: The Mishnah presents a sharp contrast: "even thirty days, they do not count" vs. "left and re-entered, they count." The phrase "עוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן" (they count for him from the total) is crucial, indicating the status of days as valid nezirut time. The critical exception is Rabbi Eliezer's interpretation of "וְהַיָּמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים יִפְּלוּ," which requires a minimum of two days for an impurity to "fall" and necessitate a sacrifice.

Readings

The Yerushalmi grapples with the foundational principles of how a vow made in a state of impurity, specifically within a cemetery, interacts with the laws of nezirut. The core tension revolves around the immediate commencement of the vow versus the suspension of its efficacy due to the nazir's impurity.

Rabbi Yochanan: Immediate Validity, Conditional Observance

Rabbi Yochanan, as presented in the Halakhah, takes a position that the vow itself is immediately binding upon utterance, even if the nazir is impure. However, the counting of days and the observance of prohibitions are conditional.

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר, מַתְרִין בּוֹ בְּיַיִן וּבְגִילּוּחַ.

Rabbi Yochanan said: One warns him about wine and shaving.

The Penei Moshe explains this perplexing statement: "It is impossible to require that he be pure from the moment of the vow, since he is impure. R. Joḥanan holds that in all other respects the vow is valid immediately."¹ This implies that the nazir is immediately subject to the general prohibitions of nezirut (wine, shaving), even if he cannot currently fulfill the purity requirement. The implication is that he should leave the cemetery and become pure.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Suspended Efficacy Due to Impurity

Conversely, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish posits that the vow's practical implications are suspended until the nazir can attain purity.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין מַתְרִין בּוֹ מִפְּנֵי טוּמְאָה, אֵין מַתְרִין בּוֹ בְּיַיִן וּבְגִילּוּחַ.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Since one cannot warn him because of impurity, one does not warn him about wine and shaving.

The Korban Ha'edah clarifies this: "For him, the vow is suspended until the nazir has undergone the ritual of purification; once he is pure he can be punished for drinking wine or shaving."² This view emphasizes that the nazir is not yet in a state to be held accountable for violating the specific prohibitions of wine and shaving, as his primary transgression (being in the cemetery while impure) precedes his ability to observe the other aspects of nezirut.

Rabbi Yochanan's Internal Consistency (or lack thereof)

The Yerushalmi itself raises a significant challenge to Rabbi Yochanan's position:

תַּנְיָא, הָתָם, מַתְרִין בּוֹ בְּיַיִן וּבְטוּמְאָה וּבְגִילּוּחַ. וְכָאן אָמַר כָּךְ?

It was taught [elsewhere]: One warns him about wine, impurity, and shaving. And here he says so?

The implication from Nazir 6:4 is that when a nazir is about to transgress, he is warned about all three: wine, impurity, and shaving. This seems to contradict the earlier statement in our sugya where Rabbi Yochanan only mentions wine and shaving. The Yerushalmi later resolves this by suggesting Rabbi Yochanan's statement here is conditional:

דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר, מַתְרִין בּוֹ בְּיַיִן וּבְגִילּוּחַ. מִשּׁוּם דְּמִתְּחִילָה נַמִּי מַתְרִין בּוֹ מִפְּנֵי טוּמְאָה.

For Rabbi Yochanan said, one warns him about wine and shaving. Understood: because from the start one also warns him about impurity.³

This clarifies that Rabbi Yochanan does include a warning about impurity, but the Yerushalmi's initial query highlights the complexity of applying prohibitions when the nazir is already in a state of impurity.

Rabbi Eliezer's "Days Fall Away"

Rabbi Eliezer introduces a specific halakhic mechanism for the nazir who becomes impure.

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לֹא בּוֹ בַיּוֹם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ו, יב): "וְהַיָּמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים יִפְּלוּ", עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ לוֹ יָמִים רִאשׁוֹנִים.

Rabbi Eliezer says: Not on that day, for it is said (Num. 6:12): "And the first days shall fall," until he has first days.

The Penei Moshe explains: "Meaning, if on that same day he immersed and became pure, and on that same day he became impure again with one of the impurities for which the nazir shaves, that day is not nullified... as long as he has two counted days of nezirut."⁴ This principle requires at least two days of counted nezirut for the impurity to "fall" and necessitate a sacrifice. If he becomes impure on the very first day of his nezirut, that day does not count towards the requirement of two days, and thus he doesn't bring a sacrifice for that specific impurity. The Gemara extends this to say the Halakha is like Rabbi Eliezer.⁵

Friction

The central tension in this sugya lies in the interplay between the immediate intent of a vow and the practical realities of impurity. Specifically, the Yerushalmi grapples with Rabbi Yochanan's seemingly contradictory positions regarding warnings and accountability.

The Kushya: Rabbi Yochanan's Warning Paradox

The Yerushalmi flags a significant difficulty with Rabbi Yochanan's view:

תַּנְיָא, הָתָם, מַתְרִין בּוֹ בְּיַיִן וּבְטוּמְאָה וּבְגִילּוּחַ. וְכָאן אָמַר כָּךְ?

It was taught [elsewhere]: One warns him about wine, impurity, and shaving. And here he says so?

The reference is to Nazir 6:4, where a nazir is warned about all three prohibitions. However, in our sugya (Nazir 3:5), Rabbi Yochanan initially seems to say one warns the nazir in the cemetery only about wine and shaving (3:5:3). This creates a paradox: If the nazir is already impure from the cemetery, how can he be warned about impurity itself? And if he is warned about impurity, why does the earlier statement omit it?

The Terutz: Conditional Warning and "Active Coming"

The Yerushalmi's resolution is nuanced and hinges on the distinction between passive impurity and active transgression. The initial statement that Rabbi Yochanan warns only about wine and shaving is later clarified: "Understood: because from the start one also warns him about impurity."³ This implies that the warning about impurity is implicitly included, but the emphasis shifts when discussing the consequences of failing to heed the warning.

Rabbi Abba's intervention clarifies Rabbi Yochanan's reasoning regarding lashes (malkot):

רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר: כָּךְ הִפְסִיק רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לִרְבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הָא כְתִיב (במדבר ו, ו): "אֶל כָּל-נִבְלַת אָדָם לֹא יָבֹא" וְכָתִיב (שם, ז): "וּלְמֵת לֹא יִטְמָא בְּעַמָּיו". אָמַר לוֹ, אִם הִתְרוּ בּוֹ מִפְּנֵי "לֹא יָבֹא" – חַיִּיב מַלְקוּת. מִפְּנֵי "לֹא יִטְמָא" – אֵינוֹ חַיִּיב מַלְקוּת.

Rabbi Abba said: Thus did Rabbi Yochanan explain to Rabbi Eliezer: Is it not written (Num. 6:6): "To any dead person he shall not come" and it is written (v. 7): "And for the dead he shall not defile himself"? He said to him: If they warned him because of "he shall not come" – he is liable for lashes; because of "he shall not defile himself" – he is not liable for lashes.⁶

This is the crucial distinction. The prohibition "אֶל כָּל-נִבְלַת אָדָם לֹא יָבֹא" (he shall not come) implies an active entering or remaining in a place of impurity, which can be the basis for lashes if warned. The prohibition "וּלְמֵת לֹא יִטְמָא" (he shall not defile himself) is more passive. If the nazir was already impure before making the vow, his continued state of impurity is not an active defilement in the same sense, and therefore, according to Rabbi Yochanan, does not incur lashes even if warned. The Yerushalmi's initial confusion arises from not fully appreciating this distinction between active transgression and passive continued impurity. The warning about impurity is indeed given, but the lash liability is tied to the active violation of "coming" to the dead.

Intertext

1. Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Nezirut 6:8

Maimonides codifies the Yerushalmi's discussion, albeit with some interpretative challenges.

כאשר ידור אדם נזירות בבית הקברות, הרי זה קיים נדרו. אף על פי שנטמא שם, כאמור בהלכה הקודמת. ואפילו שהה שם ימים הרבה, אין הימים עולין לו. חייב מלקות על שהותו שם.

**When a person takes a nazirite vow in a cemetery, his vow is valid. Even though he contracts impurity there, as stated in the previous halachah. Even if he remains there for many days, they are not counted for him. He is liable for lashes for remaining there.**⁷

The Radbaz commentary highlights a critical point of contention: the mention of shaving. The Rambam states: "If he was warned not to take a nazirite vow while there, he should not shave his hair when he leaves there."⁸ The Radbaz questions this, arguing that since the nazir is not required to bring a sacrifice for impurity incurred before the vow's effective counting, he shouldn't need to shave. This aligns with the principle that shaving is tied to the completion of nezirut after incurring impurity. The Radbaz suggests this might be a textual issue or that the warning about shaving is contingent on the potential for subsequent impurity. The Kessef Mishneh offers alternative emendations. The core issue mirrors the Yerushalmi's debate: how are general prohibitions applied when the initial state is one of impurity?

2. Bavli Nazir 17a & Shevuot 17a: The "Prostration" Standard

The Yerushalmi references the Bavli's discussion on Shevuot concerning the timeframe for punishment for remaining in a place of impurity.

רַבִּי חִילָא אָמַר, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָמַד מִן הַפְּרוּסָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר שָׁם: "הִפְרוּס אוֹ כְדֵי הַפְּרוּסָה".

Rabbi Hila said: Rabbi Yochanan learned from prostration, as we have stated there: "If he prostrated himself or stayed there long enough to prostrate himself."⁹

This intertextual link connects the Nazir discussion to the laws of Shevuot. In Shevuot 17a, the standard for incurring a penalty for remaining in the Temple Mount while impure is the time it takes to prostrate oneself. Rabbi Yochanan appears to apply this standard to the nazir in the cemetery. This implies that the nazir is warned about coming to the cemetery and the time he tarries there is the basis for lashes, aligning with the "active coming" aspect of the prohibition. It underscores the Yerushalmi's focus on actionable offenses that can be warned against, as opposed to passive states of impurity.

Psak/Practice

The practical implications of this sugya are significant, particularly concerning the timing of nezirut counting and the potential for incurring lashes.

The dominant view, as reflected in later Halakha, leans towards the idea that if a vow is made in a cemetery, the days do not count until the nazir leaves and purifies himself. The initial period in the cemetery, while the vow is technically valid, does not count towards the nezirut term and does not obligate an impurity sacrifice for that initial period.

Rabbi Yochanan's position, especially after the clarification regarding "active coming," suggests that if a nazir is warned not to enter or remain in a cemetery, and he does so, he can incur lashes. This is because "coming" is an active transgression. However, if he was already impure when he made the vow, the subsequent continuation of that impurity might not be considered an active defilement warranting lashes, even if warned.

Rabbi Eliezer's opinion that "not on that day" he becomes impure after purification (if it's the first day of nezirut) is cited as Halakha. This means that if a nazir becomes impure on the very first day of his counting, that day is nullified without requiring a sacrifice for that specific impurity, as he hasn't yet accrued "first days." This requires careful attention to the sequence of events: leaving, purification, and then potential re-impurity.

Takeaway

The sanctity of a vow is not diminished by the impurity of its utterance, but its practical observance and the counting of its days are profoundly impacted by the nazir's state of ritual purity. Accountability for transgressions is nuanced, often hinging on the distinction between active violation and passive continuity of an impure state, especially when interacting with the prohibition of entering cemeteries.