Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:1-9

Sugya Map

• Issue: The precise moment a Nazirite becomes permitted to drink wine and become impure, specifically in relation to the completion of their sacrifices and the ritual of waving.
• Nafka Mina:
  • The legal standing of the Nazirite's actions between the sprinkling of blood and the completion of all rituals.
  • The definition of "cooking" for the purposes of Nazirite vows and sacrifices.
  • The principle of "flavoring" (טעם) and its relation to prohibition thresholds (e.g., 200:1), particularly concerning sacred and non-sacred food.
  • The status of "waste" (פסולת) of heave-offering (תרומה) and profane food, and their potential to combine.
  • The requirement of the "waving" (תנופה) ritual for the Nazirite's release, and its applicability to individuals with physical limitations.
• Primary Sources:
  • Mishnah Nazir 6:9
  • Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9 (our text)
  • Numbers 6:19-21
  • Mishnah Shabbat 7:2
  • Mishnah Nedarim
  • Mishnah 'Orlah
  • Mishnah Terumot
  • Tosefta Nazir 1:5
  • Babylonian Talmud Nazir 46a-47b, Pesaḥim 39b, Yoma 61b, Kiddushin 60a, Bechorot 26a.

Text Snapshot

The core of our sugya in the Yerushalmi hinges on the Mishnah's statement:

MISHNAH: "He cooked the well-being offering or scalded²²² it. A Cohen takes the cooked fore-leg of the ram, one unleavened loaf from the basket, and one unleavened thin bread, places it on the nazir's hands and waves it²²³. Afterwards the nazir is permitted to drink wine and to defile himself with the dead. Rebbi Simeon says, when one of the bloods was sprinkled, the nazir is permitted to drink wine and to defile himself with the dead²²⁴."

Yerushalmi Halakha: "A Mishnah states that scalding is called cooking, as we have stated: “If he cooked the well-being offering or scalded it⁷.” A verse [states] that “roasted” is called “cooked”: “They cooked the pesaḥ”, etc. If you say, against the rules, Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, “as is the rule”."

Leshon Nuance: The term "scaled" (שלוק) is explicitly equated with "cooked" (מבושל). The Yerushalmi then brings a verse (Exodus 12:8) about roasting the Pesach offering ("צְל֣וֹ אֵ֔שׁ אֶ֖ת הַפֶּ֑סַח") to show that "roasted" (צלוי) is also understood as "cooked" in this context. Rebbi Jonah's statement, "as is the rule," likely implies that this definition of "cooking" aligns with the established halakhic understanding.

Readings

Penei Moshe: Scalding as Cooking & the Timing of Release

The Penei Moshe clarifies the halakhic definitions and timings presented. Regarding the Mishnah's opening: "מתני' או שולקן. שליקה בישול יותר מדאי עד שנימוח וקמ"ל דבשליקה אינו יוצא מתורת בישול" (Scalded it. Scalding is excessive cooking until it dissolves, and it teaches us that scalding does not exit the category of cooking). This highlights that "scalding" (שליקה) is not merely a preliminary stage but a form of cooking itself, equating it to intense boiling until the substance softens or dissolves. This is crucial for understanding the prohibition of consuming or using such items in a consecrated state.

On the timing of the Nazirite's release: "ואח"כ הותר הנזיר לשתות ביין. דכתיב ואחר ישתה הנזיר יין אחר המעשים כלן אחר הקרבן ואחר התגלחת דס"ל התגלחת מעכבת" (And afterwards the Nazirite is permitted to drink wine. For it is written, "And afterwards the Nazirite may drink wine" after all the acts, after the sacrifice, and after the haircutting, for they hold that the haircutting is a prerequisite). The Penei Moshe here focuses on the explicit wording of Numbers 6:19, "וְאַחַר֙ יִשְׁתֶּה־נָזִ֣יר יַ֔יִן" (And afterwards, the Nazirite may drink wine). It interprets "afterwards" (אַחַר) as referring to the entire process, including the final haircutting (תגלחת), suggesting that the full completion of the ritual is necessary.

However, when addressing Rebbi Simeon's view: "ר"ש אומר כיון שנזרק עליו א' מן הדמים. דכתיב הכא ואחר ישתה הנזיר יין וכתיב התם אחר התגלחו את נזרו מה להלן אחר מעשה יחידי דלאחר גלוח עביד תנופה אף כאן אחר מעשה יחידי וכיון שנזרק עליו אחד מן הדמים מותר לשתות ביין ולהטמא למתים ואע"פ שעדיין לא גלח דתגלחת לא מעכבת וכן הלכה" (Rebbi Simeon says, once one of the bloods was sprinkled. For it is written here, "And afterwards the Nazirite may drink wine," and it is written there, "after they shave off their Nazirite vow." Just as there [in the case of the shaving], after a singular act that is done after the shaving, the waving is performed, so too here, after a singular act, and once one of the bloods is sprinkled on him, he is permitted to drink wine and become impure to the dead, even though he has not yet shaved, for shaving is not a prerequisite. And so is the Halakha). Here, the Penei Moshe contrasts the language of the Nazirite's release with the blood sprinkling. It argues that since the blood sprinkling is a "singular act" (מעשה יחידי), analogous to the waving (תנופה) performed after shaving, the sprinkling itself is sufficient to permit wine and impurity. Crucially, it concludes "וכן הלכה" (And so is the Halakha), indicating that Rebbi Simeon's view, that the sprinkling of blood is the decisive moment, is the accepted practice.

Korban HaEdah: Defining Scalding and the Nazirite's Release

The Korban HaEdah echoes the Penei Moshe on the definition of scalding: "או שלקן. בישול יותר מדאי עד שנימוח" (Scalded it. Excessive cooking until it dissolves). This reiterates the concept of extreme heat causing dissolution.

On the timing of the Nazirite's release: "ואח"כ הותר הנזיר לשתות יין כו'. דכתיב ואחר ישתה הנזיר יין אחר המעשים כולם" (And afterwards the Nazirite is permitted to drink wine etc. For it is written, "And afterwards the Nazirite may drink wine" after all the acts). This is a straightforward interpretation of the verse, suggesting a comprehensive completion.

However, the Korban HaEdah also grapples with Rebbi Simeon's view: "כיון שנזרק עליו כו'. דכתיב הכא אחר ישתה הנזיר יין וכתיב התם אחר התגלחו את נזרו מה להלן אחר מעשה יחידי אף כאן אחר מעשה יחידי הא למדת כיון שנזרק עליו אחד מן הדמים מותר לשתות יין ולהטמא למתים וגילוח א"צ להזכיר שכך מצותו או שיגלח אז" (Once it was sprinkled on him etc. For it is written here, "And afterwards the Nazirite may drink wine," and it is written there, "after they shave off their Nazirite vow." Just as there, after a singular act, so too here, after a singular act. You have learned that once one of the bloods is sprinkled on him, he is permitted to drink wine and become impure to the dead, and shaving does not need to be mentioned, for such is his commandment, or he shaves then). The Korban HaEdah also draws a parallel between the sprinkling of blood and the waving, characterizing both as "singular acts" (מעשה יחידי). It concludes that the sprinkling of blood is sufficient for the Nazirite's release, even before the final shaving, and states "וכן הלכה" (And so is the Halakha), aligning with the Penei Moshe in accepting Rebbi Simeon's position. The phrase "וְגִיל֙וּחַ֙ אֵינְךָ֙ צָרִ֔יךְ לְהַזְכִּ֖יר" (and shaving you do not need to mention) seems to imply that the shaving itself is not a separate, definitive act but rather part of the overall completion, or that the critical act is the blood sprinkling.

Friction

The primary point of friction lies in the contrasting interpretations of "afterwards" (אַחַר) in Numbers 6:19 concerning the Nazirite's release. The prevailing interpretation, seemingly held by the anonymous Mishnah and potentially implied by the initial reading of the Yerushalmi, is that "afterwards" signifies the completion of all sacrificial rites, including the haircutting. This is further supported by the structure of the verse, which links the drinking of wine to the completion of the Nazirite's vow.

However, Rebbi Simeon introduces a significant counterpoint: once even one of the bloods is sprinkled, the Nazirite is permitted to drink wine and become impure. This implies that the sprinkling of blood itself is the operative act that triggers the release, rendering the subsequent steps, such as the waving or even the final haircutting, non-essential for this specific permission.

The Strongest Kushya: If Rebbi Simeon's view is indeed the accepted Halakha ("וכן הלכה"), why does the Mishnah list the waving of the foreleg, loaf, and bread before stating the Nazirite's release? The sequence in the Mishnah—sacrifice, waving, then release—seems to contradict the idea that the sprinkling of blood alone is sufficient. Furthermore, the explicit mention of the waving ritual implies its significance.

Best Terutz (or two):

1. The "Singular Act" Analogy: The Yerushalmi's explanation, as elucidated by the commentators, hinges on the concept of a "singular act" (מעשה יחידי). Rebbi Simeon argues that the sprinkling of blood, like the waving (תנופה), is a singular act that validates the sacrifice and thereby permits the Nazirite's release. The subsequent waving by the Cohen might be for the Nazirite's benefit or a standard part of the process for the Cohen, but it is not the definitive act that enables the Nazirite's release. The blood's contact with the altar is the decisive moment. The Mishnah, therefore, describes the full ritual, but Rebbi Simeon isolates the essential component for the Nazirite's permission.

2. Ritual Completion vs. Individual Permission: Alternatively, we can differentiate between the completeness of the sacrifice and the individual Nazirite's permission. The Mishnah describes the full sacrificial process required to conclude the Nazirite's term. Rebbi Simeon, however, focuses on the point at which the sacred status of the sacrifice has been sufficiently recognized by the altar's acceptance (signified by the blood). Once the altar has accepted the offering, the Nazirite is no longer bound by the stricter prohibitions related to their Nazirite vow, even if the full ritual for the offering's completion is not yet finalized. The waving is a part of the offering's completion, but the blood sprinkling is the sacrifice's acceptance, which is sufficient for the Nazirite's personal release.

Intertext

Babylonian Talmud Nazir 46b: The Waving of the Nazirite

The Babylonian Talmud, in Nazir 46b, discusses this very issue: "Rav said, Waving prevents the Nazirite. But have we not learned: 'The teachings for the Nazirite, whether or not he has wings'? Rava said: If he has [hands] it prevents him; if he does not have [hands], it does not prevent him." The Yerushalmi's text here directly parallels this Babylonian Talmudic discussion. The Babylonian Talmud offers a similar debate regarding whether the waving ritual is absolutely binding, even for someone physically incapable of performing it. The Yerushalmi's inclusion of this debate, particularly the statement "For somebody able to wave, waving stops him; for somebody unable to wave, waving does not stop him," directly engages with the concept of physical ability influencing ritual requirement. This intertextual link reinforces the importance of the waving ritual in the broader discussion of Nazirite termination.

Mishnah Shabbat 7:2 & Babylonian Talmud Pesaḥim 39b: Defining "Cooking"

The Yerushalmi's discussion on scalding (שליקה) being equivalent to cooking (בישול) draws heavily from other tractates. The reference to Mishnah Shabbat 7:2 and the mention of "They cooked the pesaḥ" (פסח) connects to a broader halakhic framework defining forbidden acts on Shabbat. The commentary of Sheyarei Korban further links this to Babylonian Talmud Pesaḥim 39b, which discusses acts that are "neither scalded nor cooked" (לא שלוקין ולא מבושלין). This demonstrates a consistent concern across different areas of Halakha regarding the precise definition of "cooking" and its implications, whether for Shabbat prohibitions, Nazirite vows, or other consecrated matters. The Yerushalmi is thus integrating a definition established in broader Halakha into the specific context of the Nazirite offering.

Psak/Practice

The Yerushalmi, through its acceptance of Rebbi Simeon's view ("וכן הלכה"), establishes that the sprinkling of the blood of the well-being offering on the altar is the decisive act that permits the Nazirite to drink wine and become impure. This contrasts with a more stringent interpretation that might require the full completion of all post-sprinkling rituals, including the waving by the Cohen.

Heuristic: In cases of ritual completion where multiple acts are involved, it is often the initial act of "acceptance" by the sacred entity (the altar, in this case) that triggers the permissibility for the individual, even if further steps are required to fully finalize the offering's status or the individual's status vis-à-vis the community. The critical factor is the act of validation, not necessarily the finalization of all subsequent procedures.

Takeaway

The Yerushalmi demonstrates that ritual permissions can be tied to specific, operative acts of divine acceptance, even before the full ceremonial conclusion. Defining "cooking" and understanding the precise trigger for ritual release are critical for navigating vows and sacrifices.