Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:9-7:1:2

Sugya Map

• Issue: The precise moment a Nazir is permitted to resume normal life, specifically drinking wine and becoming impure to the dead, after completing their Nazirite period and sacrifices. This hinges on the completion of the sacrificial rites.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • Understanding the sequence and significance of the Nazirite sacrifices and their accompanying rituals.
  • Determining the exact point of termination for Nazirite restrictions, impacting permitted actions.
  • Clarifying the role of specific ritual acts, like the waving of the sacrifice, in finalizing the process.
  • Potential implications for other ritualistic periods where a specific action marks the end of a prohibition.
• Primary Sources:
  • Numbers 6:19-20 (description of the Nazirite sacrifice and permission to drink wine).
  • Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:9-7:1:2 (the core text under analysis).
  • Mishnah Nazir 6:7 (related discussion on invalid sacrifices).
  • Mishnah Nazir 8:4 (related discussion on impurity and sacrifices).
  • Mishnah Sukkah 3:10 (related to the concept of "one of the bloods").
  • Tosefta Nazir 1:5 (parallel to JT Nazir 6:9:9).

Text Snapshot

MISHNAH (Nazir 6:9:9): "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."

HALAKHAH (Nazir 7:1:1): "Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Joḥanan ate bake-meats and said, I did not taste food on that day. But did we not state: “He who made a vow not to eat food is permitted water and salt”? Explain it following Rebbi Joshia, who said, in matters of vows one follows biblical usage. And from where that everything is called food? Rebbi Aḥa bar Ulla said: “And ten female donkeys carrying grain, bread, and food, etc.” Why does the verse say, “and food”? From here that everything is called food."

Analysis of Nuance: The Mishnah presents a clear sequence: sacrifice, waving, then permission. The Halakha digresses into the definition of "food" in vow contexts, but the crucial point for our Sugya is the contrast between the general rule and Rebbi Simeon's opinion. The phrase "אחר" (after) in "אחר ישתה הנזיר יין" (afterwards the Nazir is permitted to drink wine) is pivotal. Rebbi Simeon's interpretation hinges on "אחד מן הדמים" (one of the bloods), suggesting a less stringent criterion for the termination of Nazirite status. The footnote ²²⁴ correctly identifies the tension: the Torah links the permission to drink wine to the completion of the rites for the Nazir, but Rebbi Simeon finds a trigger earlier in the process.

Readings

Penei Moshe on Nazir 6:9:1:1-3

Penei Moshe grapples with the definition of "scalding" (שליקה) in relation to "cooking" (בישול). He notes that the Mishnah teaches that scalding is considered cooking, emphasizing that it doesn't fall outside the category of cooking, even if it's an extreme form.

• Chiddush: Scalding is fundamentally a form of cooking, not a distinct category that would exempt it from cooking-related prohibitions or definitions.

Penei Moshe further explains the phrase "ואח"כ הותר הנזיר לשתות ביין" (and afterwards the Nazir is permitted to drink wine). He connects this to the verse in Numbers 6:19, "ואחר ישתה הנזיר יין" (and afterwards the Nazir shall drink wine). The crucial point for Penei Moshe is that this permission follows all the rituals, including the sacrifice and the shaving, which he believes are determinative.

• Chiddush: The permission to drink wine is contingent on the completion of all prescribed rituals, including the act of shaving, which he posits is a prerequisite.

Regarding Rebbi Simeon's view, Penei Moshe analyzes the juxtaposition of "ואחר ישתה הנזיר יין" (Nazir 6:19) and "ואחר התגלחו את נזרו" (after they have shaved their Nazirite hair, Nazir 6:20). He argues that just as the latter refers to a singular act (shaving) which precedes the general permission, so too "after one of the bloods was sprinkled" signifies a singular, validating act that allows the Nazir to drink wine and become impure, even before the full shaving ceremony is completed.

• Chiddush: Rebbi Simeon interprets the "afterwards" in relation to the Nazir's permission as being tied to the completion of a single, significant ritual act (sprinkling of blood), rather than the entire complex of sacrifices and shaving.

Korban HaEdah on Nazir 6:9:1:1-3

Korban HaEdah echoes Penei Moshe's initial point, defining "scalding" (שלוק) as an extreme form of cooking, "up to the point of disintegration" (עד שנימוח). This emphasizes the intensity of the process, equating it with thorough cooking.

• Chiddush: Scalding is a severe form of cooking, reaching a state where the food is almost dissolving.

Korban HaEdah also links "ואח"כ הותר הנזיר לשתות יין" to the verse in Numbers 6:19, "ואחר ישתה הנזיר יין אחר המעשים כולם" (and afterwards the Nazir shall drink wine after all the deeds). This emphasizes the completion of the entire sacrificial procedure.

• Chiddush: The permission to drink wine is explicitly tied to the completion of all the prescribed Nazirite offerings.

On Rebbi Simeon's position, Korban HaEdah draws the same parallel as Penei Moshe: "ואחר ישתה הנזיר יין" (afterwards the Nazir shall drink wine) is compared to "ואחר התגלחו את נזרו" (after they have shaved their Nazirite hair). He concludes that just as the sprinkling of blood is a singular, significant act, so too the sprinkling of one of the bloods on the altar is sufficient to permit the Nazir to drink wine and become impure, even if the shaving hasn't occurred yet.

• Chiddush: Rebbi Simeon sees the sprinkling of one of the bloods as a pivotal moment that grants permission to drink wine and become impure, signifying the beginning of the end of Nazirite status.

Sheyarei Korban on Nazir 6:9:1:1-3

Sheyarei Korban delves deeper into the nuances of "scalding" and its relation to cooking. It references Pesachim 39b, noting that when something is described as "not scalded nor cooked" (לא שלוקין ולא מבושלין), it implies a distinction, suggesting scalding is a more extreme form of cooking. However, it reconciles this with the Mishnah in Nazir by stating that scalding is still considered "cooking" for the purpose of the Nazirite offering, clarifying that it does not "exit the category of cooking" (אינו יוצא מתורת בישול).

• Chiddush: While scalding might represent a more intense level of cooking, it remains within the overarching category of "cooking" for ritualistic purposes. It also points out a potential difficulty in understanding how a "disintegrated" piece of meat could be used later, suggesting the "disintegration" is not absolute destruction.

Sheyarei Korban expresses a degree of perplexity regarding the permission to drink wine. It finds the statement "afterwards the Nazir shall drink wine" problematic if taken to mean immediately after the sacrifices. It suggests that without this explicit verse, one might assume the Nazir remains prohibited. The explicit mention of "afterwards" implies a transition, but the exact trigger is debated.

• Chiddush: The verse granting permission to drink wine is essential; otherwise, the prohibition might persist indefinitely. The timing of this permission is a point of contention.

Regarding Rebbi Simeon, Sheyarei Korban presents the same comparative analysis of the verses as the other commentators. It acknowledges the debate and the need for clarification, suggesting that the explicit mention of "afterwards" is key to understanding the transition from prohibition to permission.

• Chiddush: The interpretation of "afterwards" as tied to a singular ritual act is a core element of Rebbi Simeon's position.

Friction

The core tension in this Sugya lies in the precise moment the Nazir's restrictions are lifted. The Mishnah presents a seemingly straightforward sequence: the Nazir brings sacrifices, the Cohen performs certain rites (waving), and then the Nazir is permitted to drink wine and become impure. This implies a complete fulfillment of the sacrificial process. However, Rebbi Simeon introduces a significant qualification.

The Kushya (Strongest Objection): Rebbi Simeon states: "when one of the bloods was sprinkled, the Nazir is permitted to drink wine and to defile himself with the dead." This directly challenges the Mishnah's implication that all the rites must be completed. The Mishnah suggests a sequential finality, where the Nazir's status changes only after the entire sacrificial complex is concluded. Rebbi Simeon, however, identifies a much earlier point – the sprinkling of one of the bloods on the altar – as the trigger for the lifting of restrictions. This raises the question: How can a partial completion of the ritualistic process suffice to terminate the Nazir's vows, especially when the Mishnah seems to imply a holistic completion? Is the Mishnah's sequence merely descriptive, or prescriptive in its order of finality?

The Terutz (Best Explanation): The most compelling explanation for this discrepancy lies in understanding the function of the blood sprinkling. The sprinkling of blood on the altar is the act that irrevocably validates a sacrifice. Once the blood is on the altar, the sacrifice is accepted, and its purpose is fulfilled. The subsequent actions, like waving, are further ritualistic steps, but the blood itself signifies the completion of the sacrifice's core function.

Rebbi Simeon, therefore, argues that the essential act that completes the sacrifice – and thus the Nazir's obligation – is the sprinkling of the blood. While the full ceremony might involve waving and other actions, the critical turning point for the Nazir's status is the moment the sacrifice is ritually sealed by its blood. This interpretation hinges on the principle that a sacrifice, once its blood has been sprinkled, has fulfilled its purpose in the Divine service, thereby absolving the Nazir of their vows. The subsequent actions, while important for the full ceremonial conclusion, are not conditions precedent for the lifting of the Nazir's restrictions.

Alternatively, one might argue that the Mishnah is describing the ideal or complete scenario, while Rebbi Simeon is highlighting the earliest permissible moment. The Mishnah describes the full completion of the ritual, leading to the Nazir's freedom. Rebbi Simeon, however, points to the moment when the halakhic validity of the sacrifice is established, which then enables the Nazir's freedom, even if other ceremonial steps are still pending. The emphasis shifts from the completion of all actions to the completion of the sacramentally decisive action.

Intertext

Numbers 6:19-20

The Torah itself provides the basis for this debate: "וְשָׁפַט הַכֹּהֵן הַזְּרוֹעַ הַנְּטוּיָה מִן הָאַיִל הָעֹלָה וְכִכָּר אַחַת מִן־הַמַּצֹּות וְרִיקַת חָת אֶחָת וְנָתַן עַל־יְדֵי הַנָּזִיר אַחַר הִתְגַּלְּחוֹ אֶת־נִזְרוֹ׃ וְשָׁפַט הַכֹּהֵן אֹתָם תְּנוּפָה לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה קֹדֶשׁ הוּא לַכֹּהֵן מִלְבַד חָלָב הַתְּנוּפָה וְשֶׁכֶם הַנָּשִׂיא׃ וְאַחַר יִשְׁתֶּה הַנָּזִיר יַיִן׃" (And the Kohen shall take the shoulder of the ram when it is raised, and one unleavened cake from the basket, and one unleavened wafer, and shall place them on the hands of the Nazir after his hair has been shaved from his Nazirite vow. And the Kohen shall wave them as a wave offering before the LORD; they are holy for the Kohen, besides the breast of the wave offering and the thigh of the prince. And afterwards the Nazir shall drink wine.)

The verses explicitly link the permission to drink wine ("ואחר ישתה הנזיר יין") to the completion of the waving ceremony ("אַחַר הִתְגַּלְּחוֹ אֶת־נִזְרוֹ" - after his hair has been shaved from his Nazirite vow). Rebbi Simeon's interpretation, as presented in the Talmud, hinges on seeing a singular, earlier act – the sprinkling of blood – as sufficient, potentially drawing on broader principles of sacrifice validation rather than the literal sequence described for the Nazir. This highlights the interpretive flexibility within the framework of biblical law.

Sifrei Devarim, Parshat Shoftim, Siman 221 (on Deut 21:23)

While seemingly tangential, the discussion in the latter part of the Yerushalmi on corpse of obligation (מת מצווה) and defilement provides an interesting parallel to the prioritization of duties. The Sifrei discusses the obligation to bury a hanged person, stating "כי כל התלוי קללת אלקים הוא" (for every hanged person is a curse of God). This prohibition is then contrasted with the positive commandment to bury. The entire discussion revolves around determining the hierarchy of obligations when dealing with death and burial.

The Yerushalmi's exploration of when a priest or Nazir must defile themselves for a corpse of obligation illustrates a similar tension: the overriding importance of certain duties (like burial) can sometimes supersede even strict prohibitions of impurity. This principle of prioritization, where a higher-order obligation can necessitate a lesser one, is implicitly at play in Rebbi Simeon's view. The validation of the sacrifice through blood sprinkling is seen as the paramount act, enabling the Nazir's release, even if other ceremonial steps are yet to be fully completed. The debate over defilement for a corpse of obligation shows how halakha must navigate competing imperatives, and Rebbi Simeon's view on the Nazir sacrifice can be seen as applying a similar logic of critical junctures.

Psak/Practice

The halakhic practice, as generally understood, aligns with the view of the Sages in the Mishnah and the mainstream interpretation that the Nazir's restrictions are lifted after the completion of all the required rites, including the waving and shaving. Rebbi Simeon's opinion, while debated and recorded, is not the operative halakha in this specific instance.

The Nafka Mina here is significant for understanding the finality of vows and ritual processes. It emphasizes that while certain actions are critical junctures (like blood sprinkling), the complete fulfillment of the prescribed ceremony is generally required for the full termination of a status or restriction. This principle is broadly applied in Halakha, where completeness and adherence to the entirety of a process are often paramount.

The meta-heuristic is that when the Torah provides a sequence of actions leading to a specific outcome, the interpretation often defaults to respecting that sequence unless a clear textual basis or a strong logical deduction (as perhaps argued by Rebbi Simeon) compels an earlier termination point. The Yerushalmi, by presenting both views, allows for a deeper appreciation of the interpretive process in Halakha.

Takeaway

The precise moment a Nazir's restrictions lift hinges on whether one prioritizes the ritual's sacral validation (blood sprinkling) or its complete ceremonial execution. While Rebbi Simeon offers a compelling argument for an earlier termination, normative practice generally follows the more comprehensive completion of the prescribed rites.