Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nazir

Folio 59a

What interpretation does the first Tanna²  put on [the verse] 'neither shall a man put on a woman's garment'? — He requires it for the following that has been taught: Why does Scripture say, A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man [etc.]?³  If merely [to teach] that a man should not put on a woman's garment, nor a woman a man s garment, behold it says [of this action] this is an abomination⁴  and there is no abomination here!⁵  It must therefore mean that a man should not put on a woman's garment and mix with women, nor a woman a man's garment and mix with men. R. Eliezer b. Jacob says: How do we know that a woman should not go to war bearing arms? Scripture says, 'A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man.' [The words] 'Neither shall a man put on a woman's garment,' [signify] that a man is not to use cosmetics as women do.

R. Nahman said that a nazirite is permitted [to remove the hair of his armpits],⁶  but this is not the accepted ruling.

The Rabbis said to R. Simeon b. Abba: We have seen that R. Johanan has no [hair in his armpits].⁷  [R. Simeon] said to them: It has fallen out because of his old age.

A certain man was sentenced to scourging before R. Ammi, and when his armpits became bared,⁸  he noticed that they were not shaven. R. Ammi said to them: Let him go free. This man must be a member of the [learned] fraternity.⁹

Rab asked R. Hiyya whether [it was permitted] to shave¹⁰  [the armpits]. He replied: It is forbidden. [Rab] then asked: But it grows?¹¹  He replied: Son of great ancestors,¹²  there is a limit. If it continues to grow [beyond this] it falls out.

Rab asked R. Hiyya whether [it was permitted] to scratch [the armpits to remove the hair]. He replied: It is forbidden. [To the further question] whether he might [scratch] through his garment,¹³  he replied that it was permitted. Some say that he asked him whether he might [scratch] through his garment during prayers¹⁴  and he replied that it was forbidden; but this is not the accepted ruling.¹⁵

1. Deut. XXII, 5. It was customary only for women to shave the hair of the body.
2. Who holds that the removal of this hair is not forbidden by the Torah.
3. Ibid.
4. The end of the verse reads: 'whosoever doeth these things is an abomination to the Lord'. This word, 'abomination', is used of forbidden intercourse.
5. The mere act of putting on the garments is not wrong.
6. At the same time as he shaves his head when he would in any case be unattractive.
7. How is it possible, if the removal is forbidden.
8. As he was stripped to receive the punishment.
9. As the fact that his armpits were unshaven proved.
10. With scissors.
11. Uncomfortably long, and one should be allowed to remove it for the sake of comfort without transgressing the prohibition.
12. Lit., 'Son of princes'. A favourite appellation of Rab, used by his uncle R. Hiyya.
13. I.e. whether he might scratch on top of his shirt, without touching the bare flesh.
14. To remove a source of irritation. It is forbidden to touch the bare skin during prayers.
15. I.e. scratching through a garment is allowed.

MISHNAH. IF ONE OF THEM DIES;¹  R. JOSHUA SAID THAT [THE OTHER] SHOULD SEEK SOME THIRD PERSON²  PREPARED TO UNDERTAKE A NAZIRITE-VOW TOGETHER WITH HIM, AND SAY: IF I WAS DEFILED, YOU ARE TO BE A NAZIRITE IMMEDIATELY, BUT IF I WAS CLEAN, YOU ARE TO BECOME A NAZIRITE AT THE END OF THIRTY DAYS.' THEY THEN COUNT THIRTY DAYS AND BRING SACRIFICES FOR DEFILEMENT AND SACRIFICES [DUE ON TERMINATING A NAZIRITESHIP] IN PURITY AND [THE FIRST ONE] SAYS, 'IF I AM THE ONE WHO WAS DEFILED, THE SACRIFICES FOR DEFILEMENT ARE MINE AND THE SACRIFICES IN PURITY ARE YOURS, WHILST IF I AM THE ONE WHO REMAINED CLEAN, THE SACRIFICES IN PURITY ARE MINE AND THE SACRIFICES AFTER DEFILEMENT ARE [SACRIFICES OFFERED] IN DOUBT.'³  THEY THEN COUNT [A FURTHER] THIRTY DAYS AND BRING [ONE SET OF] THE SACRIFICES IN PURITY AND [THE FIRST ONE] SAYS, 'IF I AM THE ONE WHO WAS DEFILED, THE SACRIFICE FOR DEFILEMENT [OFFERED PREVIOUSLY] WAS MINE AND THE SACRIFICE IN PURITY WAS YOURS, AND THIS IS MY SACRIFICE IN PURITY, WHILST IF I WAS THE ONE WHO REMAINED CLEAN, THE SACRIFICE IN PURITY WAS MINE AND THE SACRIFICE AFTER DEFILEMENT [WAS OFFERED] IN DOUBT AND THIS IS YOUR SACRIFICE IN PURITY.

BEN ZOMA SAID TO [R. JOSHUA]: WHO WILL LISTEN TO [THIS MAN] AND UNDERTAKE A NAZIRITE-VOW TOGETHER WITH HIM? WHAT HE MUST DO IS TO BRING⁴  A BIRD AS A SINOFFERING AND AN ANIMAL AS A BURNT-OFFERING AND SAY, IF I WAS DEFILED, THE SIN-OFFERING IS PART OF MY DUE⁵  AND THE BURNT-OFFERING IS A VOLUNTARY OFFERING, WHILST IF I REMAINED CLEAN, THE BURNT-OFFERING IS PART OF MY DUE AND THE SIN-OFFERING [A SACRIFICE OFFERED] IN DOUBT.' HE MUST THEN COUNT THIRTY DAYS AND BRING THE SACRIFICES IN PURITY AND SAY, IF I WAS DEFILED, THE FORMER BURNT-OFFERING WAS A VOLUNTARY ONE AND THIS IS THE OBLIGATORY ONE, WHILST IF I REMAINED CLEAN, THE FORMER BURNT-OFFERING WAS THE OBLIGATORY ONE AND THIS THE VOLUNTARY ONE. THESE [OTHERS] ARE THE REST OF MY SACRIFICES.' R. JOSHUA RETORTED: THE RESULT WILL BE THAT THIS [NAZIRITE] WILL BRING HIS SACRIFICES HALF AT A TIME!⁶  THE SAGES, HOWEVER, AGREED WITH BEN ZOMA.

GEMARA. But let him bring them [half at a time]?⁷  — Rab Judah citing Samuel said: R. Joshua only said this in order to sharpen [the wits of] the students.⁸

R. Nahman⁹  said, What would R. Joshua do with the intestines to prevent them decomposing?¹⁰

MISHNAH. A NAZIRITE WHO WAS IN DOUBT WHETHER HE HAD BEEN DEFILED AND IN DOUBT WHETHER HE HAD BEEN A CONFIRMED¹¹  LEPER, MAY EAT SACRED MEATS AFTER SIXTY DAYS,¹²  AND DRINK WINE AND TOUCH THE DEAD AFTER ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY DAYS,¹³  SINCE POLLING ON ACCOUNT OF [LEPROUS] DISEASE OVERRIDES [THE PROHIBITION AGAINST] THE POLLING OF THE NAZIRITE ONLY THEN [THE LEPROSY] IS CERTAIN, BUT WHEN IT IS DOUBTFUL IT DOES NOT OVERRIDE IT.¹⁴

1. One of the two men mentioned in the last Mishnah 57a.
2. Lit. 'someone from the street'.
3. Its flesh would be interred and not eaten, as in the case with a sacrifice brought for certain defilement; v. supra 29a.
4. On completing his naziriteship.
5. He must offer the sin-offering because he cannot commence to count the naziriteship in purity until it is sacrificed, if he had been in fact defiled. The other sacrifices can be dispensed with in the circumstances; v. supra 18b.
6. If he was in fact clean, his burnt-offering will have been brought thirty days before the other sacrifices.
7. I.e., What is the point of R. Joshua's objection to the procedure of Ben Zoma.
8. It was not a real objection. R. Joshua merely wanted the students to learn not to forbear from raising an objection because it may have no basis.
9. Both Rashi and Tosaf. have: 'R. Nahman b. Isaac'.
10. If we were to do as R. Joshua suggests, the fat of the intestines (which must be offered on the altar) would decompose whilst both nazirites were being shaved prior to the waving. Surely, this is as great an objection as the bringing of the sacrifices at different times. R. Nahman points out that not merely is there no technical objection to the procedure of Ben Zoma but R. Joshua's cannot even be considered preferable. Tosaf.
11. [H] 'confirmed': a person afflicted with leprosy who, on the first examination or after the period of confinement, is declared by the priest to he a leper; v. Lev. XIII, 45ff.
12. I.e., after counting two nazirite periods of thirty days.
13. After four nazirite periods. V. supra 55b for relevant notes.
14. But the period of naziriteship must he observed before polling; v. Gemara following.