Midrash sobre Números 6:12
וְהִזִּ֤יר לַֽיהוָה֙ אֶת־יְמֵ֣י נִזְר֔וֹ וְהֵבִ֛יא כֶּ֥בֶשׂ בֶּן־שְׁנָת֖וֹ לְאָשָׁ֑ם וְהַיָּמִ֤ים הָרִאשֹׁנִים֙ יִפְּל֔וּ כִּ֥י טָמֵ֖א נִזְרֽוֹ׃
Y consagrará á SEÑOR los días de su nazareato, y traerá un cordero de un año en expiación por la culpa; y los días primeros serán anulados, por cuanto fué contaminado su nazareato.
Sifrei Bamidbar
(Bamidbar 6:12) "And he shall devote to the L-rd the days of his Naziritism (and he shall bring a lamb of the first-year as a guilt-offering"): What is the intent of this? Because we find in respect to all the guilt-offerings of the Torah that they are categorical (requirements for the effecting of a new condition), I might think that this (guilt-offering of the Nazirite) is also categorical (in respect to the resumption of his Naziritism), it is, therefore, written "and he shall devote … and he shall bring, etc." Though he has not yet brought (the guilt-offering), he may re-devote himself (to Naziritism). R. Yishmael the son of R. Yochanan b. Berokah says: This, too, is categorical, it being written "And he shall devote to the L-rd, etc." (the verse being understood as ) "When (shall he devote to the L-rd)?" when he has brought a lamb of the first year as a guilt-offering. "and the first days shall fall off": Whence is it derived that if one declares himself a Nazirite for a hundred days and he becomes tamei on the ninety-ninth day, he voids all (of the previous count)? From "and the first days shall fall off" — One who has later days voids (the first days). Perhaps even one who becomes tamei on the hundredth day voids all (of the previous count). It is, therefore, written "and the first days shall fall off" — One who has later days voids (the first days), but this one has no later days. Perhaps even if he becomes tamei in the beginning of the hundred (i.e., on the first day) he voids all. It is, therefore, written "and the first days shall fall off" — One who has first "days" (plural), voids, but this one does not have (them). "because his Naziritism was tamei": Tumah voids all, but shaving does not void all. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If tumah (i.e., making himself tamei) is forbidden and shaving is forbidden, if I have learned that tumah voids all, shaving, too, should void all. And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If tumah, where the defiler (i.e., one who makes a Nazirite tamei) is not equated (for liability) with the defiled (i.e., the Nazirite who makes himself tamei), (if tumah) voids all, then shaving, where the shaver (of a Nazirite) is equated (for liability) with the shaved (i.e., the Nazirite who shaves himself), how much more so should he void all! It is, therefore, written "because his Naziritism was tamei" — Tumah voids all, but shaving does not void all, (but just the first thirty days). This (6:11 "and he shall hallow his head to that day") tells me only that the days of his tumah are not counted towards his Naziritism. Whence do I derive (the same for) the days of his confirmation (as a leper)? (i.e., If the Nazirite were a leper, and the Cohein quarantined him, and the plague-spot spread, and he were confirmed as tamei — Whence do I derive that the days of his confirmation are not counted towards his Naziritism?) And it follows (that they should not be counted, viz.: Since the days of his (Nazirite) tumah require shaving and the bringing of an offering, as do the days of confirmation (as a leper), then if I have learned about the days of his tumah that they are not counted towards his Naziritism, so should I learn about the days of his confirmation (as a leper). — No, this may be true of the days of his tumah, which void the preceding days, wherefore they are not counted towards his Naziritism. But would you say the same for the days of his confirmation, which do not void the preceding days? — wherefore they should be counted! Would you say that? It follows a fortiori (that they should not be counted), viz.: If one who undertakes Naziritism in the cemetery, whose hair is susceptible of shaving (for new Naziritism after he leaves the cemetery) — If his preceding days are not counted towards his Naziritism, then the days of his (leprosy) confirmation, when his hair is not susceptible of the shaving for Naziritism, how much more so should they not be counted. And the same (i.e., that they are not counted towards his Naziritism) is true for the days of his counting (seven days outside of his tent, Vayikra 14:8).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy