About this episode
Study Guide Nazir 19 Today's daf is dedicated l'ilui nishmat Chana bat Reb Shimon by her sons, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and all who knew and loved her. A braita states that a woman who became a nazir, became impure to a dead person and then her husband nullified her vow, after she had separated birds for her sacrifice, she brings the sin offering but not the burnt offering. Rav Chisda connects this source to Rabbi Yishmael's opinion. A further question is asked on the braita: when the husband nullifies her vow, it is retroactive but why does she still need to bring the sin offering? It must accord also with Rabbi Elazar the Kapar who held that anyone who refrains from things such as drinking wine has sinned as one should not cause oneself to suffer. The Gemara refers back to and resolved a language issue in the Mishna and explains important details that weren't spelled out. Rabbi Eliezer required a minimum of two days of being a nazir before becoming impure. Ulla says that he was only referring to a case of one who accepted nezirut in impurity and then left and came back. But if one was a nazir and then became impure, that is not required. Abaye raises a difficulty against Ulla and it is not resolved. Does Rabbi Eliezer mean two full days or partial days? If one took upon oneself a long period of nezirut outside the land of Israel, when one comes to Israel to bring the sacrifices, one has to redo the entire period (Beit Hillel) or perhaps only thirty days (Beit Shamai) in purity in Israel as the rabbis decreed that all land outside of Israel is impure. A story is brought of Helene the Queen who ended up with an incredibly long period of nezirut on account of this law. What is the root of the debate between Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai?