Nazir

MISHNAH. THREE THINGS ARE FORBIDDEN THE NAZIRITE, VIZ: — DEFILEMENT, POLLING AND PRODUCTS OF THE VINE. DEFILEMENT AND POLLING HAVE A STRINGENCY NOT POSSESSED BY PRODUCTS OF THE VINE IN THAT DEFILEMENT AND POLLING RENDER VOID [THE PREVIOUS PERIOD], WHEREAS [PARTAKING OF] PRODUCTS OF THE VINE DOES NOT DO SO. PRODUCTS OF THE VINE HAVE A STRINGENCY NOT POSSESSED BY DEFILEMENT OR POLLING IN THAT PRODUCTS OF THE VINE PERMIT OF NO EXCEPTION FROM THE GENERAL PROHIBITION,  WHEREAS DEFILEMENT AND POLLING ARE ALLOWED AS EXCEPTION FROM THE GENERAL PROHIBITION IN THE CASE WHERE POLLING IS A RELIGIOUS DUTY,  OR WHERE THERE IS A METH MIZWAH.  DEFILEMENT ALSO HAS A STRINGENCY NOT POSSESSED BY POLLING, IN THAT DEFILEMENT RENDERS VOID THE WHOLE OF THE PRECEDING PERIOD,  AND ENTAILS THE OFFERING OF A SACRIFICE, WHEREAS POLLING RENDERS VOID ONLY THIRTY DAYS AND DOES NOT ENTAIL A SACRIFICE. GEMARA. Why should not defilement also permit of no exception from the general prohibition, in virtue of the following a fortiori argument from wine? Seeing that wine which does not render void [the previous period] permits of no exception from the general prohibition, then defilement which does render void [the previous period] should certainly not permit of an exception from the general prohibition? — The text says, Nor defile himself for his father or for his mother,  signifying that it is only for his father or for his mother that he is forbidden to defile himself, whereas he is required to defile himself for a meth mizwah. Then why should not wine permit of an exception from the general prohibition because of the following a fortiori argument from defilement? Seeing that defilement, which renders void [the previous period], permits of an exception from the general prohibition, then wine which does not render void [the previous period] should certainly permit of an exception from the general prohibition? — The verse says, He shall abstain from wine and strong drink,  thus forbidding wine that should be drunk as a ritual obligation  as well as wine that he might drink from choice. Then why should not wine render void the whole [of the previous period] because of the following a fortiori argument from defilement? Seeing that defilement which permits of an exception from the general prohibition renders void [the previous period], then wine which permits of no exception should certainly render void [the preceding period]? — The verse says, But the former days shall be void because his consecration was defiled,  signifying that defilement renders void, but wine does not do so. Why should not polling render void the whole [of the previous period]  because of the following a fortiori argument from defilement? Seeing that defilement, the agent of which is not subjected to the same [penalty] as the patient,  renders void the whole [of the previous period], then polling where the agent is subject to the same penalty as the patient,  should certainly render void the whole [of the preceding period]? — The verse says, But the former days shall be void because his consecration was defiled  signifying that defilement renders void the whole [of the preceding period], but polling does not do so. Why should not the agent be subject to the same [penalty] as the patient in the case of defilement, because of the following a fortiori argument from polling? Seeing that in the case of polling, where only thirty days are rendered void, the agent is subject to the same [penalty] as the patient, then in the case of defilement where the whole [of the preceding period] is rendered void, the agent should certainly be subject to the same [penalty] as the patient? The verse says, And he defile his consecrated head  signifying [that the penalty is only] for him who defiles his [own] consecrated head. Then polling should not result in the agent being subject to the same [penalty] as the patient, because of the following a fortiori argument from defilement. Seeing that in the case of defilement, where the whole [of the preceding period] is rendered void, the agent is not subject to the same [penalty] as the patient, then in the case of polling, which does not render void the whole [of the preceding period], the agent should certainly not be subject to the same [penalty] as the patient? — The verse says, There shall no razor come upon his head,  and can be read as signifying that he shall not make it come himself, and that no other shall make it come either. Polling should not permit of an exception from the general prohibition because of the following a fortiori argument front wine. Seeing that wine which does not render void [the preceding period] permits of no exception from the general prohibition, then polling which does render void [the preceding period] should certainly permit of no exception? — The All-Merciful mentions both his hair and his beard. Then polling should not render void any [of the preceding period] because of the following a fortiori argument from wine. Seeing that wine which permits of no exception does not render void, polling which does permit of an exception from the general prohibition should certainly not render void? — We require a sufficient growth of hair and this would be lacking. Why should not wine render void thirty days because of the following a fortiori argument from polling? Seeing that polling, which permits of an exception from the general prohibition, renders void [thirty days], then wine which permits of no exception from the general prohibition should certainly do so? — Is not the only reason  because there must be a sufficient growth of hair? After wine his hair is still intact.