נטמא בימי צרעתו רבי יוחנן אמר סותר ריש לקיש אמר אינו סותר

These two amora’im have a similar dispute in the case of one who contracted leprosy during his naziriteship and became impure by coming into contact with corpse during the days of his leprosy. Although the days of his leprosy do not negate the previous days of his naziriteship, they are not counted as part of his naziriteship either. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Contraction of impurity from a corpse negates the days of naziriteship observed before his leprosy, which means he must start counting afresh once he is purified of leprosy. Reish Lakish says: It does not negate the days he has observed, and he need observe only the remaining days of his naziriteship after his purification.

רבי יוחנן אמר סותר דהא בנזירות קאי ריש לקיש אמר אינו סותר צרעת לחוד ונזירות לחוד

The Gemara clarifies their respective approaches. Rabbi Yoḥanan says the impurity from a corpse negates the days he already observed, since he remains in a period of naziriteship even when he is a leper, as his leprosy does not negate his naziriteship. Reish Lakish says it does not negate the days he observed, since he maintains that leprosy is discrete and naziriteship is discrete. One’s time as a leper is not considered part of his naziriteship.

וצריכא דאי איתמר בהך קמייתא בההיא אמר רבי יוחנן סותר שם נזירות אחת היא אבל בהא אימא מודה ליה לריש לקיש דנזיר לחוד וצרעת לחוד

The Gemara comments: And it is necessary to teach this dispute in both cases. As, if it were stated in this first one, with regard to one who became impure during his term of naziriteship for the birth of his son, one might say that it is specifically in that case that Rabbi Yoḥanan said it also negates the days of his standard naziriteship because there is one label of naziriteship that applies to both vows, but in this case, where the leper became impure from a corpse, one might say he concedes to Reish Lakish that it does not negate the days of his naziriteship that he has counted, since a nazirite is discrete and leprosy is discrete.

ואי איתמר בהא בהא קאמר ריש לקיש אבל בהך אימא מודה ליה לרבי יוחנן צריכא

And conversely, if it were stated only in this case, that of the leper who contracted impurity from a corpse, one might say that it is only in this case that Reish Lakish said it does not negate his days of naziriteship, but in that case, where one became impure while observing the term of naziriteship for his son, one might say he concedes to Rabbi Yoḥanan that it negates the entire period, since they are all days of naziriteship. Therefore, it is necessary for the dispute to be taught in both cases.

נטמא ביום גידול שער רב אמר אינו סותר אפילו לרבי יוחנן דאמר סותר הני מילי היכא דקאי בנזירות גידול שער מישלם נזירות הוא

In connection with the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish, the Gemara discusses the case of a nazirite who became impure on the day of his hair growth. The case is that of one who contracted leprosy during his naziriteship and then was purified from his condition and shaved, as required of him. At this point he must wait another thirty days so that his hair can grow enough for him to shave it for the end of his naziriteship. If he became impure during this additional period, Rav said: It does not negate the days he previously counted for his naziriteship. The Gemara explains: Even according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says that if one became impure during the days of the term of naziriteship for his son it negates the entire period, this statement applies only where he still remains in a period of naziriteship, but the time of hair growth is an addition to his period of naziriteship and is not considered part of the term itself.

ושמואל אמר סותר אפילו לריש לקיש דאמר אין סותר התם שתי נזירות הכא חדא נזירותא

And Shmuel said: It negates the earlier days. The Gemara explains: Even according to Reish Lakish, who says that becoming impure during the naziriteship for his son does not negate the days of his naziriteship, there it is referring to a case of two distinct terms of naziriteship, a standard one for himself and another for his son. But here it is one naziriteship, since the days he observes for the growth of his hair complete his naziriteship.

אמר רב חסדא הכל מודים שאם קדש שער בדם אין לו תקנה

§ Rav Ḥisda said: All concede that if the hair was consecrated during the sprinkling of the blood, he has no means of remedy. That is, if the nazirite had completed his term and brought his offerings, and the blood of the offerings was sprinkled, and he then became impure before shaving, he has no way to shave or to render wine permitted to him self. It has not been permitted through the offerings he brought because he has become impure, and he cannot bring other offerings for this purpose since one may not bring two sets of offerings for the same term of naziriteship.

אליבא דמאן אי אליבא דרבי אליעזר כיון דאמר תגלחת מעכבת תוך מלאת היא ולסתור אלא אליבא דרבנן האמרי תגלחת לא מעכבת לעולם אליבא דרבנן ומאי אין לו תקנה אין לו תקנה למצות גילוח

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Rav Ḥisda state this halakha? If one says that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, this cannot be, since Rabbi Eliezer said that shaving is indispensable to the completion of naziriteship. The impurity is therefore contracted within the full term of his naziriteship, in which case it would not make sense that he has no remedy; but let it instead negate his days of naziriteship, and he will observe them again, after which he will shave. Rather, perhaps Rav Ḥisda spoke in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis; didn’t they say that shaving is not indispensable to the completion of naziriteship, which means his impurity occurred when he was no longer a nazirite? The Gemara answers: Actually, Rav Ḥisda ruled in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and what is the meaning of: He has no means of remedy? It means: He has no means of remedy for the mitzva of shaving, i. e., he cannot fulfill the mitzva of shaving in purity as required.

אמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא נזיר שכלו לו ימיו לוקה על הטומאה ואינו לוקה על התגלחת ולא על היין מאי שנא טומאה דלקי דאמר קרא כל ימי הזירו לה׳ לרבות ימים שלאחר מלאת כימים שלפני מלאת

§ Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: A nazirite whose days of naziriteship are completed but who has yet to bring his offerings is flogged for the contracting of impurity if he becomes impure from a corpse, like any nazirite who becomes impure, but he is not flogged for the act of shaving, nor for the drinking of wine. The Gemara asks: What is different with regard to impurity that he is flogged for it? It is as the verse states: “ All the days that he has consecrated himself unto the Lord he shall not come near to a dead body” (Numbers 6:6). The additional word“ all” comes to include the days after the completion of his naziriteship and teaches that they are like the days before its completion with regard to the prohibition against contracting impurity from the dead. Therefore, he is liable to receive lashes.

אי הכי אתגלחת נמי ליחייב דהא אמר רחמנא כל ימי נדר נזרו תער לא יעבר על ראשו לעשות ימים שלאחר מלאת כימים שלפני מלאת ותו כל ימי נזרו מכל אשר יעשה מגפן היין לעשות ימים שלאחר מלאת כימים שלפני מלאת

The Gemara asks: If so, let him also be liable to receive lashes for shaving, since the Merciful One states in the Torah:“ All the days of his vow of naziriteship there shall no razor come upon his head” (Numbers 6:5). Here too, the word“ all” should render the days after the completion of his naziriteship like the days before its completion. And furthermore, with regard to wine as well, the verse states:“ All the days of his naziriteship, from anything that is made of the grapevine, from the pressed grapes even to the grapestone, he shall not eat” (Numbers 6:4). Once again, the word“ all” should render the days after the completion of his naziriteship like the days before its completion with regard to drinking wine. What is the reason for the difference in halakha between contracting impurity on the one hand, and shaving and drinking wine on the other?