Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 2, 2015 | 讬状讞 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Nazir 11

诪转谞讬壮 诪讝讙讜 诇讜 讗转 讛讻讜住 讜讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诪诪谞讜 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讝讬专 诪注砖讛 讘讗砖讛 讗讞转 砖讛讬转讛 砖讬讻讜专讛 讜诪讝讙讜 诇讛 讗转 讛讻讜住 讜讗诪专讛 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专讛 诪诪谞讜 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谞讛 讝讜 讗诇讗 诇讜诪专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 注诇讬 拽专讘谉

MISHNA: If they poured one a cup of wine and he said: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from it, he is a full-fledged nazirite who must observe all the halakhot of naziriteship. An incident occurred with regard to a certain woman who was intoxicated from wine, and they poured a cup for her and she said: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from it. The Sages said: This woman did not intend to accept naziriteship but rather, meant to say: It is hereby forbidden to me as an offering. She vowed against deriving benefit from that cup alone, since she did not want to drink any more.

讙诪壮 诪注砖讛 诇住转讜专 讗诪专转 专讬砖讗 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讝讬专 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 诪注砖讛 讘讗砖讛 讗讞转 讗诇诪讗 讘讛讗讬 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讛讗 讬讬谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 砖专讬

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Was an incident cited to contradict the previous ruling? You said in the first clause of the mishna that if one said that he is hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from a cup that was poured for him, then he is a nazirite. And the tanna then teaches: An incident occurred with regard to a certain woman who said: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from it, which the Sages interpreted as a vow rendering the cup forbidden to her like an offering. Apparently it is only with regard to this cup of wine that is forbidden to her; consequently, any other wine is permitted, and she is not a nazirite.

讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪讝讙讜 诇讜 讗转 讛讻讜住 讜讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诪诪谞讜 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讝讬专 讜讗诐 砖讬讻讜专 讛讜讗 讜讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诪诪谞讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讝讬专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 拽专讘谉 讛讜讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇讬诪讗 讛讻讬 住讘专 诪讬讬转讬谉 诇讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜诪爪注专谉 诇讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讛讜 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚驻住讬拽讗 诇讛讜 讜诪注砖讛 谞诪讬 讘讗砖讛 讗讞转

The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: If they poured a cup of wine for one and he said: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from it, he is a nazirite. And if he is intoxicated and they pour a cup of wine for him and he said: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from it, he is not a nazirite. What is the reason for this? He is considered to be like one who said: This cup is forbidden to me like an offering. The Gemara asks: And if you would say that this was his meaning, let him say so explicitly; why would he say: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from it? The reason is because he maintains: If I specify this cup, they will bring me another cup and aggravate me with it. It is better that I say to them this statement, which is definitive to them, and they will understand that I do not want to drink any more wine. The mishna continues: And an incident also occurred with regard to a certain woman who was intoxicated and took this vow, and the Sages explained her statement accordingly.

诪转谞讬壮 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讛讗 砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 讜诪讬讟诪讗 诇诪转讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讝讬专 讜讗住讜专 讘讻讜诇谉

MISHNA: If one says: I am hereby a nazirite on the condition that I will be allowed to drink wine and may become ritually impure from corpses, i.e., he wishes to be a nazirite only with respect to the growth of his hair, he is a full-fledged nazirite and is prohibited from engaging in all of the behaviors forbidden to a nazirite, including consuming products of the vine and contracting impurity from a corpse.

讬讜讚注 讗谞讬 砖讬砖 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讘诇 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖讛谞讝讬专 讗住讜专 讘讬讬谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讗住讜专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 讬讜讚注 讗谞讬 砖讛谞讝讬专 讗住讜专 讘讬讬谉 讗讘诇 住讘讜专 讛讬讬转讬 砖讞讻诪讬诐 诪转讬专讬谉 诇讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 讗谞讬 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讬讜转 讗诇讗 讘讬讬谉 讗讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讗谞讬 拽讜讘专 讗转 讛诪转讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜转专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜住专

If one stated a vow of naziriteship and then said: I know that there is naziriteship, but I do not know that a nazirite is prohibited from wine, he is prohibited in all the prohibitions of naziriteship. But Rabbi Shimon permits him, since he holds that naziriteship takes effect only if the person accepts all the relevant prohibitions. If one said: I know that a nazirite is prohibited from wine, but I thought that the Sages would permit me to drink wine because I cannot live without wine, or: I thought that the Sages would allow me to contract impurity from corpses because I bury the dead, he is permitted and the vow of naziriteship does not take effect, but Rabbi Shimon prohibits him.

讙诪壮 讜诇驻诇讜讙 谞诪讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讬砖讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讞诇讜拽 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗祝 讘专讬砖讗

GEMARA: In the second case of the mishna, where one states that he did not know that the prohibitions of naziriteship include wine, Rabbi Shimon says that the naziriteship does not take effect because he did not include all of the prohibitions in his vow. The Gemara therefore asks: Let Rabbi Shimon disagree with the first tanna in the first clause in the mishna as well, where one said: I am hereby a nazirite on the condition that I may drink wine. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: In fact, Rabbi Shimon disagrees even with the first tanna in the first clause of the mishna, and the mishna鈥檚 statement: Rabbi Shimon permits him, is referring to both clauses.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讘专讬砖讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪转谞讛 注诇 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘转讜专讛 讜讻诇 讛诪转谞讛 注诇 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘转讜专讛 转谞讗讜 讘讟诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专 诇讱 [讛讗讬] 注诇 诪谞转 讻讞讜抓 讚诪讬

Ravina said: Rabbi Shimon does not disagree with the first tanna in the first clause of the mishna. What is the reason for that? It is because one was stipulating counter to that which is written in the Torah by attempting to limit an explicit Torah law, and with regard to anyone who stipulates counter to that which is written in the Torah, his stipulation is void. The statement: I am hereby a nazirite, remains valid, and he is therefore a nazirite in all regards. Conversely, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi could have said to you: This phrase: On the condition, does not mean he accepts upon himself all the halakhot of naziriteship and then adds a stipulation counter to that which is written in the Torah; rather, it is considered like he said: Apart from. It is as though he stated from the outset that he will be a nazirite apart from one particular aspect. According to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, Rabbi Shimon holds that since he is not trying to stipulate alternative halakhot for full naziriteship but is instead accepting a partial naziriteship, his vow takes effect.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讛讗 砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 讜诪讬讟诪讗 诇诪转讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讝讬专 讜讗住讜专 讘讻讜诇谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪转谞讛 注诇 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘转讜专讛 讜讻诇 讛诪转谞讛 注诇 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘转讜专讛 转谞讗讜 讘讟诇

The Gemara comments: It is taught in the Tosefta (Nazir 2:2) in accordance with the opinion of Ravina. If one said: I am hereby a nazirite on the condition that I will be allowed to drink wine and may become ritually impure from corpses, he is a nazirite and is prohibited from all of them because he stipulates counter to that which is written in the Torah, and with regard to anyone who stipulates counter to that which is written in the Torah, his stipulation is void.

讬讜讚注 讗谞讬 砖讛谞讝讬专 讗住讜专 讘讬讬谉 讜讛讗诪专转 专讬砖讗 讗住讜专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 讗讬诪讗 谞诪讬 讛专讬 讝讛 讗住讜专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 转讬驻讜讱 讛转诐

搂 The final clause of the mishna teaches that if one says: I know that a nazirite is prohibited from drinking wine but I thought that the Sages would permit me to drink, the Rabbis say that the vow is void, but Rabbi Shimon disagrees. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 you say in the earlier clause of the mishna that with regard to one who says: But I did not know that a nazirite is prohibited from wine, the first tanna holds that he is prohibited and Rabbi Shimon permits him? What is the difference between the two cases? The Gemara answers: Emend the text and say in the final clause as well: He is prohibited, and Rabbi Shimon permits him. And if you wish, say instead: Actually, do not reverse the opinions, and leave the text as it is. Instead, distinguish between the two cases, as there

专讬砖讗 讻讙讜谉 讚谞讝专 诪讞讚讗 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 谞讝专 讗诇讗 诪讗讞转 诪讛谉 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 讜讗住讜专 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 注讚 砖讬讝讬专 诪讻讜诇诐 诪讜转专

in the earlier clause, where one said: I did not know that a nazirite is prohibited from drinking wine, that is a case where he vowed naziriteship with regard to only one of the prohibitions. The difference of opinion is as follows: According to the Rabbis, who say that even if he vowed naziriteship with regard to only one of the prohibitions of naziriteship he is nevertheless a nazirite, in that case he is prohibited by all of them, despite not knowing about the prohibition against consuming wine. According to Rabbi Shimon who said he is not a nazirite unless he takes a vow of naziriteship with regard to all of them, he is permitted.

住讬驻讗 讚谞讚专 诪讻讜诇讛讜 讜讗讬转砖讬诇 诪讞讚讗

Conversely, the last clause addresses one who vowed naziriteship with regard to all of them, thereby accepting upon himself all the halakhot of naziriteship, and now wishes to request dissolution of one of the prohibitions, thinking that a halakhic authority can dissolve one aspect of his naziriteship.

诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 谞讝专 讗诇讗 诪讗讞转 诪讛谉 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 讻讬 诪转砖讬诇 诪讞讚讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬砖转专讬 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 注讚 砖讬讝讬专 诪讻讜诇诐 讻讬 诪转砖讬诇 谞诪讬 诪讛讛讜讗 注讚 讚诪转砖讬诇 诪讻讜诇讛讜 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜住专

The Gemara explains: According to the Rabbis, who say that even if he vowed naziriteship with regard to only one of the prohibitions of naziriteship he is nevertheless a nazirite, in that case too, when he requests of a halakhic authority to dissolve one of them, he is permitted to engage in all of the behaviors forbidden to a nazirite. Just as the acceptance of one part of naziriteship causes one to be bound by all the halakhot of naziriteship, dissolution of one element of naziriteship nullifies the entire naziriteship. According to Rabbi Shimon, who said that he is not a nazirite unless he takes a vow of naziriteship with regard to all of them, when he requests dissolution of that prohibition, none of the prohibitions are permitted until he requests dissolution of all of the prohibitions of nazirite-ship. Due to this the mishna teaches: And Rabbi Shimon prohibits him.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘谞讚专讬 讗讜谞住讬谉 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜专讘 讗住讬 讚转谞谉 讗专讘注讛 谞讚专讬诐 讛转讬专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 谞讚专讬 讝讬专讜讝讬谉 谞讚专讬 讛讘讗讬 谞讚专讬 砖讙讙讜转 谞讚专讬 讗讜谞住讬谉

And if you wish, say instead: The Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon disagree with regard to vows impeded by circumstances beyond one鈥檚 control, and their disagreement is in the dispute between Shmuel and Rav Asi. As we learned in a mishna (Nedarim 20b): The Sages dissolved four types of vows without the requirement of a request to a halakhic authority. The first category is vows of exhortation, where one employs a vow to urge another to perform some action. The second category is vows of exaggeration [havai], where one utters a vow that is dependent upon some outlandish claim, such as: I should be bound by a vow if I did not see a square snake. Since he knows that there are no square snakes, it is evident that he is not serious in taking his vow. The third category is vows that are unintentional, where one vows for a particular reason and later discovers he was mistaken with regard to the facts; and the fourth is vows whose fulfillment are impeded by circumstances beyond one鈥檚 control.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗专讘注讛 谞讚专讬诐 讛诇诇讜 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖讗诇讛 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讻讬 讗诪专讬转讛 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬 转谞讗 拽转谞讬 讛转讬专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讗转 讗诪专转 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖讗诇讛 诇讞讻诪讬诐

The Gemara relates the dispute between Shmuel and Rav Asi: And Rav Yehuda said that Rav Asi said: These four vows require a request made to the halakhic authorities to dissolve them, and the vows are not dissolved unless one does so. Rav Yehuda related: When I stated this halakha of Rav Asi before Shmuel, he said to me: The tanna teaches that the Sages dissolved them, and you say they require a request made to the halakhic authorities? Shmuel holds that they are dissolved automatically.

专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讻砖诪讜讗诇 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻专讘 讗住讬

The Gemara continues its explanation: The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon in the last clause of the mishna is also with regard to this halakha. This case is referring to a kind of a vow impeded by circumstances beyond one鈥檚 control, as he claims that he has no choice but to drink wine or contract impurity from corpses. The Rabbis hold in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, and therefore the vow is dissolved automatically, without the need to request dissolution from a halakhic authority; and Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Asi that one must make a request to a halakhic authority to dissolve the vow, and he remains a nazirite until he does so.

诪转谞讬壮 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讜注诇讬 诇讙诇讞 谞讝讬专 讜砖诪注 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 讜讗谞讬 讜注诇讬 诇讙诇讞 谞讝讬专 讗诐 讛讬讜 驻拽讞讬诐 诪讙诇讞讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诪讙诇讞讬谉 谞讝讬专讬诐 讗讞专讬诐

MISHNA: If one says: I am hereby a nazirite and it is incumbent upon me to shave a nazirite, meaning he will also pay for the offerings that a nazirite brings when he cuts his hair; and another heard and said: And I too am a nazirite and it is incumbent upon me to shave a nazirite, the other is also a nazirite and is obligated to pay for the offerings of a nazirite. If they were perspicacious and wish to limit their expenses, they shave each other. They may each pay for the other鈥檚 offerings, so that their additional vows will not cost them anything. And if not, if this arrangement did not occur to them and each brought his own offerings, they shave other nazirites, i.e., they must pay for the offerings of other nazirites.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖诪注 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 讜讗谞讬 诪讛讜 讜讗谞讬 讗讻讜诇讬讛 讚讬讘讜专讗 诪砖诪注 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗驻诇讙讬讛 讚讚讬讘讜专讗 诪砖诪注 讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讗驻诇讙讬讛 讚讚讬讘讜专讗 诪砖诪注 讗专讬砖讗 讗讜 讗住讬驻讗

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages. If one said: I am hereby a nazirite and it is incumbent upon me to shave a nazirite as well, and another heard and said only: And I, what is the halakha? Do we say that: And I, indicates acceptance of the entire statement of the first one, which would mean he is both a nazirite and must shave a nazirite, or perhaps it indicates acceptance of only half the statement of the first speaker? If you say it indicates acceptance of only half the statement, does it indicate acceptance of the first clause, i.e., I am hereby a nazirite, or the last clause, i.e., it is incumbent upon me to shave a nazirite?

转讗 砖诪注 讜讗谞讬 讜注诇讬 诇讙诇讞 谞讝讬专 讗诐 讛讬讜 驻拽讞讬诐 诪讙诇讞讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 诪讚拽讗诪专 讜讗谞讬 讜注诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讜讗谞讬 讗驻诇讙讬讛 讚讚讬讘讜专讗 讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 讗驻诇讙讬讛 讚讚讬讘讜专讗 诪砖诪注 诪讬讛讜 讗专讬砖讗 讗讜 讗住讬驻讗 诪讬谞讛 诪讚拽讗诪专 讜注诇讬 诇讙诇讞 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讜讗谞讬 注诇 转讞讬诇转 讚讬讘讜专讗 诪砖诪注

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna. If a second person said: And I, and it is incumbent upon me to shave a nazirite, then if they are perspicacious they shave each other. From the fact that it says: And I, and it is incumbent upon me, you can learn from this that: And I, indicates acceptance of only half the statement, as otherwise he would not need to add the second part. The Sages say in response to this attempted proof: Yes, this proves that it indicates acceptance of only half the statement. However, the other question still has not been answered: Is he referring to the first part of the original statement or to the last part? The Gemara answers: This can be learned from the mishna itself. From the fact that it says: And it is incumbent upon me to shave a nazirite, one can learn from this that: And I, indicates acceptance of the beginning of the statement to become a nazirite, which is why one has to add that he must also pay for the offerings of a nazirite.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘讗 诪诪讗讬 讚讛讻讬 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讜讗谞讬 讗讻讜诇讬讛 讚讚讬讘讜专讗 讜讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讜注诇讬 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讜注诇讬 讘讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讛专讬 注诇讬 诇讙诇讞 讞爪讬 谞讝讬专 讜砖诪注 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 讜讗谞讬 注诇讬 诇讙诇讞 讞爪讬 谞讝讬专 讛转诐 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 转专转讬谉 诪讬诇讬 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 注诇讬 讘讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬 拽讗诪专 注诇讬 讘讛讗 诪讬诇转讗

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rava: From where do you know that it is so that the words: And I, are referring to the first part of the statement? Actually, I will say to you that: And I, is referring to the entire statement, and if you claim otherwise because he added: And it is incumbent upon me, the explanation of what he is saying is: And it is incumbent on me to do this matter. He was merely clarifying what his intention was when he said: And I. As, if you do not say so, then with regard to that which is taught in the last clause, in the following mishna, that if one said: It is incumbent upon me to shave half a nazirite, and another heard that and said: And I, it is incumbent upon me to shave half a nazirite, then there, are there two statements? That mishna is addressing only a single vow. Rather, what is he saying by using the words: It is incumbent upon me? He is referring to that whole matter; here too, in this mishna, when he says: And it is incumbent upon me, he is referring to that whole matter.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 专讬砖讗 爪专讬讻讗 住讬驻讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讚诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诪砖讜诐 专讬砖讗 讚爪专讬讻讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 专讬砖讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 住讬驻讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 转谞讬 专讬砖讗 讚诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讜转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讚诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

Rava said to him: How can these cases be compared? Granted, if you say that in the first clause it is necessary to teach both parts of the statement and in the latter clause it is not necessary to teach both parts of the statement, then it can be said that he taught the unnecessary latter clause due to the necessary first clause, as it is typical for a mishna to phrase both of its sections in the same style. But if you say that it is not necessary to teach both parts of the statement in the first clause and it is also not necessary to teach both parts of the statement in the latter clause, as one has accepted the other鈥檚 entire statement by saying: And I, would the tanna teach an unnecessary first clause and teach an unnecessary latter clause? Since the addition of: And it is incumbent upon me, is not required in the latter mishna, it must be necessary in this mishna, so the inference of Rava is correct.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 诇砖诇讜讞讜

搂 After analyzing the mishna itself, the Gemara turns to a related issue. Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One who says to his agent:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Nazir 11

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 11

诪转谞讬壮 诪讝讙讜 诇讜 讗转 讛讻讜住 讜讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诪诪谞讜 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讝讬专 诪注砖讛 讘讗砖讛 讗讞转 砖讛讬转讛 砖讬讻讜专讛 讜诪讝讙讜 诇讛 讗转 讛讻讜住 讜讗诪专讛 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专讛 诪诪谞讜 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谞讛 讝讜 讗诇讗 诇讜诪专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 注诇讬 拽专讘谉

MISHNA: If they poured one a cup of wine and he said: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from it, he is a full-fledged nazirite who must observe all the halakhot of naziriteship. An incident occurred with regard to a certain woman who was intoxicated from wine, and they poured a cup for her and she said: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from it. The Sages said: This woman did not intend to accept naziriteship but rather, meant to say: It is hereby forbidden to me as an offering. She vowed against deriving benefit from that cup alone, since she did not want to drink any more.

讙诪壮 诪注砖讛 诇住转讜专 讗诪专转 专讬砖讗 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讝讬专 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 诪注砖讛 讘讗砖讛 讗讞转 讗诇诪讗 讘讛讗讬 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讛讗 讬讬谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 砖专讬

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Was an incident cited to contradict the previous ruling? You said in the first clause of the mishna that if one said that he is hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from a cup that was poured for him, then he is a nazirite. And the tanna then teaches: An incident occurred with regard to a certain woman who said: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from it, which the Sages interpreted as a vow rendering the cup forbidden to her like an offering. Apparently it is only with regard to this cup of wine that is forbidden to her; consequently, any other wine is permitted, and she is not a nazirite.

讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪讝讙讜 诇讜 讗转 讛讻讜住 讜讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诪诪谞讜 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讝讬专 讜讗诐 砖讬讻讜专 讛讜讗 讜讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诪诪谞讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讝讬专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 拽专讘谉 讛讜讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇讬诪讗 讛讻讬 住讘专 诪讬讬转讬谉 诇讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜诪爪注专谉 诇讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讛讜 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚驻住讬拽讗 诇讛讜 讜诪注砖讛 谞诪讬 讘讗砖讛 讗讞转

The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: If they poured a cup of wine for one and he said: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from it, he is a nazirite. And if he is intoxicated and they pour a cup of wine for him and he said: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from it, he is not a nazirite. What is the reason for this? He is considered to be like one who said: This cup is forbidden to me like an offering. The Gemara asks: And if you would say that this was his meaning, let him say so explicitly; why would he say: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from it? The reason is because he maintains: If I specify this cup, they will bring me another cup and aggravate me with it. It is better that I say to them this statement, which is definitive to them, and they will understand that I do not want to drink any more wine. The mishna continues: And an incident also occurred with regard to a certain woman who was intoxicated and took this vow, and the Sages explained her statement accordingly.

诪转谞讬壮 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讛讗 砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 讜诪讬讟诪讗 诇诪转讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讝讬专 讜讗住讜专 讘讻讜诇谉

MISHNA: If one says: I am hereby a nazirite on the condition that I will be allowed to drink wine and may become ritually impure from corpses, i.e., he wishes to be a nazirite only with respect to the growth of his hair, he is a full-fledged nazirite and is prohibited from engaging in all of the behaviors forbidden to a nazirite, including consuming products of the vine and contracting impurity from a corpse.

讬讜讚注 讗谞讬 砖讬砖 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讘诇 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖讛谞讝讬专 讗住讜专 讘讬讬谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讗住讜专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 讬讜讚注 讗谞讬 砖讛谞讝讬专 讗住讜专 讘讬讬谉 讗讘诇 住讘讜专 讛讬讬转讬 砖讞讻诪讬诐 诪转讬专讬谉 诇讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 讗谞讬 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讬讜转 讗诇讗 讘讬讬谉 讗讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讗谞讬 拽讜讘专 讗转 讛诪转讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜转专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜住专

If one stated a vow of naziriteship and then said: I know that there is naziriteship, but I do not know that a nazirite is prohibited from wine, he is prohibited in all the prohibitions of naziriteship. But Rabbi Shimon permits him, since he holds that naziriteship takes effect only if the person accepts all the relevant prohibitions. If one said: I know that a nazirite is prohibited from wine, but I thought that the Sages would permit me to drink wine because I cannot live without wine, or: I thought that the Sages would allow me to contract impurity from corpses because I bury the dead, he is permitted and the vow of naziriteship does not take effect, but Rabbi Shimon prohibits him.

讙诪壮 讜诇驻诇讜讙 谞诪讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讬砖讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讞诇讜拽 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗祝 讘专讬砖讗

GEMARA: In the second case of the mishna, where one states that he did not know that the prohibitions of naziriteship include wine, Rabbi Shimon says that the naziriteship does not take effect because he did not include all of the prohibitions in his vow. The Gemara therefore asks: Let Rabbi Shimon disagree with the first tanna in the first clause in the mishna as well, where one said: I am hereby a nazirite on the condition that I may drink wine. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: In fact, Rabbi Shimon disagrees even with the first tanna in the first clause of the mishna, and the mishna鈥檚 statement: Rabbi Shimon permits him, is referring to both clauses.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讘专讬砖讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪转谞讛 注诇 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘转讜专讛 讜讻诇 讛诪转谞讛 注诇 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘转讜专讛 转谞讗讜 讘讟诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专 诇讱 [讛讗讬] 注诇 诪谞转 讻讞讜抓 讚诪讬

Ravina said: Rabbi Shimon does not disagree with the first tanna in the first clause of the mishna. What is the reason for that? It is because one was stipulating counter to that which is written in the Torah by attempting to limit an explicit Torah law, and with regard to anyone who stipulates counter to that which is written in the Torah, his stipulation is void. The statement: I am hereby a nazirite, remains valid, and he is therefore a nazirite in all regards. Conversely, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi could have said to you: This phrase: On the condition, does not mean he accepts upon himself all the halakhot of naziriteship and then adds a stipulation counter to that which is written in the Torah; rather, it is considered like he said: Apart from. It is as though he stated from the outset that he will be a nazirite apart from one particular aspect. According to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, Rabbi Shimon holds that since he is not trying to stipulate alternative halakhot for full naziriteship but is instead accepting a partial naziriteship, his vow takes effect.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讛讗 砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 讜诪讬讟诪讗 诇诪转讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讝讬专 讜讗住讜专 讘讻讜诇谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪转谞讛 注诇 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘转讜专讛 讜讻诇 讛诪转谞讛 注诇 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘转讜专讛 转谞讗讜 讘讟诇

The Gemara comments: It is taught in the Tosefta (Nazir 2:2) in accordance with the opinion of Ravina. If one said: I am hereby a nazirite on the condition that I will be allowed to drink wine and may become ritually impure from corpses, he is a nazirite and is prohibited from all of them because he stipulates counter to that which is written in the Torah, and with regard to anyone who stipulates counter to that which is written in the Torah, his stipulation is void.

讬讜讚注 讗谞讬 砖讛谞讝讬专 讗住讜专 讘讬讬谉 讜讛讗诪专转 专讬砖讗 讗住讜专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 讗讬诪讗 谞诪讬 讛专讬 讝讛 讗住讜专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 转讬驻讜讱 讛转诐

搂 The final clause of the mishna teaches that if one says: I know that a nazirite is prohibited from drinking wine but I thought that the Sages would permit me to drink, the Rabbis say that the vow is void, but Rabbi Shimon disagrees. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 you say in the earlier clause of the mishna that with regard to one who says: But I did not know that a nazirite is prohibited from wine, the first tanna holds that he is prohibited and Rabbi Shimon permits him? What is the difference between the two cases? The Gemara answers: Emend the text and say in the final clause as well: He is prohibited, and Rabbi Shimon permits him. And if you wish, say instead: Actually, do not reverse the opinions, and leave the text as it is. Instead, distinguish between the two cases, as there

专讬砖讗 讻讙讜谉 讚谞讝专 诪讞讚讗 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 谞讝专 讗诇讗 诪讗讞转 诪讛谉 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 讜讗住讜专 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 注讚 砖讬讝讬专 诪讻讜诇诐 诪讜转专

in the earlier clause, where one said: I did not know that a nazirite is prohibited from drinking wine, that is a case where he vowed naziriteship with regard to only one of the prohibitions. The difference of opinion is as follows: According to the Rabbis, who say that even if he vowed naziriteship with regard to only one of the prohibitions of naziriteship he is nevertheless a nazirite, in that case he is prohibited by all of them, despite not knowing about the prohibition against consuming wine. According to Rabbi Shimon who said he is not a nazirite unless he takes a vow of naziriteship with regard to all of them, he is permitted.

住讬驻讗 讚谞讚专 诪讻讜诇讛讜 讜讗讬转砖讬诇 诪讞讚讗

Conversely, the last clause addresses one who vowed naziriteship with regard to all of them, thereby accepting upon himself all the halakhot of naziriteship, and now wishes to request dissolution of one of the prohibitions, thinking that a halakhic authority can dissolve one aspect of his naziriteship.

诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 谞讝专 讗诇讗 诪讗讞转 诪讛谉 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 讻讬 诪转砖讬诇 诪讞讚讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬砖转专讬 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 注讚 砖讬讝讬专 诪讻讜诇诐 讻讬 诪转砖讬诇 谞诪讬 诪讛讛讜讗 注讚 讚诪转砖讬诇 诪讻讜诇讛讜 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜住专

The Gemara explains: According to the Rabbis, who say that even if he vowed naziriteship with regard to only one of the prohibitions of naziriteship he is nevertheless a nazirite, in that case too, when he requests of a halakhic authority to dissolve one of them, he is permitted to engage in all of the behaviors forbidden to a nazirite. Just as the acceptance of one part of naziriteship causes one to be bound by all the halakhot of naziriteship, dissolution of one element of naziriteship nullifies the entire naziriteship. According to Rabbi Shimon, who said that he is not a nazirite unless he takes a vow of naziriteship with regard to all of them, when he requests dissolution of that prohibition, none of the prohibitions are permitted until he requests dissolution of all of the prohibitions of nazirite-ship. Due to this the mishna teaches: And Rabbi Shimon prohibits him.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘谞讚专讬 讗讜谞住讬谉 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜专讘 讗住讬 讚转谞谉 讗专讘注讛 谞讚专讬诐 讛转讬专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 谞讚专讬 讝讬专讜讝讬谉 谞讚专讬 讛讘讗讬 谞讚专讬 砖讙讙讜转 谞讚专讬 讗讜谞住讬谉

And if you wish, say instead: The Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon disagree with regard to vows impeded by circumstances beyond one鈥檚 control, and their disagreement is in the dispute between Shmuel and Rav Asi. As we learned in a mishna (Nedarim 20b): The Sages dissolved four types of vows without the requirement of a request to a halakhic authority. The first category is vows of exhortation, where one employs a vow to urge another to perform some action. The second category is vows of exaggeration [havai], where one utters a vow that is dependent upon some outlandish claim, such as: I should be bound by a vow if I did not see a square snake. Since he knows that there are no square snakes, it is evident that he is not serious in taking his vow. The third category is vows that are unintentional, where one vows for a particular reason and later discovers he was mistaken with regard to the facts; and the fourth is vows whose fulfillment are impeded by circumstances beyond one鈥檚 control.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗专讘注讛 谞讚专讬诐 讛诇诇讜 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖讗诇讛 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讻讬 讗诪专讬转讛 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬 转谞讗 拽转谞讬 讛转讬专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讗转 讗诪专转 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖讗诇讛 诇讞讻诪讬诐

The Gemara relates the dispute between Shmuel and Rav Asi: And Rav Yehuda said that Rav Asi said: These four vows require a request made to the halakhic authorities to dissolve them, and the vows are not dissolved unless one does so. Rav Yehuda related: When I stated this halakha of Rav Asi before Shmuel, he said to me: The tanna teaches that the Sages dissolved them, and you say they require a request made to the halakhic authorities? Shmuel holds that they are dissolved automatically.

专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讻砖诪讜讗诇 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻专讘 讗住讬

The Gemara continues its explanation: The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon in the last clause of the mishna is also with regard to this halakha. This case is referring to a kind of a vow impeded by circumstances beyond one鈥檚 control, as he claims that he has no choice but to drink wine or contract impurity from corpses. The Rabbis hold in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, and therefore the vow is dissolved automatically, without the need to request dissolution from a halakhic authority; and Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Asi that one must make a request to a halakhic authority to dissolve the vow, and he remains a nazirite until he does so.

诪转谞讬壮 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讜注诇讬 诇讙诇讞 谞讝讬专 讜砖诪注 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 讜讗谞讬 讜注诇讬 诇讙诇讞 谞讝讬专 讗诐 讛讬讜 驻拽讞讬诐 诪讙诇讞讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诪讙诇讞讬谉 谞讝讬专讬诐 讗讞专讬诐

MISHNA: If one says: I am hereby a nazirite and it is incumbent upon me to shave a nazirite, meaning he will also pay for the offerings that a nazirite brings when he cuts his hair; and another heard and said: And I too am a nazirite and it is incumbent upon me to shave a nazirite, the other is also a nazirite and is obligated to pay for the offerings of a nazirite. If they were perspicacious and wish to limit their expenses, they shave each other. They may each pay for the other鈥檚 offerings, so that their additional vows will not cost them anything. And if not, if this arrangement did not occur to them and each brought his own offerings, they shave other nazirites, i.e., they must pay for the offerings of other nazirites.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖诪注 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 讜讗谞讬 诪讛讜 讜讗谞讬 讗讻讜诇讬讛 讚讬讘讜专讗 诪砖诪注 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗驻诇讙讬讛 讚讚讬讘讜专讗 诪砖诪注 讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讗驻诇讙讬讛 讚讚讬讘讜专讗 诪砖诪注 讗专讬砖讗 讗讜 讗住讬驻讗

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages. If one said: I am hereby a nazirite and it is incumbent upon me to shave a nazirite as well, and another heard and said only: And I, what is the halakha? Do we say that: And I, indicates acceptance of the entire statement of the first one, which would mean he is both a nazirite and must shave a nazirite, or perhaps it indicates acceptance of only half the statement of the first speaker? If you say it indicates acceptance of only half the statement, does it indicate acceptance of the first clause, i.e., I am hereby a nazirite, or the last clause, i.e., it is incumbent upon me to shave a nazirite?

转讗 砖诪注 讜讗谞讬 讜注诇讬 诇讙诇讞 谞讝讬专 讗诐 讛讬讜 驻拽讞讬诐 诪讙诇讞讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 诪讚拽讗诪专 讜讗谞讬 讜注诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讜讗谞讬 讗驻诇讙讬讛 讚讚讬讘讜专讗 讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 讗驻诇讙讬讛 讚讚讬讘讜专讗 诪砖诪注 诪讬讛讜 讗专讬砖讗 讗讜 讗住讬驻讗 诪讬谞讛 诪讚拽讗诪专 讜注诇讬 诇讙诇讞 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讜讗谞讬 注诇 转讞讬诇转 讚讬讘讜专讗 诪砖诪注

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna. If a second person said: And I, and it is incumbent upon me to shave a nazirite, then if they are perspicacious they shave each other. From the fact that it says: And I, and it is incumbent upon me, you can learn from this that: And I, indicates acceptance of only half the statement, as otherwise he would not need to add the second part. The Sages say in response to this attempted proof: Yes, this proves that it indicates acceptance of only half the statement. However, the other question still has not been answered: Is he referring to the first part of the original statement or to the last part? The Gemara answers: This can be learned from the mishna itself. From the fact that it says: And it is incumbent upon me to shave a nazirite, one can learn from this that: And I, indicates acceptance of the beginning of the statement to become a nazirite, which is why one has to add that he must also pay for the offerings of a nazirite.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘讗 诪诪讗讬 讚讛讻讬 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讜讗谞讬 讗讻讜诇讬讛 讚讚讬讘讜专讗 讜讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讜注诇讬 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讜注诇讬 讘讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讛专讬 注诇讬 诇讙诇讞 讞爪讬 谞讝讬专 讜砖诪注 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 讜讗谞讬 注诇讬 诇讙诇讞 讞爪讬 谞讝讬专 讛转诐 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 转专转讬谉 诪讬诇讬 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 注诇讬 讘讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬 拽讗诪专 注诇讬 讘讛讗 诪讬诇转讗

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rava: From where do you know that it is so that the words: And I, are referring to the first part of the statement? Actually, I will say to you that: And I, is referring to the entire statement, and if you claim otherwise because he added: And it is incumbent upon me, the explanation of what he is saying is: And it is incumbent on me to do this matter. He was merely clarifying what his intention was when he said: And I. As, if you do not say so, then with regard to that which is taught in the last clause, in the following mishna, that if one said: It is incumbent upon me to shave half a nazirite, and another heard that and said: And I, it is incumbent upon me to shave half a nazirite, then there, are there two statements? That mishna is addressing only a single vow. Rather, what is he saying by using the words: It is incumbent upon me? He is referring to that whole matter; here too, in this mishna, when he says: And it is incumbent upon me, he is referring to that whole matter.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 专讬砖讗 爪专讬讻讗 住讬驻讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讚诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诪砖讜诐 专讬砖讗 讚爪专讬讻讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 专讬砖讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 住讬驻讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 转谞讬 专讬砖讗 讚诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讜转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讚诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

Rava said to him: How can these cases be compared? Granted, if you say that in the first clause it is necessary to teach both parts of the statement and in the latter clause it is not necessary to teach both parts of the statement, then it can be said that he taught the unnecessary latter clause due to the necessary first clause, as it is typical for a mishna to phrase both of its sections in the same style. But if you say that it is not necessary to teach both parts of the statement in the first clause and it is also not necessary to teach both parts of the statement in the latter clause, as one has accepted the other鈥檚 entire statement by saying: And I, would the tanna teach an unnecessary first clause and teach an unnecessary latter clause? Since the addition of: And it is incumbent upon me, is not required in the latter mishna, it must be necessary in this mishna, so the inference of Rava is correct.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 诇砖诇讜讞讜

搂 After analyzing the mishna itself, the Gemara turns to a related issue. Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One who says to his agent:

Scroll To Top