Nazir 13

הפילה אשתו אינו נזיר רבי שמעון אומר יאמר אם היה בן קיימא הרי אני נזיר חובה ואם לאו הרי אני נזיר נדבה

However, if his wife miscarried he is not a nazirite, since his wife did not give birth to a live child. Rabbi Shimon says: Since it is possible that the fetus was viable, in which case his vow of naziriteship takes effect, he should say the following: If this fetus was viable in terms of its development but died due to other causes, I am hereby an obligatory nazirite in fulfillment of my vow; and if it was not viable, I am hereby a voluntary nazirite. He then proceeds to observe naziriteship.

חזרה וילדה הרי זה נזיר רבי שמעון אומר יאמר אם הראשון בן קיימא הראשון חובה וזו נדבה ואם לאו הראשון נדבה וזו חובה

If, subsequent to this, his wife gave birth again, he is a nazirite, since the unattributed opinion in the mishna holds that the condition of his vow has now been fulfilled. Rabbi Shimon says, following his earlier ruling: He must now accept upon himself an additional naziriteship and he should say: If the first fetus was viable then my naziriteship for the first child was obligatory, and this naziriteship is voluntary; and if the first child was not viable, then the naziriteship for the first one was voluntary and this naziriteship is obligatory.

גמ׳ האי מאי למימרא משום סיפא בת טומטום ואנדרוגינוס אינו נזיר פשיטא מהו דתימא לכשאבנה הוא דקאמר קא משמע לן דלא

GEMARA: With regard to the statement of the mishna that one who vowed to be a nazirite when a son is born to him is a nazirite when his son is born, the Gemara asks: What is the purpose of stating this ruling? Of course he is a nazirite. The Gemara answers: This halakha is stated due to the latter clause of that mishna, which states that if a daughter, a tumtum, or a hermaphrodite are born to him, he is not a nazirite. The Gemara questions this, too: Isn’t that obvious, since he specified a son? The Gemara answers: It is necessary lest you say he did not literally mean a son, but rather he meant to say: When I will be built up by means of any child, including the types listed. The mishna therefore teaches us that this is not the case.

ואם אמר כשיהיה לי ולד כו׳ פשיטא מהו דתימא ולד דמיחשב ביני אינשי בעינן קא משמע לן

The mishna also taught: And if he said: When I have a child, then even if he has a daughter, a tumtum, or a hermaphrodite, his vow takes effect. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that this is the case? The Gemara answers: It is necessary to state this lest you say that we require a child of the kind that is considered significant by people, and he meant to exclude these other types of children when he vowed. The mishna therefore teaches us that this is not so.

הפילה אשתו אינו נזיר מאן קתני לה רבי יהודה דכרי הוא

§ The mishna taught that if his wife miscarried he is not a nazirite, even though it may have been a viable child. The Gemara clarifies: According to whose opinion is this taught? The Gemara answers: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to a heap of wheat. Rabbi Yehuda holds that if one vows to be a nazirite if a heap contains a certain amount of wheat and it is unclear whether or not his condition was fulfilled, the halakha is ruled leniently, and he is not a nazirite.

רבי שמעון אומר יאמר אם היה בן קיימא הריני נזיר חובה ואם לאו הריני נזיר נדבה בעא מיניה רבי אבא מרב הונא הריני נזיר לכשיהיה לי בן והפילה אשתו והפריש קרבן וחזרה וילדה מהו

The mishna further taught that Rabbi Shimon says that the individual should say: If this fetus was viable in terms of its development but died due to other causes, I am hereby an obligatory nazirite in fulfillment of my vow; and if it was not viable, I am hereby a voluntary nazirite. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Abba inquired of Rav Huna: If one said: I am hereby a nazirite when I will have a son, and his wife miscarried, and he separated an offering for his naziriteship but did not sacrifice it, and his wife gave birth again to a son, what is the halakha with regard to the offering he separated?

אליבא דמאן אי אליבא דרבי שמעון מאי תיבעי ליה הא אמר רבי שמעון ספק נזירות להחמיר ואלא אליבא דרבי יהודה דאמר ספק נזירות להקל מאי קדוש או לא קדוש

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Rabbi Abba pose his question? If he asked it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, what dilemma is he raising? Didn’t Rabbi Shimon say: In a case of uncertainty with regard to naziriteship, the ruling is to be stringent? Here too, since the fetus might have been viable, he was required to separate the offerings after she miscarried, and he may not use those offerings for the naziriteship brought about by the later birth. Rather, one should say that the question was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that in a case of uncertainty with regard to naziriteship, the ruling is to be lenient. The question is as follows: What is the halakha in such a situation? Are the offerings already considered consecrated and need not be consecrated again, or are they not consecrated and therefore he must consecrate them a second time?

מאי נפקא מינה לגיזתו ולעבוד בו תיקו

The Gemara asks: What difference is there? In any case, he is certainly obligated to observe naziriteship now, and he must separate the offerings. The Gemara answers: The question is referring to the issue of its shearing and its labor. If they are considered consecrated from the initial consecration, it is prohibited to shear their wool and use them for labor, like any other consecrated animal. But if they are not yet consecrated, it is permitted to use them. No answer was found for this question, and the Gemara concludes that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

בעא מיניה בן רחומי מאביי הריני נזיר לכשיהא לי בן ושמע חבירו ואמר ועלי מהו אדיבוריה משמע או אגופיה משמע

§ With regard to one who accepted naziriteship upon himself that would begin upon the birth of his son, the Sage ben Reḥumi inquired of Abaye: If one said: I am hereby a nazirite when I will have a son, and another heard him and said: And it is incumbent upon me, what is the halakha with regard to the second person? Is the implication of his statement a concurrence to the statement of the first one, which would mean that he too accepts naziriteship upon himself when the first has a son, or is the implication of his statement meant to be understood about himself, i.e., that he has vowed to be a nazirite when he has a son of his own?

אם תמצי לומר אגופיה משמע אמר הריני נזיר לכשיהא לי בן ושמע חבירו ואמר ואני מהו אנפשיה קאמר או דילמא הכי קאמר רחימנא לך כוותיך אם תמצי לומר כל באנפיה

The Gemara develops the question further: Even if you say that the phrase: And it is incumbent upon me, has the implication of meaning that it is to be understood about himself, what is the halakha if one said: I am hereby a nazirite when I will have a son, and another heard him and said: And I? What is the meaning of the second person’s statement? Is it to be understood that here too, he is speaking of himself, meaning: I shall be a nazirite when I will have a son of my own, or perhaps this is what he is saying: I love you as you love yourself; I would be as happy as you at the birth of your son, and I too will be a nazirite when you have a son. Ben Reḥumi continues: If you say that anything he says to another in front of him

כסיפא ליה מילתא אמר הריני נזיר לכשיהא לפלוני בן ושמע חבירו ואמר ואני מהו מי אמרינן שלא בפניו אנפשיה קאמר או דילמא הכי קאמר ליה רחימנא ליה כוותיך תיבעי

should be understood in light of the fact that the matter is embarrassing for him, the second person is likely to mean that he will become a nazirite upon the birth of a child to the first person, as he will be embarrassed to seem indifferent about the birth of the child to the person standing before him, then the following question arises: If one said: I am hereby a nazirite when so-and-so will have a son, and another heard and said: And I, what is the halakha? Do we say that since the second person did not vow in front of the subject of the first person’s vow, he therefore speaks of himself when he says: And I, meaning that he will be a nazirite when he has a son of his own? Or perhaps this is what he is saying to him: I love him as you do, and I too will be a nazirite when he has a son. As in the previous cases, no answer was found for this question, and the dilemma remains unresolved.

מתני׳ הריני נזיר ונזיר כשיהיה לי בן התחיל מונה את שלו ואחר כך נולד לו בן משלים את שלו ואחר כך מונה את של בנו הריני נזיר כשיהיה לי בן ונזיר התחיל מונה את שלו ואחר כך נולד לו בן מניח את שלו ומונה את של בנו ואחר כך משלים את שלו

MISHNA: In a case where one said: I am hereby a nazirite now, and I will be a nazirite when I will have a son, and he began counting his own term of naziriteship, i.e., his first vow, and afterward in the middle of this naziriteship period a son was born to him, he first completes his own initial term of naziriteship and afterward he counts the term of naziriteship he vowed on the condition of the birth of his son. However, if he reversed the order and said: I am hereby a nazirite when I will have a son, and I am hereby a nazirite, and he began counting his own term of naziriteship and afterward, during this period, a son was born to him, he sets aside his own term of naziriteship and counts that which he vowed on condition of the birth of his son, and afterward he completes his own term of naziriteship.

גמ׳ בעי רבא אמר הריני נזיר לאחר עשרים יום ומעכשיו מאה יום מהו כיון דהלין מאה בעשרין לא שלמין לא חיילין או דילמא כיון דאית ליה גידול שער לבסוף חיילין

GEMARA: In light of the ruling of the mishna, Rava asks: If one said: I am hereby a nazirite for a standard term of thirty days and will begin observing it after twenty days, and I am also a nazirite from now for one hundred days, what is the halakha? Should one say that since these one hundred days of naziriteship are not completed within those first twenty days, it could be said that the one hundred days of naziriteship do not take effect at all until after he has completed the thirty-day naziriteship? Or perhaps, since he still has at least thirty days of hair growth at the end, as after the thirty-day term he could observe an additional eighty days, therefore the one hundred days of naziriteship take effect from now, and he counts twenty days, pauses to observe the other term of naziriteship for thirty days, shaves, and then completes the final eighty days of the long term of naziriteship.

ותיבעי ליה נזירות מועטת חדא מגו חדא קא מיבעיא ליה

The Gemara asks: And let him raise this dilemma with regard to a short term of naziriteship, when fewer than thirty days would remain if he suspended the first term of naziriteship in order to observe the other. The Gemara answers: He raises one dilemma as a result of the other. In other words, Rava’s question was an outgrowth of a different inquiry, which in turn led to his question. The full discussion is as follows: