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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 4, 2015 | 讻壮 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 13

讛驻讬诇讛 讗砖转讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讝讬专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬讗诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 讘谉 拽讬讬诪讗 讛专讬 讗谞讬 谞讝讬专 讞讜讘讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讛专讬 讗谞讬 谞讝讬专 谞讚讘讛

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.

讞讝专讛 讜讬诇讚讛 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讝讬专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬讗诪专 讗诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 讘谉 拽讬讬诪讗 讛专讗砖讜谉 讞讜讘讛 讜讝讜 谞讚讘讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讛专讗砖讜谉 谞讚讘讛 讜讝讜 讞讜讘讛

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.

讙诪壮 讛讗讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪砖讜诐 住讬驻讗 讘转 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讗讬谞讜 谞讝讬专 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讻砖讗讘谞讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讗诪专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗

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鈥檛 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.

讜讗诐 讗诪专 讻砖讬讛讬讛 诇讬 讜诇讚 讻讜壮 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讜诇讚 讚诪讬讞砖讘 讘讬谞讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讘注讬谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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鈥檛 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.

讛驻讬诇讛 讗砖转讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讝讬专 诪讗谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讻专讬 讛讜讗

搂 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.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬讗诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 讘谉 拽讬讬诪讗 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讞讜讘讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 谞讚讘讛 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诇讻砖讬讛讬讛 诇讬 讘谉 讜讛驻讬诇讛 讗砖转讜 讜讛驻专讬砖 拽专讘谉 讜讞讝专讛 讜讬诇讚讛 诪讛讜

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?

讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讗讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住驻拽 谞讝讬专讜转 诇讛讞诪讬专 讜讗诇讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 住驻拽 谞讝讬专讜转 诇讛拽诇 诪讗讬 拽讚讜砖 讗讜 诇讗 拽讚讜砖

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鈥檛 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?

诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讙讬讝转讜 讜诇注讘讜讚 讘讜 转讬拽讜

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.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讘谉 专讞讜诪讬 诪讗讘讬讬 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诇讻砖讬讛讗 诇讬 讘谉 讜砖诪注 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 讜注诇讬 诪讛讜 讗讚讬讘讜专讬讛 诪砖诪注 讗讜 讗讙讜驻讬讛 诪砖诪注

搂 With regard to one who accepted naziriteship upon himself that would begin upon the birth of his son, the Sage ben Re岣mi 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?

讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讗讙讜驻讬讛 诪砖诪注 讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诇讻砖讬讛讗 诇讬 讘谉 讜砖诪注 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 讜讗谞讬 诪讛讜 讗谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗诪专 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讞讬诪谞讗 诇讱 讻讜讜转讬讱 讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讘讗谞驻讬讛

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鈥檚 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 Re岣mi continues: If you say that anything he says to another in front of him

讻住讬驻讗 诇讬讛 诪讬诇转讗 讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诇讻砖讬讛讗 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘谉 讜砖诪注 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 讜讗谞讬 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讗谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗诪专 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讞讬诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讻讜讜转讬讱 转讬讘注讬

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鈥檚 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讜谞讝讬专 讻砖讬讛讬讛 诇讬 讘谉 讛转讞讬诇 诪讜谞讛 讗转 砖诇讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讘谉 诪砖诇讬诐 讗转 砖诇讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讜谞讛 讗转 砖诇 讘谞讜 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讻砖讬讛讬讛 诇讬 讘谉 讜谞讝讬专 讛转讞讬诇 诪讜谞讛 讗转 砖诇讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讘谉 诪谞讬讞 讗转 砖诇讜 讜诪讜谞讛 讗转 砖诇 讘谞讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪砖诇讬诐 讗转 砖诇讜

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.

讙诪壮 讘注讬 专讘讗 讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诇讗讞专 注砖专讬诐 讬讜诐 讜诪注讻砖讬讜 诪讗讛 讬讜诐 诪讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讛诇讬谉 诪讗讛 讘注砖专讬谉 诇讗 砖诇诪讬谉 诇讗 讞讬讬诇讬谉 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讙讬讚讜诇 砖注专 诇讘住讜祝 讞讬讬诇讬谉

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.

讜转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 谞讝讬专讜转 诪讜注讟转 讞讚讗 诪讙讜 讞讚讗 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛

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鈥檚 question was an outgrowth of a different inquiry, which in turn led to his question. The full discussion is as follows:

  • 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 13

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 13

讛驻讬诇讛 讗砖转讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讝讬专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬讗诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 讘谉 拽讬讬诪讗 讛专讬 讗谞讬 谞讝讬专 讞讜讘讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讛专讬 讗谞讬 谞讝讬专 谞讚讘讛

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.

讞讝专讛 讜讬诇讚讛 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讝讬专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬讗诪专 讗诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 讘谉 拽讬讬诪讗 讛专讗砖讜谉 讞讜讘讛 讜讝讜 谞讚讘讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讛专讗砖讜谉 谞讚讘讛 讜讝讜 讞讜讘讛

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.

讙诪壮 讛讗讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪砖讜诐 住讬驻讗 讘转 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讗讬谞讜 谞讝讬专 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讻砖讗讘谞讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讗诪专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗

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鈥檛 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.

讜讗诐 讗诪专 讻砖讬讛讬讛 诇讬 讜诇讚 讻讜壮 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讜诇讚 讚诪讬讞砖讘 讘讬谞讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讘注讬谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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鈥檛 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.

讛驻讬诇讛 讗砖转讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讝讬专 诪讗谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讻专讬 讛讜讗

搂 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.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬讗诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 讘谉 拽讬讬诪讗 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讞讜讘讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 谞讚讘讛 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诇讻砖讬讛讬讛 诇讬 讘谉 讜讛驻讬诇讛 讗砖转讜 讜讛驻专讬砖 拽专讘谉 讜讞讝专讛 讜讬诇讚讛 诪讛讜

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?

讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讗讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住驻拽 谞讝讬专讜转 诇讛讞诪讬专 讜讗诇讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 住驻拽 谞讝讬专讜转 诇讛拽诇 诪讗讬 拽讚讜砖 讗讜 诇讗 拽讚讜砖

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鈥檛 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?

诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讙讬讝转讜 讜诇注讘讜讚 讘讜 转讬拽讜

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.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讘谉 专讞讜诪讬 诪讗讘讬讬 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诇讻砖讬讛讗 诇讬 讘谉 讜砖诪注 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 讜注诇讬 诪讛讜 讗讚讬讘讜专讬讛 诪砖诪注 讗讜 讗讙讜驻讬讛 诪砖诪注

搂 With regard to one who accepted naziriteship upon himself that would begin upon the birth of his son, the Sage ben Re岣mi 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?

讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讗讙讜驻讬讛 诪砖诪注 讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诇讻砖讬讛讗 诇讬 讘谉 讜砖诪注 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 讜讗谞讬 诪讛讜 讗谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗诪专 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讞讬诪谞讗 诇讱 讻讜讜转讬讱 讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讘讗谞驻讬讛

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鈥檚 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 Re岣mi continues: If you say that anything he says to another in front of him

讻住讬驻讗 诇讬讛 诪讬诇转讗 讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诇讻砖讬讛讗 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘谉 讜砖诪注 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 讜讗谞讬 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讗谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗诪专 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讞讬诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讻讜讜转讬讱 转讬讘注讬

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鈥檚 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讜谞讝讬专 讻砖讬讛讬讛 诇讬 讘谉 讛转讞讬诇 诪讜谞讛 讗转 砖诇讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讘谉 诪砖诇讬诐 讗转 砖诇讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讜谞讛 讗转 砖诇 讘谞讜 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讻砖讬讛讬讛 诇讬 讘谉 讜谞讝讬专 讛转讞讬诇 诪讜谞讛 讗转 砖诇讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讘谉 诪谞讬讞 讗转 砖诇讜 讜诪讜谞讛 讗转 砖诇 讘谞讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪砖诇讬诐 讗转 砖诇讜

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.

讙诪壮 讘注讬 专讘讗 讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诇讗讞专 注砖专讬诐 讬讜诐 讜诪注讻砖讬讜 诪讗讛 讬讜诐 诪讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讛诇讬谉 诪讗讛 讘注砖专讬谉 诇讗 砖诇诪讬谉 诇讗 讞讬讬诇讬谉 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讙讬讚讜诇 砖注专 诇讘住讜祝 讞讬讬诇讬谉

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.

讜转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 谞讝讬专讜转 诪讜注讟转 讞讚讗 诪讙讜 讞讚讗 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛

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鈥檚 question was an outgrowth of a different inquiry, which in turn led to his question. The full discussion is as follows:

Scroll To Top