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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 23, 2015 | 讞壮 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 2

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讻讬谞讜讬讬 谞讝讬专讜转 讻谞讝讬专讜转

MISHNA: One becomes a nazirite by taking a nazirite vow, in which he simply declares himself a nazirite, as detailed in the Torah (Numbers 6:1鈥21). Additionally, all substitutes for the language of nazirite vows are like nazirite vows and are binding. Furthermore, intimations of nazirite vows, i.e., incomplete statements that are understood from context to be meant as nazirite vows, are considered binding nazirite vows.

讛讗讜诪专 讗讛讗 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讝讬专 讗讜 讗讛讗 谞讗讛 谞讝讬专 谞讝讬拽 谞讝讬讞 驻讝讬讞 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讝讬专 讛专讬谞讬 讻讝讛 讛专讬谞讬 诪住诇住诇 讛专讬谞讬 诪讻诇讻诇 讛专讬 注诇讬 诇砖诇讞 驻专注 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讝讬专

Consequently, one who says: I will be, without further clarification, is a nazirite, as this is his implied intention. Or, if he said: I will be beautiful, he is a nazirite. The substitutes for the language of nazirite vows are as follows: If one says: I will be a nazik, a nazi鈥檃岣, or a pazi鈥檃岣, he is a nazirite. If one says: I am hereby like this, I am hereby a hair curler, I am hereby growing my hair; or: It is incumbent upon me to grow long hair, he is a nazirite.

讛专讬 注诇讬 爪讬驻讜专讬诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 谞讝讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 谞讝讬专

If one says: An obligation is hereby incumbent upon me with regard to birds, Rabbi Meir says: He is a nazirite. A nazirite brings two bird-offerings if he inadvertently becomes ritually impure from a corpse (Numbers 6:10), and it is understood that the individual used this indirect phrase to take a vow of naziriteship. And the Sages say: He is not a nazirite.

讙诪壮 诪讻讚讬 转谞讗 讘住讚专 谞砖讬诐 拽讗讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 转谞讬 谞讝讬专

GEMARA: The Gemara begins by clarifying why this tractate appears in the order of Nashim within the six orders of the Mishna. Now, the tanna is engaged in the study of the order of Nashim, which discusses laws concerning marriage and the resulting obligations as well as with forbidden sexual relations. What then is the reason that he teaches the laws of the nazirite here?

转谞讗 讗拽专讗 拽讗讬 讜讛讬讛 讗诐 诇讗 转诪爪讗 讞谉 讘注讬谞讬讜 讻讬 诪爪讗 讘讛 注专讜转 讚讘专 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讬 讙专诐 诇讛 诇注讘讬专讛 讬讬谉 讜拽讗诪专 讻诇 讛专讜讗讛 住讜讟讛 讘拽诇拽讜诇讛 讬讝讬专 注爪诪讜 诪谉 讛讬讬谉

The Gemara answers: The tanna is engaged in the study of the verse pertaining to divorce: 鈥淭hen it comes to pass, if she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly matter about her鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1). And this is what he is saying: What caused the woman to commit the transgression of adultery, alluded to in the verse by the phrase 鈥渦nseemly matter鈥? It was wine. And the tanna is saying: Anyone who sees a sota in her disgrace should abstain from wine. Consequently, tractate Nazir is placed in the order of Nashim, immediately preceding tractate Sota, which is about a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful, and tractate Gittin, which discusses divorce.

驻转讞 讘讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 讜诪驻专砖 讬讚讜转

搂 The Gemara asks a question with regard to the mishna鈥檚 presentation of the different topics it addresses: The tanna began with the statement that all substitutes for the language of nazirite vows are considered nazirite vows, but then it explains the halakha of intimations of nazirite vows by providing examples of intimations rather than examples of substitutes for nazirite vows. Why didn鈥檛 the mishna provide examples of substitutes immediately after stating the halakha concerning substitutes?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 讻讚讬 讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讻诇 讻讬谞讜讬讬 谞讝讬专讜转 讻谞讝讬专讜转 讜讬讚讜转 谞讝讬专讜转 讻谞讝讬专讜转 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讬讚讜转 讛讗讜诪专 讗讛讗 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讝讬专

Rava said, and some say this statement without attribution [kedi]: The mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: All substitutes for the language of nazirite vows are like nazirite vows. And similarly, all intimations of nazirite vows are like nazirite vows. And these are examples of intimations: One who says: I will be, is a nazirite.

讜诇驻专讜砖 讻讬谞讜讬讬 讘专讬砖讗 转谞讗 诪讛讛讜讗 讚住诇讬拽 讛讛讜讗 诪驻专砖 讘专讬砖讗 讻讚转谞谉 讘诪讛 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讜讘诪讛 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讜诪驻专砖 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘专讬砖讗

The Gemara asks: But nevertheless, let the tanna explain the cases of substitutes first, before providing examples of intimations, as the halakha of substitutes is mentioned before the halakha of intimations. The Gemara answers: The tanna employs the general style of the Mishna, which is that the subject with which it concludes is the one that it explains first, as we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 20b): With what may one light the Shabbat lamp and with what may one not light it? And the mishna explains the details of what one may not light first, before providing examples of fuel that may be used to light the Shabbat lamp.

讘诪讛 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讜讘诪讛 讗讬谉 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讜诪驻专砖 讗讬谉 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讘专讬砖讗

Similarly, another mishna (Shabbat 47b) states: In what may one insulate a pot of cooked food on Shabbat eve, and in what may one not insulate it? And the mishna explains the cases of material in which one may not insulate it first, before providing examples of materials in which one may insulate a pot of cooked food.

讘诪讛 讗砖讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讜讘诪讛 讗讬谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讜诪驻专砖 诇讗 转爪讗 讗砖讛 讘专讬砖讗

A third example of this style is in the following mishna (Shabbat 57a): With what items may a woman go out into the public domain on Shabbat and with what items may she not go out? And the mishna explains the items with which a woman may not go out first, before providing examples of items with which she may go out.

讜讛转谞谉 讘诪讛 讘讛诪讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讜讘诪讛 讗讬谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讜诪驻专砖 讬讜爪讗 讙诪诇 讘专讬砖讗

The Gemara challenges this explanation: But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Shabbat 51b): With what may an animal go out into the public domain on Shabbat, and with what may it not go out? And it explains the items with which a camel may go out first, before providing examples of items with which it may not go out.

讬砖 谞讜讞诇讬谉 讜诪谞讞讬诇讬谉 谞讜讞诇讬谉 讜诇讗 诪谞讞讬诇讬谉 诪谞讞讬诇讬谉 讜诇讗 谞讜讞诇讬谉 诇讗 谞讜讞诇讬谉 讜诇讗 诪谞讞讬诇讬谉 讜诪驻专砖 讗诇讜 谞讜讞诇讬谉 讜诪谞讞讬诇讬谉 讘专讬砖讗

Similarly, it is taught in another mishna (Bava Batra 108a): There are some relatives who inherit and bequeath, e.g., a father and son, who are heirs to each other; some who inherit but do not bequeath; some bequeath but do not inherit; and some do not inherit and do not bequeath. And the mishna explains the cases of those who both inherit and bequeath first, before providing examples of the other categories that were mentioned later in the opening clause of the mishna.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 转谞讬 讛讻讬 讜转谞讬 讛讻讬

Rather, the mishna actually teaches in this manner at times, and it teaches in that manner at other times. There are instances where the tanna begins by elaborating on the first principle mentioned in the mishna, while on other occasions he first elaborates upon the last principle mentioned.

讗诇讗 讛转诐 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讚谞驻砖讬讛 讛讜讗 诪驻专砖 讗讬住讜专讗 讚谞驻砖讬讛 讘专讬砖讗 讙讘讬 讘讛诪讛 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讗讬讬讚讬 讘讛诪讛 讛讜讗 讚讗转讬 诪驻专砖 讛讬转讬专讗 讘专讬砖讗

However, there is a rationale as to when the tanna employs each style. There, in the passages concerning the fuels one may use to light the Shabbat lamp, the materials one may use to insulate a pot on Shabbat eve, and the items with which a woman may go out on Shabbat to the public domain, where it is the individual鈥檚 own prohibition that is being discussed, the tanna explains the cases pertaining to the individual鈥檚 own prohibition first. By contrast, with regard to the mishna that addresses an animal carrying into the public domain on Shabbat, where the prohibition comes by means of the animal, the tanna explains what is permitted first.

讙讘讬 讬砖 谞讜讞诇讬谉 谞诪讬 诪驻专砖 注讬拽专 谞讞诇讛 讘专讬砖讗

Similarly, with regard to the mishna that teaches that there are some relatives who inherit and bequeath, the tanna also had a reason for initially providing examples from the first category: He thereby explains the principal case of the Torah鈥檚 halakhot of inheritance first.

讗诇讗 [讛讻讗] 诇驻专讜砖 讻讬谞讜讬讬 讘专讬砖讗 讗诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诐 讬讚讜转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗转讬讬谉 诇讬讛 诪讚专砖讗 讞讘讬讘讬谉 诇讬讛

The Gemara now returns to its question: But here, let the tanna explain the cases of substitutes first. The Gemara explains: Rather, this is the reason: Since intimations are derived from the exposition of verses and are not explicitly mentioned in the Torah, they are dear to the tanna and he therefore mentions them first.

讜诇讬驻转讞 讘讛讜谉 讘专讬砖讗 转谞讗 讻讬 诪转讞讬诇 诪转讞讬诇 讘注讬拽专 拽专讘谉 讜诇注谞讬谉 驻讬专讜砖讬 诪驻专砖 讬讚讜转 讘专讬砖讗

The Gemara asks: But if that is so, then let him begin with them first in the opening clause of the mishna as well. The Gemara answers: When the tanna begins, he begins with the main offering of the nazirite, i.e., with the halakha that has a basis in the Torah. But with regard to the explanation of these halakhot, he explains the cases of intimations first, as he favors that topic.

讛讗讜诪专 讗讛讗 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讝讬专 讚诇诪讗 讗讛讗 讘转注谞讬转 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 谞讝讬专 注讜讘专 诇驻谞讬讜

搂 The mishna taught: One who says: I will be, is a nazirite. The Gemara asks: Perhaps he is saying: I will be fasting, i.e., his intention is to take a vow that will obligate himself to fast rather than to be a nazirite. The Gemara answers that Shmuel said: The mishna is describing a case where a nazirite was passing before him, so that it is clear that he is taking a nazirite vow.

诇讬诪讗 拽住讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讬讚讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 诪讜讻讬讞讜转 诇讗 讛讜讜讬讬谉 讬讚讬诐 讗诪专讬 讘讝诪谉 砖谞讝讬专 注讜讘专 诇驻谞讬讜 诇讬讻讗 诇住驻讜拽讗 讘诪讬诇转讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗讘诇 讜讚讗讬 讗讬谉 讛谞讝讬专 注讜讘专 诇驻谞讬讜 讗诪专讬谞谉 讚诇诪讗 讗讛讗 讘转注谞讬转 拽讗诪专

The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Shmuel holds as a principle that ambiguous intimations are not considered intimations, i.e., they are not considered vows? The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Say that when a nazirite is passing before him, there is no reason to doubt his intention. There is no possibility that he is referring to another matter, and therefore his statement is definitely an intimation of naziriteship. However, it is certainly the case that when a nazirite is not passing before him, and he states: I will be, we say that perhaps he is saying: I will be fasting. It is only in the latter case, where one鈥檚 intimation is so ambiguous that it offers no evidence whatsoever of his intentions, that Shmuel holds that one鈥檚 statement is not considered a vow.

讜讚诇诪讗 诇驻讜讟专讜 诪谉 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜 拽讗诪专 讚拽讗诪专 讘诇讘讜

The Gemara asks: But even if he made his statement when a nazirite was passing before him, perhaps he was saying that he intends to purchase the animals the nazirite will need for his offerings and thereby exempt the nazirite from paying for his own offerings. The Gemara answers: This is a case where he said in his heart that he accepts upon himself a nazirite vow.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讘注讬谞谉 驻讬讜 讜诇讘讜 砖讜讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: If that is so, then what is the purpose of stating this halakha? Isn鈥檛 it obvious that he becomes a nazirite? The Gemara answers: It is necessary to state this halakha, lest you say that we require his mouth and heart to be identical. If that were the case, then if one did not clearly articulate his nazirite vow, he would not become a nazirite even if he intended to become one. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that since his words can be interpreted as referring to a nazirite vow, and that was his intention, he becomes a nazirite.

讗讛讗 谞讗讛 谞讝讬专 讜讚诇诪讗 讗谞讗讛 诇驻谞讬讜 讘诪爪讜转 讻讚转谞讬讗 讝讛 讗诇讬 讜讗谞讜讛讜 讗谞讗讛 诇驻谞讬讜 讘诪爪讜转 讗注砖讛 诇驻谞讬讜 住讜讻讛 谞讗讛 诇讜诇讘 谞讗讛 爪讬爪讬转 谞讗讛 讗讻转讜讘 诇驻谞讬讜 住驻专 转讜专讛 谞讗讛 讜讗讻专讻谞讜 讘砖讬专讗讬谉 谞讗讬诐

搂 The mishna taught that if one says: I will be beautiful [na鈥檈], he is a nazirite. The Gemara asks: But perhaps when he said: I will be beautiful, he meant: I will be beautiful before Him in mitzvot? As it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淭his is my God and I will glorify Him [anvehu]鈥 (Exodus 15:2). Anvehu has the same root as the word na鈥檈; therefore, the verse means: I will be beautiful before Him in mitzvot. How is this done? I will make before Him a beautiful sukka, a beautiful lulav, beautiful ritual fringes. I will write before Him a beautiful Torah scroll, and I will wrap it in beautiful silk cloths [shira鈥檌n].

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖转驻讜住 讘砖注专讜 讜讗诪专 讗谞讗讛

The Gemara answers that Shmuel said: The mishna is referring to a case where one is holding his hair and says: I will be beautiful. This clearly indicates that he is referring to naziriteship.

谞讝讬专讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚注讘讬专讛 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 谞讗讛

The Gemara asks: Since naziriteship is a matter of transgression, can we say about a nazirite that he is beautiful?

  • 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 2

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 2

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讻讬谞讜讬讬 谞讝讬专讜转 讻谞讝讬专讜转

MISHNA: One becomes a nazirite by taking a nazirite vow, in which he simply declares himself a nazirite, as detailed in the Torah (Numbers 6:1鈥21). Additionally, all substitutes for the language of nazirite vows are like nazirite vows and are binding. Furthermore, intimations of nazirite vows, i.e., incomplete statements that are understood from context to be meant as nazirite vows, are considered binding nazirite vows.

讛讗讜诪专 讗讛讗 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讝讬专 讗讜 讗讛讗 谞讗讛 谞讝讬专 谞讝讬拽 谞讝讬讞 驻讝讬讞 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讝讬专 讛专讬谞讬 讻讝讛 讛专讬谞讬 诪住诇住诇 讛专讬谞讬 诪讻诇讻诇 讛专讬 注诇讬 诇砖诇讞 驻专注 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讝讬专

Consequently, one who says: I will be, without further clarification, is a nazirite, as this is his implied intention. Or, if he said: I will be beautiful, he is a nazirite. The substitutes for the language of nazirite vows are as follows: If one says: I will be a nazik, a nazi鈥檃岣, or a pazi鈥檃岣, he is a nazirite. If one says: I am hereby like this, I am hereby a hair curler, I am hereby growing my hair; or: It is incumbent upon me to grow long hair, he is a nazirite.

讛专讬 注诇讬 爪讬驻讜专讬诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 谞讝讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 谞讝讬专

If one says: An obligation is hereby incumbent upon me with regard to birds, Rabbi Meir says: He is a nazirite. A nazirite brings two bird-offerings if he inadvertently becomes ritually impure from a corpse (Numbers 6:10), and it is understood that the individual used this indirect phrase to take a vow of naziriteship. And the Sages say: He is not a nazirite.

讙诪壮 诪讻讚讬 转谞讗 讘住讚专 谞砖讬诐 拽讗讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 转谞讬 谞讝讬专

GEMARA: The Gemara begins by clarifying why this tractate appears in the order of Nashim within the six orders of the Mishna. Now, the tanna is engaged in the study of the order of Nashim, which discusses laws concerning marriage and the resulting obligations as well as with forbidden sexual relations. What then is the reason that he teaches the laws of the nazirite here?

转谞讗 讗拽专讗 拽讗讬 讜讛讬讛 讗诐 诇讗 转诪爪讗 讞谉 讘注讬谞讬讜 讻讬 诪爪讗 讘讛 注专讜转 讚讘专 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讬 讙专诐 诇讛 诇注讘讬专讛 讬讬谉 讜拽讗诪专 讻诇 讛专讜讗讛 住讜讟讛 讘拽诇拽讜诇讛 讬讝讬专 注爪诪讜 诪谉 讛讬讬谉

The Gemara answers: The tanna is engaged in the study of the verse pertaining to divorce: 鈥淭hen it comes to pass, if she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly matter about her鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1). And this is what he is saying: What caused the woman to commit the transgression of adultery, alluded to in the verse by the phrase 鈥渦nseemly matter鈥? It was wine. And the tanna is saying: Anyone who sees a sota in her disgrace should abstain from wine. Consequently, tractate Nazir is placed in the order of Nashim, immediately preceding tractate Sota, which is about a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful, and tractate Gittin, which discusses divorce.

驻转讞 讘讻讬谞讜讬讬谉 讜诪驻专砖 讬讚讜转

搂 The Gemara asks a question with regard to the mishna鈥檚 presentation of the different topics it addresses: The tanna began with the statement that all substitutes for the language of nazirite vows are considered nazirite vows, but then it explains the halakha of intimations of nazirite vows by providing examples of intimations rather than examples of substitutes for nazirite vows. Why didn鈥檛 the mishna provide examples of substitutes immediately after stating the halakha concerning substitutes?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 讻讚讬 讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讻诇 讻讬谞讜讬讬 谞讝讬专讜转 讻谞讝讬专讜转 讜讬讚讜转 谞讝讬专讜转 讻谞讝讬专讜转 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讬讚讜转 讛讗讜诪专 讗讛讗 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讝讬专

Rava said, and some say this statement without attribution [kedi]: The mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: All substitutes for the language of nazirite vows are like nazirite vows. And similarly, all intimations of nazirite vows are like nazirite vows. And these are examples of intimations: One who says: I will be, is a nazirite.

讜诇驻专讜砖 讻讬谞讜讬讬 讘专讬砖讗 转谞讗 诪讛讛讜讗 讚住诇讬拽 讛讛讜讗 诪驻专砖 讘专讬砖讗 讻讚转谞谉 讘诪讛 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讜讘诪讛 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讜诪驻专砖 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘专讬砖讗

The Gemara asks: But nevertheless, let the tanna explain the cases of substitutes first, before providing examples of intimations, as the halakha of substitutes is mentioned before the halakha of intimations. The Gemara answers: The tanna employs the general style of the Mishna, which is that the subject with which it concludes is the one that it explains first, as we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 20b): With what may one light the Shabbat lamp and with what may one not light it? And the mishna explains the details of what one may not light first, before providing examples of fuel that may be used to light the Shabbat lamp.

讘诪讛 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讜讘诪讛 讗讬谉 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讜诪驻专砖 讗讬谉 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讘专讬砖讗

Similarly, another mishna (Shabbat 47b) states: In what may one insulate a pot of cooked food on Shabbat eve, and in what may one not insulate it? And the mishna explains the cases of material in which one may not insulate it first, before providing examples of materials in which one may insulate a pot of cooked food.

讘诪讛 讗砖讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讜讘诪讛 讗讬谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讜诪驻专砖 诇讗 转爪讗 讗砖讛 讘专讬砖讗

A third example of this style is in the following mishna (Shabbat 57a): With what items may a woman go out into the public domain on Shabbat and with what items may she not go out? And the mishna explains the items with which a woman may not go out first, before providing examples of items with which she may go out.

讜讛转谞谉 讘诪讛 讘讛诪讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讜讘诪讛 讗讬谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讜诪驻专砖 讬讜爪讗 讙诪诇 讘专讬砖讗

The Gemara challenges this explanation: But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Shabbat 51b): With what may an animal go out into the public domain on Shabbat, and with what may it not go out? And it explains the items with which a camel may go out first, before providing examples of items with which it may not go out.

讬砖 谞讜讞诇讬谉 讜诪谞讞讬诇讬谉 谞讜讞诇讬谉 讜诇讗 诪谞讞讬诇讬谉 诪谞讞讬诇讬谉 讜诇讗 谞讜讞诇讬谉 诇讗 谞讜讞诇讬谉 讜诇讗 诪谞讞讬诇讬谉 讜诪驻专砖 讗诇讜 谞讜讞诇讬谉 讜诪谞讞讬诇讬谉 讘专讬砖讗

Similarly, it is taught in another mishna (Bava Batra 108a): There are some relatives who inherit and bequeath, e.g., a father and son, who are heirs to each other; some who inherit but do not bequeath; some bequeath but do not inherit; and some do not inherit and do not bequeath. And the mishna explains the cases of those who both inherit and bequeath first, before providing examples of the other categories that were mentioned later in the opening clause of the mishna.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 转谞讬 讛讻讬 讜转谞讬 讛讻讬

Rather, the mishna actually teaches in this manner at times, and it teaches in that manner at other times. There are instances where the tanna begins by elaborating on the first principle mentioned in the mishna, while on other occasions he first elaborates upon the last principle mentioned.

讗诇讗 讛转诐 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讚谞驻砖讬讛 讛讜讗 诪驻专砖 讗讬住讜专讗 讚谞驻砖讬讛 讘专讬砖讗 讙讘讬 讘讛诪讛 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讗讬讬讚讬 讘讛诪讛 讛讜讗 讚讗转讬 诪驻专砖 讛讬转讬专讗 讘专讬砖讗

However, there is a rationale as to when the tanna employs each style. There, in the passages concerning the fuels one may use to light the Shabbat lamp, the materials one may use to insulate a pot on Shabbat eve, and the items with which a woman may go out on Shabbat to the public domain, where it is the individual鈥檚 own prohibition that is being discussed, the tanna explains the cases pertaining to the individual鈥檚 own prohibition first. By contrast, with regard to the mishna that addresses an animal carrying into the public domain on Shabbat, where the prohibition comes by means of the animal, the tanna explains what is permitted first.

讙讘讬 讬砖 谞讜讞诇讬谉 谞诪讬 诪驻专砖 注讬拽专 谞讞诇讛 讘专讬砖讗

Similarly, with regard to the mishna that teaches that there are some relatives who inherit and bequeath, the tanna also had a reason for initially providing examples from the first category: He thereby explains the principal case of the Torah鈥檚 halakhot of inheritance first.

讗诇讗 [讛讻讗] 诇驻专讜砖 讻讬谞讜讬讬 讘专讬砖讗 讗诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诐 讬讚讜转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗转讬讬谉 诇讬讛 诪讚专砖讗 讞讘讬讘讬谉 诇讬讛

The Gemara now returns to its question: But here, let the tanna explain the cases of substitutes first. The Gemara explains: Rather, this is the reason: Since intimations are derived from the exposition of verses and are not explicitly mentioned in the Torah, they are dear to the tanna and he therefore mentions them first.

讜诇讬驻转讞 讘讛讜谉 讘专讬砖讗 转谞讗 讻讬 诪转讞讬诇 诪转讞讬诇 讘注讬拽专 拽专讘谉 讜诇注谞讬谉 驻讬专讜砖讬 诪驻专砖 讬讚讜转 讘专讬砖讗

The Gemara asks: But if that is so, then let him begin with them first in the opening clause of the mishna as well. The Gemara answers: When the tanna begins, he begins with the main offering of the nazirite, i.e., with the halakha that has a basis in the Torah. But with regard to the explanation of these halakhot, he explains the cases of intimations first, as he favors that topic.

讛讗讜诪专 讗讛讗 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讝讬专 讚诇诪讗 讗讛讗 讘转注谞讬转 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 谞讝讬专 注讜讘专 诇驻谞讬讜

搂 The mishna taught: One who says: I will be, is a nazirite. The Gemara asks: Perhaps he is saying: I will be fasting, i.e., his intention is to take a vow that will obligate himself to fast rather than to be a nazirite. The Gemara answers that Shmuel said: The mishna is describing a case where a nazirite was passing before him, so that it is clear that he is taking a nazirite vow.

诇讬诪讗 拽住讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讬讚讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 诪讜讻讬讞讜转 诇讗 讛讜讜讬讬谉 讬讚讬诐 讗诪专讬 讘讝诪谉 砖谞讝讬专 注讜讘专 诇驻谞讬讜 诇讬讻讗 诇住驻讜拽讗 讘诪讬诇转讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗讘诇 讜讚讗讬 讗讬谉 讛谞讝讬专 注讜讘专 诇驻谞讬讜 讗诪专讬谞谉 讚诇诪讗 讗讛讗 讘转注谞讬转 拽讗诪专

The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Shmuel holds as a principle that ambiguous intimations are not considered intimations, i.e., they are not considered vows? The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Say that when a nazirite is passing before him, there is no reason to doubt his intention. There is no possibility that he is referring to another matter, and therefore his statement is definitely an intimation of naziriteship. However, it is certainly the case that when a nazirite is not passing before him, and he states: I will be, we say that perhaps he is saying: I will be fasting. It is only in the latter case, where one鈥檚 intimation is so ambiguous that it offers no evidence whatsoever of his intentions, that Shmuel holds that one鈥檚 statement is not considered a vow.

讜讚诇诪讗 诇驻讜讟专讜 诪谉 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜 拽讗诪专 讚拽讗诪专 讘诇讘讜

The Gemara asks: But even if he made his statement when a nazirite was passing before him, perhaps he was saying that he intends to purchase the animals the nazirite will need for his offerings and thereby exempt the nazirite from paying for his own offerings. The Gemara answers: This is a case where he said in his heart that he accepts upon himself a nazirite vow.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讘注讬谞谉 驻讬讜 讜诇讘讜 砖讜讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: If that is so, then what is the purpose of stating this halakha? Isn鈥檛 it obvious that he becomes a nazirite? The Gemara answers: It is necessary to state this halakha, lest you say that we require his mouth and heart to be identical. If that were the case, then if one did not clearly articulate his nazirite vow, he would not become a nazirite even if he intended to become one. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that since his words can be interpreted as referring to a nazirite vow, and that was his intention, he becomes a nazirite.

讗讛讗 谞讗讛 谞讝讬专 讜讚诇诪讗 讗谞讗讛 诇驻谞讬讜 讘诪爪讜转 讻讚转谞讬讗 讝讛 讗诇讬 讜讗谞讜讛讜 讗谞讗讛 诇驻谞讬讜 讘诪爪讜转 讗注砖讛 诇驻谞讬讜 住讜讻讛 谞讗讛 诇讜诇讘 谞讗讛 爪讬爪讬转 谞讗讛 讗讻转讜讘 诇驻谞讬讜 住驻专 转讜专讛 谞讗讛 讜讗讻专讻谞讜 讘砖讬专讗讬谉 谞讗讬诐

搂 The mishna taught that if one says: I will be beautiful [na鈥檈], he is a nazirite. The Gemara asks: But perhaps when he said: I will be beautiful, he meant: I will be beautiful before Him in mitzvot? As it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淭his is my God and I will glorify Him [anvehu]鈥 (Exodus 15:2). Anvehu has the same root as the word na鈥檈; therefore, the verse means: I will be beautiful before Him in mitzvot. How is this done? I will make before Him a beautiful sukka, a beautiful lulav, beautiful ritual fringes. I will write before Him a beautiful Torah scroll, and I will wrap it in beautiful silk cloths [shira鈥檌n].

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖转驻讜住 讘砖注专讜 讜讗诪专 讗谞讗讛

The Gemara answers that Shmuel said: The mishna is referring to a case where one is holding his hair and says: I will be beautiful. This clearly indicates that he is referring to naziriteship.

谞讝讬专讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚注讘讬专讛 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 谞讗讛

The Gemara asks: Since naziriteship is a matter of transgression, can we say about a nazirite that he is beautiful?

Scroll To Top