What are expressions that if uttered, one would be considered a nazir, even if one did not explicitly say that one is taking it upon oneself to be a nazir? The Mishna discusses kinuyim, words synonymous with nazir and yadot, phrases that intimate that one wants to be a nazir, but are incomplete formulations. Why is Nazir in Seder Nashim? To answer this, the Gemara explains the connection between a nazir and a sotah – one who sees a sotah will realize that it was caused by drunkenness and will vow to become a nazir. Why did the Mishna begin with kinuyim and then move to explain yadot before going back to explain kinuyim? What can be learned about the literary structure from other mishnayot that have a similar or different order? What rules does the Gemara suggest? The Mishna said that if one says “I will be” that is a yad for nazir and that person is a nazir. Perhaps the person meant “I will be in a fast” and didn’t mean to become a nazir? Shmuel explains that the case is one where a nazir was walking by at the time. Does this teach us what Shmuel holds about an unclear intimation (yad)? Perhaps the person meant to take on the sacrificial responsibilities of the passing nazir and not to actually become a nazir? The Gemara answers that the person must have thought in their heart that they intended to become a nazir. How could this work if generally, we say that things one says in the heart are meaningless if not uttered? The Mishna ruled that if one says “I will beautify myself” they are a nazir. Perhaps they meant to beautify themselves with mitzvot? Shmuel explains that they are holding their hair at the time they make the declaration. How could becoming a nazir be called beautiful if the rabbis did not approve of people becoming a nazir?
This week’s learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in memory of Irving “Poppy” Mauskopf, Yechezkel ben Rachel and Avraham. “A man that exemplified complete emuna. He greeted everyone with a smile. We were all very privileged to have him in our lives. May his neshama have an aliya.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in memory of Irving “Poppy” Mauskopf, Yechezkel ben Rachel and Avraham. “A man that exemplified complete emuna. He greeted everyone with a smile. We were all very privileged to have him in our lives. May his neshama have an aliya.”
Nazir 2
כׇּל כִּינּוּיֵי נְזִירוּת — כִּנְזִירוּת.
MISHNA: One becomes a nazirite by taking a nazirite vow, in which he simply declares himself a nazirite, as detailed in the Torah (Numbers 6:1–21). 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.
הָאוֹמֵר ״אֱהֵא״ — הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר, אוֹ ״אֱהֵא נָאֶה״ — נָזִיר, ״נָזִיק״, ״נָזִיחַ״, ״פָּזִיחַ״ — הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר. ״הֲרֵינִי כָּזֶה״, ״הֲרֵינִי מְסַלְסֵל״, ״הֲרֵינִי מְכַלְכֵּל״, ״הֲרֵי עָלַי לְשַׁלֵּחַ פֶּרַע״ — הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר.
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’aḥ, or a pazi’aḥ, 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.
״הֲרֵי עָלַי צִיפּוֹרִים״ — רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: נָזִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ נָזִיר.
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.
גְּמָ׳ מִכְּדֵי תַּנָּא בְּסֵדֶר נָשִׁים קָאֵי, מַאי טַעְמָא תָּנֵי נָזִיר?
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?
תַּנָּא אַקְּרָא קָאֵי: ״וְהָיָה אִם לֹא תִמְצָא חֵן בְּעֵינָיו כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר״. וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: מִי גָּרַם לָהּ לָעֲבֵירָה — יַיִן, וְקָאָמַר: כׇּל הָרוֹאֶה סוֹטָה בְּקִלְקוּלָהּ יַזִּיר עַצְמוֹ מִן הַיַּיִן.
The Gemara answers: The tanna is engaged in the study of the verse pertaining to divorce: “Then it comes to pass, if she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly matter about her” (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 “unseemly matter”? 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.
פָּתַח בְּכִינּוּיִין, וּמְפָרֵשׁ יָדוֹת.
§ The Gemara asks a question with regard to the mishna’s 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’t the mishna provide examples of substitutes immediately after stating the halakha concerning substitutes?
אָמַר רָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא כְּדִי: חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: כׇּל כִּינּוּיֵי נְזִירוּת — כִּנְזִירוּת, וִידוֹת נְזִירוּת — כִּנְזִירוּת, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן יָדוֹת: הָאוֹמֵר ״אֱהֵא״ — הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר.
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.
וְלִפְרוֹשׁ כִּינּוּיֵי בְּרֵישָׁא! תַּנָּא מֵהָהוּא דְּסָלֵיק — הָהוּא מְפָרֵשׁ בְּרֵישָׁא. כְּדִתְנַן: בַּמֶּה מַדְלִיקִין וּבַמָּה אֵין מַדְלִיקִין, וּמְפָרֵשׁ ״אֵין מַדְלִיקִין״ בְּרֵישָׁא.
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.
בַּמֶּה טוֹמְנִין וּבַמָּה אֵין טוֹמְנִין, וּמְפָרֵשׁ ״אֵין טוֹמְנִין״ בְּרֵישָׁא.
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.
בַּמָּה אִשָּׁה יוֹצְאָה וּבַמָּה אֵינָהּ יוֹצְאָה, וּמְפָרֵשׁ ״לֹא תֵּצֵא אִשָּׁה״ בְּרֵישָׁא.
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.
וְהָתְנַן: בַּמֶּה בְּהֵמָה יוֹצְאָה וּבַמָּה אֵינָהּ יוֹצְאָה, וּמְפָרֵשׁ ״יוֹצֵא גָּמָל״ בְּרֵישָׁא.
The Gemara challenges this explanation: But didn’t 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.
יֵשׁ נוֹחֲלִין וּמַנְחִילִין, נוֹחֲלִין וְלֹא מַנְחִילִין, מַנְחִילִין וְלֹא נוֹחֲלִין, לֹא נוֹחֲלִין וְלֹא מַנְחִילִין, וּמְפָרֵשׁ ״אֵלּוּ נוֹחֲלִין וּמַנְחִילִין״ בְּרֵישָׁא!
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.
אֶלָּא, לְעוֹלָם תָּנֵי הָכִי וְתָנֵי הָכִי.
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.
אֶלָּא: הָתָם, דְּאִיסּוּרָא דְנַפְשֵׁיהּ הוּא — מְפָרֵשׁ אִיסּוּרָא דְנַפְשֵׁיהּ בְּרֵישָׁא. גַּבֵּי בְּהֵמָה, דְּאִיסּוּרָא אַיְּידֵי בְּהֵמָה הוּא דְּאָתֵי — מְפָרֵשׁ הֶיתֵּירָא בְּרֵישָׁא.
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’s own prohibition that is being discussed, the tanna explains the cases pertaining to the individual’s 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.
גַּבֵּי ״יֵשׁ נוֹחֲלִין״ נָמֵי, מְפָרֵשׁ עִיקַּר נַחֲלָה בְּרֵישָׁא.
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’s halakhot of inheritance first.
אֶלָּא [הָכָא] לִפְרוֹשׁ כִּינּוּיֵי בְּרֵישָׁא! אֶלָּא הַיְינוּ טַעַם: יָדוֹת, הוֹאִיל וְאָתְיָין לֵיהּ מִדְּרָשָׁא, חֲבִיבִין לֵיהּ.
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.
וְלִיפְתַּח בְּהוֹן בְּרֵישָׁא! תַּנָּא כִּי מַתְחִיל — מַתְחִיל בְּעִיקַּר קׇרְבָּן, וּלְעִנְיַן פָּירוּשֵׁי — מְפָרֵשׁ יָדוֹת בְּרֵישָׁא.
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.
הָאוֹמֵר ״אֱהֵא״ — הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר. דִּלְמָא ״אֱהֵא בְּתַעֲנִית״ קָאָמַר? אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה נָזִיר עוֹבֵר לְפָנָיו.
§ 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.
לֵימָא קָסָבַר שְׁמוּאֵל יָדַיִם שֶׁאֵינָן מוֹכִיחוֹת לָא הָוְויָין יָדַיִם? אָמְרִי: בִּזְמַן שֶׁנָּזִיר עוֹבֵר לְפָנָיו לֵיכָּא לְסַפּוֹקֵא בְּמִילְּתָא אַחֲרִינָא. אֲבָל וַדַּאי אֵין הַנָּזִיר עוֹבֵר לְפָנָיו, אָמְרִינַן: דִּלְמָא ״אֱהֵא בְּתַעֲנִית״ קָאָמַר.
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’s intimation is so ambiguous that it offers no evidence whatsoever of his intentions, that Shmuel holds that one’s statement is not considered a vow.
וְדִלְמָא לְפוֹטְרוֹ מִן קׇרְבְּנוֹתָיו קָאָמַר? דְּקָאָמַר בְּלִבּוֹ.
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.
אִי הָכִי, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: בָּעִינַן פִּיו וְלִבּוֹ שָׁוִין, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks: If that is so, then what is the purpose of stating this halakha? Isn’t 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.
״אֱהֵא נָאֶה״ — נָזִיר. וְדִלְמָא: אֶנָּאֶה לְפָנָיו בְּמִצְוֹת? כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ״ — אֶנָּאֶה לְפָנָיו בְּמִצְוֹת. אֶעֱשֶׂה לְפָנָיו סוּכָּה נָאָה, לוּלָב נָאֶה, צִיצִית נָאָה, אֶכְתּוֹב לְפָנָיו סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה נָאֶה וְאֶכְרְכֶנּוּ בְּשִׁירָאִין נָאִים!
§ The mishna taught that if one says: I will be beautiful [na’e], 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: “This is my God and I will glorify Him [anvehu]” (Exodus 15:2). Anvehu has the same root as the word na’e; 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’in].
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שֶׁתָּפוּס בִּשְׂעָרוֹ, וְאָמַר ״אֶנָּאֶה״.
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.
נְזִירָא מִילְּתָא דַעֲבֵירָה, וְאָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ ״נָאֶה״?
The Gemara asks: Since naziriteship is a matter of transgression, can we say about a nazirite that he is beautiful?
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Riverdale, NY, United States
Richmond, CA, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
Philadelphia, United States
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
Oceanside NY, United States
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Jerusalem, Israel
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
Los Angeles, United States
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
Nazir 2
כׇּל כִּינּוּיֵי נְזִירוּת — כִּנְזִירוּת.
MISHNA: One becomes a nazirite by taking a nazirite vow, in which he simply declares himself a nazirite, as detailed in the Torah (Numbers 6:1–21). 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.
הָאוֹמֵר ״אֱהֵא״ — הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר, אוֹ ״אֱהֵא נָאֶה״ — נָזִיר, ״נָזִיק״, ״נָזִיחַ״, ״פָּזִיחַ״ — הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר. ״הֲרֵינִי כָּזֶה״, ״הֲרֵינִי מְסַלְסֵל״, ״הֲרֵינִי מְכַלְכֵּל״, ״הֲרֵי עָלַי לְשַׁלֵּחַ פֶּרַע״ — הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר.
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’aḥ, or a pazi’aḥ, 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.
״הֲרֵי עָלַי צִיפּוֹרִים״ — רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: נָזִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ נָזִיר.
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.
גְּמָ׳ מִכְּדֵי תַּנָּא בְּסֵדֶר נָשִׁים קָאֵי, מַאי טַעְמָא תָּנֵי נָזִיר?
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?
תַּנָּא אַקְּרָא קָאֵי: ״וְהָיָה אִם לֹא תִמְצָא חֵן בְּעֵינָיו כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר״. וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: מִי גָּרַם לָהּ לָעֲבֵירָה — יַיִן, וְקָאָמַר: כׇּל הָרוֹאֶה סוֹטָה בְּקִלְקוּלָהּ יַזִּיר עַצְמוֹ מִן הַיַּיִן.
The Gemara answers: The tanna is engaged in the study of the verse pertaining to divorce: “Then it comes to pass, if she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly matter about her” (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 “unseemly matter”? 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.
פָּתַח בְּכִינּוּיִין, וּמְפָרֵשׁ יָדוֹת.
§ The Gemara asks a question with regard to the mishna’s 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’t the mishna provide examples of substitutes immediately after stating the halakha concerning substitutes?
אָמַר רָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא כְּדִי: חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: כׇּל כִּינּוּיֵי נְזִירוּת — כִּנְזִירוּת, וִידוֹת נְזִירוּת — כִּנְזִירוּת, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן יָדוֹת: הָאוֹמֵר ״אֱהֵא״ — הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר.
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.
וְלִפְרוֹשׁ כִּינּוּיֵי בְּרֵישָׁא! תַּנָּא מֵהָהוּא דְּסָלֵיק — הָהוּא מְפָרֵשׁ בְּרֵישָׁא. כְּדִתְנַן: בַּמֶּה מַדְלִיקִין וּבַמָּה אֵין מַדְלִיקִין, וּמְפָרֵשׁ ״אֵין מַדְלִיקִין״ בְּרֵישָׁא.
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.
בַּמֶּה טוֹמְנִין וּבַמָּה אֵין טוֹמְנִין, וּמְפָרֵשׁ ״אֵין טוֹמְנִין״ בְּרֵישָׁא.
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.
בַּמָּה אִשָּׁה יוֹצְאָה וּבַמָּה אֵינָהּ יוֹצְאָה, וּמְפָרֵשׁ ״לֹא תֵּצֵא אִשָּׁה״ בְּרֵישָׁא.
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.
וְהָתְנַן: בַּמֶּה בְּהֵמָה יוֹצְאָה וּבַמָּה אֵינָהּ יוֹצְאָה, וּמְפָרֵשׁ ״יוֹצֵא גָּמָל״ בְּרֵישָׁא.
The Gemara challenges this explanation: But didn’t 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.
יֵשׁ נוֹחֲלִין וּמַנְחִילִין, נוֹחֲלִין וְלֹא מַנְחִילִין, מַנְחִילִין וְלֹא נוֹחֲלִין, לֹא נוֹחֲלִין וְלֹא מַנְחִילִין, וּמְפָרֵשׁ ״אֵלּוּ נוֹחֲלִין וּמַנְחִילִין״ בְּרֵישָׁא!
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.
אֶלָּא, לְעוֹלָם תָּנֵי הָכִי וְתָנֵי הָכִי.
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.
אֶלָּא: הָתָם, דְּאִיסּוּרָא דְנַפְשֵׁיהּ הוּא — מְפָרֵשׁ אִיסּוּרָא דְנַפְשֵׁיהּ בְּרֵישָׁא. גַּבֵּי בְּהֵמָה, דְּאִיסּוּרָא אַיְּידֵי בְּהֵמָה הוּא דְּאָתֵי — מְפָרֵשׁ הֶיתֵּירָא בְּרֵישָׁא.
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’s own prohibition that is being discussed, the tanna explains the cases pertaining to the individual’s 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.
גַּבֵּי ״יֵשׁ נוֹחֲלִין״ נָמֵי, מְפָרֵשׁ עִיקַּר נַחֲלָה בְּרֵישָׁא.
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’s halakhot of inheritance first.
אֶלָּא [הָכָא] לִפְרוֹשׁ כִּינּוּיֵי בְּרֵישָׁא! אֶלָּא הַיְינוּ טַעַם: יָדוֹת, הוֹאִיל וְאָתְיָין לֵיהּ מִדְּרָשָׁא, חֲבִיבִין לֵיהּ.
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.
וְלִיפְתַּח בְּהוֹן בְּרֵישָׁא! תַּנָּא כִּי מַתְחִיל — מַתְחִיל בְּעִיקַּר קׇרְבָּן, וּלְעִנְיַן פָּירוּשֵׁי — מְפָרֵשׁ יָדוֹת בְּרֵישָׁא.
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.
הָאוֹמֵר ״אֱהֵא״ — הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר. דִּלְמָא ״אֱהֵא בְּתַעֲנִית״ קָאָמַר? אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה נָזִיר עוֹבֵר לְפָנָיו.
§ 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.
לֵימָא קָסָבַר שְׁמוּאֵל יָדַיִם שֶׁאֵינָן מוֹכִיחוֹת לָא הָוְויָין יָדַיִם? אָמְרִי: בִּזְמַן שֶׁנָּזִיר עוֹבֵר לְפָנָיו לֵיכָּא לְסַפּוֹקֵא בְּמִילְּתָא אַחֲרִינָא. אֲבָל וַדַּאי אֵין הַנָּזִיר עוֹבֵר לְפָנָיו, אָמְרִינַן: דִּלְמָא ״אֱהֵא בְּתַעֲנִית״ קָאָמַר.
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’s intimation is so ambiguous that it offers no evidence whatsoever of his intentions, that Shmuel holds that one’s statement is not considered a vow.
וְדִלְמָא לְפוֹטְרוֹ מִן קׇרְבְּנוֹתָיו קָאָמַר? דְּקָאָמַר בְּלִבּוֹ.
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.
אִי הָכִי, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: בָּעִינַן פִּיו וְלִבּוֹ שָׁוִין, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks: If that is so, then what is the purpose of stating this halakha? Isn’t 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.
״אֱהֵא נָאֶה״ — נָזִיר. וְדִלְמָא: אֶנָּאֶה לְפָנָיו בְּמִצְוֹת? כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ״ — אֶנָּאֶה לְפָנָיו בְּמִצְוֹת. אֶעֱשֶׂה לְפָנָיו סוּכָּה נָאָה, לוּלָב נָאֶה, צִיצִית נָאָה, אֶכְתּוֹב לְפָנָיו סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה נָאֶה וְאֶכְרְכֶנּוּ בְּשִׁירָאִין נָאִים!
§ The mishna taught that if one says: I will be beautiful [na’e], 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: “This is my God and I will glorify Him [anvehu]” (Exodus 15:2). Anvehu has the same root as the word na’e; 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’in].
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שֶׁתָּפוּס בִּשְׂעָרוֹ, וְאָמַר ״אֶנָּאֶה״.
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.
נְזִירָא מִילְּתָא דַעֲבֵירָה, וְאָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ ״נָאֶה״?
The Gemara asks: Since naziriteship is a matter of transgression, can we say about a nazirite that he is beautiful?
