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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 11, 2015 | 讻状讝 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 20

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 诪砖讜诐 讗讜讬专讗 讙讝专讜 注诇讬讛 诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讙讜砖讛 讙讝专讜 注诇讬讛 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 讘住转诐 谞讝讬专讜转 拽谞讬住谞讗 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 讻讬 拽谞讬住谞讗 讘转讞讬诇转 谞讝讬专讜转

and Beit Hillel hold: They decreed with regard to its airspace, and it is a severe level of ritual impurity, so he must start his naziriteship from the beginning once he arrives in Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara rejects this possibility: No, it may be that everyone agrees that they decreed only with regard to its earth, and they disagree merely over the details of the penalty. Beit Shammai hold that we penalize him with an unspecified term of naziriteship, which is thirty days, and Beit Hillel hold that when we penalize, we require him to return to the beginning of his term of naziriteship, and he must observe the entire term of naziriteship afresh.

诪注砖讛 讘讛讬诇谞讬 讛诪诇讻讛 讜讻讜壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘砖谞讟诪讗转 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘砖诇讗 谞讟诪讗转 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇

搂 The mishna taught: An incident occurred with regard to Queen Helene. A dilemma was raised before them: What is the meaning of Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement? Does he hold that the case was one where she became impure in Eretz Yisrael, but after thirty days, and not after seven years, and Rabbi Yehuda spoke in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, who hold that she was required to observe only a further thirty days upon her arrival in Eretz Yisrael, and due to her becoming impure she had to observe again her original term of naziriteship, for a total of fourteen years? Or perhaps the case is one where she did not become impure at the end of the seven years in Eretz Yisrael, and he ruled in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel that she had to observe an additional seven years upon her entry to Eretz Yisrael.

转讗 砖诪注 注诇转讛 诇讗专抓 讜讛讜专讜讛 讘讬转 讛诇诇 砖转讛讗 谞讝讬专讛 注讜讚 砖讘注 砖谞讬诐 讗讞专讜转 讜讻讜壮 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘砖谞讟诪讗转 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛讬转讛 谞讝讬专讛 讗诇讗 讗专讘注 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讗专讘注 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: She ascended to Eretz Yisrael, and Beit Hillel instructed her that she should be a nazirite for an additional seven years, etc. And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Yehuda says that the case is one where she became ritually impure after observing thirty days of naziriteship following her arrival to Eretz Yisrael, and he spoke in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, if so, why does Rabbi Yehuda say she was a nazirite for only fourteen years? He should have said fourteen years and thirty days, as even Beit Shammai obligate her to observe a thirty-day period of naziriteship in Eretz Yisrael. It must be that Rabbi Yehuda holds that she observed seven additional years, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, and says that she did not become ritually impure.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讝讗转 转讜专转 讛谞讝讬专 讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 讻讬 谞讟诪讗 讘讬讜诐 诪诇讗转 转谉 诇讜 转讜专转 谞讝讬专

The Gemara adds: This is also taught in a baraita, that Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion cannot be established in accordance with Beit Shammai: Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer that the verse states: 鈥淭his is the law of the nazirite when the days of his consecration are fulfilled鈥 (Numbers 6:13). The Torah states: When he becomes impure on the day of the completion of his naziriteship, even if it was at the end of a lengthy term, give him the law of an unspecified nazirite, and he must observe a thirty-day term. Therefore, if she became impure at the end of those thirty days that Beit Shammai obligates her to observe, she should have been required to observe naziriteship for only thirty additional days, rather than a full seven years. Rather, Rabbi Yehuda certainly accepts the opinion of Beit Hillel, and claims that she did not become ritually impure.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讛讬讜 砖转讬 讻讬转讬 注讚讬诐 诪注讬讚讜转 讗讜转讜 讗诇讜 诪注讬讚讬诐 砖谞讝专 砖转讬诐 讜讗诇讜 诪注讬讚讬诐 砖谞讝专 讞诪砖 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讞诇拽讛 讛注讚讜转 讜讗讬谉 讻讗谉 谞讝讬专讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬砖 讘讻诇诇 讞诪砖 砖转讬诐 砖讬讛讗 谞讝讬专 砖转讬诐

MISHNA: In a case of one who had two sets of witnesses testifying about him that he had taken a vow of naziriteship for a certain period, and these witnesses testify that he took a vow of naziriteship for two terms, and these witnesses testify that he took a vow of naziriteship for five terms. Beit Shammai say: The testimony is divided, i.e., the testimonies contradict each other, and since the testimonies are in conflict they are both rejected entirely and there is no naziriteship here at all. And Beit Hillel say: The testimonies are not completely in conflict with each other, as two terms are included in five terms, and the unanimous testimony, that he is a nazirite for two terms, is accepted.

讙诪壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 砖转讬 讻讬转讬 注讚讬诐 讗讞转 讗讜诪专转 砖转讬诐 讜讗讞转 讗讜诪专转 讞诪砖 砖讬砖 讘讻诇诇 讞诪砖 砖转讬诐 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 讻转 讗讞转 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 砖转讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讞诪砖 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讞诇拽讛 注讚讜转谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬砖 讘讻诇诇 讞诪砖 砖转讬诐

GEMARA: The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to the halakha in the case of two sets of witnesses, one of whom says two terms and one of whom says five terms, that two terms are included in five terms, and he must observe two terms of naziriteship. With regard to what did they disagree? They disagreed with regard to one set of two witnesses, one of whom says two terms and one of whom says five terms, and that Beit Shammai say: In that case their testimony is divided, as the two witnesses are in conflict and there is no testimony here at all. And Beit Hillel say: Since two terms are included in five terms, their testimony is in agreement with regard to two terms, and therefore he must observe two terms.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘诪讜谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞诪讗 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讞诪砖 讜诇讗 砖转讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 砖转讬诐 讜诇讗 讞诪砖 讛讗 拽讗 诪讻讞砖讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讗诇讗 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讗讞转 讜砖转讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖 讗专讘注 讞诪砖

In relation to the explanation that the dispute is with regard to a single pair of witnesses, Rav said: All concede in a case of counting that the testimonies contradict each other. Rav 岣ma said to Rav 岣sda: What is he saying; what did Rav mean by this? If we say that he was referring to a case where one witness says: He vowed five terms and not two terms, and one says: He vowed two terms and not five terms, in such a situation they clearly contradict one another, and neither of the testimonies is reliable. Rather, Rav is speaking of one witness who says that he heard the person in question count out only one and two terms when he took a vow of naziriteship, and one says that he heard the person in question count out only three, four, and five terms when he took a vow of naziriteship.

讛讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛砖转讗 讬砖 诇讜诪专 讞诪讬专转讗 讗诪专 专讘 拽讬诇转讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 讗讬谉 讛讻讞砖讛 讘诪讜谞讛

The Gemara asks: Why do I need for Rav to state this at all? Now that it is already said with regard to a stringent case, where there were two sets of witnesses who generally have full credibility yet Rav said that the testimony is considered divided, with regard to a lenient case, involving a conflict within one pair of witnesses, who cannot each obligate him in naziriteship, would he not say that a conflict in their testimony causes it to be disregarded? Of course the testimonies are disregarded if the conflict is within the same set of witnesses. They say in the West, Eretz Yisrael: There is no conflicting testimony in a case of counting, as since one of them counted a smaller number and the second counted a larger number, they do not conflict at all, as the smaller number is included in the larger one.
In a standard term of naziriteship, the nazirite shaves on the day after the close of his term, the thirty-first day. One who shaved on the final day of his term, the thirtieth day, has fulfilled his obligation. If one vowed to observe two consecutive terms of naziriteship, he shaves for the end of the second term on the sixty-first day from the start of the first term, as that is the thirty-first day of the second term. If one shaved for the first term on the thirtieth day, then even if he shaved for the second term on the fifty-ninth day, he has fulfilled his obligation.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 诪讬 砖讗诪专

 

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讜砖诪注 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 讜讗谞讬 讜讗谞讬 讻讜诇诐 谞讝讬专讬诐 讛讜转专 讛专讗砖讜谉 讛讜转专讜 讻讜诇谉 讛讜转专 讛讗讞专讜谉 讛讗讞专讜谉 诪讜转专 讜讻讜诇诐 讗住讜专讬谉 讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讜砖诪注 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 驻讬 讻驻讬讜 讜砖注专讬 讻砖注专讜 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讝讬专

MISHNA: With regard to one who said: I am hereby a nazirite, and another heard this vow and said: And I, and a third person added: And I, they are all nazirites. If the vow of the first was dissolved by a halakhic authority, they are all dissolved. However, if the vow of the last individual was dissolved by a halakhic authority, the vow of the last individual alone is dissolved, and all the others remain bound by their nazirite vows. If someone said: I am hereby a nazirite, and another heard and said: My mouth is like his mouth and my hair is like his hair, he is a nazirite.

讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讜砖诪注讛 讗砖转讜 讜讗诪专讛 讜讗谞讬 诪讬驻专 讗转 砖诇讛 讜砖诇讜 拽讬讬诐 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专讛 讜砖诪注 讘注诇讛 讜讗诪专 讜讗谞讬 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讜讗转 讜讗诪专讛 讗诪谉 诪讬驻专 讗转 砖诇讛 讜砖诇讜 拽讬讬诐 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专讛 讜讗转讛 讜讗诪专 讗诪谉 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专

If one said: I am hereby a nazirite, and his wife heard him and said: And I, he can nullify her vow of naziriteship if he so chooses (see Numbers 30:7鈥16). But his vow remains intact, as his naziriteship is not dependent on hers. However, if the wife said: I am hereby a nazirite, and her husband heard and said: And I, he cannot nullify her vow of naziriteship, as he would thereby be nullifying his own vow, which he made dependent on hers, and he does not have the ability to nullify his own vow. If he said to his wife: I am hereby a nazirite, and you, i.e., you shall be a nazirite as well, and she said: Amen, in acceptance of this vow, he can nullify her vow, and his vow remains intact. However, if the wife said: I am hereby a nazirite, and you, and he said: Amen, he cannot nullify her vow.

讙诪壮 讬转讬讘 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 讜讛讜讗 砖讛转驻讬住讜 讻讜诇谉 讘转讜讱 讻讚讬 讚讬讘讜专 讜讻诪讛 转讜讱 讻讚讬 讚讬讘讜专 讻讚讬 砖讗诇转 砖诇讜诐 讜讻诪讛 讻讚讬 砖讗诇转 砖诇讜诐 讻讚讬 砖讗讜诪专 砖诇讜诐 转诇诪讬讚 诇专讘

GEMARA: Reish Lakish sat before Rabbi Yehuda Nesia, and he sat and said in explanation of the mishna: And this halakha, that they are all nazirites, applies only when they all took a vow by associating themselves with the previous vow within the time required for speaking a short phrase. The Gemara asks: And how much time is included in the measure of: Within the time required for speaking a short phrase? The Gemara answers: It is the time necessary for greeting someone. The Gemara asks: And how much is the time necessary for greeting someone? The Gemara answers that it is the time necessary for a student to say: Peace upon you, my teacher, to his rabbi.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转讜讘 诇讗 砖讘拽转 专讜讜讞讗 诇转诇诪讬讚讗

Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said to Reish Lakish: Once again you have provided no advantage to a student who wishes to associate himself with the naziriteship of another. If the student鈥檚 rabbi was passing by at the precise moment that his colleague was vowing to be a nazirite, he would have to greet his rabbi first, and therefore he would not be able to respond to his colleague鈥檚 vow in time.

  • 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 20

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 20

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 诪砖讜诐 讗讜讬专讗 讙讝专讜 注诇讬讛 诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讙讜砖讛 讙讝专讜 注诇讬讛 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 讘住转诐 谞讝讬专讜转 拽谞讬住谞讗 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 讻讬 拽谞讬住谞讗 讘转讞讬诇转 谞讝讬专讜转

and Beit Hillel hold: They decreed with regard to its airspace, and it is a severe level of ritual impurity, so he must start his naziriteship from the beginning once he arrives in Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara rejects this possibility: No, it may be that everyone agrees that they decreed only with regard to its earth, and they disagree merely over the details of the penalty. Beit Shammai hold that we penalize him with an unspecified term of naziriteship, which is thirty days, and Beit Hillel hold that when we penalize, we require him to return to the beginning of his term of naziriteship, and he must observe the entire term of naziriteship afresh.

诪注砖讛 讘讛讬诇谞讬 讛诪诇讻讛 讜讻讜壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘砖谞讟诪讗转 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘砖诇讗 谞讟诪讗转 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇

搂 The mishna taught: An incident occurred with regard to Queen Helene. A dilemma was raised before them: What is the meaning of Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement? Does he hold that the case was one where she became impure in Eretz Yisrael, but after thirty days, and not after seven years, and Rabbi Yehuda spoke in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, who hold that she was required to observe only a further thirty days upon her arrival in Eretz Yisrael, and due to her becoming impure she had to observe again her original term of naziriteship, for a total of fourteen years? Or perhaps the case is one where she did not become impure at the end of the seven years in Eretz Yisrael, and he ruled in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel that she had to observe an additional seven years upon her entry to Eretz Yisrael.

转讗 砖诪注 注诇转讛 诇讗专抓 讜讛讜专讜讛 讘讬转 讛诇诇 砖转讛讗 谞讝讬专讛 注讜讚 砖讘注 砖谞讬诐 讗讞专讜转 讜讻讜壮 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘砖谞讟诪讗转 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛讬转讛 谞讝讬专讛 讗诇讗 讗专讘注 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讗专讘注 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: She ascended to Eretz Yisrael, and Beit Hillel instructed her that she should be a nazirite for an additional seven years, etc. And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Yehuda says that the case is one where she became ritually impure after observing thirty days of naziriteship following her arrival to Eretz Yisrael, and he spoke in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, if so, why does Rabbi Yehuda say she was a nazirite for only fourteen years? He should have said fourteen years and thirty days, as even Beit Shammai obligate her to observe a thirty-day period of naziriteship in Eretz Yisrael. It must be that Rabbi Yehuda holds that she observed seven additional years, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, and says that she did not become ritually impure.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讝讗转 转讜专转 讛谞讝讬专 讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 讻讬 谞讟诪讗 讘讬讜诐 诪诇讗转 转谉 诇讜 转讜专转 谞讝讬专

The Gemara adds: This is also taught in a baraita, that Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion cannot be established in accordance with Beit Shammai: Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer that the verse states: 鈥淭his is the law of the nazirite when the days of his consecration are fulfilled鈥 (Numbers 6:13). The Torah states: When he becomes impure on the day of the completion of his naziriteship, even if it was at the end of a lengthy term, give him the law of an unspecified nazirite, and he must observe a thirty-day term. Therefore, if she became impure at the end of those thirty days that Beit Shammai obligates her to observe, she should have been required to observe naziriteship for only thirty additional days, rather than a full seven years. Rather, Rabbi Yehuda certainly accepts the opinion of Beit Hillel, and claims that she did not become ritually impure.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讛讬讜 砖转讬 讻讬转讬 注讚讬诐 诪注讬讚讜转 讗讜转讜 讗诇讜 诪注讬讚讬诐 砖谞讝专 砖转讬诐 讜讗诇讜 诪注讬讚讬诐 砖谞讝专 讞诪砖 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讞诇拽讛 讛注讚讜转 讜讗讬谉 讻讗谉 谞讝讬专讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬砖 讘讻诇诇 讞诪砖 砖转讬诐 砖讬讛讗 谞讝讬专 砖转讬诐

MISHNA: In a case of one who had two sets of witnesses testifying about him that he had taken a vow of naziriteship for a certain period, and these witnesses testify that he took a vow of naziriteship for two terms, and these witnesses testify that he took a vow of naziriteship for five terms. Beit Shammai say: The testimony is divided, i.e., the testimonies contradict each other, and since the testimonies are in conflict they are both rejected entirely and there is no naziriteship here at all. And Beit Hillel say: The testimonies are not completely in conflict with each other, as two terms are included in five terms, and the unanimous testimony, that he is a nazirite for two terms, is accepted.

讙诪壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 砖转讬 讻讬转讬 注讚讬诐 讗讞转 讗讜诪专转 砖转讬诐 讜讗讞转 讗讜诪专转 讞诪砖 砖讬砖 讘讻诇诇 讞诪砖 砖转讬诐 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 讻转 讗讞转 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 砖转讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讞诪砖 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讞诇拽讛 注讚讜转谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬砖 讘讻诇诇 讞诪砖 砖转讬诐

GEMARA: The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to the halakha in the case of two sets of witnesses, one of whom says two terms and one of whom says five terms, that two terms are included in five terms, and he must observe two terms of naziriteship. With regard to what did they disagree? They disagreed with regard to one set of two witnesses, one of whom says two terms and one of whom says five terms, and that Beit Shammai say: In that case their testimony is divided, as the two witnesses are in conflict and there is no testimony here at all. And Beit Hillel say: Since two terms are included in five terms, their testimony is in agreement with regard to two terms, and therefore he must observe two terms.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘诪讜谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞诪讗 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讞诪砖 讜诇讗 砖转讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 砖转讬诐 讜诇讗 讞诪砖 讛讗 拽讗 诪讻讞砖讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讗诇讗 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讗讞转 讜砖转讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖 讗专讘注 讞诪砖

In relation to the explanation that the dispute is with regard to a single pair of witnesses, Rav said: All concede in a case of counting that the testimonies contradict each other. Rav 岣ma said to Rav 岣sda: What is he saying; what did Rav mean by this? If we say that he was referring to a case where one witness says: He vowed five terms and not two terms, and one says: He vowed two terms and not five terms, in such a situation they clearly contradict one another, and neither of the testimonies is reliable. Rather, Rav is speaking of one witness who says that he heard the person in question count out only one and two terms when he took a vow of naziriteship, and one says that he heard the person in question count out only three, four, and five terms when he took a vow of naziriteship.

讛讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛砖转讗 讬砖 诇讜诪专 讞诪讬专转讗 讗诪专 专讘 拽讬诇转讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 讗讬谉 讛讻讞砖讛 讘诪讜谞讛

The Gemara asks: Why do I need for Rav to state this at all? Now that it is already said with regard to a stringent case, where there were two sets of witnesses who generally have full credibility yet Rav said that the testimony is considered divided, with regard to a lenient case, involving a conflict within one pair of witnesses, who cannot each obligate him in naziriteship, would he not say that a conflict in their testimony causes it to be disregarded? Of course the testimonies are disregarded if the conflict is within the same set of witnesses. They say in the West, Eretz Yisrael: There is no conflicting testimony in a case of counting, as since one of them counted a smaller number and the second counted a larger number, they do not conflict at all, as the smaller number is included in the larger one.
In a standard term of naziriteship, the nazirite shaves on the day after the close of his term, the thirty-first day. One who shaved on the final day of his term, the thirtieth day, has fulfilled his obligation. If one vowed to observe two consecutive terms of naziriteship, he shaves for the end of the second term on the sixty-first day from the start of the first term, as that is the thirty-first day of the second term. If one shaved for the first term on the thirtieth day, then even if he shaved for the second term on the fifty-ninth day, he has fulfilled his obligation.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 诪讬 砖讗诪专

 

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讜砖诪注 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 讜讗谞讬 讜讗谞讬 讻讜诇诐 谞讝讬专讬诐 讛讜转专 讛专讗砖讜谉 讛讜转专讜 讻讜诇谉 讛讜转专 讛讗讞专讜谉 讛讗讞专讜谉 诪讜转专 讜讻讜诇诐 讗住讜专讬谉 讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讜砖诪注 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 驻讬 讻驻讬讜 讜砖注专讬 讻砖注专讜 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讝讬专

MISHNA: With regard to one who said: I am hereby a nazirite, and another heard this vow and said: And I, and a third person added: And I, they are all nazirites. If the vow of the first was dissolved by a halakhic authority, they are all dissolved. However, if the vow of the last individual was dissolved by a halakhic authority, the vow of the last individual alone is dissolved, and all the others remain bound by their nazirite vows. If someone said: I am hereby a nazirite, and another heard and said: My mouth is like his mouth and my hair is like his hair, he is a nazirite.

讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讜砖诪注讛 讗砖转讜 讜讗诪专讛 讜讗谞讬 诪讬驻专 讗转 砖诇讛 讜砖诇讜 拽讬讬诐 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专讛 讜砖诪注 讘注诇讛 讜讗诪专 讜讗谞讬 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讜讗转 讜讗诪专讛 讗诪谉 诪讬驻专 讗转 砖诇讛 讜砖诇讜 拽讬讬诐 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专讛 讜讗转讛 讜讗诪专 讗诪谉 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专

If one said: I am hereby a nazirite, and his wife heard him and said: And I, he can nullify her vow of naziriteship if he so chooses (see Numbers 30:7鈥16). But his vow remains intact, as his naziriteship is not dependent on hers. However, if the wife said: I am hereby a nazirite, and her husband heard and said: And I, he cannot nullify her vow of naziriteship, as he would thereby be nullifying his own vow, which he made dependent on hers, and he does not have the ability to nullify his own vow. If he said to his wife: I am hereby a nazirite, and you, i.e., you shall be a nazirite as well, and she said: Amen, in acceptance of this vow, he can nullify her vow, and his vow remains intact. However, if the wife said: I am hereby a nazirite, and you, and he said: Amen, he cannot nullify her vow.

讙诪壮 讬转讬讘 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 讜讛讜讗 砖讛转驻讬住讜 讻讜诇谉 讘转讜讱 讻讚讬 讚讬讘讜专 讜讻诪讛 转讜讱 讻讚讬 讚讬讘讜专 讻讚讬 砖讗诇转 砖诇讜诐 讜讻诪讛 讻讚讬 砖讗诇转 砖诇讜诐 讻讚讬 砖讗讜诪专 砖诇讜诐 转诇诪讬讚 诇专讘

GEMARA: Reish Lakish sat before Rabbi Yehuda Nesia, and he sat and said in explanation of the mishna: And this halakha, that they are all nazirites, applies only when they all took a vow by associating themselves with the previous vow within the time required for speaking a short phrase. The Gemara asks: And how much time is included in the measure of: Within the time required for speaking a short phrase? The Gemara answers: It is the time necessary for greeting someone. The Gemara asks: And how much is the time necessary for greeting someone? The Gemara answers that it is the time necessary for a student to say: Peace upon you, my teacher, to his rabbi.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转讜讘 诇讗 砖讘拽转 专讜讜讞讗 诇转诇诪讬讚讗

Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said to Reish Lakish: Once again you have provided no advantage to a student who wishes to associate himself with the naziriteship of another. If the student鈥檚 rabbi was passing by at the precise moment that his colleague was vowing to be a nazirite, he would have to greet his rabbi first, and therefore he would not be able to respond to his colleague鈥檚 vow in time.

Scroll To Top