Today's Daf Yomi
February 12, 2023 | כ״א בשבט תשפ״ג
-
This month is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit
-
Masechet Nazir is sponsored by the family of Rabbi Howard Alpert, HaRav Tzvi Lipa ben Hillel, in honor of his first yahrzeit.
Nazir 20
There were different traditions about whether Helene the Queen was a nazir for fourteen years or twenty-one. According to Rabbi Yehuda’s version that it was fourteen, was it that she kept seven outside of Israel and then seven more when she got to Israel (and did not become impure to a dead person) as per Beit Hillel’s opinion or was it based on Beit Shamai that she added another thirty days when she got to Israel but became impure and then ended to start all over again from the beginning and do seven more? The Gemara first proves it from the language of our Mishna and then also from a braita that it was according to Beit Hillel. If two groups of witnesses disagreed about whether a particular person took upon themselves two terms of being a nazir or five, does that person need to keep two terms as each set of witnesses agreed that the person at least took upon themselves two terms or do we view this as contradictory testimony and no set is believed? Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree. However, there was a different version of the debate that it was in a case where the disagreement was between two witnesses and not two sets of witnesses. But if it were two sets of witnesses, all would agree that they would be required to keep two terms. Rav held that they both agree in a case where the witnesses counted the terms. Rav Hama questions this statement of Rav and the rabbis of Israel agreed with his rejection fo Rav. The Mishna beginning the fourth chapter discusses cases of one who took on being a nazir by saying “and me” to someone who just took upon themselves to be a nazir. If the first one dissolved their vow, the others are dissolved as well. What happens when the situation involves a husband and wife? In what case can or can he not nullify her vow? Reish Lakish says that if one wants to take on being a nazir by saying “and me,” it needs to be said immediately after the first person says “I will be a nazir.” Rabbi Yehuda Nesia questioned this.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Podcast (דף-יומי-לנשים): Play in new window | Download
ובית הלל סברי משום אוירא גזרו עליה לא דכולי עלמא משום גושה גזרו עליה ובית שמאי סברי בסתם נזירות קניסנא ובית הלל סברי כי קניסנא בתחילת נזירות:
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.
מעשה בהילני המלכה וכו׳: איבעיא להו בשנטמאת ואליבא דבית שמאי או דלמא בשלא נטמאת ואליבא דבית הלל
§ The mishna taught: An incident occurred with regard to Queen Helene. A dilemma was raised before them: What is the meaning of Rabbi Yehuda’s 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.
תא שמע עלתה לארץ והורוה בית הלל שתהא נזירה עוד שבע שנים אחרות וכו׳ ואי סלקא דעתך בשנטמאת ואליבא דבית שמאי אי הכי רבי יהודה אומר לא היתה נזירה אלא ארבע עשרה שנה ארבע עשרה שנה ושלשים יום מיבעי ליה
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.
תניא נמי הכי רבי יהודה אומר משום רבי אליעזר דאמר קרא זאת תורת הנזיר התורה אמרה כי נטמא ביום מלאת תן לו תורת נזיר:
The Gemara adds: This is also taught in a baraita, that Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion cannot be established in accordance with Beit Shammai: Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer that the verse states: “This is the law of the nazirite when the days of his consecration are fulfilled” (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.
מתני׳ מי שהיו שתי כיתי עדים מעידות אותו אלו מעידים שנזר שתים ואלו מעידים שנזר חמש בית שמאי אומרים נחלקה העדות ואין כאן נזירות ובית הלל אומרים יש בכלל חמש שתים שיהא נזיר שתים:
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.
גמ׳ מתניתין דלא כי האי תנא דתניא רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקא אומר לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על שתי כיתי עדים אחת אומרת שתים ואחת אומרת חמש שיש בכלל חמש שתים על מה נחלקו על כת אחת אחד אומר שתים ואחד אומר חמש שבית שמאי אומרים נחלקה עדותן ובית הלל אומרים יש בכלל חמש שתים
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 Yoḥanan 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.
אמר רב הכל מודים במונה אמר ליה רב חמא לרב חסדא מאי קאמר אילימא אחד אומר חמש ולא שתים ואחד אומר שתים ולא חמש הא קא מכחשי אהדדי אלא אחד אומר אחת ושתים ואחד אומר שלש ארבע חמש
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 Ḥama said to Rav Ḥisda: 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.
הא למה לי השתא יש לומר חמירתא אמר רב קילתא לא אמר אמרי במערבא אין הכחשה במונה:
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.
הדרן עלך מי שאמר
מי שאמר הריני נזיר ושמע חבירו ואמר ואני ואני כולם נזירים הותר הראשון הותרו כולן הותר האחרון האחרון מותר וכולם אסורין אמר הריני נזיר ושמע חבירו ואמר פי כפיו ושערי כשערו הרי זה נזיר
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.
הריני נזיר ושמעה אשתו ואמרה ואני מיפר את שלה ושלו קיים הריני נזירה ושמע בעלה ואמר ואני אינו יכול להפר הריני נזיר ואת ואמרה אמן מיפר את שלה ושלו קיים הריני נזירה ואתה ואמר אמן אינו יכול להפר:
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 30:7–16). 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.
גמ׳ יתיב ריש לקיש קמיה דרבי יהודה נשיאה ויתיב וקאמר והוא שהתפיסו כולן בתוך כדי דיבור וכמה תוך כדי דיבור כדי שאלת שלום וכמה כדי שאלת שלום כדי שאומר שלום תלמיד לרב
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.
אמר ליה תוב לא שבקת רווחא לתלמידא
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’s 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’s vow in time.
-
This month is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit
-
Masechet Nazir is sponsored by the family of Rabbi Howard Alpert, HaRav Tzvi Lipa ben Hillel, in honor of his first yahrzeit.
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
Want to explore more about the Daf?
See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners
Nazir 20
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
ובית הלל סברי משום אוירא גזרו עליה לא דכולי עלמא משום גושה גזרו עליה ובית שמאי סברי בסתם נזירות קניסנא ובית הלל סברי כי קניסנא בתחילת נזירות:
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.
מעשה בהילני המלכה וכו׳: איבעיא להו בשנטמאת ואליבא דבית שמאי או דלמא בשלא נטמאת ואליבא דבית הלל
§ The mishna taught: An incident occurred with regard to Queen Helene. A dilemma was raised before them: What is the meaning of Rabbi Yehuda’s 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.
תא שמע עלתה לארץ והורוה בית הלל שתהא נזירה עוד שבע שנים אחרות וכו׳ ואי סלקא דעתך בשנטמאת ואליבא דבית שמאי אי הכי רבי יהודה אומר לא היתה נזירה אלא ארבע עשרה שנה ארבע עשרה שנה ושלשים יום מיבעי ליה
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.
תניא נמי הכי רבי יהודה אומר משום רבי אליעזר דאמר קרא זאת תורת הנזיר התורה אמרה כי נטמא ביום מלאת תן לו תורת נזיר:
The Gemara adds: This is also taught in a baraita, that Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion cannot be established in accordance with Beit Shammai: Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer that the verse states: “This is the law of the nazirite when the days of his consecration are fulfilled” (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.
מתני׳ מי שהיו שתי כיתי עדים מעידות אותו אלו מעידים שנזר שתים ואלו מעידים שנזר חמש בית שמאי אומרים נחלקה העדות ואין כאן נזירות ובית הלל אומרים יש בכלל חמש שתים שיהא נזיר שתים:
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.
גמ׳ מתניתין דלא כי האי תנא דתניא רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקא אומר לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על שתי כיתי עדים אחת אומרת שתים ואחת אומרת חמש שיש בכלל חמש שתים על מה נחלקו על כת אחת אחד אומר שתים ואחד אומר חמש שבית שמאי אומרים נחלקה עדותן ובית הלל אומרים יש בכלל חמש שתים
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 Yoḥanan 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.
אמר רב הכל מודים במונה אמר ליה רב חמא לרב חסדא מאי קאמר אילימא אחד אומר חמש ולא שתים ואחד אומר שתים ולא חמש הא קא מכחשי אהדדי אלא אחד אומר אחת ושתים ואחד אומר שלש ארבע חמש
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 Ḥama said to Rav Ḥisda: 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.
הא למה לי השתא יש לומר חמירתא אמר רב קילתא לא אמר אמרי במערבא אין הכחשה במונה:
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.
הדרן עלך מי שאמר
מי שאמר הריני נזיר ושמע חבירו ואמר ואני ואני כולם נזירים הותר הראשון הותרו כולן הותר האחרון האחרון מותר וכולם אסורין אמר הריני נזיר ושמע חבירו ואמר פי כפיו ושערי כשערו הרי זה נזיר
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.
הריני נזיר ושמעה אשתו ואמרה ואני מיפר את שלה ושלו קיים הריני נזירה ושמע בעלה ואמר ואני אינו יכול להפר הריני נזיר ואת ואמרה אמן מיפר את שלה ושלו קיים הריני נזירה ואתה ואמר אמן אינו יכול להפר:
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 30:7–16). 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.
גמ׳ יתיב ריש לקיש קמיה דרבי יהודה נשיאה ויתיב וקאמר והוא שהתפיסו כולן בתוך כדי דיבור וכמה תוך כדי דיבור כדי שאלת שלום וכמה כדי שאלת שלום כדי שאומר שלום תלמיד לרב
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.
אמר ליה תוב לא שבקת רווחא לתלמידא
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’s 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’s vow in time.
