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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 20, 2015 | 讝壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Nazir 29

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻讚讬 诇讞谞讻讜 讘诪爪讜转 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讗砖讛 谞诪讬 住讘专 讗讬砖 讞讬讬讘 诇讞谞讱 讘谞讜 讘诪爪讜转 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 讞讬讬讘转 诇讞谞讱 讗转 讘谞讛

said that Reish Lakish said: The purpose is in order to educate him in mitzvot, to teach him how to observe the mitzva of naziriteship. The Gemara asks: If so, even a woman as well should be able to impose naziriteship on her son for educational purposes. The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish holds that a man is obligated to educate his son in mitzvot, but a woman is not obligated to educate her son in mitzvot.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讘谞讝讬专 讗诪讟讜 诇讛讻讬 讘谞讜 讗讬谉 讘转讜 诇讗 讗诇讗 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转讜 拽住讘专 讘谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讞谞讻讜 讘转讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讞谞讻讛

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai with regard to a nazirite, for that reason one can understand the ruling of the mishna, which indicates that for his son, yes, a father can vow that he should be a nazirite, but with regard to his daughter, no, he cannot do so, as a halakha learned by tradition cannot be questioned. However, according to the opinion of Reish Lakish, a father should even be able to impose naziriteship upon his daughter for the sake of her education. Why does the mishna specify a son? The Gemara answers that Reish Lakish holds: A father is obligated to educate his son, whereas he is not obligated to educate his daughter, and for this reason he cannot vow that she should be a nazirite.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讘谞讝讬专 讗讛讻讬 讘谞讝讬专讜转 讗讬谉 讘谞讚专讬诐 诇讗 讗诇讗 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讚专讬诐 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks another question: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said that it is a halakha with regard to a nazirite, this is why the mishna indicates that with regard to naziriteship, yes, a father can impose a vow upon his son, but with regard to other vows, no, he cannot do so. However, according to the opinion of Reish Lakish, who says it is for the son鈥檚 education, a father should even be able to impose regular vows upon him as well. Why does the mishna specify naziriteship?

诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讘谞讚专讬诐 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 谞讬讜讜诇 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘谞讝讬专讜转 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 谞讬讜讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讞讬讬讘 诇讞谞讻讜

The Gemara answers: According to Reish Lakish the tanna of this mishna is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary, as follows: It is not necessary to ask whether a father can impose regular vows of a mitzva where there is no deprivation of the son when he fulfills his father鈥檚 vow, but even with regard to naziriteship, where there is deprivation of his son, as the son must refrain from wine and shaving, even so the father is obligated to educate him, and therefore he can vow in this manner too.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讘谞讝讬专 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 诪讬讞讛 讗讜 砖诪讬讞讜讛讜 拽专讜讘讬讜

The Gemara asks another question: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai with regard to a nazirite, this explanation is consistent with that which the mishna teaches: If he objected, or his relatives objected for him, the naziriteship is canceled, as the transmitted halakha may be that the acquiescence of the relatives is necessary.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻诇 讻诪讬谞讬讛讜谉 拽专讜讘讬诐 讚讗诪专讬谉 诇讬讛 诇讗 转讬讙诪专讬讛 诪爪讜转 拽住讘专 讻诇 讞讬谞讜讱 讚诇讗 讞砖讬讘 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara continues its question: However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, who said that Reish Lakish said that this vow serves educational purposes, is this really in the power of the relatives to say to the father: Do not teach him mitzvot? The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish holds that with regard to any education that is not important, e.g., the optional mitzva of naziriteship, the son is not amenable to the suffering he must endure for this purpose, and therefore he or his relatives can object.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讘谞讝讬专 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诪讙诇讞 讜注讘讬讚 讛拽驻讛

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said it is a halakha with regard to a nazirite, it is due to that reason that the son must shave all of his hair at the conclusion of his naziriteship, despite the fact that he thereby performs the rounding of the corners of his head, in violation of the prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not round the corners of your heads鈥 (Leviticus 19:27). Since a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai has the status of Torah law, a minor nazirite shaves despite this prohibition.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻讚讬 诇讞谞讻讜 讘诪爪讜转 讛讗 拽注讘讬讚 讛拽驻讛

The Gemara continues its question: However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, who said that Reish Lakish said that the reason the vow of naziriteship takes effect is in order to educate him in mitzvot, and it applies only by rabbinic law, how does he explain the fact that this nazirite performs the rounding of the head? How does a naziriteship, which is by rabbinic law, override a Torah prohibition?

拽住讘专 讛拽驻转 讻诇 讛专讗砖 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜讞讬谞讜讱 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜讗转讬 讞讬谞讜讱 讚专讘谞谉 讜讚讞讬 讛拽驻讛 讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish holds that the rounding of the entire head is prohibited only by rabbinic law, as the Torah itself prohibited shaving only the corners of the head, and the mitzva of education also applies by rabbinic law. And therefore the mitzva of education, which is by rabbinic law, comes and overrides the prohibition against rounding the head, which likewise applies by rabbinic law.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讘谞讝讬专 讗讛讻讬 诪讙诇讞 诪讬讬转讬 拽专讘谉

The Gemara continues to ask along the same lines: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said it is a halakha with regard to a nazirite, this is why when he shaves at the conclusion of his naziriteship he brings an offering, as the halakha is that the minor is a nazirite in all regards, which means his offering is obligatory, like that of an adult nazirite.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻讚讬 诇讞谞讻讜 讘诪爪讜转 讛讗 拽讗 诪讬讬转讬 讞讜诇讬谉 诇注讝专讛 拽住讘专 讞讜诇讬谉 讘注讝专讛 诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

The Gemara continues its question: However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, who said that Reish Lakish said that the reason is in order to educate him in mitzvot, the minor鈥檚 offering is not a Torah obligation, which means that he brings non-sacred animals into the Temple courtyard for slaughter. The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish holds that the prohibition against slaughtering non-sacred animals in the Temple courtyard does not apply by Torah law but by rabbinic law, and therefore this prohibition is disregarded due to the importance of the son鈥檚 education.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讘谞讝讬专 讗讛讻讬 讻讬 诪讬讟诪讗 诪讬讬转讬 拽专讘谉 爪讬驻专讬谉 讜讗讻讬诇 讻讛谉 诪诇讬拽讛

The Gemara asks yet another question: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said it is a halakha with regard to a nazirite, this is why when the son becomes ritually impure he brings an offering of birds, and the priest may eat the bird sin-offering that was killed by means of pinching, nipping the neck of the bird, rather than by regular slaughter. This permits a bird to be eaten only in the case of a proper bird offering.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讗 拽讗讻讬诇 谞讘讬诇讛

The Gemara continues its question: However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, who said that Reish Lakish said that the reason the vow takes effect is to educate the son in mitzvot, in this case the priest eats an unslaughtered animal carcass. If the son is not obligated to bring the offering, the priest will be eating a bird that was killed in a manner that does not render it fit for consumption, which means it has the status of an unslaughtered carcass.

拽住讘专 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗讬谉 砖讞讬讟讛 诇注讜祝 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讜讞讜诇讬谉 讘注讝专讛 诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that slaughter of a bird is not obligatory by Torah law. Rather, by Torah law birds are fit to be eaten no matter how they are killed, and it was the Sages who decreed that they must be slaughtered. And he also maintains that the prohibition against bringing non-sacred animals for slaughter in the Temple courtyard does not apply by Torah law. Consequently the rabbinic mitzva of education overrides these prohibitions, as they too are rabbinic.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讻讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 砖讛讬讗 讘讗讛 注诇 讛住驻拽 砖讗讬谞讛 谞讗讻诇转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讝讘 讗转 讝讜讘讜 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛 诪拽讬砖 谞拽讘讛 诇讝讻专 诪讛 讝讻专 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 讛讜讚讗讬 讗祝 谞拽讘讛 诪讘讬讗讛 拽专讘谉 注诇 讛讜讚讗讬 讜诪讛 讝讻专 诪讘讬讗 注诇 讛住驻拽 讗祝 谞拽讘讛 诪讘讬讗讛 注诇 讛住驻拽

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei hold this opinion? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: From where is it derived that the bird sin-offering that comes due to uncertainty is not eaten? The verse states: 鈥淎nd they who have an issue, whether a male or a female鈥 (Leviticus 15:33), which juxtaposes a female to a male: Just as a male brings an offering for a definite sin, i.e., for a transgression he is sure he committed inadvertently, so too, a female brings an offering for a definite sin. And just as a male brings a provisional guilt-offering for his uncertain transgression, so too, a female brings an offering for her case of uncertainty.

讜诪讛 讝讻专 诪诪讬谉 砖讛讜讗 诪讘讬讗 注诇 讛讜讚讗讬 诪讘讬讗 注诇 讛住驻拽 讗祝 谞拽讘讛 诪诪讬谉 砖讛讬讗 诪讘讬讗讛 注诇 讛讜讚讗讬 诪讘讬讗讛 注诇 讛住驻拽 讗讬 诪讛 讝讻专 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 讜谞讗讻诇 讗祝 谞拽讘讛 诪讘讬讗讛 拽专讘谉 讜谞讗讻诇 讗诪专转

And furthermore: Just as a male brings an animal for his uncertain transgression, a ram as a guilt-offering, from the same type from which he brings a definite sin-offering, an animal sin-offering, so too, a female brings the same type for her case of uncertainty from the same type from which she brings for a definite offering, i.e., a bird if she is a zava or gave birth. This leads to the following question: If so, one can continue this line of thought: Just as a male brings an offering and it is eaten, so too, a female brings an offering and it should be eaten when she sacrifices an offering for uncertain childbirth. With regard to this case you say:

诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讝讻专 砖讻谉 讗讬住讜专 讗讞讚 转讗诪专 讘谞拽讘讛 砖砖谞讬 讗讬住讜专讬谉

No, you cannot make this claim, because if you say that this is true with regard to a male, when bringing his offering involves only one uncertain prohibition, i.e., that he might be bringing non-sacred animals into the Temple courtyard, shall you also say that this is the case with regard to a female, whose case includes two prohibitions? This concludes the baraita.

诪讗讬 砖谞讬 讗讬住讜专讬谉 诇讗讜 讗讬住讜专 谞讘讬诇讛 讜讞讜诇讬谉 讘注讝专讛 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讜讚讬诇诪讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬转讞讝讬 讻转专讬谉 讗讬住讜专讬谉 诪讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: What are these two prohibitions? Are they not the prohibition against consuming an unslaughtered animal carcass by eating a bird killed by pinching, and the prohibition against bringing non-sacred animals into the Temple courtyard? This shows that the prohibition against bringing non-sacred animals into the Temple courtyard applies by Torah law according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, objects to this: And perhaps one is not liable for these prohibitions by Torah law, rather, the baraita means that one is liable for this because it appears like two Torah prohibitions, although they actually apply only by rabbinic law.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 注讚 诪转讬 诪讚讬专 讗转 讘谞讜 讘谞讝讬专 注讚 砖讬讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬讙讬注 诇注讜谞转 谞讚专讬诐

搂 The Gemara returns to the question of whether the ruling that a man can impose naziriteship on his son is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai or whether it is part of the boy鈥檚 education. Let us say that this is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. As it is taught: Until when can a father vow that his son should be a nazirite? It is until the son develops two pubic hairs; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: It is until he reaches the age of vows, usually approximately a year earlier, when he demonstrates an understanding of the nature of vows. If he vows at that age and comprehends the significance of his utterance, his vow is valid.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚专讘讬 住讘专 讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讘谞讝讬专 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛讙讬注 诇注讜谞转 谞讚专讬诐 诪讚讬专 诇讬讛 讜讗讝讬诇 注讚 讚诪讬讬转讬 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 注讚 砖讬讙讬注 诇注讜谞转 谞讚专讬诐 住讘专 讻讚讬 诇讞谞讻讜 讘诪爪讜转 讜讻讬讜谉 讚谞驻讬拽 诪专砖讜转讬讛 转讜 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘

What, is it not the case that this is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m: As Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai with regard to a nazirite, and therefore even though the son has already reached the age of vows and is capable of making his own decision with regard to the vow, this halakha states that the father continues to vow for him until he develops two pubic hairs, the sign of maturity. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that the father can vow for the son only until he reaches the age of vows, holds that he imposes a vow on his son in order to educate him in mitzvot, and since the son has left the father鈥檚 supervision to the degree that he can utter his own vows, the father is no longer obligated to educate him in this area of halakha.

讗诪专讬 诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讘谞讝讬专 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讜驻诇讗 讛住诪讜讱 诇讗讬砖 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

The Gemara rejects this argument. The Sages say in response: No; this is not the correct explanation of that dispute, as one can say that everyone, both Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, agrees with Rabbi Yo岣nan that it is a halakha with regard to a nazirite, and here they disagree with regard to the issue of a minor one year before he or she reaches majority. In other words, they dispute the case of a child who utters a vow when he is almost mature, on the verge of puberty. It is an accepted halakha that the vow of this child is valid if he understands its meaning. The dispute concerns the source of this halakha.

专讘讬 住讘专 诪讜驻诇讗 讛住诪讜讱 诇讗讬砖 讚专讘谞谉 讜讗转讬讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚讞讬讗 讚专讘谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诪讜驻诇讗 讛住诪讜讱 诇讗讬砖 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the status of a minor one year before he or she reaches majority applies by rabbinic law, and therefore the halakha by Torah law that a father can vow on behalf of his son comes and overrides the decree that one who is near the age of maturity is considered an independent adult with regard to vows, which is by rabbinic law. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the status of a minor one year before he or she reaches majority applies by Torah law. Consequently, the halakha that a father can vow on behalf of his son does not apply to this case.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讻讚讬 诇讞谞讻讜 讘诪爪讜转 讜诪讜驻诇讗 讛住诪讜讱 诇讗讬砖 讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 专讘讬 住讘专 讗转讬 讞讬谞讜讱 讚专讘谞谉 讜讚讞讬 诪讜驻诇讗 讛住诪讜讱 诇讗讬砖 讚专讘谞谉

And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that a father vows for his son in order to educate him in mitzvot, which means it is by rabbinic law, and likewise the status of a minor one year before he or she reaches majority is also by rabbinic law. In that case, the tanna鈥檌m dispute the following: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the mitzva of education, which applies by rabbinic law, comes and overrides the status of a minor one year before he or she reaches majority, which is also by rabbinic law.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 注讚 砖讬讙讬注 诇注讜谞转 谞讚专讬诐 拽住讘专 诇讗 讗转讬 讞讬谞讜讱 讚专讘谞谉 讜讚讞讬 诪讜驻诇讗 讛住诪讜讱 诇讗讬砖

And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that a father can vow for his son only until he reaches the age of vows, holds that the mitzva of education by rabbinic law does not come and override the status of a minor one year before he or she reaches majority. Consequently, there is no necessary connection between this dispute of tanna鈥檌m and the argument between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish as to whether the ruling that a father can impose naziriteship on his son is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai or an educational tool.

诇讬诪讗 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讻讬 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 诪注砖讛 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 砖讛讚讬专讜 讗讘讬讜 讘谞讝讬专 讜讛讘讬讗讜 诇驻谞讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讛讬讛 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘讜讚拽讜 诇讬讚注 讗诐 讛讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讗诐 诇讗 讛讘讬讗

With regard to the dispute concerning the time period for a father鈥檚 vow on behalf of his son, the Gemara suggests: Shall we say that the dispute between these tanna鈥檌m is like the dispute between those other tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Nidda 5:9): An incident occurred involving Rabbi 岣nina in which his father vowed that he should be a nazirite when he was a minor, and they brought him before Rabban Gamliel, and Rabban Gamliel examined him to discern if he had already developed two pubic hairs, in which case the vow would not take effect, or if he had not developed them, which would mean that the vow was valid.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诇讬讚注 讗诐 讛讙讬注 诇注讜谞转 谞讚专讬诐 讗诐 诇讗讜 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇 转爪讟注专 诇讘讜讚拽谞讬 讗诐 拽讟谉 讗谞讬 讗讛讬讛 讘砖讘讬诇 讗讘讗 讗诐 讙讚讜诇 讗谞讬 讗讛讬讛 讘砖讘讬诇 注爪诪讬 注诪讚 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜谞砖拽讜 注诇 专讗砖讜 讗诪专 诪讜讘讟讞 讗谞讬 讘讝讛 砖诪讜专讛 讛诇讻讛 讘讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专讜 诇讗 讛讬讜 讬诪讬诐 诪讜注讟讬诐 注讚 砖讛讜专讛 讛讜专讗讛 讘讬砖专讗诇

Rabbi Yosei says that Rabban Gamliel examined him to discern whether he had reached the age of vows or not, which he maintains is the decisive factor. The child said to Rabban Gamliel: My teacher, do not go to the trouble of examining me, since if I am a minor I shall be a nazirite due to my father鈥檚 vow, and if I am an adult, I shall be a nazirite due to my own vow. Rabban Gamliel arose and kissed the child on his head. He said: I am certain of this child that he will eventually become an authority of halakha for the Jewish people. They said: In fact, it was only a few years later that the child issued rulings for the Jewish people.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 注讚 砖讬讙讬注 诇注讜谞转 谞讚专讬诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗诪专 讗诐 拽讟谉 讗谞讬 讗讛讬讛 讘砖讘讬诇 讗讘讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讚讗诪专 注讚 砖讬讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讜讗诐 讙讚讜诇 讗谞讬 讗讛讬讛 讘砖讘讬诇 注爪诪讬

The Gemara explains its suggestion: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that a father can vow on behalf of his son only until he reaches the age of vows, this is why the child said: If I am a minor I shall be a nazirite due to my father, as he means: If I have not yet reached the age of vows. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said that a father can vow naziriteship for his son until he develops two pubic hairs, despite the fact that he is already mature with regard to vows, what is the meaning of: And if I am an adult, I shall be a nazirite due to my own vow?

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 29

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 29

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻讚讬 诇讞谞讻讜 讘诪爪讜转 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讗砖讛 谞诪讬 住讘专 讗讬砖 讞讬讬讘 诇讞谞讱 讘谞讜 讘诪爪讜转 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 讞讬讬讘转 诇讞谞讱 讗转 讘谞讛

said that Reish Lakish said: The purpose is in order to educate him in mitzvot, to teach him how to observe the mitzva of naziriteship. The Gemara asks: If so, even a woman as well should be able to impose naziriteship on her son for educational purposes. The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish holds that a man is obligated to educate his son in mitzvot, but a woman is not obligated to educate her son in mitzvot.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讘谞讝讬专 讗诪讟讜 诇讛讻讬 讘谞讜 讗讬谉 讘转讜 诇讗 讗诇讗 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转讜 拽住讘专 讘谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讞谞讻讜 讘转讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讞谞讻讛

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai with regard to a nazirite, for that reason one can understand the ruling of the mishna, which indicates that for his son, yes, a father can vow that he should be a nazirite, but with regard to his daughter, no, he cannot do so, as a halakha learned by tradition cannot be questioned. However, according to the opinion of Reish Lakish, a father should even be able to impose naziriteship upon his daughter for the sake of her education. Why does the mishna specify a son? The Gemara answers that Reish Lakish holds: A father is obligated to educate his son, whereas he is not obligated to educate his daughter, and for this reason he cannot vow that she should be a nazirite.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讘谞讝讬专 讗讛讻讬 讘谞讝讬专讜转 讗讬谉 讘谞讚专讬诐 诇讗 讗诇讗 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讚专讬诐 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks another question: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said that it is a halakha with regard to a nazirite, this is why the mishna indicates that with regard to naziriteship, yes, a father can impose a vow upon his son, but with regard to other vows, no, he cannot do so. However, according to the opinion of Reish Lakish, who says it is for the son鈥檚 education, a father should even be able to impose regular vows upon him as well. Why does the mishna specify naziriteship?

诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讘谞讚专讬诐 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 谞讬讜讜诇 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘谞讝讬专讜转 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 谞讬讜讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讞讬讬讘 诇讞谞讻讜

The Gemara answers: According to Reish Lakish the tanna of this mishna is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary, as follows: It is not necessary to ask whether a father can impose regular vows of a mitzva where there is no deprivation of the son when he fulfills his father鈥檚 vow, but even with regard to naziriteship, where there is deprivation of his son, as the son must refrain from wine and shaving, even so the father is obligated to educate him, and therefore he can vow in this manner too.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讘谞讝讬专 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 诪讬讞讛 讗讜 砖诪讬讞讜讛讜 拽专讜讘讬讜

The Gemara asks another question: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai with regard to a nazirite, this explanation is consistent with that which the mishna teaches: If he objected, or his relatives objected for him, the naziriteship is canceled, as the transmitted halakha may be that the acquiescence of the relatives is necessary.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻诇 讻诪讬谞讬讛讜谉 拽专讜讘讬诐 讚讗诪专讬谉 诇讬讛 诇讗 转讬讙诪专讬讛 诪爪讜转 拽住讘专 讻诇 讞讬谞讜讱 讚诇讗 讞砖讬讘 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara continues its question: However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, who said that Reish Lakish said that this vow serves educational purposes, is this really in the power of the relatives to say to the father: Do not teach him mitzvot? The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish holds that with regard to any education that is not important, e.g., the optional mitzva of naziriteship, the son is not amenable to the suffering he must endure for this purpose, and therefore he or his relatives can object.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讘谞讝讬专 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诪讙诇讞 讜注讘讬讚 讛拽驻讛

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said it is a halakha with regard to a nazirite, it is due to that reason that the son must shave all of his hair at the conclusion of his naziriteship, despite the fact that he thereby performs the rounding of the corners of his head, in violation of the prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not round the corners of your heads鈥 (Leviticus 19:27). Since a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai has the status of Torah law, a minor nazirite shaves despite this prohibition.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻讚讬 诇讞谞讻讜 讘诪爪讜转 讛讗 拽注讘讬讚 讛拽驻讛

The Gemara continues its question: However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, who said that Reish Lakish said that the reason the vow of naziriteship takes effect is in order to educate him in mitzvot, and it applies only by rabbinic law, how does he explain the fact that this nazirite performs the rounding of the head? How does a naziriteship, which is by rabbinic law, override a Torah prohibition?

拽住讘专 讛拽驻转 讻诇 讛专讗砖 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜讞讬谞讜讱 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜讗转讬 讞讬谞讜讱 讚专讘谞谉 讜讚讞讬 讛拽驻讛 讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish holds that the rounding of the entire head is prohibited only by rabbinic law, as the Torah itself prohibited shaving only the corners of the head, and the mitzva of education also applies by rabbinic law. And therefore the mitzva of education, which is by rabbinic law, comes and overrides the prohibition against rounding the head, which likewise applies by rabbinic law.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讘谞讝讬专 讗讛讻讬 诪讙诇讞 诪讬讬转讬 拽专讘谉

The Gemara continues to ask along the same lines: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said it is a halakha with regard to a nazirite, this is why when he shaves at the conclusion of his naziriteship he brings an offering, as the halakha is that the minor is a nazirite in all regards, which means his offering is obligatory, like that of an adult nazirite.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻讚讬 诇讞谞讻讜 讘诪爪讜转 讛讗 拽讗 诪讬讬转讬 讞讜诇讬谉 诇注讝专讛 拽住讘专 讞讜诇讬谉 讘注讝专讛 诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

The Gemara continues its question: However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, who said that Reish Lakish said that the reason is in order to educate him in mitzvot, the minor鈥檚 offering is not a Torah obligation, which means that he brings non-sacred animals into the Temple courtyard for slaughter. The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish holds that the prohibition against slaughtering non-sacred animals in the Temple courtyard does not apply by Torah law but by rabbinic law, and therefore this prohibition is disregarded due to the importance of the son鈥檚 education.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讘谞讝讬专 讗讛讻讬 讻讬 诪讬讟诪讗 诪讬讬转讬 拽专讘谉 爪讬驻专讬谉 讜讗讻讬诇 讻讛谉 诪诇讬拽讛

The Gemara asks yet another question: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said it is a halakha with regard to a nazirite, this is why when the son becomes ritually impure he brings an offering of birds, and the priest may eat the bird sin-offering that was killed by means of pinching, nipping the neck of the bird, rather than by regular slaughter. This permits a bird to be eaten only in the case of a proper bird offering.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讗 拽讗讻讬诇 谞讘讬诇讛

The Gemara continues its question: However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, who said that Reish Lakish said that the reason the vow takes effect is to educate the son in mitzvot, in this case the priest eats an unslaughtered animal carcass. If the son is not obligated to bring the offering, the priest will be eating a bird that was killed in a manner that does not render it fit for consumption, which means it has the status of an unslaughtered carcass.

拽住讘专 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗讬谉 砖讞讬讟讛 诇注讜祝 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讜讞讜诇讬谉 讘注讝专讛 诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that slaughter of a bird is not obligatory by Torah law. Rather, by Torah law birds are fit to be eaten no matter how they are killed, and it was the Sages who decreed that they must be slaughtered. And he also maintains that the prohibition against bringing non-sacred animals for slaughter in the Temple courtyard does not apply by Torah law. Consequently the rabbinic mitzva of education overrides these prohibitions, as they too are rabbinic.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讻讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 砖讛讬讗 讘讗讛 注诇 讛住驻拽 砖讗讬谞讛 谞讗讻诇转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讝讘 讗转 讝讜讘讜 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛 诪拽讬砖 谞拽讘讛 诇讝讻专 诪讛 讝讻专 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 讛讜讚讗讬 讗祝 谞拽讘讛 诪讘讬讗讛 拽专讘谉 注诇 讛讜讚讗讬 讜诪讛 讝讻专 诪讘讬讗 注诇 讛住驻拽 讗祝 谞拽讘讛 诪讘讬讗讛 注诇 讛住驻拽

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei hold this opinion? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: From where is it derived that the bird sin-offering that comes due to uncertainty is not eaten? The verse states: 鈥淎nd they who have an issue, whether a male or a female鈥 (Leviticus 15:33), which juxtaposes a female to a male: Just as a male brings an offering for a definite sin, i.e., for a transgression he is sure he committed inadvertently, so too, a female brings an offering for a definite sin. And just as a male brings a provisional guilt-offering for his uncertain transgression, so too, a female brings an offering for her case of uncertainty.

讜诪讛 讝讻专 诪诪讬谉 砖讛讜讗 诪讘讬讗 注诇 讛讜讚讗讬 诪讘讬讗 注诇 讛住驻拽 讗祝 谞拽讘讛 诪诪讬谉 砖讛讬讗 诪讘讬讗讛 注诇 讛讜讚讗讬 诪讘讬讗讛 注诇 讛住驻拽 讗讬 诪讛 讝讻专 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 讜谞讗讻诇 讗祝 谞拽讘讛 诪讘讬讗讛 拽专讘谉 讜谞讗讻诇 讗诪专转

And furthermore: Just as a male brings an animal for his uncertain transgression, a ram as a guilt-offering, from the same type from which he brings a definite sin-offering, an animal sin-offering, so too, a female brings the same type for her case of uncertainty from the same type from which she brings for a definite offering, i.e., a bird if she is a zava or gave birth. This leads to the following question: If so, one can continue this line of thought: Just as a male brings an offering and it is eaten, so too, a female brings an offering and it should be eaten when she sacrifices an offering for uncertain childbirth. With regard to this case you say:

诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讝讻专 砖讻谉 讗讬住讜专 讗讞讚 转讗诪专 讘谞拽讘讛 砖砖谞讬 讗讬住讜专讬谉

No, you cannot make this claim, because if you say that this is true with regard to a male, when bringing his offering involves only one uncertain prohibition, i.e., that he might be bringing non-sacred animals into the Temple courtyard, shall you also say that this is the case with regard to a female, whose case includes two prohibitions? This concludes the baraita.

诪讗讬 砖谞讬 讗讬住讜专讬谉 诇讗讜 讗讬住讜专 谞讘讬诇讛 讜讞讜诇讬谉 讘注讝专讛 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讜讚讬诇诪讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬转讞讝讬 讻转专讬谉 讗讬住讜专讬谉 诪讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: What are these two prohibitions? Are they not the prohibition against consuming an unslaughtered animal carcass by eating a bird killed by pinching, and the prohibition against bringing non-sacred animals into the Temple courtyard? This shows that the prohibition against bringing non-sacred animals into the Temple courtyard applies by Torah law according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, objects to this: And perhaps one is not liable for these prohibitions by Torah law, rather, the baraita means that one is liable for this because it appears like two Torah prohibitions, although they actually apply only by rabbinic law.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 注讚 诪转讬 诪讚讬专 讗转 讘谞讜 讘谞讝讬专 注讚 砖讬讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬讙讬注 诇注讜谞转 谞讚专讬诐

搂 The Gemara returns to the question of whether the ruling that a man can impose naziriteship on his son is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai or whether it is part of the boy鈥檚 education. Let us say that this is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. As it is taught: Until when can a father vow that his son should be a nazirite? It is until the son develops two pubic hairs; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: It is until he reaches the age of vows, usually approximately a year earlier, when he demonstrates an understanding of the nature of vows. If he vows at that age and comprehends the significance of his utterance, his vow is valid.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚专讘讬 住讘专 讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讘谞讝讬专 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛讙讬注 诇注讜谞转 谞讚专讬诐 诪讚讬专 诇讬讛 讜讗讝讬诇 注讚 讚诪讬讬转讬 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 注讚 砖讬讙讬注 诇注讜谞转 谞讚专讬诐 住讘专 讻讚讬 诇讞谞讻讜 讘诪爪讜转 讜讻讬讜谉 讚谞驻讬拽 诪专砖讜转讬讛 转讜 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘

What, is it not the case that this is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m: As Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai with regard to a nazirite, and therefore even though the son has already reached the age of vows and is capable of making his own decision with regard to the vow, this halakha states that the father continues to vow for him until he develops two pubic hairs, the sign of maturity. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that the father can vow for the son only until he reaches the age of vows, holds that he imposes a vow on his son in order to educate him in mitzvot, and since the son has left the father鈥檚 supervision to the degree that he can utter his own vows, the father is no longer obligated to educate him in this area of halakha.

讗诪专讬 诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讘谞讝讬专 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讜驻诇讗 讛住诪讜讱 诇讗讬砖 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

The Gemara rejects this argument. The Sages say in response: No; this is not the correct explanation of that dispute, as one can say that everyone, both Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, agrees with Rabbi Yo岣nan that it is a halakha with regard to a nazirite, and here they disagree with regard to the issue of a minor one year before he or she reaches majority. In other words, they dispute the case of a child who utters a vow when he is almost mature, on the verge of puberty. It is an accepted halakha that the vow of this child is valid if he understands its meaning. The dispute concerns the source of this halakha.

专讘讬 住讘专 诪讜驻诇讗 讛住诪讜讱 诇讗讬砖 讚专讘谞谉 讜讗转讬讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚讞讬讗 讚专讘谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诪讜驻诇讗 讛住诪讜讱 诇讗讬砖 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the status of a minor one year before he or she reaches majority applies by rabbinic law, and therefore the halakha by Torah law that a father can vow on behalf of his son comes and overrides the decree that one who is near the age of maturity is considered an independent adult with regard to vows, which is by rabbinic law. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the status of a minor one year before he or she reaches majority applies by Torah law. Consequently, the halakha that a father can vow on behalf of his son does not apply to this case.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讻讚讬 诇讞谞讻讜 讘诪爪讜转 讜诪讜驻诇讗 讛住诪讜讱 诇讗讬砖 讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 专讘讬 住讘专 讗转讬 讞讬谞讜讱 讚专讘谞谉 讜讚讞讬 诪讜驻诇讗 讛住诪讜讱 诇讗讬砖 讚专讘谞谉

And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that a father vows for his son in order to educate him in mitzvot, which means it is by rabbinic law, and likewise the status of a minor one year before he or she reaches majority is also by rabbinic law. In that case, the tanna鈥檌m dispute the following: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the mitzva of education, which applies by rabbinic law, comes and overrides the status of a minor one year before he or she reaches majority, which is also by rabbinic law.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 注讚 砖讬讙讬注 诇注讜谞转 谞讚专讬诐 拽住讘专 诇讗 讗转讬 讞讬谞讜讱 讚专讘谞谉 讜讚讞讬 诪讜驻诇讗 讛住诪讜讱 诇讗讬砖

And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that a father can vow for his son only until he reaches the age of vows, holds that the mitzva of education by rabbinic law does not come and override the status of a minor one year before he or she reaches majority. Consequently, there is no necessary connection between this dispute of tanna鈥檌m and the argument between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish as to whether the ruling that a father can impose naziriteship on his son is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai or an educational tool.

诇讬诪讗 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讻讬 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 诪注砖讛 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 砖讛讚讬专讜 讗讘讬讜 讘谞讝讬专 讜讛讘讬讗讜 诇驻谞讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讛讬讛 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘讜讚拽讜 诇讬讚注 讗诐 讛讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讗诐 诇讗 讛讘讬讗

With regard to the dispute concerning the time period for a father鈥檚 vow on behalf of his son, the Gemara suggests: Shall we say that the dispute between these tanna鈥檌m is like the dispute between those other tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Nidda 5:9): An incident occurred involving Rabbi 岣nina in which his father vowed that he should be a nazirite when he was a minor, and they brought him before Rabban Gamliel, and Rabban Gamliel examined him to discern if he had already developed two pubic hairs, in which case the vow would not take effect, or if he had not developed them, which would mean that the vow was valid.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诇讬讚注 讗诐 讛讙讬注 诇注讜谞转 谞讚专讬诐 讗诐 诇讗讜 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇 转爪讟注专 诇讘讜讚拽谞讬 讗诐 拽讟谉 讗谞讬 讗讛讬讛 讘砖讘讬诇 讗讘讗 讗诐 讙讚讜诇 讗谞讬 讗讛讬讛 讘砖讘讬诇 注爪诪讬 注诪讚 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜谞砖拽讜 注诇 专讗砖讜 讗诪专 诪讜讘讟讞 讗谞讬 讘讝讛 砖诪讜专讛 讛诇讻讛 讘讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专讜 诇讗 讛讬讜 讬诪讬诐 诪讜注讟讬诐 注讚 砖讛讜专讛 讛讜专讗讛 讘讬砖专讗诇

Rabbi Yosei says that Rabban Gamliel examined him to discern whether he had reached the age of vows or not, which he maintains is the decisive factor. The child said to Rabban Gamliel: My teacher, do not go to the trouble of examining me, since if I am a minor I shall be a nazirite due to my father鈥檚 vow, and if I am an adult, I shall be a nazirite due to my own vow. Rabban Gamliel arose and kissed the child on his head. He said: I am certain of this child that he will eventually become an authority of halakha for the Jewish people. They said: In fact, it was only a few years later that the child issued rulings for the Jewish people.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 注讚 砖讬讙讬注 诇注讜谞转 谞讚专讬诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗诪专 讗诐 拽讟谉 讗谞讬 讗讛讬讛 讘砖讘讬诇 讗讘讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讚讗诪专 注讚 砖讬讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讜讗诐 讙讚讜诇 讗谞讬 讗讛讬讛 讘砖讘讬诇 注爪诪讬

The Gemara explains its suggestion: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that a father can vow on behalf of his son only until he reaches the age of vows, this is why the child said: If I am a minor I shall be a nazirite due to my father, as he means: If I have not yet reached the age of vows. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said that a father can vow naziriteship for his son until he develops two pubic hairs, despite the fact that he is already mature with regard to vows, what is the meaning of: And if I am an adult, I shall be a nazirite due to my own vow?

Scroll To Top