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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 26, 2023 | 讚壮 讘砖讘讟 转砖驻状讙

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

  • Masechet Nazir is sponsored by the family of Rabbi Howard Alpert, HaRav Tzvi Lipa ben Hillel, in honor of his first yahrzeit.

Nazir 3

Today鈥檚 daf is dedicated to Rebecca Eisen and Joshua Adler on the birth of their first child, a daughter, Maya Sari Adler, born on Thursday, January 12, 2023 in Toronto. 鈥淢ay she grow up connected to Torah, Israel, and her Jewish identity. Mazel tov!鈥澛
Today鈥檚 daf is dedicated for the refuah shleima of Hannah bat Peninah from her children and grandchildren.

There are various phrases listed in the Mishna that can be used to become a nazir. The Gemara questions each one of them, suggesting that perhaps they could mean something else entirely. Shmuel responds to most of the questions by explaining that each case is a statement combined with an action – either a nazir walked by at exactly that moment or the person was holding their hair as they said it. Whoever says, “I will accept upon myself birds,” there is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis as to whether this is an acceptance of being a nazir or not. Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about the reasoning behind each position. To Reish Lakish, it is a dispute as to whether a person says something, can we assume it is referring to a word that is juxtaposed to that word in a verse. Birds appear in a verse in Daniel next to the growth of hair, perhaps he meant growth of hair mentioned in that verse and meant I will grow my hair to be a nazir. Rabbi Yochanan thinks that the debate is 鈥 is this statement referring to the bird offering in the event that the person will be a nazir and will become impure and will become obligated to bring a bird sacrifice? One who takes upon to be a nazir by saying that one is taking upon only one of the prohibitions of nazir, Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis disagree about whether that person is considered a nazir (and then would be forbidden for all nazirite prohibitions) or is one not a nazir at all. What is the proof of each side for his position?

讗讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛拽驻专 讚讗诪专 谞讝讬专 讞讜讟讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 讟诪讗 讚讗讬讬讚讬 讚讘注讬 诪讬住转专 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讬诪讬诐 讛专讗砖谞讬诐 讬驻诇讜 讻讬 讟诪讗 谞讝专讜 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇诪讬注讘专 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转讬讛 讗讘诇 谞讝讬专 讟讛讜专 诇讗讜 讞讜讟讗 拽专讬 讘讬讛:


The Gemara answers: Yes, as even according to Rabbi Elazar HaKappar, who said that a nazirite is a sinner, that applies only with regard to a ritually impure nazirite. This is because it is necessary for him to void the days of his vow that have been observed and to begin his term anew, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淏ut the first days will be void, because his consecration was defiled鈥 (Numbers 6:12). It is there that Rabbi Elazar HaKappar called the nazirite a sinner, because perhaps he will come to transgress his naziriteship now that he is a nazirite for a longer period than he originally intended. However, with regard to a ritually pure nazirite, Rabbi Elazar HaKappar does not call him a sinner.


讛专讬谞讬 讻讝讛: 谞讛讬 谞诪讬 讚转驻讜住 讘砖注专讜 讛专讬谞讬 讻讝讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 谞讝讬专 注讜讘专 诇驻谞讬讜:


搂 The mishna taught that one who says: I am hereby like this, is a nazirite. The Gemara asks: Though this is indeed a case where he is holding his hair at the time, since he did not say: I am hereby like this, how can this statement constitute an acceptance of naziriteship? Shmuel said: It is a case where a nazirite was passing before him when he made his statement. His intention was to declare himself a nazirite like the individual passing before him, and his statement therefore constitutes a nazirite vow.


讛专讬谞讬 诪住诇住诇: 诪诪讗讬 讚讛讚讬谉 住诇住讜诇 砖注专讗 讻讚讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讛讛讬讗 讗诪转讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 诇讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 注讚 诪转讬 讗转讛 诪住诇住诇 讘砖注专讱


The mishna rules that one who says: I am hereby a hair curler is a nazirite. The Gemara asks: From where is it known that this term is referring to the curling [silsul] of hair by allowing it to grow? The Gemara answers: As that maidservant of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to a certain man who grew his hair long: Until when will you curl [mesalsel] your hair? This shows that mesalsel means to grow hair.


讗讬诪讗 转讜专讛 讚讻转讬讘 住诇住诇讛 讜转专讜诪诪讱 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖转驻讜住 讘砖注专讜:


The Gemara suggests: Say that the word mesalsel is referring to the study of Torah, as it is written with regard to Torah: 鈥淓xtol her [salseleha] and she will exalt you鈥 (Proverbs 4:8). The Gemara responds that Shmuel said: Here too, the case is where he was holding his hair at the time of his pronouncement.


讛专讬谞讬 诪讻诇讻诇: 诪诪讗讬 讚讛讚讬谉 讻讬诇讻讜诇 砖注专讜 讛讜讗 讻讚转谞谉 住讬讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻讚讬 诇住讜讚 讻讬诇讻讜诇 讜讗诪专 专讘 讘转 爪讬讚注讗


The mishna rules that one who says: I am hereby growing my hair is a nazirite. The Gemara asks: From where is it known that this term is a reference to growing [kilkul] his hair? The Gemara answers: As we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 78b): With regard to the measure that determines liability for carrying out lime on Shabbat from a private to a public domain, Rabbi Yehuda says: The measure is equivalent to that which is used to spread on one鈥檚 kilkul. And Rav said: This is referring to the hair that grows on the areas beneath the temple.


讗讬诪讗 诪讬讝谉 注谞讬讬 讻讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讻诇讻诇 讬讜住祝 讗转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗转 讗讞讬讜 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖转驻讜住 讘砖注专讜:


The Gemara suggests: Say that he vowed to sustain the poor, as it is written: 鈥淎nd Joseph sustained [vaykhalkel] his father and his brethren鈥 (Genesis 47:12). The Gemara responds that Shmuel said: Here too, in the mishna, the case is one where the individual was holding his hair when he made his pronouncement, so that it was clear that he was referring to growing his hair.


讛专讬 注诇讬 诇砖诇讞 驻专注 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讝讬专: 诪诪讗讬 讚讛讚讬谉 砖诇讜讞 专讬讘讜讬讗 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 砖诇讞讬讱 驻专讚住 专诪讜谞讬诐


The mishna rules that with regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to grow [leshale鈥檃岣] long hair, he is a nazirite. The Gemara asks: From where is it known that this term shilu鈥檃岣, which is a different form of the word leshale鈥檃岣, is an expression of increase and growth? The Gemara answers: As it is written: 鈥淵our tresses [shela岣yikh] are a park of pomegranates鈥 (Song of Songs 4:13).


讗讬诪讗 诪讬讚讬 讚注讘讜专讬 讻讚讻转讬讘 讜砖诇讞 诪讬诐 注诇 驻谞讬 讞讜爪讜转


The Gemara suggests: Say that it is referring to a matter involving transfer, as it is written: 鈥淎nd sends [shole鈥檃岣] water upon the earth鈥 (Job 5:10), where the word shole鈥檃岣 is referring to the transport of water from one place to another. Here too, the individual taking the vow might mean that he intends to transfer, i.e., to remove, his hair.


转谞讗 驻专注 驻专注 讬诇讬祝 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 拽讚砖 讬讛讬讛 讙讚诇 驻专注 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讙讘讬 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讜驻专注 诇讗 讬砖诇讞讜


The Gemara answers: The tanna derives the meaning of this term based upon a verbal analogy of the term long locks [pera] written with regard to a nazirite and the term long locks [pera] written with regard to a priest. It is written here, with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淗e shall be holy, he shall let the hair of his head grow [gadel] long locks [pera]鈥 (Numbers 6:5). And it is written there, with regard to a common priest serving in the Temple: 鈥淎nd they will not let their locks grow long [pera lo yeshale岣]鈥 (Ezekiel 44:20). Just as the word pera with regard to a nazirite indicates growing long hair, so too, in the case of a priest it is referring to growing long hair. This proves that the term shilu鈥檃岣 means letting one鈥檚 hair grow.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗讬 砖讜诇讞 诪讬诐 谞诪讬 专讬讘讜讬 讛讜讗 (讻讚诪转专讙诐 专讘 讬讜住祝) 讚讻讚 诪砖拽讬谉 诇讬讛 诪讬讗 诇驻讬专讗 讜专讘讬:


The Gemara offers an alternate answer: And if you wish, say that the meaning of the word shole鈥檃岣 in that phrase: Sends [shole鈥檃岣] water, is also increase and growth, as Rav Yosef translated this verse into Aramaic in the following manner: When one waters produce, it grows. Consequently, the verse is referring to growth by means of water.


讛专讬 注诇讬 爪讬驻专讬谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 谞讝讬专: 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 爪讬驻专讬谉 住诪讜讻讬谉 诇砖讬注专 拽讬讘诇 注诇讬讜 讚讻转讬讘 注讚 讚讬 砖注专讬讛 讻谞砖专讬谉 专讘讛 讜讟驻专讜讛讬 讻爪驻专讬谉


搂 The mishna taught that if one says: An obligation is hereby incumbent upon me with regard to birds, Rabbi Meir says: He is a nazirite, and the Sages say: He is not a nazirite. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir? Reish Lakish said: He accepted upon himself an obligation with regard to the birds that are juxtaposed in a verse to hair, as it is written: 鈥淯ntil his hair was grown like eagles鈥 feathers, and his nails like birds鈥 claws鈥 (Daniel 4:30). Since the verse juxtaposes birds with growing hair, it is understood that when this individual accepted an obligation with regard to birds, he was referring to growing his hair as a nazirite.


专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 诪转驻讬住 讗讬谞讬砖 讘诪讬讚讬 讚住诪讬讱 诇讬讛


The Gemara explains the basis of the dispute: Rabbi Meir holds that a person associates the object of his vow with something that is juxtaposed to it in a verse, so that when he says that it is incumbent upon him to bring birds, he means that it is incumbent upon him to grow his hair.


讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讗 诪转驻讬住 讗讬谞讬砖 讘诪讬讚讬 讚住诪讬讱 诇讬讛


And the Rabbis hold that a person does not associate the object of his vow with something that is juxtaposed to it in a verse, and the individual did not mean to take a nazirite vow.


专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 诪转驻讬住 讗诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 爪驻讜专讬 谞讝讬专 讟诪讗 拽讬讘诇 注诇讬讜


Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Everyone agrees that one does not associate the object of his vow with something juxtaposed to it in a verse. Rather, this is the reason of Rabbi Meir: We are concerned that perhaps he accepted upon himself the birds of an impure nazirite. Since an impure nazirite must bring two birds as offerings if he inadvertently becomes impure from a corpse (Numbers 6:10), when the individual accepts upon himself an obligation pertaining to birds, he means that he is becoming a nazirite and will be responsible for bringing an offering of birds if he becomes impure.


诪讻讚讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 拽讗诪专 讚诇诪讗 爪驻讜专讬 谞讚讘讛 拽讬讘诇 注诇讬讜 讗诐 讻谉 讛专讬 注诇讬 拽谉 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: Since Rabbi Yo岣nan said that, even according to Rabbi Meir, we are concerned that the individual intended to become a nazirite, but it is not clear that this was his intention, it can be argued that perhaps he accepted upon himself a gift offering of birds as a burnt-offering. Consequently, why is he considered a nazirite? The Gemara answers: If it was so, that his intention was to bring a gift offering, he should have said: It is hereby incumbent upon me to bring a nest, which is the common expression used to accept an obligation to bring a gift offering of birds.


讜讚诇诪讗 讛专讬 注诇讬 爪驻讜专讬 诪爪讜专注 拽讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 谞讝讬专 注讜讘专 诇驻谞讬讜 讜讚诇诪讗 谞讝讬专 讟诪讗 讜诇驻讜讟专讜 诪谉 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜 拽讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 谞讝讬专 讟讛讜专 注讜讘专 诇驻谞讬讜


The Gemara asks further: But perhaps he was saying: It is incumbent upon me to bring the birds of a leper, rendering himself liable to bring a leper鈥檚 offerings on a leper鈥檚 behalf (see Leviticus 14:4). The Gemara answers: This is a case where a nazirite was passing before him when he spoke, and he clearly had naziriteship in mind. The Gemara asks: But perhaps it was an impure nazirite, and he was saying that he accepts the obligation to exempt the nazirite from his offerings by sacrificing them on the nazirite鈥檚 behalf. The Gemara answers: This is a case where a pure nazirite was passing before him.


诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜


The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the opinions of Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yo岣nan? After all, according to both explanations it is necessary to say that this is a case where a nazirite was passing before him.


讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 爪讬驻专讬谉 讛住诪讜讻讬谉 诇砖注专 注诇讬 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬 谞讝讬专 注讜讘专 诇驻谞讬讜 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬谉 谞讝讬专 注讜讘专 诇驻谞讬讜


The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in a case where he explicitly said: An obligation is hereby incumbent upon me with regard to the birds juxtaposed in the verse to hair. According to Rabbi Yo岣nan, although he said this, if a nazirite was passing before him, yes, Rabbi Meir considers it a nazirite vow; if not, no, it is not considered a nazirite vow. Conversely, according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, although no nazirite was passing before him, Rabbi Meir considers it a nazirite vow, as he holds that according to Rabbi Meir, one associates the object of his vow with something juxtaposed to it in a verse.


诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗 诪转驻讬住 讗讬谞讬砖 讘诪讬诇转讗 讚住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讗讜诪专 讬诪讬谉 讛专讬 讝讜 砖讘讜注讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬专诐 讬诪讬谞讜 讜砖诪讗诇讜 讗诇 讛砖诪讬诐 讜讬砖讘注 讘讞讬 讛注讜诇诐


The Gemara asks: Is there, in fact, anyone who says that a person does not associate the object of his vow with something juxtaposed to it in a verse? Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that in the case of one who says: Right [yamin], that is an expression of an oath? What is the reason for this? Is it not because it is written: 鈥淲hen he lifted up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and swore by Him that lives forever鈥 (Daniel 12:7)? It seems evident that the term 鈥渞ight鈥 indicates an oath merely because in the verse it is juxtaposed to an oath.


讗诪专讬 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讬诪讬谉 讙讜驻讬讛 讗讬拽专讬 砖讘讜注讛 讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讬讬谉 诇讗讜诪专 讬诪讬谉 砖讛讬讗 砖讘讜注讛 砖谞讗诪专 谞砖讘注 讛壮 讘讬诪讬谞讜 讜诪谞讬讬谉 诇讗讜诪专 砖诪讗诇 砖讛讬讗 砖讘讜注讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讘讝专讜注 注讜讝讜:


The Gemara rejects this: Say no, it is because the right hand itself is called an oath, as it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that in the case of one who says: Right, that it is an oath? It is derived from the verse where it is stated: 鈥淭he Lord has sworn by His right hand鈥 (Isaiah 62:8). And from where is it derived that in the case of one who says: Left, that it is an oath? It is derived from the continuation of that verse, where it is stated: 鈥淎nd by the arm of His strength鈥 (Isaiah 62:8). Since this is the complementary phrase for the right hand, it must refer to the left hand. It is clear from here that both right and left are themselves expressions of an oath and do not indicate an oath merely because they are juxtaposed in a verse to an expression of an oath.


诪转谞讬壮 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诪谉 讛讞专爪谞讬诐 讜诪谉 讛讝讙讬诐 讜诪谉 讛转讙诇讞转 讜诪谉 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讝讬专 讜讻诇 讚拽讚讜拽讬 谞讝讬专讜转 注诇讬讜:


MISHNA: If one said: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from grape seeds, or: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from grape skins, or: From shaving, or: From impurity, he is a nazirite. And all details of naziriteship are incumbent upon him. Not only does the prohibition he mentioned take effect, he is bound by all of the strictures of naziriteship.


讙诪壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讚讜专 诪讻讜诇诐 讜专讘谞谉 讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 谞讝专 讗诇讗 讘讞讚 诪谞讛讜谉 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专


GEMARA: The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: One is not obligated as a nazirite until he vows that all items and actions forbidden to a nazirite are forbidden to him. And the Rabbis say: Even if he vowed to abstain from only one of them, he is a nazirite.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讻诇 讗砖专 讬注砖讛 诪讙驻谉 讛讬讬谉 诪讞专爪谞讬诐 讜注讚 讝讙 讜专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讬讬谉 讜砖讻专 讬讝讬专


The Gemara explains: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? The verse states with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淎ll the days of his naziriteship he shall not eat from anything that is made of the grapevine, from pits to grape skin鈥 (Numbers 6:4), which indicates that his vow of naziriteship must include all the prohibitions of a nazirite. The Gemara continues to clarify: And according to the Rabbis, what is the reason that he becomes a nazirite even if he specified only one of the prohibitions of a nazirite? The verse states: 鈥淗e shall abstain from wine and strong drink鈥 (Numbers 6:3). This implies that even if one vows to abstain only from wine and strong drink, all of the halakhot of a nazirite take effect.


讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 诪讬讬谉 讜砖讻专 讬讝讬专 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗住讜专 讬讬谉 诪爪讜讛 讻讬讬谉 讛专砖讜转


The Gemara asks: And also according to Rabbi Shimon, isn鈥檛 it written 鈥渉e shall abstain from wine and strong drink鈥? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon requires that verse to prohibit a nazirite from drinking wine that is consumed for a mitzva just as he is prohibited from drinking wine whose consumption is optional.


诪讗讬 讛讬讗 拽讚讜砖转讗 讜讗讘讚诇转讗


The Gemara asks: What is wine that is consumed for a mitzva? Is it the wine of kiddush and havdala?

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

  • Masechet Nazir is sponsored by the family of Rabbi Howard Alpert, HaRav Tzvi Lipa ben Hillel, in honor of his first yahrzeit.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Nazir 2-8 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn where the concept of Nazir comes from in the Torah and learn about the different...
on second thought thumbnail

To Become a Nazirite – On Second Thought 4

To Become a Nazirite - A Desirable Act? or Redundant? On Second Thought with Rabbanit Yafit Clymer https://youtu.be/_PBAmtEjn1k  
ayelet eng nazir

Introduction to Masechet Nazir

Introduction to Masechet Nazir with Dr. Ayelet Hoffmann Libson https://youtu.be/L7tH-1Tyvpg Listen here: https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/hadran/Introduction_to_Nazir_English.mp3  
introduction to nazir gitta

Intro to Masechet Nazir

Introduction to Masechet Nazir by Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld 讝讻讜转 诇专驻讜讗讛 砖诇诪讛 诇讚讜讚 讘谉 讗讬讬讚诇 谞"讬 讜专讞诇 讘转 讙讜诇讚讗 诪专讬诐 砖转讞讬' 讘转讜讱...

Nazir 3

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 3

讗讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛拽驻专 讚讗诪专 谞讝讬专 讞讜讟讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 讟诪讗 讚讗讬讬讚讬 讚讘注讬 诪讬住转专 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讬诪讬诐 讛专讗砖谞讬诐 讬驻诇讜 讻讬 讟诪讗 谞讝专讜 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇诪讬注讘专 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转讬讛 讗讘诇 谞讝讬专 讟讛讜专 诇讗讜 讞讜讟讗 拽专讬 讘讬讛:


The Gemara answers: Yes, as even according to Rabbi Elazar HaKappar, who said that a nazirite is a sinner, that applies only with regard to a ritually impure nazirite. This is because it is necessary for him to void the days of his vow that have been observed and to begin his term anew, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淏ut the first days will be void, because his consecration was defiled鈥 (Numbers 6:12). It is there that Rabbi Elazar HaKappar called the nazirite a sinner, because perhaps he will come to transgress his naziriteship now that he is a nazirite for a longer period than he originally intended. However, with regard to a ritually pure nazirite, Rabbi Elazar HaKappar does not call him a sinner.


讛专讬谞讬 讻讝讛: 谞讛讬 谞诪讬 讚转驻讜住 讘砖注专讜 讛专讬谞讬 讻讝讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 谞讝讬专 注讜讘专 诇驻谞讬讜:


搂 The mishna taught that one who says: I am hereby like this, is a nazirite. The Gemara asks: Though this is indeed a case where he is holding his hair at the time, since he did not say: I am hereby like this, how can this statement constitute an acceptance of naziriteship? Shmuel said: It is a case where a nazirite was passing before him when he made his statement. His intention was to declare himself a nazirite like the individual passing before him, and his statement therefore constitutes a nazirite vow.


讛专讬谞讬 诪住诇住诇: 诪诪讗讬 讚讛讚讬谉 住诇住讜诇 砖注专讗 讻讚讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讛讛讬讗 讗诪转讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 诇讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 注讚 诪转讬 讗转讛 诪住诇住诇 讘砖注专讱


The mishna rules that one who says: I am hereby a hair curler is a nazirite. The Gemara asks: From where is it known that this term is referring to the curling [silsul] of hair by allowing it to grow? The Gemara answers: As that maidservant of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to a certain man who grew his hair long: Until when will you curl [mesalsel] your hair? This shows that mesalsel means to grow hair.


讗讬诪讗 转讜专讛 讚讻转讬讘 住诇住诇讛 讜转专讜诪诪讱 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖转驻讜住 讘砖注专讜:


The Gemara suggests: Say that the word mesalsel is referring to the study of Torah, as it is written with regard to Torah: 鈥淓xtol her [salseleha] and she will exalt you鈥 (Proverbs 4:8). The Gemara responds that Shmuel said: Here too, the case is where he was holding his hair at the time of his pronouncement.


讛专讬谞讬 诪讻诇讻诇: 诪诪讗讬 讚讛讚讬谉 讻讬诇讻讜诇 砖注专讜 讛讜讗 讻讚转谞谉 住讬讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻讚讬 诇住讜讚 讻讬诇讻讜诇 讜讗诪专 专讘 讘转 爪讬讚注讗


The mishna rules that one who says: I am hereby growing my hair is a nazirite. The Gemara asks: From where is it known that this term is a reference to growing [kilkul] his hair? The Gemara answers: As we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 78b): With regard to the measure that determines liability for carrying out lime on Shabbat from a private to a public domain, Rabbi Yehuda says: The measure is equivalent to that which is used to spread on one鈥檚 kilkul. And Rav said: This is referring to the hair that grows on the areas beneath the temple.


讗讬诪讗 诪讬讝谉 注谞讬讬 讻讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讻诇讻诇 讬讜住祝 讗转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗转 讗讞讬讜 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖转驻讜住 讘砖注专讜:


The Gemara suggests: Say that he vowed to sustain the poor, as it is written: 鈥淎nd Joseph sustained [vaykhalkel] his father and his brethren鈥 (Genesis 47:12). The Gemara responds that Shmuel said: Here too, in the mishna, the case is one where the individual was holding his hair when he made his pronouncement, so that it was clear that he was referring to growing his hair.


讛专讬 注诇讬 诇砖诇讞 驻专注 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讝讬专: 诪诪讗讬 讚讛讚讬谉 砖诇讜讞 专讬讘讜讬讗 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 砖诇讞讬讱 驻专讚住 专诪讜谞讬诐


The mishna rules that with regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to grow [leshale鈥檃岣] long hair, he is a nazirite. The Gemara asks: From where is it known that this term shilu鈥檃岣, which is a different form of the word leshale鈥檃岣, is an expression of increase and growth? The Gemara answers: As it is written: 鈥淵our tresses [shela岣yikh] are a park of pomegranates鈥 (Song of Songs 4:13).


讗讬诪讗 诪讬讚讬 讚注讘讜专讬 讻讚讻转讬讘 讜砖诇讞 诪讬诐 注诇 驻谞讬 讞讜爪讜转


The Gemara suggests: Say that it is referring to a matter involving transfer, as it is written: 鈥淎nd sends [shole鈥檃岣] water upon the earth鈥 (Job 5:10), where the word shole鈥檃岣 is referring to the transport of water from one place to another. Here too, the individual taking the vow might mean that he intends to transfer, i.e., to remove, his hair.


转谞讗 驻专注 驻专注 讬诇讬祝 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 拽讚砖 讬讛讬讛 讙讚诇 驻专注 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讙讘讬 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讜驻专注 诇讗 讬砖诇讞讜


The Gemara answers: The tanna derives the meaning of this term based upon a verbal analogy of the term long locks [pera] written with regard to a nazirite and the term long locks [pera] written with regard to a priest. It is written here, with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淗e shall be holy, he shall let the hair of his head grow [gadel] long locks [pera]鈥 (Numbers 6:5). And it is written there, with regard to a common priest serving in the Temple: 鈥淎nd they will not let their locks grow long [pera lo yeshale岣]鈥 (Ezekiel 44:20). Just as the word pera with regard to a nazirite indicates growing long hair, so too, in the case of a priest it is referring to growing long hair. This proves that the term shilu鈥檃岣 means letting one鈥檚 hair grow.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗讬 砖讜诇讞 诪讬诐 谞诪讬 专讬讘讜讬 讛讜讗 (讻讚诪转专讙诐 专讘 讬讜住祝) 讚讻讚 诪砖拽讬谉 诇讬讛 诪讬讗 诇驻讬专讗 讜专讘讬:


The Gemara offers an alternate answer: And if you wish, say that the meaning of the word shole鈥檃岣 in that phrase: Sends [shole鈥檃岣] water, is also increase and growth, as Rav Yosef translated this verse into Aramaic in the following manner: When one waters produce, it grows. Consequently, the verse is referring to growth by means of water.


讛专讬 注诇讬 爪讬驻专讬谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 谞讝讬专: 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 爪讬驻专讬谉 住诪讜讻讬谉 诇砖讬注专 拽讬讘诇 注诇讬讜 讚讻转讬讘 注讚 讚讬 砖注专讬讛 讻谞砖专讬谉 专讘讛 讜讟驻专讜讛讬 讻爪驻专讬谉


搂 The mishna taught that if one says: An obligation is hereby incumbent upon me with regard to birds, Rabbi Meir says: He is a nazirite, and the Sages say: He is not a nazirite. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir? Reish Lakish said: He accepted upon himself an obligation with regard to the birds that are juxtaposed in a verse to hair, as it is written: 鈥淯ntil his hair was grown like eagles鈥 feathers, and his nails like birds鈥 claws鈥 (Daniel 4:30). Since the verse juxtaposes birds with growing hair, it is understood that when this individual accepted an obligation with regard to birds, he was referring to growing his hair as a nazirite.


专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 诪转驻讬住 讗讬谞讬砖 讘诪讬讚讬 讚住诪讬讱 诇讬讛


The Gemara explains the basis of the dispute: Rabbi Meir holds that a person associates the object of his vow with something that is juxtaposed to it in a verse, so that when he says that it is incumbent upon him to bring birds, he means that it is incumbent upon him to grow his hair.


讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讗 诪转驻讬住 讗讬谞讬砖 讘诪讬讚讬 讚住诪讬讱 诇讬讛


And the Rabbis hold that a person does not associate the object of his vow with something that is juxtaposed to it in a verse, and the individual did not mean to take a nazirite vow.


专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 诪转驻讬住 讗诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 爪驻讜专讬 谞讝讬专 讟诪讗 拽讬讘诇 注诇讬讜


Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Everyone agrees that one does not associate the object of his vow with something juxtaposed to it in a verse. Rather, this is the reason of Rabbi Meir: We are concerned that perhaps he accepted upon himself the birds of an impure nazirite. Since an impure nazirite must bring two birds as offerings if he inadvertently becomes impure from a corpse (Numbers 6:10), when the individual accepts upon himself an obligation pertaining to birds, he means that he is becoming a nazirite and will be responsible for bringing an offering of birds if he becomes impure.


诪讻讚讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 拽讗诪专 讚诇诪讗 爪驻讜专讬 谞讚讘讛 拽讬讘诇 注诇讬讜 讗诐 讻谉 讛专讬 注诇讬 拽谉 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: Since Rabbi Yo岣nan said that, even according to Rabbi Meir, we are concerned that the individual intended to become a nazirite, but it is not clear that this was his intention, it can be argued that perhaps he accepted upon himself a gift offering of birds as a burnt-offering. Consequently, why is he considered a nazirite? The Gemara answers: If it was so, that his intention was to bring a gift offering, he should have said: It is hereby incumbent upon me to bring a nest, which is the common expression used to accept an obligation to bring a gift offering of birds.


讜讚诇诪讗 讛专讬 注诇讬 爪驻讜专讬 诪爪讜专注 拽讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 谞讝讬专 注讜讘专 诇驻谞讬讜 讜讚诇诪讗 谞讝讬专 讟诪讗 讜诇驻讜讟专讜 诪谉 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜 拽讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 谞讝讬专 讟讛讜专 注讜讘专 诇驻谞讬讜


The Gemara asks further: But perhaps he was saying: It is incumbent upon me to bring the birds of a leper, rendering himself liable to bring a leper鈥檚 offerings on a leper鈥檚 behalf (see Leviticus 14:4). The Gemara answers: This is a case where a nazirite was passing before him when he spoke, and he clearly had naziriteship in mind. The Gemara asks: But perhaps it was an impure nazirite, and he was saying that he accepts the obligation to exempt the nazirite from his offerings by sacrificing them on the nazirite鈥檚 behalf. The Gemara answers: This is a case where a pure nazirite was passing before him.


诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜


The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the opinions of Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yo岣nan? After all, according to both explanations it is necessary to say that this is a case where a nazirite was passing before him.


讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 爪讬驻专讬谉 讛住诪讜讻讬谉 诇砖注专 注诇讬 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬 谞讝讬专 注讜讘专 诇驻谞讬讜 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬谉 谞讝讬专 注讜讘专 诇驻谞讬讜


The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in a case where he explicitly said: An obligation is hereby incumbent upon me with regard to the birds juxtaposed in the verse to hair. According to Rabbi Yo岣nan, although he said this, if a nazirite was passing before him, yes, Rabbi Meir considers it a nazirite vow; if not, no, it is not considered a nazirite vow. Conversely, according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, although no nazirite was passing before him, Rabbi Meir considers it a nazirite vow, as he holds that according to Rabbi Meir, one associates the object of his vow with something juxtaposed to it in a verse.


诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗 诪转驻讬住 讗讬谞讬砖 讘诪讬诇转讗 讚住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讗讜诪专 讬诪讬谉 讛专讬 讝讜 砖讘讜注讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬专诐 讬诪讬谞讜 讜砖诪讗诇讜 讗诇 讛砖诪讬诐 讜讬砖讘注 讘讞讬 讛注讜诇诐


The Gemara asks: Is there, in fact, anyone who says that a person does not associate the object of his vow with something juxtaposed to it in a verse? Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that in the case of one who says: Right [yamin], that is an expression of an oath? What is the reason for this? Is it not because it is written: 鈥淲hen he lifted up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and swore by Him that lives forever鈥 (Daniel 12:7)? It seems evident that the term 鈥渞ight鈥 indicates an oath merely because in the verse it is juxtaposed to an oath.


讗诪专讬 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讬诪讬谉 讙讜驻讬讛 讗讬拽专讬 砖讘讜注讛 讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讬讬谉 诇讗讜诪专 讬诪讬谉 砖讛讬讗 砖讘讜注讛 砖谞讗诪专 谞砖讘注 讛壮 讘讬诪讬谞讜 讜诪谞讬讬谉 诇讗讜诪专 砖诪讗诇 砖讛讬讗 砖讘讜注讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讘讝专讜注 注讜讝讜:


The Gemara rejects this: Say no, it is because the right hand itself is called an oath, as it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that in the case of one who says: Right, that it is an oath? It is derived from the verse where it is stated: 鈥淭he Lord has sworn by His right hand鈥 (Isaiah 62:8). And from where is it derived that in the case of one who says: Left, that it is an oath? It is derived from the continuation of that verse, where it is stated: 鈥淎nd by the arm of His strength鈥 (Isaiah 62:8). Since this is the complementary phrase for the right hand, it must refer to the left hand. It is clear from here that both right and left are themselves expressions of an oath and do not indicate an oath merely because they are juxtaposed in a verse to an expression of an oath.


诪转谞讬壮 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诪谉 讛讞专爪谞讬诐 讜诪谉 讛讝讙讬诐 讜诪谉 讛转讙诇讞转 讜诪谉 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讝讬专 讜讻诇 讚拽讚讜拽讬 谞讝讬专讜转 注诇讬讜:


MISHNA: If one said: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from grape seeds, or: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from grape skins, or: From shaving, or: From impurity, he is a nazirite. And all details of naziriteship are incumbent upon him. Not only does the prohibition he mentioned take effect, he is bound by all of the strictures of naziriteship.


讙诪壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讚讜专 诪讻讜诇诐 讜专讘谞谉 讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 谞讝专 讗诇讗 讘讞讚 诪谞讛讜谉 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专


GEMARA: The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: One is not obligated as a nazirite until he vows that all items and actions forbidden to a nazirite are forbidden to him. And the Rabbis say: Even if he vowed to abstain from only one of them, he is a nazirite.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讻诇 讗砖专 讬注砖讛 诪讙驻谉 讛讬讬谉 诪讞专爪谞讬诐 讜注讚 讝讙 讜专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讬讬谉 讜砖讻专 讬讝讬专


The Gemara explains: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? The verse states with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淎ll the days of his naziriteship he shall not eat from anything that is made of the grapevine, from pits to grape skin鈥 (Numbers 6:4), which indicates that his vow of naziriteship must include all the prohibitions of a nazirite. The Gemara continues to clarify: And according to the Rabbis, what is the reason that he becomes a nazirite even if he specified only one of the prohibitions of a nazirite? The verse states: 鈥淗e shall abstain from wine and strong drink鈥 (Numbers 6:3). This implies that even if one vows to abstain only from wine and strong drink, all of the halakhot of a nazirite take effect.


讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 诪讬讬谉 讜砖讻专 讬讝讬专 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗住讜专 讬讬谉 诪爪讜讛 讻讬讬谉 讛专砖讜转


The Gemara asks: And also according to Rabbi Shimon, isn鈥檛 it written 鈥渉e shall abstain from wine and strong drink鈥? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon requires that verse to prohibit a nazirite from drinking wine that is consumed for a mitzva just as he is prohibited from drinking wine whose consumption is optional.


诪讗讬 讛讬讗 拽讚讜砖转讗 讜讗讘讚诇转讗


The Gemara asks: What is wine that is consumed for a mitzva? Is it the wine of kiddush and havdala?

Scroll To Top