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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 26, 2023 | ื“ืณ ื‘ืฉื‘ื˜ ืชืฉืคืดื’

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

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

Nazir 3

Todayโ€™s 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. โ€œMay she grow up connected to Torah, Israel, and her Jewish identity. Mazel tov!โ€ย 
Todayโ€™s 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 โ€“ 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?

ืื™ืŸ ื“ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื”ืงืคืจ ื“ืืžืจ ื ื–ื™ืจ ื—ื•ื˜ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื’ื‘ื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ื˜ืžื ื“ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืžื™ืกืชืจ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ื”ื™ืžื™ื ื”ืจืืฉื ื™ื ื™ืคืœื• ื›ื™ ื˜ืžื ื ื–ืจื• ื”ืชื ื”ื•ื ื“ืœืžื ืืชื™ ืœืžื™ืขื‘ืจ ืขืœ ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืชื™ื” ืื‘ืœ ื ื–ื™ืจ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืœืื• ื—ื•ื˜ื ืงืจื™ ื‘ื™ื”

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: โ€œBut the first days will be void, because his consecration was defiledโ€ (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.

ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื›ื–ื” ื ื”ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืชืคื•ืก ื‘ืฉืขืจื• ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื›ื–ื” ืœื ืืžืจ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื” ื ื–ื™ืจ ืขื•ื‘ืจ ืœืคื ื™ื•

ยง 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.

ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ืžืกืœืกืœ ืžืžืื™ ื“ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืกืœืกื•ืœ ืฉืขืจื ื›ื“ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื” ื”ื”ื™ื ืืžืชื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืœื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ืขื“ ืžืชื™ ืืชื” ืžืกืœืกืœ ื‘ืฉืขืจืš

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.

ืื™ืžื ืชื•ืจื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืกืœืกืœื” ื•ืชืจื•ืžืžืš ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืฉืชืคื•ืก ื‘ืฉืขืจื•

The Gemara suggests: Say that the word mesalsel is referring to the study of Torah, as it is written with regard to Torah: โ€œExtol her [salseleha] and she will exalt youโ€ (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.

ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ืžื›ืœื›ืœ ืžืžืื™ ื“ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื›ื™ืœื›ื•ืœ ืฉืขืจื• ื”ื•ื ื›ื“ืชื ืŸ ืกื™ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื›ื“ื™ ืœืกื•ื“ ื›ื™ืœื›ื•ืœ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื‘ืช ืฆื™ื“ืขื

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 oneโ€™s kilkul. And Rav said: This is referring to the hair that grows on the areas beneath the temple.

ืื™ืžื ืžื™ื–ืŸ ืขื ื™ื™ ื›ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ื›ืœื›ืœ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืืช ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืืช ืื—ื™ื• ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืฉืชืคื•ืก ื‘ืฉืขืจื•

The Gemara suggests: Say that he vowed to sustain the poor, as it is written: โ€œAnd Joseph sustained [vaykhalkel] his father and his brethrenโ€ (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.

ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ืœืฉืœื— ืคืจืข ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื ื–ื™ืจ ืžืžืื™ ื“ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื•ื— ืจื™ื‘ื•ื™ื ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืฉืœื—ื™ืš ืคืจื“ืก ืจืžื•ื ื™ื

The mishna rules that with regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to grow [leshaleโ€™aแธฅ] long hair, he is a nazirite. The Gemara asks: From where is it known that this term shiluโ€™aแธฅ, which is a different form of the word leshaleโ€™aแธฅ, is an expression of increase and growth? The Gemara answers: As it is written: โ€œYour tresses [shelaแธฅayikh] are a park of pomegranatesโ€ (Song of Songs 4:13).

ืื™ืžื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ืขื‘ื•ืจื™ ื›ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืฉืœื— ืžื™ื ืขืœ ืคื ื™ ื—ื•ืฆื•ืช

The Gemara suggests: Say that it is referring to a matter involving transfer, as it is written: โ€œAnd sends [sholeโ€™aแธฅ] water upon the earthโ€ (Job 5:10), where the word sholeโ€™aแธฅ 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.

ืชื ื ืคืจืข ืคืจืข ื™ืœื™ืฃ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ื›ื ืงื“ืฉ ื™ื”ื™ื” ื’ื“ืœ ืคืจืข ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ืชื ื’ื‘ื™ ื›ื”ืŸ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ื•ืคืจืข ืœื ื™ืฉืœื—ื•

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: โ€œHe shall be holy, he shall let the hair of his head grow [gadel] long locks [pera]โ€ (Numbers 6:5). And it is written there, with regard to a common priest serving in the Temple: โ€œAnd they will not let their locks grow long [pera lo yeshaleแธฅu]โ€ (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 shiluโ€™aแธฅ means letting oneโ€™s hair grow.

ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ื”ืื™ ืฉื•ืœื— ืžื™ื ื ืžื™ ืจื™ื‘ื•ื™ ื”ื•ื (ื›ื“ืžืชืจื’ื ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ) ื“ื›ื“ ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืžื™ื ืœืคื™ืจื ื•ืจื‘ื™

The Gemara offers an alternate answer: And if you wish, say that the meaning of the word sholeโ€™aแธฅ in that phrase: Sends [sholeโ€™aแธฅ] 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.

ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ืฆื™ืคืจื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืฆื™ืคืจื™ืŸ ืกืžื•ื›ื™ืŸ ืœืฉื™ืขืจ ืงื™ื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืขื“ ื“ื™ ืฉืขืจื™ื” ื›ื ืฉืจื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื” ื•ื˜ืคืจื•ื”ื™ ื›ืฆืคืจื™ืŸ

ยง 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: โ€œUntil his hair was grown like eaglesโ€™ feathers, and his nails like birdsโ€™ clawsโ€ (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.

ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืžืชืคื™ืก ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ื‘ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ืกืžื™ืš ืœื™ื”

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.

ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืกื‘ืจื™ ืœื ืžืชืคื™ืก ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ื‘ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ืกืžื™ืš ืœื™ื”

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.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืžืชืคื™ืก ืืœื ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื“ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืฉืžื ืฆืคื•ืจื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ื˜ืžื ืงื™ื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ื•

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืžื›ื“ื™ ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืงืืžืจ ื“ืœืžื ืฆืคื•ืจื™ ื ื“ื‘ื” ืงื™ื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ื• ืื ื›ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ืงืŸ ืžื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื”

The Gemara asks: Since Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ื•ื“ืœืžื ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ืฆืคื•ืจื™ ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืงืืžืจ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื” ื ื–ื™ืจ ืขื•ื‘ืจ ืœืคื ื™ื• ื•ื“ืœืžื ื ื–ื™ืจ ื˜ืžื ื•ืœืคื•ื˜ืจื• ืžืŸ ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืชื™ื• ืงืืžืจ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื” ื ื–ื™ืจ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืขื•ื‘ืจ ืœืคื ื™ื•

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 leperโ€™s offerings on a leperโ€™s 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 naziriteโ€™s behalf. The Gemara answers: This is a case where a pure nazirite was passing before him.

ืžืื™ ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื•

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

ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืฆื™ืคืจื™ืŸ ื”ืกืžื•ื›ื™ืŸ ืœืฉืขืจ ืขืœื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืขื•ื‘ืจ ืœืคื ื™ื• ืื™ืŸ ืื™ ืœื ืœื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืื™ืŸ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืขื•ื‘ืจ ืœืคื ื™ื•

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 Yoแธฅanan, 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.

ืžื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื ืžืชืคื™ืก ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ื‘ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืกืžื™ืš ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื”ืื•ืžืจ ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื• ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืœืื• ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืจื ื™ืžื™ื ื• ื•ืฉืžืืœื• ืืœ ื”ืฉืžื™ื ื•ื™ืฉื‘ืข ื‘ื—ื™ ื”ืขื•ืœื

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? Isnโ€™t 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: โ€œWhen he lifted up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and swore by Him that lives foreverโ€ (Daniel 12:7)? It seems evident that the term โ€œrightโ€ indicates an oath merely because in the verse it is juxtaposed to an oath.

ืืžืจื™ ืœื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื’ื•ืคื™ื” ืื™ืงืจื™ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื“ืชื ื™ื ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืœืื•ืžืจ ื™ืžื™ืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื ืฉื‘ืข ื”ืณ ื‘ื™ืžื™ื ื• ื•ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืœืื•ืžืจ ืฉืžืืœ ืฉื”ื™ื ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื‘ื–ืจื•ืข ืขื•ื–ื•

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: โ€œThe Lord has sworn by His right handโ€ (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: โ€œAnd by the arm of His strengthโ€ (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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืจืฆื ื™ื ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื–ื’ื™ื ื•ืžืŸ ื”ืชื’ืœื—ืช ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื ื–ื™ืจ ื•ื›ืœ ื“ืงื“ื•ืงื™ ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ืขืœื™ื•

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขื“ ืฉื™ื“ื•ืจ ืžื›ื•ืœื ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืžืจื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืœื ื ื–ืจ ืืœื ื‘ื—ื“ ืžื ื”ื•ืŸ ื”ื•ื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ

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.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืžื›ืœ ืืฉืจ ื™ืขืฉื” ืžื’ืคืŸ ื”ื™ื™ืŸ ืžื—ืจืฆื ื™ื ื•ืขื“ ื–ื’ ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืžื™ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉื›ืจ ื™ื–ื™ืจ

The Gemara explains: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? The verse states with regard to a nazirite: โ€œAll the days of his naziriteship he shall not eat from anything that is made of the grapevine, from pits to grape skinโ€ (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: โ€œHe shall abstain from wine and strong drinkโ€ (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.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžื™ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉื›ืจ ื™ื–ื™ืจ ื”ื”ื•ื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืืกื•ืจ ื™ื™ืŸ ืžืฆื•ื” ื›ื™ื™ืŸ ื”ืจืฉื•ืช

The Gemara asks: And also according to Rabbi Shimon, isnโ€™t it written โ€œhe shall abstain from wine and strong drinkโ€? 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.

ืžืื™ ื”ื™ื ืงื“ื•ืฉืชื ื•ืื‘ื“ืœืชื

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

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

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

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 ื–ื›ื•ืช ืœืจืคื•ืื” ืฉืœืžื” ืœื“ื•ื“ ื‘ืŸ ืื™ื™ื“ืœ ื "ื™ ื•ืจื—ืœ ื‘ืช ื’ื•ืœื“ื ืžืจื™ื ืฉืชื—ื™' ื‘ืชื•ืš...

Nazir 3

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 3

ืื™ืŸ ื“ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื”ืงืคืจ ื“ืืžืจ ื ื–ื™ืจ ื—ื•ื˜ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื’ื‘ื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ื˜ืžื ื“ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืžื™ืกืชืจ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ื”ื™ืžื™ื ื”ืจืืฉื ื™ื ื™ืคืœื• ื›ื™ ื˜ืžื ื ื–ืจื• ื”ืชื ื”ื•ื ื“ืœืžื ืืชื™ ืœืžื™ืขื‘ืจ ืขืœ ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืชื™ื” ืื‘ืœ ื ื–ื™ืจ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืœืื• ื—ื•ื˜ื ืงืจื™ ื‘ื™ื”

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: โ€œBut the first days will be void, because his consecration was defiledโ€ (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.

ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื›ื–ื” ื ื”ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืชืคื•ืก ื‘ืฉืขืจื• ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื›ื–ื” ืœื ืืžืจ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื” ื ื–ื™ืจ ืขื•ื‘ืจ ืœืคื ื™ื•

ยง 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.

ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ืžืกืœืกืœ ืžืžืื™ ื“ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืกืœืกื•ืœ ืฉืขืจื ื›ื“ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื” ื”ื”ื™ื ืืžืชื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืœื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ืขื“ ืžืชื™ ืืชื” ืžืกืœืกืœ ื‘ืฉืขืจืš

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.

ืื™ืžื ืชื•ืจื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืกืœืกืœื” ื•ืชืจื•ืžืžืš ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืฉืชืคื•ืก ื‘ืฉืขืจื•

The Gemara suggests: Say that the word mesalsel is referring to the study of Torah, as it is written with regard to Torah: โ€œExtol her [salseleha] and she will exalt youโ€ (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.

ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ืžื›ืœื›ืœ ืžืžืื™ ื“ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื›ื™ืœื›ื•ืœ ืฉืขืจื• ื”ื•ื ื›ื“ืชื ืŸ ืกื™ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื›ื“ื™ ืœืกื•ื“ ื›ื™ืœื›ื•ืœ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื‘ืช ืฆื™ื“ืขื

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 oneโ€™s kilkul. And Rav said: This is referring to the hair that grows on the areas beneath the temple.

ืื™ืžื ืžื™ื–ืŸ ืขื ื™ื™ ื›ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ื›ืœื›ืœ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืืช ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืืช ืื—ื™ื• ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืฉืชืคื•ืก ื‘ืฉืขืจื•

The Gemara suggests: Say that he vowed to sustain the poor, as it is written: โ€œAnd Joseph sustained [vaykhalkel] his father and his brethrenโ€ (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.

ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ืœืฉืœื— ืคืจืข ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื ื–ื™ืจ ืžืžืื™ ื“ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื•ื— ืจื™ื‘ื•ื™ื ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืฉืœื—ื™ืš ืคืจื“ืก ืจืžื•ื ื™ื

The mishna rules that with regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to grow [leshaleโ€™aแธฅ] long hair, he is a nazirite. The Gemara asks: From where is it known that this term shiluโ€™aแธฅ, which is a different form of the word leshaleโ€™aแธฅ, is an expression of increase and growth? The Gemara answers: As it is written: โ€œYour tresses [shelaแธฅayikh] are a park of pomegranatesโ€ (Song of Songs 4:13).

ืื™ืžื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ืขื‘ื•ืจื™ ื›ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืฉืœื— ืžื™ื ืขืœ ืคื ื™ ื—ื•ืฆื•ืช

The Gemara suggests: Say that it is referring to a matter involving transfer, as it is written: โ€œAnd sends [sholeโ€™aแธฅ] water upon the earthโ€ (Job 5:10), where the word sholeโ€™aแธฅ 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.

ืชื ื ืคืจืข ืคืจืข ื™ืœื™ืฃ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ื›ื ืงื“ืฉ ื™ื”ื™ื” ื’ื“ืœ ืคืจืข ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ืชื ื’ื‘ื™ ื›ื”ืŸ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ื•ืคืจืข ืœื ื™ืฉืœื—ื•

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: โ€œHe shall be holy, he shall let the hair of his head grow [gadel] long locks [pera]โ€ (Numbers 6:5). And it is written there, with regard to a common priest serving in the Temple: โ€œAnd they will not let their locks grow long [pera lo yeshaleแธฅu]โ€ (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 shiluโ€™aแธฅ means letting oneโ€™s hair grow.

ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ื”ืื™ ืฉื•ืœื— ืžื™ื ื ืžื™ ืจื™ื‘ื•ื™ ื”ื•ื (ื›ื“ืžืชืจื’ื ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ) ื“ื›ื“ ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืžื™ื ืœืคื™ืจื ื•ืจื‘ื™

The Gemara offers an alternate answer: And if you wish, say that the meaning of the word sholeโ€™aแธฅ in that phrase: Sends [sholeโ€™aแธฅ] 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.

ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ืฆื™ืคืจื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืฆื™ืคืจื™ืŸ ืกืžื•ื›ื™ืŸ ืœืฉื™ืขืจ ืงื™ื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืขื“ ื“ื™ ืฉืขืจื™ื” ื›ื ืฉืจื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื” ื•ื˜ืคืจื•ื”ื™ ื›ืฆืคืจื™ืŸ

ยง 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: โ€œUntil his hair was grown like eaglesโ€™ feathers, and his nails like birdsโ€™ clawsโ€ (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.

ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืžืชืคื™ืก ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ื‘ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ืกืžื™ืš ืœื™ื”

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.

ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืกื‘ืจื™ ืœื ืžืชืคื™ืก ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ื‘ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ืกืžื™ืš ืœื™ื”

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.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืžืชืคื™ืก ืืœื ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื“ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืฉืžื ืฆืคื•ืจื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ื˜ืžื ืงื™ื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ื•

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืžื›ื“ื™ ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืงืืžืจ ื“ืœืžื ืฆืคื•ืจื™ ื ื“ื‘ื” ืงื™ื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ื• ืื ื›ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ืงืŸ ืžื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื”

The Gemara asks: Since Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ื•ื“ืœืžื ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ืฆืคื•ืจื™ ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืงืืžืจ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื” ื ื–ื™ืจ ืขื•ื‘ืจ ืœืคื ื™ื• ื•ื“ืœืžื ื ื–ื™ืจ ื˜ืžื ื•ืœืคื•ื˜ืจื• ืžืŸ ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืชื™ื• ืงืืžืจ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื” ื ื–ื™ืจ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืขื•ื‘ืจ ืœืคื ื™ื•

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 leperโ€™s offerings on a leperโ€™s 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 naziriteโ€™s behalf. The Gemara answers: This is a case where a pure nazirite was passing before him.

ืžืื™ ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื•

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

ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืฆื™ืคืจื™ืŸ ื”ืกืžื•ื›ื™ืŸ ืœืฉืขืจ ืขืœื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืขื•ื‘ืจ ืœืคื ื™ื• ืื™ืŸ ืื™ ืœื ืœื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืื™ืŸ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืขื•ื‘ืจ ืœืคื ื™ื•

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 Yoแธฅanan, 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.

ืžื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื ืžืชืคื™ืก ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ื‘ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืกืžื™ืš ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื”ืื•ืžืจ ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื• ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืœืื• ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืจื ื™ืžื™ื ื• ื•ืฉืžืืœื• ืืœ ื”ืฉืžื™ื ื•ื™ืฉื‘ืข ื‘ื—ื™ ื”ืขื•ืœื

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? Isnโ€™t 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: โ€œWhen he lifted up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and swore by Him that lives foreverโ€ (Daniel 12:7)? It seems evident that the term โ€œrightโ€ indicates an oath merely because in the verse it is juxtaposed to an oath.

ืืžืจื™ ืœื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื’ื•ืคื™ื” ืื™ืงืจื™ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื“ืชื ื™ื ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืœืื•ืžืจ ื™ืžื™ืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื ืฉื‘ืข ื”ืณ ื‘ื™ืžื™ื ื• ื•ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืœืื•ืžืจ ืฉืžืืœ ืฉื”ื™ื ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื‘ื–ืจื•ืข ืขื•ื–ื•

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: โ€œThe Lord has sworn by His right handโ€ (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: โ€œAnd by the arm of His strengthโ€ (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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืจืฆื ื™ื ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื–ื’ื™ื ื•ืžืŸ ื”ืชื’ืœื—ืช ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื ื–ื™ืจ ื•ื›ืœ ื“ืงื“ื•ืงื™ ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ืขืœื™ื•

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขื“ ืฉื™ื“ื•ืจ ืžื›ื•ืœื ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืžืจื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืœื ื ื–ืจ ืืœื ื‘ื—ื“ ืžื ื”ื•ืŸ ื”ื•ื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ

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.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืžื›ืœ ืืฉืจ ื™ืขืฉื” ืžื’ืคืŸ ื”ื™ื™ืŸ ืžื—ืจืฆื ื™ื ื•ืขื“ ื–ื’ ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืžื™ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉื›ืจ ื™ื–ื™ืจ

The Gemara explains: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? The verse states with regard to a nazirite: โ€œAll the days of his naziriteship he shall not eat from anything that is made of the grapevine, from pits to grape skinโ€ (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: โ€œHe shall abstain from wine and strong drinkโ€ (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.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžื™ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉื›ืจ ื™ื–ื™ืจ ื”ื”ื•ื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืืกื•ืจ ื™ื™ืŸ ืžืฆื•ื” ื›ื™ื™ืŸ ื”ืจืฉื•ืช

The Gemara asks: And also according to Rabbi Shimon, isnโ€™t it written โ€œhe shall abstain from wine and strong drinkโ€? 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.

ืžืื™ ื”ื™ื ืงื“ื•ืฉืชื ื•ืื‘ื“ืœืชื

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

Scroll To Top