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

Daf Yomi

February 24, 2023 | 讙壮 讘讗讚专 转砖驻状讙

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

Nazir 32

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Sarah Zahavi in honor of her sister Hasya and her love of learning.

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Hinda Herman in memory of her dear mother Ethel Bat Chaim on her yahrzeit.

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Linda Freedman in memory of her father Leon Pultman on his 8th yahrzeit. Husband of Thelma Pultman and father of Linda, Sheila and Gwen. “Dad had a special love of learning about Jewish history and our people. May his neshama have an aliyah.”

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in memory of her father, Melvyn Goldstein, on his third yahrzeit. 鈥淥nly now that you are gone am I understanding the wisdom of your ways.鈥

The Mishna says that if one drank wine while being a nazir, those days still count as their nazirite days. This does not seem to follow either the rabbis or Rabbi Yosi’s position as the rabbis require one to add as many days as one spent drinking wine while a nazir, and Rabbi Yosi requires a minimum of thirty days without drinking wine, regardless of how long the nazirite period was supposed to be. However, the Gemara explains that one can explain the Mishna according to each opinion. From the fact that Beit Shamai hold hekdesh by mistake is hekdesh and yet one who dissolved his nazirite vow, the sacrifices are no longer sanctified, we can learn to Beit Hillel that even though substitution by mistake is sanctified, if one dissolved the sanctity of the first animal, the sanctity would be canceled as well. In animal tithes, if one calls the 9th or 11th animal tenth by mistake, the animal is sanctified. Is this true as well if one intentionally called the 9th or 11th the tenth? Can we infer the answer to this question from our Mishna which makes reference to this law? If one vowed to become a nazir, assuming the animal in their possession would be used for the sacrifice, but it gets stolen, can one dissolve the vow on that basis? It depends upon whether the animal was stolen before or after the vow as if it was only stolen later, that is nolad (something unexpected that was not in existence at the time) and one cannot dissolve a vow using nolad. This is what confused Nachum HaMadi when he permitted nezirim who came to Israel after the destruction and when they realized there was no Temple in which to bring their sacrifices, they tried to dissolve their vows and he dissolved them based on the fact that had they realized the Temple would have been destroyed and they would have no way to finish their nazirite term, they never would have vowed. Isn’t this nolad? Rav Yosef raises a question on the Mishna because of a verse from Yirmiyahu 7:4 that alludes to the fact that the temple will be destroyed and therefore the nezirim should have known! If two people are walking and see someone from afar and bet on who it is by taking upon being a nazir and then others take a bet and take on being a nazir if one of them, both of them, or neither of them are nezirim, there are three opinions in the Mishna about which of them are nezirim. Beit Hillel鈥檚 language in the Mishna is difficult as he says 鈥淭he one who鈥檚 words do not come to be is a nazir.鈥 Shouldn鈥檛 it be the opposite? Rav Yehuda suggests changing the language to read 鈥淭he one whose words come true.鈥

讜讗转 讗讞讚 注砖专:


and the eleventh. It is a Torah edict that the consecration takes effect with regard to those two animals. Therefore, one cannot infer from this case that an erroneous act of consecration takes effect.


讙诪壮 诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna, when it rules that one whose request to dissolve his vow was rejected by a halakhic authority counts the duration of his naziriteship from the moment he took the vow, including the days on which he did not observe the halakhot of naziriteship in practice? The Gemara responds: It is neither the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, nor that of the Rabbis.


讚转谞讬讗 诪讬 砖谞讚专 讜注讘专 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转讜 讗讬谉 谞讝拽拽讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 诪讜谞讛 讘讛谉 讗讬住讜专 讻讬诪讬诐 砖谞讛讙 讘讛诐 讛讬转专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讚讬讜 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐


As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta Nedarim 1:6): With regard to one who took a vow of naziriteship and later transgressed his vow of naziriteship by drinking wine, the halakhic authorities do not attend to his request to dissolve his vow, nor do they let him complete his term as a nazirite by sacrificing offerings, unless he counted, i.e., observed, days of the prohibitions of naziriteship for the same number of days in which he behaved with permissiveness concerning the restrictions of a nazirite. Only after he observes the prohibitions of naziriteship for the number of days that his observance lapsed will a halakhic authority hear his request for dissolution, or allow him to bring his offerings. Rabbi Yosei says: Thirty days is enough for him. He is required to observe additional days of naziriteship only if he transgressed his vow of naziriteship for thirty days or more.


讗讬 专讘谞谉 拽砖讬讗 谞讝讬专讜转 诪讜注讟转 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 拽砖讬讗 谞讝讬专讜转 诪专讜讘讛


The Gemara elaborates: Which of these opinions might correspond to that of the mishna? If it is that of the Rabbis, it is difficult with respect to a short naziriteship, i.e., a standard term of naziriteship, which lasts for thirty days. The Rabbis maintain that he cannot include all the days from the time he took the vow even if his naziriteship was short. They hold that he must add days corresponding to the days that he failed to observe the halakhot required of a nazirite. If it is that of Rabbi Yosei, although he agrees that one who transgresses his vow of naziriteship for a short period of less than thirty days need not add to his term, it is nevertheless difficult with regard to a lengthy naziriteship, as even Rabbi Yosei rules that in such a case the individual must observe naziriteship for additional days.


讗讬讘注讬转 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讗讬讘注讬转 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讗讬讘注讬转 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻讗谉 讘谞讝讬专讜转 诪专讜讘讛 讻讗谉 讘谞讝讬专讜转 诪讜注讟转


The Gemara answers: If you wish, you can say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and if you wish, you can say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara explains: If you wish, you can say that the mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei: Here, the baraita is speaking of a lengthy naziriteship; there, the mishna is referring to a short naziriteship. In other words, the mishna refers only to one who transgresses his vow of naziriteship for less than thirty days.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 诇讗 转讬诪讗 诪砖注讛 砖谞讝专 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讻诪砖注讛 砖谞讝专:


And if you wish, you can say that the mishna follows the opinion of the Rabbis, by emending its wording: Do not say that he must observe naziriteship from the time that he vowed; rather, say: Like from the time that he vowed. That is, he must count his naziriteship corresponding to the time that has elapsed since he took his vow, exactly as stated by the Rabbis.


谞砖讗诇 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讜讛转讬专讜讛讜 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 谞砖诪注 诇讚讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讗讜 讗诪专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛拽讚砖 讘讟注讜转 讛讜讬 讛拽讚砖 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗讜 砖驻讬专 谞讝专 转爪讗 讜转专注讛 讘注讚专


搂 The mishna taught that with regard to one who requested of the halakhic authorities and they dissolved the vow for him, and he had already separated an animal for a nazirite offering, it shall go out and graze among the flock. Rabbi Yirmeya said: From the ruling of Beit Shammai one can learn a halakha with regard to the opinion of Beit Hillel. Is it not the case that Beit Shammai say that an erroneous act of consecration is considered consecration, and yet once the matter is revealed that his vow of naziriteship was not right, i.e., it has been dissolved, the animal is considered non-sacred and shall go out and graze among the flock.


诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 谞诪讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪专讬 转诪讜专讛 讘讟注讜转 讛讜讬讗 转诪讜专讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 诇注讬拽专 讛拽讚砖 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪讬转注拽专 注讬拽专 讛拽讚砖 讗讬转注拽专 谞诪讬 转诪讜专讛:


Rabbi Yirmeya continues: According to the opinion of Beit Hillel as well, even though they say that a substitution of a consecrated animal for another performed in error is a valid substitute, this applies only when the initial consecration, i.e., the consecration of the first animal, is in effect, in which case a substitution can take place. However, in a situation where the initial consecration has been uprooted, i.e., a halakhic authority dissolved the vow pertaining to the first consecration, the first animal is no longer consecrated, and therefore the substitute is also uprooted, i.e., the animal remains non-sacred.


讗诪专 诪专 讗讬 讗转诐 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讗讬诇讜 拽专讗 诇转砖讬注讬 注砖讬专讬 讻讜壮: 讗讬转诪专 诪注砖专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讟注讜转讜 讜诇讗 讻讜讜谞转讜 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专讬 讟注讜转讜 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讻讜讜谞转讜


The Master said in the mishna: Don鈥檛 you concede with regard to one who called the ninth animal: Tenth, that it is consecrated? It was stated that amora鈥檌m engaged in a dispute concerning this point. With regard to the animal tithe, Rav Na岣an said: It is consecrated in the above manner only if it resulted from his error, but not from his intentional declaration. If the owner was aware that it was the ninth animal and called it: Tenth, on purpose, his consecration is ineffective. Rav 岣sda and Rabba bar Rav Huna say: His error consecrates the animal, and all the more so his intentional declaration, i.e., if he called the ninth or eleventh animals: Tenth, in full knowledge that they were not the tenth.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 讟注讜转讜 讜诇讗 讻讜讜谞转讜 讚拽讗诪专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讬 讗转诐 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讗讬诇讜 拽专讗 诇转砖讬注讬 注砖讬专讬 讜诇注砖讬专讬 转砖讬注讬 讜诇讗讞讚 注砖专 注砖讬专讬 砖砖诇砖转谉 诪拽讜讚砖讬谉 讜讗讬砖转讬拽讜 讘讬转 讛诇诇


Rava said to Rav Na岣an: According to your opinion, that you say it is only his error that consecrates the ninth animal and not his intentional declaration, consider that Beit Shammai said the following to Beit Hillel in the mishna as proof that erroneous consecration is valid: Don鈥檛 you concede that if he called the ninth: Tenth; the tenth: Ninth; and the eleventh: Tenth, that all three are consecrated? And Beit Hillel were silent in face of this question.


诇讬诪专讜 诇讛讜谉 诪讛 诇诪注砖专 砖讻谉 讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 讘讻讜讜谞讛


However, according to your opinion, let Beit Hillel say to Beit Shammai: While it is correct that an erroneous act of consecration takes effect with regard to animal tithe, one cannot learn the halakha of other types of consecration from there, as what is unique about tithe is that it is not consecrated if his declaration concerning the wrong animal was intentional, whereas other types of consecration are typically the result of a purposeful act. Since other types of consecration take effect with intent, an erroneous act of consecration is not considered consecration.


讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛讜谉 讚拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 诪讛 诪注砖专 砖讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 讘讻讜讜谞讛 拽讚讜砖 讘讟注讜转 讛拽讚砖 砖拽讚讜砖 讘讻讜讜谞讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉


Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: This is the reason that Beit Hillel did not say that answer to Beit Shammai, as one can argue in the opposite manner, by saying that it is an a fortiori inference: If tithe, which is not consecrated when he acts intentionally, is nevertheless consecrated if he acted erroneously; with regard to other types of consecration, which are consecrated intentionally, is it not all the more so that an act of erroneous consecration should render an item consecrated?


讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讚讛拽讚砖 讘讚注转讗 讚诪专讬讛 转诇讬:


The Gemara rejects this argument: And this is not so, as this a fortiori inference is flawed, as consecration depends on the intention of the owner, and therefore it cannot apply when done in error. By contrast, the animal tithe is not consecrated through the intention of its owner but merely by counting, as every tenth animal is consecrated.


诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖谞讚专 讘谞讝讬专 讜讛诇讱 诇讛讘讬讗 讗转 讘讛诪转讜 讜诪爪讗讛 砖谞讙谞讘讛 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讙谞讘讛 讘讛诪转讜 谞讝专 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讝讬专


MISHNA: With regard to one who took a vow of naziriteship and went to bring his animal which he set aside for his nazirite offering and discovered that it was stolen, and due to the need to separate an additional animal now regrets having taken his vow, if he took a vow of naziriteship before his animal was stolen, he is a nazirite, as a vow cannot be dissolved as the result of a later event.


讜讗诐 诪砖谞讙谞讘讛 讘讛诪转讜 谞讝专 讗讬谞讜 谞讝讬专 讜讝讜 讟注讜转 讟注讛 谞讞讜诐 讛诪讚讬 讻砖注诇讜 谞讝讬专讬诐 诪谉 讛讙讜诇讛 讜诪爪讗讜 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讞专讘 讗诪专 诇讛诐 谞讞讜诐 讛诪讚讬 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讬转诐 讬讜讚注讬谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讞专讘 讛讬讬转诐 谞讜讝专讬诐 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 讜讛转讬专谉 谞讞讜诐 讛诪讚讬


But if he took a vow of naziriteship after his animal was stolen, he is not a nazirite, as it is retroactively established that his vow was taken in error from the outset, as he relied on an animal he did not possess. And this was the error that Na岣m the Mede erred when he failed to distinguish between an event that occurred before the vow was taken and an event that occurred afterward. The incident in question was as follows: When nazirites were ascending from the exile to sacrifice their offerings, and they found the Temple destroyed, Na岣m the Mede said to them: If you had known that the Temple would be destroyed, would you have taken a vow of naziriteship? They said to him: Certainly not, as there is no remedy for a naziriteship in this case. And Na岣m the Mede dissolved the vow for them.


讜讻砖讘讗 讛讚讘专 讗爪诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗诪专讜 讻诇 砖谞讝专 注讚 砖诇讗 讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 谞讝讬专 讜诪砖讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讗讬谞讜 谞讝讬专:


And when the matter came before the Rabbis, they said: His ruling is incorrect. Rather, whoever took a vow of naziriteship before the Temple was destroyed, like these nazirites from the exile, he is a nazirite, as he committed no error at the time of his vow, and one cannot dissolve vows based a new situation. However, one who stated his vow after the Temple was destroyed is not a nazirite, as he vowed based on an erroneous assumption.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讛 砖讟驻讜讛讜 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讗讜拽诪讬讛 讘砖讬讟转讬讬讛讜 讚转谞谉 驻讜转讞讬谉 讘谞讜诇讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉


GEMARA: In relation to the mishna鈥檚 statement with regard to the dissolution of a vow of naziriteship due to a new situation, the Gemara cites a statement that Rabba said: The Rabbis overwhelmed Rabbi Eliezer until he retracted his ruling and established the halakha in accordance with their opinion. To what does this refer? As we learned in a mishna in Nedarim (64a): They may broach dissolution by asking about a new situation, i.e., a halakhic authority can dissolve a vow due to a new situation that the one who took the vow did not anticipate at the time he took his vow. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer; but the Rabbis prohibit this. Since Rabbi Eliezer does not disagree in the case of naziriteship in this mishna, he must have accepted the opinion of the Rabbis.


讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 驻讜转讞讬谉 讘谞讜诇讚 讗讘诇 驻讜转讞讬谉 讘转谞讗讬 谞讜诇讚 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗诪专讬 诇讛讜谉 讗讬诇讜 讗转讗 讗讬谞讬砖 讜讗诪专 诇讻讜谉 讚讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 诪讬 讛讜讛 谞讚专讬转讜谉


And Rava said, with regard to the same issue: Even though the Rabbis said that they may not broach dissolution by asking about a new situation, however, they may broach dissolution by asking about the conditions of a new situation, i.e., with situations similar to a new situation. What are the circumstances of this type of broaching dissolution? The halakhic authorities say to the nazirites who took their vows before the destruction of the Temple: If a person had come and said to you before you took your vow that the Temple will be destroyed, would you have vowed? Although the destruction of the Temple itself is a new situation, its potential occurrence existed when they vowed, and therefore if they answered that they would not have vowed had they known this, their vows are dissolved.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讬 讛讜讗讬 讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛讜谉 讛讻转讬讘 讛讬讻诇 讛壮 讛讬讻诇 讛壮 讛讬讻诇 讛壮 讛诪讛 讝讛 诪拽讚砖 专讗砖讜谉 讜诪拽讚砖 砖谞讬


Rav Yosef said: If I had been there, when those nazirites arrived, I would have said the following to them, in order to dissolve their vows: Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭he Sanctuary of the Lord, the Sanctuary of the Lord, the Sanctuary of the Lord, are these鈥 (Jeremiah 7:4). This thrice repetition of 鈥淪anctuary of the Lord鈥 is referring to the First Temple and the Second Temple which are destined to be destroyed, leading to a Third Temple. These nazirites should have considered the possibility of the Temple鈥檚 destruction, and this can serve as a means of broaching the dissolution of their vows.


谞讛讬 讚讬讚注讬谉 诇讛讜谉 讚讬讞专讜讘 诪讬 讬讜讚注讬谉 诇讗讬诪转讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜诇讗 讬讚注讬谉 诇讗讬诪转 讜讛讻转讬讘 砖讘讜注讬诐 砖讘注讬诐 谞讞转讱 注诇 注诪讱 讜注诇 注讬专 拽讚砖讱 讜讗讻转讬 诪讬 讬讚注讬谞谉 讘讛讬 讬讜诪讗:


The Gemara responds: Although they might have known that the Second Temple would be destroyed, as the verse speaks of three Temples, did they know when it would be destroyed? Would they have considered that it might occur in their lifetimes, preventing them from sacrificing their offerings? Abaye said: And did they not know when? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淪eventy sevens are decreed upon your people and upon your sacred city鈥 (Daniel 9:24), which indicates that the Second Temple would be destroyed seventy Sabbatical cycles of seven years after the destruction of the First Temple, which is 490 years. The Gemara answers: And still, did we know on which day it would be destroyed? It was therefore impossible to use this factor as a means to broach the dissolution of their vows.


诪转谞讬壮 讛讬讜 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讘讚专讱 讜讗讞讚 讘讗 讻谞讙讚谉 讗诪专 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖讝讛 驻诇讜谞讬 讜讗讞讚 讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖讗讬谉 讝讛 驻诇讜谞讬 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖讗讞讚 诪讻诐 谞讝讬专 砖讗讬谉 讗讞讚 诪讻诐 谞讝讬专 砖砖谞讬讻诐 谞讝讬专讬诐 砖讻讜诇讻诐 谞讝讬专讬诐


MISHNA: If there were people walking along the way, and one other person was approaching them, and one of those walking said: I am hereby a nazirite if this person approaching us is so-and-so. And another one of them said: I am hereby a nazirite if this is not so-and-so, while a third member of the group said: I am hereby a nazirite if one of you two is a nazirite, and a fourth said: I am hereby a nazirite if neither of you is a nazirite, and another added: I am hereby a nazirite if both of you are nazirites. Finally, the last person said: I am hereby a nazirite if all you who spoke before me are nazirites.


讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻讜诇谉 谞讝讬专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 谞讝讬专 讗诇讗 诪讬 砖诇讗 谞转拽讬讬诪讜 讚讘专讬讜 讜专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 谞讝讬专


Beit Shammai say that they are all nazirites, as by saying: I am hereby a nazirite, they have accepted naziriteship upon themselves even if their statements turn out to be incorrect. Beit Shammai maintain that a vow of naziriteship taken in error is considered a valid vow of naziriteship. And Beit Hillel say: Only he whose statement was not fulfilled is a nazirite. And Rabbi Tarfon says: Not a single one of them is a nazirite, including those whose statements were correct. Rabbi Tarfon maintains that a vow of naziriteship must be pronounced in an explicit manner, without any hint of uncertainty. In this case, none of them knew for sure the identity of the person coming toward them, and therefore they could not be certain they were nazirites at the time of their vows.


讛专转讬注 诇讗讞讜专讬讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讝讬专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬讗诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讞讜讘讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 谞讚讘讛:


If the person approaching them turned back so that his identity was never discovered, not one of them is a nazirite. The matter was never clarified, and the halakha is lenient in cases of uncertain naziriteship. Rabbi Shimon says that the halakha is stringent with regard to an uncertainty of this kind, and therefore they should proceed as follows in order to avoid any uncertainty: Each of those who took a vow should say: If it was in accordance with my statement, I am hereby an obligatory nazirite, as my condition was fulfilled, and if not, I am hereby a voluntary nazirite, and in this manner they are all nazirites either way.


讙诪壮 诪讬 砖诇讗 谞转拽讬讬诪讜 讚讘专讬讜 讗诪讗讬 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬诪讗 诪讬 砖谞转拽讬讬诪讜 讚讘专讬讜


GEMARA: The Gemara questions the opinion of Beit Hillel: Why is he whose statement was not fulfilled a nazirite? Rav Yehuda said: One must emend the wording of the mishna so that it says: Only he whose statement was fulfilled becomes a nazirite.


  • 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: 30-36 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn the concept of 鈥渢he taste of forbidden food is prohibited鈥 and how it relates to...
talking talmud_square

Nazir 32: It’s Not the Staff That Sanctifies

One who vows to be a nazir, then regrets it, and wants out - but the sage he asks to...
Gefet with Rabbanit Yael Shimoni

Nezirut and the Destruction of the Temple – Gefet 55

https://youtu.be/4UhFB_BhLbw Nazir 32
on second thought thumbnail

The Lord’s Temple – On Second Thought

The story of the Nazirites who haven't heard of the destruction of the Temple On Second Thought: Delving Into the...

Nazir 32

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 32

讜讗转 讗讞讚 注砖专:


and the eleventh. It is a Torah edict that the consecration takes effect with regard to those two animals. Therefore, one cannot infer from this case that an erroneous act of consecration takes effect.


讙诪壮 诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna, when it rules that one whose request to dissolve his vow was rejected by a halakhic authority counts the duration of his naziriteship from the moment he took the vow, including the days on which he did not observe the halakhot of naziriteship in practice? The Gemara responds: It is neither the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, nor that of the Rabbis.


讚转谞讬讗 诪讬 砖谞讚专 讜注讘专 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转讜 讗讬谉 谞讝拽拽讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 诪讜谞讛 讘讛谉 讗讬住讜专 讻讬诪讬诐 砖谞讛讙 讘讛诐 讛讬转专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讚讬讜 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐


As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta Nedarim 1:6): With regard to one who took a vow of naziriteship and later transgressed his vow of naziriteship by drinking wine, the halakhic authorities do not attend to his request to dissolve his vow, nor do they let him complete his term as a nazirite by sacrificing offerings, unless he counted, i.e., observed, days of the prohibitions of naziriteship for the same number of days in which he behaved with permissiveness concerning the restrictions of a nazirite. Only after he observes the prohibitions of naziriteship for the number of days that his observance lapsed will a halakhic authority hear his request for dissolution, or allow him to bring his offerings. Rabbi Yosei says: Thirty days is enough for him. He is required to observe additional days of naziriteship only if he transgressed his vow of naziriteship for thirty days or more.


讗讬 专讘谞谉 拽砖讬讗 谞讝讬专讜转 诪讜注讟转 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 拽砖讬讗 谞讝讬专讜转 诪专讜讘讛


The Gemara elaborates: Which of these opinions might correspond to that of the mishna? If it is that of the Rabbis, it is difficult with respect to a short naziriteship, i.e., a standard term of naziriteship, which lasts for thirty days. The Rabbis maintain that he cannot include all the days from the time he took the vow even if his naziriteship was short. They hold that he must add days corresponding to the days that he failed to observe the halakhot required of a nazirite. If it is that of Rabbi Yosei, although he agrees that one who transgresses his vow of naziriteship for a short period of less than thirty days need not add to his term, it is nevertheless difficult with regard to a lengthy naziriteship, as even Rabbi Yosei rules that in such a case the individual must observe naziriteship for additional days.


讗讬讘注讬转 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讗讬讘注讬转 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讗讬讘注讬转 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻讗谉 讘谞讝讬专讜转 诪专讜讘讛 讻讗谉 讘谞讝讬专讜转 诪讜注讟转


The Gemara answers: If you wish, you can say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and if you wish, you can say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara explains: If you wish, you can say that the mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei: Here, the baraita is speaking of a lengthy naziriteship; there, the mishna is referring to a short naziriteship. In other words, the mishna refers only to one who transgresses his vow of naziriteship for less than thirty days.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 诇讗 转讬诪讗 诪砖注讛 砖谞讝专 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讻诪砖注讛 砖谞讝专:


And if you wish, you can say that the mishna follows the opinion of the Rabbis, by emending its wording: Do not say that he must observe naziriteship from the time that he vowed; rather, say: Like from the time that he vowed. That is, he must count his naziriteship corresponding to the time that has elapsed since he took his vow, exactly as stated by the Rabbis.


谞砖讗诇 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讜讛转讬专讜讛讜 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 谞砖诪注 诇讚讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讗讜 讗诪专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛拽讚砖 讘讟注讜转 讛讜讬 讛拽讚砖 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗讜 砖驻讬专 谞讝专 转爪讗 讜转专注讛 讘注讚专


搂 The mishna taught that with regard to one who requested of the halakhic authorities and they dissolved the vow for him, and he had already separated an animal for a nazirite offering, it shall go out and graze among the flock. Rabbi Yirmeya said: From the ruling of Beit Shammai one can learn a halakha with regard to the opinion of Beit Hillel. Is it not the case that Beit Shammai say that an erroneous act of consecration is considered consecration, and yet once the matter is revealed that his vow of naziriteship was not right, i.e., it has been dissolved, the animal is considered non-sacred and shall go out and graze among the flock.


诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 谞诪讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪专讬 转诪讜专讛 讘讟注讜转 讛讜讬讗 转诪讜专讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 诇注讬拽专 讛拽讚砖 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪讬转注拽专 注讬拽专 讛拽讚砖 讗讬转注拽专 谞诪讬 转诪讜专讛:


Rabbi Yirmeya continues: According to the opinion of Beit Hillel as well, even though they say that a substitution of a consecrated animal for another performed in error is a valid substitute, this applies only when the initial consecration, i.e., the consecration of the first animal, is in effect, in which case a substitution can take place. However, in a situation where the initial consecration has been uprooted, i.e., a halakhic authority dissolved the vow pertaining to the first consecration, the first animal is no longer consecrated, and therefore the substitute is also uprooted, i.e., the animal remains non-sacred.


讗诪专 诪专 讗讬 讗转诐 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讗讬诇讜 拽专讗 诇转砖讬注讬 注砖讬专讬 讻讜壮: 讗讬转诪专 诪注砖专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讟注讜转讜 讜诇讗 讻讜讜谞转讜 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专讬 讟注讜转讜 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讻讜讜谞转讜


The Master said in the mishna: Don鈥檛 you concede with regard to one who called the ninth animal: Tenth, that it is consecrated? It was stated that amora鈥檌m engaged in a dispute concerning this point. With regard to the animal tithe, Rav Na岣an said: It is consecrated in the above manner only if it resulted from his error, but not from his intentional declaration. If the owner was aware that it was the ninth animal and called it: Tenth, on purpose, his consecration is ineffective. Rav 岣sda and Rabba bar Rav Huna say: His error consecrates the animal, and all the more so his intentional declaration, i.e., if he called the ninth or eleventh animals: Tenth, in full knowledge that they were not the tenth.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 讟注讜转讜 讜诇讗 讻讜讜谞转讜 讚拽讗诪专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讬 讗转诐 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讗讬诇讜 拽专讗 诇转砖讬注讬 注砖讬专讬 讜诇注砖讬专讬 转砖讬注讬 讜诇讗讞讚 注砖专 注砖讬专讬 砖砖诇砖转谉 诪拽讜讚砖讬谉 讜讗讬砖转讬拽讜 讘讬转 讛诇诇


Rava said to Rav Na岣an: According to your opinion, that you say it is only his error that consecrates the ninth animal and not his intentional declaration, consider that Beit Shammai said the following to Beit Hillel in the mishna as proof that erroneous consecration is valid: Don鈥檛 you concede that if he called the ninth: Tenth; the tenth: Ninth; and the eleventh: Tenth, that all three are consecrated? And Beit Hillel were silent in face of this question.


诇讬诪专讜 诇讛讜谉 诪讛 诇诪注砖专 砖讻谉 讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 讘讻讜讜谞讛


However, according to your opinion, let Beit Hillel say to Beit Shammai: While it is correct that an erroneous act of consecration takes effect with regard to animal tithe, one cannot learn the halakha of other types of consecration from there, as what is unique about tithe is that it is not consecrated if his declaration concerning the wrong animal was intentional, whereas other types of consecration are typically the result of a purposeful act. Since other types of consecration take effect with intent, an erroneous act of consecration is not considered consecration.


讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛讜谉 讚拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 诪讛 诪注砖专 砖讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 讘讻讜讜谞讛 拽讚讜砖 讘讟注讜转 讛拽讚砖 砖拽讚讜砖 讘讻讜讜谞讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉


Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: This is the reason that Beit Hillel did not say that answer to Beit Shammai, as one can argue in the opposite manner, by saying that it is an a fortiori inference: If tithe, which is not consecrated when he acts intentionally, is nevertheless consecrated if he acted erroneously; with regard to other types of consecration, which are consecrated intentionally, is it not all the more so that an act of erroneous consecration should render an item consecrated?


讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讚讛拽讚砖 讘讚注转讗 讚诪专讬讛 转诇讬:


The Gemara rejects this argument: And this is not so, as this a fortiori inference is flawed, as consecration depends on the intention of the owner, and therefore it cannot apply when done in error. By contrast, the animal tithe is not consecrated through the intention of its owner but merely by counting, as every tenth animal is consecrated.


诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖谞讚专 讘谞讝讬专 讜讛诇讱 诇讛讘讬讗 讗转 讘讛诪转讜 讜诪爪讗讛 砖谞讙谞讘讛 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讙谞讘讛 讘讛诪转讜 谞讝专 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讝讬专


MISHNA: With regard to one who took a vow of naziriteship and went to bring his animal which he set aside for his nazirite offering and discovered that it was stolen, and due to the need to separate an additional animal now regrets having taken his vow, if he took a vow of naziriteship before his animal was stolen, he is a nazirite, as a vow cannot be dissolved as the result of a later event.


讜讗诐 诪砖谞讙谞讘讛 讘讛诪转讜 谞讝专 讗讬谞讜 谞讝讬专 讜讝讜 讟注讜转 讟注讛 谞讞讜诐 讛诪讚讬 讻砖注诇讜 谞讝讬专讬诐 诪谉 讛讙讜诇讛 讜诪爪讗讜 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讞专讘 讗诪专 诇讛诐 谞讞讜诐 讛诪讚讬 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讬转诐 讬讜讚注讬谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讞专讘 讛讬讬转诐 谞讜讝专讬诐 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 讜讛转讬专谉 谞讞讜诐 讛诪讚讬


But if he took a vow of naziriteship after his animal was stolen, he is not a nazirite, as it is retroactively established that his vow was taken in error from the outset, as he relied on an animal he did not possess. And this was the error that Na岣m the Mede erred when he failed to distinguish between an event that occurred before the vow was taken and an event that occurred afterward. The incident in question was as follows: When nazirites were ascending from the exile to sacrifice their offerings, and they found the Temple destroyed, Na岣m the Mede said to them: If you had known that the Temple would be destroyed, would you have taken a vow of naziriteship? They said to him: Certainly not, as there is no remedy for a naziriteship in this case. And Na岣m the Mede dissolved the vow for them.


讜讻砖讘讗 讛讚讘专 讗爪诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗诪专讜 讻诇 砖谞讝专 注讚 砖诇讗 讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 谞讝讬专 讜诪砖讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讗讬谞讜 谞讝讬专:


And when the matter came before the Rabbis, they said: His ruling is incorrect. Rather, whoever took a vow of naziriteship before the Temple was destroyed, like these nazirites from the exile, he is a nazirite, as he committed no error at the time of his vow, and one cannot dissolve vows based a new situation. However, one who stated his vow after the Temple was destroyed is not a nazirite, as he vowed based on an erroneous assumption.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讛 砖讟驻讜讛讜 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讗讜拽诪讬讛 讘砖讬讟转讬讬讛讜 讚转谞谉 驻讜转讞讬谉 讘谞讜诇讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉


GEMARA: In relation to the mishna鈥檚 statement with regard to the dissolution of a vow of naziriteship due to a new situation, the Gemara cites a statement that Rabba said: The Rabbis overwhelmed Rabbi Eliezer until he retracted his ruling and established the halakha in accordance with their opinion. To what does this refer? As we learned in a mishna in Nedarim (64a): They may broach dissolution by asking about a new situation, i.e., a halakhic authority can dissolve a vow due to a new situation that the one who took the vow did not anticipate at the time he took his vow. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer; but the Rabbis prohibit this. Since Rabbi Eliezer does not disagree in the case of naziriteship in this mishna, he must have accepted the opinion of the Rabbis.


讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 驻讜转讞讬谉 讘谞讜诇讚 讗讘诇 驻讜转讞讬谉 讘转谞讗讬 谞讜诇讚 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗诪专讬 诇讛讜谉 讗讬诇讜 讗转讗 讗讬谞讬砖 讜讗诪专 诇讻讜谉 讚讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 诪讬 讛讜讛 谞讚专讬转讜谉


And Rava said, with regard to the same issue: Even though the Rabbis said that they may not broach dissolution by asking about a new situation, however, they may broach dissolution by asking about the conditions of a new situation, i.e., with situations similar to a new situation. What are the circumstances of this type of broaching dissolution? The halakhic authorities say to the nazirites who took their vows before the destruction of the Temple: If a person had come and said to you before you took your vow that the Temple will be destroyed, would you have vowed? Although the destruction of the Temple itself is a new situation, its potential occurrence existed when they vowed, and therefore if they answered that they would not have vowed had they known this, their vows are dissolved.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讬 讛讜讗讬 讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛讜谉 讛讻转讬讘 讛讬讻诇 讛壮 讛讬讻诇 讛壮 讛讬讻诇 讛壮 讛诪讛 讝讛 诪拽讚砖 专讗砖讜谉 讜诪拽讚砖 砖谞讬


Rav Yosef said: If I had been there, when those nazirites arrived, I would have said the following to them, in order to dissolve their vows: Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭he Sanctuary of the Lord, the Sanctuary of the Lord, the Sanctuary of the Lord, are these鈥 (Jeremiah 7:4). This thrice repetition of 鈥淪anctuary of the Lord鈥 is referring to the First Temple and the Second Temple which are destined to be destroyed, leading to a Third Temple. These nazirites should have considered the possibility of the Temple鈥檚 destruction, and this can serve as a means of broaching the dissolution of their vows.


谞讛讬 讚讬讚注讬谉 诇讛讜谉 讚讬讞专讜讘 诪讬 讬讜讚注讬谉 诇讗讬诪转讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜诇讗 讬讚注讬谉 诇讗讬诪转 讜讛讻转讬讘 砖讘讜注讬诐 砖讘注讬诐 谞讞转讱 注诇 注诪讱 讜注诇 注讬专 拽讚砖讱 讜讗讻转讬 诪讬 讬讚注讬谞谉 讘讛讬 讬讜诪讗:


The Gemara responds: Although they might have known that the Second Temple would be destroyed, as the verse speaks of three Temples, did they know when it would be destroyed? Would they have considered that it might occur in their lifetimes, preventing them from sacrificing their offerings? Abaye said: And did they not know when? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淪eventy sevens are decreed upon your people and upon your sacred city鈥 (Daniel 9:24), which indicates that the Second Temple would be destroyed seventy Sabbatical cycles of seven years after the destruction of the First Temple, which is 490 years. The Gemara answers: And still, did we know on which day it would be destroyed? It was therefore impossible to use this factor as a means to broach the dissolution of their vows.


诪转谞讬壮 讛讬讜 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讘讚专讱 讜讗讞讚 讘讗 讻谞讙讚谉 讗诪专 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖讝讛 驻诇讜谞讬 讜讗讞讚 讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖讗讬谉 讝讛 驻诇讜谞讬 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖讗讞讚 诪讻诐 谞讝讬专 砖讗讬谉 讗讞讚 诪讻诐 谞讝讬专 砖砖谞讬讻诐 谞讝讬专讬诐 砖讻讜诇讻诐 谞讝讬专讬诐


MISHNA: If there were people walking along the way, and one other person was approaching them, and one of those walking said: I am hereby a nazirite if this person approaching us is so-and-so. And another one of them said: I am hereby a nazirite if this is not so-and-so, while a third member of the group said: I am hereby a nazirite if one of you two is a nazirite, and a fourth said: I am hereby a nazirite if neither of you is a nazirite, and another added: I am hereby a nazirite if both of you are nazirites. Finally, the last person said: I am hereby a nazirite if all you who spoke before me are nazirites.


讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻讜诇谉 谞讝讬专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 谞讝讬专 讗诇讗 诪讬 砖诇讗 谞转拽讬讬诪讜 讚讘专讬讜 讜专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 谞讝讬专


Beit Shammai say that they are all nazirites, as by saying: I am hereby a nazirite, they have accepted naziriteship upon themselves even if their statements turn out to be incorrect. Beit Shammai maintain that a vow of naziriteship taken in error is considered a valid vow of naziriteship. And Beit Hillel say: Only he whose statement was not fulfilled is a nazirite. And Rabbi Tarfon says: Not a single one of them is a nazirite, including those whose statements were correct. Rabbi Tarfon maintains that a vow of naziriteship must be pronounced in an explicit manner, without any hint of uncertainty. In this case, none of them knew for sure the identity of the person coming toward them, and therefore they could not be certain they were nazirites at the time of their vows.


讛专转讬注 诇讗讞讜专讬讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讝讬专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬讗诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讞讜讘讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 谞讚讘讛:


If the person approaching them turned back so that his identity was never discovered, not one of them is a nazirite. The matter was never clarified, and the halakha is lenient in cases of uncertain naziriteship. Rabbi Shimon says that the halakha is stringent with regard to an uncertainty of this kind, and therefore they should proceed as follows in order to avoid any uncertainty: Each of those who took a vow should say: If it was in accordance with my statement, I am hereby an obligatory nazirite, as my condition was fulfilled, and if not, I am hereby a voluntary nazirite, and in this manner they are all nazirites either way.


讙诪壮 诪讬 砖诇讗 谞转拽讬讬诪讜 讚讘专讬讜 讗诪讗讬 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬诪讗 诪讬 砖谞转拽讬讬诪讜 讚讘专讬讜


GEMARA: The Gemara questions the opinion of Beit Hillel: Why is he whose statement was not fulfilled a nazirite? Rav Yehuda said: One must emend the wording of the mishna so that it says: Only he whose statement was fulfilled becomes a nazirite.


Scroll To Top