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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 24, 2015 | ื˜ืณ ื‘ืืœื•ืœ ืชืฉืขืดื”

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

  • 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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

Nazir 4

ื”ืจื™ ืžื•ืฉื‘ืข ื•ืขื•ืžื“ ืขืœื™ื• ืžื”ืจ ืกื™ื ื™

He is already sworn and obligated about it from Mount Sinai, i.e., he is obligated by Torah law to keep the halakhot of nazirite-ship, and therefore it is obvious that he may not drink wine from kiddush or havdala, as drinking the wine is required by rabbinic law (Rambam).

ืืœื ื›ื™ ื”ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ืฉืืฉืชื” ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ืืžืจ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืืชื™ื ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื—ื™ื™ืœื ืขืœ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื”

Rather, it is like that which Rava said: If one said: I hereby take an oath that I will drink wine, and he then said: I am hereby a nazirite, the naziriteship comes and applies to the subject of his oath. Although drinking wine is a mitzva for him due to his oath, his naziriteship supersedes the previous oath and renders it prohibited for him to drink wine.

ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื ืžื™ ื”ื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืืกื•ืจ ื™ื™ืŸ ืžืฆื•ื” ื›ื™ื™ืŸ ืจืฉื•ืช ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื™ืžื ืงืจื ืžื™ื™ืŸ ืžืื™ ื•ืฉื›ืจ ืฉืžืขืช ืžื™ื ื” ืชืจืชื™

The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis also, isnโ€™t the verse needed to prohibit to a nazirite wine that is consumed as a mitzva, just like wine whose consumption is optional? The Gemara answers: If that is so, let the verse say only โ€œhe shall abstain from wineโ€ (Numbers 6:3). What is the purpose of the additional phrase โ€œand strong drinkโ€? Learn from it that the verse teaches two halakhot, that one is a full-fledged nazirite even if he accepted only one of the prohibitions of naziriteship, and that a nazirite is prohibited from drinking wine even when its consumption is a mitzva.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื›ืชื‘ ืฉื›ืจ ืœืืœื•ืคื™ ืฉื›ืจ ืฉื›ืจ ืœืžืงื“ืฉ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉื›ืจ ืืœ ืชืฉืช ืืชื” ื•ื‘ื ื™ืš ืืชืš ืžื” ื’ื‘ื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ื™ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื™ืชืกืจ ืื‘ืœ ืฉืืจ ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ืœื ืืฃ ื’ื‘ื™ ืžืงื“ืฉ ื ืžื™ ื™ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื™ืชืกืจ ืื‘ืœ ืฉืืจ ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ื”ืžืฉืชื›ืจื™ืŸ ืœื

The Gemara explains: And Rabbi Shimon could respond to this argument as follows: This is the reason that the verse writes โ€œstrong drinkโ€: It is to teach a verbal analogy between โ€œstrong drinkโ€ written here and โ€œstrong drinkโ€ written with regard to entering and performing service in the Temple, as it is written that Aaron the priest was commanded: โ€œDo not drink wine or strong drink, you nor your sons with you, when you go into the Tent of Meetingโ€ (Leviticus 10:9). This teaches: Just as with a nazirite, it is wine alone that is forbidden but other beverages are not forbidden, so too, with regard to the Temple, it is wine that is forbidden to priests, but other intoxicating beverages are not forbidden to them.

ื•ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ืžื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื›ืœ ื“ื‘ื™ืœื” ืงืขื™ืœื™ืช ื•ืฉืชื” ื“ื‘ืฉ ื•ื—ืœื‘ ื•ื ื›ื ืก ืœืžืงื“ืฉ ื—ื™ื™ื‘

And this is to the exclusion of the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: If one ate a dried fig from Keโ€™ila, and similarly if one drank honey or if one drank milk, which can dull the senses, and entered the Temple, he is liable for violating the prohibition against strong drink.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืื™ืกื•ืจ ื—ืœ ืขืœ ืื™ืกื•ืจ

The Gemara suggests a different reason for the inclusion of the term โ€œstrong drink,โ€ according to Rabbi Shimon. If you wish, say instead that it is necessary because Rabbi Shimon does not generally accept the principle that a prohibition takes effect upon a preexisting prohibition.

ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืื•ื›ืœ ื ื‘ื™ืœื” ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืคื˜ื•ืจ

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: One who eats an animal carcass on Yom Kippur is exempt from the punishment of karet for eating on Yom Kippur. It is prohibited to eat an animal carcass, and therefore the additional prohibition against eating on Yom Kippur does not take effect with regard to it. The inclusion of the term โ€œstrong drinkโ€ alludes to the fact that with regard to naziriteship, a second prohibition does take effect. Consequently, if one took an oath not to drink wine and afterward vowed to be a nazirite, both prohibitions apply.

ื•ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžื›ืœ ืืฉืจ ื™ืขืฉื” ืžื’ืคืŸ ื”ื™ื™ืŸ ืืžืจื™ ืœืš ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ืชื ืœื™ืžื“ ืขืœ ืื™ืกื•ืจื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืฉืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ื ื–ื” ืขื ื–ื”

The Gemara asks: And also according to the Rabbis, isnโ€™t it written: โ€œAnything that is made of the grapevineโ€ (Numbers 6:4), which seems to indicate, as stated by Rabbi Shimon, that one becomes a nazirite only if he vows to accept all the prohibitions of a nazirite? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis could have said to you: There the verse taught that the prohibitions of a nazirite combine with each other. In other words, if a nazirite eats less than an olive-bulk of both grape skins and grape seeds, but together they amount to an olive-bulk, he receives lashes for transgressing a Torah prohibition.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืฆื™ืจื•ืฃ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ืฉื”ื• ืœืžื›ื•ืช ืœื ืืžืจื• ื›ื–ื™ืช ืืœื ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ืงืจื‘ืŸ

The Gemara explains: And Rabbi Shimon does not interpret the verse in this manner because he does not hold that there is a need for the combination of quantities of different foods in order to render one liable to receive lashes, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: Even the smallest quantity of forbidden food is sufficient to render one liable to receive lashes. The Sages stated the measurement of an olive-bulk only with regard to the obligation to bring an offering. Consequently, in the case of a nazirite, who is not obligated to bring a sin-offering if he inadvertently eats grape products, there is no need for a special verse to teach that the different foods add up to the measurement of an olive-bulk. Therefore, the purpose of the verse must be to teach about the nature of a nazirite vow.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื›ืฉืžืฉื•ืŸ ื›ื‘ืŸ ืžื ื•ื— ื›ื‘ืขืœ ื“ืœื™ืœื” ื›ืžื™ ืฉืขืงืจ ื“ืœืชื•ืช ืขื–ื” ื›ืžื™ ืฉื ืงืจื• ืคืœืฉืชื™ื ืืช ืขื™ื ื™ื• ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื ื–ื™ืจ ืฉืžืฉื•ืŸ

MISHNA: If one said: I am hereby like Samson, like the son of Manoah, like the husband of Delilah, like the one who tore off the doors of Gaza, like the one whose eyes were gouged out by the Philistines, he is a nazirite like Samson, whose halakhot are explained in the next mishna (see Judges, chapters 13โ€“16).

ื’ืžืณ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœืžื™ืชื ื ื›ืœ ื”ืœื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ ื“ืื™ ืืžืจ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื›ืฉืžืฉื•ืŸ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืฉืžืฉื•ืŸ ืื—ืจื™ื ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื›ื‘ืŸ ืžื ื•ื—

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why do I need the tanna to teach all these cases? It should be enough to state only the halakha where one says: Like Samson. The Gemara answers: These specifications are necessary because if one said only: I am hereby like Samson, I would say he was referring to another Samson, and this is not a nazirite vow. The tanna therefore teaches us that he adds: Like the son of Manoah, which shows he is referring to the biblical Samson.

ื•ืื™ ืชื ื ื›ื‘ืŸ ืžื ื•ื— ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืื™ื›ื ื“ืžื™ืชืงืจื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื›ื‘ืขืœ ื“ืœื™ืœื” ื•ื›ืžื™ ืฉื ืงืจื• ืคืœืฉืชื™ื ืืช ืขื™ื ื™ื•

And if the tanna had taught that he said he would be: Like the son of Manoah, I would say there is some person who is called that name, Samson, son of Manoah, and this is not a reference to the biblical Samson and is not an acceptance of naziriteship. The tanna therefore teaches us that he adds: Like the husband of Delilah, or: Like the one who tore off the doors of Gaza, or: Like the one whose eyes were gouged out by the Philistines. It is therefore clear that he is referring to the biblical figure and that his statement is a vow of naziriteship.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืขื•ืœื ืœื ื–ื™ืจ ืฉืžืฉื•ืŸ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืขื•ืœื ื”ื›ื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืขืจื• ืžื™ืงืœ ื‘ืชืขืจ ื•ืžื‘ื™ื ืฉืœืฉ ื‘ื”ืžื•ืช ื•ืื ื ื˜ืžื ืžื‘ื™ื ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื˜ื•ืžืื”

MISHNA: What is the difference between a permanent nazirite and a nazirite like Samson, both of whom remain nazirites forever? In the case of a permanent nazirite, if his hair grows too heavy for him, he lightens it by cutting some hair with a razor, and he then brings three animals as a sin-offering, a burnt-offering, and a peace-offering, like one who completes his term of naziriteship. And if he becomes ritually impure, he brings the offering for impurity brought by a regular nazirite who became impure.

ื ื–ื™ืจ ืฉืžืฉื•ืŸ ื”ื›ื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืขืจื• ืื™ื ื• ืžื™ืงืœ ื•ืื ื ื˜ืžื ืื™ื ื• ืžื‘ื™ื ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื˜ื•ืžืื”

By contrast, in the case of a nazirite like Samson, if his hair grows heavy he may not lighten it, since he is entirely prohibited from cutting his hair. And if he becomes impure, he does not bring an offering for impurity.

ื’ืžืณ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืขื•ืœื ืžืืŸ ื“ื›ืจ ืฉืžื™ื” ื—ืกื•ืจื™ ืžื™ื—ืกืจื ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืขื•ืœื ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื ื–ื™ืจ ืžื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืขื•ืœื ืœื ื–ื™ืจ ืฉืžืฉื•ืŸ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืขื•ืœื ื”ื›ื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืขืจื• ืžื™ืงืœ ื‘ืชืขืจ ื•ืžื‘ื™ื ืฉืœืฉ ื‘ื”ืžื•ืช ื•ืื ื ื˜ืžื ืžื‘ื™ื ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื ื–ื™ืจ ืฉืžืฉื•ืŸ ื”ื›ื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืขืจื• ืื™ื ื• ืžื™ืงืœ ื‘ืชืขืจ

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Who mentioned anything about a permanent nazirite? Since the mishna has not yet mentioned this concept, how can it analyze the differences between it and a nazirite like Samson? The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: In the case of one who says: I am hereby a permanent nazirite, he is a permanent nazirite. What is the difference between a permanent nazirite and a nazirite like Samson? In the case of a permanent nazirite, if his hair grows too heavy for him, he lightens it with a razor and he then brings three animals for offerings. And if he becomes ritually impure, he brings the offering for impurity. In the case of a nazirite like Samson, if his hair grows heavy he may not lighten it with a razor,

ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื‘ื™ื ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื˜ื•ืžืื”

but he does not bring the offering for impurity.

ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืื‘ืœ ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื—ื™ื™ืœื ืขืœื™ื”

The Gemara comments: From the words: But if he becomes impure he does not bring an offering for impurity, one can infer that it is the offering that he does not bring. However, all of the prohibitions of naziriteship apply to him, and it is prohibited for him to become impure from a corpse.

ืžื ื™ ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืœื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืœื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืฉืžืฉื•ืŸ ืžื•ืชืจ ืœื™ื˜ืžื ืœืžืชื™ื ืฉื›ืŸ ืžืฆื™ื ื• ื‘ืฉืžืฉื•ืŸ ืฉื ื˜ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืฉืžืฉื•ืŸ ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืœื•ื ืฉืœื ืžืฆื™ื ื• ื‘ืฉืžืฉื•ืŸ ืฉื™ืฆืืช ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ืžืคื™ื•

This leads to the following question: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is not the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and not the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: A nazirite like Samson is permitted to become impure from a corpse ab initio, as we find with Samson that he became impure. Rabbi Shimon says: One who says he will be a nazirite like Samson has not said anything, since we do not find with Samson that an utterance of a vow of naziriteship left his mouth. Samson never took a vow to be a nazirite. He received his status from the angelโ€™s instructions to his mother (see Judges 13:5). Consequently, Rabbi Shimon holds that one who vows to be a nazirite like Samson is not considered to have taken a nazirite vow.

ืžื ื™ ืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืœื›ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื•ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืงืชื ื™ ืื ื ื˜ืžื ืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ืืžืจ ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืœื ืขืœื™ื” ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื›ืœืœ

The Gemara explains the question: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? If it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didnโ€™t he say that it is permitted for a nazirite of this kind to become impure from a corpse even ab initio, but the mishna teaches: If he becomes impure, which indicates that he is prohibited from doing so ab initio? However, if you say that the mishna is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, didnโ€™t he say that naziriteship does not apply to him at all?

ืœืขื•ืœื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื ื•ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื’ื‘ื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืขื•ืœื ืื ื ื˜ืžื ืชื ื ื ืžื™ ื’ื‘ื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืฉืžืฉื•ืŸ ืื ื ื˜ืžื

The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and a nazirite like Samson may become impure from a corpse even ab initio. And since it teaches with regard to a permanent nazirite: If he becomes impure, as it is prohibited for a permanent nazirite to become impure from a corpse ab initio, the tanna also taught the same expression with regard to a nazirite like Samson and used the expression: If he becomes impure.

ืœื™ืžื ื‘ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื“ื”ื ื™ ืชื ืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ื›ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืกืจ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืžืชื™ืจ

ยง The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between these tannaโ€™im, as we learned in a baraita: If one says: This object is hereby forbidden to me like a firstborn, Rabbi Yaโ€™akov prohibits the individual from deriving benefit from the object, as he holds that a vow of this sort is valid. And Rabbi Yosei permits it, because the sanctity of a firstborn is not the result of a vow or sanctification. Rather, it is sacred of its own accord, and therefore its forbidden status cannot be extended by means of a vow to other items.

ืžืื™ ืœืื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื ื™ื“ืจ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื“ืืžืจ ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื ื™ื“ืจ

What, is it not the case that Rabbi Yehuda holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yaโ€™akov, who said that in order for a vow to take effect, we do not require one to extend the forbidden status of an item rendered forbidden by means of a vow? Consequently, just as one can render an object forbidden by extending to it the sanctity of a firstborn animal, one can become a nazirite by accepting upon himself the status of Samson, whose prohibitions were not established by a vow. And Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that in order for a vow to take effect, we do require one to extend the forbidden status of an item rendered forbidden by means of a vow. Consequently, one cannot become a nazirite by accepting upon himself the status of Samson.

ืœื ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื ื™ื“ืจ ื•ืฉืื ื™ ื’ื‘ื™ ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ืœื”ืณ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืืช ื”ื‘ื›ื•ืจ

The Gemara responds: No, it can be explained that everyone agrees that we require one to extend the forbidden status of an item rendered forbidden by means of a vow. And according to Rabbi Yaโ€™akov, the halakha is different with regard to a firstborn, as it is written about this in the verse pertaining to vows: โ€œWhen a man vows a vow to the Lordโ€ (Numbers 30:3). This comes to include the firstborn and teach that since the firstborn is consecrated, its status is comparable to animals designated as offerings by means of a vow, and one can extend its forbidden status to another item.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืืžืจ ืœืš ื”ื”ื•ื ืœื”ืณ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืืฉื

And Rabbi Yosei could have said to you in response that he needs that expression: โ€œTo the Lord,โ€ to include a sin-offering and a guilt-offering. One may not obligate himself to bring these offerings by means of a vow. They are brought only when one becomes liable due to a transgression. Nevertheless, one can take a vow by extending to another item the forbidden status of a sin-offering or guilt-offering.

ื•ืžื” ืจืื™ืช ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืืฉื ื•ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ื ืืช ื”ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ืžืจื‘ื” ืื ื™ ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืืฉื ืฉื›ืŸ ืžืชืคื™ืกืŸ ื‘ื ื“ืจ ื•ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืื ื™ ืืช ื”ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืชืคื™ืกื• ื‘ื ื“ืจ

The Gemara questions Rabbi Yoseiโ€™s explanation: And what did you see that indicated to you to include a sin-offering and a guilt-offering and to exclude a firstborn? The Gemara answers: I include a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, as one grants consecrated status to the animals designated for these offerings by means of a vow, i.e., the act of designating specific animals for these offerings is comparable to taking a vow. And I exclude a firstborn, as one does not grant it consecrated status by means of a vow.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืืžืจ ืœืš ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ื ืžื™ ืžืชืคื™ืกื• ื‘ื ื“ืจ ื”ื•ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืฉืœ ื‘ื™ืช ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ืืžืจื• ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœื ื•ืœื“ ืœื• ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ื‘ืชื•ืš ืขื“ืจื• ืฉืžืฆื•ื” ืขืœื™ื• ืœื”ืงื“ื™ืฉื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ื”ื–ื›ืจ ืชืงื“ื™ืฉ

And Rabbi Yaโ€™akov could have said to you in response: Also in the case of a firstborn, one grants it consecrated status by means of a vow, as it is taught in a baraita: The Sages of the house of our Rabbi, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said: From where is it derived that when a firstborn male animal is born in oneโ€™s herd, there is a mitzva for him to consecrate it, although it is consecrated from the time it is born? As it is stated: โ€œAll firstborns males that are born to your herd and to your flock you shall sanctifyโ€ (Deuteronomy 15:19).

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืืžืจ ืœืš ื ื”ื™ ื“ืžืฆื•ื” ืœื”ืงื“ื™ืฉื• ืื™ ืœื ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืœื™ื” ืžื™ ืœื ืงื“ื•ืฉ

And Rabbi Yosei could have said to you in response: Granted that there is a mitzva to consecrate it. But if he does not consecrate it, is it not consecrated of its own accord? Since a firstborn is forbidden principally because of its inherent sanctity and not because of a vow, one cannot express a vow by extending a firstbornโ€™s forbidden status to another item.

ื’ื‘ื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื”ืณ

The Gemara asks: Both Rabbi Yaโ€™akov and Rabbi Yosei agree that the phrase โ€œto the Lordโ€ indicates that one can take a vow by associating the object of his vow with an item whose prohibition does not stem from a vow. With regard to a nazirite as well, isnโ€™t it written: โ€œShall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lordโ€ (Numbers 6:2)? Why doesnโ€™t Rabbi Shimon derive from this verse that one can become a nazirite by accepting the naziriteship of Samson, despite the fact that Samson did not accept his naziriteship by means of a vow?

ื”ื”ื•ื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ืฆื“ื™ืง ืžื™ืžื™ ืœื ืื›ืœืชื™ ืืฉื ื ื–ื™ืจ ื˜ืžื ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืื“ื ืื—ื“ ืฉื‘ื ืืœื™ ืžืŸ ื”ื“ืจื•ื ื™ืคื” ืขื™ื ื™ื ื•ื˜ื•ื‘ ืจื•ืื™ ื•ืงื•ื•ืฆื•ืชื™ื• ืกื“ื•ืจื•ืช ืœื• ืชืœืชืœื™ื ืืžืจืชื™ ืœื• ื‘ื ื™ ืžื” ืจืื™ืช ืœืฉื—ืช ืฉืขืจ ื ืื” ื–ื”

The Gemara answers: That phrase is required by him for that which is taught in a baraita: Shimon HaTzaddik said: In all my days as a priest, I never ate the guilt-offering of a ritually impure nazirite, apart from the offering of one man who came to me from the South, who had beautiful eyes and a fine countenance, and his locks were arranged in curls. I said to him: My son, what did you see to become a nazirite, which would force you to destroy this beautiful hair, as a nazirite must cut off all his hair at the conclusion of his term?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ ืจื•ืขื” ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ืœืื‘ื™ ื‘ืขื™ืจื™ ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื™ ืœืฉืื•ื‘ ืžื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ื•ื ืกืชื›ืœืชื™ ื‘ื‘ื‘ื•ืื” ืฉืœื™ ื•ืคื—ื– ื™ืฆืจื™ ืขืœื™ ื•ื‘ื™ืงืฉ ืœื˜ื•ืจื“ื ื™ ืžืŸ ื”ืขื•ืœื ืืžืจืชื™ ืœื• ืจื™ืงื” ืžืคื ื™ ืžื” ืืชื” ืžืชื’ืื” ื‘ืขื•ืœื ืฉืื™ื ื• ืฉืœืš ืฉืกื•ืคืš ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ืจืžื” ื•ืชื•ืœืขื” ื”ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ืฉืื’ืœื—ืš ืœืฉืžื™ื

He said to me: I was a shepherd for my father in my town, and I went to draw water from the spring, and I looked at my reflection in the water. And my evil inclination quickly rose against me and sought to drive me from the world. I said to my evil inclination: Empty one! For what reason are you proud in a world that is not yours, as your end is to be maggots and worms when you die. I swear by the Temple service that I will become a nazirite and shave you for the sake of Heaven.

ืขืžื“ืชื™ ื•ื ืฉืงืชื™ื• ืขืœ ืจืืฉื• ืืžืจืชื™ ืœื• ื›ืžื•ืชืš ื™ืจื‘ื• ื ื–ื™ืจื™ื ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืขืœื™ืš ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืฉ ื›ื™ ื™ืคืœื ืœื ื“ืจ ื ื“ืจ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืœื”ื–ื™ืจ ืœื”ืณ

Shimon HaTzaddik relates: When I heard his response, I arose and kissed him on his head, and said to him: May there be more nazirites like you in Israel, whose intentions are noble, and who would not regret their vow of naziriteship even if they became impure. With regard to you the verse states: โ€œWhen either a man or a woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lordโ€ (Numbers 6:2). The verse speaks of a vow that is not undertaken out of anger or spite, but purely for the sake of God. The phrase โ€œto the Lordโ€ in this context means: For the sake of Heaven. It cannot be used to teach that if one declares his intention to become a nazirite like Samson, his statement constitutes a nazirite vow.

ื•ืฉืžืฉื•ืŸ ืœืื• ื ื–ื™ืจ ื”ื•ื” ื•ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืืœื”ื™ื ื™ื”ื™ื” ื”ื ืขืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื‘ื˜ืŸ ื”ืชื ืžืœืืš ื”ื•ื ื“ืงืืžืจ

The Gemara challenges the assumption that Samsonโ€™s naziriteship was not accepted through a vow: And was Samson not a nazirite whose naziriteship was accepted by a vow? Isnโ€™t it written: โ€œFor the child shall be a nazirite of God from the wombโ€ (Judges 13:5)? The Gemara answers: There it was the angel who spoke. Samsonโ€™s nazirite status did not stem from a vow uttered by a human being.

ื•ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ืื™ื˜ืžื™ ืœืžืชื™ื ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืžื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืœื—ื™ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจ ื”ื›ื™ืชื™ ืืœืฃ ืื™ืฉ ื“ื™ืœืžื ื’ืจื•ื™ื™ ื’ืจื™ ื‘ื”ื• ื•ืœื ื ื’ืข ื‘ื”ื•

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that Samson became impure from corpses? If we say it is from the fact that it is written: โ€œAnd Samson said: With the jawbone of an ass, I smote a thousand menโ€ (Judges 15:16), perhaps he thrust the jawbone at them but did not touch them, and he remained pure.

ืืœื ืžื”ื›ื ื•ื™ืš ืžื”ื ืฉืœืฉื™ื ืื™ืฉ ื•ื™ืงื— ืืช ื—ืœื™ืฆื•ืชื ื“ื™ืœืžื ืืฉืœื—ื™ื ื•ืŸ ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ื•ื”ื“ืจ ืงื˜ืœื™ื ืŸ ื•ื™ืš ื•ื™ืงื— ื›ืชื™ื‘

Rather, it is derived from here: โ€œAnd he smote thirty men of them, and took their garmentsโ€ (Judges 14:19). Since he stripped the clothes off the dead he must have come into contact with them. The Gemara counters: Perhaps he stripped them first and afterward killed them. The Gemara responds: It is written: โ€œAnd he smoteโ€ฆand took,โ€ in that order, indicating that first he killed them and then he took their clothing.

ื•ื“ื™ืœืžื ื’ื•ืกืกื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื™ื ืŸ ืืœื ื’ืžืจื ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ืœื”

The Gemara asks: But perhaps he mortally wounded them and thereby caused them to be in the process of dying, and he then took their clothes before they died so that he would not touch their corpses. Rather, it must be concluded that it is learned as a tradition that Samson would become impure from corpses.

ื•ื ื–ื™ืจ ืขื•ืœื ื”ื™ื›ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื‘ืฉืœื•ื ื ื–ื™ืจ ืขื•ืœื ื”ื™ื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ื”ื™ ืžืงืฅ ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืฉื ื” ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืื‘ืฉืœื•ื ืืœ ื”ืžืœืš ืืœื›ื” ื ื ื•ืืฉืœื ืืช ื ื“ืจื™ ืืฉืจ ื ื“ืจืชื™ ืœื”ืณ ื‘ื—ื‘ืจื•ืŸ ื•ืžื’ืœื— ืื—ื“ ืœืฉื ื™ื ืขืฉืจ ื—ื“ืฉ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ื”ื™ ืžืงืฅ ื™ืžื™ื ืœื™ืžื™ื

ยง The Gemara clarifies a halakha taught in the mishna: And where is the concept of a permanent nazirite written? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Absalom was a permanent nazirite, as it is stated: โ€œAnd it came to pass at the end of forty years, that Absalom said to the king: I pray to you, let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed to the Lord, in Hebronโ€ (IIย Samuel 15:7). And he cut his hair once every twelve months, as it is stated: โ€œAnd when he polled his head, now it was at every yearโ€™s [yamim] end that he polled it; because the hair was heavy on himโ€ (IIย Samuel 14:26).

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

  • 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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

talking talmud_square

Nazir 4: Samson Didn’t Vow

2 mishnayot - beginning with taking a vow like the nezirut of Shimshon (Samson), with different phrasings that all refer...
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 4

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 4

ื”ืจื™ ืžื•ืฉื‘ืข ื•ืขื•ืžื“ ืขืœื™ื• ืžื”ืจ ืกื™ื ื™

He is already sworn and obligated about it from Mount Sinai, i.e., he is obligated by Torah law to keep the halakhot of nazirite-ship, and therefore it is obvious that he may not drink wine from kiddush or havdala, as drinking the wine is required by rabbinic law (Rambam).

ืืœื ื›ื™ ื”ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ืฉืืฉืชื” ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ืืžืจ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืืชื™ื ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื—ื™ื™ืœื ืขืœ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื”

Rather, it is like that which Rava said: If one said: I hereby take an oath that I will drink wine, and he then said: I am hereby a nazirite, the naziriteship comes and applies to the subject of his oath. Although drinking wine is a mitzva for him due to his oath, his naziriteship supersedes the previous oath and renders it prohibited for him to drink wine.

ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื ืžื™ ื”ื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืืกื•ืจ ื™ื™ืŸ ืžืฆื•ื” ื›ื™ื™ืŸ ืจืฉื•ืช ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื™ืžื ืงืจื ืžื™ื™ืŸ ืžืื™ ื•ืฉื›ืจ ืฉืžืขืช ืžื™ื ื” ืชืจืชื™

The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis also, isnโ€™t the verse needed to prohibit to a nazirite wine that is consumed as a mitzva, just like wine whose consumption is optional? The Gemara answers: If that is so, let the verse say only โ€œhe shall abstain from wineโ€ (Numbers 6:3). What is the purpose of the additional phrase โ€œand strong drinkโ€? Learn from it that the verse teaches two halakhot, that one is a full-fledged nazirite even if he accepted only one of the prohibitions of naziriteship, and that a nazirite is prohibited from drinking wine even when its consumption is a mitzva.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื›ืชื‘ ืฉื›ืจ ืœืืœื•ืคื™ ืฉื›ืจ ืฉื›ืจ ืœืžืงื“ืฉ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉื›ืจ ืืœ ืชืฉืช ืืชื” ื•ื‘ื ื™ืš ืืชืš ืžื” ื’ื‘ื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ื™ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื™ืชืกืจ ืื‘ืœ ืฉืืจ ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ืœื ืืฃ ื’ื‘ื™ ืžืงื“ืฉ ื ืžื™ ื™ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื™ืชืกืจ ืื‘ืœ ืฉืืจ ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ื”ืžืฉืชื›ืจื™ืŸ ืœื

The Gemara explains: And Rabbi Shimon could respond to this argument as follows: This is the reason that the verse writes โ€œstrong drinkโ€: It is to teach a verbal analogy between โ€œstrong drinkโ€ written here and โ€œstrong drinkโ€ written with regard to entering and performing service in the Temple, as it is written that Aaron the priest was commanded: โ€œDo not drink wine or strong drink, you nor your sons with you, when you go into the Tent of Meetingโ€ (Leviticus 10:9). This teaches: Just as with a nazirite, it is wine alone that is forbidden but other beverages are not forbidden, so too, with regard to the Temple, it is wine that is forbidden to priests, but other intoxicating beverages are not forbidden to them.

ื•ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ืžื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื›ืœ ื“ื‘ื™ืœื” ืงืขื™ืœื™ืช ื•ืฉืชื” ื“ื‘ืฉ ื•ื—ืœื‘ ื•ื ื›ื ืก ืœืžืงื“ืฉ ื—ื™ื™ื‘

And this is to the exclusion of the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: If one ate a dried fig from Keโ€™ila, and similarly if one drank honey or if one drank milk, which can dull the senses, and entered the Temple, he is liable for violating the prohibition against strong drink.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืื™ืกื•ืจ ื—ืœ ืขืœ ืื™ืกื•ืจ

The Gemara suggests a different reason for the inclusion of the term โ€œstrong drink,โ€ according to Rabbi Shimon. If you wish, say instead that it is necessary because Rabbi Shimon does not generally accept the principle that a prohibition takes effect upon a preexisting prohibition.

ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืื•ื›ืœ ื ื‘ื™ืœื” ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืคื˜ื•ืจ

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: One who eats an animal carcass on Yom Kippur is exempt from the punishment of karet for eating on Yom Kippur. It is prohibited to eat an animal carcass, and therefore the additional prohibition against eating on Yom Kippur does not take effect with regard to it. The inclusion of the term โ€œstrong drinkโ€ alludes to the fact that with regard to naziriteship, a second prohibition does take effect. Consequently, if one took an oath not to drink wine and afterward vowed to be a nazirite, both prohibitions apply.

ื•ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžื›ืœ ืืฉืจ ื™ืขืฉื” ืžื’ืคืŸ ื”ื™ื™ืŸ ืืžืจื™ ืœืš ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ืชื ืœื™ืžื“ ืขืœ ืื™ืกื•ืจื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืฉืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ื ื–ื” ืขื ื–ื”

The Gemara asks: And also according to the Rabbis, isnโ€™t it written: โ€œAnything that is made of the grapevineโ€ (Numbers 6:4), which seems to indicate, as stated by Rabbi Shimon, that one becomes a nazirite only if he vows to accept all the prohibitions of a nazirite? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis could have said to you: There the verse taught that the prohibitions of a nazirite combine with each other. In other words, if a nazirite eats less than an olive-bulk of both grape skins and grape seeds, but together they amount to an olive-bulk, he receives lashes for transgressing a Torah prohibition.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืฆื™ืจื•ืฃ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ืฉื”ื• ืœืžื›ื•ืช ืœื ืืžืจื• ื›ื–ื™ืช ืืœื ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ืงืจื‘ืŸ

The Gemara explains: And Rabbi Shimon does not interpret the verse in this manner because he does not hold that there is a need for the combination of quantities of different foods in order to render one liable to receive lashes, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: Even the smallest quantity of forbidden food is sufficient to render one liable to receive lashes. The Sages stated the measurement of an olive-bulk only with regard to the obligation to bring an offering. Consequently, in the case of a nazirite, who is not obligated to bring a sin-offering if he inadvertently eats grape products, there is no need for a special verse to teach that the different foods add up to the measurement of an olive-bulk. Therefore, the purpose of the verse must be to teach about the nature of a nazirite vow.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื›ืฉืžืฉื•ืŸ ื›ื‘ืŸ ืžื ื•ื— ื›ื‘ืขืœ ื“ืœื™ืœื” ื›ืžื™ ืฉืขืงืจ ื“ืœืชื•ืช ืขื–ื” ื›ืžื™ ืฉื ืงืจื• ืคืœืฉืชื™ื ืืช ืขื™ื ื™ื• ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื ื–ื™ืจ ืฉืžืฉื•ืŸ

MISHNA: If one said: I am hereby like Samson, like the son of Manoah, like the husband of Delilah, like the one who tore off the doors of Gaza, like the one whose eyes were gouged out by the Philistines, he is a nazirite like Samson, whose halakhot are explained in the next mishna (see Judges, chapters 13โ€“16).

ื’ืžืณ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœืžื™ืชื ื ื›ืœ ื”ืœื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ ื“ืื™ ืืžืจ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื›ืฉืžืฉื•ืŸ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืฉืžืฉื•ืŸ ืื—ืจื™ื ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื›ื‘ืŸ ืžื ื•ื—

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why do I need the tanna to teach all these cases? It should be enough to state only the halakha where one says: Like Samson. The Gemara answers: These specifications are necessary because if one said only: I am hereby like Samson, I would say he was referring to another Samson, and this is not a nazirite vow. The tanna therefore teaches us that he adds: Like the son of Manoah, which shows he is referring to the biblical Samson.

ื•ืื™ ืชื ื ื›ื‘ืŸ ืžื ื•ื— ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืื™ื›ื ื“ืžื™ืชืงืจื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื›ื‘ืขืœ ื“ืœื™ืœื” ื•ื›ืžื™ ืฉื ืงืจื• ืคืœืฉืชื™ื ืืช ืขื™ื ื™ื•

And if the tanna had taught that he said he would be: Like the son of Manoah, I would say there is some person who is called that name, Samson, son of Manoah, and this is not a reference to the biblical Samson and is not an acceptance of naziriteship. The tanna therefore teaches us that he adds: Like the husband of Delilah, or: Like the one who tore off the doors of Gaza, or: Like the one whose eyes were gouged out by the Philistines. It is therefore clear that he is referring to the biblical figure and that his statement is a vow of naziriteship.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืขื•ืœื ืœื ื–ื™ืจ ืฉืžืฉื•ืŸ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืขื•ืœื ื”ื›ื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืขืจื• ืžื™ืงืœ ื‘ืชืขืจ ื•ืžื‘ื™ื ืฉืœืฉ ื‘ื”ืžื•ืช ื•ืื ื ื˜ืžื ืžื‘ื™ื ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื˜ื•ืžืื”

MISHNA: What is the difference between a permanent nazirite and a nazirite like Samson, both of whom remain nazirites forever? In the case of a permanent nazirite, if his hair grows too heavy for him, he lightens it by cutting some hair with a razor, and he then brings three animals as a sin-offering, a burnt-offering, and a peace-offering, like one who completes his term of naziriteship. And if he becomes ritually impure, he brings the offering for impurity brought by a regular nazirite who became impure.

ื ื–ื™ืจ ืฉืžืฉื•ืŸ ื”ื›ื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืขืจื• ืื™ื ื• ืžื™ืงืœ ื•ืื ื ื˜ืžื ืื™ื ื• ืžื‘ื™ื ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื˜ื•ืžืื”

By contrast, in the case of a nazirite like Samson, if his hair grows heavy he may not lighten it, since he is entirely prohibited from cutting his hair. And if he becomes impure, he does not bring an offering for impurity.

ื’ืžืณ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืขื•ืœื ืžืืŸ ื“ื›ืจ ืฉืžื™ื” ื—ืกื•ืจื™ ืžื™ื—ืกืจื ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืขื•ืœื ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื ื–ื™ืจ ืžื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืขื•ืœื ืœื ื–ื™ืจ ืฉืžืฉื•ืŸ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืขื•ืœื ื”ื›ื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืขืจื• ืžื™ืงืœ ื‘ืชืขืจ ื•ืžื‘ื™ื ืฉืœืฉ ื‘ื”ืžื•ืช ื•ืื ื ื˜ืžื ืžื‘ื™ื ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื ื–ื™ืจ ืฉืžืฉื•ืŸ ื”ื›ื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืขืจื• ืื™ื ื• ืžื™ืงืœ ื‘ืชืขืจ

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Who mentioned anything about a permanent nazirite? Since the mishna has not yet mentioned this concept, how can it analyze the differences between it and a nazirite like Samson? The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: In the case of one who says: I am hereby a permanent nazirite, he is a permanent nazirite. What is the difference between a permanent nazirite and a nazirite like Samson? In the case of a permanent nazirite, if his hair grows too heavy for him, he lightens it with a razor and he then brings three animals for offerings. And if he becomes ritually impure, he brings the offering for impurity. In the case of a nazirite like Samson, if his hair grows heavy he may not lighten it with a razor,

ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื‘ื™ื ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื˜ื•ืžืื”

but he does not bring the offering for impurity.

ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืื‘ืœ ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื—ื™ื™ืœื ืขืœื™ื”

The Gemara comments: From the words: But if he becomes impure he does not bring an offering for impurity, one can infer that it is the offering that he does not bring. However, all of the prohibitions of naziriteship apply to him, and it is prohibited for him to become impure from a corpse.

ืžื ื™ ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืœื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืœื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืฉืžืฉื•ืŸ ืžื•ืชืจ ืœื™ื˜ืžื ืœืžืชื™ื ืฉื›ืŸ ืžืฆื™ื ื• ื‘ืฉืžืฉื•ืŸ ืฉื ื˜ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืฉืžืฉื•ืŸ ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืœื•ื ืฉืœื ืžืฆื™ื ื• ื‘ืฉืžืฉื•ืŸ ืฉื™ืฆืืช ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ืžืคื™ื•

This leads to the following question: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is not the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and not the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: A nazirite like Samson is permitted to become impure from a corpse ab initio, as we find with Samson that he became impure. Rabbi Shimon says: One who says he will be a nazirite like Samson has not said anything, since we do not find with Samson that an utterance of a vow of naziriteship left his mouth. Samson never took a vow to be a nazirite. He received his status from the angelโ€™s instructions to his mother (see Judges 13:5). Consequently, Rabbi Shimon holds that one who vows to be a nazirite like Samson is not considered to have taken a nazirite vow.

ืžื ื™ ืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืœื›ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื•ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืงืชื ื™ ืื ื ื˜ืžื ืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ืืžืจ ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืœื ืขืœื™ื” ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื›ืœืœ

The Gemara explains the question: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? If it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didnโ€™t he say that it is permitted for a nazirite of this kind to become impure from a corpse even ab initio, but the mishna teaches: If he becomes impure, which indicates that he is prohibited from doing so ab initio? However, if you say that the mishna is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, didnโ€™t he say that naziriteship does not apply to him at all?

ืœืขื•ืœื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื ื•ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื’ื‘ื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืขื•ืœื ืื ื ื˜ืžื ืชื ื ื ืžื™ ื’ื‘ื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืฉืžืฉื•ืŸ ืื ื ื˜ืžื

The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and a nazirite like Samson may become impure from a corpse even ab initio. And since it teaches with regard to a permanent nazirite: If he becomes impure, as it is prohibited for a permanent nazirite to become impure from a corpse ab initio, the tanna also taught the same expression with regard to a nazirite like Samson and used the expression: If he becomes impure.

ืœื™ืžื ื‘ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื“ื”ื ื™ ืชื ืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ื›ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืกืจ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืžืชื™ืจ

ยง The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between these tannaโ€™im, as we learned in a baraita: If one says: This object is hereby forbidden to me like a firstborn, Rabbi Yaโ€™akov prohibits the individual from deriving benefit from the object, as he holds that a vow of this sort is valid. And Rabbi Yosei permits it, because the sanctity of a firstborn is not the result of a vow or sanctification. Rather, it is sacred of its own accord, and therefore its forbidden status cannot be extended by means of a vow to other items.

ืžืื™ ืœืื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื ื™ื“ืจ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื“ืืžืจ ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื ื™ื“ืจ

What, is it not the case that Rabbi Yehuda holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yaโ€™akov, who said that in order for a vow to take effect, we do not require one to extend the forbidden status of an item rendered forbidden by means of a vow? Consequently, just as one can render an object forbidden by extending to it the sanctity of a firstborn animal, one can become a nazirite by accepting upon himself the status of Samson, whose prohibitions were not established by a vow. And Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that in order for a vow to take effect, we do require one to extend the forbidden status of an item rendered forbidden by means of a vow. Consequently, one cannot become a nazirite by accepting upon himself the status of Samson.

ืœื ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื ื™ื“ืจ ื•ืฉืื ื™ ื’ื‘ื™ ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ืœื”ืณ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืืช ื”ื‘ื›ื•ืจ

The Gemara responds: No, it can be explained that everyone agrees that we require one to extend the forbidden status of an item rendered forbidden by means of a vow. And according to Rabbi Yaโ€™akov, the halakha is different with regard to a firstborn, as it is written about this in the verse pertaining to vows: โ€œWhen a man vows a vow to the Lordโ€ (Numbers 30:3). This comes to include the firstborn and teach that since the firstborn is consecrated, its status is comparable to animals designated as offerings by means of a vow, and one can extend its forbidden status to another item.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืืžืจ ืœืš ื”ื”ื•ื ืœื”ืณ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืืฉื

And Rabbi Yosei could have said to you in response that he needs that expression: โ€œTo the Lord,โ€ to include a sin-offering and a guilt-offering. One may not obligate himself to bring these offerings by means of a vow. They are brought only when one becomes liable due to a transgression. Nevertheless, one can take a vow by extending to another item the forbidden status of a sin-offering or guilt-offering.

ื•ืžื” ืจืื™ืช ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืืฉื ื•ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ื ืืช ื”ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ืžืจื‘ื” ืื ื™ ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืืฉื ืฉื›ืŸ ืžืชืคื™ืกืŸ ื‘ื ื“ืจ ื•ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืื ื™ ืืช ื”ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืชืคื™ืกื• ื‘ื ื“ืจ

The Gemara questions Rabbi Yoseiโ€™s explanation: And what did you see that indicated to you to include a sin-offering and a guilt-offering and to exclude a firstborn? The Gemara answers: I include a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, as one grants consecrated status to the animals designated for these offerings by means of a vow, i.e., the act of designating specific animals for these offerings is comparable to taking a vow. And I exclude a firstborn, as one does not grant it consecrated status by means of a vow.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืืžืจ ืœืš ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ื ืžื™ ืžืชืคื™ืกื• ื‘ื ื“ืจ ื”ื•ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืฉืœ ื‘ื™ืช ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ืืžืจื• ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœื ื•ืœื“ ืœื• ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ื‘ืชื•ืš ืขื“ืจื• ืฉืžืฆื•ื” ืขืœื™ื• ืœื”ืงื“ื™ืฉื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ื”ื–ื›ืจ ืชืงื“ื™ืฉ

And Rabbi Yaโ€™akov could have said to you in response: Also in the case of a firstborn, one grants it consecrated status by means of a vow, as it is taught in a baraita: The Sages of the house of our Rabbi, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said: From where is it derived that when a firstborn male animal is born in oneโ€™s herd, there is a mitzva for him to consecrate it, although it is consecrated from the time it is born? As it is stated: โ€œAll firstborns males that are born to your herd and to your flock you shall sanctifyโ€ (Deuteronomy 15:19).

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืืžืจ ืœืš ื ื”ื™ ื“ืžืฆื•ื” ืœื”ืงื“ื™ืฉื• ืื™ ืœื ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืœื™ื” ืžื™ ืœื ืงื“ื•ืฉ

And Rabbi Yosei could have said to you in response: Granted that there is a mitzva to consecrate it. But if he does not consecrate it, is it not consecrated of its own accord? Since a firstborn is forbidden principally because of its inherent sanctity and not because of a vow, one cannot express a vow by extending a firstbornโ€™s forbidden status to another item.

ื’ื‘ื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื”ืณ

The Gemara asks: Both Rabbi Yaโ€™akov and Rabbi Yosei agree that the phrase โ€œto the Lordโ€ indicates that one can take a vow by associating the object of his vow with an item whose prohibition does not stem from a vow. With regard to a nazirite as well, isnโ€™t it written: โ€œShall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lordโ€ (Numbers 6:2)? Why doesnโ€™t Rabbi Shimon derive from this verse that one can become a nazirite by accepting the naziriteship of Samson, despite the fact that Samson did not accept his naziriteship by means of a vow?

ื”ื”ื•ื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ืฆื“ื™ืง ืžื™ืžื™ ืœื ืื›ืœืชื™ ืืฉื ื ื–ื™ืจ ื˜ืžื ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืื“ื ืื—ื“ ืฉื‘ื ืืœื™ ืžืŸ ื”ื“ืจื•ื ื™ืคื” ืขื™ื ื™ื ื•ื˜ื•ื‘ ืจื•ืื™ ื•ืงื•ื•ืฆื•ืชื™ื• ืกื“ื•ืจื•ืช ืœื• ืชืœืชืœื™ื ืืžืจืชื™ ืœื• ื‘ื ื™ ืžื” ืจืื™ืช ืœืฉื—ืช ืฉืขืจ ื ืื” ื–ื”

The Gemara answers: That phrase is required by him for that which is taught in a baraita: Shimon HaTzaddik said: In all my days as a priest, I never ate the guilt-offering of a ritually impure nazirite, apart from the offering of one man who came to me from the South, who had beautiful eyes and a fine countenance, and his locks were arranged in curls. I said to him: My son, what did you see to become a nazirite, which would force you to destroy this beautiful hair, as a nazirite must cut off all his hair at the conclusion of his term?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ ืจื•ืขื” ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ืœืื‘ื™ ื‘ืขื™ืจื™ ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื™ ืœืฉืื•ื‘ ืžื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ื•ื ืกืชื›ืœืชื™ ื‘ื‘ื‘ื•ืื” ืฉืœื™ ื•ืคื—ื– ื™ืฆืจื™ ืขืœื™ ื•ื‘ื™ืงืฉ ืœื˜ื•ืจื“ื ื™ ืžืŸ ื”ืขื•ืœื ืืžืจืชื™ ืœื• ืจื™ืงื” ืžืคื ื™ ืžื” ืืชื” ืžืชื’ืื” ื‘ืขื•ืœื ืฉืื™ื ื• ืฉืœืš ืฉืกื•ืคืš ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ืจืžื” ื•ืชื•ืœืขื” ื”ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ืฉืื’ืœื—ืš ืœืฉืžื™ื

He said to me: I was a shepherd for my father in my town, and I went to draw water from the spring, and I looked at my reflection in the water. And my evil inclination quickly rose against me and sought to drive me from the world. I said to my evil inclination: Empty one! For what reason are you proud in a world that is not yours, as your end is to be maggots and worms when you die. I swear by the Temple service that I will become a nazirite and shave you for the sake of Heaven.

ืขืžื“ืชื™ ื•ื ืฉืงืชื™ื• ืขืœ ืจืืฉื• ืืžืจืชื™ ืœื• ื›ืžื•ืชืš ื™ืจื‘ื• ื ื–ื™ืจื™ื ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืขืœื™ืš ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืฉ ื›ื™ ื™ืคืœื ืœื ื“ืจ ื ื“ืจ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืœื”ื–ื™ืจ ืœื”ืณ

Shimon HaTzaddik relates: When I heard his response, I arose and kissed him on his head, and said to him: May there be more nazirites like you in Israel, whose intentions are noble, and who would not regret their vow of naziriteship even if they became impure. With regard to you the verse states: โ€œWhen either a man or a woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lordโ€ (Numbers 6:2). The verse speaks of a vow that is not undertaken out of anger or spite, but purely for the sake of God. The phrase โ€œto the Lordโ€ in this context means: For the sake of Heaven. It cannot be used to teach that if one declares his intention to become a nazirite like Samson, his statement constitutes a nazirite vow.

ื•ืฉืžืฉื•ืŸ ืœืื• ื ื–ื™ืจ ื”ื•ื” ื•ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืืœื”ื™ื ื™ื”ื™ื” ื”ื ืขืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื‘ื˜ืŸ ื”ืชื ืžืœืืš ื”ื•ื ื“ืงืืžืจ

The Gemara challenges the assumption that Samsonโ€™s naziriteship was not accepted through a vow: And was Samson not a nazirite whose naziriteship was accepted by a vow? Isnโ€™t it written: โ€œFor the child shall be a nazirite of God from the wombโ€ (Judges 13:5)? The Gemara answers: There it was the angel who spoke. Samsonโ€™s nazirite status did not stem from a vow uttered by a human being.

ื•ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ืื™ื˜ืžื™ ืœืžืชื™ื ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืžื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืœื—ื™ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจ ื”ื›ื™ืชื™ ืืœืฃ ืื™ืฉ ื“ื™ืœืžื ื’ืจื•ื™ื™ ื’ืจื™ ื‘ื”ื• ื•ืœื ื ื’ืข ื‘ื”ื•

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that Samson became impure from corpses? If we say it is from the fact that it is written: โ€œAnd Samson said: With the jawbone of an ass, I smote a thousand menโ€ (Judges 15:16), perhaps he thrust the jawbone at them but did not touch them, and he remained pure.

ืืœื ืžื”ื›ื ื•ื™ืš ืžื”ื ืฉืœืฉื™ื ืื™ืฉ ื•ื™ืงื— ืืช ื—ืœื™ืฆื•ืชื ื“ื™ืœืžื ืืฉืœื—ื™ื ื•ืŸ ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ื•ื”ื“ืจ ืงื˜ืœื™ื ืŸ ื•ื™ืš ื•ื™ืงื— ื›ืชื™ื‘

Rather, it is derived from here: โ€œAnd he smote thirty men of them, and took their garmentsโ€ (Judges 14:19). Since he stripped the clothes off the dead he must have come into contact with them. The Gemara counters: Perhaps he stripped them first and afterward killed them. The Gemara responds: It is written: โ€œAnd he smoteโ€ฆand took,โ€ in that order, indicating that first he killed them and then he took their clothing.

ื•ื“ื™ืœืžื ื’ื•ืกืกื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื™ื ืŸ ืืœื ื’ืžืจื ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ืœื”

The Gemara asks: But perhaps he mortally wounded them and thereby caused them to be in the process of dying, and he then took their clothes before they died so that he would not touch their corpses. Rather, it must be concluded that it is learned as a tradition that Samson would become impure from corpses.

ื•ื ื–ื™ืจ ืขื•ืœื ื”ื™ื›ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื‘ืฉืœื•ื ื ื–ื™ืจ ืขื•ืœื ื”ื™ื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ื”ื™ ืžืงืฅ ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืฉื ื” ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืื‘ืฉืœื•ื ืืœ ื”ืžืœืš ืืœื›ื” ื ื ื•ืืฉืœื ืืช ื ื“ืจื™ ืืฉืจ ื ื“ืจืชื™ ืœื”ืณ ื‘ื—ื‘ืจื•ืŸ ื•ืžื’ืœื— ืื—ื“ ืœืฉื ื™ื ืขืฉืจ ื—ื“ืฉ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ื”ื™ ืžืงืฅ ื™ืžื™ื ืœื™ืžื™ื

ยง The Gemara clarifies a halakha taught in the mishna: And where is the concept of a permanent nazirite written? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Absalom was a permanent nazirite, as it is stated: โ€œAnd it came to pass at the end of forty years, that Absalom said to the king: I pray to you, let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed to the Lord, in Hebronโ€ (IIย Samuel 15:7). And he cut his hair once every twelve months, as it is stated: โ€œAnd when he polled his head, now it was at every yearโ€™s [yamim] end that he polled it; because the hair was heavy on himโ€ (IIย Samuel 14:26).

Scroll To Top