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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 24, 2015 | 讟壮 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Nazir 4

讛专讬 诪讜砖讘注 讜注讜诪讚 注诇讬讜 诪讛专 住讬谞讬

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).

讗诇讗 讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗砖转讛 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讗转讬讗 谞讝讬专讜转 讞讬讬诇讗 注诇 砖讘讜注讛

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.

讜专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 讛讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗住讜专 讬讬谉 诪爪讜讛 讻讬讬谉 专砖讜转 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 诪讬讬谉 诪讗讬 讜砖讻专 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis also, isn鈥檛 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 鈥渉e shall abstain from wine鈥 (Numbers 6:3). What is the purpose of the additional phrase 鈥渁nd strong drink鈥? 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.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 砖讻专 诇讗诇讜驻讬 砖讻专 砖讻专 诇诪拽讚砖 讚讻转讬讘 讬讬谉 讜砖讻专 讗诇 转砖转 讗转讛 讜讘谞讬讱 讗转讱 诪讛 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 讬讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讬转住专 讗讘诇 砖讗专 诪砖拽讬谉 诇讗 讗祝 讙讘讬 诪拽讚砖 谞诪讬 讬讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讬转住专 讗讘诇 砖讗专 诪砖拽讬谉 讛诪砖转讻专讬谉 诇讗

The Gemara explains: And Rabbi Shimon could respond to this argument as follows: This is the reason that the verse writes 鈥渟trong drink鈥: It is to teach a verbal analogy between 鈥渟trong drink鈥 written here and 鈥渟trong drink鈥 written with regard to entering and performing service in the Temple, as it is written that Aaron the priest was commanded: 鈥淒o not drink wine or strong drink, you nor your sons with you, when you go into the Tent of Meeting鈥 (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.

讜诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讻诇 讚讘讬诇讛 拽注讬诇讬转 讜砖转讛 讚讘砖 讜讞诇讘 讜谞讻谞住 诇诪拽讚砖 讞讬讬讘

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 Ke鈥檌la, 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.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专

The Gemara suggests a different reason for the inclusion of the term 鈥渟trong drink,鈥 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.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛讗讜讻诇 谞讘讬诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 驻讟讜专

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 鈥渟trong drink鈥 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.

讜诇专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 诪讻诇 讗砖专 讬注砖讛 诪讙驻谉 讛讬讬谉 讗诪专讬 诇讱 专讘谞谉 讛转诐 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讗讬住讜专讬 谞讝讬专 砖诪爪讟专驻讬诐 讝讛 注诐 讝讛

The Gemara asks: And also according to the Rabbis, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nything that is made of the grapevine鈥 (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.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 爪讬专讜祝 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讛讜 诇诪讻讜转 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讻讝讬转 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 拽专讘谉

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛专讬谞讬 讻砖诪砖讜谉 讻讘谉 诪谞讜讞 讻讘注诇 讚诇讬诇讛 讻诪讬 砖注拽专 讚诇转讜转 注讝讛 讻诪讬 砖谞拽专讜 驻诇砖转讬诐 讗转 注讬谞讬讜 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讝讬专 砖诪砖讜谉

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 13鈥16).

讙诪壮 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 讻诇 讛诇讬谉 爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 讻砖诪砖讜谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 砖诪砖讜谉 讗讞专讬谞讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讘谉 诪谞讜讞

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.

讜讗讬 转谞讗 讻讘谉 诪谞讜讞 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬讻讗 讚诪讬转拽专讬 讛讻讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讘注诇 讚诇讬诇讛 讜讻诪讬 砖谞拽专讜 驻诇砖转讬诐 讗转 注讬谞讬讜

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.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讛 讘讬谉 谞讝讬专 注讜诇诐 诇谞讝讬专 砖诪砖讜谉 谞讝讬专 注讜诇诐 讛讻讘讬讚 砖注专讜 诪讬拽诇 讘转注专 讜诪讘讬讗 砖诇砖 讘讛诪讜转 讜讗诐 谞讟诪讗 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛

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.

谞讝讬专 砖诪砖讜谉 讛讻讘讬讚 砖注专讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讬拽诇 讜讗诐 谞讟诪讗 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛

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.

讙诪壮 谞讝讬专 注讜诇诐 诪讗谉 讚讻专 砖诪讬讛 讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 注讜诇诐 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讝讬专 诪讛 讘讬谉 谞讝讬专 注讜诇诐 诇谞讝讬专 砖诪砖讜谉 谞讝讬专 注讜诇诐 讛讻讘讬讚 砖注专讜 诪讬拽诇 讘转注专 讜诪讘讬讗 砖诇砖 讘讛诪讜转 讜讗诐 谞讟诪讗 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛 谞讝讬专 砖诪砖讜谉 讛讻讘讬讚 砖注专讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讬拽诇 讘转注专

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,

讜讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛

but he does not bring the offering for impurity.

拽专讘谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讬讬转讬 讗讘诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讞讬讬诇讗 注诇讬讛

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.

诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 谞讝讬专 砖诪砖讜谉 诪讜转专 诇讬讟诪讗 诇诪转讬诐 砖讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 讘砖诪砖讜谉 砖谞讟诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛讗讜诪专 谞讝讬专 砖诪砖讜谉 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 砖诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 讘砖诪砖讜谉 砖讬爪讗转 谞讝讬专讜转 诪驻讬讜

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 angel鈥檚 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.

诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽转谞讬 讗诐 谞讟诪讗 讗讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗诪专 诇讗 讞讬讬诇讗 注诇讬讛 谞讝讬专讜转 讻诇诇

The Gemara explains the question: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? If it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn鈥檛 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, didn鈥檛 he say that naziriteship does not apply to him at all?

诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚拽转谞讬 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 注讜诇诐 讗诐 谞讟诪讗 转谞讗 谞诪讬 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 砖诪砖讜谉 讗诐 谞讟诪讗

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.

诇讬诪讗 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞谉 讛专讬 注诇讬 讻讘讻讜专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗讜住专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪转讬专

搂 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 tanna鈥檌m, as we learned in a baraita: If one says: This object is hereby forbidden to me like a firstborn, Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov 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.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讚讘专 讛谞讬讚专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 讘注讬谞谉 讚讘专 讛谞讬讚专

What, is it not the case that Rabbi Yehuda holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, 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.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘注讬谞谉 讚讘专 讛谞讬讚专 讜砖讗谞讬 讙讘讬 讘讻讜专 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 诇讛壮 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讘讻讜专

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 Ya鈥檃kov, the halakha is different with regard to a firstborn, as it is written about this in the verse pertaining to vows: 鈥淲hen a man vows a vow to the Lord鈥 (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.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 诇讱 讛讛讜讗 诇讛壮 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜转 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐

And Rabbi Yosei could have said to you in response that he needs that expression: 鈥淭o the Lord,鈥 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.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛讘讻讜专 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 砖讻谉 诪转驻讬住谉 讘谞讚专 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 讗转 讛讘讻讜专 砖讗讬谉 诪转驻讬住讜 讘谞讚专

The Gemara questions Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 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.

讜专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 诇讱 讘讻讜专 谞诪讬 诪转驻讬住讜 讘谞讚专 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖诇 讘讬转 专讘讬谞讜 讗诪专讜 诪谞讬谉 诇谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讘讻讜专 讘转讜讱 注讚专讜 砖诪爪讜讛 注诇讬讜 诇讛拽讚讬砖讜 砖谞讗诪专 讛讝讻专 转拽讚讬砖

And Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov 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 one鈥檚 herd, there is a mitzva for him to consecrate it, although it is consecrated from the time it is born? As it is stated: 鈥淎ll firstborns males that are born to your herd and to your flock you shall sanctify鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:19).

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 诇讱 谞讛讬 讚诪爪讜讛 诇讛拽讚讬砖讜 讗讬 诇讗 诪拽讚讬砖 诇讬讛 诪讬 诇讗 拽讚讜砖

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 firstborn鈥檚 forbidden status to another item.

讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 诇讛壮

The Gemara asks: Both Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov and Rabbi Yosei agree that the phrase 鈥渢o the Lord鈥 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, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淪hall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lord鈥 (Numbers 6:2)? Why doesn鈥檛 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?

讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 砖诪注讜谉 讛爪讚讬拽 诪讬诪讬 诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 讗砖诐 谞讝讬专 讟诪讗 讞讜抓 诪讗讚诐 讗讞讚 砖讘讗 讗诇讬 诪谉 讛讚专讜诐 讬驻讛 注讬谞讬诐 讜讟讜讘 专讜讗讬 讜拽讜讜爪讜转讬讜 住讚讜专讜转 诇讜 转诇转诇讬诐 讗诪专转讬 诇讜 讘谞讬 诪讛 专讗讬转 诇砖讞转 砖注专 谞讗讛 讝讛

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?

讗诪专 诇讬 专讜注讛 讛讬讬转讬 诇讗讘讬 讘注讬专讬 讜讛诇讻转讬 诇砖讗讜讘 诪讬诐 诪谉 讛诪注讬讬谉 讜谞住转讻诇转讬 讘讘讘讜讗讛 砖诇讬 讜驻讞讝 讬爪专讬 注诇讬 讜讘讬拽砖 诇讟讜专讚谞讬 诪谉 讛注讜诇诐 讗诪专转讬 诇讜 专讬拽讛 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗转讛 诪转讙讗讛 讘注讜诇诐 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇讱 砖住讜驻讱 诇讛讬讜转 专诪讛 讜转讜诇注讛 讛注讘讜讚讛 砖讗讙诇讞讱 诇砖诪讬诐

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.

注诪讚转讬 讜谞砖拽转讬讜 注诇 专讗砖讜 讗诪专转讬 诇讜 讻诪讜转讱 讬专讘讜 谞讝讬专讬诐 讘讬砖专讗诇 注诇讬讱 讛讻转讜讘 讗讜诪专 讗讬砖 讻讬 讬驻诇讗 诇谞讚专 谞讚专 谞讝讬专 诇讛讝讬专 诇讛壮

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: 鈥淲hen either a man or a woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lord鈥 (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 鈥渢o the Lord鈥 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.

讜砖诪砖讜谉 诇讗讜 谞讝讬专 讛讜讛 讜讛讻转讬讘 讻讬 谞讝讬专 讗诇讛讬诐 讬讛讬讛 讛谞注专 诪谉 讛讘讟谉 讛转诐 诪诇讗讱 讛讜讗 讚拽讗诪专

The Gemara challenges the assumption that Samson鈥檚 naziriteship was not accepted through a vow: And was Samson not a nazirite whose naziriteship was accepted by a vow? Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淔or the child shall be a nazirite of God from the womb鈥 (Judges 13:5)? The Gemara answers: There it was the angel who spoke. Samson鈥檚 nazirite status did not stem from a vow uttered by a human being.

讜诪谞诇谉 讚讗讬讟诪讬 诇诪转讬诐 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讚讻转讬讘 讘诇讞讬 讛讞诪讜专 讛讻讬转讬 讗诇祝 讗讬砖 讚讬诇诪讗 讙专讜讬讬 讙专讬 讘讛讜 讜诇讗 谞讙注 讘讛讜

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: 鈥淎nd Samson said: With the jawbone of an ass, I smote a thousand men鈥 (Judges 15:16), perhaps he thrust the jawbone at them but did not touch them, and he remained pure.

讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 讜讬讱 诪讛诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讗讬砖 讜讬拽讞 讗转 讞诇讬爪讜转诐 讚讬诇诪讗 讗砖诇讞讬谞讜谉 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讚专 拽讟诇讬谞谉 讜讬讱 讜讬拽讞 讻转讬讘

Rather, it is derived from here: 鈥淎nd he smote thirty men of them, and took their garments鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd he smote鈥nd took,鈥 in that order, indicating that first he killed them and then he took their clothing.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讙讜住住讬谉 砖讜讬谞谉 讗诇讗 讙诪专讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛

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.

讜谞讝讬专 注讜诇诐 讛讬讻讗 讻转讬讘 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讘砖诇讜诐 谞讝讬专 注讜诇诐 讛讬讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讛讬 诪拽抓 讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 讜讬讗诪专 讗讘砖诇讜诐 讗诇 讛诪诇讱 讗诇讻讛 谞讗 讜讗砖诇诐 讗转 谞讚专讬 讗砖专 谞讚专转讬 诇讛壮 讘讞讘专讜谉 讜诪讙诇讞 讗讞讚 诇砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讛讬 诪拽抓 讬诪讬诐 诇讬诪讬诐

搂 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: 鈥淎nd 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 Hebron鈥 (II聽Samuel 15:7). And he cut his hair once every twelve months, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd when he polled his head, now it was at every year鈥檚 [yamim] end that he polled it; because the hair was heavy on him鈥 (II聽Samuel 14:26).

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Nazir 4

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 4

讛专讬 诪讜砖讘注 讜注讜诪讚 注诇讬讜 诪讛专 住讬谞讬

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).

讗诇讗 讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗砖转讛 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讗转讬讗 谞讝讬专讜转 讞讬讬诇讗 注诇 砖讘讜注讛

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.

讜专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 讛讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗住讜专 讬讬谉 诪爪讜讛 讻讬讬谉 专砖讜转 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 诪讬讬谉 诪讗讬 讜砖讻专 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis also, isn鈥檛 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 鈥渉e shall abstain from wine鈥 (Numbers 6:3). What is the purpose of the additional phrase 鈥渁nd strong drink鈥? 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.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 砖讻专 诇讗诇讜驻讬 砖讻专 砖讻专 诇诪拽讚砖 讚讻转讬讘 讬讬谉 讜砖讻专 讗诇 转砖转 讗转讛 讜讘谞讬讱 讗转讱 诪讛 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 讬讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讬转住专 讗讘诇 砖讗专 诪砖拽讬谉 诇讗 讗祝 讙讘讬 诪拽讚砖 谞诪讬 讬讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讬转住专 讗讘诇 砖讗专 诪砖拽讬谉 讛诪砖转讻专讬谉 诇讗

The Gemara explains: And Rabbi Shimon could respond to this argument as follows: This is the reason that the verse writes 鈥渟trong drink鈥: It is to teach a verbal analogy between 鈥渟trong drink鈥 written here and 鈥渟trong drink鈥 written with regard to entering and performing service in the Temple, as it is written that Aaron the priest was commanded: 鈥淒o not drink wine or strong drink, you nor your sons with you, when you go into the Tent of Meeting鈥 (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.

讜诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讻诇 讚讘讬诇讛 拽注讬诇讬转 讜砖转讛 讚讘砖 讜讞诇讘 讜谞讻谞住 诇诪拽讚砖 讞讬讬讘

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 Ke鈥檌la, 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.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专

The Gemara suggests a different reason for the inclusion of the term 鈥渟trong drink,鈥 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.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛讗讜讻诇 谞讘讬诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 驻讟讜专

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 鈥渟trong drink鈥 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.

讜诇专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 诪讻诇 讗砖专 讬注砖讛 诪讙驻谉 讛讬讬谉 讗诪专讬 诇讱 专讘谞谉 讛转诐 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讗讬住讜专讬 谞讝讬专 砖诪爪讟专驻讬诐 讝讛 注诐 讝讛

The Gemara asks: And also according to the Rabbis, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nything that is made of the grapevine鈥 (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.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 爪讬专讜祝 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讛讜 诇诪讻讜转 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讻讝讬转 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 拽专讘谉

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛专讬谞讬 讻砖诪砖讜谉 讻讘谉 诪谞讜讞 讻讘注诇 讚诇讬诇讛 讻诪讬 砖注拽专 讚诇转讜转 注讝讛 讻诪讬 砖谞拽专讜 驻诇砖转讬诐 讗转 注讬谞讬讜 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讝讬专 砖诪砖讜谉

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 13鈥16).

讙诪壮 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 讻诇 讛诇讬谉 爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 讻砖诪砖讜谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 砖诪砖讜谉 讗讞专讬谞讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讘谉 诪谞讜讞

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.

讜讗讬 转谞讗 讻讘谉 诪谞讜讞 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬讻讗 讚诪讬转拽专讬 讛讻讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讘注诇 讚诇讬诇讛 讜讻诪讬 砖谞拽专讜 驻诇砖转讬诐 讗转 注讬谞讬讜

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.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讛 讘讬谉 谞讝讬专 注讜诇诐 诇谞讝讬专 砖诪砖讜谉 谞讝讬专 注讜诇诐 讛讻讘讬讚 砖注专讜 诪讬拽诇 讘转注专 讜诪讘讬讗 砖诇砖 讘讛诪讜转 讜讗诐 谞讟诪讗 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛

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.

谞讝讬专 砖诪砖讜谉 讛讻讘讬讚 砖注专讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讬拽诇 讜讗诐 谞讟诪讗 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛

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.

讙诪壮 谞讝讬专 注讜诇诐 诪讗谉 讚讻专 砖诪讬讛 讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 注讜诇诐 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讝讬专 诪讛 讘讬谉 谞讝讬专 注讜诇诐 诇谞讝讬专 砖诪砖讜谉 谞讝讬专 注讜诇诐 讛讻讘讬讚 砖注专讜 诪讬拽诇 讘转注专 讜诪讘讬讗 砖诇砖 讘讛诪讜转 讜讗诐 谞讟诪讗 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛 谞讝讬专 砖诪砖讜谉 讛讻讘讬讚 砖注专讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讬拽诇 讘转注专

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,

讜讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 讟讜诪讗讛

but he does not bring the offering for impurity.

拽专讘谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讬讬转讬 讗讘诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讞讬讬诇讗 注诇讬讛

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.

诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 谞讝讬专 砖诪砖讜谉 诪讜转专 诇讬讟诪讗 诇诪转讬诐 砖讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 讘砖诪砖讜谉 砖谞讟诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛讗讜诪专 谞讝讬专 砖诪砖讜谉 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 砖诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 讘砖诪砖讜谉 砖讬爪讗转 谞讝讬专讜转 诪驻讬讜

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 angel鈥檚 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.

诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽转谞讬 讗诐 谞讟诪讗 讗讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗诪专 诇讗 讞讬讬诇讗 注诇讬讛 谞讝讬专讜转 讻诇诇

The Gemara explains the question: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? If it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn鈥檛 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, didn鈥檛 he say that naziriteship does not apply to him at all?

诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚拽转谞讬 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 注讜诇诐 讗诐 谞讟诪讗 转谞讗 谞诪讬 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 砖诪砖讜谉 讗诐 谞讟诪讗

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.

诇讬诪讗 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞谉 讛专讬 注诇讬 讻讘讻讜专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗讜住专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪转讬专

搂 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 tanna鈥檌m, as we learned in a baraita: If one says: This object is hereby forbidden to me like a firstborn, Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov 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.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讚讘专 讛谞讬讚专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 讘注讬谞谉 讚讘专 讛谞讬讚专

What, is it not the case that Rabbi Yehuda holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, 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.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘注讬谞谉 讚讘专 讛谞讬讚专 讜砖讗谞讬 讙讘讬 讘讻讜专 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 诇讛壮 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讘讻讜专

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 Ya鈥檃kov, the halakha is different with regard to a firstborn, as it is written about this in the verse pertaining to vows: 鈥淲hen a man vows a vow to the Lord鈥 (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.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 诇讱 讛讛讜讗 诇讛壮 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜转 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐

And Rabbi Yosei could have said to you in response that he needs that expression: 鈥淭o the Lord,鈥 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.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛讘讻讜专 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 砖讻谉 诪转驻讬住谉 讘谞讚专 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 讗转 讛讘讻讜专 砖讗讬谉 诪转驻讬住讜 讘谞讚专

The Gemara questions Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 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.

讜专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 诇讱 讘讻讜专 谞诪讬 诪转驻讬住讜 讘谞讚专 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖诇 讘讬转 专讘讬谞讜 讗诪专讜 诪谞讬谉 诇谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讘讻讜专 讘转讜讱 注讚专讜 砖诪爪讜讛 注诇讬讜 诇讛拽讚讬砖讜 砖谞讗诪专 讛讝讻专 转拽讚讬砖

And Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov 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 one鈥檚 herd, there is a mitzva for him to consecrate it, although it is consecrated from the time it is born? As it is stated: 鈥淎ll firstborns males that are born to your herd and to your flock you shall sanctify鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:19).

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 诇讱 谞讛讬 讚诪爪讜讛 诇讛拽讚讬砖讜 讗讬 诇讗 诪拽讚讬砖 诇讬讛 诪讬 诇讗 拽讚讜砖

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 firstborn鈥檚 forbidden status to another item.

讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 诇讛壮

The Gemara asks: Both Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov and Rabbi Yosei agree that the phrase 鈥渢o the Lord鈥 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, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淪hall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lord鈥 (Numbers 6:2)? Why doesn鈥檛 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?

讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 砖诪注讜谉 讛爪讚讬拽 诪讬诪讬 诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 讗砖诐 谞讝讬专 讟诪讗 讞讜抓 诪讗讚诐 讗讞讚 砖讘讗 讗诇讬 诪谉 讛讚专讜诐 讬驻讛 注讬谞讬诐 讜讟讜讘 专讜讗讬 讜拽讜讜爪讜转讬讜 住讚讜专讜转 诇讜 转诇转诇讬诐 讗诪专转讬 诇讜 讘谞讬 诪讛 专讗讬转 诇砖讞转 砖注专 谞讗讛 讝讛

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?

讗诪专 诇讬 专讜注讛 讛讬讬转讬 诇讗讘讬 讘注讬专讬 讜讛诇讻转讬 诇砖讗讜讘 诪讬诐 诪谉 讛诪注讬讬谉 讜谞住转讻诇转讬 讘讘讘讜讗讛 砖诇讬 讜驻讞讝 讬爪专讬 注诇讬 讜讘讬拽砖 诇讟讜专讚谞讬 诪谉 讛注讜诇诐 讗诪专转讬 诇讜 专讬拽讛 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗转讛 诪转讙讗讛 讘注讜诇诐 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇讱 砖住讜驻讱 诇讛讬讜转 专诪讛 讜转讜诇注讛 讛注讘讜讚讛 砖讗讙诇讞讱 诇砖诪讬诐

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.

注诪讚转讬 讜谞砖拽转讬讜 注诇 专讗砖讜 讗诪专转讬 诇讜 讻诪讜转讱 讬专讘讜 谞讝讬专讬诐 讘讬砖专讗诇 注诇讬讱 讛讻转讜讘 讗讜诪专 讗讬砖 讻讬 讬驻诇讗 诇谞讚专 谞讚专 谞讝讬专 诇讛讝讬专 诇讛壮

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: 鈥淲hen either a man or a woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lord鈥 (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 鈥渢o the Lord鈥 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.

讜砖诪砖讜谉 诇讗讜 谞讝讬专 讛讜讛 讜讛讻转讬讘 讻讬 谞讝讬专 讗诇讛讬诐 讬讛讬讛 讛谞注专 诪谉 讛讘讟谉 讛转诐 诪诇讗讱 讛讜讗 讚拽讗诪专

The Gemara challenges the assumption that Samson鈥檚 naziriteship was not accepted through a vow: And was Samson not a nazirite whose naziriteship was accepted by a vow? Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淔or the child shall be a nazirite of God from the womb鈥 (Judges 13:5)? The Gemara answers: There it was the angel who spoke. Samson鈥檚 nazirite status did not stem from a vow uttered by a human being.

讜诪谞诇谉 讚讗讬讟诪讬 诇诪转讬诐 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讚讻转讬讘 讘诇讞讬 讛讞诪讜专 讛讻讬转讬 讗诇祝 讗讬砖 讚讬诇诪讗 讙专讜讬讬 讙专讬 讘讛讜 讜诇讗 谞讙注 讘讛讜

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: 鈥淎nd Samson said: With the jawbone of an ass, I smote a thousand men鈥 (Judges 15:16), perhaps he thrust the jawbone at them but did not touch them, and he remained pure.

讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 讜讬讱 诪讛诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讗讬砖 讜讬拽讞 讗转 讞诇讬爪讜转诐 讚讬诇诪讗 讗砖诇讞讬谞讜谉 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讚专 拽讟诇讬谞谉 讜讬讱 讜讬拽讞 讻转讬讘

Rather, it is derived from here: 鈥淎nd he smote thirty men of them, and took their garments鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd he smote鈥nd took,鈥 in that order, indicating that first he killed them and then he took their clothing.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讙讜住住讬谉 砖讜讬谞谉 讗诇讗 讙诪专讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛

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.

讜谞讝讬专 注讜诇诐 讛讬讻讗 讻转讬讘 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讘砖诇讜诐 谞讝讬专 注讜诇诐 讛讬讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讛讬 诪拽抓 讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 讜讬讗诪专 讗讘砖诇讜诐 讗诇 讛诪诇讱 讗诇讻讛 谞讗 讜讗砖诇诐 讗转 谞讚专讬 讗砖专 谞讚专转讬 诇讛壮 讘讞讘专讜谉 讜诪讙诇讞 讗讞讚 诇砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讛讬 诪拽抓 讬诪讬诐 诇讬诪讬诐

搂 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: 鈥淎nd 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 Hebron鈥 (II聽Samuel 15:7). And he cut his hair once every twelve months, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd when he polled his head, now it was at every year鈥檚 [yamim] end that he polled it; because the hair was heavy on him鈥 (II聽Samuel 14:26).

Scroll To Top