Nedarim 3

אלא לאו דווקא זימנין מפרש ההוא דפתח ברישא זימנין ההוא דסליק מפרש ברישא ואיבעית אימא ידות איידי דאתיין מדרשא מפרש להון ברישא

Rather, the Mishna is not particular with regard to this matter, and there is no consistent pattern. Sometimes it explains first that subject with which it began, and sometimes it explains first that subject with which the introductory line in the mishna finished. And if you wish, say an alternate explanation of the order of the mishna here: With regard to intimations, since they are derived from the exposition of verses and are not explicitly mentioned in the Torah, the tanna cherishes them and explains them first.

וליפתח הדין ברישא מיפתח פתח בכינויין דאורייתא ברישא והדר מפרש ידות דאתיין ליה מדרשא

The Gemara asks: If so, let him begin the mishna with that, i.e., intimations, first. The Gemara answers: The tanna begins with substitutes for the language of vows, which are written in the Torah, in the first clause, and then explains intimations, which are derived from the exposition of verses.

הניחא למאן דאמר כינויין לשון נכרים הן אלא למאן דאמר לשון שבדו להן חכמים להיות נודר בו מאי איכא למימר

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that substitutes for the language of vows are terms for vows in a foreign language. Consequently, they may be considered to have been written in the Torah, as vows are certainly valid regardless of the language in which they are expressed. However, according to the one who says that these substitute terms are simply language that the Sages invented for one to use in taking a vow so as to minimize using God’s name in expressing a vow, what can be said? These include novelties just as intimations do.

מי קתני ידות ולאו חסורי קא מחסרת לה אקדים נמי ותני ידות כל ידות נדרים כנדרים וכל כינויי נדרים כנדרים ואלו הן ידות האומר לחבירו ואלו הן כינויין קונם קונח קונס

The Gemara responds: Does the mishna explicitly teach the halakha of intimations of vows? Do you not consider it incomplete, missing the phrase that mentions intimations? Once you are inserting this phrase into the mishna, you can also have it precede the clause about substitutes for the language of vows and teach the halakha of intimations at the beginning, so that the mishna reads as follows: All intimations of vows are like vows, and all substitutes for the language of vows are like vows. And these are intimations: One who says to his fellow: I am avowed from you, etc. And these are substitutes for the language of vows: Konam, konaḥ, konas.

וידות היכא כתיב איש כי יפלא לנדר נדר נזיר להזיר לה׳ ותניא נזיר להזיר לעשות כינויי נזירות כנזירות וידות נזירות כנזירות

§ Apropos the discussion of intimations of vows, the Gemara asks: And where are intimations of vows written, i.e., from where in the Torah is the halakha of intimations of vows derived? The Gemara explains that it is from the verse: “When a man or a woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite [nazir], to consecrate [lehazir] himself to the Lord” (Numbers 6:2). And it was taught in a baraita that the doubled term “nazir lehazir” serves to render substitutes for the language of nazirite vows like nazirite vows, and intimations of nazirite vows like nazirite vows.

אין לי אלא בנזירות בנדרים מנין תלמוד לומר איש כי יפלא לנדר נדר נזיר להזיר לה׳ מקיש נזירות לנדרים ונדרים לנזירות מה נזירות עשה בו ידות נזירות כנזירות אף נדרים עשה בהם ידות נדרים כנדרים

I have derived only intimations of nazirite vows; from where do I derive intimations of general vows? The verse states: “When a man or woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lord.” This verse juxtaposes nazirite vows to other vows and other vows to nazirite vows: Just as with regard to nazirite vows, the verse rendered intimations of nazirite vows like nazirite vows, so too, with regard to vows, it rendered intimations of vows like vows.

ומה נדרים עובר בבל יחל ובבל תאחר אף נזירות עובר בבל יחל ובבל תאחר ומה נדרים האב מיפר נדרי בתו ובעל מיפר נדרי אשתו אף נזירות האב מיפר נזירות בתו ובעל מיפר נזירות אשתו

And just as with regard to vows, one who breaks his vow transgresses the prohibition: He shall not profane (see Numbers 30:3), and if he does not fulfill his vow in time, he transgresses the prohibition: You shall not delay (see Deuteronomy 23:22), so too, with regard to nazirite vows, he transgresses the prohibition: He shall not profane, and the prohibition: You shall not delay. And furthermore, just as with regard to vows, a father may nullify the vows of his daughter and a husband may nullify the vows of his wife, as written explicitly in the passage concerning vows (Numbers, chapter 30), so too, with regard to nazirite vows, a father may nullify the nazirite vows of his daughter and a husband may nullify the nazirite vows of his wife.

מאי שנא גבי נזירות דכתיב נזיר להזיר נדרים נמי הא כתיב לנדר נדר והיקישא למה לי

The Gemara questions this explanation: What is different with regard to nazirite vows, with regard to which it is written “nazir lehazir,” using the doubled term, when with regard to all vows as well it is written: “To utter a vow [lindor neder],” also using a doubled term? Why do I need the juxtaposition of all other vows to nazirite vows in order to derive that intimations of vows are like vows, when this can be derived from the doubled term with regard to general vows?

אי כתב נדר לנדר כדכתב נזיר להזיר כדקאמרת לא צריך היקישא השתא דכתיב לנדר נדר דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם

The Gemara answers: If the Torah had written: A vow to utter [neder lindor], as it wrote with regard to a nazirite: “The vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself [nazir lehazir],” it would be as you said, and there would be no need for the juxtaposition. Now that it is written: “To utter a vow [lindor neder],” it is possible to say that the Torah spoke in the language of men, and nothing can be derived from the phrase lindor neder, which is simply a common manner of speech.

הניחא למאן דאית ליה דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם אלא למאן דלית ליה דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם האי לנדר נדר מאי עביד ליה דריש ליה לעשות ידות נדרים כנדרים ומקיש נזירות לנדרים נזיר להזיר דריש ליה מלמד

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who holds that the Torah spoke in the language of men, but according to the one who does not hold that the Torah spoke in the language of men, any doubled term comes to teach something. What does he do with this phrase: “To utter a vow [lindor neder]”? The Gemara answers: He expounds it to render intimations of vows like vows themselves. And the verse juxtaposes nazirite vows to other vows to teach that intimations of vows are like vows with regard to nazirite vows, and to teach the other halakhot mentioned above. With regard to the phrase: “The vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself [nazir lehazir],” he expounds: This teaches

שהנזירות חל על הנזירות

that a term of naziriteship takes effect upon a previously accepted term of naziriteship. Consequently, if one became a nazirite and then again declared: I am hereby a nazirite, then when his term of naziriteship is completed he must observe a second term of naziriteship.

ולמאן דאמר דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם ונזיר להזיר דריש לעשות ידות נזירות כנזירות שהנזירות חל על הנזירות מנא ליה הניחא אי סבירא ליה כמאן דאמר אין נזירות חל על נזירות אלא אי סבירא ליה כמאן דאמר נזירות חל על נזירות מנא ליה

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that the Torah spoke in the language of men and therefore nothing can be derived from the phrase “to utter a vow [lindor neder],” and he expounds the phrase “the vow of a nazirite to consecrate himself [nazir lehazir]” to render intimations of nazirite vows like nazirite vows, from where does he derive that a term of naziriteship takes effect upon a previously accepted term of naziriteship? This works out well if he holds in accordance with the one who says that a term of naziriteship does not take effect upon a previously accepted term of naziriteship; however, if he holds in accordance with the one who says that a term of naziriteship takes effect upon a previously accepted term of naziriteship, from where does he derive this halakha?

נימא קרא ליזור מאי להזיר שמעת מינה תרתי

The Gemara answers: Let the verse say: To consecrate himself [lizor]. What is the reason the verse expressed this same idea with the word lehazir? Learn two halakhot from this: That intimations of nazirite vows are considered nazirite vows, and that a term of naziriteship takes effect upon a previously accepted term of naziriteship.

במערבא אמרי אית תנא דמפיק ליה לידות מן לנדר נדר ואית תנא דמפיק ליה מן ככל היצא מפיו יעשה

The Gemara adds: In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say: There is a tanna who derives intimations of vows from the phrase “to utter a vow [lindor neder],” as he holds that the Torah did not speak in the language of men. And conversely, there is a tanna who holds that the Torah spoke in the language of men, and therefore derives this halakha of intimations from the verse: “He shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth” (Numbers 30:3). The inclusive formulation of this verse comes to include intimations of vows.

אמר מר ומה נדרים עובר בבל יחל ובל תאחר בשלמא בל יחל דנדרים משכחת לה כגון דאמר ככר זו אוכל ולא אכלה עובר משום בל יחל דברו

§ The Master said in the baraita cited earlier: Just as with regard to vows, one who breaks his vow transgresses the prohibition: He shall not profane, and one who does not fulfill his vow in time transgresses the prohibition: You shall not delay, so too, the same is true with regard to nazirite vows. The Gemara asks: Granted, you can find a case where one transgresses the prohibition: He shall not profane, in the case of vows. For example, where one said: I will eat this loaf, and he does not eat it, he violates the prohibition: He shall not profane his word.

אלא בל יחל דנזירות היכי משכחת לה כיון דאמר הריני נזיר הוה ליה נזיר אכל קם ליה בבל יאכל שתה קם ליה בבל ישתה אמר רבא לעבור עליו בשנים

However, with regard to transgressing the prohibition: He shall not profane, in the case of nazirite vows, how can you find these circumstances? Once he said: I am hereby a nazirite, he is a nazirite as of that moment. If he then ate grapes, he is liable for violating the prohibition: He shall not eat (see Numbers 6:4), and if he drank wine, he is liable for violating the prohibition: He shall not drink (see Numbers 6:3). When would he ever become liable for violating the prohibition against profanation? Rava said: The prohibition against profanation serves to render him liable for violating two prohibitions. Consequently, if he eats grapes or drinks wine, he transgresses the relevant prohibition in addition to the prohibition against profanation.

בל תאחר דנזירות היכי משכחת לה כיון דאמר הריני נזיר הוי ליה נזיר אכל קם ליה בבל יאכל באומר לכשארצה אהא נזיר ואי אמר כשארצה ליכא בל תאחר

The Gemara further asks: With regard to violating the prohibition: You shall not delay, in the case of nazirite vows, how can you find these circumstances? Once he said: I am hereby a nazirite, he is a nazirite as of that moment. If he then ate grapes, he is liable for violating the prohibition: He shall not eat. When would he ever become liable for violating the prohibition against delaying? The Gemara answers: It is when he specifically says: I will become a nazirite when I wish, in which case he does not become a nazirite immediately. The Gemara asks: But if he said: When I wish, there is no prohibition of: You shall not delay, as there is no particular time by which he must become a nazirite.

אמר רבא כגון דאמר לא איפטר מן העולם עד שאהא נזיר דמן ההיא שעתא הוה ליה נזיר מידי דהוה האומר לאשתו הרי זו גיטיך שעה אחת קודם מיתתי אסורה לאכול בתרומה מיד אלמא אמרינן כל שעתא ושעתא דילמא מיית הכא נמי לאלתר הוי נזיר דאמרינן דילמא השתא מיית

Rava said: It is, for example, when he said: I will not depart the world until I become a nazirite, as he is a nazirite from that time because he does not know when he will depart this world. This is just as it is in the case of a man who says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce that will take effect one hour before my death. If he is a priest and she is the daughter of a non-priest, she is prohibited from partaking of teruma immediately. Apparently, we say every moment that perhaps he is now dead and she is therefore already divorced. Here, too, with regard to naziriteship, he is a nazirite immediately, as we say that perhaps he is now about to die.