Nedarim 3
אֶלָּא לָאו דַּוְוקָא: זִימְנִין מְפָרֵשׁ הָהוּא דִּפְתַח בְּרֵישָׁא, זִימְנִין הָהוּא דְּסָלֵיק מְפָרֵשׁ בְּרֵישָׁא. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: יָדוֹת אַיְּידֵי דְּאָתְיָין מִדְּרָשָׁא, מְפָרֵשׁ לְהוֹן בְּרֵישָׁא.
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.
וְלִיפְתַּח הָדֵין בְּרֵישָׁא! מִיפְתָּח פָּתַח בְּכִינּוּיִין דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא בְּרֵישָׁא, וַהֲדַר מְפָרֵשׁ יָדוֹת דְּאָתְיָין לֵיהּ מִדְּרָשָׁא.
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.
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר כִּינּוּיִין לְשׁוֹן נָכְרִים הֵן. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לָשׁוֹן שֶׁבָּדוּ לָהֶן חֲכָמִים לִהְיוֹת נוֹדֵר בּוֹ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
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.
מִי קָתָנֵי יָדוֹת? וְלָאו חַסּוֹרֵי קָא מְחַסְּרַתְּ לַהּ? אַקְדֵּים נָמֵי וּתְנִי יָדוֹת: כָּל יְדוֹת נְדָרִים כִּנְדָרִים, וְכׇל כִּינּוּיֵי נְדָרִים כִּנְדָרִים, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן יָדוֹת: הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן כִּינּוּיִין: קֻוֽנָּם, קוּנָּח, קוּנָּס.
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.
וְיָדוֹת הֵיכָא כְּתִיב? ״אִישׁ כִּי יַפְלִא לִנְדֹּר נֶדֶר נָזִיר לְהַזִּיר לַה׳״, וְתַנְיָא: ״נָזִיר לְהַזִּיר״ — לַעֲשׂוֹת כִּינּוּיֵי נְזִירוּת כִּנְזִירוּת, וִידוֹת נְזִירוּת כִּנְזִירוּת.
§ 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.
אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בִּנְזִירוּת, בִּנְדָרִים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִישׁ כִּי יַפְלִא לִנְדֹּר נֶדֶר נָזִיר לְהַזִּיר לַה׳״, מַקִּישׁ נְזִירוּת לִנְדָרִים וּנְדָרִים לִנְזִירוּת; מָה נְזִירוּת עָשָׂה בּוֹ יְדוֹת נְזִירוּת כִּנְזִירוּת — אַף נְדָרִים עָשָׂה בָּהֶם יְדוֹת נְדָרִים כִּנְדָרִים.
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.
וּמָה נְדָרִים עוֹבֵר בְּ״בַל יַחֵל״. וּבְ״בַל תְּאַחֵר״ — אַף נְזִירוּת עוֹבֵר בְּ״בַל יַחֵל״ וּבְ״בַל תְּאַחֵר״. וּמָה נְדָרִים הָאָב מֵיפֵר נִדְרֵי בִתּוֹ וּבַעַל מֵיפֵר נִדְרֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ — אַף נְזִירוּת הָאָב מֵיפֵר נְזִירוּת בִּתּוֹ וּבַעַל מֵיפֵר נְזִירוּת אִשְׁתּוֹ.
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.
מַאי שְׁנָא גַּבֵּי נְזִירוּת דִּכְתִיב ״נָזִיר לְהַזִּיר״, נְדָרִים נָמֵי הָא כְּתִיב ״לִנְדֹּר נֶדֶר״, וְהֶיקֵּישָׁא לְמָה לִי?
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?
אִי כְּתַב ״נֶדֶר לִנְדֹּר״ כְּדִכְתַב ״נָזִיר לְהַזִּיר״ — כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ, לָא צָרִיךְ הֶיקֵּישָׁא. הַשְׁתָּא דִּכְתִיב ״לִנְדֹּר נֶדֶר״, דִּבְּרָה תוֹרָה כִלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם.
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.
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאִית לֵיהּ דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה כִּלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּלֵית לֵיהּ דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה כִּלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם, הַאי ״לִנְדֹּר נֶדֶר״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? דָּרֵישׁ לֵיהּ: לַעֲשׂוֹת יְדוֹת נְדָרִים כִּנְדָרִים, וּמַקִּישׁ נְזִירוּת לִנְדָרִים. ״נָזִיר לְהַזִּיר״ דָּרֵישׁ לֵיהּ: מְלַמֵּד
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
שֶׁהַנְּזִירוּת חָל עַל הַנְּזִירוּת.
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.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה כִּלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם, וְ״נָזִיר לְהַזִּיר״ דָּרֵישׁ לַעֲשׂוֹת יְדוֹת נְזִירוּת כִּנְזִירוּת, שֶׁהַנְּזִירוּת חָל עַל הַנְּזִירוּת מְנָא לֵיהּ? הָנִיחָא אִי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין נְזִירוּת חָל עַל נְזִירוּת. אֶלָּא אִי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר נְזִירוּת חָל עַל נְזִירוּת, מְנָא לֵיהּ?
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?
נֵימָא קְרָא ״לִיזּוֹר״, מַאי ״לְהַזִּיר״ שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.
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.
בְּמַעְרְבָא אָמְרִי: אִית תַּנָּא דְּמַפֵּיק לֵיהּ לְיָדוֹת מִן ״לִנְדֹּר נֶדֶר״, וְאִית תַּנָּא דְּמַפֵּיק לֵיהּ, מִן ״כְּכׇל הַיֹּצֵא מִפִּיו יַעֲשֶׂה״.
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.
אָמַר מָר: וּמָה נְדָרִים עוֹבֵר בְּ״בַל יַחֵל״, וּ״בַל תְּאַחֵר״. בִּשְׁלָמָא ״בַּל יַחֵל״ דִּנְדָרִים מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ, כְּגוֹן דְּאָמַר כִּכָּר זוֹ אוֹכַל וְלֹא אֲכָלָהּ — עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל יַחֵל דְּבָרוֹ״.
§ 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.
אֶלָּא ״בַּל יַחֵל״ דִּנְזִירוּת הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר״ הָוֵה לֵיהּ נָזִיר. אֲכַל — קָם לֵיהּ בְּ״בַל יֹאכַל״. שְׁתָה — קָם לֵיהּ בְּ״בַל יִשְׁתֶּה״. אָמַר רָבָא: לַעֲבוֹר עָלָיו בִּשְׁנַיִם.
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.
״בַּל תְּאַחֵר״ דִּנְזִירוּת הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר״ הָוֵי לֵיהּ נָזִיר. אֲכַל — קָם לֵיהּ בְּ״בַל יֹאכַל״? בְּאוֹמֵר ״לִכְשֶׁאֶרְצֶה אֱהֵא נָזִיר״. וְאִי אָמַר ״כְּשֶׁאֶרְצֶה״ לֵיכָּא ״בַּל תְּאַחֵר״!
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.
אָמַר רָבָא: כְּגוֹן דְּאָמַר ״לֹא אִיפָּטֵר מִן הָעוֹלָם עַד שֶׁאֱהֵא נָזִיר״, דְּמִן הָהִיא שַׁעְתָּא הָוֵה לֵיהּ נָזִיר. מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ ״הֲרֵי זוֹ גִּיטֵּיךְ שָׁעָה אַחַת קוֹדֶם מִיתָתִי״ — אֲסוּרָה לֶאֱכוֹל בִּתְרוּמָה מִיָּד. אַלְמָא אָמְרִינַן כֹּל שַׁעְתָּא וְשַׁעְתָּא דִּילְמָא מָיֵית. הָכָא נָמֵי, לְאַלְתַּר הָוֵי נָזִיר. דְּאָמְרִינַן: דִּילְמָא הַשְׁתָּא מָיֵית.
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.
