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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 29, 2022 | 讚壮 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖驻状讙

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Nedarim 4

What is a case where one can be held liable for delaying a nazirite vow? Two answers were suggested in Nedarim 3b and three more suggestions are now brought. The last answer suggests that the prohibition of delaying relates to delaying the nazirite sacrifices. If this is so, why would that need to be derived from the juxtaposition (heikesh) of neder to nazir, when it could be simply derived from the laws of delaying all sacrifices, which include sin offerings (which is one of the sacrifices brought by a nazir)? Perhaps nazir is a chiddush, has unique laws, on account of which one would not be able to learn laws of nazir from laws of other sacrifices. Why would nazir be a chiddush? The Gemara brings four possibilities, two of which are rejected. One last question is asked on the braita from Nedarim 3a regarding the source for the law of annulment of nazir from a husband to a wife/father to a daughter. Shmuel has a unique way of reading the line of the Mishna relating to the details of yadot. However, the Gemara raises a question on his reading.

专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚谞讚专 讜讛讜讗 讘讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转

Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: The prohibition against delaying applies to a nazirite in a case where one vowed to become a nazirite while he was in a cemetery. Since it is prohibited for a nazirite to be in a cemetery, his term of naziriteship does not come into effect until he leaves the cemetery and ritually purifies himself. If he delays this process, he prevents the vow from taking effect and thereby transgresses the prohibition against delaying.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讞讬讬诇讗 注诇讬讛 谞讝讬专讜转 诪讗诇转专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讗诇转专 讞讬讬诇讗 注诇讬讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讘诇 转讗讞专 讜注讜讚 讛讗诪专 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讞讬讬诇讗 谞讝讬专讜转 注诇讬讛 诪讗诇转专 讜讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 诇注谞讬谉 诪诇拽讜转 驻诇讬讙讬

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that if one takes a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery the naziriteship does not apply to him immediately. However, according to the one who said that the naziriteship applies to him immediately, is there a violation of the prohibition: You shall not delay? And furthermore, didn鈥檛 Mar bar Rav Ashi say that all agree that the naziriteship applies to him immediately and he need not repeat his vow of naziriteship when he leaves, and when they disagree it is only with regard to the matter of flogging, and it鈥檚 only about this that they disagree, i.e., whether the nazirite is flogged if he drinks wine or otherwise violates the prohibitions of a nazirite.

讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 拽诐 诇讬讛 讘讘诇 转讗讞专 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪讗讞专 谞讝讬专讜转 讚讟讛专讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻谉 谞讝讬专 砖讟讬诪讗 注爪诪讜 讘诪讝讬讚 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讗讞专 讚谞讝讬专讜转 讟讛专讛

The Gemara answers: Even so, he is liable for violating the prohibition: You shall not delay, because by remaining in the cemetery he delays a naziriteship of ritual purity. Although the halakhot of naziriteship take effect upon him immediately, he is still obligated to fulfill a term of naziriteship in a state of ritual purity, and if he delays doing so, he violates the prohibition against delaying. Rav Ashi said: Since this is so, a nazirite who intentionally renders himself ritually impure violates the prohibition: You shall not delay, with regard to a naziriteship of ritual purity, as he thereby prevents himself from completing his naziriteship in a state of ritual purity on time.

专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讗诪专 注讜讘专 讘讘诇 转讗讞专 转讙诇讞转讜

Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, stated another explanation of how the prohibition against delaying applies with regard to naziriteship: The nazirite is commanded to shave his hair at the conclusion of his term, and if he causes this shaving to be delayed, he violates the prohibition: You shall not delay, with regard to his shaving.

讜诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转讙诇讞转 诪注讻讘转 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转讙诇讞转 讗讬谞讛 诪注讻讘转 诪爪讜转 讙讬诇讜讞 诪讬讛讗 诇讗 诪讬拽讬讬诐

The Gemara adds: And this explanation is not necessary to say, i.e., it is obvious, according to the one who says that shaving is indispensable for a nazirite and he is subject to all the prohibitions of a nazirite until he shaves, but even according to the one who says that shaving is not indispensable and the halakhot of naziriteship are terminated for him immediately after he brings his offerings, at least it can be said that he does not fulfill the mitzva of shaving until he actually shaves, and therefore if he delays, he violates the prohibition against delaying.

诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪专讬 讗诪专 注讜讘专 讘讘诇 转讗讞专 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, stated another explanation of how the prohibition against delaying applies to a nazirite vow: He transgresses the prohibition: You shall not delay, with regard to his offerings. When he completes his term as a nazirite he is obligated to bring certain offerings, and if he delays bringing them, he violates this prohibition.

讜诪谉 讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讛转诐 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讻讬 讚专砖 讬讚专砖谞讜 讗诇讜 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诪讜转

The Gemara asks: Is this halakha, that the prohibition against delaying applies to a nazirite vow, derived from here, i.e., the juxtaposition of vows and naziriteship? It is derived from there, a different exposition based upon the verse: 鈥淲hen you shall take a vow鈥ou shall not delay to pay it; for the Lord your God will surely require it of you鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:22). Those items included in the phrase 鈥渨ill surely require it鈥 are sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, including the sin-offering and guilt-offering of a nazirite.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 砖讞讬讚砖讛 转讜专讛 讘谞讝讬专

The Gemara explains: The derivation based on the juxtaposition of vows and naziriteship is still necessary lest you say that these offerings are a novelty that the Torah innovated with regard to a nazirite and therefore their halakhot cannot be derived from halakhot of other offerings.

诪讗讬 讞讬讚讜砖 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 诪转驻讬住 诇讬讛 诇讞讟讗转 谞讝讬专 讘谞讚专 讛专讬 讞讟讗转 讞诇讘 砖讗讬谉 诪转驻讬住讛 讘谞讚专 讜注讜讘专 讘讘诇 转讗讞专

The Gemara asks: What is the novelty that the Torah introduced with regard to the nazirite? If we say it is that he cannot accept upon himself the sin-offering of a nazirite through a vow, i.e., if one who is not a nazirite says: I hereby vow to bring the sin-offering of a nazirite, his vow has no validity, this is not a unique halakha with regard to sin-offerings of a nazirite. There is also the case of the sin-offering of forbidden fat, i.e., a typical sin-offering that one brings when he inadvertently violates certain prohibitions, one of which is eating forbidden fat, which one cannot accept through a vow, as only one who has violated the prohibition may bring it; and nevertheless, one still transgresses the prohibition: You shall not delay, if he delays bringing the offering.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讞讬讚讜砖讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗诐 讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪谉 讞专爪谉 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 诇讻诇 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 诇讬注讘讜专 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讗讞专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rather, what is its novelty that makes the juxtaposition between vows and naziriteship necessary? It might enter your mind to say that since if he said: I am hereby a nazirite, even if he accepted upon himself only one of the prohibitions of a nazirite, e.g., the requirement to abstain from grape seeds, he is nevertheless a nazirite with regard to all aspects of naziriteship, therefore say that he does not transgress the prohibition: You shall not delay. Since this halakha is a novelty, perhaps the principles of vows do not apply. The verse therefore teaches us through the juxtaposition of vows and naziriteship that the prohibition against delaying applies even in this case.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讬 谞讝讬专 诪谉 讞专爪谉 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 诇讻诇 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 谞讝讬专 注讚 砖讬讝讬专 诪讻讜诇谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讜注讜讚 讛讗讬 讞讬讚讜砖 诇讞讜诪专讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that when one vows to be a nazirite from grape seeds he is a nazirite in all respects. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said that he is not a nazirite unless he explicitly vows to be a nazirite in all respects, what is there to say? And furthermore, this novelty is stringent in that it renders the individual a nazirite even if he did not explicitly accept all of the halakhot of naziriteship. How could this novelty indicate that the prohibition against delaying does not apply in this case, which is a leniency, so that the juxtaposition would be necessary?

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讞讬讚讜砖讬讛 讚住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇

Rather, what is its novelty that makes the juxtaposition between vows and naziriteship necessary? It might enter your mind to say that since

讜讗诐 讙讬诇讞 注诇 讗讞转 诪砖诇砖转谉 讬爪讗 诇讗 诇讬注讘讜专 注诇讬讛 讘讘诇 转讗讞专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

if he shaves upon bringing one of the three offerings that a nazirite must bring when completing his term as a nazirite, i.e., a burnt-offering, a sin-offering, and a peace-offering, he has fulfilled his obligation to shave and the restrictions of a nazirite are lifted, he therefore does not violate the prohibition: You shall not delay, for delaying the other offerings. Consequently, it teaches us that the prohibition against delaying applies to these offerings.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讗讬 讞讚讜砖讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪转驻讬住讜 讘谞讚专 讜讛讗 讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讞讟讗转 讞诇讘 讞讟讗转 讞诇讘 拽讗转讬讗 诇讻驻专讛 讞讟讗转 谞讝讬专 诇诪讗讬 讗转讬讗

And if you wish say: What is the novelty of the nazirite? The halakha of naziriteship is considered a novelty because the offerings of a nazirite cannot be accepted through a vow. And that which poses a difficulty for you based on the fact that one cannot accept upon himself a sin-offering of forbidden fat through a vow either, and nevertheless the prohibition against delaying applies, can be resolved. A sin-offering of forbidden fat comes for the purpose of atonement, and therefore if one delays bringing it he violates the prohibition against delaying. However, for what does the sin-offering of a nazirite come? Since it does not come to atone for a sin, one might have thought that the prohibition against delaying does not apply.

讜讛专讬 讞讟讗转 讬讜诇讚转 讚诇讗 讗转讬讗 诇讻驻专讛 讜注讘专 注诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讗讞专 讛讛讬讗 拽讗 砖专讬讗 诇讛 诇诪讬讻诇 讘拽讚砖讬诐

The Gemara asks: But there is the precedent of the sin-offering of a woman who gave birth, which also does not come for the purpose of atonement, and yet if she does not bring the offering on time she still transgresses due to the prohibition: You shall not delay. The Gemara answers: That sin-offering of a woman who gave birth permits the woman to eat consecrated food. Although it does not come to effect atonement, it does come to permit a matter. On the other hand, the sin-offering of a nazirite does not permit anything, and therefore the fact that one cannot accept upon himself an obligation to bring this offering is a novelty. Consequently, it was necessary for there to be a separate source to indicate that one is liable for violating the prohibition against delaying in the case of this offering.

讗诪专 诪专 讜诪讛 谞讚专讬诐 讛讗讘 诪讬驻专 谞讚专讬 讘转讜 讜讘注诇 诪讬驻专 谞讚专讬 讗砖转讜 讗祝 谞讝讬专讜转 讛讗讘 诪讬驻专 谞讝讬专讜转 讘转讜 讜讘注诇 诪讬驻专 谞讝讬专讜转 讗砖转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讬拽砖讗 转讬转讬 讘诪讛 诪爪讬谞讜 诪谞讚专讬诐

The Master said in the baraita cited above: 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, 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. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the juxtaposition in the verse to teach us this halakha? Let this halakha come through the method of analogy known as: What do we find, from the halakha with regard to vows. In other words, the halakha in the case of regular vows should serve as a legal precedent that can be applied to nazirite vows even without a biblical juxtaposition.

讚讬诇诪讗 讙讘讬 谞讚专讬诐 讛讜讗 讚诪讬驻专 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 拽讬爪讜转讗 讗讘诇 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专讜转 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 拽讬爪讜转讗 讚住转诐 谞讝讬专讜转 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara responds: If not for the juxtaposition, one might have said that perhaps it is only with regard to vows that he may nullify her statements because there is no time limit with regard to vows, but with regard to naziriteship, which has a time limit, as unspecified naziriteship is for thirty days, one might say no, he may not nullify her vows. Therefore, it teaches us through juxtaposition that he may nevertheless nullify her vows.

讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪讜讚专 讗谞讬 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讻讜诇谉 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 砖讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 砖讗谞讬 讟讜注诐 诇讱

搂 It is taught in the mishna with regard to one who says to his fellow: I am avowed from you, or another intimation of a vow, that the vow takes effect. Shmuel said: In all these cases, the vow does not take effect until he says: I am avowed from you with regard to that which I eat of yours, or: That which I taste of yours. Without this addition, the statement: I am avowed from you, is not considered even an intimation of a vow.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪讜讚专 讗谞讬 诪诪讱 诪讜驻专砖谞讬 诪诪讱 诪专讜讞拽谞讬 诪诪讱 讛专讬 讝讛 讗住讜专 砖讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 砖讗谞讬 讟讜注诐 诇讱 讛专讬 讝讛 讗住讜专 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讗讜诪专 砖讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 砖讗谞讬 讟讜注诐 诇讱

The Gemara raises an objection based on the following baraita: If one says: I am avowed from you, or: I am separated from you, or: I am distanced from you, he is prohibited from benefiting from that individual. If he says: That which I eat of yours, or: That which I taste of yours, he is prohibited from eating or tasting that individual鈥檚 food. This indicates that the phrases mentioned in the first clause of the baraita take effect as vows even if he does not add the phrases mentioned in the latter clause. The Gemara answers: This is what the baraita is teaching: In what case is this statement said i.e., if one says: I am avowed from you, or the like, the vow takes effect? It is in a case of one who says: That which I eat of yours, or: That which I taste of yours.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬驻讻讗 砖讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 砖讗谞讬 讟讜注诐 诇讱 讗住讜专 诪讜讚专谞讬 诪诪讱 讜诪讜驻专砖谞讬 诪诪讱 诪专讜讞拽谞讬 诪诪讱 讛专讬 讝讛 讗住讜专 转谞讬 讛讻讬 讜讻讘专 讗诪专 诪讜讚专谞讬

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita in the opposite order? If one says: That which I eat of yours, or: That which I taste of yours, he is prohibited from eating or tasting that individual鈥檚 food, i.e., the vow takes effect. If he says: I am avowed from you, or: I am separated from you, or: I am distanced from you, he is likewise prohibited. In this case, the baraita cannot be interpreted as explained above, and it appears that if one said: I am avowed from you, the vow takes effect even if he did not say: I am avowed from you with regard to that which I taste of yours. The Gemara answers: Teach the baraita as follows: The vow takes effect in the cases mentioned in the first clause when he already said: I am avowed.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 专讬砖讗 讜注讜讚 讗住讜专 讗住讜专 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇诪转谞讬

The Gemara asks: If so, this is the same as the first baraita cited above. And furthermore, if the vow takes effect only if he combined the statements mentioned in the first and latter clauses of the baraita, why does the baraita teach that he is prohibited in the first clause of the baraita and then repeat that he is prohibited in the second clause of the baraita? The repetition of this ruling indicates that these are two separate cases.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 砖讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 砖讗谞讬 讟讜注诐 诇讱 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讜讞讘讬专讜 诪讜转专

Rather, Shmuel actually said as follows: The reason is that he said: I am avowed from you with regard to that which I eat of yours, or with regard to that which I taste of yours; it is for this reason that he is prohibited from benefiting from his fellow, and his fellow is permitted to benefit from him, as this formulation indicates that he is applying his vow only to himself.

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Nedarim: 2-7 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn what a Neder (vow) is and how one can obligate or prohibit something to themselves....
intro

Introduction to Nedarim

聽诇注"谞聽 诪专转 讗讬讬讚诇 讘谉 谞转谉 讜砖专讛 注"讛   There are two types of nedarim (commonly translated as vows[1]) found in...
WhatsApp Image 2022-10-24 at 12.35.25 PM

Introduction to Masechet Nedarim

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P9R268iRuY To listen: https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/hadran/IntroNedarimEng.mp3
talking talmud_square

Nedarim 4: The Prohibition against Dawdling

Renewing the question of how a nazir can violate the prohibition against delaying. Plus, the korban chatat (sin-offering) of a...

Nedarim 4

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 4

专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚谞讚专 讜讛讜讗 讘讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转

Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: The prohibition against delaying applies to a nazirite in a case where one vowed to become a nazirite while he was in a cemetery. Since it is prohibited for a nazirite to be in a cemetery, his term of naziriteship does not come into effect until he leaves the cemetery and ritually purifies himself. If he delays this process, he prevents the vow from taking effect and thereby transgresses the prohibition against delaying.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讞讬讬诇讗 注诇讬讛 谞讝讬专讜转 诪讗诇转专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讗诇转专 讞讬讬诇讗 注诇讬讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讘诇 转讗讞专 讜注讜讚 讛讗诪专 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讞讬讬诇讗 谞讝讬专讜转 注诇讬讛 诪讗诇转专 讜讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 诇注谞讬谉 诪诇拽讜转 驻诇讬讙讬

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that if one takes a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery the naziriteship does not apply to him immediately. However, according to the one who said that the naziriteship applies to him immediately, is there a violation of the prohibition: You shall not delay? And furthermore, didn鈥檛 Mar bar Rav Ashi say that all agree that the naziriteship applies to him immediately and he need not repeat his vow of naziriteship when he leaves, and when they disagree it is only with regard to the matter of flogging, and it鈥檚 only about this that they disagree, i.e., whether the nazirite is flogged if he drinks wine or otherwise violates the prohibitions of a nazirite.

讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 拽诐 诇讬讛 讘讘诇 转讗讞专 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪讗讞专 谞讝讬专讜转 讚讟讛专讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻谉 谞讝讬专 砖讟讬诪讗 注爪诪讜 讘诪讝讬讚 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讗讞专 讚谞讝讬专讜转 讟讛专讛

The Gemara answers: Even so, he is liable for violating the prohibition: You shall not delay, because by remaining in the cemetery he delays a naziriteship of ritual purity. Although the halakhot of naziriteship take effect upon him immediately, he is still obligated to fulfill a term of naziriteship in a state of ritual purity, and if he delays doing so, he violates the prohibition against delaying. Rav Ashi said: Since this is so, a nazirite who intentionally renders himself ritually impure violates the prohibition: You shall not delay, with regard to a naziriteship of ritual purity, as he thereby prevents himself from completing his naziriteship in a state of ritual purity on time.

专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讗诪专 注讜讘专 讘讘诇 转讗讞专 转讙诇讞转讜

Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, stated another explanation of how the prohibition against delaying applies with regard to naziriteship: The nazirite is commanded to shave his hair at the conclusion of his term, and if he causes this shaving to be delayed, he violates the prohibition: You shall not delay, with regard to his shaving.

讜诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转讙诇讞转 诪注讻讘转 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转讙诇讞转 讗讬谞讛 诪注讻讘转 诪爪讜转 讙讬诇讜讞 诪讬讛讗 诇讗 诪讬拽讬讬诐

The Gemara adds: And this explanation is not necessary to say, i.e., it is obvious, according to the one who says that shaving is indispensable for a nazirite and he is subject to all the prohibitions of a nazirite until he shaves, but even according to the one who says that shaving is not indispensable and the halakhot of naziriteship are terminated for him immediately after he brings his offerings, at least it can be said that he does not fulfill the mitzva of shaving until he actually shaves, and therefore if he delays, he violates the prohibition against delaying.

诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪专讬 讗诪专 注讜讘专 讘讘诇 转讗讞专 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, stated another explanation of how the prohibition against delaying applies to a nazirite vow: He transgresses the prohibition: You shall not delay, with regard to his offerings. When he completes his term as a nazirite he is obligated to bring certain offerings, and if he delays bringing them, he violates this prohibition.

讜诪谉 讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讛转诐 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讻讬 讚专砖 讬讚专砖谞讜 讗诇讜 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诪讜转

The Gemara asks: Is this halakha, that the prohibition against delaying applies to a nazirite vow, derived from here, i.e., the juxtaposition of vows and naziriteship? It is derived from there, a different exposition based upon the verse: 鈥淲hen you shall take a vow鈥ou shall not delay to pay it; for the Lord your God will surely require it of you鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:22). Those items included in the phrase 鈥渨ill surely require it鈥 are sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, including the sin-offering and guilt-offering of a nazirite.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 砖讞讬讚砖讛 转讜专讛 讘谞讝讬专

The Gemara explains: The derivation based on the juxtaposition of vows and naziriteship is still necessary lest you say that these offerings are a novelty that the Torah innovated with regard to a nazirite and therefore their halakhot cannot be derived from halakhot of other offerings.

诪讗讬 讞讬讚讜砖 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 诪转驻讬住 诇讬讛 诇讞讟讗转 谞讝讬专 讘谞讚专 讛专讬 讞讟讗转 讞诇讘 砖讗讬谉 诪转驻讬住讛 讘谞讚专 讜注讜讘专 讘讘诇 转讗讞专

The Gemara asks: What is the novelty that the Torah introduced with regard to the nazirite? If we say it is that he cannot accept upon himself the sin-offering of a nazirite through a vow, i.e., if one who is not a nazirite says: I hereby vow to bring the sin-offering of a nazirite, his vow has no validity, this is not a unique halakha with regard to sin-offerings of a nazirite. There is also the case of the sin-offering of forbidden fat, i.e., a typical sin-offering that one brings when he inadvertently violates certain prohibitions, one of which is eating forbidden fat, which one cannot accept through a vow, as only one who has violated the prohibition may bring it; and nevertheless, one still transgresses the prohibition: You shall not delay, if he delays bringing the offering.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讞讬讚讜砖讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗诐 讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪谉 讞专爪谉 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 诇讻诇 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 诇讬注讘讜专 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讗讞专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rather, what is its novelty that makes the juxtaposition between vows and naziriteship necessary? It might enter your mind to say that since if he said: I am hereby a nazirite, even if he accepted upon himself only one of the prohibitions of a nazirite, e.g., the requirement to abstain from grape seeds, he is nevertheless a nazirite with regard to all aspects of naziriteship, therefore say that he does not transgress the prohibition: You shall not delay. Since this halakha is a novelty, perhaps the principles of vows do not apply. The verse therefore teaches us through the juxtaposition of vows and naziriteship that the prohibition against delaying applies even in this case.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讬 谞讝讬专 诪谉 讞专爪谉 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 诇讻诇 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 谞讝讬专 注讚 砖讬讝讬专 诪讻讜诇谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讜注讜讚 讛讗讬 讞讬讚讜砖 诇讞讜诪专讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that when one vows to be a nazirite from grape seeds he is a nazirite in all respects. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said that he is not a nazirite unless he explicitly vows to be a nazirite in all respects, what is there to say? And furthermore, this novelty is stringent in that it renders the individual a nazirite even if he did not explicitly accept all of the halakhot of naziriteship. How could this novelty indicate that the prohibition against delaying does not apply in this case, which is a leniency, so that the juxtaposition would be necessary?

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讞讬讚讜砖讬讛 讚住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇

Rather, what is its novelty that makes the juxtaposition between vows and naziriteship necessary? It might enter your mind to say that since

讜讗诐 讙讬诇讞 注诇 讗讞转 诪砖诇砖转谉 讬爪讗 诇讗 诇讬注讘讜专 注诇讬讛 讘讘诇 转讗讞专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

if he shaves upon bringing one of the three offerings that a nazirite must bring when completing his term as a nazirite, i.e., a burnt-offering, a sin-offering, and a peace-offering, he has fulfilled his obligation to shave and the restrictions of a nazirite are lifted, he therefore does not violate the prohibition: You shall not delay, for delaying the other offerings. Consequently, it teaches us that the prohibition against delaying applies to these offerings.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讗讬 讞讚讜砖讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪转驻讬住讜 讘谞讚专 讜讛讗 讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讞讟讗转 讞诇讘 讞讟讗转 讞诇讘 拽讗转讬讗 诇讻驻专讛 讞讟讗转 谞讝讬专 诇诪讗讬 讗转讬讗

And if you wish say: What is the novelty of the nazirite? The halakha of naziriteship is considered a novelty because the offerings of a nazirite cannot be accepted through a vow. And that which poses a difficulty for you based on the fact that one cannot accept upon himself a sin-offering of forbidden fat through a vow either, and nevertheless the prohibition against delaying applies, can be resolved. A sin-offering of forbidden fat comes for the purpose of atonement, and therefore if one delays bringing it he violates the prohibition against delaying. However, for what does the sin-offering of a nazirite come? Since it does not come to atone for a sin, one might have thought that the prohibition against delaying does not apply.

讜讛专讬 讞讟讗转 讬讜诇讚转 讚诇讗 讗转讬讗 诇讻驻专讛 讜注讘专 注诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讗讞专 讛讛讬讗 拽讗 砖专讬讗 诇讛 诇诪讬讻诇 讘拽讚砖讬诐

The Gemara asks: But there is the precedent of the sin-offering of a woman who gave birth, which also does not come for the purpose of atonement, and yet if she does not bring the offering on time she still transgresses due to the prohibition: You shall not delay. The Gemara answers: That sin-offering of a woman who gave birth permits the woman to eat consecrated food. Although it does not come to effect atonement, it does come to permit a matter. On the other hand, the sin-offering of a nazirite does not permit anything, and therefore the fact that one cannot accept upon himself an obligation to bring this offering is a novelty. Consequently, it was necessary for there to be a separate source to indicate that one is liable for violating the prohibition against delaying in the case of this offering.

讗诪专 诪专 讜诪讛 谞讚专讬诐 讛讗讘 诪讬驻专 谞讚专讬 讘转讜 讜讘注诇 诪讬驻专 谞讚专讬 讗砖转讜 讗祝 谞讝讬专讜转 讛讗讘 诪讬驻专 谞讝讬专讜转 讘转讜 讜讘注诇 诪讬驻专 谞讝讬专讜转 讗砖转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讬拽砖讗 转讬转讬 讘诪讛 诪爪讬谞讜 诪谞讚专讬诐

The Master said in the baraita cited above: 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, 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. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the juxtaposition in the verse to teach us this halakha? Let this halakha come through the method of analogy known as: What do we find, from the halakha with regard to vows. In other words, the halakha in the case of regular vows should serve as a legal precedent that can be applied to nazirite vows even without a biblical juxtaposition.

讚讬诇诪讗 讙讘讬 谞讚专讬诐 讛讜讗 讚诪讬驻专 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 拽讬爪讜转讗 讗讘诇 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专讜转 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 拽讬爪讜转讗 讚住转诐 谞讝讬专讜转 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara responds: If not for the juxtaposition, one might have said that perhaps it is only with regard to vows that he may nullify her statements because there is no time limit with regard to vows, but with regard to naziriteship, which has a time limit, as unspecified naziriteship is for thirty days, one might say no, he may not nullify her vows. Therefore, it teaches us through juxtaposition that he may nevertheless nullify her vows.

讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪讜讚专 讗谞讬 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讻讜诇谉 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 砖讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 砖讗谞讬 讟讜注诐 诇讱

搂 It is taught in the mishna with regard to one who says to his fellow: I am avowed from you, or another intimation of a vow, that the vow takes effect. Shmuel said: In all these cases, the vow does not take effect until he says: I am avowed from you with regard to that which I eat of yours, or: That which I taste of yours. Without this addition, the statement: I am avowed from you, is not considered even an intimation of a vow.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪讜讚专 讗谞讬 诪诪讱 诪讜驻专砖谞讬 诪诪讱 诪专讜讞拽谞讬 诪诪讱 讛专讬 讝讛 讗住讜专 砖讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 砖讗谞讬 讟讜注诐 诇讱 讛专讬 讝讛 讗住讜专 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讗讜诪专 砖讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 砖讗谞讬 讟讜注诐 诇讱

The Gemara raises an objection based on the following baraita: If one says: I am avowed from you, or: I am separated from you, or: I am distanced from you, he is prohibited from benefiting from that individual. If he says: That which I eat of yours, or: That which I taste of yours, he is prohibited from eating or tasting that individual鈥檚 food. This indicates that the phrases mentioned in the first clause of the baraita take effect as vows even if he does not add the phrases mentioned in the latter clause. The Gemara answers: This is what the baraita is teaching: In what case is this statement said i.e., if one says: I am avowed from you, or the like, the vow takes effect? It is in a case of one who says: That which I eat of yours, or: That which I taste of yours.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬驻讻讗 砖讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 砖讗谞讬 讟讜注诐 诇讱 讗住讜专 诪讜讚专谞讬 诪诪讱 讜诪讜驻专砖谞讬 诪诪讱 诪专讜讞拽谞讬 诪诪讱 讛专讬 讝讛 讗住讜专 转谞讬 讛讻讬 讜讻讘专 讗诪专 诪讜讚专谞讬

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita in the opposite order? If one says: That which I eat of yours, or: That which I taste of yours, he is prohibited from eating or tasting that individual鈥檚 food, i.e., the vow takes effect. If he says: I am avowed from you, or: I am separated from you, or: I am distanced from you, he is likewise prohibited. In this case, the baraita cannot be interpreted as explained above, and it appears that if one said: I am avowed from you, the vow takes effect even if he did not say: I am avowed from you with regard to that which I taste of yours. The Gemara answers: Teach the baraita as follows: The vow takes effect in the cases mentioned in the first clause when he already said: I am avowed.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 专讬砖讗 讜注讜讚 讗住讜专 讗住讜专 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇诪转谞讬

The Gemara asks: If so, this is the same as the first baraita cited above. And furthermore, if the vow takes effect only if he combined the statements mentioned in the first and latter clauses of the baraita, why does the baraita teach that he is prohibited in the first clause of the baraita and then repeat that he is prohibited in the second clause of the baraita? The repetition of this ruling indicates that these are two separate cases.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 砖讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 砖讗谞讬 讟讜注诐 诇讱 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讜讞讘讬专讜 诪讜转专

Rather, Shmuel actually said as follows: The reason is that he said: I am avowed from you with regard to that which I eat of yours, or with regard to that which I taste of yours; it is for this reason that he is prohibited from benefiting from his fellow, and his fellow is permitted to benefit from him, as this formulation indicates that he is applying his vow only to himself.

Scroll To Top