Nazir 4
הֲרֵי מוּשְׁבָּע וְעוֹמֵד עָלָיו מֵהַר סִינַי!
He is already sworn and obligated about it from Mount Sinai, i.e., he is obligated by Torah law to keep the halakhot of naziriteship, 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).
אֶלָּא כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר רָבָא ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֶשְׁתֶּה״, וְחָזַר וְאָמַר: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר״ — אָתְיָא נְזִירוּת חָיְילָא עַל שְׁבוּעָה.
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.
וְרַבָּנַן נָמֵי, הָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לֶאֱסוֹר יֵין מִצְוָה כְּיֵין רְשׁוּת! אִם כֵּן, לֵימָא קְרָא ״מִיַּיִן״. מַאי ״וְשֵׁכָר״? שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.
The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis also, isn’t the verse needed to prohibit to a nazirite wine that is consumed as a mitzva, just like wine whose consumption is optional? The Gemara answers: If that is so, let the verse say only “he shall abstain from wine” (Numbers 6:3). What is the purpose of the additional phrase “and strong drink”? 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.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב ״שֵׁכָר״ — לְאַלּוֹפֵי ״שֵׁכָר״ ״שֵׁכָר״ לְמִקְדָּשׁ. דִּכְתִיב: ״יַיִן וְשֵׁכָר אַל תֵּשְׁתְּ אַתָּה וּבָנֶיךָ אִתָּךְ״, מָה גַּבֵּי נָזִיר: יַיִן הוּא דְּלִיתְּסַר, אֲבָל שְׁאָר מַשְׁקִין — לָא, אַף גַּבֵּי מִקְדָּשׁ נָמֵי: יַיִן הוּא דְּלִיתְּסַר, אֲבָל שְׁאָר מַשְׁקִין הַמִּשְׁתַּכְּרִין — לָא.
The Gemara explains: And Rabbi Shimon could respond to this argument as follows: This is the reason that the verse writes “strong drink”: It is to teach a verbal analogy between “strong drink” written here and “strong drink” written with regard to entering and performing service in the Temple, as it is written that Aaron the priest was commanded: “Do not drink wine or strong drink, you nor your sons with you, when you go into the Tent of Meeting” (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.
וּלְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אָכַל דְּבֵילָה קְעִילִית, וְשָׁתָה דְּבַשׁ וְחָלָב, וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ — חַיָּיב.
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’ila, and similarly if one drank honey or if one drank milk, which can dull the senses, and entered the Temple, he is liable for violating the prohibition against strong drink.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לֵית לֵיהּ אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר.
The Gemara suggests a different reason for the inclusion of the term “strong drink,” 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.
דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הָאוֹכֵל נְבֵילָה בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים — פָּטוּר.
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 “strong drink” 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.
וּלְרַבָּנַן נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב: ״מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר יֵעָשֶׂה מִגֶּפֶן הַיַּיִן״! אָמְרִי לָךְ רַבָּנַן: הָתָם לִימֵּד עַל אִיסּוּרֵי נָזִיר שֶׁמִּצְטָרְפִים זֶה עִם זֶה.
The Gemara asks: And also according to the Rabbis, isn’t it written: “Anything that is made of the grapevine” (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.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לֵית לֵיהּ צֵירוּף, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כׇּל שֶׁהוּ לְמַכּוֹת, לֹא אָמְרוּ כְּזַיִת אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן קׇרְבָּן.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ ״הֲרֵינִי כְּשִׁמְשׁוֹן״, ״כְּבֶן מָנוֹחַ״, ״כְּבַעַל דְּלִילָה״, ״כְּמִי שֶׁעָקַר דַּלְתוֹת עַזָּה״, ״כְּמִי שֶׁנִּקְּרוּ פְּלִשְׁתִּים אֶת עֵינָיו״ — הֲרֵי זֶה נְזִיר שִׁמְשׁוֹן.
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 13–16).
גְּמָ׳ לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנָא כׇּל הָלֵין? צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי אָמַר ״הֲרֵינִי כְּשִׁמְשׁוֹן״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: שִׁמְשׁוֹן אַחֲרִינָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן ״כְּבֶן מָנוֹחַ״.
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.
וְאִי תְּנָא ״כְּבֶן מָנוֹחַ״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אִיכָּא דְּמִיתְקְרֵי הָכִי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן ״כְּבַעַל דְּלִילָה״ וּ״כְמִי שֶׁנִּקְּרוּ פְּלִשְׁתִּים אֶת עֵינָיו״.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ מָה בֵּין נְזִיר עוֹלָם לְנָזִיר שִׁמְשׁוֹן? נְזִיר עוֹלָם, הִכְבִּיד שְׂעָרוֹ — מֵיקֵל בְּתַעַר, וּמֵבִיא שָׁלֹשׁ בְּהֵמוֹת. וְאִם נִטְמָא — מֵבִיא קׇרְבַּן טוּמְאָה.
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.
נְזִיר שִׁמְשׁוֹן, הִכְבִּיד שְׂעָרוֹ — אֵינוֹ מֵיקֵל, וְאִם נִטְמָא — אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן טוּמְאָה.
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.
גְּמָ׳ נְזִיר עוֹלָם מַאן דְּכַר שְׁמֵיהּ? חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵינִי נְזִיר עוֹלָם״ — הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר. מָה בֵּין נְזִיר עוֹלָם לִנְזִיר שִׁמְשׁוֹן? נְזִיר עוֹלָם, הִכְבִּיד שְׂעָרוֹ — מֵיקֵל בְּתַעַר, וּמֵבִיא שָׁלֹשׁ בְּהֵמוֹת, וְאִם נִטְמָא — מֵבִיא קׇרְבַּן טוּמְאָה. נְזִיר שִׁמְשׁוֹן, הִכְבִּיד שְׂעָרוֹ — אֵינוֹ מֵיקֵל בְּתַעַר,
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,
וְאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קׇרְבַּן טוּמְאָה.
but he does not bring the offering for impurity.
קׇרְבָּן הוּא דְּלָא מַיְיתֵי, אֲבָל נְזִירוּת חָיְילָא עֲלֵיהּ.
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.
מַנִּי מַתְנִיתִין? לָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְלָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: נְזִיר שִׁמְשׁוֹן — מוּתָּר לִיטַמֵּא לְמֵתִים, שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּשִׁמְשׁוֹן שֶׁנִּטְמָא. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הָאוֹמֵר ״נְזִיר שִׁמְשׁוֹן״ — לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם, שֶׁלֹּא מָצִינוּ בְּשִׁמְשׁוֹן שֶׁיָּצָאת נְזִירוּת מִפִּיו.
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’s instructions to his mother (see Judges 13:5). Consequently, Rabbi Shimon holds that one who vows to be a nazirite like Samson is not considered to have taken a nazirite vow.
מַנִּי? אִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה — הָאָמַר אֲפִילּוּ לְכַתְּחִילָּה, וּמַתְנִיתִין קָתָנֵי ״אִם נִטְמָא״. אִי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן — הָאָמַר לָא חָיְילָא עֲלֵיהּ נְזִירוּת כְּלָל!
The Gemara explains the question: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? If it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn’t he say that it is permitted for a nazirite of this kind to become impure from a corpse even ab initio, but the mishna teaches: If he becomes impure, which indicates that he is prohibited from doing so ab initio? However, if you say that the mishna is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, didn’t he say that naziriteship does not apply to him at all?
לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, וְאַיְּידֵי דְּקָתָנֵי גַּבֵּי נְזִיר עוֹלָם ״אִם נִטְמָא״, תְּנָא נָמֵי גַּבֵּי נְזִיר שִׁמְשׁוֹן ״אִם נִטְמָא״.
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.
לֵימָא בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דִּתְנַן: ״הֲרֵי עָלַי כִּבְכוֹר״, רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אוֹסֵר, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מַתִּיר.
§ 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’im, as we learned in a baraita: If one says: This object is hereby forbidden to me like a firstborn, Rabbi Ya’akov prohibits the individual from deriving benefit from the object, as he holds that a vow of this sort is valid. And Rabbi Yosei permits it, because the sanctity of a firstborn is not the result of a vow or sanctification. Rather, it is sacred of its own accord, and therefore its forbidden status cannot be extended by means of a vow to other items.
מַאי לָאו, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב, דְּאָמַר: לָא בָּעִינַן דָּבָר הַנִּידָּר. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּאָמַר: בָּעִינַן דָּבָר הַנִּידָּר?
What, is it not the case that Rabbi Yehuda holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya’akov, who said that in order for a vow to take effect, we do not require one to extend the forbidden status of an item rendered forbidden by means of a vow? Consequently, just as one can render an object forbidden by extending to it the sanctity of a firstborn animal, one can become a nazirite by accepting upon himself the status of Samson, whose prohibitions were not established by a vow. And Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that in order for a vow to take effect, we do require one to extend the forbidden status of an item rendered forbidden by means of a vow. Consequently, one cannot become a nazirite by accepting upon himself the status of Samson.
לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא בָּעִינַן דָּבָר הַנִּידָּר, וְשָׁאנֵי גַּבֵּי בְּכוֹר, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״לַה׳״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַבְּכוֹר.
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’akov, the halakha is different with regard to a firstborn, as it is written about this in the verse pertaining to vows: “When a man vows a vow to the Lord” (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.
וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר לָךְ: הָהוּא ״לַה׳״, מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹת חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם.
And Rabbi Yosei could have said to you in response that he needs that expression: “To the Lord,” 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.
וּמָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם וּלְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַבְּכוֹר? מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם — שֶׁכֵּן מַתְפִּיסָן בְּנֶדֶר, וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי אֶת הַבְּכוֹר — שֶׁאֵין מַתְפִּיסוֹ בְּנֶדֶר.
The Gemara questions Rabbi Yosei’s explanation: And what did you see that indicated to you to include a sin-offering and a guilt-offering and to exclude a firstborn? The Gemara answers: I include a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, as one grants consecrated status to the animals designated for these offerings by means of a vow, i.e., the act of designating specific animals for these offerings is comparable to taking a vow. And I exclude a firstborn, as one does not grant it consecrated status by means of a vow.
וְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אָמַר לָךְ: בְּכוֹר נָמֵי מַתְפִּיסוֹ בְּנֶדֶר הוּא. דְּתַנְיָא: שֶׁל בֵּית רַבֵּינוּ אָמְרוּ: מִנַּיִן לְנוֹלַד לוֹ בְּכוֹר בְּתוֹךְ עֶדְרוֹ שֶׁמִּצְוָה עָלָיו לְהַקְדִּישׁוֹ — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הַזָּכָר תַּקְדִּישׁ״.
And Rabbi Ya’akov could have said to you in response: Also in the case of a firstborn, one grants it consecrated status by means of a vow, as it is taught in a baraita: The Sages of the house of our Rabbi, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said: From where is it derived that when a firstborn male animal is born in one’s herd, there is a mitzva for him to consecrate it, although it is consecrated from the time it is born? As it is stated: “All firstborns males that are born to your herd and to your flock you shall sanctify” (Deuteronomy 15:19).
וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר לָךְ: נְהִי דְּמִצְוָה לְהַקְדִּישׁוֹ, אִי לָא מַקְדֵּישׁ לֵיהּ, מִי לָא קָדוֹשׁ?
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’s forbidden status to another item.
גַּבֵּי נָזִיר נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב ״לַה׳״!
The Gemara asks: Both Rabbi Ya’akov and Rabbi Yosei agree that the phrase “to the Lord” 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’t it written: “Shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lord” (Numbers 6:2)? Why doesn’t Rabbi Shimon derive from this verse that one can become a nazirite by accepting the naziriteship of Samson, despite the fact that Samson did not accept his naziriteship by means of a vow?
הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא, אָמַר שִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק: מִיָּמַי לֹא אָכַלְתִּי אֲשַׁם נָזִיר טָמֵא, חוּץ מֵאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא אֵלַי מִן הַדָּרוֹם, יְפֵה עֵינַיִם וְטוֹב רוֹאִי, וּקְווּצּוֹתָיו סְדוּרוֹת לוֹ תַּלְתַּלִּים. אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ: בְּנִי, מָה רָאִיתָ לְשַׁחֵת שֵׂעָר נָאֶה זֶה?
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?
אָמַר לִי: רוֹעֶה הָיִיתִי לְאָבִי בְּעִירִי, וְהָלַכְתִּי לִשְׁאוֹב מַיִם מִן הַמַּעְיָין, וְנִסְתַּכַּלְתִּי בַּבָּבוּאָה שֶׁלִּי, וּפָחַז יִצְרִי עָלַי, וּבִיקֵּשׁ לְטוֹרְדֵנִי מִן הָעוֹלָם. אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ: רֵיקָה! מִפְּנֵי מָה אַתָּה מִתְגָּאֶה בְּעוֹלָם שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלְּךָ, שֶׁסּוֹפְךָ לִהְיוֹת רִמָּה וְתוֹלֵעָה? הָעֲבוֹדָה שֶׁאֲגַלֵּחֲךָ לַשָּׁמַיִם.
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.
עָמַדְתִּי וּנְשַׁקְתִּיו עַל רֹאשׁוֹ, אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ: כְּמוֹתְךָ יִרְבּוּ נְזִירִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל — עָלֶיךָ הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר: ״אִישׁ כִּי יַפְלִא לִנְדֹּר נֶדֶר נָזִיר לְהַזִּיר לַה׳״.
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: “When either a man or a woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lord” (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 “to the Lord” 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.
וְשִׁמְשׁוֹן לָאו נָזִיר הֲוָה? וְהָכְתִיב: ״כִּי נְזִיר אֱלֹהִים יִהְיֶה הַנַּעַר מִן הַבֶּטֶן״! הָתָם מַלְאָךְ הוּא דְּקָאָמַר.
The Gemara challenges the assumption that Samson’s naziriteship was not accepted through a vow: And was Samson not a nazirite whose naziriteship was accepted by a vow? Isn’t it written: “For the child shall be a nazirite of God from the womb” (Judges 13:5)? The Gemara answers: There it was the angel who spoke. Samson’s nazirite status did not stem from a vow uttered by a human being.
וּמְנָלַן דְּאִיטַּמִּי לְמֵתִים? אִילֵּימָא מִדִּכְתִיב ״בִּלְחִי הַחֲמוֹר הִכֵּיתִי אֶלֶף אִישׁ״ — דִּילְמָא גָּרוֹיֵי גָּרִי בְּהוּ וְלָא נְגַע בְּהוּ!
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: “And Samson said: With the jawbone of an ass, I smote a thousand men” (Judges 15:16), perhaps he thrust the jawbone at them but did not touch them, and he remained pure.
אֶלָּא מֵהָכָא: ״וַיַּךְ מֵהֶם שְׁלֹשִׁים אִישׁ וַיִּקַּח אֶת חֲלִיצוֹתָם״. דִּילְמָא אַשְׁלְחִינּוּן בְּרֵישָׁא וַהֲדַר קַטְלִינֻּן? ״וַיַּךְ … וַיִּקַּח״ כְּתִיב.
Rather, it is derived from here: “And he smote thirty men of them, and took their garments” (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: “And he smote…and took,” in that order, indicating that first he killed them and then he took their clothing.
וְדִילְמָא גּוֹסְסִין שַׁוִּינֻן! אֶלָּא: גְּמָרָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ.
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.
וּנְזִיר עוֹלָם הֵיכָא כְּתִיב? דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אַבְשָׁלוֹם נְזִיר עוֹלָם הָיָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי מִקֵּץ אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְשָׁלוֹם אֶל הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵלְכָה נָּא וַאֲשַׁלֵּם אֶת נִדְרִי אֲשֶׁר נָדַרְתִּי לַה׳ בְּחֶבְרוֹן״, וּמְגַלֵּחַ אֶחָד לִשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי מִקֵּץ יָמִים לַיָּמִים״.
§ 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: “And 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” (II Samuel 15:7). And he cut his hair once every twelve months, as it is stated: “And when he polled his head, now it was at every year’s [yamim] end that he polled it; because the hair was heavy on him” (II Samuel 14:26).
