נזיר ח

נזיר ח

מַתְנִי׳ ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר כִּשְׂעַר רֹאשִׁי״, וְ״כַעֲפַר הָאָרֶץ״, וּ״כְחוֹל הַיָּם״ — הֲרֵי זֶה נְזִיר עוֹלָם, וּמְגַלֵּחַ אַחַת לִשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם.

MISHNA: If one says: I am hereby a nazirite like the hair of my head, or: Like the dust of the earth, or: Like the sand of the sea, he is a nazirite forever. He has accepted a separate term of naziriteship for every hair or particle of dust or sand, which in practice means that he will be a nazirite forever. And he shaves his hair once every thirty days.

רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אֵין זֶה מְגַלֵּחַ אַחַת לִשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם. וְאֵיזֶהוּ מְגַלֵּחַ אַחַת לִשְׁלשִׁים? הָאוֹמֵר: ״הֲרֵי עָלַי נְזִירוּת כִּשְׂעַר רֹאשִׁי״, וְ״כַעֲפַר הָאָרֶץ״, וּ״כְחוֹל הַיָּם״.

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: This nazirite does not shave his hair once every thirty days, as he has accepted upon himself one long term of naziriteship lasting for as many days as there are hairs or particles of dust or sand. And who is the nazirite who shaves his hair once every thirty days? One who says: It is hereby incumbent upon me to observe naziriteships like the hair of my head, or: Like the dust of the earth, or: Like the sand of the sea. Since he used the plural term naziriteships, it is clear that he is accepting distinct terms of naziriteship.

״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מְלֹא הַבַּיִת״, אוֹ ״מְלֹא הַקּוּפָּה״ — בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ, אִם אָמַר: אַחַת גְּדוֹלָה נָזַרְתִּי — נָזִיר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. וְאִם אָמַר: סְתָם נָזַרְתִּי — רוֹאִין אֶת הַקּוּפָּה כְּאִילּוּ הִיא מְלֵאָה חַרְדָּל, וְנָזִיר כׇּל יָמָיו.

If one says: I am hereby a nazirite in accordance with the capacity of the house, or: The capacity of the basket, one checks with him what he had in mind. If he said: My intention was to take a nazirite vow for one long term of naziriteship, he is a nazirite for only thirty days, in accordance with the ruling of the mishna that the words long or short are of no account when used in a nazirite vow (7a). And if he said: I took a nazirite vow without specification, it is assumed that he meant to accept upon himself terms of naziriteship corresponding to the number of items that fit into the basket, and the smallest items normally placed in baskets are used for this evaluation. Consequently, one views the basket as though it were full of mustard seeds, which are extremely small, and he is a nazirite for his entire life.

״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מִכָּאן עַד מָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי״ — אוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה יָמִים מִכָּאן עַד מָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי, אִם פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם — נָזִיר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. וְאִם לָאו — נָזִיר כְּמִנְיַן הַיָּמִים.

If one says: I am hereby a nazirite from here until such and such a place, one estimates how many days it takes to walk from here until such and such a place. If it is less than thirty days, he is a nazirite for thirty days, since this is the minimum term of naziriteship. And if not, i.e., if it takes more than thirty days to walk that distance, he is a nazirite in accordance with the number of days it takes to walk to that place.

״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר כְּמִנְיַן יְמוֹת הַחַמָּה״ — מוֹנֶה נְזִירוֹת כְּמִנְיַן יְמוֹת הַחַמָּה. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מַעֲשֶׂה הָיָה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִשְׁלִים — מֵת.

If one says: I am hereby a nazirite in accordance with the number of days in a solar year, he counts 365 consecutive naziriteships, in accordance with the number of days in a solar year. Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident where someone took this vow and observed 365 consecutive terms of naziriteship. Once he completed all these terms of naziriteship, he died.

גְּמָ׳ רוֹאִין אֶת הַקּוּפָּה כְּאִילּוּ מְלֵאָה חַרְדָּל וְנָזִיר כׇּל יָמָיו. וְאַמַּאי? וְלִיחְזְיַיהּ כְּאִילּוּ מְלֵאָה קִישּׁוּאִין וְדִלּוּעִין, וְתִיהְוֵי לֵיהּ תַּקַּנְתָּא!

GEMARA: The mishna taught that if one said: I am hereby a nazirite in accordance with the capacity of the basket, and he did not specifically intend to accept one term of naziriteship, one views the basket as though it were full of mustard seeds, and he is a nazirite for his entire life. The Gemara asks: But why does one view the basket as though it were full of mustard seeds? Let us view it as though it were full of cucumbers or gourds, which are much larger. The basket would consequently hold fewer of them, and there would be a remedy for him, i.e., he would be able to complete his terms of naziriteship and resume living as a non-nazirite.

אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: בְּמַחֲלוֹקֶת שְׁנוּיָה. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אָדָם מַכְנִיס אֶת עַצְמוֹ לְדָבָר שֶׁסְּפֵיקוֹ חָמוּר מִוַּדַּאי.

In response to this question, Ḥizkiyya said: This issue is taught as a dispute between tanna’im, and the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: A person places himself in a state where the resulting uncertainty is more stringent than if there were certainty, i.e., an individual willingly accepts conditions that are ambiguous although this may cause him to have to keep more stringent halakhot if the uncertainty is not clarified.

דְּתַנְיָא: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר עַל מְנָת שֶׁיְּהֵא בִּכְרִי זֶה מֵאָה כּוֹר״, וְהָלַךְ וּמְצָאוֹ שֶׁנִּגְנַב אוֹ שֶׁאָבַד — רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹסֵר, שֶׁסְּפֵק נְזִירוּת לְהַחְמִיר.

This is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who says: I am hereby a nazirite on the condition that this pile of grain will be found to contain at least one hundred kor, and he went to measure the pile and found that it was stolen or lost, making it impossible to determine whether it contained one hundred kor, Rabbi Shimon prohibits him to drink wine or cut his hair, as he holds that in a case of uncertain naziriteship one is required to act stringently. Similarly, in the case in the mishna, since it is not known whether one intended to accept naziriteship according to the number of mustard seeds in the basket or according to the number of gourds there, he must act stringently.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַתִּיר, שֶׁסְּפֵק נְזִירוּת לְהָקֵל.

Conversely, Rabbi Yehuda permits him to drink wine or cut his hair, as he holds that in a case of uncertain naziriteship one is permitted to act leniently. The naziriteship does not take effect, since the pile might have contained less than one hundred kor.

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָתָם לָא נָחֵית לֵיהּ לִנְזִירוּת. הָכָא נָחֵית לֵיהּ לִנְזִירוּת, בְּמַאי לְסַלּוֹקֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda because the cases in the mishna and in the baraita are not comparable. There, in the case discussed in the baraita, he does not necessarily even enter a state of naziriteship, as it is unclear whether the pile contained a kor of grain. Consequently, he retains his previous status and is not considered a nazirite. Conversely, in the case discussed here in the mishna, he certainly enters a state of naziriteship, since he undoubtedly vowed to be a nazirite for some period of time. Consequently, how is it possible to remove the state of naziriteship from him when it is uncertain when his terms end? Therefore, even Rabbi Yehuda would agree that he remains a nazirite indefinitely.

אַמַּאי לָא? לִיחְזְיַהּ לְקוּפָּה כְּאִילּוּ מְלֵאָה קִישּׁוּאִין וְדִלּוּעִין, וְתִיהְוֵי לֵיהּ תַּקַּנְתָּא. הָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתִּין, נְזִירוּת הוּא דְּקַבֵּיל עִילָּוֵיהּ!

The Gemara asks: Why is it not possible to remove from him the status of naziriteship? Let us view the basket as though it were full of cucumbers or gourds, as he has accepted at least as many terms of naziriteship as the number of cucumbers or gourds that can fit in the basket, and in this way there will be a remedy for him. It entered our minds to say that it is distinct naziriteships that he accepted upon himself, and so once he has completed the minimal number of naziriteships, he should no longer be considered a nazirite unless it can be determined that he accepted more than this number of terms of naziriteship.

דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי. דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אֵין זֶה מְגַלֵּחַ אַחַת לִשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם. וְאֵיזֶהוּ שֶׁמְּגַלֵּח אַחַת לִשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם? הָאוֹמֵר ״[הֲרֵי] עָלַי נְזִירוֹת כִּשְׂעַר רֹאשִׁי״ וְ״כַעֲפַר הָאָרֶץ״ וּ״כְחוֹל הַיָּם״.

The Gemara answers: This is not possible, as Rabbi Yehuda holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as we learned in the mishna (8a) with regard to one who vows: I am hereby a nazirite like the hair of my head, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: This nazirite does not shave his hair once every thirty days, as he is considered to have accepted one long term of naziriteship. And who is the nazirite who has accepted distinct terms of naziriteship and therefore shaves his hair once every thirty days? One who says: It is incumbent upon me to observe naziriteships like the hair of my head, or: Like the dust of the earth, or: Like the sand of the sea. Since Rabbi Yehuda agrees with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, he holds that one who uses a formulation similar to that used in the first case in the mishna and says: I am hereby a nazirite according to the capacity of the basket, has accepted one long term of naziriteship.

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מִי סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי? וְהָתְנַן: הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר כְּמִנְיַן יְמוֹת הַחַמָּה וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מַעֲשֶׂה הָיָה, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁהִשְׁלִים — מֵת.

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? But didn’t we learn in the mishna that if one says: I am hereby a nazirite in accordance with the number of days in a solar year, he counts 365 consecutive naziriteships, in accordance with the number of days in a solar year. Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident where someone took this vow and observed 365 consecutive terms of naziriteship. Once he completed all these terms of naziriteship, he died.

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא נְזִירוֹת קָא מְקַבֵּל עֲלֵיהּ, הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּכֵיוָן דְּהִשְׁלִים — מֵת. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ חֲדָא נְזִירוּת קַבֵּל עִילָּוֵיהּ — מִי הָוֵי הַשְׁלָמָה כְּלָל?

The Gemara explains its question: Granted, if you say that he accepts upon himself many naziriteships, that is the reason for his statement that once he completed all these terms of naziriteship he died. However, if you say that Rabbi Yehuda does not agree with the unattributed opinion of the mishna and holds that he accepted upon himself one term of naziriteship lasting 365 days, is there completion here at all? Rabbi Yehuda would not have used this terminology in reference to the mishna’s previous statement if he himself holds that the individual accepted only one term of naziriteship.

וְעוֹד: מִי סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי? וְהָא תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מִנְיַן הִילְקְטֵי קַיִץ״, וּ״מִנְיַן שְׁבִלֵי שְׁמִיטָּה״ — מוֹנֶה נְזִירוֹת כְּמִנְיַן הִילְקְטֵי קַיִץ וּכְמִנְיַן שְׁבִלֵי שְׁמִיטָּה!

And furthermore, does Rabbi Yehuda hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: If one says: I am hereby a nazirite like the number of piles [helketei] of figs [kayitz] left to dry, or: Like the number of sheaves of the Sabbatical Year, he must count as many naziriteships as the number of piles of figs or as the number of sheaves of the Sabbatical Year? This proves that Rabbi Yehuda does not hold that the individual accepts only one long term of naziriteship.

״מִנְיָן״ שָׁאנֵי.

The Gemara responds: This does not prove that Rabbi Yehuda does not agree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, since one who specifies: Like the number, is different, as even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would agree that he is referring to distinct terms of naziriteship rather than one long term of naziriteship.

וּמִי שָׁאנֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי מִנְיָן? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר כְּמִנְיַן יְמוֹת הַחַמָּה״ — מוֹנֶה נְזִירוֹת כְּמִנְיַן יְמוֹת הַחַמָּה. ״כִּימֵי הַלְּבָנָה״ — מוֹנֶה כִּימֵי הַלְּבָנָה. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר ״נְזִירוֹת עָלַי כְּמִנְיַן יְמוֹת הַחַמָּה וּכְמִנְיַן יְמוֹת הַלְּבָנָה״!

The Gemara asks: And is the case of one who says: Like the number, different according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that if one says: I am hereby a nazirite like the number of days in a solar year, he counts naziriteships corresponding to the number of days in a solar year. If one says: Like the days in a lunar year, i.e., a year comprised of twelve lunar months, he counts terms of naziriteship corresponding to the days in a lunar year. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He is assumed to have accepted one term of naziriteship until he says: It is incumbent upon me to observe naziriteships like the number of days in a solar year, or: Like the number of days in a lunar year. This demonstrates that if one did not explicitly use the plural term naziriteships, he is assumed to have accepted a single term of naziriteship even if he said: Like the number.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר לַהּ כְּוָתֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא. סָבַר לַהּ כְּוָתֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא — נְזִירוּת קַבֵּיל עִילָּוֵיהּ. וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא — דְּאִילּוּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה שָׁנֵי לֵיהּ מוֹנֶה, וְרַבִּי לָא שָׁנֵי לֵיהּ מוֹנֶה.

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion in one case and disagrees with him in one case. He holds in accordance with his opinion in one case, as follows: If one says: I am hereby a nazirite like the hairs of my head, he has accepted upon himself one term of naziriteship for as many days as the number of hairs on his head. And he disagrees with him in one case, as according to Rabbi Yehuda, the case of one who counts is different from the previous case, and so one who states: Like the number of hairs of my head, is considered to have accepted many distinct terms of naziriteship. However, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, one who counts is not different. He is assumed to have accepted a single term of naziriteship unless he explicitly uses the plural term naziriteships.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר כֹּל יְמֵי חַיַּי״, ״הֲרֵינִי נְזִיר עוֹלָם״ — הֲרֵי זֶה נְזִיר עוֹלָם. אֲפִילּוּ ״מֵאָה שָׁנָה״, אֲפִילּוּ ״אֶלֶף שָׁנִים״ — אֵין זֶה נְזִיר עוֹלָם, אֶלָּא נָזִיר לְעוֹלָם.

§ The Sages taught: If one says: I am hereby a nazirite all the days of my life, or: I am hereby a permanent nazirite, he is a permanent nazirite and he trims his hair on a yearly basis like Absalom. However, in the case of one who accepts upon himself naziriteship for a fixed amount of time, even if he says: One hundred years or even: One thousand years, he is not the specific type of nazirite known as a permanent nazirite. Rather, he is a regular nazirite forever, and he may never cut his hair.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר וְאַחַת״ — מוֹנֶה שְׁתַּיִם. ״וְעוֹד״ — מוֹנֶה שָׁלֹשׁ. ״וְשׁוּב״ — מוֹנֶה אַרְבַּע. פְּשִׁיטָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: ״וְשׁוּב״ כִּי כּוּלְּהוּ, וְהָוְיָא לֵיהּ שֵׁית, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: If one said: I am hereby a nazirite and one, he counts two terms of naziriteship, since he first took a nazirite vow and then accepted an additional term of naziriteship. If one said: I am hereby a nazirite and one and more, he counts three terms of naziriteship. If he added to that statement: And again, he counts four. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this last halakha obvious? The Gemara answers: It is necessary to teach this halakha. Lest you say that the words and again are referring to terms of naziriteship equal in number to all the terms he has already accepted, and he has therefore accepted six terms of naziriteship altogether, the baraita therefore teaches us that this is not the correct interpretation of his statement.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר״ — סוֹמְכוֹס אוֹמֵר: ״הֵן״ — אַחַת, ״דִּיגוֹן״ — שְׁתַּיִם, ״טְרִיגוֹן״ — שָׁלֹשׁ, ״טֶטְרָגוֹן״ — אַרְבַּע, ״פּוֹנְטִיגוֹן״ — חָמֵשׁ.

The Sages taught in a baraita: If one said: I am hereby a nazirite, Sumakhos says: If he then added the word hen, which means one in Greek, he has accepted one term of naziriteship. If one said: Digon, which means two sides in Hebraicized Greek, he must observe two terms of naziriteship. If one said: Trigon, which means triangle in Hebraicized Greek, then he has accepted three terms of naziriteship. If he said: Tetragon, quadrilateral in Hebraicized Greek, then he has accepted four terms, and if he said: Puntigon, pentagon in Hebraicized Greek, then he has accepted five terms of naziriteship.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בֵּית עִגּוּל, דִּיגוֹן, טְרִיגוֹן, פּוֹנְטִיגוֹן — אֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא בִּנְגָעִים, טֶטְרָגוֹן — מִטַּמֵּא בִּנְגָעִים. מַאי טַעְמָא? לְמַטָּה הוּא אוֹמֵר ״קִיר״ ״קִירוֹת״. לְמַעְלָה הוּא אוֹמֵר ״קִיר״ ״קִירוֹת״. הֲרֵי כָּאן אַרְבַּע.

The Gemara cites another baraita dealing with these same expressions: The Sages taught: A round house, a two-sided house, a triangle-shaped house, and a pentagon-shaped house cannot become impure with leprosy, whereas a house shaped like a quadrilateral can become impure with leprosy. What is the reason for this? In the verse below it states, when referring to a wall, the plural term walls: “And, behold, if the plague has spread in the walls of the house” (Leviticus 14:39). Additionally, in the verse above it states, when referring to a wall, the plural term walls: “And behold, if the plague be in the walls of the house” (Leviticus 14:37). These plural terms are unnecessary, and it is therefore understood that there are four walls mentioned here in order to indicate that a house can become impure through leprosy only if it has four sides.

הַדְרָן עֲלָךְ כׇּל כִּינּוּיֵי