נדרים יט

נדרים יט

כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דְּלָא מְעַיֵּיל לִסְפֵיקָא.

holds that all the more so, one does not enter himself into uncertainty either. Therefore, uncertainty with regard to naziriteship is treated leniently.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: בְּמַאי אוֹקֵימְתָּא לִסְפֵק נְזִירוּת לְהָקֵל — כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: סְפֵק בְּכוֹרוֹת, אֶחָד בְּכוֹרֵי אָדָם וְאֶחָד בְּכוֹרֵי בְהֵמָה, בֵּין טְמֵאָה בֵּין טְהוֹרָה — הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה.

Abaye said to Rabbi Zeira: In what manner did you establish the mishna that states that uncertainty with regard to naziriteship is treated leniently? You established it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Say the latter clause of that mishna: If there is uncertainty with regard to firstborns, whether human firstborns, or animal firstborns, whether non-kosher firstborns, i.e., the firstborn of a donkey, or the firstborn of kosher animals, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. In other words, the priest cannot take the redemption money from the father of the child, or the animal from its owner, and conversely, if the father or owner mistakenly gave it to a priest, he does not get it back.

וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: וַאֲסוּרִים בְּגִיזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה!

And it is taught in a baraita in that regard: But with regard to shearing and working these uncertain animal firstborns, they are forbidden, just like definite firstborns. This indicates a difference between the monetary issue, with regard to which it is ruled that the animal cannot be taken from the owner by the priest, and the prohibition, which applies despite the uncertainty. Evidently, even the tanna of this mishna does not hold that all uncertainties with regard to consecration are to be treated leniently.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַמַּאי קָא מְדַמֵּית קְדוּשָּׁה הַבָּאָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ, לִקְדוּשָּׁה הַבָּאָה בִּידֵי אָדָם?

Rabbi Zeira said to Abaye: This is not difficult. Why do you compare sanctity that emerges by itself, i.e., the sanctity of a firstborn, which results from objective reality and not human intent, to sanctity that emerges by the volition of a person and is dependent on his intention? Only with regard to the latter type of sanctity can it be established that a person does not intend to consecrate an item in an uncertain manner.

אֶלָּא אִי קַשְׁיָא, הָא קַשְׁיָא: סְפֵק מַשְׁקִין, לִיטָּמֵא — טָמֵא, לְטַמֵּא אֲחֵרִים — טָהוֹר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר כִּדְבָרָיו.

Rather, if Rabbi Zeira’s answer is difficult, this is what is difficult. It is stated in that same mishna: In the case of liquid with regard to which there is uncertainty whether it became ritually impure through contact with someone who was ritually impure, the halakha is as follows: It is considered impure with regard to its being impure in and of itself, but it is considered pure with regard to its ability to render other items impure. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Elazar would also say in accordance with the statements of Rabbi Meir.

וּמִי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לִיטָּמֵא טָמֵא?

According to Rabbi Zeira’s assertion that the rulings of this mishna with regard to uncertainty are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, this causes a difficulty: But does Rabbi Eliezer hold that with regard to liquid of uncertain ritual status being impure, it is considered impure?

וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֵין טוּמְאָה לְמַשְׁקִין כׇּל עִיקָּר. תֵּדַע: שֶׁהֲרֵי הֵעִיד יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹעֶזֶר אִישׁ צְרֵידָה עַל אַיָּל קַמְצָא דְּכַן, וְעַל מַשְׁקִין בֵּית מִטְבְּחַיָּא דְּכַן?

But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: By Torah law, impurity does not apply to liquids at all? Know that this is so, as Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida testified concerning a grasshopper species called eil kamtza that it is kosher, and concerning the liquids of the Temple slaughterhouse that they are pure. Liquids are susceptible to ritual impurity only by rabbinic law, and liquids in the Temple were not included in this decree so as not to cause additional impurity there. Since Rabbi Eliezer holds that by Torah law liquids are not susceptible to impurity, how can it be his opinion that liquids of uncertain ritual status are considered impure?

הָנִיחָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר: דְּכַן מִלְּטַמֵּא אֲחֵרִים, אֲבָל טוּמְאַת עַצְמָן יֵשׁ בָּהֶן, שַׁפִּיר.

The Gemara comments: This works out well according to Shmuel, who said that the meaning of Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling that the liquids of the Temple slaughterhouse are pure is that they cannot render other items impure, but they themselves are susceptible to impurity. Accordingly, liquids are susceptible to impurity by Torah law; only their ability to render other items impure is by rabbinic law. The ruling in the mishna that liquid of uncertain ritual status is considered impure is therefore consistent with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Zeira’s answer works out well.

אֶלָּא לְרַב דְּאָמַר דְּכַן מַמָּשׁ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

However, according to Rav, who said that they are actually pure, i.e., they are not susceptible to impurity, what is there to say? The mishna that is lenient with regard to uncertain naziriteship and stringent with regard to liquid of uncertain ritual status is clearly not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

אֶלָּא: הָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְהָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

Rather, Rabbi Zeira’s answer should be rejected, and the contradiction between the mishna here, which states that unspecified vows should be treated stringently, and the mishna in tractate Teharot, which states that uncertain naziriteship should be treated leniently, should be resolved as follows: That mishna, in Teharot, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

דְּתַנְיָא: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר אִם יֵשׁ בִּכְרִי הַזֶּה מֵאָה כּוֹר״, וְהָלַךְ וּמְצָאוֹ שֶׁנִּגְנַב אוֹ שֶׁאָבַד — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַתִּיר, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹסֵר.

As it is taught in a baraita that if someone says: I am hereby a nazirite if there are in this heap of grain one hundred kor, and he went to measure the heap and found that it was stolen or that it was lost and cannot be measured, Rabbi Yehuda permits him to perform actions forbidden to a nazirite, as he holds that this uncertain naziriteship does not take effect. And Rabbi Shimon prohibits him from doing so, as he maintains that it does take effect. This indicates that Rabbi Shimon is of the opinion that uncertain naziriteship is treated stringently.

וְרָמֵי דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מִי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא מְעַיֵּיל אִינִישׁ נַפְשֵׁיהּ לִסְפֵיקָא? וּרְמִינְהִי, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: סְתַם תְּרוּמָה בִּיהוּדָה — אֲסוּרָה, וּבַגָּלִיל — מוּתֶּרֶת, שֶׁאֵין אַנְשֵׁי הַגָּלִיל מַכִּירִין אֶת תְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. טַעְמָא דְּאֵין מַכִּירִין,

And the Gemara raises a contradiction between the statement of Rabbi Yehuda and another statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Did Rabbi Yehuda actually say that a person does not enter himself into a state of uncertainty, and therefore as long as the volume of the heap is unknown, naziriteship does not take effect? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the mishna, where Rabbi Yehuda says: Unspecified teruma in Judea is forbidden but in the Galilee it is permitted, as the people of the Galilee are not familiar with the collection of the chamber. The Gemara infers: The reason it is permitted is that they are not familiar;

הָא מַכִּירִין — אֲסוּרִין!

but where they are familiar, it is forbidden, even if the person mentioned teruma without specification, and there is still uncertainty with regard to which teruma he was referring.

אָמַר רָבָא: גַּבֵּי כְּרִי קָסָבַר כׇּל שֶׁסְּפֵיקוֹ חָמוּר מִוַּדַּאי — לָא מְעַיֵּיל נַפְשֵׁיהּ לִסְפֵיקָא, דְּאִילּוּ גַּבֵּי נָזִיר וַדַּאי, מְגַלֵּחַ וּמֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן וְנֶאֱכָל. עַל סְפֵיקוֹ, לָא מָצֵי מְגַלַּח.

Rava said that the contradiction can be resolved as follows: With regard to the case of a vow conditioned on the volume of a heap, Rabbi Yehuda holds that wherever uncertainty is more stringent than certainty, one does not enter himself into a state of uncertainty. Uncertain naziriteship is more stringent than definite naziriteship, as while a definite nazirite has a remedy, i.e., at the end of his naziriteship he shaves his hair and brings an offering and it is eaten, one cannot shave his hair for uncertain naziriteship. He cannot bring an offering in case he is not a nazirite, which would render his offering a non-sacred animal in the Temple courtyard. Since he cannot bring an offering he may not shave.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בַּר יְהוּדָה לְרָבָא: אָמַר ״הֲרֵינִי נְזִיר עוֹלָם״, מַאי?

Rav Huna bar Yehuda said to Rava: According to your answer, that Rabbi Yehuda holds that he is not a nazirite only because uncertain naziriteship is more stringent than definite naziriteship, if one said: If there are a hundred kor in this heap I am hereby a permanent nazirite, what is the halakha? In this case, uncertainty is apparently not more stringent than certainty, as the naziriteship will never end even if it is definite.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נְזִיר עוֹלָם נָמֵי סְפֵיקוֹ חָמוּר מִוַּדַּאי, דְּאִילּוּ וַדַּאי הִכְבִּיד שְׂעָרוֹ — מֵיקֵל בְּתַעַר, וּמֵבִיא שָׁלוֹשׁ בְּהֵמוֹת. וְאִילּוּ סְפֵיקוֹ — לֹא.

Rava said to him: Even with regard to a permanent nazirite, his uncertainty is more stringent than certainty with regard to a different halakha: As when the hair of a definite nazirite is too heavy for him he may lighten the hair with a razor and bring the three animal offerings that a nazirite brings when he has completed his term of naziriteship, before continuing to observe naziriteship; whereas in a case of uncertainty he cannot do so. Since it is not certain that he is a nazirite, he cannot bring these offerings and is therefore prohibited from shaving. Therefore, uncertainty is more stringent than certainty with regard to a permanent nazirite as well.

אָמַר ״הֲרֵינִי נְזִיר שִׁמְשׁוֹן״ מַאי?

Rav Huna further asked him: If one said: If there are one hundred kor in this heap, I am hereby a nazirite like Samson (Judges, chapters 13–16), i.e., he would be like Samson, whose permanent naziriteship could not be dissolved and who had no remedy at all, even by bringing offerings, and therefore could never shave, what is the halakha? Uncertainty is definitely not more stringent than certainty in this case.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נְזִיר שִׁמְשׁוֹן לָא תַּנְיָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְהָאָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: תַּנְיָא נְזִיר שִׁמְשׁוֹן! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי תַּנְיָא — תַּנְיָא.

Rava said to him: The concept of a nazirite like Samson is not taught. It was not mentioned at all by the Sages, as the naziriteship of Samson could not have been created through a vow. It was a one-time, divine order that cannot be emulated. Rav Huna said to him: But didn’t Rav Adda bar Ahava say that the concept of a nazirite like Samson is taught in a baraita, which shows that it takes effect? Rava said to him: If this baraita is taught, it is taught, and I cannot take issue with it. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda acknowledges that in this case even uncertain naziriteship takes effect.

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: הָהִיא — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵין אֶחָד מֵהֶם נָזִיר — לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא נִיתְּנָה נְזִירוּת אֶלָּא לְהַפְלָאָה.

Rav Ashi said a different resolution to the contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Yehuda. That baraita, in which Rabbi Yehuda treats uncertain naziriteship leniently, is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Tarfon. As it is taught in a baraita: If a number of people wager on the truth of a statement, and they stipulate that whoever is correct will be a nazirite, Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Tarfon: None of them is a nazirite no matter who is correct, because naziriteship was given to take effect only through explicitness of intent. A vow of naziriteship takes effect only if it is taken unconditionally. Therefore, in the case of the heap, since the speaker was uncertain of its volume at the time the vow of naziriteship was taken, the vow does not take effect.

אִי הָכִי מַאי אִירְיָא שֶׁנִּגְנַב אוֹ שֶׁאָבַד? אֶלָּא, לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּנִגְנַב אוֹ שֶׁאָבַד, קָסָבַר מְעַיֵּיל אִינִישׁ נַפְשֵׁיהּ לִסְפֵיקָא.

The Gemara asks: If so, why is it specifically stated that the heap was stolen or that it was lost? Even if it was still present and measured, the naziriteship would not have taken effect as it was conditioned and was not a clear expression. The Gemara answers: Rather, that detail was established to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that even if it is the case that it was stolen or that it was lost and consequently cannot be measured, nevertheless he holds that a person enters himself into uncertainty, and therefore the vow takes effect.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: סְתָם תְּרוּמָה בִּיהוּדָה כּוּ׳. הָא מַכִּירִין — אֲסוּרִין, אַלְמָא סְפֵיקָא לְחוּמְרָא.

§ It is stated in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: Unspecified teruma in Judea is forbidden, but in the Galilee it is permitted, as the people of the Galilee are unfamiliar with the collection of the Temple treasury chamber. The Gemara infers: Where they are familiar with the collection of the chamber, it is forbidden. Apparently, uncertainty with regard to vows is treated stringently.

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: סְתָם חֲרָמִים בִּיהוּדָה — מוּתָּרִין, וּבַגָּלִיל — אֲסוּרִין, שֶׁאֵין אַנְשֵׁי הַגָּלִיל מַכִּירִין אֶת חֶרְמֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים. הָא מַכִּירִין — מוּתָּרִין. אַלְמָא סְפֵיקָא לְקוּלָּא!

However, say the latter clause of the mishna: Unspecified dedications in Judea are permitted, but in the Galilee they are forbidden, because the people of the Galilee are unfamiliar with dedications allotted to the priests. It may be inferred that where they are familiar with dedications allotted to the priests they are permitted, due to the uncertainty. Apparently, uncertainty with regard to vows is treated leniently.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: סֵיפָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: סְתַם תְּרוּמָה בִּיהוּדָה — אֲסוּרָה, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק אוֹמֵר: סְתַם חֲרָמִים בַּגָּלִיל — אֲסוּרִין.

Abaye said: The latter clause is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, not of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that unspecified teruma in Judea is forbidden. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says that unspecified dedications in the Galilee are forbidden.