נדרים ט

נדרים ט

מַתְנִי׳ ״כְּנִדְרֵי רְשָׁעִים״ — נָדַר בְּנָזִיר וּבְקׇרְבָּן וּבִשְׁבוּעָה. ״כְּנִדְרֵי כְשֵׁרִים״ — לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. ״כְּנִדְבוֹתָם״ — נָדַר בְּנָזִיר וּבְקׇרְבָּן.

MISHNA: The mishna continues to explain the rules of intimations of vows. If an individual states that he accepts an obligation upon himself like the vows of the wicked, he has vowed with regard to becoming a nazirite, or bringing an offering, or taking an oath. This is considered a real formulation of a vow, just as the wicked customarily take vows. If he says: Like the vows of the virtuous, he has not said anything, because virtuous people do not generally take vows. If he says: Like their gift offerings, he has vowed with regard to becoming a nazirite or bringing an offering.

גְּמָ׳ וְדִלְמָא הָכִי קָאָמַר: כְּנִדְרֵי רְשָׁעִים לָא נָדַרְנָא? אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּאוֹמֵר ״כְּנִדְרֵי רְשָׁעִים הֲרֵינִי עָלַי וְהֵימֶנּוּ״, ״הֲרֵינִי״ — בִּנְזִירוּת, ״עָלַי״ — בְּקׇרְבָּן, ״הֵימֶנּוּ״ — בִּשְׁבוּעָה.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks a question with regard to the first clause of the mishna. And perhaps this is what he is saying: I am not making a vow like the vows of the wicked, in which case he does not intend to take a vow. Shmuel said: It is referring to one who said: Like the vows of the wicked I am hereby, or: I accept upon myself, or: From it. If he says: I am hereby, he is referring to his acceptance of naziriteship. If he says: I accept upon myself, he is referring to an offering. If he says: From it, he means to restrict himself from a particular activity through an oath.

״הֲרֵינִי״ נְזִירוּת. דִּלְמָא הֲרֵינִי בְּתַעֲנִית קָאָמַר? אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כְּשֶׁהָיָה נָזִיר עוֹבֵר לְפָנָיו.

The Gemara challenges this explanation: If he says: I am hereby, does he necessarily intend to accept naziriteship? Perhaps he is saying: I am hereby accepting upon myself to fast. Shmuel said: This is not a case where he simply said: I am hereby like the vows of the wicked; rather, it is a case where a nazirite was passing in front of him, and the meaning of his statement is understood based on that context.

(״עָלַי״ — בְּקׇרְבָּן) ״הֵימֶנּוּ״ — בִּשְׁבוּעָה. דִּלְמָא: ״הֵימֶנּוּ״ — דְּאָכֵילְנָא קָאָמַר! אָמַר רָבָא: דְּאָמַר ״הֵימֶנּוּ שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל״.

Shmuel had also stated that if he says: I accept upon myself, he is referring to an offering, and if he says: From it, he means to restrict himself by means of an oath. The Gemara asks: If he says: From it, does he necessarily mean to restrict himself through an oath? Perhaps he is saying: I will eat from this loaf, rather than: I will not eat from it. Rava said: The case is where he said: I will not eat from it.

אִי הָכִי מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָא לָא מַפֵּיק שְׁבוּעָה מִפּוּמֵּיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן הָדֵין.

The Gemara asks: If so, he has explicitly clarified his intent, so what is the purpose of stating that this statement constitutes an oath? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that since he did not utter the term oath from his mouth the oath does not take effect, this teaches us that this is nevertheless considered a valid intimation of an oath.

״כְּנִדְרֵי כְשֵׁרִים״ — לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם, ״כְּנִדְבוֹתָם״ — נָדַר וְכוּ׳. מַאן תַּנָּא דְּשָׁאנֵי לֵיהּ בֵּין נֶדֶר לִנְדָבָה? לֵימָא לָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְלָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה!

§ It was taught in the mishna that if one states that he accepts an obligation upon himself like the vows of the virtuous, he has not said anything. However, if he says: Like their gift offerings, he has vowed with regard to becoming a nazirite and bringing an offering. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna according to whom there is a difference between a vow and a gift offering? Shall we say that this is not the opinion of Rabbi Meir and not the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda either?

דְּתַנְיָא: ״טוֹב אֲשֶׁר לֹא תִדֹּר וְגוֹ׳״, טוֹב מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה — שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹדֵר כׇּל עִיקָּר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: טוֹב מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה נוֹדֵר וּמְשַׁלֵּם.

This is as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse “Better that you should not vow, than that you should vow and not pay” (Ecclesiastes 5:4), that better than both this and that is one who does not take a vow at all. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: Better than both this and that is one who vows and pays. Consequently, Rabbi Meir advocates abstaining from all vows and Rabbi Yehuda advocates making vows and fulfilling them, but neither of them distinguishes between vows and gift offerings. The mishna, however, indicates that virtuous people do not make vows but do bring gift offerings.

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר,

The Gemara answers: You can even say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

כִּי קָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר — בְּנֶדֶר, בִּנְדָבָה לָא קָאָמַר. וְהָא קָתָנֵי: ״כְּנִדְבוֹתָם״ — נָדַר בְּנָזִיר וּבְקׇרְבָּן! תְּנִי: נָדַב בְּנָזִיר וּבְקׇרְבָּן.

When Rabbi Meir said that one should abstain from making vows, he was referring only to a vow; he did not say it with regard to a gift offering. The Gemara asks: But it is taught in the mishna that if one said: Like the gift offerings of the virtuous, he has vowed with regard to becoming a nazirite or bringing an offering; this indicates that the virtuous vow to become nazirites and bring offerings. The Gemara answers: Teach the mishna in the following emended formulation: He has volunteered with regard to becoming a nazirite or bringing an offering.

מַאי שְׁנָא נוֹדֵר דְּלָא — דִּלְמָא אָתֵי בָּהּ לִידֵי תַקָּלָה? נְדָבָה נָמֵי לָא — דִּלְמָא אָתֵי בָּהּ לִידֵי תַקָּלָה!

The Gemara asks: What is different about one who vows, i.e., one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring an offering, which is not proper to do due to the concern that perhaps he will encounter a stumbling block and not bring it promptly, thereby violating the prohibition against delaying? One should also not designate a particular animal as a gift offering due to the concern that perhaps he will encounter a stumbling block with it. Once the animal is consecrated, anyone who unwittingly benefits from it, e.g., by shearing it or working with it, transgresses the prohibition against misusing consecrated property.

כְּהִלֵּל הַזָּקֵן. דְּתַנְיָא: אָמְרוּ עַל הִילֵּל הַזָּקֵן שֶׁלֹּא מָעַל אָדָם בְּעוֹלָתוֹ כׇּל יָמָיו. מְבִיאָהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא חוּלִּין לָעֲזָרָה, וּמַקְדִּישָׁהּ, וְסוֹמֵךְ עָלֶיהָ, וְשׁוֹחֲטָהּ.

The Gemara answers: In the case of a gift offering, he can act like Hillel the Elder. As it is taught in a baraita: They said about Hillel the Elder that no person misused his burnt-offering in his lifetime. How did he ensure this? He was careful not to consecrate the animal in advance; rather, he would bring it when it was unconsecrated to the Temple courtyard and there he would consecrate it, and then immediately he would place his hand on its head and slaughter it. Consequently, there was no opportunity to misuse it.

הָנִיחָא נְדָבָה דְקׇרְבָּנוֹת. נְדָבָה דִנְזִירוּת מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? סָבַר לַהּ כְּשִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק.

The Gemara asks: This works out well with regard to voluntary gifts in the context of offerings, but with regard to the voluntary acceptance of naziriteship, what is there to say? There is still room for concern that he will not fulfill the obligations incumbent upon him as a nazirite. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Meir holds in accordance with the opinion of Shimon HaTzaddik.

דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר (רַבִּי) שִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק: מִיָּמַי לֹא אָכַלְתִּי אֲשַׁם נָזִיר טָמֵא אֶלָּא אֶחָד. פַּעַם אַחַת בָּא אָדָם אֶחָד נָזִיר מִן הַדָּרוֹם, וּרְאִיתִיו שֶׁהוּא יְפֵה עֵינַיִם וְטוֹב רוֹאִי וּקְווּצּוֹתָיו סְדוּרוֹת לוֹ תַּלְתַּלִּים. אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ: בְּנִי, מָה רָאִיתָ לְהַשְׁחִית אֶת שְׂעָרְךָ זֶה הַנָּאֶה?

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon HaTzaddik said: In all my days as a priest, I never ate the guilt-offering of a ritually impure nazirite except for one occasion. One time, a particular man who was a nazirite came from the South and I saw that he had beautiful eyes and was good looking, and the fringes of his hair were arranged in curls. I said to him: My son, what did you see that made you decide to destroy this beautiful hair of yours by becoming a nazirite? A nazirite must shave off his hair at the completion of his term. If he becomes impure before the completion of his term, he shaves off his hair and starts his term of naziriteship again.

אָמַר לִי: רוֹעֶה הָיִיתִי לְאַבָּא בְּעִירִי, הָלַכְתִּי לְמַלּאוֹת מַיִם מִן הַמַּעְיָין וְנִסְתַּכַּלְתִּי בַּבָּבוּאָה שֶׁלִּי, וּפָחַז עָלַי יִצְרִי וּבִקֵּשׁ לְטוֹרְדֵנִי מִן הָעוֹלָם. אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ: רָשָׁע! לָמָה אַתָּה מִתְגָּאֶה בְּעוֹלָם שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלְּךָ, בְּמִי שֶׁהוּא עָתִיד לִהְיוֹת רִמָּה וְתוֹלֵעָה? הָעֲבוֹדָה, שֶׁאֲגַלֵּחֲךָ לַשָּׁמַיִם!

He said to me: I was a shepherd for my father in my city, and I went to draw water from the spring, and I looked at my reflection [babavua] in the water and my evil inclination quickly overcame me and sought to expel me from the world. I said to myself: Wicked one! Why do you pride yourself in a world that is not yours? Why are you proud of someone who will eventually be food in the grave for worms and maggots, i.e., your body? I swear by the Temple service that I shall shave you for the sake of Heaven.

מִיָּד עָמַדְתִּי וּנְשַׁקְתִּיו עַל רֹאשׁוֹ, אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ: בְּנִי, כָּמוֹךָ יִרְבּוּ נוֹזְרֵי נְזִירוּת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. עָלֶיךָ הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר ״אִישׁ כִּי יַפְלִא לִנְדֹּר נֶדֶר נָזִיר לְהַזִּיר לַה׳״.

Shimon HaTzaddik continues the narrative: I immediately arose and kissed him on his head. I said to him: My son, may there be more who take vows of naziriteship like you among the Jewish people. About 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). This is an example of voluntary acceptance of naziriteship, i.e., becoming a nazirite with entirely pure intentions rather than as a rash statement, e.g., while in a fit of anger.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי מָנִי: מַאי שְׁנָא אֲשַׁם נָזִיר טָמֵא דְּלָא אֲכַל — דְּאָתֵי עַל חֵטְא? כׇּל אֲשָׁמוֹת נָמֵי לָא לֵיכוֹל, דְּעַל חֵטְא אָתוּ!

Rabbi Mani strongly objects to the statement of Shimon HaTzaddik. What is different about the guilt-offering of a ritually impure nazirite that Shimon HaTzaddik did not eat, because it came as a result of sin when the individual violated the terms of his naziriteship by becoming impure? Let him also not eat all other guilt-offerings, as they too come as a result of sin.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹנָה, הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא: כְּשֶׁהֵן תּוֹהִין נוֹזְרִין. וּכְשֶׁהֵן מִטַּמְּאִין וְרָבִין עֲלֵיהֶן יְמֵי נְזִירוּת, מִתְחָרְטִין בָּהֶן, וְנִמְצְאוּ מְבִיאִין חוּלִּין לָעֲזָרָה.

Rabbi Yona said to him: This is the reason: When they regret their misdeeds they become nazirites, and when they become ritually impure and the days of their naziriteship are increased, as they must become pure and then begin their terms of naziriteship again, they regret having become nazirites. They will then turn out to be bringing non-sacred animals into the Temple courtyard. Since they do not wish to bring the offerings of a nazirite, their offerings are undesirable, and it is as though the animals are non-sacred.

אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ נָזִיר טָהוֹר נָמֵי! נָזִיר טָהוֹר לָא, דְּאָמוֹדֵי אָמֵיד נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּיָכוֹל לִנְדּוֹר.

The Gemara asks: If so, then Shimon HaTzaddik should have abstained from eating even the offerings of a ritually pure nazirite as well for the same reason; perhaps he too regretted his decision to become a nazirite. The Gemara answers: In the case of a pure nazirite there is no concern because he assessed himself and realized that he was able to vow and to keep his vow for the term of his naziriteship. However, in the case of a ritually impure nazirite, where the naziriteship was extended for longer than he had estimated due to his contracting impurity, there is concern that he regrets having become a nazirite.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא:

The Gemara suggests a different answer to the question of the identity of the tanna whose opinion is expressed in the mishna. And if you wish, say: