Kommentar zu Nazir 2:16

In the Gemara: And if you will ask: Let it say, "Beit Hillel holds that one can ask [to repeal a vow] of sanctification;" one can answer, it is because - according to Beit Hillel - while it is still true that he is not a Nazerite from wine [as a result of his vow], nonetheless, let him be in a vow [against] eating cakes of figs. That is why it states that he is completely exempt - that he is not volunteering in the way of those that make an oath of their own volition. Since, if he came to make a vow [about] fig cakes, he should have used the term, konam (an introductory expression indicating a vow not to do or use something) which is the [standard] way of those that make vows. (Tosafot)

הריני נזיר מן הגרוגרות ומן הדבילה ב"ש אומרים נזיר – since the School of Shammai holds that a person does not utter his words for no purpose (i.e., he must have meant something – see Talmud Arakhin 5a) and when he said, “I will be a Nazirite,” he said it with the intention that he will be a Nazirite, and when he retracted and said, “from the dry figs and from the cakes of pressed figs,” he retracted for he needed to retract, and even as much time as needed for an utterance, he would not be able to retract, they held that something dedicated to the Temple by error is called sanctified, and no question or retraction belongs to it. And the same law applies regarding a Nazirite, as it is written concerning him (Numbers 6:5): “it shall remain consecrated,” therefore, he is a Naziite. But the School of Hillel holds that since he did not make the vow in the manner of those who vow, he is not a Nazirite, for there is no Naziriteship from dry figs and from the cakes of pressed figs.

Introduction Our mishnah deals with a person who says that he is nazirite but says also that he will abstain from figs, which are normally permitted to a nazirite. The Talmud understands the tannaitic dispute on this debate to be about a larger issue of how to interpret self-contradictory language. When a person makes a statement where the two parts of his statement contradict one another, how are we to interpret his statement.

And if you will ask: And behold, he said, "Nazerite;" and [so] how could he be in [standard, non-Nazerite] vow; one can answer that, 'Nazerite' is a term of separation, as if he said: "behold I am separating from cakes of figs." And even though Rabbi Yehuda holds that he said, "a sacrifice" without [the letter,] kaf, (which means 'like'), he would not be taking a vow on a sacrifice, [since] when he says, "upon me," he doesn't need the kaf (to indicate that it is only like a sacrifice and not a sacrifice itself).

[If one says,] “Behold I am a nazirite [and abstain] from dried figs and pressed figs”: Beth Shammai says: he is an [ordinary] nazirite. Beth Hillel says: he is not a nazirite. Rabbi Judah said: even though Beth Shammai did say [that his formula is effective] they meant only one who says, “They are [forbidden] to me, as is a sacrifice.” Beth Shammai takes seriously the first part of this person’s statement “Behold I am a nazirite”, and therefore holds that this person has indeed taken a nazirite vow. Regarding the second half of his statement “and abstain from dried figs and pressed figs”, it is as if he tried to change his mind after he had already taken the vow. Beth Shammai considers this change of mind to be irrelevant and therefore he is a nazir. Beth Hillel considers his whole statement to be one integral statement, the end being inseparable from the beginning. Since figs are permitted to nazirites, he has not made a valid nazirite vow. Rabbi Judah reinterprets Beth Shammai’s statement. Beth Shammai does not hold that he is an ordinary nazirite. Rather, they meant that if he thought to himself that this was a valid way of prohibiting figs, just as saying “they are forbidden to me, as is a sacrifice”, is a valid way of prohibiting figs, then the prohibition works, and he is forbidden to eat figs. However, Beth Shammai would agree with Beth Hillel that if he intended by these words to take a regular nazirite vow, nothing is prohibited to him. He is neither a nazirite, nor prohibited from eating figs.

אמר רבי יהודה אף כשאמרו ב"ש לא אמרו אלא באומר הרי עלי קרבן – for the Schools of Shammai and Hillel did not dispute that with regard to Naziriteship, that he was not Nazirite, they did not dispute other than with someone who says in my heart that the dry figs are to me as a Korban/sacrifice. The School of Shammai holds that this was a vow from eating dry figs and the School of Hillel holds that this was not a vow.

אמר אמרה פרה זו הריני נזירה אם אומדת אני – he whose cow was lying down [under a burden] and it does not want to stand up and he said, “this cow thinks that she will not stand,” and she says in her heart, “I will be a Nazirite if I stand,” And I say, “I will be a Nazirite from her if she doesn’t stand,” and similarly, a locked door that cannot be opened and he says, “this door thinks I will not open it,” and it states, “I will be a Nazirite if it opens by me,” and I state: “I will be a Nazirite from it if it will not open,” and afterwards, the cow stands up on its own or that others raise it, but he did not raise it.” And similarly, the door opens on its own, or another comes and opens it and he did not open it.

Introduction This mishnah discusses a person who may have made a nazirite vow using an extremely strange formula.

בש"א הרי זה נזיר – for they follow their own reasoning as they (i.e., the School of Shammai), state that one who takes a vow from dry figs and from cake pressed figs that he is a Nazirite, even though there is no Naziriteship from dried figs and from cake pressed figs, so also, even though there is no Naziriteship from a cow and from a door, he is a Nazirite, and even though the cow stood and/or the door opened, it was not it was not his intention other than he would raise it or open it by himself.

If one says, “This cow is saying ‘Behold, I am a nazirite if I get up,” or “This door is saying ‘Behold, I am a nazirite if I open”: Bet Shammai says: he is a nazirite, But Bet Hillel says: he is not a nazirite. Rabbi Judah said: even though Beth Shammai did say [that his formula is effective] they meant only one who says, “This cow is [forbidden] to me, as is a sacrifice if it gets up.” The mishnah describes a person whose cow will not stand up or whose door will not open. The person says “This cow doesn’t want to get up. It is as if she is saying ‘Behold, I am a nazirite if I get up.’” Or “This door doesn’t want to open. It is as if it is saying ‘Behold, I am a nazirite if I open up.’” Beth Shammai holds that the person has actually made a nazirite vow, even though it seems that he was just using language to illustrate how difficult it is to get the cow to get up or the door to open. Albeck explains that according to Beth Shammai since the person said “Behold, I am a nazirite”, he is a nazirite even though he was saying it as if the cow or door was saying the words. A different explanation is offered by the Talmud, which interprets it as if he meant to say that he himself would be a nazirite if the cow wouldn’t get up or the door wouldn’t open. Beth Hillel holds that this person is not a nazirite, just as they did in the previous mishnah. Rabbi Judah again reinterprets Beth Shammai’s position. Beth Shammai did not mean to say that the person is a nazirite. Beth Shammai holds that if the person meant that he would be forbidden to eat the cow or use the door as if it was a sacrifice then the vow is effective.

וב"ה אומרים – to the words of the School of Shammai. For us, even if it (i.e., the cow) did not stand up at all, he would not be a Nazirite, for he mad ae a vow that is not in the manner of those who make vows, for there is no Naziriteship from a cow or from a door, but according to you, who say that a person does not utter words without a purpose for when he stated, “I will be a Nazirite,” it is with the intention that he will be a Nazirite that he stated it, however, they agree with us, at least, where she (i.e., the cow) stood on her own or others raised her up, that he is not a Nazirite, for he did not say other than if she will not stand, and behold, she stood.

א"ר יהודה וכו' – The School of Shammai did not disagree with the School of Hillel regarding the matter of Naziriteship for he is not a Nazirite. They did not disagree other than when he says: “in my heart it was that this animal should be a sacrifice at the time that I stated that I will be a Nazirite from her if she will not stand.” For the School of Shammai holds that since he did not make her stand, it should be a sacrifice, and the School of Hillel holds that since it (i.e., the animal) stood, it is not a sacrifice.

מעשה באשה אחת וכו' – Our Mishnah is deficient and should be read as follows: if he was drunk and said, “I am a Nazirite from it,” he is not a Nazirite, for it was not his intention other than to prohibit to himself that particular cup alone. And just as they did not bring him another cup, he said, “I am a Nazirite,” and there is an episode about one woman who said, “I am drunk, etc.”

Introduction This mishnah deals with a person who tries to become a nazirite in regard to one cup of wine alone, without being a total nazirite.

If they mixed for him a cup of wine, and he said, “Behold, I am a nazirite in regard to it,” he becomes a nazirite. This section rules that the person did not intend to become a nazirite just from the cup of wine served to him. When he said “in regard to it” his intention may have been in regard to wine in general. We will learn in tomorrow’s mishnah that one cannot be a partial nazirite, being prohibited from wine and not from shaving, for example. Hence this person is a full nazirite.

It once happened that a woman was intoxicated and they mixed for her a cup of wine and she said, “Behold, I am a nazirite in regard to it.” The sages ruled that she only meant to forbid it to herself as a sacrifice. The fact that this woman was already intoxicated means that she did not intend to make all wine forbidden to her; she wanted only to forbid herself one more cup of wine. Therefore the sages interpret her to have meant that the cup of wine offered to her should be prohibited like a sacrifice.

הרי זה נזיר – and he is prohibited with all of them, and in this, everyone admits because he made a condition against what is written in the Torah, and whomever makes a condition against [what] is written in the Torah, his condition is void.

Introduction The first section of this mishnah deals with a person who tries to take upon himself a partial naziriteship. The second section deals with a person who vowed a nazirite vow but did not have full comprehension of the prohibitions involved.

אבל איני יודע שהנזיר אסור ביין הרי זה אסור – for wine and shaving and defilement which are prohibited to a Nazirite, he who takes a Nazirite vow from one of them is a Nazirite with regard to all of them.

[If one says,] “Behold, I am a nazirite, on condition that I can drink wine, or can have contact with the dead”, he becomes a nazirite, and all these things are forbidden him. This person makes a nazirite vow on condition that some of the prohibitions would not apply to him. There is a rule that a person may not make a condition against what is written in the Torah. Hence the condition is invalid and he is a full nazirite, forbidden to shave his hair, drink wine or have contact with the dead.

רבי שמעון מתיר – as he holds that he is not a Nazirite until he takes a Nazirite vow regarding all of them.

[If he says,] “I knew that there is such a thing as naziriteship but I did not know that a nazirite is forbidden to drink wine”, he is bound [to his vow]. Rabbi Shimon releases him. In this case, a person takes a nazirite vow and afterwards claims that he didn’t know that nazirites could not have wine. According to the Sages, his lack of knowledge does not exempt him and he is a full nazirite. Rabbi Shimon holds that he is not a nazirite because it was a mistaken vow. Alternatively, Rabbi Shimon holds that one is not a nazirite unless he accepts upon himself all of the minutiae of being a nazirite.

או מפני שאני קובר מתים הרי זה מותר – these are vows of on conditions unavoidably unfulfilled (see also Tractate Nedarim, Chapter 3, Mishnah 1), and this is one of four vows that the Sages permitted.

[If he says,] “I knew that a nazirite is forbidden to drink wine, but I imagined that the sages would give me permission, since I cannot do without wine”, or “since [my profession] is to bury the dead”, he is released. Rabbi Shimon binds him [to his vow]. In this case, when the person vowed he knew that wine and coming into contact with the dead were prohibited to a nazirites. Nevertheless, he thought that the sages would allow him to either drink because he can’t live without wine or bury the dead because that is his profession. The Sages consider his vow to be mistaken vow, and therefore he is released. Rabbi Shimon does not consider this a mistaken vow. Alternatively, Rabbi Shimon agrees that this was a mistaken vow, but holds that he must first ask to be released by a Sage.

ורבי שמעון אוסר – that he holds that the four vows that the Sages permitted requires absolution by a scholar, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon in these two segments of our Mishnah.

הריני נזיר ועלי לגלח נזיר – he accepted upon himself Naziriteship and furthermore, accepted upon himself to bring [hair] sacrifices for another Nazirite, and his friend also came and he stated the same thing.

Introduction At the end of his naziriteship a nazirite brings three offerings, a sin offering, a burnt offering and well-being offering, and shaves his hair (Numbers 30:13-18). Together these three offerings are called “the hair offering”, for they are accompanied by the shaving of the hair. Our mishnah deals with a person who takes a nazirite vow and also accepts upon himself to bring another person’s “hair offering”.

אם היו פקחים – each one exempts his fellow with his [hair] sacrifices and even though that at the time that he took the first vow to shave a Nazirite, the second [person] was not yet a Nazirite.

[If one says,] “Behold, I am a nazirite and I take it upon myself to bring the hair offering of another nazirite”, and his friend heard and said “I too, and I take it upon myself to bring the hair offering of another nazirite”, then, if they are clever they will bring the other’s hair offering; otherwise they must bring hair offerings on behalf of other nazirites. In this case two people both take nazirite vows and in addition take it upon themselves to bring another person’s hair offering. The mishnah teaches that each can bring each other’s offerings, and in that way each will have fulfilled all of his requirements without bringing more than one set of offerings. However, if they do not bring each other’s offerings, each will have to bring a different person’s offerings, as well as his own. This will end up costing them double.

[זה מגלח נזיר שלם] וזה מגלח נזיר שלם דברן ר"מ – Rabbi Meir according to his method of reasoning that he holds that the first language takes effect and when he says, “I pledge myself to bring the [hair] offering,” a full [hair] offering is mentioned, and when he mentions after that, one-half of the Nazirite hair-offering, it is not within his powers to retract, even as much time as is needed for an utterance (e.g., a greeting). But the Rabbis hold that if he vowed and they opened with him, it is like a person who said, “half of the sacrifices of the Nazirite are upon me, for he is not liable other than for half of the [hair] sacrifices of the Nazirite, and the Halakha is according to the Sages.

Introduction This mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah. It deals with a situation in which a person vows that he will bring the offerings of half of a nazirite.

[If one says,] “I take it upon myself to bring the hair offering of half of another nazirite,” and his friend heard and said, “I too take it upon myself to bring the hair offering of half of another nazirite,” –, this one brings a full hair offering and this one brings a full hair offering, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: each brings half a hair offering. The statement of these two people is strange and can be interpreted in two different ways. When they each say, “I take it upon myself to bring the hair offering of half of another nazirite”, they may have thought that there was such a thing as a half-nazirite. Since there is no such thing, Rabbi Meir says they both must bring a full hair-offering. In contrast, the Sages assume that what he meant to say was that he would bring half of the hair offering of a nazirite. Therefore, each pays for half of the offerings that one nazirite must bring, and the nazirite himself would be responsible for the remainder.

ונולד לו בן הרי זה נזיר – for in the language of humans one is not called a son other than a male, and not a female nor a child bearing unclear sexual traits or a child bearing the sexual traits of both sexes. A child is called even a daughter/female or a child bearing unclear sexual traits or a child bearing the sexual traits of both sexes.

Introduction This mishnah deals with a person who stipulates that he will be a nazirite if he has a son, or, alternatively, if he has a child. The question is, what is the definition of a son or child. As an aside, we can see from this mishnah that people made nazirite vows as a way of thanking God for things God has given them. The same is true for vows in general.

[If one says,] “Behold, I am a nazirite when I shall have a son,” and son is born to him, he becomes a nazirite. If the child is a daughter, or a tumtum, or an hermaphrodite, he does not become a nazirite. A “tumtum” is a person who has no signs of being male or female. A hermaphrodite has both male and female genitalia. The mishnah teaches that when the person said “when I shall have a son”, his intention was specifically for a son and not for any of the other three genders, female, the gender-less tumtum or double-gendered. Note that the mishnah has to say this because sometimes the Hebrew word for son “ben” can mean “child.” This is how the word is interpreted in Deuteronomy 25:5, in the context of the laws of levirate marriage.

If he said, “When I shall have a child,” then even if it is a daughter, or a tumtum, or an hermaphrodite, he becomes a nazirite. However, if he says “child” any child is included, no matter the gender.

הפילה אשתו – and he did not know if he was a living being or aborted/non-viable birth.

Introduction This mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah where a man vowed to be a nazirite if he had a child. Our mishnah deals with a case where his wife miscarries. The question is, do we consider the miscarriage to be a case where the child was viable while in the womb, and hence he had a child or not.

אינו נזיר – our Mishnah is [according to] Rabbi Yehuda who said that a person does not place down his soul on a doubt and if he states “when I will have a child,” he is speaking about a definitive child.

If his wife miscarries, he does not become a nazirite. Rabbi Shimon says: [in this case] he should say, “If it was a viable child, behold, I am a nazirite from obligation; otherwise behold, I am a voluntary nazirite.” According to the first opinion, if his wife miscarries he is not a nazirite. Although there is some doubt that the child might have reached viability before the miscarriage, in cases of doubtful naziriteships the ruling is lenient. Rabbi Shimon is more concerned with the possibility that the child reached viability. Therefore, the one who vowed is considered a doubtful nazirite. The way that one observes this doubtful naziriteship is by saying that if the child was viable, then he is now serving a mandatory naziriteship. If, however the child was not viable, then his naziriteship is just from doubt. In any case, he must observe a naziriteship.

רבי שמעון אומר יאמר אם היה בן קיימא וכו' – Rabbi Shimon holds hat a doubtful Naziriteship is judged stringently; therefore, he must be a Nazirite from doubt and makes a condition and states that if he is a viable fetus, I am a Naziritie out of obligation, and if not, I am a Nazirite out of free-choice, and he shaves and brings his [hair] sacrifices at the end of the thirty day period. But without the condition, he would not be able to bring the sacrifice from doubt, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

If [his wife] later bears a child, he then becomes a nazirite. Rabbi Shimon says: he should say, “If the first was a viable child, the first [naziriteship] was obligatory, and this one is voluntary; otherwise, the first one was voluntary, and the present one is obligatory.” If after the first miscarriage his wife becomes again pregnant and this time has a child, according to the first opinion, he must now observe a naziriteship because he did not previously observe one. For Rabbi Shimon he cannot just simply observe another naziriteship because he may have fulfilled his vow when he previously served a naziriteship. However, if the first one was only voluntary, then he is still liable to serve an obligatory naziriteship for his original vow. Therefore, he again stipulates, that if the first naziriteship was obligatory (the fetus was viable), then the current one is only voluntary, but if the first one was voluntary (the fetus was not viable), then the current one is the obligatory naziriteship.

חזרה וילדה הרי זה נזיר – for he did not practice Naziriteship on account of the non-viable birth/abortion. But now that she gave birth to a living child, the Nazirite [vow] takes effect and according to Rabbi Shimon, he must retract and make the condition for perhaps the first child was a viable child.

הריני נזיר ונזיר לכשיהיה לו בן – whomever had accepted upon himself a [period of] Naziriteship, and additionally accepted upon himself another Naziriteship when he has for himself a son.

Introduction This mishnah discusses a person who makes a nazirite vow on his own behalf and promises to serve another naziriteship if he has a son. The question is, if he has a son, in which order does he serve the naziriteships?

משלים את שלו – first and he shaves and brings his [hair] offering and afterwards counts that [Nazirite period] for [the birth of] his son.

[If one says,] “Behold, I am a nazirite [now] and a nazirite when I shall have a son”, and begins to count his own [naziriteship] and then a son is born to him, he completes his own [naziriteship] and then counts the one on account of his son. In this case, the person first accepted upon himself to be a nazirite and then to be a nazirite when a son is born to him. He therefore immediately begins to serve his own naziriteship. If he has a son while he is still serving his own naziriteship, he nevertheless completes his own naziriteship and only then begins one on account of his having had a son. Since he mentioned his own naziriteship first, the naziriteship for his son does not begin until he has completed his own. In this case he will shave and bring sacrifices after his own naziriteship has been completed and then again when the naziriteship for his son is completed.

הריני נזיר כשיהיה לי בן ונזיר – he accepted upon himself first the Naziriteship for [the birth of] his son,

[If one says,] “Behold, I am a nazirite when I shall have a son, and a nazirite [on my own account]”, and begins to count his own [naziriteship] and then a son is born to him, he interrupts his own [naziriteship], counts the one on account of his son, and then complete his own. In this case, he stated first the naziriteship for his son and then his own. He starts to count his own immediately, because a son has not yet been born to him. If he has a son before his own naziriteship has been completed, he interrupts his own naziriteship and starts to count that which he is serving on account of his son. When he has completed his son’s naziriteship, he returns to complete his own. However, since he already started to serve his own, he does not shave and bring sacrifices for his son’s naziriteship. Rather he waits and at the end shaves and brings a double set of sacrifices.

and he began to count his own, and afterwards, his son was born to him prior to his completing thirty days.

מניח את שלו ומונה את של בנו – for since he accepted upon himself the Naziriteship for [the birth of] his son first, immediately when his son was born to him, he needs to set aside his own and to count [the Naziriteship] of his son’s and afterwards, he completes his own.

עד שבעים לא הפסיד כלום – when he interrupts his Naziriteship and counts the Naziriteship for his son, and he shaves and returns and completes his own [for the completion] of his Naziriteship from the seventy that he had already counted until the one-hundred that he had vowed, they are thirty days that are found between shaving [his hair] of the Naziriteship of his son to the shaving of the completion of his Naziriteship which are thirty days, he does not lose anything. But if he counted more than seventy days before he began the Naziriteship for his son and he came to interrupt his own Naziriteship in order to begin the Naziriteship of his son, when he shaves on the Naziriteship of his son and he comes to complete his own Naziriteship until the one hundred days that he had vowed. If it was found that there were less than thirty days between shaving on his son’s Naziriteship and the shaving for his own Naziriteship, and it is impossible that there would be between each shaving less than thirty days, it is found that he loses all of those days that he counted above the seventy.

Introduction The final mishnah of chapter two continues to deal with nazirite vows made on the condition that the one vowing will have a son.

[If one says] “Behold, I am a nazirite when I shall have a son, and I will be a nazirite for one hundred days [on my own account],”: if a son was born to him before the expiration of seventy days, he loses none of this period; but if after seventy days, it voids [anything over the] seventy days, since there can be no shaving for a period of less than thirty days. A person vows to serve a regular naziriteship of thirty days if he has a son, and he also vows to be a nazirite for 100 days. This situation is similar to that described at the end of yesterday’s mishnah. He begins to serve his own naziriteship immediately, as we learned yesterday. If his son is born before he serves seventy days of his own naziriteship, then he will lose nothing of the days that he has already served. What he will do in this case is serve a thirty day naziriteship for his son, and then go back and serve the remaining days of his own naziriteship. However, if his son is born after he has served seventy days, he will lose credit for some of the days which he has served towards his own 100 day naziriteship. In this case he will serve the thirty days for his son’s naziriteship and then complete his naziriteship with another thirty days. If he had previously served eighty days, he will serve a term of 110 days for his own naziriteship, thereby serving an extra ten days. This is because a term of naziriteship can never be less than thirty days. According to the Rambam, this mishnah clarifies the end of yesterday’s mishnah. There, when we learned that he goes back and counts his own naziriteship, the intention was that he must in all cases count at least thirty days.