Kommentar zu Nazir 5:8

בית שמאי אומרים הקדש טעות הקדש – for we derive it from the exchange of one sacrificial animal for another, which is, even by mistake/error, as it is written (Leviticus 27:10): “the thing vowed and its substitute shall be holy,” and we expound/interpret it to include something done inadvertently like something done willfully.

Introduction This chapter deals with a person who made a nazirite vow based on a mistaken premise. The chapter is introduced by two mishnayoth which discuss cases where one mistakenly consecrated property to the Temple.

וב"ה אומרים אינו הקדש – that we don’t learn the beginning of consecration is a matter that does not come from the power of consecration from the exchange of one sacrificial animal for another, which is the end of consecration which comes from the power of another thing that was consecrated.

Beth Shammai says: something consecrated in error is consecrated; But Beth Hillel says: it is not consecrated. This section outlines the basic debate, which shall be illustrated in the next section, and in the following mishnah.

How is this so? If someone says, “The black bull that leaves my house first shall be consecrated,” and a white one comes out, Beth Shammai says: it is consecrated, But Beth Hillel says: it is not consecrated. According to Beth Shammai, the white bull is consecrated. When he said “the black bull” he meant the “first bull” but he assumed it would be a black one. Since “something consecrated in error is consecrated”, he must give the white bull to the Temple. Beth Hillel says that it is not consecrated, for he made a mistake in assuming that it would be a black bull.

דינר זהב– the first segment of the Mishnah comes to teach us with something that has attained the holiness of the object but here (i.e., in the latter segment of the Mishnah) it comes to teach us with something that has sanctified the holiness of the money.

[If he says,] “The gold denar that comes into my hand first shall be consecrated”, and a silver denar came to his hand: Beth Shammai says: it is consecrated, Beth Hillel says: it is not consecrated.
[If he says,] “The cask of wine that comes into may hand first shall be consecrated,” and a cask of oil came into his hand: Beth Shammai says: it is consecrated, Beth Hillel says: it is not consecrated.
This mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah, where we learned that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel debate the status of something that was consecrated based on a mistaken premise. Today’s mishnah is very similar to yesterday’s and quite simple to understand. A question that we might ask is why the mishnah brings three examples to illustrate one principle rather than sufficing with one. I shall discuss this below.
As stated above, the mishnah is quite simple to understand, both cases dealing with a person who consecrated an item assuming that it would be different than it actually was.
One reason that the mishnah may have continued to bring examples of this debate is that the previous mishnah was about an ox, an animal that can be sacrificed on the altar, while section one of this mishnah is about money, which is not put directly onto the altar. We might have thought that the debate between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel did not exist if the consecrated item was a denar, which must be used to purchase something which then can be sacrificed. The first section of our mishnah teaches that the debate exists even if the item consecrated is not sacrificable.
In the second case, the person thought that he was going to consecrate a cask of wine which is cheaper than a cask of oil. We might have thought that in this case, Beth Shammai would agree that the cask of oil is not consecrated since he surely did not intend to give something of this value to the Temple. The mishnah teaches that even so, the item is consecrated. According to Beth Shammai, people are generous in their gifts to the Temple, and are willing to give even a greater portion of their property than they might have stated. Whether this is wishful thinking on their part or not, the principle of Beth Shammai, that property consecrated under a mistaken principle is consecrated, still holds even in this case.

מי שנדר בנזיר – in a language that resembled it for him that he was not a Nazirite.

If a man vowed to be a nazirite and then asked a sage [to be released from his vow] but [the sage] bound him [to his vow] he counts [the naziriteship] from the time that the vow was made.
If he asked a sage [to be released from his vow] and he released him, if he had an animal set aside [for a sacrifice], it goes forth to pasture with [the rest of] the herd.
Beth Hillel said to Beth Shammai: do you not admit that here where the consecration is in error, [the animal] goes forth to pasture with the herd?
Beth Shammai said to them: do you not admit that if a man in error calls the ninth [animal], the tenth, or the tenth the ninth, or the eleventh the tenth, each is consecrated?
Beth Hillel said to them: it is not the staff that makes these consecrated. For suppose that by mistake he placed the staff upon the eighth or upon the twelfth, would this have any effect? Rather Scripture which has consecrated the tenth, has also declared consecrated the ninth and the eleventh.
This whole mishnah contains an argument between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel over consecration in error.
Section one: If a person makes a nazirite vow, he may ask a sage to be released from his vow, just as he can ask a sage to be released from any vow. However, if the sage refuses to release him from his vow, then he must observe his naziriteship, and the naziriteship is counted from the beginning.
Sections two and three: If he asked the sage and the sage released him, then his animal that he set aside to be used for his sacrifice, is not considered to be consecrated. Beth Hillel considers this to be a precedent for all cases of mistaken consecration. In this case the person made a nazirite vow and then separated an animal to be used as a sacrifice. Later, he told a sage that the vow was mistaken and the sage agreed. Hence the animal was consecrated also by mistake. The fact that it is not consecrated, and may go back and join the herd, proves to Beth Hillel that something consecrated by mistake is not consecrated.
Section four: Beth Shammai retorts with their own precedent to prove that something consecrated by mistake is consecrated. Animals must be tithed (like produce), every tenth animal going to the priest (Leviticus 27:32). This is done by passing all of the animals under a staff and counting them. The tenth animal that passes under the staff is consecrated. If a person accidentally calls the ninth animal the tenth, or the eleventh animal the tenth, both the ninth and eleventh animals are consecrated (as is the actual tenth animal). This proves that things consecrated by mistake are consecrated.
Section five: Beth Hillel refutes this proof. The staff placed on the animals is not what consecrates them in general, rather the Torah consecrates them, or dictates that the tenth animal is consecrated. To prove that the staff does not consecrate them, Beth Hillel points out that if one calls the eighth animal the tenth, or the twelfth animal the tenth, they are not consecrated. Rather the Torah stated that the tenth animal is consecrated, and also stated (through a midrash: do not look for this in the verse itself), that if one places the staff on the ninth or the eleventh, that they are consecrated. However, one should not use this as a precedent for other cases to prove that all things consecrated by mistake are consecrated.

ונשאל לחכם – and who said to him that there is something in that this language formulation of the language of Naziriteship, and he was not careful from drinking wine,

מונה משעה שנדר – and we don’t fine him that he transgressed and drank wine, even though, from doubt, it is prohibited, he should have separated himself until he would seek and ask a Sage.

נשאל לחכם והתירו – who said to him that there is nothing in this language of the language of Naziriteship.

תצא ותרעה בעדר – for setting aside [an animal] by error is a vain talk but it should become non-holy and in this, the School of Shammai agrees for since he is not a Nazirite when he states that it [i.e., the animal] should go for the sacrifices of the Nazirite, and he didn’t say anything, like a person who is not liable for a sin-offering and states: “behold, this is for my sin-offering.”

אי אתם מודים בזה שהוא הקדש טעות – and what is the difference from the beginning of the chapter (i.e., Mishnah 1), when you (i.e., the School of Shammai) stated that [an act of] consecration done in error is binding [i.e., consecrated]?

אמרו להם בית שמאי – they were not anxious to respond t them the essence of their reasoning, but they spoke to them in accordance with their own words “from the ninth and the eleventh that they consecrated in error and we extend the scope/include from (Leviticus 27:32): “All tithes of he herd or flock – [of all that passes under the shepherd’s staff, every tenth one – shall be holy to the LORD].”

אמרו להם ב"ה לא השבט קדשו – to be read [as a question – in astonishment], meaning to say, the decree of the Biblical verse is that the ninth and the eleventh which are near the tenth, the staff sanctifies them, if he called them “the tenth,” and we do not derive from this merely that an act of consecration made in error is consecrated, for were it not for this reason because of an act of consecration made in error, if so, then even the eighty and the twelfth also [would be included], but rather because the Biblical verse that sanctified the tenth, etc., and it is the decree of the Biblical verse (that the tenth one, approximately, would be sanctified) and we don’t derive anything from this.

מי שנדר בנזיר – and at the time that he took the vow [of becoming a Nazirite], he had the animals [for the sacrifice] and with the knowledge/intention that it was for this purpose he made the vow that he would offer up his sacrifices from those animals, and he went and found that they had been stolen and on account of this, regretted that he took the vow of becoming a Nazirite.

Introduction This mishnah deals with the concept that a vow, in this case a nazirite vow, may not be released by a sage based on something that occurred after the vow was taken. This concept was already taught by mishnah Nedarim 9:2, so look there for further reference. Our mishnah illustrates this principle using two cases.

אם עד שלא נגנבו בהמותיו נדר, הרי זה נזיר – and a Sage should not absolve him through this opening for retracting a vow (i.e., suggesting reasons which, if known at the time, would have prevented the person from making the vow), for it was a novel incident changing the aspects of a vow and eventually nullifies it, and we don’t open with a novel incident.

If one vowed to be a nazirite and went to bring his animal [for the sacrifice] and found that it had been stolen: If he had taken the nazirite vow before his animal was stolen, he is [still] a nazirite. But if he had taken the nazirite vow after his animal was stolen, he is not a nazirite. If a person vowed a nazirite vow and then separated an animal to use as a sacrifice and then the animal was stolen, the sage may not release him from his vow, even though now that the animal was stolen he regrets having taken the vow. This is because the theft of the animal is something that happened after the vow, and therefore cannot be used as grounds for the vow’s release. However, if the animal was, unbeknownst to him, stolen before he vowed, and then he declared that the animal would be used as his nazirite sacrifice, and then discovered that it was stolen, the vow can be released. This is because at the time he made his vow, he was basing it on the mistaken premise that he would be able to use that animal as a sacrifice. This was already in error and hence the vow may be released.

ואם לאחר שנגנבו נדר – and he stated: “had I known that they would be stolen, I would not have made this vow, this is an opening that the Sage could annul.

It was this mistake that Nahum the Mede made. When nazirites arrived [in Jerusalem] from the Diaspora and found the Temple destroyed, Nahum the Mede said to them, “Had you known that the Temple would be destroyed, would you have become nazirites?” They answered, no, and Nahum the Mede released them [from their vow]. When the matter came before the sages they said to him: whoever vowed a nazirite vow before the destruction of the Temple is a nazirite, but if after the destruction of the temple, he is not a nazirite. The mishnah now relates an interesting story that happened right after the destruction of the Temple. A group of nazirites from the Diaspora, who had made their nazirite vows before the destruction of the Temple, came to Jerusalem to complete their naziriteship and to offer their sacrifices. When they saw that the Temple had been destroyed they came to Nahum the Mede to ask them what to do. He asked them if they would have still made their vows had they known that the Temple would be destroyed, to which they answered no. The reason why they clearly would answer no is that after the Temple was destroyed there was no way to end nazirite vows, and the person is stuck being a nazirite forever! Nahum the Mede mistakenly released them from their vow. The Sages pointed out to him that this was mistaken because at the time when they vowed the Temple still stood. Only people who make nazirite vows after the destruction of the Temple may be released from their vows using the Temple as grounds for the release.

הריני נזיר שזה איש פלוני – “if this [person] who is walking towards me is so-and-so, I am a Nazirite,” and the second [person] says, “if this [person walking towards me] is not so-and-so, I am not a Nazirite.

Introduction This mishnah again deals with the debate between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel over mistaken nazirite vows.

כולם נזירים – and even those whose words were not confirmed/fulfilled, for just as a consecration done in error is a consecration, so also, Naziriteship [vowed] in error is Naziriteship (in accordance with the words of Bet Shammai as found in Tractate Nazir, Chapter 5, Mishnah 1).

If [people] were walking along the road and [saw] someone coming towards them, and one said, “Behold, I am a nazirite if it is so-and-so,” and the other said, “Behold, I am a nazirite if it is not so-and-so,” [and a third said,] “Behold I am a nazirite if one of you is a nazirite,” [and a fourth said, “Behold I am a nazirite] if neither of you is a nazirite,” [and a fifth said, “Behold I am a nazirite] if both of you are nazirites,” [and a sixth said, “Behold I am a nazirite] if all of you are nazirites”: Beth Shammai says: all of them are nazirites. Beth Hillel says only those whose words were [not] fulfilled are nazirites. Rabbi Tarfon says: not one of them is a nazirite. Obviously, not all of the people who vowed these nazirite vows can be correct. For instance, if it is “so and so”, only the first and third people are correct. If it is not “so and so”, the second and third people are correct. Nevertheless, Beth Shammai holds that they are all nazirites, because even nazirite vows taken under a mistaken premise are binding. Beth Hillel says that only those whose words were actually fulfilled, that is whose words turn out to be correct, are nazirites. Note that the mishnah actually says “not fulfilled”. The Talmud emends the mishnah to read “fulfilled.” Albeck explains that either version leads to the same conclusion, for Beth Hillel holds that a nazirite vow made under a mistaken premise is not valid. Rabbi Tarfon holds that unclear nazirite vows are not binding. Even if it turns out that what he thought was indeed correct, a person must have full awareness of the facts at the time of his vow for his vow to be valid.

ר"ט אומר אין אחד מהם נזיר – for Rabbi Tarphon holds that there is no Naziriteship other than for a distinct and solemn specification of a vow (without a doubt – see Tosefta Nazirut, Chapter 3, Halakha 18 and Talmud Nazir 34a in the words of Rabbi Yehuda quoting Rabbi Tarphon), meaning to say, that it is clear and known to him at the time of his vow that he will be a Nazirite and all of these [examples mentioned in our Mishnah], it was not known to him at the time of his vow that it will be according to his declaration, and the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Tarphon.

הרתיע לאחוריו – the person who had come towards them was startled and moved backward and it was not known who it was.

Introduction This mishnah continues to discuss the scenario in yesterday’s mishnah, that of an unidentified man approaching and a group of people “gambling” nazirite vows over his identity. This mishnah discusses what is to occur if the person approaching turns away without being identified. The whole mishnah goes according to Beth Hillel, for according to Beth Shammai even had they been proven to be mistaken, they are still nazirites.

אינו נזיר – not a single one of them is a Nazirite, for no one protested for himself regarding a doubt, and his intention was at the time of the vow that if the matter did not come to clarity, that his words would not be worth anything.

If [the person approaching] turned around suddenly [without being identified], he is not a nazirite. Rabbi Shimon says: he should say, “If it was as I said, behold I am a nazirite by obligation; and if not, behold I am a voluntary nazirite.” According to the first opinion, in such a case no one is a nazirite. The reason is that in cases of a doubtful nazirite vow, the ruling is lenient. When a person takes a nazirite vow with a stipulation, his intention is to be a nazirite only if his stipulation proves true. If it is not proven to be true, he does not intend to be a nazirite. Rabbi Shimon holds that in cases of a doubtful nazirite vow, the ruling must be more stringent and since his stipulation may actually have been true he must actually observe a naziriteship. However, he must again vow a naziriteship and say that if what he had said before really was true (i.e. it was or was not the person he thought it was), then he is a nazirite due to his obligation to observe that vow. If, however, it was not true, then he now makes a new nazirite vow, one not connected to the previous one. The reason why he cannot just observe a naziriteship is that one cannot bring nazirite sacrifices in cases of doubtful naziriteship. Therefore, he creates a situation in which no matter the identity of the original person, he has made a certain nazirite vow.

ר' שמעון אומר כו' – Rabbi Shimon, according to his reasoning, who said that a doubtful case of Naziriteship is [dealt with] stringently and what is their remedy, for it is impossible o bring a sacrifice out of doubt, but rather, each person needs to make a condition and state that if it is not according to his statement, he should be a Nazirite out of free will, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

ראה את הכוי six people who saw the bearded dear or antelope/Koy and one of them said: “Behold, I am a Nazirite if this is a beast of chase,” and the second said: “Behold, I am a Nazirite if it is not a beast of chase,” and the third said: “Behold, I am a Nazirite if it is of the genus of cattle,” and the fourth said: “Behold, I am a Nazirite if it is not of the genus of a cattle,” and the fifth said: “Behold, I am a Nazirite if this is a beast of chase and a genus of cattle,” and the sixth said: “Behold, I am a Nazirite if this is neither a beast of chase or of the genus of cattle,” and three others came in a general way and one of them said to those other six: “Behold, I am a Nazirite if one of you is a Nazirite,” and the second said: “Behold, I am a Nazirite if none of you are a Nazirite,” and the third said: “Behold, I am a Nazirite if all of you are Nazirites,” all of them are Nazirites – the first six and the latter three. According to the School of Shammai, they are definitive Nazirites, for a Naziriteship in error is a Nazirite. But according to the School of Hillel, they are doubtful Nazirites because the bearded dear or antelope/Koy is doubtfully of the genus of cattle and doubtfully a beast of chase and doubtfully a creature of its own.

Introduction In this mishnah nine (!) people “wager” their nazirite vows over whether a koy is a wild beast or a domesticated beast. Already by the Talmudic period they did not know exactly what animal a koy really was. Some said it was a wild ox, while others interpret it as a mix of different deer species. In any case, it was considered in some ways similar to a wild beast and some ways similar to a domesticated beast. Mishnah Bikkurim 2:8-10 discusses the halakhic nature of the matter, for there are halakhic differences between rules regarding domesticated and wild animals.

If he saw a koy and said, “Behold, I am a nazirite if this is a wild beast”, [and another] “Behold, I am a nazirite if that is not a wild beast,” [a third said] “Behold, I am a nazirite if that is a domesticated beast,” [and a fourth said,] “Behold, I am a nazirite if that is not a domesticated beast,” [a fifth said,] Behold, I am a nazirite if that is both a wild beast and a domesticated beast,” [and a sixth said,] “Behold, I am a nazirite if that is neither a wild beast nor a domesticated beast” [and a seventh said,] “Behold, I am a nazirite if one of you is a nazirite,” [and an eighth said,] Behold, I am a nazirite if one of you is not a nazirite,” [and a ninth said,] “Behold, I am a nazirite if you are all nazirites”, then all of them are nazirites. Some mishnaic commentators claim that in this case, Beth Hillel agrees with Beth Shammai that they are all nazirites. A koy is not an animal about which we have a doubt whether it is a domesticated or wild beast. Rather a koy is both a domesticated and a wild beast. This mishnah is different from the previous mishnayoth in that in this case there is no true identity to the koy, whereas regarding the person, he certainly has an identity, even if that identity is unknown. Others explain that Beth Hillel holds that they are all nazirites in doubt, the category mentioned at the end of yesterday’s mishnah. If so, the mishnah teaches that even if the status of the matter in question is by definition one of doubt, they are nazirites in doubt.