Kommentar zu Nazir 9:9

הגוים אין להם נזירות – even though that heathens sacrifice offerings for vows and free-will donations like Israelites, if he took the vow of becoming a Nazirite, the laws of the Nazirite vow do not apply to him and he is permitted to drink wine and defile himself through contact with the dead, as it is written at the beginning of the portion of the Nazirite (Numbers 6:2): “Speak to the Israelites.” Israelites take the vow of becoming a Nazirite; heathens do not take the vow of becoming a Nazirite.

Introduction This mishnah deals with the subjectivity to nazirite vows of three, typically somewhat marginal groups of people in rabbinic thought and society: Gentiles, women and slaves.

שהוא כופה את עבדו – h forces him (i.e. his slave) to drink wine and to become defiled through contact with the dead against his will.

Gentiles are not subject [to the laws] of naziriteship. The opening verse of the passage in Numbers which deals with the nazirite laws states, “Speak to the children of Israel” (Numbers 6:2). From here the rabbis conclude that Gentiles are not subject to the Jewish nazirite laws.

ואינו כופה את אשתו – against her will and in other vows which have affliction of the soul or being idle from work, the master cannot force the slave , but rather they are idle from them on their own, as it is written (Numbers 30:2): “[or takes an oath] imposing an obligation on himself;” he whose soul is acquired by him, excluding a slave whose soul is no acquired by him and similarly all of the oaths that a slave took whether they have an affliction of the soul or whether they don’t have an affliction of the soul or his master must force him for on their own they are idle, for he has no domain to himself, but vows which lack affliction of the soul nor have idleness from work to his master, the slave is obligated to fulfill them and his master is not able to force him upon them to cancel them.

Women and slaves are subject [to the laws] of naziriteship. In contrast, the children of Israel includes women and slaves (those working in Israelite households).

מיפר נדרי שאתו ואינו מיפר נדרו עבדו – if he is satisfied/reconciled with the vow that his wife made after he nullified it, and he wants that she should fulfill it, she is not obligated to fulfill it after he has nullified it one time, and if he forces his slave to transgress his vow and afterwards he wants to have him fulfill it, the slave is obligated to fulfill it.

The nazirite vow is more stringent in the case of women than in the case of slaves, for a man can compel his slave [to break his vow] but he cannot compel his wife [to do so]. The mishnah now compares the situation of the woman/wife with that of the slave. Both are subject to the authority of their "masters", but in different ways. In one way the rules for the women are more stringent. A master can at any point come up to his slave and say that the slave can no longer keep his nazirite vow and that he must perform one of the prohibitions. This is not voiding the vow, but preventing the slave from observing a vow that he remains obligated to observe. In other words, the master has total control over the slave’s work life. A husband does not have this power over his wife, for she is certainly not his slave. Although, as we shall see below, a husband may annul his wife’s vow, once the vow has been confirmed, he cannot impede her nazirite observance.

הפר לעבדו יצא לחירות משלים נזירותו – not specifically voided, but rather, forced his slave to drink wine and/or to defile himself through contact with the dead, and afterwards, the slave went free, the [now-former] slave is obligated to complete his Naziriteship after he went out to freedom. And Maimonides explained if he annulled his slave, he goes out to freedom, for a person who says to his slave, “it is annulled for you,” the master’s privilege over the slave rebounds from him (i.e., has no legal effect) and the slaves goes out to freedom on account of this but he must complete his Naziriteship, but my heart hesitates at this explanation.

[The nazirite vow] is more stringent in the case of slaves than in the case of women, for he can void the vows of his wife, but he cannot void the vows of his slaves. If he voids his wife’s [vow], it is void for ever, but if he voids his slave’s vow, [if] the slave becomes free he must complete his naziriteship. On the other hand, a husband can annul his wife’s nazirite vow (as he can all her vows) completely, such that she is no longer subject to the vow. In contrast, while he can prevent his slave from observing his vow, technically the vow is still valid and the slave is still obligated to observe a naziriteship. If he is freed, all of the sages agree that he must complete his naziriteship. The master did not void the naziriteship, he merely delayed its observance.

עבד מכנגד פניו – [a slave] who fled from his master after he took the vow of Naziriteship.

When [the slave] passes from [his master's] presence: Rabbi Meir says: he may not drink [wine]. Rabbi Yose says: he may drink [wine]. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose disagree over whether the slave must observe his naziriteship when not in the presence of the master. Rabbi Meir says that he must observe the naziriteship and not drink wine, even though in the master’s presence the master wants him to drink wine. Rabbi Yose disagrees and holds that as long as he is enslaved to his master, he must continue to fulfill his master’s wishes, in or out of his presence. As an aside note, it seems to me that this mishnah is demonstrating a key difference in the rabbinic perception of wives and slaves. Rabbinic ideology in this period was certainly patriarchal, as was that of all of their surrounding society. However, the rabbis don’t view the wife, despite her obligations to her husband, as a slave to him. The Torah gave the husband a right to void her vows, but the rabbis limit that to a formal process. They do not extrapolate and conclude that therefore a husband’s control over his wife is like that over his slave. Rather, the Torah-bequeathed power remains local, and perhaps of a different nature than that of a master’s control over his slave.

ר"מ אומר לא ישתה יין – in order that he will suffer and return to his master who will force him to violate his vow and he will be permitted to drink wine.

ור' יוסי אומר ישתה – that he will not get sick and die for he will eventually return to his master and his master will search for him and return him, and it is found that it is as if he is in the domain of his master.

נזיר שגלח – he brought his sacrifices and cut his hair/shaved upon them and afterwards it became known to him that he had become ritually unclean/impure during his days of Naziriteship.

Introduction Our mishnah deals with a type of corpse defilement known as “defilement of the depth.” This refers to a corpse found in a place where no one knew it had been. Figuratively, it is as if it came out of the depths. Our mishnah shall illustrate a case where it really is found in a deep place.

אם טומאה ידועה – an impurity that it was possible that it was known such as the case of it was not the grave in the depth (i.e., a covered – up uncleanness discovered – In the Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 57f, it is asked? What is a grave of the depth? A corpse buried in stubble, straw, earth, or pebbles, but if buried in water, it does not make a grave of the depth – i.e., it does not make unclean that which was above it before discovery; or, a grave that nobody remembers to have existed).

A nazirite shaves and then discovers that he was defiled: If the defilement was certain, it voids [the naziriteship], But if it is a defilement of the depth, it is not rendered void. If after having shaved at the completion of his naziriteship, the nazirite discovers that he had contracted corpse defilement while he was still a nazirite, if the defilement was certain, he loses his whole period of naziriteship. However, if the defilement was “defilement of the depth”, it does not void his naziriteship. This seems to be a leniency due to the nature of this type of defilement and the situation (he has already shaved).

סותר – and he returns and counts another [period] of Naziriteship.

[If he discovers that he was defiled] before shaving, in either case it voids [the naziriteship]. However, if he discovered that he had been defiled before he shaved for completing his naziriteship, either type of defilement voids his naziriteship. The leniency in the previous section no longer applies.

טומאת התהום אינו סותר – if it became known to him that in the place that he passed was defilement in the depth, but it is a defilement that no one recognizes it even to the end of the world, even though he certainly was ritually impure, he does not lose [the days he had already counted], for such is the Halakha concerning a Nazirite.

How is [the law regarding ‘defilement of the depth’]? If he goes down into a cavern to bathe, and a corpse is found floating at the mouth of the cavern, he is [definitely] unclean. If it is found embedded in the floor of the cavern, Then if he went in merely to cool himself off he remains clean, But if he went to purify himself after defilement through contact with the dead he remains unclean, Because the assumption concerning an unclean person is that he is unclean and the assumption concerning a clean person is that he is clean,. This section explains how “defilement of the depth” works. If he goes into a cavern to bathe and finds a corpse in the water, he is definitely unclean. If he is a nazirite, this will void the days of his naziriteship which he has already served. However, if he finds that a corpse that was embedded in the floor, this is “defilement of the depth”. In such a case there is one more question which must be asked before we can determine if he is considered unclean. If he went down just to cool off, and then later, after having shaved when completing his naziriteship, someone told him that a corpse was embedded in the floor of that cavern, he is still pure. However, if a nazirite went into the cavern to purify himself from corpse impurity, and then began to count his naziriteship again, and after completing his naziriteship and shaving, someone told him that there was a corpse in the floor of the cavern where he had earlier bathed, he is considered unclean and his naziriteship is voided. The mishnah explains that each person stays in his already-presumed status. The clean person who went into the cavern to cool off remains clean, despite having come into contact with “defilement of the depth”. But, the unclean person who used this cavern as his mikveh remains unclean, the status he was in when he came into contact with the corpse.

אם עד שלא גלח – a shearing in purity even if he had already brought his sacrifices, for since it became known to him prior to his shaving/cutting his hair.

בין כך ובין כך – whether it is a known defilement whether it is a defilement of the depth, he loses [the days that he had counted in fulfillment of his Nazirite vow] for it is derived that defilement of the depth does not cause loss [of the period counted in fulfillment of his Nazirite vow] specifically after his shaving/cutting his hair in spiritual purity.

כיצד – the law of defilement of the depth.

ירד לטבול במערה – for he was defiled through the defilement of an unclean reptile, or another defilement of a similar nature which is not from a dead person, and he went down to immerse from his defilement, and it was found [there] an olive’s bulk from a dead person floating on the face of the water and it is uncertain/doubtful whether he became defiled through it or he was not defiled, he is impure, but we hold that an uncertain/doubtful defilement floating on top of the water is pure, but these words regard the defilement of an unclean reptile. But regarding the defilement through contact with the dead, he is impure, and if this uncertainty/doubt was known to him after he had cut his hair/shaved, he is impure, for this is known defilement, for since he was in a place where it was possible that people would see him. And that which it (i.e., the Mishnah) took [linguistically] that he went down to immerse, it is something remarkable that is being taught to us, for even though that a person who immerses from his defilement to ritual purity is warned from all things that defile, even so, he is defiled.

נמצא משוקע בקרקע המערה – in the place that he immersed and he has certainly become defiled. If it became known to him after he shaved/cut his hair, he is pure, and he doesn’t lose [any of the time of his vow as a Nazirite] for this is the defilement of the depth which was in a place where it was not known to any person.

ירד להקר טהור – even though he went down to cool off and chill himself, but he did not go down to immerse in order that he would be careful from defilement, even so, he is ritually pure, if he was not defiled through contact with the dead, but if he did go down to purify himself from defilement from contact with the dead, and he immersed in a cave where the dead was embedded in it and he completed his Naziriteship, or was a person who was defiled by contact with the dead that had immersed, and afterwards accepted upon himself Naziriteship, he is defiled and loses [the period that he had fulfilled of his Nazirite vow] for something presumed impure is impure and something presumed pure is pure.

שרגלים לדבר – meaning to say, there is a rationale and principle to the matter to state that one does not derive a Halakha for defilement in a depth, which for a Nazirite is pure, other than when he was a Nazirites who was presumed to be pure, and when he was presumed to be impure.

המוציא מת מתחלה – it was not known that there were was a grave there, that is what we said in the Gemara (Tractate Nazir 65a): “he who finds and not that it was accessible, ” and furthermore, we derive from the language of our Mishnah that someone died, but not that he was killed.

Introduction Yesterday’s mishnah ended with the phrase, “for there are grounds for such an assumption” (raglayim ledavar). This can be translated literally as “the matter has legs”, but it means that an assumption is probably correct. The following two mishnayoth are brought here in this tractate because they too contain that phrase. Specifically, today’s mishnah deals with a person who finds a body or more than one body buried on his property. The question is, was his property a cemetery or not. Note that normally speaking Jewish law forbids the moving of a corpse. However, in certain circumstances it is permitted. In our mishnah the owner of the property wants to prevent his property from being unclean and therefore the mishnah allows him, under certain circumstances, to remove the body.

מושכב – and not that he was sitting.

If a man finds a corpse for the first time lying in a typical position, he may remove it together with the soil that it occupies. A person finds a single corpse on his property and he has never found one there before. The corpse is lying in a position typical for the burial of Jews. If it had been a non-Jewish body, there would be no concern for impurity since non-Jewish corpses do not defile. The mishnah rules that he may move it, together with the soil surrounding it. The soil must be removed for it has soaked up some of his blood and moisture and hence may be impure.

כדרכו – and not that his head was placed between his thighs, for all of these, we suspect of them that they are heathens, for it is not the manner of Israelites to bury their dead in such a manner.

[If he finds] two, he may remove them together with the ground they occupy. If he finds two bodies, he may proceed in the same manner. Two bodies is not enough for us to begin to be concerned about it being a cemetery.

נוטלו ואת תפושתו – it is permissible to remove him from there and to bury him in another place, and he must take from the dirt of the grave with him which is pressed by the body in the grave (and which is considered “the dead man’s property”) which is all the crushed, loose earth that is below him and he digs in virgin ground three fingers as it is written (Genesis 47:30): “[When I lie down with my fathers,] take me up from Egypt and bury me in their burial-place,” for it is not necessary to state “from Egypt,” but rather this is what he said: from the dust of Egypt take my people.”

If he finds three, then if the distance between the first and the last is from four to eight cubits, this is a graveyard site. He [must] check from that point twenty cubits in all directions. If he finds one twenty cubits away, he must check from it another twenty cubits, for there are grounds [that it is a graveyard]. For if he had found it at the outset he would have removed it and the soil that it occupies. However, if he finds three bodies and there are no more than eight cubits separating the two furthest apart, he must assume that he has stumbled upon a cemetery. In this case he cannot move the corpses. He must look around in a twenty cubit radius to see how large the cemetery is. If he finds another corpse even twenty cubits away, he must treat the entire area as a cemetery. He may not remove this single corpse, even though it is a large distance away from the others, for there are grounds (no pun intended) to assume that the entire area was used as a cemetery. In contrast, if he had found a single corpse there before finding others, it would not have been considered part of the cemetery, and he would have been allowed to remove it with its soil.

מצא שלשה אם יש בין זה לזה מד' אמות עד שמנה – meaning to say from the first grave until the third [grave], there Is not less than four cubits and no more than eight [cubits].

הרי זו שכונת קברות – and it is recognized that for the sake of burial they were placed there and it is forbidden to remove them, and even one dead person, if it was known that for the sake of burial they were placed there, it is forbidden to remove it, other than that with one or two we leave undecided that they were not buried there other than temporarily and that it was their intention to remove them, but with three, it is proved that this is a special place for burials. And the length of the cave, its manner is to be six [cubits] and four [cubits] wide, and crosswise there is an excess of two cubits which is eight, therefore it is taught in the Mishnah: “from four until eight,” with the fulness of a coffin but those who bury it are not taught here.

ובודק הימנה ולהלן עשרים אמה – for the burial cave is four [cubits] by six [cubits] and the courtyard that the caves are open to it from here and there is six [cubits] by six [cubits]. And this is what the Rabbis hold in the chapter (Tractate Bava Batra] המוכר פירות/One who sells fruit [102b]. It is found that the length of two caves and the courtyard that is between them is eighteen cubits, and since that sometimes, he examines one cave with a diagonal line and the diagonal line of one cave has an excess of two cubits in nearness, which makes it twenty cubits: eight [cubits] of the first cave with a diagonal line and six [cubits] of the courtyard that is between the two caves and six [cubits] of the second cave, since we state one diagonal line/diameter. And further, one needs to check from above and from below twenty cubits which is forty cubits lest this is a cave that is in the east of the courtyard and there is yet another opposite on the western part of the courtyard. Alternatively, that which is in the western part of the courtyard, and there is yet another on the east of the courtyard.

מצא אחד בסוף עשרים בודק ממנו ולהלן כ' אמה – for who will say that from the cemetery there would be this cave for perhaps it is another grave, and another courtyard of another person, and one also needs to make for the sake of all of the examinations mentioned above just like there is a grave there, similarly, there are others.

שרגלים לדבר – that this field was made for graves and there were in it also other caves, and because of grounds for such a decision these Mishnayot are taught here.

כל ספק נגעים בתחלה טהור – such as the example of two [people] who came to a Kohen; on one of them was a bright white spot on the skin (eventually, one of the symptoms of leprosy) like the size of a bean, and on the other was a bright white spot on the skin like a Selah (a coin), and at the end of a week, on this one was like a Selah and that one was like a Selah and it was not known on which of them it spread, both of them are ritually pure, even though certainly one of them is ritually impure.

Introduction This mishnah continues to bring cases that involve the concept of “there are grounds for the assumption.” The first section discusses doubtful skin afflictions. The second case involves doubtful cases of “zivah”, usually translated as flux, an unusual genital emission. The third case involves estimating the cause of death of a person struck by his fellow.

משנזקק לטומאה ספיקו טמא – such as the example of two who came to a Kohen; on one of them was a bright white spot on the skin like the size of a bean and the other, [a bright white spot on the skin] like the size of a Selah, and at the end of a week, this one’s was like a Selah and more, and the other one’s was like a Selah and more. Both reduced to become the size of like a Selah. Even though one of them is definitely ritually pure, for already, the spreading of the leprous spot occurred, both of them are impure, because a decision had been made in favor of uncleanness until they return to the size of a bean.

Any matter of doubt regarding [leprous affliction] at the outset is clean before a decision is made [to declare it] unclean. Once a decision has been made [to declare it] unclean, any matter of doubt is regarded as unclean. If something is seen on a person’s skin that may be the sign of an unclean skin affliction, he is still considered clean until the priests decide that it is an unclean skin affliction. However, once he has been declared to be unclean, any further doubtful matters are ruled as if they too render him unclean. In other words, he remains in his presumed assumption.

בשבעה דרכים בודקין את הזב – for if he saw, as a consequence of an accident, he is pure, for we expound upon זב מבשרו/”a discharge from his member/flesh” (Leviticus 15:2) and not on account of his accident.

A person suffering from gonorrhea (a is examined regarding seven things, before it has been decided that it is gonorrhea: With regard to food, drink, carrying things, jumping, sickness, something seen, or an impure thought. Once gonorrhea is established, he is no longer examined. [Any flux resulting] from an accident to him, doubtful [flux] and his semen are unclean, for there are grounds for this assumption. For a person to be considered a full zav (one suffering a certain type of sexually transmitted disease), he must see flux (unusual genital emission) three times with no more than one day between each emission. After his first two emissions, he is still not a full zav. Furthermore, for the emission to be legally considered flux it must be from this disease and not as a result of something else. Therefore, after the first and second emissions he is checked to make sure the emission was not caused by something else. Our mishnah teaches the questions that he is asked. All of these were considered potential causes of emissions. However, once he has been declared a zav, a sufferer of this disease, he is not asked these questions concerning further emissions. Rather they are all considered to be flux. Again, the person remains in his currently assumed status unless it can be proven otherwise. The mishnah continues that even if he were to have his third emission as an accident resulting from one of the above causes, or there is a doubt whether he had a third emission, or it is unclear whether it was a seminal emission or a gonorrheal emission, he is still ruled to be a zav, for there are grounds to assume that after the first two emissions of flux, the third one is flux as well.

עד שלא נזקק לטומאה – that is when he sees a second affliction/attack, he becomes a complete Zav/a man suffering from gonorrhea defiling by lying and sitting, but a first affliction/attack defiles by accident ritual impurity until nightfall according to the law of someone who experienced a seminar emission which combines with the second [affliction/attack], even if it was by accident.

If a one strikes his fellow, and they expected him to die and he partially recovered and then grew worse and died [the other] is liable [for murder]. Rabbi Nehemiah exempts him, for there are grounds for this assumption. According to the first opinion, even though the injured person partially recovered and only after his recovery again grew ill and died, it is clear that he died from the blows of the first person. Hence the one who struck him is considered to be a murderer. Rabbi Nehemiah disagrees and holds that it can be presumed that he died of other causes, and therefore the one who struck him cannot be considered a murderer. Others interpret the final words of this mishnah “for there are grounds for this assumption” to relate to the words of the first opinion. Since there are solid grounds to assume that the person died from the blows, he is deemed to be a murderer.

במאכל – if he ate things that bring him towards a flux as for example, meat, oil, milk, and cheese, eggs and old wine.

ובמשתה – with increase/excess of drinking.

במשא – something heavy that he carried.

במראה – he saw a woman even without [impure] fantasy.

ובהרהור – even though he did not see [her], if one of these seven [things] happened to him before he saw the second affliction/attack, he does not become a Zav/gonorrhea, and a drop [of semen] does not defile through carrying.

משנזקק לטומאה – that he saw a second attack/affliction not by accident,

we don’t examine him, but even if he saw a third [attack/affliction] by accident, he becomes a Zab/one afflicted with gonorrhea for a sacrifice.

וספיקו ושבכת זרעו טמאים – uncertain on account of effusion of his semen, as for example if he saw effusion of semen first and a bit of gonorrhea that comes afterwards, it does not defile for the person who sees an emission does not defile with gonorrhea from the time of twenty-four astronomical hours. And until a decision has been not been made for uncleanness, the flux purifies the gonorrhea because it is an accident. But after a decision has been made for uncleanness, the flux purifies the gonorrhea which does not leave undecided/in doubt for on account of the flux comes the gonorrhea.

שרגלים לדבר – for that attack/affliction is on account of an accident, because he has already become a Zav/gonorrhea.

ר"נ פוטר שרגלים לדבר – for he did not die on account of a wound, since it was more lenient than what it was, and the Halakha is not according to Rabbi [Nehemiah].

נזיר היה שמואל – and the person who says: “Behold, I am like Samuel or like the son of Elkanah, or like the person who hewed Agag in pieces [in Gilgal]”– is a Nazirite according to the words of Rabbi Nehorai and such is the Halakha.

Introduction The last mishnah of tractate Nazir deals with the question of whether Samuel, the biblical prophet, was a nazirite. It is very typical for tractates of Mishnah to end with words of aggadah, the non-halakhic parts of the rabbinic tradition.

אין מורא אלא של בשר ודם – so that the dominion and fear of man are not upon him.

Samuel was a nazirite, according to the words of Rabbi Nehorai, as it says, “And no razor [morah] shall come upon his head” (I Samuel 1:11). It says with reference to Samson, “And [no] razor [morah]” (Judges 13:5) and it says with reference to Samuel, “And [no] razor [morah]”, just as “razor [morah]” in the case of Samson [teaches that he was] a nazirite, so “razor [morah]” in the case of Samuel [teaches that he was] a nazirite. Rabbi Yose says: but does not “morah” refer to [fear] of flesh and blood? Rabbi Nehorai said to him: But does it not also say, “And Samuel said; ‘How can I go? If Saul will hear it he will kill me’” (I Samuel 16:2) [which shows] that he was afraid of flesh and blood? The case of Samuel is truly puzzling: was he or wasn’t he a nazirite? When Hana prays to God to give her a child, she promises that if she does have a male child, no “morah (razor) shall ever touch his head.” The obvious meaning seems to be that just as Samson’s mother was promised that he would have a child and that her boy was to become a nazirite and “no razor shall touch his head”, so too Samuel’s mother was promising that he would be a nazirite. This is the gist of Rabbi Nehorai’s argument. However, unlike Samson’s mother, Samuel’s mother does not promise the other two nazirite prohibitions, that her son will not become defiled through contact with the dead or eat/drink anything from the vine. Samuel is not subsequently referred to as a nazirite, nor does he seem to act as one. Therefore, Rabbi Yose interprets the Hebrew word “morah” to refer to fear. Samuel’s mother promises that he will not be afraid of anyone. While the word “morah” can mean fear, the simple meaning of the word in this verse seems to obviously be razor. Rabbi Yose interprets it to mean “fear” because it just doesn’t seem that Samuel is a nazirite. Rabbi Nehorai responds by pointing out that this interpretation also does not fit with the facts of Samuel’s life. Samuel did fear Saul, as is evident from the quote. Therefore, the word “morah” must refer to razor, and Samuel must have actually been a nazirite. Interestingly, in a fragmentary scroll of Samuel found in Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls), I Samuel 1:22, instead of reading, “[For when he has appeared before the Lord], he must remain there for good”, reads “he will be a nazirite for good, for all his life.” Ben Sira, a second century BCE book, writes that Samuel was a prophetic nazirite (46:3). The Septuagint, the third century BCE translation of the Bible into Greek adds to verse 11 “and he shall not drink wine or strong drink”. Josephus too states that Samuel didn’t drink wine. All of this proves that there was a strong trend in Second Temple Judaism to view Samuel as a nazirite. This view was shared by Rabbi Nehorai in our mishnah. Congratulations! We have finished Nazir. It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. This last mishnah is an important close to tractate Nazir. We see here that in ancient times when women were grateful to God for having brought them a child, they dedicated their child to God by making the child a nazirite. As an aside, perhaps this is part of why we have seen such a strong connection to women in this tractate. In any case, today people can no longer become nazirites. However, becoming pregnant and having children is still, despite modern technology, very difficult. Although, as a token of gratitude to God we cannot make our children nazirites, we can make a resolution to raise them to a life of Torah and good deeds, to bring them closer to their Jewish roots, to the Jewish people and to the land of Israel. As a father, that is one of the lessons that I learn from this tractate. Congratulations on making it through another tractate. May you have the strength and time to keep on learning more Mishnah! Tomorrow we begin Sota.