Talmud for Nazir 1:2

הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מִן הַחַרְצַנִּים, וּמִן הַזַּגִּים, וּמִן הַתִּגְלַחַת, וּמִן הַטֻּמְאָה, הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר וְכָל דִּקְדּוּקֵי נְזִירוּת עָלָיו. הֲרֵינִי כְשִׁמְשׁוֹן, כְּבֶן מָנוֹחַ, כְּבַעַל דְּלִילָה, כְּמִי שֶׁעָקַר דַּלְתוֹת עַזָּה, כְּמִי שֶׁנִּקְּרוּ פְלִשְׁתִּים אֶת עֵינָיו, הֲרֵי זֶה נְזִיר שִׁמְשׁוֹן. מַה בֵּין נְזִיר עוֹלָם לִנְזִיר שִׁמְשׁוֹן. נְזִיר עוֹלָם, הִכְבִּיד שְׂעָרוֹ, מֵקֵל בְּתַעַר וּמֵבִיא שָׁלשׁ בְּהֵמוֹת. וְאִם נִטְמָא, מֵבִיא קָרְבַּן טֻמְאָה. נְזִיר שִׁמְשׁוֹן, הִכְבִּיד שְׂעָרוֹ, אֵינוֹ מֵקֵל. וְאִם נִטְמָא, אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קָרְבַּן טֻמְאָה:

(If one said:) "I shall be a Nazirite from chartzanim" (kernels of grapes)l "from zagim" (husks of grapes), "from shaving," or "from uncleanliness," he becomes a Nazirite and all the details of Naziritism apply to him. [If he mentions any one of these, he becomes a Nazirite, as if he had said: "I shall be a Nazirite," unqualified. And because it is taught at the end of the Mishnah that not all the details of Naziritism apply to a perpetual Nazirite (Nazir olam) and a Shimshon Nazirite, it is taught here that all the details of Naziritism apply to him.] (If one said:) "I shall be like Shimshon," like the son of Manoach," "like the husband of Delilah," "like the one who uprooted the doors of Azzah," "like the one whose eyes were gouged out by the Philistines," he becomes a Shimshon Nazirite. What is the difference between a perpetual Nazirite and a Shimshon Nazirite? [Our Mishnah is "lacking," and this is what is meant: "And if he vowed to become a perpetual Nazirite, he becomes a perpetual Nazirite. And what is the difference between a perpetual Nazirite and a Shimshon Nazirite?"] A perpetual Nazirite — if his hair grows heavy, he can lighten it with a razor [every twelve months. This is derived from (the instance of) Avshalom, who was a perpetual Nazirite, and concerning whom it is written (II Samuel 14;26)): "And it was at the end of yamim, to the yamim that he would shave; for it became heavy upon him and he would shave it," and it is written elsewhere (Leviticus 25:29): "yamim" (in context: "a year of days") shall be its redemption."] and he brings three beasts (on the day that he shaves it). And if he becomes unclean, he brings an offering (to atone) for his uncleanliness. A Shimshon Nazirite — if his hair grows heavy, he may not lighten it, and if he becomes unclean, he does not bring an offering for is uncleanliness. [And he may become unclean even ab initio, for Shimshon would become unclean by (contact with dead bodies), this serving as the source (for the halachah). As to our learning: "if he becomes unclean," which implies "after the fact," but not ab initio — Because it was taught in the first part of the Mishnah in respect to a perpetual Nazirite: "and if he becomes unclean," it is also taught at the end, in respect to a Shimshon Nazirite: "and if he becomes unclean."]

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin

Mishnah: “Be married to me preliminarily by this date fruit,” etc. The Mishnah [presents the case] that she said, I cannot accept this one, try that one; I cannot accept this one, try that one⁵⁶In this interpretation, if the man said: Be preliminarily married to me by this, by that one, etc., she would be married if all dates together were worth a peruṭah. If the preliminary marriage must be mentioned every time, it must be that the proposal was rejected in between. Then not any date but specifically the last one must be worth a peruṭah.. “By this and by that one and by that one.⁵⁷The triple mention is the version of the Mishnah in the Babli and most independent Mishnah mss.” Who is the Tanna of Wawim? Rebbi Jehudah. But for Rebbi Meïr, either this or this or that one⁵⁸The positions of Rebbis Jehudah and Meïr about the interpretation of conjunctions in multiple statements are discussed in Giṭṭin 9:7, Notes 93–101..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot

How does Rebbi Ismael explain the verse? ⁷²Lev. 5:4. The causative refers to the future.Or a person, if he would swear blurting out with his lips, a general statement. To cause evil or cause good, a detail. A general statement followed by a detail; the general statement contains only what is in the detail. But the detail only contains matters of causing evil or good! But it is so: To cause evil or cause good, a detail. Anything which a person will blurt out, a general statement. A detail followed by a general statement, everything is included; this adds matters directed towards the past. But it is so: Or a person, if he would swear blurting out with his lips, a general statement. To cause evil or cause good, a detail. Anything which a person will blurt out, a general statement. A general statement followed by a detail followed by a general statement, you only argue in the pattern of the detail⁸³In the version of Sifra(Introduction1), in the list of the thirteen hermeneutical principles of R. Ismael one finds (5) a general statement followed by a detail, (6) a detail followed by a general statement, (7) a general statement followed by a detail followed by a general statement you only argue following the pattern of the detail, (8) a general statement dependent on the detail, (9) a detail dependent on the general statement. Rules 8 and 9 mean that if the general statement can only be understood by the detail or vice versa, rules 5 and 6 do not apply. It then is explained in §7 that if a general statement is followed by a detail, only the detail is intended. §8: If a detail is followed by a general statement, the general statement adds to the detail. Examples are Lev. 1:2: From animals, from cattle, or from small cattle. This implies that sacrifices are restricted to cattle, sheep, or goats. Ex. 22:9: A donkey, an ox, a sheep, or any animal. The rules of caretakers apply to any animal. Then it becomes a problem how to treat a verse which contains general statement, detail, general statement, whether to apply rule 5 (eliminating the final general statement by rule 9), or rule 6 (eliminating the first general statement by rule 8), or rule 7. In the preceding derivation, the arguments have been suppressed that rules 8 and 9 do not apply and, therefore, only rule 7 is relevant. The standard example for an application of rule 7 is Deut. 14:26, about permitted uses of Second Tithe money at the place of the Sanctuary: You may spend the money for anything you desire(general), for cattle, or small cattle, or wine, or liquor(detail), or anything you wish(general). The common denominator of the items in the detail describes animal or vegetable food; Second Tithe money can be used for any food derived from animals (generated from semen) or plants (growing from seeds).
Since the first part of Lev. 5:4 fits Rule 7, it is clear that the rule applies not only to oaths intended to cause good or evil but to a larger set of oaths which, however, have to conform to the idea underlying “causing good or bad things”. Obviously one of the ideas is that events caused are later in time than the cause. This is R. Ismael’s interpretation of the verse. Babli 26a.. Since the detail is explicit, matters of causing evil or good, from where matters not causing evil or good? ⁸⁴Quote from the Mishnah.“He answered him, from the additional text of the verse^73,The continuation of the quote, anything which a person will blurt out in an oath, which seems to be superfluous since the sentence starts: Or a person who would swear blurting out with his lips. The addition indicates that the verse should not be interpreted narrowly. Cf. Note 83.⁸⁵This is not an additional argument. The additional text shows that the rule to be applied is rule 7, not rule 5. R. Aqiba follows a different system. For him the sentence structure is not general, detail, general but expansive, restrictive, expansive, which he reads as including everything except what is completely different from the detail quoted as restriction.. He answered, just as the verse added for this, the verse added for the other⁸⁶The text of R. Aqiba’s answer is the text of the Mishnah in the Babli. It is known that the separate Mishnah in the Yerushalmi is not from the Yerushalmi text. The Mishnah text in Maimonides’s autograph is that of the separate Yerushalmi Mishnah..” You cannot⁸⁷The Mishnah cannot be quoted as proof that R. Ismael conceded to R. Aqiba., as Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So did Rebbi Ismael¹¹Who is R. Aqiba’s opponent. All of Mishnah 1 is R. Aqiba’s teaching. R. Ismael opposes adding backward looking oaths as blurted oaths. answer Rebbi Aqiba. Do we find cases where one is liable for intentional action because of a false oath but if in oblivion because of a blurted oath¹²A future directed oath, where it cannot be verified instantly whether it will be kept or violated, is an actionless crime and cannot be prosecuted (cf. Note 3). The preconditions of a sacrifice for a blurted oath negate the possibility of judicial penalties.? Could he not have objected, do we find cases where one is liable for intentional action because of a false oath and he has to bring a sacrifice¹³If R. Aqiba did accept R. Joḥanan’s argument, it would be possible for a person to be flogged for violating the prohibition of perjury (Lev. 19:12) and still be liable for a sacrifice. This would make R. Ismael’s objection irrelevant.? He said to him⁸⁸R. Aqiba to R. Ismael., do you agree that there are cases which are not matters of causing evil or good, even if they are not written⁸⁹Since they are not mentioned in the verse. For לי נן read לֵי[ת אִי]נֻּן.? He told him⁹⁰R. Ismael to R. Aqiba., even though I accept cases which are not matters of causing evil or good, are they only written if they be matters of causing evil or good⁹¹It is obvious from rule 7 that the obligation of a variable sacrifice for a blurted oath must hold for a larger set than “causing bad or good things”. The only problem is to define this larger set and the causative employed definitively excludes oaths regarding the past. The Tanna of the Mishnah cannot accept R. Ismael’s hermeneutical rules.? Therefore never for the past⁹²Since the oath is void, he is prevented from sacrificing if it was unintentional. If it was intentional he can be prosecuted for a vain oath, forbidden in the Ten Commandments..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse