Talmud sobre 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:
(Si uno dijo :) "Seré un nazareo de chartzanim" (granos de uvas) l "de zagim" (cáscaras de uva), "de afeitado" o "de impureza", se convierte en nazareo y todos los detalles del naziritismo se aplican a él. [Si menciona cualquiera de estos, se convierte en nazareo, como si hubiera dicho: "Seré un nazareo", sin reservas. Y debido a que se enseña al final de la Mishná que no todos los detalles del naziritismo se aplican a un nazirita perpetuo (Nazir olam) y a un nazareo de Shimshon, aquí se enseña que todos los detalles del naziritismo se aplican a él.] (Si uno dijo :) "Seré como Shimshon", como el hijo de Manoach, "como el esposo de Dalila", "como el que desarraigó las puertas de Azzah", "como aquel a quien los filisteos le arrancaron los ojos". , "se convierte en un nazareo de Shimshon. ¿Cuál es la diferencia entre un nazareo perpetuo y un nazareo de Shimshon? [Nuestra Mishná" carece ", y esto es lo que significa:" Y si él prometió convertirse en un nazareo perpetuo, se convierte en un Nazirita perpetua. ¿Y cuál es la diferencia entre un nazareo perpetuo y un nazareo shimshon? "] Un nazareo perpetuo—si su cabello se vuelve pesado, puede aligerarlo con una navaja [cada doce meses. Esto se deriva de (la instancia de) Avshalom, que era un nazareo perpetuo, y sobre quién está escrito (II Samuel 14; 26)): "Y fue al final de yamim, a los yamim que se afeitaría; porque se hizo pesado sobre él y se lo afeitaría ", y está escrito en otra parte (Levítico 25:29):" yamim "(en contexto:" un año de días ") será su redención"] y trae tres bestias (el día que se afeita). Y si se vuelve impuro, trae una ofrenda (para expiar) por su impureza. Un nazareo de Shimshon—si su cabello se vuelve pesado, puede que no lo aclare, y si se vuelve inmundo, no trae una ofrenda por su impureza. [Y puede volverse inmundo incluso ab initio, porque Shimshon se volvería inmundo por (contacto con cadáveres), esto sirve como la fuente (para la halajá). En cuanto a nuestro aprendizaje: "si se vuelve inmundo", lo que implica "después del hecho", pero no ab initio— Debido a que se enseñó en la primera parte de la Mishná con respecto a un nazareo perpetuo: "y si se vuelve inmundo", también se enseña al final, con respecto a un nazareo de Shimshon: "y si se vuelve inmundo".
Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin
Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot
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 verse73,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..