Talmud su 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:
(Se uno dicesse :) "Sarò un nazirite di chartzanim" (chicchi d'uva) l "di zagim" (bucce d'uva), "dalla rasatura" o "dall'impurità", diventa un nazirite e tutti i dettagli del naziritismo si applica a lui. [Se menziona qualcuno di questi, diventa un nazirita, come se avesse detto: "Sarò un nazirita", non qualificato. E poiché alla fine della Mishnah viene insegnato che non tutti i dettagli del naziritismo si applicano a un perpetuo nazirite (Nazir olam) e uno shimshon nazirite, qui viene insegnato che tutti i dettagli del naziritismo si applicano a lui.] (Se uno disse :) "Sarò come Shimshon", come il figlio di Manoach "," come il marito di Dalila "," come quello che sradicò le porte di Azza "," come quello i cui occhi furono sgranati dai Filistei , "diventa un nazirite Shimshon. Qual è la differenza tra un nazirite perpetuo e un nazirite shimshon? [La nostra Mishnah è" carente ", e questo è ciò che si intende:" E se giurò di diventare un nazirite perpetuo, diventerebbe un perpetua nazirite. E qual è la differenza tra un perpetuo nazirite e uno shimshon nazirite? "] Un perpetuo nazirite—se i suoi capelli diventano pesanti, può schiarirlo con un rasoio [ogni dodici mesi. Questo deriva da (l'istanza di) Avshalom, che era un perpetuo nazirita, e riguardo a chi è scritto (II Samuele 14; 26)): "Ed era alla fine di Yamim, allo Yamim che si sarebbe rasato; poiché divenne pesante su di lui e lo radesse ", ed è scritto altrove (Levitico 25:29):" yamim "(nel contesto:" un anno di giorni ") sarà la sua redenzione"] e ne porta tre animali (il giorno in cui lo rade). E se diventa impuro, porta un'offerta (per espiare) per la sua impurità. Uno Shazshon nazirita—se i suoi capelli diventano pesanti, potrebbe non schiarirli, e se diventa impuro, non porta un'offerta per l'impurità. [E potrebbe diventare impuro persino ab initio, poiché Shimshon diventerebbe impuro da (contatto con corpi morti), questo servendo come fonte (per l'halachah). Quanto al nostro apprendimento: "se diventa impuro", il che implica "dopo il fatto", ma non ab initio— Perché è stato insegnato nella prima parte della Mishnah rispetto a un perpetuo nazirita: "e se diventa impuro", viene anche insegnato alla fine, rispetto a uno Shimshon nazirita: "e se diventa impuro".
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..