Comentário sobre Nazir 4:8

מי שאמר הריני נזיר. כולם נזירים – and he who caused each one of them to be seized within the time that is needed for an utterance by his fellow incidentally while the student greets his teacher, which is in order that he can say, “peace be upon you, my teacher [and rabbi].”

Introduction This mishnah teaches that a person can become a nazirite by seeing his friend take a nazirite vow and saying “I too.” The Talmud teaches that in order for this to be effective he must state “I too” as soon as he hears his friend vow, for only in such a way is it clear that he has vowed.

פי כפיו כו' – and he that would say, “my mouth is like his mouth [concerning abstention] from wine and my hair is like his hair from being sheared.

One who said, “Behold, I am a nazirite”, and his friend overheard and said “I too,” [and another one said] “I too”, all are nazirites. If the first one is released [from his vow], all are released. If the last one is released, he alone is released, and the others remain bound [by their vows]. The mishnah teaches that it is effective to state “I too” when one hears another take a nazirite vow. In this case, each person who took a later vow is dependent upon the earlier vows. If the first person asks a sage to release him from his vow, a process which we learned about in chapter nine of Nedarim, the latter are also released from their vows. In contrast, if the latter nazirites are released, those who vowed earlier are not released.

ושמע בעלה ואמר ואני אינו יכול להפר – for he already fulfilled her vow when he said: “and I [too],” but if his wife made a vow to be a Nazirite and another person heard it and said, “and I [also],” and afterwards her husband annulled it, it is not annulled for this one who said, “an I [also],” for the husband cannot abrogate a vow from its essence like a Sage.

If he said, “Behold, I am a nazirite”, and his companion overheard and said, “My mouth shall be as his mouth and my hair as his hair”, he becomes a nazirite. Besides saying “I too” he may also employ other hints that he wishes his status to be like that of the one who vowed. He may say that just as the other’s mouth cannot taste wine, so too my mouth cannot taste wine, or just as the other does not cut his hair, so too I won’t cut my hair. These are all clear enough statements in order to make him a nazirite.

[If he said,] “Behold, I am a nazirite,” and his wife overheard and said, “I too,” he can annul her vow, but his own remains binding. [If a woman says,] “Behold, I am a nazirite”, and her husband overhears and adds, “I too,” he cannot annul her vow. A wife can make her nazirite vow depend on her husband's by saying “I too.” He can annul her vow, since this is a vow that has in it the element of self-denial. If he annuls her vow, his is still valid because his does not depend on hers. However, if he makes his vow dependent on hers, he cannot annul her vow. This is because saying “I too” is a means of affirming her vow, and once a husband affirms his wife’s vow he can no longer annul it.

הריני נזיר ואת ואמרה אמן מיפר את שלה – and exactly when he said it to her in the language of a question, meaning to say, “and you, what do you say? Will you become a Nazirite like me or not?” Then he is enabled to annul [her vow], but if he said, “I am becoming a Nazirite, and you,” as a statement (i.e., not as a question), and she answered, “Amen,” he is not able to annul her vow for it exists for her.

Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with when a husband can annul his wife’s nazirite vow.

[If he says in conversation with his wife,] “Behold, I am a nazirite. What about you?” and she answers “Amen,” he can annul her vow, but his own remains binding. In this case, the husband has not confirmed his wife’s vow, but merely asked her if she would like to be a nazirite. The question itself cannot be construed as a confirmation of her vow because she has not yet vowed. Since he never confirmed her vow, he can annul it.

[But if she should say,] “Behold, I am a nazirite, what about you?” and he answers, “Amen,” he cannot annul her vow. However, if she says that she is a nazirite and then asks him if he too would like to be a nazirite and he says “Amen”, he has not only taken a nazirite vow, he has also confirmed her vow. By doing so he has relinquished the right to later annul her vow.

והיתה שותה יין ומיטמאה למתים – and afterwards, her husband annulled her vow,

Introduction A person who intentionally breaks their nazirite vow receives up to forty lashes, the same punishment received for breaking any negative commandment. This mishnah deals with a woman who broke her nazirite vow but did not know that her husband had already annulled it.

she receives forty stripes on account of the fact that she transgressed prior to his annulling her vow.

If a woman takes a nazirite vow and then drinks wine or is defiled by a corpse, she receives forty [lashes]. This section simply states that a woman who breaks her nazirite vow is punished by up to forty lashes, as is anyone who breaks a nazirite vow. The Talmud explains that this is true even if her husband annuls the vow after she broke it. Since she broke it while the vow was still valid, she has transgressed and is therefore punished.

תספוג מכת מרדות – from the words of the Scribes, and the whipping for rebelliousness/disobedience that are mentioned in every place are according to what the eyes of the judge see, and according to the needs of the hour and especially the sin that she has already committed, but regarding positive commandments such as “make a Sukkah” or “don’t make it,” “take a Lulav [and Etrog]” or he doesn’t take it,” we whip him until he does it, or until his soul departs.

If her husband annuls [her vow] and she did not know that he annulled it, and she drinks wine or is defiled by a corpse, she does not receive the forty [lashes]. Rabbi Judah says: even though she does not receive the forty [lashes] she should receive lashes for disobedience. In this case, the husband annulled the vow before she broke it, but she did not know that he had annulled it. When she drank wine or defiled herself (intentionally) she thought that she was breaking her vow. The case is therefore one of a person who intended to sin but did not know that what they were actually doing was not sinful. According to the first opinion she receives no punishment. However, Rabbi Judah adds that although she is not punished with the regular lashes, she receives “lashes for disobedience”. These are “derabbanan” lashes, which the court can hand out whenever it sees fit. Since she intended to be sinful, she deserves to be punished, even though she did not actually break any vow.

ואם שלה – such as the example that another person gave her [an animal] as a gift on the condition that her husband does not have control over them since usufruct (i.e., part of the wife’s estate of which the husband has the fruition without responsibility for loss or deterioration) and mort-main (i.e., wife’s estate held by her husband, which, in the case of her death or divorce, he must restore “in specie, being responsible with all his landed property for loss or deterioration) are mortgaged to her husband.

A woman takes a nazirite vow and sets aside the requisite animal [for the sacrifice] and then her husband subsequently annuls [her vow]: If the animal belonged to him, it can be put to pasture with the herd; If it belonged to her: the sin-offering is left to die, the burnt-offering is offered as an [ordinary] burnt-offering, and the peace-offering is offered as an [ordinary] peace-offering, and it may be eaten for one day [only], and it does not require loaves of bread.
If she has a lump sum of money [set aside for the purchase of these sacrifices] it is to be used for voluntary offerings;
If she has specified money: The money for the sin-offering is to be taken to the Dead Sea, the use of it is forbidden, but the laws of sacrilege do not apply; The money for the burnt-offering they bring a burnt-offering, and the laws of sacrilege do apply; The money for the peace-offering they bring a peace-offering, and it may be eaten for one day [only], and it does not require loaves of bread.
At the completion of a naziriteship a person must bring a sin-offering, a burnt-offering and a peace-offering (can also be translated as an offering of well-being. In Hebrew well-being, whole and peace are all from the same word “shalom”/“shalem”/“shlamim”). Our mishnah deals with a woman who took a nazirite vow and then either set aside the animals for her sacrifices or set aside money to be used to purchase those animals. This money may now be considered holy. The problem arises if the husband annuls her vow. The question is what to do with this money or with these animals.
Section one: If she set aside animals, the first question we must ask is to whom do the animals belong. If she set aside her husband’s animals, then when he annuls the vow none of the animals are considered sacred and they may all be returned to the herd. Since they were his animals, we know from the fact that he annulled her vow that he did not want her to use them as sacrifices and therefore they are not sacrifices.
However, if they were her animals, then they have become sacred, even though her vow was annulled. Therefore, the sin-offering is treated as are all sin-offerings whose owners have died. It must die. According to Rashi, in order to do so, it is put into a pen and starved to death. The burnt-offering is offered in its usual manner. The peace-offering is sacrificed. It must be eaten within one day, the same rule that applies to all peace-offerings for nazirites. However, unlike other peace-offerings by nazirites which are offered with loaves of bread, since she is not a nazirite she is not required to bring the usual loaves that accompany such offerings.
Section two: In this section she has set aside money. If she did not specify which coins would be used for which animal, then all of the coins are used to purchase voluntary offerings. The money is sacred so it must be used for sacrifices, but since nothing has been specified it can be used for what are basically generic offerings.
However, if the money has been set aside for each specific offering (i.e. these coins are for a sin-offering, etc.), then they are treated similarly to the way the animals were treated. The money for the sin-offering must be “killed”. The closest one can come to killing coins is by throwing them into the Dead Sea, where they will be of use to no one. One is not to benefit from these coins, but nevertheless, if one does, it is not considered sacrilege.
The money for the burnt-offering is used to buy a burnt-offering and the money for the peace-offering is used to buy the peace-offering. The rules here are the same as if she had already separated the animal itself.

חטאת תמות – we wait for it until it dies.

ונאכלין ליום אחד – like he peace offerings of the Nazirite which are not eaten other than during the day and night.

ואין טעונין לחם – for all peace offerings of a Nazirite require bread, and this is the case, for since the husband annulled her vow, these peace offerings do not require [a] bread [offering] (unlike the of offering of a Nazirite).

והיו לה מעות סתומים – that she had set undesignated coins for the sacrifices of a Nazirite, and she did not designate the 0 these for a sin-offering, and these for a burnt offering and these for a peace offering.

יפלו לנדבה – to the chests in the Temple where they would cast the rest of the monies as a free-will [to

לא נהנין ולא מועלין – ab ignition it is prohibited to benefit from them and if he benefited, he is not liable to bring a sacrifice of religious sacrilege that is mentioned regarding whomever benefits from that which is dedicated [to the Temple].

נזרק עליה אחד מן הדמים אינו יכול להפר – for after the blood is tossed [for her], she is able to drink wine and become defiled to the dead, and there is no longer a vow of self-affliction.

Introduction This mishnah continues to discuss the point until which a husband retains the right to annul his wife’s nazirite vow.

רבי עקיבא אומר אפילו נשחטה עליה אחת מכל הבהמות אינו יכול להפר – because of the loss of holy things.

If one of the kinds of blood has been sprinkled on her behalf, [the husband] can no longer annul [the vow]. Rabbi Akiba says: even if one of the animals has been slaughtered on her behalf, he can no longer annul [the vow]. According to the first opinion, once the blood from one of the sacrifices which the woman set aside for the end of her naziriteship has been sprinkled on the altar, the husband can no longer annul her vow. In other words, whereas the previous mishnah stated that even though she had set aside her sacrifices, he could still annul the vow, our mishnah teaches that once their blood has been sprinkled, it is too late. Rabbi Akiva sets the limit on the husband’s right to annul his wife’s vow slightly earlier. Once the animal has been slaughtered, the husband may no longer annul the vow.

תגלחת טומאה יפר – they need to return and to count a [period of] Naziriteship of purity and he can say that he doesn’t want a disgraceful wife, meaning to say, afflicted and prevented from drinking wine.

When is this true? If she is shaving [after observing the naziriteship] in purity, but if she is shaving after ritual defilement, he can [still] annul [the vow], because he can say, “I do not want a disgraced woman.” Rabbi says that he can annul [her vow] even if she is shaving [after observing the naziriteship] in purity, since he can say: “I do not want a woman who is shaved. This section limits that which was stated in the previous section. What was stated above was with regard to the sacrifices offered at the end of a naziriteship. However, if she was shaving and offering sacrifices after becoming impure, since she must go back and continue observing her naziriteship, he may still annul the vow. The reason that he has a right to annul this vow is that he may say that he does not want a woman who distorts her own beauty by becoming a nazirite, or in this case, by continuing to observe the nazirite restrictions. According to commentators, what makes her ugly is that she cannot drink wine or participate in many of life’s pleasures. Rabbi [Judah Hanasi] disagrees with the opinion in the beginning of section two, and also in section one. He holds that even after the sacrifices have been offered, the husband may continue to annul his wife’s vow because he may claim that he does not want her to shave her head. Only once she has shaven her head does he no longer have the right to annul the vow.

האיש מדיר את בנו בנזיר – when he is a minor until he reveals two [pubic] hairs (i.e., attains adulthood) after he will be thirteen years and one day old, and all of the laws of Naziriteship are upon hm and his father brings his sacrifices and if he becomes defiled he brings a sacrifice of defilement and that one (i.e., his father) imposes a vow upon him when he says to him: “you will be a Nazirite,” or “so-and-so my son is a Nazirite, and no one will be able to prevent it, neither his son nor the relatives, and this matter is Halakha from the authority of the received Tradition.

Introduction This mishnah teaches that a father may impose a nazirite vow on his son, but that the vow is valid only if the son or the relatives do not protest. Most of the mishnah discusses a case where the son or relatives protest, thereby voiding the vow, but the father has already set aside the animals for the sacrifices or has set aside money, with which to buy the sacrifices. The end of the mishnah is exactly the same as that found in mishnah four. To understand the rules regarding the sacrifices look back there.

כיצד גלח או שגלחוהו קרובים – How shall the father act regarding the sacrifices at the time when the son shaved and he did not accept the Naziriteship or that his relatives shaved him, or that he protested or that the relatives protested on his behalf, that the Naziriteship is void, and especially when he protested, or the relatives protested immediately. But if he began to observe his Naziriteship, or accepted upon himself the Naziriteship, he further is not able to protest, neither him nor his relatives.

A man may impose a nazirite vow on his son, but a woman cannot impose a nazirite vow on her son. How so? In theory a father can impose a nazirite vow on his son and then not cut his hair for the term of his naziriteship, prevent him from becoming impure or eating/drinking things which derive from grapes. A father can impose this vow only so long as his son is a minor. In contrast, a woman cannot impose a nazirite vow on her son.

[If the boy] shaves himself or is shaved by his relatives, or if he protests or his relatives protest on his behalf, Then if [the father] had set aside an animal [for the sacrifice]: the sin-offering is left to die, the burnt-offering is offered as an [ordinary] burnt-offering, and the peace-offering is offered as an [ordinary] peace-offering, and it may be eaten for one day [only], and it does not require loaves of bread. If he had a lump sum of money [set aside for the purchase of these sacrifices] it is to be used for voluntary offerings; If he had specified money: The money for the sin-offering is to be taken to the Dead Sea, the use of it is forbidden, but the laws of sacrilege do not apply; The money for the burnt-offering they bring a burnt-offering, and the laws of sacrilege do apply; The money for the peace-offering they bring a peace-offering, and it may be eaten for one day [only], and it does not require loaves of bread. However, the father’s imposed vow is only valid so long as the neither the son nor other relatives protest. If the relatives or the son protest, or if they perform an action which proves that they do not want the child to be a nazirite, the son is not a nazirite. In such a case a problem will be created if the father has already separated the requisite sacrifices. Since this is the same problem that exists should a husband annul his wife’s nazirite vow, the solutions are the same. For more detail, see the commentary to mishnah four.

האיש מגלח על נזירות וביו ואין האשה מגלחת על נזירות אביה – and even if she is the daughter who inherits, and this matter is a Halakha from the authority of the received Tradition.

Introduction In this mishnah we learn that under certain circumstances, a man may use for himself money that his father set aside to purchase his own nazirite sacrifices. However, a woman cannot do so, even though she can potentially inherit her father. This difference mirrors the difference in the previous mishnah, where a man can impose a nazirite vow on his son but a woman cannot do so.

אמר רבי יוסי הרי אלו יפלו לנדבה וכו' – but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yosi, but rather, whether his father died and he (i.e., the son) said: “I am a Nazirite on the condition that I will shave on [account of] the monies of his father whether both he and his father were Nazirites and his father died, he shaves on behalf of the Naziriteship of his father and if there were many sons and one of them anticipated and shaved for the Naziriteship of his father, he benefits/is worthy.

A man can shave [with offerings set aside for] his father’s naziriteship but a woman cannot shave [with offerings set aside for] her father’s naziriteship. How so? The introduction to the mishnah establishes that a man may sometimes use money that was set aside by his father for his own nazirite offerings. This contrasts with the cases in mishnayoth four and six, in which the money which was set aside for sacrifices before the vow was annulled cannot be used by anyone else, but rather must be used for freewill offerings.

If a man’s father had been a nazirite, and had set apart a lump sum of money for [the sacrifices of] his naziriteship and died and [the son] said, “Behold, I am a nazirite on condition that I may shave with my father’s money.” The mishnah now explains how this can happen. If the father was a nazirite and set aside money to be used for his sacrifices, and then died before he completed his term of naziriteship, the son may use the money set aside, provided he stipulate that he will do so.

Rabbi Yose said: this money is to be used for freewill-offerings, this man cannot shave [with offerings set aside for] his father’s naziriteship. Who is the one who can shave [with offerings set aside for] his father’s naziriteship? He who was a nazirite together with his father, and whose father had set apart a lump sum of money for his nazirite [sacrifices] and died. This one can shave [with offerings set aside for] his father’s naziriteship. Rabbi Yose disagrees and holds that in such a case the money must be used for freewill-offerings, as was instructed in mishnayoth four and six, in cases where the money had not been directed toward specific sacrifices. The reason why this doesn’t work in this case is that the son was not a nazirite while the father was still alive. The only time that he can use his the money that his father had set aside is when his father and he were both nazirites at the same time.