Se alguém jurou ser um nazireu e foi trazer sua besta e descobriu que ela havia sido roubada, [Quando ele fez o voto, ele (presumiu que) tinha animais, e foi com base nessa suposição que ele jurou, pretendendo que suas ofertas naziritas viessem dessas bestas. E ele foi e descobriu que haviam sido roubados, de modo que se arrependia de ter jurado ser nazireu.—Se ele jurou antes que seu animal fosse roubado, ele é um nazireu [E o sábio não pode absolvê-lo de seu voto com essa "abertura", pois é "nolad" (algo "nascido" após o voto) e "nolad" não pode ser usado como uma abertura.], e se ele prometeu depois que seu animal foi roubado, ele não é um nazireu. [Se ele dissesse: "Se eu soubesse que tinha sido roubado, não teria jurado, isso é uma abertura, e o sábio pode absolvê-lo do voto.] E Nachum Hamadi caiu nesse erro quando os nazireus vieram de o exílio e descobriu que o templo havia sido destruído. [Eles juraram que o templo havia sido destruído, e ele os absolveu, e os sábios disseram-lhe que aquilo era nolad, o que não pode ser usado como uma abertura. de acordo com os sábios.] Nachum Hamadi disse-lhes: "Você sabia que o templo havia sido destruído, juraria?" Eles responderam negativamente, e ele os absolveu. E quando os sábios foram avisados, eles disseram a ele: Todo mundo que jurou naziritismo antes da destruição do templo é um nazireu (todos que juraram naziritismo) depois que o templo foi destruído não são nazireus.
Bartenura on Mishnah Nazir
מי שנדר בנזיר – and at the time that he took the vow [of becoming a Nazirite], he had the animals [for the sacrifice] and with the knowledge/intention that it was for this purpose he made the vow that he would offer up his sacrifices from those animals, and he went and found that they had been stolen and on account of this, regretted that he took the vow of becoming a Nazirite.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nazir
Introduction
This mishnah deals with the concept that a vow, in this case a nazirite vow, may not be released by a sage based on something that occurred after the vow was taken. This concept was already taught by mishnah Nedarim 9:2, so look there for further reference. Our mishnah illustrates this principle using two cases.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Nazir
אם עד שלא נגנבו בהמותיו נדר, הרי זה נזיר – and a Sage should not absolve him through this opening for retracting a vow (i.e., suggesting reasons which, if known at the time, would have prevented the person from making the vow), for it was a novel incident changing the aspects of a vow and eventually nullifies it, and we don’t open with a novel incident.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nazir
If one vowed to be a nazirite and went to bring his animal [for the sacrifice] and found that it had been stolen: If he had taken the nazirite vow before his animal was stolen, he is [still] a nazirite. But if he had taken the nazirite vow after his animal was stolen, he is not a nazirite. If a person vowed a nazirite vow and then separated an animal to use as a sacrifice and then the animal was stolen, the sage may not release him from his vow, even though now that the animal was stolen he regrets having taken the vow. This is because the theft of the animal is something that happened after the vow, and therefore cannot be used as grounds for the vow’s release. However, if the animal was, unbeknownst to him, stolen before he vowed, and then he declared that the animal would be used as his nazirite sacrifice, and then discovered that it was stolen, the vow can be released. This is because at the time he made his vow, he was basing it on the mistaken premise that he would be able to use that animal as a sacrifice. This was already in error and hence the vow may be released.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Nazir
ואם לאחר שנגנבו נדר – and he stated: “had I known that they would be stolen, I would not have made this vow, this is an opening that the Sage could annul.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nazir
It was this mistake that Nahum the Mede made. When nazirites arrived [in Jerusalem] from the Diaspora and found the Temple destroyed, Nahum the Mede said to them, “Had you known that the Temple would be destroyed, would you have become nazirites?” They answered, no, and Nahum the Mede released them [from their vow]. When the matter came before the sages they said to him: whoever vowed a nazirite vow before the destruction of the Temple is a nazirite, but if after the destruction of the temple, he is not a nazirite. The mishnah now relates an interesting story that happened right after the destruction of the Temple. A group of nazirites from the Diaspora, who had made their nazirite vows before the destruction of the Temple, came to Jerusalem to complete their naziriteship and to offer their sacrifices. When they saw that the Temple had been destroyed they came to Nahum the Mede to ask them what to do. He asked them if they would have still made their vows had they known that the Temple would be destroyed, to which they answered no. The reason why they clearly would answer no is that after the Temple was destroyed there was no way to end nazirite vows, and the person is stuck being a nazirite forever! Nahum the Mede mistakenly released them from their vow. The Sages pointed out to him that this was mistaken because at the time when they vowed the Temple still stood. Only people who make nazirite vows after the destruction of the Temple may be released from their vows using the Temple as grounds for the release.
