Комментарий к Назир 9:1

הגוים אין להם נזירות – even though that heathens sacrifice offerings for vows and free-will donations like Israelites, if he took the vow of becoming a Nazirite, the laws of the Nazirite vow do not apply to him and he is permitted to drink wine and defile himself through contact with the dead, as it is written at the beginning of the portion of the Nazirite (Numbers 6:2): “Speak to the Israelites.” Israelites take the vow of becoming a Nazirite; heathens do not take the vow of becoming a Nazirite.

Introduction This mishnah deals with the subjectivity to nazirite vows of three, typically somewhat marginal groups of people in rabbinic thought and society: Gentiles, women and slaves.

שהוא כופה את עבדו – h forces him (i.e. his slave) to drink wine and to become defiled through contact with the dead against his will.

Gentiles are not subject [to the laws] of naziriteship. The opening verse of the passage in Numbers which deals with the nazirite laws states, “Speak to the children of Israel” (Numbers 6:2). From here the rabbis conclude that Gentiles are not subject to the Jewish nazirite laws.

ואינו כופה את אשתו – against her will and in other vows which have affliction of the soul or being idle from work, the master cannot force the slave , but rather they are idle from them on their own, as it is written (Numbers 30:2): “[or takes an oath] imposing an obligation on himself;” he whose soul is acquired by him, excluding a slave whose soul is no acquired by him and similarly all of the oaths that a slave took whether they have an affliction of the soul or whether they don’t have an affliction of the soul or his master must force him for on their own they are idle, for he has no domain to himself, but vows which lack affliction of the soul nor have idleness from work to his master, the slave is obligated to fulfill them and his master is not able to force him upon them to cancel them.

Women and slaves are subject [to the laws] of naziriteship. In contrast, the children of Israel includes women and slaves (those working in Israelite households).

מיפר נדרי שאתו ואינו מיפר נדרו עבדו – if he is satisfied/reconciled with the vow that his wife made after he nullified it, and he wants that she should fulfill it, she is not obligated to fulfill it after he has nullified it one time, and if he forces his slave to transgress his vow and afterwards he wants to have him fulfill it, the slave is obligated to fulfill it.

The nazirite vow is more stringent in the case of women than in the case of slaves, for a man can compel his slave [to break his vow] but he cannot compel his wife [to do so]. The mishnah now compares the situation of the woman/wife with that of the slave. Both are subject to the authority of their "masters", but in different ways. In one way the rules for the women are more stringent. A master can at any point come up to his slave and say that the slave can no longer keep his nazirite vow and that he must perform one of the prohibitions. This is not voiding the vow, but preventing the slave from observing a vow that he remains obligated to observe. In other words, the master has total control over the slave’s work life. A husband does not have this power over his wife, for she is certainly not his slave. Although, as we shall see below, a husband may annul his wife’s vow, once the vow has been confirmed, he cannot impede her nazirite observance.

הפר לעבדו יצא לחירות משלים נזירותו – not specifically voided, but rather, forced his slave to drink wine and/or to defile himself through contact with the dead, and afterwards, the slave went free, the [now-former] slave is obligated to complete his Naziriteship after he went out to freedom. And Maimonides explained if he annulled his slave, he goes out to freedom, for a person who says to his slave, “it is annulled for you,” the master’s privilege over the slave rebounds from him (i.e., has no legal effect) and the slaves goes out to freedom on account of this but he must complete his Naziriteship, but my heart hesitates at this explanation.

[The nazirite vow] is more stringent in the case of slaves than in the case of women, for he can void the vows of his wife, but he cannot void the vows of his slaves. If he voids his wife’s [vow], it is void for ever, but if he voids his slave’s vow, [if] the slave becomes free he must complete his naziriteship. On the other hand, a husband can annul his wife’s nazirite vow (as he can all her vows) completely, such that she is no longer subject to the vow. In contrast, while he can prevent his slave from observing his vow, technically the vow is still valid and the slave is still obligated to observe a naziriteship. If he is freed, all of the sages agree that he must complete his naziriteship. The master did not void the naziriteship, he merely delayed its observance.

עבד מכנגד פניו – [a slave] who fled from his master after he took the vow of Naziriteship.

When [the slave] passes from [his master's] presence: Rabbi Meir says: he may not drink [wine]. Rabbi Yose says: he may drink [wine]. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose disagree over whether the slave must observe his naziriteship when not in the presence of the master. Rabbi Meir says that he must observe the naziriteship and not drink wine, even though in the master’s presence the master wants him to drink wine. Rabbi Yose disagrees and holds that as long as he is enslaved to his master, he must continue to fulfill his master’s wishes, in or out of his presence. As an aside note, it seems to me that this mishnah is demonstrating a key difference in the rabbinic perception of wives and slaves. Rabbinic ideology in this period was certainly patriarchal, as was that of all of their surrounding society. However, the rabbis don’t view the wife, despite her obligations to her husband, as a slave to him. The Torah gave the husband a right to void her vows, but the rabbis limit that to a formal process. They do not extrapolate and conclude that therefore a husband’s control over his wife is like that over his slave. Rather, the Torah-bequeathed power remains local, and perhaps of a different nature than that of a master’s control over his slave.

ר"מ אומר לא ישתה יין – in order that he will suffer and return to his master who will force him to violate his vow and he will be permitted to drink wine.

ור' יוסי אומר ישתה – that he will not get sick and die for he will eventually return to his master and his master will search for him and return him, and it is found that it is as if he is in the domain of his master.