Talmud Nazir (E)

(2) I.e. although his vow ban a certain meaning even if taken at face value, and there is no need for us to emphasise the
first clause to the exclusion of the second, yet we do so.
(3)  Apparently this is taken as a clumsy way of saying: ‘If I do not make this cow get up, I vow abstinence from its
flesh.’
(4) Cf. supra p. 28, n. 2.
(5) The case of the DOOR.
(6) So that when he said figs he may have meant grapes.
(7) And when he spoke of the one, he thought of the other.
(8) Because there is no association between a door and grapes.
(9) Whilst admitting the necessity of restating the principle in our Mishnah, Raba objects to the explanation of Rami b.
Hama on the ground that the word ‘rises’ might mean with the help of others, whereas according to Rami b. Hama the
vow is effective only when the heifer rises of its own accord.
(10) Since the case of the door in the Mishnah is parallel to that of the heifer, any explanation applying to the heifer must
hold good if the door is substituted.
(11) And appears as if it will never rise, even if force is used.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 10b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 10b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 10b
and he says, ‘I undertake a nazirite-vow [to abstain] from wine if it does not stand up,’ and it then
stood up of its own accord. In Beth Shammai's opinion, the substance
1
 of this man's vow lay in his
intention to cause [the heifer] to rise by force,
2
 and this he did not do,
3
 whereas Beth Hillel are of the
opinion that [the vow was made] because [the heifer] was recumbent,
4
 and it has risen.
5
 
    If this is [the meaning of the Mishnah], how is the subsequent clause to be understood, viz.: R.
JUDAH SAID: EVEN THOUGH BETH SHAMMAI DID AFFIRM [THAT THE FORMULA WAS
OF SOME EFFECT], IT WAS ONLY WHERE HE SAYS, AND SHALL BE FORBIDDEN TO ME
AS A SACRIFICE ETC.’? Does [his vow] then, attach to the heifer at all?
6
 — [It must be] therefore,
that he said, for example, ‘I undertake a nazirite vow [to abstain] from its flesh if it should not stand
up,’ and it then stands up of its own accord. In Beth Shammai's opinion, the substance of this man's
VOW is his intention to cause [the heifer] to rise by force, and this he has not done, whereas
according to Beth Hillel, the substance of his vow lies in the fact that [the heifer] was recumbent,
and it has risen.
7
 
    But are Beth Hillel of the opinion that if [the heifer] does not stand up, [the man] becomes a
nazirite? Have they not said that [by a vow to abstain] from flesh, he does not become a nazirite?
8
 —
They were arguing on the premises of Beth Shammai. In our opinion, he does not become a nazirite
even if [the heifer] should not stand up, but you who say that he does become a nazirite
9
 should at
least admit that the substance of his vow lay in the fact that [the heifer] was recumbent, and it has
since risen. Beth Shammai reply that this is not so, and the substance of the man's vow lay in his
intention to cause [the heifer] to rise by force, and this he has not done.
10
____________________
(1) Lit., ‘the obligation’.
(2) Lit., ‘with his hand’. The word ‘stand up’ being taken to mean ‘stand up through me’.
(3) He therefore becomes a nazirite.
(4) And can only take effect if it remains recumbent.
(5) He does not therefore become a nazirite.
(6)  The words ‘it is forbidden to me as a sacrifice’ imply that the heifer itself was the object of the vow, whereas in
Raba's explanation it is the heifer's not standing up which is the condition for the operation of the man's naziriteship, and
he has no intention of attaching any sanctity to the heifer.
(7) But if it did not rise he would be a nazirite.
(8) Even as in the case of a vow to abstain from pressed figs, v. supra p. 32.
(9) Where he says simply, ‘I undertake to he a nazirite (and abstain) from flesh.’

---

(10) And so he becomes a nazirite.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 11a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 11a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 11a
MISHNAH. IF A CUP OF WINE DULY TEMPERED
1
 IS OFFERED TO A MAN, AND HE
SAYS, ‘I INTEND TO BE A NAZIRITE IN REGARD TO IT,’ HE BECOMES A NAZIRITE. ON
ONE OCCASION A CUP OF WINE WAS OFFERED TO A WOMAN ALREADY
INTOXICATED AND SHE SAID, ‘I INTEND TO BE A NAZIRITE IN REGARD TO IT. THE
SAGES RULED THAT ALL THAT SHE MEANT WAS TO FORBID IT TO HERSELF, AS A
SACRIFICE [IS FORBIDDEN]. GEMARA. You cite a case to disprove [the rule]! You begin by
saying that HE BECOMES A NAZIRITE, and then quote the case of the woman [who does not
become a nazirite], from which I should conclude that [by means of this formula] he forbids to
himself only this [cup that is offered to him] but is allowed to drink other wine? — There is a hiatus
[in the Mishnah], which should read: ‘If a cup of wine duly tempered is offered to a man, and he says
"I undertake a nazirite vow [to abstain] from it", he becomes a nazirite.’ If, however, he was
[already] intoxicated when he said ‘I intend to be a nazirite [and abstain] from it’,he does not become
a nazirite,
2
 (since he is accounted as having merely forbidden it to himself as a sacrifice is forbidden.
If you should object that he ought to have said so [unambiguously], [the reply is] that he thought
they would bring a fresh one and importune him, and so he thought, ‘I will say something to them
which will leave them in no doubt [as to my intention]). ON ONE OCCASION, TOO, A WOMAN
[ALREADY INTOXICATED etc.].
 
    MISHNAH. [IF A MAN SAYS,] ‘I DECLARE MYSELF A NAZIRITE, ON CONDITION
THAT I CAN DRINK WINE, OR CAN HAVE CONTACT WITH THE DEAD’, HE BECOMES A
NAZIRITE, AND ALL THESE THINGS ARE FORBIDDEN HIM. [IF HE SAYS,] ‘I WAS
AWARE THAT THERE IS SUCH A THING AS NAZIRITESHIP BUT I WAS NOT AWARE
THAT A NAZIRITE IS FORBIDDEN TO DRINK WINE’, HE IS BOUND [TO HIS VOW].
3
 R.
SIMEON, HOWEVER, RELEASES HIM.
4
 [IF HE SAYS,] ‘I WAS AWARE THAT A NAZIRITE
IS FORBIDDEN TO DRINK WINE,
5
 BUT I IMAGINED THAT THE SAGES WOULD GIVE ME
PERMISSION, SINCE I CANNOT DO WITHOUT WINE’, OR ‘SINCE I AM A SEXTON’,
6
 HE
IS RELEASED.
7
 R. SIMEON, HOWEVER, BINDS HIM [TO HIS VOW].
8
 GEMARA. Why does
R. Simeon not dissent from the first ruling [also]? — R. Joshua b. Levi said: R. Simeon did in fact
dissent from the first ruling also. Rabina said: In the opening clause, R. Simeon does not dissent,
because the condition [there attached to the vow]
9
 is contrary to an injunction of the Torah, and
whenever a condition is contrary to an injunction of the Torah, it is void.
10
 R. Joshua b. Levi, on the
other hand, considered that the words ON CONDITION here are equivalent to ‘except’.
11
 
    It has been taught in support of Rabina's view: If he said, ‘I declare myself a nazirite, on condition
that I may drink wine, or have contact with the dead,’ he becomes a nazirite and all these things are
forbidden to him, since the condition he lays down is contrary to an injunction of the Torah; and
whenever a condition is contrary to an injunction of the Torah,it is void.
12
 
    [IF HE SAYS] I WAS AWARE THAT A NAZIRITE IS FORBIDDEN TO DRINK WINE [etc.]:
In the preceding clause,
13
 we find it is [the Rabbis] who bind him [to his vow] and R. Simeon who
releases him [and why is it not the same here]? — Here, too, it should read: [The Rabbis] bind him
whilst R. Simeon releases.
 
    Alternatively, you need not reverse the text,
____________________
(1) Wine in ancient times was never drunk neat.
(2) His intention being to cease from drinking.
(3) I.e. be becomes a full nazirite

---