Talmud Nazir (E)

(4)  He does not become a nazirite at all, P. Simeon being of opinion that a nazirite vow is not effective unless it
comprises all the things forbidden to a nazirite, v. supra 3b.
(5) [Add, ‘or that a nazirite may have no contact with the dead.’]
(6) [And therefore thought the Rabbis would permit me to come in contact with the dead.]
(7) He does not become a nazirite at all.
(8) He becomes a full nazirite.
(9) That he should be allowed to touch a dead body or drink wine.
(10) And therefore the vow stands.
(11) Hence the vow was not all-inclusive, and therefore R. Simeon regards it as null.
(12) Tosef. Naz. II, 1.
(13) Where he says he did not know that wine is forbidden.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 11b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 11b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 11b
[and we may explain thus]. In the first clause, where he makes a nazirite vow [to abstain] from one
thing
1
 only, according to the Rabbis, who hold that [the nazirite vow takes effect] even though he
forswears one thing only, he becomes a nazirite and [the things forbidden to a nazirite] are forbidden
to him; whereas according to R. Simeon who holds that [the nazirite vow does not take effect] until
he forswears all of them, [all the things forbidden to a nazirite] are permitted to him. In the
subsequent clause where he forswears all, and desires release as regards one thing, according to the
Rabbis who declare him to be a nazirite even though he forswears one thing only, if he desires
release as regards one only, he is released [from all]; according to R. Simeon who requires him to
forswear them all, he cannot obtain release from one, until he obtains release from all. This is the
reason we have the reading [in the second clause]: R. SIMEON BINDS HIM.
 
    Yet another solution is possible. The controversy concerns vows [broken] under pressure,
2
 and the
difference [between R. Simeon and the Rabbis] is the same as that between Samuel and R. Assi [in
the following passage]. For we have learnt: Four types of vows were remitted by the Sages,
3
incentive Vows,
4
 vows of exaggeration,
5
 inadvertent vows
6
 and vows [broken] under pressure.
7
 And
[commenting thereon] R. Judah said: ‘R. Assi ruled that it was necessary with these four types of
vow to seek remission from a Sage. When I told this to Samuel, he said to me, The Tanna says that
the Sages have remitted them, and you say that they must still be asked to remit them!’ The Rabbis
agree with Samuel,
8
 R. Simeon with R. Assi.
9
 
    MISHNAH. [SHOULD A MAN SAY,] ‘I DECLARE MYSELF A NAZIRITE AND I
UNDERTAKE TO POLL A NAZIRITE’,
10
 AND SHOULD HIS COMPANION, HEARING THIS,
SAY: ‘I TOO, AND I UNDERTAKE TO POLL A NAZIRITE’, THEN, IF THEY ARE CLEVER
THEY WILL POLL EACH OTHER; OTHERWISE THEY MUST POLL OTHER NAZIRITES.
 
    GEMARA. The question was propounded: If his companion, on hearing [his vow], says [simply]:
‘I TOO’, what are the consequences? Does [the remark] ‘I TOO’ embrace the whole of the original
statement,
11
 or does it embrace only half of it? If it should be decided that it embraces only half of
the statement,is this to be the first half or the second half? — Come and hear: [AND HIS
COMPANION, HEARING THIS, SAYS:] I TOO, AND I UNDERTAKE TO POLL A NAZIRITE,
THEN IF THEY ARE CLEVER THEY WILL POLL EACH OTHER. From the fact that he is made
to say both I TOO’ and ‘I UNDERTAKE ,it may be inferred that ‘I TOO’ has reference to half of the
statement only.
 
    Quite so: it has reference to half of the statement only, but is this the first half or the second half?
— This follows from the same [passage]. For since he is made to say AND I UNDERTAKE TO
POLL’
12
 it follows that ‘I Too’ has reference to the first half.
 

---

    R. Huna, the son of R. Joshua said to Raba: How can we be sure that this is so? May we not
suppose that ‘I TOO’ really refers to the whole statement, and that the additional ‘AND I
UNDERTAKE’, merely confirms his Undertaking? For if you do not admit this, [what do you make
of] the subsequent [Mishnah] that reads: [Should a man say:] ‘I undertake half the polling of a
nazirite’, and should his companion, hearing this, say: ‘I too, I undertake half the polling of a
nazirite’?
13
 Are there here two sections to which he can be referring? We can only suppose that there
he is merely repeating ‘I have undertaken this obligation’, and in this case too [it is possible] that he
is merely repeating ‘I have undertaken this obligation.’ Raba replied: How now! If you are prepared
to say that in the first [Mishnah the words ‘I UNDERTAKE ETC.’] are of importance, but not in the
subsequent one, then they are repeated in the subsequent one — unnecessarily, it is true — because
they are included in the first one where it is important,
14
 but if you maintain that it is of importance
neither in the first [Mishnah] nor in the subsequent one, would it be included unnecessarily in both?
R. Isaac b. Joseph citing R. Johanan said: If a man instructs his representative
____________________
(1) I.e., one of the things forbidden a
(2) Viz., his inability to live without wine.
(3) I.e., without the need of remission being asked for.
(4) E.g.. ‘I vow . . . if I pay more’, made during bargaining to show himself in earnest.
(5) E.g., ‘I vow . . . if there were not a million people there’, the number being obviously exaggerated.
(6) E.g., ‘I vow . . . if I was there,’ and he later remembers that he was there.
(7) E.g., through illness. V. Ned. 20b.
(8) Since it is impossible for a nazirite to be a sexton, the vow is null of itself and he is not a nazirite.
(9) Though he cannot be a nazirite, the vow must be remitted by a Sage.
(10) I.e., enable a nazirite to poll by providing his sacrifices.
(11) I.e., both (i) ‘I wish to be a nazirite,’ and (ii) ‘I undertake to poll a nazirite.’
(12) And not merely ‘I Too’.
(13) Mishnah infra 12b.
(14) I.e., the second Mishnah repeats the phrasing of the first, for the sake of parallelism.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 12a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 12a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 12a
to go and betroth for him a wife, without specifying any woman, he becomes [in the meanwhile]
forbidden [to marry] any woman in the world, since it is presumed that the messenger carries out his
commission, and since he did not specify [the woman], he does not know which he betrothed for
him.
1
 Resh Lakish raised an objection against R. Johanan [from the following]: If a dove of an
indeterminate pair
2
 should fly away into the air, or amongst those sin-offerings that have to be
killed,
3
 or if one of the pair should perish, a partner is to be taken for the other one.
4
 [This implies
that] with a determinate pair there is no remedy;
5
 though all other pairs [in the world] would be
valid.
6
 Now why should this be so? Should we not say of each one, perhaps this is one [that flew
away]?
7
 He replied: I spoke of a woman who is stationary and you raise objections from prohibited
things that are mobile!
8
 Should you argue further that here too the woman may be mobile, for it is
possible that he may have met her in the street and betrothed her, [the cases are still different] for the
woman returns to her customary place, but can the same be said of the bird-pair?
 
    Raba said: R. Johanan would admit that a woman who has [among her unmarried relatives] neither
daughter, daughter's daughter, nor son's daughter; neither mother nor maternal grandmother, nor
sister, although she may have a sister who was divorced after [the representative was sent] — such a
woman would be permitted to him,
9
 because at the time that he gave his instructions, [the sister] was
still married, and when a person appoints a deputy, it is [to perform] something that is possible at the
time,
10
 but for something that is not possible at the time he does not appoint a deputy.
11
 
    We have Iearnt: [SHOULD A MAN SAY:] ‘
11
 DECLARE MYSELF A NAZIRITE, AND I

---