Talmud Nazir (E)

____________________
(1)  Hence according to Beth Hillel the defilement which he has contracted by being on a foreign land is much more
severe.
(2) For incurring a defilement instituted by the Rabbis though not recognised by the Torah.
(3) That only thirty days are required, the second seven years being due to the impurity.
(4) That seven years are required, the fourteen being made up of the original seven, and the seven imposed because of
absence from Palestine.
(5) Num. VI, 13.
(6) The implication is probably that R. Judah does require a nazirite who becomes defiled in his last day to observe thirty
more days, so we are entitled to make an inference from the brief form ‘fourteen years as is done in the text.
(7) So Tosaf. Rashi renders ‘years of naziriteship’.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 20b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 20b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 20b
[we may ask,] what need is there for the se cond to repeat [the first two]?
1
 Seeing that [the second
witness] testifies to the more stringent ones,
2
 then he certainly testifies to [the first two] that are less
stringent?
3
 — In the West
4
 they maintain that where there is enumeration, there is no conflicting [of
evidence].
5
 
    C H A P T E R   I V
 
    MISHNAH. SHOULD A MAN SAY, ‘I INTEND TO BE A NAZIRITE, AND HIS
COMPANION OVERHEAR AND ADD ‘I TOO,’ [AND THE NEXT REPEAT] ‘I TOO’, ALL
BECOME NAZIRITES. IF THE FIRST IS RELEASED [FROM HIS VOW],
6
 ALL ARE
[AUTOMATICALLY] RELEASED, BUT IF THE LAST ONE IS RELEASED, HE ALONE
BECOMES FREE, THE OTHERS REMAINING BOUND [BY THEIR VOWS]. IF HE SAYS, ‘I
INTEND TO BE A NAZIRITE, AND HIS COMPANION OVERHEARS AND ADDS, ‘LET MY
MOUTH BE AS HIS MOUTH AND MY HAIR AS HIS HAIR, HE [ALSO] BECOMES A
NAZIRITE. [IF HE SAYS,] ‘I INTEND TO BE A NAZIRITE, AND HIS WIFE OVERHEARS
AND ADDS, ‘I TOO,’ HE CAN DECLARE HER [VOW] VOID,
7
 BUT HIS OWN REMAINS
BINDING. [IF A WOMAN SAYS,] ‘I INTEND TO BE A NAZIRITE, AND HER HUSBAND
OVERHEARS AND ADDS, ‘I TOO,’ HE CANNOT DECLARE [HER VOW] VOID.
8
 [IF HE
SHOULD SAY IN CONVERSATION WITH HIS WIFE,] ‘I INTEND TO BE A NAZIRITE.
WHAT ABOUT YOU?’ AND SHE ANSWER ‘AMEN,’ HE CAN DECLARE HER [VOW] VOID,
BUT HIS OWN REMAINS BINDING. [BUT IF SHE SHOULD SAY,] ‘I INTEND TO BE A
NAZIRITE, WHAT ABOUT YOU?’ AND HE ANSWER, ‘AMEN,’ HE CANNOT DECLARE
[HER VOW] VOID.
8
 
    GEMARA. Resh Lakish was [once] seated in the presence of R. Judah the Prince,
9
 and discoursed
as follows: [They become nazirites by saying ‘I too,’] only if they all attach their vows within the
interval of a break in conversation.
10
 And how much is the length of such an interval? The time
sufficient for a greeting. And how much is this? The time taken by a disciple to greet his master.
11
[R. Judah] said to him: You do not allow a disciple any further opportunity.
12
____________________
(1) There is still no conflict, although there is enumeration, for seeing that, etc.
(2) To the existence of a third, fourth, and fifth naziriteship.
(3) In this paragraph, the reading of Tosaf. has been adopted. [According to printed texts, render: ‘Why was it necessary
to state this; seeing that Rab ruled to this effect in a more stringent case, would he not rule likewise in a less stringent
one?’ The stringent case referred to is where the enumeration is made by two groups of witnesses, in which case Rab
ruled (in a passage which Rashi cites from J. Sanh. V) that the evidence is conflicting.]
(4) I.e., in Palestine, cf. J. Sanh. V, 2.
(5) He is therefore required to observe two naziriteships, Rab's opinion being wrong. The second witness is not really

---

contradicting the first, and thus there are two witnesses to the first two naziriteships.
(6) Under certain conditions release can be obtained from a vow on application to an authorised Rabbi. V. Ned. 78a.
(7)  The husband has the power of confirming or declaring void his wife's vows ‘on the day that he hears them’ — v.
Num. XXX, 9.
(8) For by attaching his vow to hers, he incidentally confirms her vow.
(9) Nesi'ah; R. Judah II.
(10) I.e., the normal interval between the remarks of two persons holding a conversation. Lit., ‘within the time sufficient
for (the next) remark.’ The point of Resh Lakish's statement is that we do not consider the remark ‘I too’ as being like
one of the ‘allusions’ of the beginning of the first chapter, but its validity depends solely on its being obviously a
reference to the original vow. Hence it must follow it, as though they were part of the same conversation.
(11) I.e., to say the three words, Shalom ‘aleka Rabbi; ‘Peace unto Thee, Master’.
(12) Both to greet his master and say ‘I too’, 
hbtu
 (one word), if he wishes to. According to Rashi, R. Judah agreed
with Resh Lakish, but other commentators consider that he disagreed with Resh Lakish and allowed four words as the
interval in this case.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 21a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 21a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 21a
    The same principle
1
 is taught in the following passage: If a man says, ‘I intend to be a nazirite’
and his companion overhear and delay long enough to make a break in conversation and then add, ‘I
too,’ he himself is bound [by his vow], but his companion is free. The length of a break in
conversation is the time taken by a disciple to greet his master.
2
 
    May we say that the following [passage] corroborates [Resh Lakish's statement]? [For the
Mishnah says:] SHOULD A MAN SAY, I INTEND TO BE A NAZIRITE, AND HIS
COMPANION OVERHEAR AND ADD ‘I TOO,’ [AND THE NEXT REPEAT] ‘I TOO,’ [ALL
BECOME NAZIRITES];
3
 and carries the series no further?
4
 — Do you expect the Tanna to string
together a list like a pedlar [crying his wares]?
5
 Then why should he not mention [‘I too’] once only
and leave us to infer the rest?
6
 — He could very well have done so, but because in the clause that
follows he says: IF THE FIRST IS RELEASED [FROM HIS VOW] ALL ARE
[AUTOMATICALLY] RELEASED, BUT IF THE LAST ONE IS RELEASED, HE ALONE
BECOMES FREE, THE OTHERS REMAINING BOUND [BY THEIR vows], thus [using a
phrasing which] implies that there is a person [or persons] in between, he mentions ‘I too,’ twice [in
the opening clause].
7
 
    The question was propounded: Does each link up with his immediate predecessor, or do they all
link up with [the utterance of] the first? The practical issue involved is whether the process can be
continued indefinitely. If each links up with his immediate predecessor, then it would be possible to
continue indefinitely,
8
 but if they all link up with the first one, the process could not continue for
longer than the space of a break in conversation.
9
 What then is the law? — Come and hear:
SHOULD A MAN SAY, I INTEND TO BE A NAZIRITE,’ AND HIS COMPANION OVERHEAR
AND ADD ‘I TOO,’ [AND THE NEXT REPEAT] ‘I TOO’; without going further; and so we can
infer that they all link up with the first,
10
 for if it be the case that each links up with his immediate
predecessor, why should not the phrase ‘I too’ be repeated many more times? — Do you expect the
Tanna to string together a list like a pedlar [crying his wares]? Then let him mention [‘I too’] once,
and indicate all the rest in this manner?
11
 — Since he continues: IF THE FIRST IS RELEASED
[FROM HIS VOW] ALL ARE [AUTOMATICALLY] RELEASED, BUT IF THE LAST ONE IS
RELEASED, HE ALONE BECOMES FREE, THE OTHERS REMAINING BOUND [BY THEIR
VOWS; thus using a phrasing] which implies that there are persons in between, he therefore
mentions ‘I too’ twice [in the first clause].
12
 
    Come and hear: IF THE FIRST IS RELEASED [FROM HIS VOW] ALL ARE RELEASED; [it
follows that] only [on the release of] the first are the others released, but not [on the release of] an

---