Talmud Nazir (E)

(5) And therefore the solution of the one problem obtained from the Baraitha, does not give the solution of the other.
(6) For it may be eaten for a limited period only, viz.: two days and one night (v. Zeb. V, 7), and so the victuals might
also be subject to this restriction. Hence whichever of the alternatives enunciated by Rami is adopted, there is a
restriction on the victuals.
(7) And the vow of the second will not operate. But she must have meant something by the vow, and we are therefore
forced to conclude that she had only the original state in mind. Thus the solution of this problem given by the Baraitha
affords no clue to the solution of Rami's problem.
(8) These do not consider the distinction drawn above decisive, for the woman may have considered it sufficient if she
abstained from wine until the husband of the first one declared the vow void, and so once more we have two alternatives.
(9) And then the vow of the other is declared void.
(10) This is taken to be the same as ‘in your wake’, for since the husband can declare her vow void and the outcome of
her vow is in his power, he would be referring to her ultimate as well as her present state.
(11) And all the more if he says, ‘I too’, to his wife.
(12) And he himself is not affected by any change in her vow.
(13) Since he would be freeing himself.
(14) If the husband annuls the first woman's vow’.
(15) Lit., ‘I intend . . . and thou . . .’
(16) Lit., ‘I intend . . . and thou.’
(17) But our Mishnah empowers him to declare her vow void,
(18) Tosef. Naz. III.
(19) Thus he cannot declare her vow void, for he would be nullifying his own at the same time.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 23a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 23a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 23a
whilst our Mishnah supposes him to say to her, ‘I intend to be a nazirite. What about you?’
1
 And so
he may declare her [vow] void but his own remains binding.
 
    MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN UNDERTAKES A NAZIRITE VOW AND THEN DRINKS WINE
OR IS DEFILED BY A CORPSE,
2
 SHE IS TO RECEIVE FORTY [STRIPES]. IF HER HUSBAND
DECLARES IT VOID WITHOUT HER BEING AWARE OF IT, AND SHE DRINKS WINE OR IS
DEFILED BY A CORPSE, SHE DOES NOT RECEIVE THE FORTY [STRIPES]. R. JUDAH
SAID: ALTHOUGH [IT MAY BE A FACT THAT] SHE DOES NOT RECEIVE THE FORTY
[STRIPES]. SHE SHOULD RECEIVE THE STRIPES INFLICTED FOR DISOBEDIENCE.
3
 
    GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: [In the verse,] Her husband hath made them void,’ and the Lord
will forgive her,
4
 Scripture is speaking of a woman whose husband has declared her [vow] void
without her knowledge .
5
 [intimating] that she requires atonement and forgiveness. When R. Akiba
reached this verse. he wept: ‘For if one who intended to take swine's flesh and by chance takes
lamb's flesh
6
 stands in need of atonement and forgiveness, how much more so does one who
intended to take swine's flesh and actually took it, stand in need thereof’?
7
 
    A similar inference may be made [from the verse]. Though he know it not, yet is he guilty and
shall bear his iniquity.
8
 If of one who intends to take lamb's flesh and by chance takes swine's flesh,
for instance in the case of [one who ate] a slice of fat concerning which it was uncertain whether it
was of the permitted or the forbidden kind,
9
 the text says, ‘and shall bear his iniquity’, how much
more so [is this true] of one who intended to take swine's flesh and actually took it.
 
    Isi b. Judah interpreted [the verse], Though he know it not, yet is he guilty and shall bear his
iniquity, [as follows]. If of one who intends to take lamb's flesh and takes swine's flesh for instance
in the case of [one who eats one of] two slices
10
 of fat one of which is forbidden fat and the other
permitted fat, the text says, and shall bear his iniquity, how much more so [is this true] of one who
intended to take swine's flesh and actually took it. For this let them grieve that are fain to grieve.

---

 
    But what need is there for all these cases?
11
 — They are all necessary. For if we had only been
told about the woman, [we might have thought] that atonement and forgiveness are necessary
there,
12
 because from the very beginning her intention was to do that which is forbidden, whereas
with the slice concerning which it is uncertain whether it is forbidden or permitted fat, where his
intention was to do that which is permitted,
13
 [we might have thought] that atonement and
forgiveness are not necessary. If, on the other hand, we had only been told about the latter, [we
might have thought] that it is because there is a definite prohibition involved,
14
 whereas the woman
whose husband has declared her [vow] void and whose act is [consequently] permitted, should not
require atonement and forgiveness. Again, if we had only been told of these two cases, we might
have thought that in these two cases atonement and forgiveness suffice, since the presence of
something forbidden is not definite, whereas with two slices of which one is forbidden and one
permitted fat, where the presence of something forbidden is definite, atonement and forgiveness do
not suffice.
15
 We are therefore told that there is no difference.
 
    Rabbah b. Bar Hana, quoting R. Johanan, said:
16
 The verse, For the ways of the Lord are right,
and the just do walk in them,’ but transgressors do stumble therein,
17
 may be illustrated by the
following example. Two men roast their paschal lambs.
18
 One eats it with the intention of fulfilling
the precept
19
 and the other eats it with the inten tion of having an ordinary meal. To the one who eats
it to fulfil the precept [applies]. ‘And the just do walk in them,’ but to the one who eats it to have an
ordinary meal [applies], ‘but transgressors do stumble therein’. Resh Lakish remarked to him: Do
you call such a man wicked? Granted that he has not fulfilled the precept in the best possible
manner, he has at least carried out the passover rite. Rather should it be illustrated by two men, each
of whom had his wife and his sister staying with him. One chances upon his wife and the other
chances upon his sister. To the one who chances upon his wife [applies], ‘And the just do walk in
them’, and to the one who chances upon his sister [applies], ‘but transgressors do stumble therein’.
 
    But are the cases comparable? We speak [in the verse] of one path, whereas here [in the example
given] there are two paths.
20
 Rather is it illustrated by Lot when his two daughters were with him.
21
To these [the daughters], whose intention it was to do right,
22
 [applies], ‘the just do walk in them’,
whereas to him [Lot] whose intention it was to commit the transgression [applies], ‘but transgressors
do stumble therein’.
 
    But perhaps it was his intention also to do right? — [Do not think this for a moment, for]
23
 R.
Johanan has said: The whole of the following verse indicates [Lot's] lustful character. And Lot lifted
up
24
 is paralleled by, And his master's wife lifted up her eyes upon;
25
 ‘his eyes’ is paralleled by, for
she hath found grace in my eyes
26
 ‘and beheld’ is paralleled by, And Shechem the son of Hamor
beheld her;
27
 ‘all the kikar [‘plain’] of the Jordan’ by For on account of a harlot, a man is brought to
a kikar [‘loaf’] of bread,’
28
 and ‘fat’ it was well watered everywhere’ by, I will go after my lovers,
that give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, mine oil and my drink.
29
 
    But [Lot] was the victim of compulsion?
30
 — It had been taught on behalf of R. Jose son of R.
Honi that the dot
31
 over the letter waw [_ ‘and’] in the word U-bekumah [‘and when she arose’]
32
occurring in [the story of] the elder daughter, is to signify that it was her lying down that he did not
notice, but he did notice when she arose. But what could he have done, since it was all over? — The
difference is that he should not have drunk wine the next evening.
 
    Raba expounded as follows: What is the significance of the verse, A brother offended is harder to
be won than a strong city;
____________________
(1) Thus his own naziriteship is independent of hers.
(2) Intentionally.

---