Talmud Nazir (E)

(6) They would conflict in regard to the short period in the manner explained in the previous note. In regard to the long
period they would not conflict, since R. Jose allows him to reckon all the period of transgression, which is more than
thirty days, and it could be argued that this is all that the Mishnah means. The text adopted here is that of Tosaf.; Asheri,
Maim. and most other commentators, agreeing with the quotation in Ned. 200. Our printed text, which reads that the
short period offers a difficulty for the Rabbis and the long period for R. Jose, assumes a reading of the Tosefta which
would agree with most MSS. of the Tosef. (Ned. I, 11) and with the Jerusalem Talmud (J. Naz. V, 4), but requires an
argument at once more complicated and subtle.
(7) There being no conflict with R. Jose's view, as explained in the previous note.
(8) In this case only does R. Jose require the whole of the period of transgression to be counted afresh.
(9) Which implies that the period when there was transgression forms part of the naziriteship and so conflicts with the
view of the Baraitha.
(10) Mishnah and Baraitha now agree.
(11) By the release that was granted.
(12) I.e., when the first animal for which the second is substituted is not afterwards declared profane.
(13) [E.g., owing to the remission of the naziriteship for which the animal was reserved.]
(14) I.e., the animal substituted also becomes profane.
(15) If he intentionally strikes the ninth animal as though it were the tenth, it does not become sacred.
(16) I.e., in either case the animal becomes sacred.
(17) I.e., they found no flaw in the argument itself, but were compelled to reply that it is only in this case that Scripture
has declared consecration in error effective.
(18) I.e.,the ninth or eleventh animal.
(19) And since they did not say this, it follows that even if he strikes the ninth animal intentionally, it becomes sacred.
(20) If it is assumed that the cases are comparable.
(21) And Beth Hillel do not admit that consecration in error is effective.
(22) Whereas a man is bound to tithe his animals, and so the rules applying in the one case need bear no resemblance to
those applying in the other. Hence R. Nahaman cannot be refuted from this (Tosaf.).
(23) I.e., the three animals which a nazirite offers on completing his vow.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 32b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 32b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 32b
BUT IF HE HAD DECLARED HIMSELF A NAZIRITE AFTER THE THEFT OF HIS ANIMAL,
HE IS NOT A NAZIRITE.
1
 IT WAS ON THIS POINT THAT NAHUM THE MEDE FELL INTO
ERROR WHEN NAZIRITES ARRIVED [IN JERUSALEM] FROM THE DIASPORA AND
FOUND THE TEMPLE IN RUINS.
2
 NAHUM THE MEDE SAID TO THEM, ‘HAD YOU
KNOWN THAT THE TEMPLE WOULD BE DESTROYED, WOULD YOU HAVE BECOME
NAZIRITES?’ THEY ANSWERED, NO, AND SO NAHUM THE MEDE ABSOLVED THEM.
3
WHEN, HOWEVER, THE MATTER CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE SAGES THEY SAID:
WHOEVER DECLARED HIMSELF A NAZIRITE BEFORE THE DESTRUCTION OF THE
TEMPLE IS A NAZIRITE, BUT IF AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE, HE IS NOT
A NAZIRITE.
 
    GEMARA. Rabbah said: The Rabbis overruled R. Eliezer and laid down [the law] in accordance
with their own views. For we have learnt: It is permitted to grant release on the ground of
improbable contingencies;
4
 this is the opinion of R. Eliezer, but the Sages forbid this.
5
 
    Rabbah
6
 said further: Although the Rabbis said that improbable contingencies cannot be made the
grounds for release, yet conditions involving improbable contingencies can be made a ground for
release. For example, it would have been possible to say to them: Suppose someone had come and
said to you
7
 that the Temple would be destroyed, would you have uttered your vow?
 
    R. Joseph said: Had I been there, I should have said to them:
8
 Is it not written, The temple of the
Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, are these,
9
 which points to [the destruction of]

---

the first and second temples?
10
 — Granted that they knew it would be destroyed, did they know
when this would occur?
11
 
    Abaye objected: And did they not know when? Is it not written, Seventy weeks are determined
upon thy people, and upon thy holy city?
12
 — All the same, did they know on which day?
13
 
    MISHNAH. IF [PEOPLE] WERE WALKING ALONG THE ROAD AND [SAW] SOMEONE
COMING TOWARDS THEM, AND ONE SAID, ‘I DECLARE MYSELF A NAZIRITE IF IT IS
SO-AND-SO, WHILST ANOTHER SAID, ‘I DECLARE MYSELF A NAZIRITE IF IT IS NOT
SO-AND-SO,’ [AND A THIRD MAN,] ‘
7
 DECLARE MYSELF A NAZIRITE IF ONE OF YOU IS
A NAZIRITE,’ [A FOURTH, ‘I DECLARE MYSELF A NAZIRITE] IF NEITHER OF YOU IS A
NAZIRITE,’ [A FIFTH, ‘I DECLARE MYSELF A NAZIRITE] IF BOTH OF YOU ARE
NAZIRITES,’ [AND A SIXTH, ‘I DECLARE MYSELF A NAZIRITE] IF ALL OF YOU ARE
NAZIRITES.’ BETH SHAMMAI SAY THAT ALL [SIX] OF THEM ARE NAZIRITES, BUT
BETH HILLEL SAY THAT ONLY THOSE WHOSE WORDS WERE NOT FULFILLED, ARE
NAZIRITES.
14
 R. TARFON SAID: NOT ONE OF THEM IS A NAZIRITE. IF [THE PERSON
APPROACHING] TURNED AWAY SUDDENLY
15
 [WITHOUT BEING IDENTIFIED], HE
16
 IS
NOT A NAZIRITE. R. SIMEON SAYS: HE SHOULD SAY, ‘IF I WAS RIGHT,
17
 I AM A
NAZIRITE OBLIGATORILY, OTHERWISE I WISH TO BE A NAZIRITE, VOLUNTARILY.
 
    GEMARA. Why should the ones whose words were not fulfilled become nazirites?
18
 — Rab
Judah replied: Read, ‘those whose words were fulfilled.’
____________________
(1) As his vow had been made under a misapprehension.
(2) The nazirite vow was binding until the sacrifices had been offered.
(3) As the vow had been made under a misapprehension.
(4) I.e., the grounds for release need not have been anticipated at the time the vow was entered into.
(5)  Mishnah, Ned. IX, 1. Here in Nazir, on the other hand, R. Eliezer's view is not quoted, showing that it was not
considered permissible to rely on it under any circumstances whatsoever.
(6) Our text, in error, has Raba.
(7) When you were about to declare yourselves nazirites.
(8)  To those who contended that the destruction of the Temple, being an event which could not have been foreseen,
could not be used as a ground for release (Asheri).
(9) Jer. VII, 4.
(10)  Since it indicates that there would be three temples. Thus the destruction was foretold and could have been
anticipated.
(11) And so they could not anticipate it.
(12)  Dan. IX, 24. This prophecy was uttered at the beginning of the seventy years captivity in Babylon. From the
restoration to the second destruction is said to have been 420 years, making in all 490. i.e., seventy weeks of years.
(13) And since they did not know, they expected to offer their sacrifices before the destruction.
(14) This is explained in the Gemara.
(15) Lit., ‘he shuddered back’.
(16) I.e., one whose naziriteship was contingent oil the identity of the person approaching.
(17) In my identification.
(18) According to Beth Hillel.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 33a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 33a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 33a
Abaye replied: We suppose him to have added, for example, ‘even if it be not So-and-so I intend
1
 to
be a nazirite,’ the meaning of the phrase HIS WORDS WERE NOT FULFILLED [used in the
Mishnah] being, his first words were not fulfilled but his later ones were.
2
 

---