Talmud Nazir (E)

(5) Num. XIX, 19.
(6) I.e., by undergoing the purification rites. [These rites are specially prescribed for the congregation of the children of
Israel. V. Num. XIX, 9.]
(7) And since a gentile cannot undergo the purification rites, he does not become unclean.
(8) I.e., having become unclean, he can defile others and remains unclean himself, but he cannot become clean again.
(9) Num. XIX, 20. Implying that wherever there can be no purification, there is no defilement.
(10) From ‘Arakin. And when we said that gentiles have no legal father, it was in respect of slaves.
(11) Lev. XXV, 46. Referring to gentile slaves. A gentile cannot bequeath his slaves in Torah-law; v. Git. 38a.
(12) And since the laws of defilement do not apply to gentiles, they cannot become nazirites.
(13) Viz., that they cannot bequeath their slaves to their heirs.
(14) For the laws of inheritance do not apply to slaves. A slave's property becomes his masters.
(15)  Although the mention of ‘children of Israel’ does not necessarily exclude gentiles from the scope of a scriptural
passage.
(16) I.e., that gentiles are wholly excluded from the scope of the passage dealing with ‘Arakin.
(17) And gentiles may be the subject of an ‘Arakin vow though they cannot make such a vow.
(18) Thus the mention of ‘children of Israel’ excludes gentiles from the scope of the nazirite passage.
(19) Num. VI, 2. The mention of ‘man’ now partially includes gentiles within the scope of the passage. They can become
nazirites, but may not bring the offerings due on terminating the naziriteship.
(20) I.e., it is impossible to utilise the words ‘children of Israel’ merely in order to exclude gentiles from bringing the
nazirite offerings.
(21) Lev. XXII, 18.
(22) V. Men. 73b. Thus the words ‘children of Israel’ must wholly exclude gentiles from naziriteship.
(23) I.e., gentiles are wholly excluded from the scope of the nazirite passage.
(24) They can become ordinary nazirites.
(25) We learnt about it from the case of Absalom (supra 4b). Hence the verse cannot be referring to the life-nazirite at
all.
(26) They can themselves under — take nazirite-vows but cannot impose them upon their children.
(27) Supra 28b. Hence, Scripture cannot be referring to this ruling.
(28) Supra 30a.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 62a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 62a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 62a
I might go on to infer from this that [gentiles] cannot become nazirites [at all]. Scripture [therefore]
says man? — But it has been stated: R. Johanan said, This is a [traditional] ruling with regard to the
nazirite.
1
 
    Now if it is a fact [that ‘man’ includes gentiles],
2
 what need is there for the expression, When a
man shall clearly utter a vow . . . according to thy valuation
3
 occurring in connection with ‘Arakin?
For consider! ‘Arakin are compared [in this verse] with vows, as it says, When a man shall clearly
utter a vow . . . according to thy valuation,
3
 and it has been taught in connection with vows:
Scripture mentions the word man
4
 in order to include gentiles, who are allowed to vow
vowed-offerings
5
 and freewill-offerings,
6
 just as Israelites do.
7
 What need then is there for the verse,
‘When a man shall clearly utter’ in connection with ‘Arakin?
8
 — In point of fact, this [word] ‘man’
is required for the inclusion of [a youth] who can discriminate but has not quite reached manhood.
9
 
    This is all very well [if we accept the view of] the authority
10
 who considers that a youth who can
discriminate but has not quite reached manhood has a Scriptural right [to make Vows],
11
 but [if we
accept the view of] the authority
12
 who considers this right to be rabbinic, what need is there for,
When a man shall clearly utter [etc.]?
13
 It serves to include a gentile [youth] who can discriminate
but has not quite reached manhood.
14
 
    This is all very well if we accept the view of the authority
15
 who argues [as follows: The words

---

‘children of Israel’ imply that] Israelites can be the subject of ‘Arakin vows but not gentiles. I might
go on to infer from this that [gentiles] cannot vow ‘Arakin, Scripture [therefore] says man.
16
 If,
however, we accept the view of the authority
17
 who argues [as follows: The words children of Israel
imply that] Israelites can vow ‘Arakin but not gentiles. I might go on to infer from this that [gentiles]
cannot be the subject of ‘Arakin, Scripture [therefore] says man: [our difficulty remains]. For seeing
that even a baby a month old can be the subject of an ‘Arakin vow, what need is there of, ‘when [a
man] shall clearly utter’?
18
 — R. Adda b. Ahaba replied: Its purpose is to bring within the scope of
the rule an adult gentile who although he is an adult [cannot make even ordinary vows, if he] cannot
discriminate.
19
 
    Now what need is there of [the phrase,] ‘when [a man] shall clearly utter’ mentioned in connection
with the naziriteship? For seeing that the naziriteship is compared with [ordinary] vowing
20
 what
need is there of ‘when [a man] shall clearly utter’? — It serves to include allusions the significance
of which is not manifest.
21
 For it has been stated: Abaye said that allusions whose significance is not
manifest have the force of a direct statement, whilst Raba said that they have not the force of a direct
statement.
22
 Now if we accept Abaye's view, there is no difficulty,
23
 but if we accept Raba's view
what can we reply?
24
 In point of fact ‘when [a man] shall clearly utter’ is necessary for R. Tarfon's
case. For it has been taught: R. Judah on behalf of R. Tarfon said that not one of these people
25
 is a
nazirite, because naziriteship is not intended except when assumed unequivocally.
26
 This is all very
well if we accept the view of R. Tarfon, but [if we accept the view of] the Rabbis what can you
reply?
27
 In point of fact it is necessary for [the following] which has been taught: Annulment of
vows has no foundation
28
 and is without [Scriptural] support.
29
 R. Eliezer says that it has [Scriptural]
support, for Scripture says twice ‘when [a man] shall clearly utter’?
30
 one signifies a distinct binding
expression,
31
 and one a distinctness [which opens the way] to annulment.
32
____________________
(1)  Hence Scripture cannot be referring to it and the words, ‘children of Israel’, must entirely exclude gentiles from
undertaking naziriteships.
(2) The upshot of the previous discussion is a vindication of the assertion that ‘man’ usually includes gentiles. It is only
because it cannot possibly have that meaning in connection with naziriteship, that it is not so interpreted there. Hence the
Gemara now enquires whether gentiles would not have been included for the purposes of ‘Arakin even without ‘man’
being mentioned.
(3) Lev. XXVII,2.
(4) V. Lev. XXII, 18. Whoever he be (lit., a man, a man) . . . that bringeth his offering, whether it be of their vows etc.
The reference in the following discussion II to vowing sacrifices for the altar. [The text adopted follows Bah. Cur. edd.
read: Scripture should have mentioned (only) ‘a man’ why does it state ‘a man, a man’. Though the reading is supported
by the parallel passages, it hardly fits in with the trend of the passage where the word ‘man’ in itself is taken to include
gentiles.]
(5) Heb. 
rsb
.
(6) Heb. 
vcsb
. The difference between a vowedoffering and a freewill offering is this. The former, if it dies or is lost,
must be replaced, but the latter need not be replaced.
(7) Cf. Tem. 2b.
(8) For ‘Ar. are covered by the interpretation of Lev. XXII, 18 in the Baraitha.
(9) He too may make vows. V. supra 29b.
(10) R. Jose b. R. Judah. V. supra 29b.
(11) This right is then inferred from the word ‘man’ in Lev. XXVII, 2.
(12) R. Judah the prince (Ibid.).
(13) I.e., We are still without a use for the word ‘man’ in this verse.
(14) R. Judah the prince also agreeing that his right to make vows is Scriptural.
(15) R. Judah; V. ‘Ar. 5b.
(16) Thus permitting gentile youths who have not yet reached manhood to make ‘Arakin (and other) vows.
(17) R. Meir. Ibid.
(18) For it can no longer refer to gentile youths since no gentile can make an ‘Arakin vow.

---