Talmud Nazir (E)

(19) The inference being: Only a gentile who knows what he is uttering can make even ordinary vows (Tosaf.).
(20) V. Ned. 3a. And ‘shall clearly utter’ already occurs in connection with vows in Lev. XXVII, 2.
(21) V. supra 2a-b.
(22) And the vow fails to take effect.
(23) The interpretation will be: The vow must be uttered clearly or it is of no effect.
(24) I.e., what use does be make of the phrase ‘to utter clearly?’
(25) Who vow naziriteships of the form. If the person approaching is So and so, I will become a nazirite.
(26) V. supra 34a.
(27) I.e., what use do they make of ‘shall clearly utter’?
(28) Lit., ‘fly in the air’.
(29) I.e., the possibility of annulling vows is purely a traditional law.
(30) Once in Lev. XXVII, 2 of ‘Arakin and once in Num. VI, 2 of nazirite vows.
(31) I.e., once the vow is clearly undertaken, it remains binding.
(32) If annulment is sought, the vow ceases to be binding.

---

Talmud - Mas. Nazir 62b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 62b
MISHNAH. [THE NAZIRITE-VOWS OF] SLAVES ARE MORE STRINGENT THAN [THOSE
OF] WOMEN; FOR HE CAN DECLARE VOID THE VOWS OF HIS WIFE, BUT HE CANNOT
DECLARE VOID THE VOWS OF HIS SLAVES. IF HE DECLARES HIS WIFE'S [VOW] VOID,
IT IS VOID FOR EVER, BUT IF HE DECLARES HIS SLAVE'S VOW VOID, HE BECOMES
FREE AND MUST COMPLETE HIS NAZIRITESHIP.
1
 GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: What can
his master compel him [to disregard]? [The vow of] Naziriteship, but not [other] vows, or [vows
involving] ‘Arakin.
2
 
    Why this difference in the case of the nazirite-vow? — The Allmerciful has said, To bind his soul
with a bond,
3
 showing that only those who are their own masters
4
 are referred to, and excluding
slaves, who are not their own masters. But if this is the reason, the same should be true of [other]
vows?
5
 — R. Shesheth replied: We suppose here
6
 that a cluster of grapes lay before [the slave].
7
 In
the case of vows, where if this [cluster] becomes prohibited to him, others will not become
prohibited, [his master] cannot compel him [to eat this one]. But in the case of a nazirite-vow, if this
one becomes forbidden,
8
 all others become forbidden; and that is why he can compel him [to eat it].
9
 
    But do not [ordinary] vows
10
 include the possibility that there is available Only the one cluster of
grapes in question, so that if he does not eat it he will grow weak
11
 [and yet the vow takes effect]? —
Raba therefore said: We suppose that a pressed grape lay before him.
12
 In the case of vows, he is
prohibited from eating that one only, and so [his master] cannot compel him [to break his vow]. But
in the case of the nazirite-vow where he is also prohibited from eating others, he can compel him [to
break his vow].
 
    But do not [ordinary] vows include the possibility that there is available only the one pressed
grape in question, so that if he does not eat it he will grow weak [and yet the vow takes effect]?
Abaye therefore replied: [The Baraitha really means] what is his master obliged to compel him [to
disregard]? [The vow of] naziriteship.
13
 but he does not [even] have to compel him [to disregard
ordinary] vows or oaths.
14
 This is because the verse says [If any one swear] to do evil or to do
good.
15
 Just as doing good is a voluntary undertaking, so must the doing of evil be a voluntary
undertaking, the doing of evil to others being thereby excluded, since he has not the right [to harm
others].
16
 
    MISHNAH. SHOULD [THE SLAVE] FLEE FROM [HIS MASTER'S] PRESENCE,
17
 R. MEIR
SAID THAT HE MUST NOT DRINK WINE, BUT R. JOSE SAID THAT HE MAY.
 
    GEMARA. Is it possible that [R. Meir and R. Jose] differ in regard to the following dictum of
Samuel? For Samuel has said: Should a man renounce ownership of his slave, he becomes free, no
deed of emancipation being required. Does R. Meir agree with Samuel
18
 and R. Jose differ from
him? — No; both hold this opinion of Samuel.
19
 But the one who says he should drink considers that
since he is ultimately to return to his master, he ought to drink in order not to grow emaciated. The
other, who says that he should not drink considers that he should feel the pangs of deprivation in
order that he should return [to his master].
____________________
(1) Thus our text, and so Maimonides (Mishnah Commentary a.l. and Yad. Neziruth II, 18). Raabad however, reads ‘and
he afterwards becomes free, then he must complete his vow’.
(2) Tosef. Naz. VI, where ‘oaths’ replaces ‘Arakin’, for which v. Glos.
(3) Num. XXX, 3 of ordinary vows.
(4) V. supra p. 228, n.9.
(5) Seeing that the passage in which the verse occurs refers to ordinary vows.
(6) In the Baraitha which distinguishes nazirite-vows from other vows.

---

(7) And his vow, nazirite or ordinary, was made with reference to that bunch of grapes.
(8) I.e. if the nazirite-vow does become operative.
(9) [So as to have his strength unimpaired.]
(10) As referred to in the Baraitha.
(11) And so injure his master.
(12) [It is assumed that abstention from the pressed grape cannot affect his strength (Asheri)].
(13) If he does not wish it to take effect.
(14) These being automatically of no effect.
(15) Lev. V, 4.
(16) And since a slave's vows harm his master, they are inoperative.
(17) Run away after making a nazirite-vow.
(18)  And assume that the owner despairs of the slave's return and thus renounces his ownership. The slave being free
must therefore complete his naziriteship (v. previous Mishnah).
(19) And do not consider the owner to have renounced his possession of the slave.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 63a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 63a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 63a
MISHNAH. IF A NAZIRITE POLLS AND THEN DISCOVERS THAT HE WAS DEFILED,
THEN IF THE DEFILEMENT IS DEFINITE [THE NAZIRITESHIP] IS RENDERED VOID, BUT
IF IT IS A DEFILEMENT OF THE DEPTH,
1
 IT IS NOT RENDERED VOID, BEFORE POLLING,
HOWEVER, EITHER [TYPE OF DEFILE MENT] RENDERS [THE NAZIRITESHIP] VOID.
[THE LAW REGARDING ‘DEFILEMENT OF THE DEPTH’ IS] AS FOLLOWS. IF HE GOES
DOWN INTO A CAVERN TO BATHE, AND A CORPSE IS FOUND FLOATING AT THE
MOUTH OF THE CAVERN,
2
 HE IS [DEFINITELY] UNCLEAN. IF IT IS FOUND EMBEDDED
IN THE FLOOR OF THE CAVERN,
3
 THEN IF HE WENT IN MERELY TO REFRESH
HIMSELF HE REMAINS CLEAN,
4
 BUT IF IT WAS TO PURIFY HIMSELF AFTER
DEFILEMENT THROUGH CONTACT WITH THE DEAD HE REMAINS UNCLEAN,
5
BECAUSE WHERE THE STATUS QUO IS ONE OF DEFILEMENT THE DEFILEMENT
REMAINS, BUT WHERE IT IS ONE OF PURITY, HE REMAINS CLEAN, THIS BEING THE
PRESUMPTION [IN EACH CASE].
6
 
    GEMARA. How do we know this?
7
 — R. Eliezer said: A verse reads, And if any man die very
suddenly beside him,
8
 ‘beside him’ Signifying that it is evident to him.
9
 Resh Lakish said: A verse
reads, If [any man . . .] shall be unclean by reason of a dead body or be on the road, afar off,
10
signifying that [the uncleanness] must be like a road. Just as a road is visible, so must uncleanness be
visible. If these be correct,
11
 what of the following where we learnt: ‘Defilement of the depth’ is
such [defilement] as is not known even to a single person living anywhere in the world. If, however,
it is known to someone living even at the end of the world, it is not defilement of the depth.
12
 Now
on [Resh Lakish's] view that [defilement] should be [visible] like a road, there is no difficulty,
13
 but
on [R. Eleazar's] view that it must be evident to him, what matters it if there is someone at the end of
the world who knows of it? Further, there is the following: If a man finds a corpse lying [buried]
across the road,
14
 he becomes unclean in respect of terumah,
15
 but remains clean as regards
naziriteship and celebration of the passover.
16
 But what is the difference?
17
 — We must therefore
say that [the rule of] defilement of the depth is known by tradition.
18
 BEFORE POLLING,
HOWEVER, etc.: Who is the author [of the Mishnah]?
19
 R. Johanan replied: R. Eliezer, who
considers that polling estops [him from drinking wine].
20
 
    Rami b. Mama propounded: What would be the law if [the nazirite] became unclean during the
fulfilment of [his naziriteship], but discovered this after the fulfilment.
21
 Is it [the moment of]
discovery that is important,
22
 and this occurred after fulfilment, or not,
23
 the practical difference
being [the period that is] to be rendered void?
24
____________________

---