Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nazir

Folio 20a

IT IS RELATED THAT QUEEN HELENA etc.: The question was asked: [Does R. Judah agree that] she contracted impurity, in which case his statement concurs with Beth Shammai's opinion,³  or does he 'deny that she contracted impurity, in which case his statement concurs with Beth Hillel's opinion?⁴

Come and hear: SHE WENT UP TO THE LAND [OF ISRAEL]. AND BETH HILLEL RULED THAT SHE MUST OBSERVE NAZIRITESHIP FOR A FURTHER SEVEN YEARS etc. Now if you assume that she did contract impurity, and that [R. Judah] concurs with Beth Shammai, then the text should read: R. Judah said: She was a nazirite for fourteen years and thirty days, instead of [simply] fourteen years! There has also been taught in the same sense: R. Judah quoting R. Eliezer said that the implication of the verse, And this is the law of the Nazirite [on the day when the days of his separation are fulfilled]⁵  is: the Torah says that if he contracts ritual defilement on the day of his fulfilment, he is to be given the law of a nazirite.⁶

MISHNAH. WHERE TWO GROUPS OF WITNESSES GIVE EVIDENCE CONCERNING A MAN, ONE SAYING THAT HE VOWED TWO NAZIRITESHIPS⁷  AND THE OTHER THAT HE VOWED FIVE, BETH SHAMMAI SAY THAT THE EVIDENCE IS CONFLICTING [IN TOTO], AND NO NAZIRITESHIP OPERATES AT ALL, BUT BETH HILLEL SAY THAT 'FIVE' INCLUDES 'TWO', SO THAT HE BECOMES A NAZIRITE FOR TWO PERIODS.

GEMARA. The Mishnah disagrees with the following Tanna. For it has been taught: R. Ishmael, the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka, said that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel did not dispute that five included two where there are two groups of witnesses one saying five and one two. Where they differed was when of a single pair of witnesses, one says five and the other two, Beth Shammai averring that this is conflicting evidence, whilst Beth Hillel maintained that [here also], five includes two.

Rab said: All are agreed that where [the witnesses] enumerate [the evidence is conflicting]. R. Hama said to R. Hisda: What does this mean? It cannot mean that one says it was five and not two, and the other it was two and not five, for they plainly contradict each other. And if again it means that one says, [he vowed] a first and a second time, and the other a third, fourth and fifth time.

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'.

CHAPTER IV

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', [H] (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.