Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nazir

Folio 32a

GEMARA. Who can the author of [the first paragraph of] our Mishnah be? For it [agrees] neither with R. Jose nor with the Rabbis. For it has been taught: If a man vows [to be a nazirite] and transgresses a rule of his naziriteship, his case is not examined,²  unless he [first] observes in [nazirite] abstinence as many days as he has passed in indulgence.³  R. Jose said that thirty days are enough.⁴  Now if [the author] be the Rabbis, [the case also of] naziriteship for a long period offers difficulty,⁵  whilst if it be R. Jose, [the case of] naziriteship for a short period offers difficulty?⁶  — It may be maintained either that [the author] is R. Jose, or that [the authors] are the Rabbis. It may be maintained that [the author] is R. Jose, by supposing that [the Mishnah refers] to a long period of naziriteship [only],⁷  and [the Baraitha] to a short period of naziriteship [as well].⁸  It can also be maintained that [the authors] are the Rabbis, in which case we must read [in the Mishnah] not, 'FROM THE TIME THAT THE VOW WAS MADE,'⁹  but 'equal [to the period which has elapsed] since the vow was made.'¹⁰

IF HE SEEKS RELEASE FROM THE SAGES, AND THEY ABSOLVE HIM etc.: R. Jeremiah said: From [the opinion of] Beth Shammai we can infer that of Beth Hillel. Do not Beth Shammai assert that consecration in error is effective and yet when it becomes clear¹¹  that the nazirite vow is not valid, [the animal] goes forth to pasture with the herd? So too, for Beth Hillel. Although they say that substitution in error is effective substitution, this is only true where the original consecration remains,¹²  but where the original consecration is revoked,¹³  [the consecration resulting from] the substitution is also revoked.¹⁴

The Master said: 'DO YOU NOT ADMIT THAT IF HE CALLS THE NINTH THE TENTH, etc. It has been stated: In the case of the tithe, R. Nahman said that [this is the rule only] if this is done in error, not if it is done intentionally.¹⁵  R. Hisda and Rabbah b. R Huna, however, said that [it is certainly the rule] if it is done in error, and all the more so if it is done intentionally.¹⁶

Raba said to R. Nahman: According to you who assert that [it is the rule only] if it is done in error and not if done intentionally, when Beth Shammai asked Beth Hillel, DO YOU NOT ADMIT THAT IF HE CALLED THE NINTH THE TENTH, THE TENTH THE NINTH, OR THE ELEVENTH THE TENTH, THAT ALL THREE ARE SACRED? and Beth Hillel were silent,¹⁷  why could they not have answered that the case of tithes is different since these¹⁸  cannot be made sacred intentionally?¹⁹  — R. Shimi b. Ashi replied: The reason that they did not do so is because of an a fortiori argument that might be based on this [by Beth Shammai].²⁰  For [Beth Shammai might have argued that] if tithes that cannot be consecrated [out of turn] intentionally can be so consecrated in error, then ordinary consecration that can be done intentionally should certainly take effect [in error].²¹  This [argument], however, would be unsound, for [ordinary] consecration depends entirely upon the intention of the owner.²² 

MISHNAH. IF A MAN VOWS TO BE A NAZIRITE AND ON GOING TO BRING HIS ANIMAL [FOR THE SACRIFICE] FINDS THAT IT HAS BEEN STOLEN, THEN IF HE HAD DECLARED HIMSELF A NAZIRITE BEFORE THE THEFT OF HIS ANIMAL,²³  HE IS [STILL] A NAZIRITE,

1. If they are struck in error; v. infra for source.
2. Should he desire to be released from his vow.
3. I.e., the number of days which have elapsed between his transgression and his seeking for absolution.
4. Tosef. Ned. I; i.e., if his period of transgression was longer than thirty days, he is made to keep a naziriteship of thirty days, before being released.
5. The Mishnah allows him to reckon in all cases the days of his transgression as part of his naziriteship, whilst the Rabbis do not do so.
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.

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

Rabbah⁶  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 you⁷  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 SUDDENLY¹⁵  [WITHOUT BEING IDENTIFIED], HE¹⁶  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.