Nazir 11a (יא.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

They mixed for him

a person

the cup

of wine,

and he said

that person: “

I hereby become a nazirite from it

[from the cup],”

he is a nazirite

in every respect.

And

there was an incident involving a certain woman who was drunk, and they mixed for her the cup

of wine,

and she said

the woman: “

I hereby become a nazirite from it,”

and

the Sages said: She intended only to say: “

It is hereby a korban for me,”

that is, to prohibit the cup to herself through a vow alone. The Gemara will explain how this incident can be reconciled with what is stated in the first clause.

Gemara:

The Gemara is astonished: Is it possible that the tanna taught an

incident

that contains

a contradiction

to what is stated in the Mishna!?

For

you said

in

the first clause: “

They mixed for him the cup, and he said: ‘I hereby become a nazirite from it,’

he is a nazirite,”

and all the details of naziriteship apply to him.

And then it teaches,

and the tanna again teaches: “

There was an incident involving a certain woman

who was drunk, and they mixed for her the cup, and she said: ‘I hereby become a nazirite from it,’” which is the very formulation that we said in the first clause makes one a nazirite—

whereas the tanna says: “The Sages said: She intended only to say: ‘It is hereby a korban for me,’”

apparently

it is therefore proven that

this

cup alone

is prohibited

because of a vow,

but other wine is permitted to him

[other wine is permitted to one who says over the cup, “I hereby become a nazirite from it,” because he is not a nazirite]. If so, the incident contradicts what is stated in the Mishna!?

And we answer:

Our Mishna is incomplete,

and

this is what it teaches:

They mixed for him the cup, and he said: “

I hereby become a nazirite from it,”

he is a nazirite.

But if he is drunk, and he said: “

I hereby become a nazirite from it,”

he is not a nazirite.

In the course of explaining the Mishna, the Gemara also explains the reason for the ruling:

What is the reason

that he is not a nazirite? Because in this situation,

it is as though he said

[as though he had said]: “This cup

is hereby

for

me a korban”—

it is.

And if you would say

[perhaps you might say]: If indeed his intention is only to make a vow,

let him say so explicitly,

and say: “It is hereby a korban for me”!?

The Gemara explains: The drunk man

thought: If I say, “It is hereby a korban for me,” indicating that I prohibited only this cup, then perhaps

the drunkard: If I say this—“It is a sacrifice upon me”—that I have prohibited only this cup, then perhaps

they will bring me another one and distress me

[they will bring me another cup, concerning which I did not vow, and distress me], since it is customary for people to press a drunk person to drink, whereas he does not wish to drink now—

and therefore

I will tell them this statement

[I will use the language of naziriteship]

that is decisive for them

[this formulation is conclusive to them, since everything is prohibited], and I will remove them from me, so that they will no longer bring me any wine.

The Gemara continues to explain the Mishna: Concerning this ruling that we learned with regard to a drunk person, the tanna also brings support for his statement:

And there was also an incident involving a certain woman

who was drunk, and they mixed for her the cup, and she said: “I hereby become a nazirite from it,” and the Sages said: “She intended only to say: ‘It is hereby a korban for me’”!

Mishna:

a. In the beraita cited above, on page 3b, we learned: “

Rabbi Shimon says: He is not liable until he vows abstinence from all of them,” meaning that he is a nazirite only if he accepts upon himself all the prohibitions of naziriteship; “and the Rabbis say: Even if he vowed abstinence from only one of them—from one of the prohibitions of a nazirite—he is a nazirite.”

b. In the Mishna before us and in the ensuing discussion, various forms of accepting naziriteship are explained, as is whether and how they depend upon this dispute. The meaning of all the clauses of the Mishna will be explained in the Gemara.

a. One who said: “

I hereby become a nazirite on the condition that I may drink wine and become impure through contact with the dead,”

even though these acts are prohibited to a nazirite,

he is a nazirite

complete,

and is prohibited by all of them

including drinking wine and becoming impure through contact with the dead.

b. One who accepted naziriteship without qualification and afterward said: “

I know that there is naziriteship, but I do not know that a nazirite is prohibited from wine,”

that is, I accepted upon myself all the other laws of naziriteship apart from the prohibition against drinking wine.

He is prohibited,

in accordance with the opinion of the Sages in the Mishna and the beraita above, on page 3b, that even if he vowed abstinence from only one of the prohibitions of a nazirite, he is prohibited by all of them.

And Rabbi Shimon permits,

in accordance with his position, stated in the beraita above, on page 3b: He is not liable until he vows abstinence from all of them, that is, from all the prohibitions of naziriteship.

c. One who accepted naziriteship without qualification and afterward said:

I know that a nazirite is prohibited from wine, but I had thought that the Sages permitted me

to drink wine

because I cannot live except through wine,

because I am ill or weak.

Or

he said: I had thought that the Sages permitted me to become impure through contact with the dead,

because

I am hard-pressed to support my household, and my occupation is

burying the dead;

therefore, I did not intend to accept these prohibitions upon myself:

he is permitted,

since he did not accept upon himself all the prohibitions of naziriteship.

And Rabbi Shimon prohibits,

and the Gemara will explain that the statements of the Sages and Rabbi Shimon must be reversed: the Sages are the ones who prohibit, since according to their view it is unnecessary for him to vow abstinence from all the prohibitions of naziriteship, whereas Rabbi Shimon, in accordance with his position, is the one who permits.

Gemara:

We learned in the first clause of the Mishna: “I hereby become a nazirite on the condition that I may drink wine and become impure through contact with the dead; he is a nazirite and is prohibited by all of them.”

And we learned in the middle clause: “I know that there is naziriteship, but I do not know that a nazirite is prohibited from wine; he is prohibited. And Rabbi Shimon permits.”

In its initial question concerning the explanation of the first clause, the Gemara assumed that one who says, “I hereby become a nazirite on the condition that I may drink wine and become impure through contact with the dead,” is as though he said: “I hereby become a nazirite except for drinking wine and becoming impure through contact with the dead.” It follows that he did not accept these prohibitions upon himself, and therefore this ruling depends upon the dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Shimon—in the middle clause and in the beraita above, on page 3b—as to whether a nazirite must accept all the prohibitions of naziriteship ; and therefore the Gemara asks:

Since Rabbi Shimon disputes the middle clause, concerning one who says, “I know that there is naziriteship, but I do not know that a nazirite is prohibited from wine,” for he holds that since he did not accept all the prohibitions of naziriteship upon himself, he is not a nazirite, in accordance with his position in the beraita cited above, on page 3b, if so:

Why should Rabbi Shimon not also dispute the first clause

[why should Rabbi Shimon not also dispute the first clause], where he said, “I hereby become a nazirite on the condition that I may drink wine and become impure through contact with the dead,” since in the first clause as well he did not accept all the prohibitions of naziriteship upon himself!?

He said,

he answered,

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi:

Indeed,

Rabbi Shimon did dispute the first clause as well,

and the statement we learned in the middle clause, “And Rabbi Shimon permits,” applies also to the first clause.

Ravina said:

Rabbi Shimon did not dispute the first clause,

but agrees with the first tanna that he is prohibited by all of them!

What is the reason?

For, according to Ravina, in the first clause he accepted all the prohibitions of naziriteship upon himself, but made a condition concerning the enactment of the naziriteship, that it should take effect only if he would not be prohibited by these prohibitions. Therefore, he is a complete nazirite even according to Rabbi Shimon, since with regard to his acceptance, he accepted complete naziriteship.

You might say: But ultimately he imposed a condition on his naziriteship that it should take effect only if these prohibitions would not apply to him —

That is not so, because

it would be “

a condition contrary to what is written in the Torah,”

for fulfilling the condition would mean nullifying what is written in the Torah, since the Torah states that a nazirite is prohibited by all these prohibitions.

And anyone who stipulates contrary to what is written in the Torah, his condition is void,

while his acceptance remains valid.

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi—

who holds that Rabbi Shimon disputed the first clause as well—

can say to you:

In the first clause as well, he does not accept all the prohibitions of naziriteship upon himself, and according to Rabbi Shimon he is not a nazirite. And although he said “on the condition,” which is the language of a condition—

nevertheless,

this “

on the condition”

is

like

one who says: I accept upon myself all the prohibitions of naziriteship

except

for these—

it is considered so. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon permits in this case as well, since he did not accept naziriteship with all its laws upon himself.

and therefore Rabbi Shimon permits even in this case, since he did not accept naziriteship upon himself in accordance with all its laws.

It was taught in a beraita in accordance with Ravina’s opinion: One who said, ‘I hereby become a nazirite on the condition that I may drink wine and become impure through contact with the dead,’ is a nazirite and is prohibited by all of them, because he stipulates contrary to what is written in the Torah, and anyone who stipulates contrary to what is written in the Torah, his condition is void,

as Ravina explained.

We learned in the Mishna—the foundational concise legal text—in the middle clause: “I know that there is Naziriteship, but I do not know that a Nazirite is forbidden to drink wine; he is forbidden, and Rabbi Shimon permits him.”

And we learned in the final clause:

“I know that a Nazirite is forbidden to drink wine”

, but I had thought that the Sages permit me because I cannot live without wine, or because I bury the dead; he is permitted. But Rabbi Shimon prohibits him. The Gemara is puzzled by the final clause:

“But you said in the first clause

—that is, in the middle clause—“I know that there is Naziriteship, but I do not know that a Nazirite is forbidden to drink wine; he is

forbidden, and Rabbi Shimon permits him.”

If so, in the final clause as well, when he says: “I know that a Nazirite is forbidden to drink wine, but I had thought that the Sages permit me,” since here too he did not accept upon himself all the prohibitions of a Nazirite, according to the first anonymous opinion the law should be that he is forbidden, while Rabbi Shimon should permit him. But the wording in the Mishna is the opposite!?

And we answer: Reverse the dispute between the first anonymous opinion and Rabbi Shimon in the final clause, and

say

in the final clause

as well

as in the middle clause:

He is forbidden, and Rabbi Shimon permits him.

Alternatively, you can say

that the dispute between the first anonymous opinion and Rabbi Shimon in the final clause is correctly explained as stating that the first anonymous opinion permits him and Rabbi Shimon prohibits him:

Do not reverse the dispute at all

in the final clause. Indeed, it is the first anonymous opinion who prohibits him, and Rabbi Shimon who permits him.

And if this is difficult for you: What is different about the final clause from the middle clause, where they dispute in the opposite manner? I can answer you that they did not dispute in the final clause in the same way as in the middle clause. Rather: