Nazir 11a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

They mixed for him

a person

the cup

of wine,

and he said

that person: “

Behold, I am a nazirite from it

from the cup,”

he is a nazirite

for everything.

And

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

of wine,

and she said

the woman: “

Behold, I am a nazirite from it,”

and

the Sages said: This woman intended only to say: “

It is a sacrifice upon me,”

that is, to prohibit the cup to herself by a vow alone. And in the Gemara it will be explained how this incident accords with what was stated in the first clause.

Gemara:

The Gemara wonders: 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: ‘Behold, I am a nazirite from it,’

he is a nazirite,”

and all the details of naziriteship apply to him.

And afterward he teaches,

and the tanna teaches again: “

There was an incident involving one woman

who was drunk, and they mixed for her the cup, and she said: ‘I am a nazirite from it,’” which is the case that we said in the first clause makes him a nazirite—

whereas the tanna says: “The Sages said: This woman intended only to say: ‘It is a sacrifice upon me,’”

apparently

it is proven that

this

cup alone

is forbidden

because of a vow,

but other wine is permitted

to him [other wine is permitted to the one who said over the cup, “I am a nazirite from it,” since he is not a nazirite]. And if so, the incident is found to contradict 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: “

Behold, I am a nazirite from it,”

he is a nazirite.

And if he is drunk, and he said: “

Behold, I am a nazirite from it,”

he is not a nazirite.

While explaining the Mishna, the Gemara also explains the reason for the law:

What is the reason

that he is not a nazirite? Because in this situation

it is as one who said

as though he had said]: “This cup

is

a

sacrifice upon me”—

it is.

And should you say

perhaps you will say: If indeed his intention is only a vow,

let him say so,

let him explicitly say: “It is a sacrifice upon me”!?

And the Gemara explains: For

he thought

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], for this is the way of people: to press a drunkard to drink, whereas he does not want to drink now—

and therefore

I will say this matter to them

[I will say to them the language of naziriteship]

which is decisive for them

[this language is absolute in their view, that everything is forbidden], and I will remove them from me, and they will no longer bring me any wine.

The Gemara continues to explain the Mishna: And concerning this law that we learned regarding a drunkard, the tanna brings support for his words:

And there was also an incident involving one woman

who was drunk, and they mixed for her the cup, and she said: “I am a nazirite from it,” and the Sages said: “This woman intended only to say: ‘It is a sacrifice upon me’”!

Mishna:

A. In the beraita brought above, 3b, we learned: “Rabbi Shimon says: He is not liable until he takes a nazirite vow 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 took a nazirite vow 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 discussion that follows it, various forms of accepting naziriteship are explained, and it is explained whether and how they depend upon this dispute; the meaning of all the sections of the Mishna is explained in the Gemara.

A. One who said: “

Behold, I am a nazirite on the condition that I may drink wine and become impure through the dead,”

even though these matters are forbidden to a nazirite.

even though these acts are prohibited to a nazirite,

He is a nazirite

complete

and is forbidden in all of them

including drinking wine and impurity through the dead. B. One who accepted naziriteship upon himself without specification, and afterward said: “

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

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

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

He is forbidden,

in accordance with the view of the Sages in the Mishna and the beraita above, 3b, that even if he took a nazirite vow regarding only one of the prohibitions of a nazirite, he is forbidden in all of them.

And Rabbi Shimon permits,

in accordance with his view, for he holds in the beraita above, 3b: He is not liable until he takes a nazirite vow from all of them, that is, from all the prohibitions of naziriteship. C. One who accepted naziriteship upon himself without specification, and afterward said:

I know that a nazirite is forbidden wine, but I thought that the Sages permitted me

to drink wine

because I cannot live except on wine

, since I am ill or weak.

because I am ill or weak.

Or

he said: I thought that the Sages permitted me to become impure through the dead

because

I am pressed concerning the sustenance of my household, and my occupation is

that I bury the dead;

and therefore it was not my intention 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 in the Gemara it will be explained that the words of the Sages and Rabbi Shimon must be reversed: the Sages are the ones who prohibit, since according to their view he need not take a nazirite vow from all the prohibitions of naziriteship, whereas Rabbi Shimon, according to his own view, is the one who permits.

Gemara:

We learned in the first clause of the Mishna: “I am a nazirite on the condition that I may drink wine and become impure through the dead; he is a nazirite and is forbidden in 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 forbidden wine; he is forbidden, and Rabbi Shimon permits”:

In its question, the Gemara thought that, in explaining the first clause, one who says, “I am a nazirite on the condition that I may drink wine and become impure through the dead,” is as though he said: “I am a nazirite ‘except for’ drinking wine and impurity through the dead,” and it follows that he did not accept these prohibitions upon himself. If so, this law depends upon the dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Shimon—in the middle clause and in the beraita above, 3b—as to whether a nazirite must accept all the prohibitions of naziriteship; and therefore the Gemara wonders:

Since Rabbi Shimon disagreed in the middle clause regarding one who says, “I know that there is naziriteship, but I do not know that a nazirite is forbidden wine,” for he holds: Since he did not accept all the prohibitions of naziriteship upon himself, he is not a nazirite, in accordance with his view in the beraita brought above, 3b, if so:

And should Rabbi Shimon also disagree in the first clause

[let Rabbi Shimon also disagree in the first clause], when he said: “I am a nazirite on the condition that I may drink wine and become impure through the dead,” for even in the first clause he did not accept all the prohibitions of naziriteship upon himself!?

He said,

he answered,

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi:

Indeed,

Rabbi Shimon disagreed even in the first clause,

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

Ravina said:

In the first clause Rabbi Shimon did not disagree,

and he agrees with the first tanna that he is forbidden in all of them!

What is the reason?

For—according to Ravina—in the first clause he accepted upon himself all the prohibitions of naziriteship, but he made a condition concerning the application of the naziriteship, that it should apply only if he would not be forbidden 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 in the end, he did impose a condition in his naziriteship that it should apply only if these prohibitions would not be imposed upon him —

This is not so, because

it would be “

one who stipulates contrary to what is written in the Torah,”

for the fulfillment of the condition would be the annulment of what is written in the Torah, since the Torah said: A nazirite is forbidden in all these prohibitions,

and every one who stipulates contrary to what is written in the Torah, his condition is void,

but his acceptance remains in force.

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi—

who holds that Rabbi Shimon disagreed even in the first clause—

will say to you:

Even in the first clause 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

as

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

except”

for these—

is comparable,

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: One who said, ‘I am a nazirite on the condition that I may drink wine and become impure through the dead,’ he is a nazirite and is forbidden in all of them, because he is one who 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 middle clause of the Mishna: “I know that there is naziriteship, but I do not know that the nazir is forbidden wine,” this one is forbidden, and Rabbi Shimon permits.

And we learned in the final clause:

“I know that the nazir is forbidden wine”,

“but I had thought that the Sages permit me because I cannot live except with wine, or because I bury the dead, this one is permitted”; and Rabbi Shimon forbids. The Gemara is astonished at the final clause:

“But you said in the first clause

namely, in the middle clause: ‘I know that there is naziriteship, but I do not know that the nazir is forbidden wine,’ this one is

forbidden, and Rabbi Shimon permits.”

And if so, also in the final clause, when he says: “I know that the nazir is forbidden wine, but I had thought that the Sages permit me”—that here too he did not accept upon himself all the prohibitions of the nazir—the law according to the First Tanna should have been that he is forbidden, and Rabbi Shimon should have permitted; yet the wording in the Mishna is the reverse!?

And we answer: Reverse the dispute of the First Tanna and Rabbi Shimon in the final clause, and

say

in the final clause

also

as in the middle clause:

This one is forbidden, and Rabbi Shimon permits.

Alternatively, if you wish,

to explain their dispute, that of the First Tanna and Rabbi Shimon, in the final clause, where the First Tanna permits and Rabbi Shimon forbids:

Never reverse

their dispute in the final clause; indeed, it is the First Tanna who forbids, and it is Rabbi Shimon who permits.

And if this is difficult for you: What is different about the final clause from the middle clause, in which they disputed in the reverse manner? I will say to you: They did not dispute in the final clause in the same manner as in the middle clause, but rather: