Nazir 13a — the Talmud in English

or he said: “when I have a child,” and

his wife miscarried

and we do not know whether what was miscarried was a stillborn fetus or a viable son whose months had already been completed,

he is not a nazirite,

even by doubt; and the reason will be explained in the Gemara.

Rabbi Shimon says:

He is a doubtful nazirite, since it is possible that he was viable, and he must conduct naziriteship on account of the doubt —

And it is better for him to make a condition and

say

at the beginning of conducting his naziriteship: “

If he was viable, I am a nazirite as an obligation

to fulfill my vow—

and if not—

that he was not viable—

I am a nazirite

for

a voluntary offering”;

for if he does not do so, since his obligation of naziriteship is because of a doubt, he will not be able to bring his offerings at the end of his naziriteship, because perhaps they are ordinary animals in the Temple courtyard, and it will follow that he will be forbidden forever with respect to wine, cutting his hair, and impurity; but now that he made a condition, in either case he is a nazirite, whether as an obligation or as a voluntary offering.

And if, after she miscarried,

his wife returned

and

gave birth

from another pregnancy,

he is a nazirite

because of this birth, for his intention was that he should be a nazirite when there would be “a definite birth” [unclear: the source text is visibly corrupted].

Rabbi Shimon says:

He is a nazirite only because of a doubt, for perhaps the child in the first pregnancy was viable, and he had said that he would be a nazirite only once, and he already completed his naziriteship when he conducted naziriteship because of the doubt the first time; therefore:

He should now conduct a second naziriteship, and it is better for him to make a condition and

say: If

the

first was viable,

then the conducting of the naziriteship

the first

was

an obligation, and this

which I will conduct now will be

a voluntary offering.

And if not—

that the first was not viable—then the conducting of the naziriteship

the first

is

a voluntary offering, and this

which I will conduct now will be

an obligation.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “I am a nazirite when I will have a son,” and a son was born to him; he is a nazirite:

The Gemara asks:

What is this meant to state

what does this passage come to teach us? Surely it is obvious!?

And we answer: This passage was necessary only

because of

the

final clause

that we learned: If a

“female, tumtum, or androgynos” was born to him, “he is not a nazirite.”

And still we ask: Surely even the final clause is

obvious

and there is no need to teach it!?

And we answer:

Lest you say

if the Mishna had not taught us this, I would say: What he said, “son”—

‘when I will be built up’

is what he said

and in accordance with the verse: “And she bore upon my knees, and I too shall be built up through her”; and even a female [or a tumtum and an androgynos] is included—

Therefore

it teaches us

our Mishna—

not so,

but rather, “son” literally is what he said.

We learned in the Mishna:

And if he said

“when I will have a child”,

even if a female, a tumtum, or an androgynos was born to him, he is a nazirite:

And we ask:

Is it obvious!?

And we explain:

Lest you say,

if our Mishna had not taught us—

we require a child considered such among people [

it is necessary that it be a significant child among people] and not a female, and all the more so a tumtum or an androgynos.

It teaches us!

We learned in the Mishna:

His wife miscarried; he is not a nazirite:

And the Gemara explains:

Who teaches this

who is the tanna who holds this—that even though there is a doubt whether his words were fulfilled, nevertheless he is not a nazirite?

It is Rabbi Judah of the Keri;

it is Rabbi Judah mentioned in the beraita of “Keri.”

For it was taught: [in the beraita, brought above, 8a]: “I am a nazirite on condition that this heap contain one hundred kor, and he went and found that it had been stolen or lost, etc.; Rabbi Judah permits, for doubtful naziriteship is treated leniently.”

Since naziriteship because of a doubt is more stringent for him than definite naziriteship—for if he becomes impure, he has no remedy, because perhaps he is not a nazirite, and he cannot bring the guilt-offering of an impure nazirite because of the doubt, since perhaps it is an ordinary offering in the Temple courtyard, and he will have to conduct naziriteship all the days of his life—therefore it is logical that “a person does not place himself into a doubt” [a person does not put himself into a state of doubtful naziriteship], and his intention was not to be a nazirite unless it would become clear that there had indeed been one hundred kor in the heap.

And also concerning the case of our Mishna, since its doubt is more stringent than its certainty, “a person does not place himself into a doubt”; and if she miscarried and he does not know whether it was viable, he is not even a doubtful nazirite according to Rabbi Judah.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon says, he should say: “

If he was viable, I am a nazirite as an obligation; and if not, I am a nazirite as a voluntary offering”:

A. A woman who gives birth to twins—it is known that there was one drop which divided into two.

B. A woman who gives birth to twins one after the other on one day: one is doubtful whether it is viable or a stillborn fetus whose months had not been completed, while the other is viable. This is strong proof that the first one too had its months completed, for it was one drop that divided into two; nevertheless, it is not certain, because it is possible that one half of the drop was absorbed two or three days before the other half, and the months of one child were completed, whereas the months of the other were not completed.

Rabbi Abba asked Rav Huna:

One who says:

“I am a nazirite when I will have a son”

and his wife had twins in her womb,

and his wife miscarried

one male child, and it is uncertain whether his months had been completed or his months had not been completed.

And he set aside

her husband

an offering

for his naziriteship, thinking that he was a nazirite—

And once his wife miscarried, the status of the offering according to Rabbi Shimon is that it is consecrated because of a doubt, whereas according to Rabbi Judah it is an ordinary offering, for its consecration had been in error—

And

again

his wife returned

and

gave birth

on that same day to the second child [and even if she gave birth to a female, which does not impose naziriteship since he made his naziriteship dependent on a son], in such a manner that there is no doubt concerning it whether its months had been completed —

What

is said? Since she gave birth to a second child whose months had certainly been completed, we have strong proof that the first one too had its months completed, for it was one drop that divided into two; and if so, the father became obligated in naziriteship by virtue of the first miscarriage, and the offering became consecrated in accordance with its law? And this will be further explained later in the Gemara.

The Gemara asks:

According to whose view—

Rabbi Shimon or Rabbi Judah—did Rabbi Abba raise his doubt?

If according to Rabbi Shimon,

what is there for him to ask

for Rabbi Abba, and what is there to doubt about the matter!? Surely the offering is certainly consecrated because of a doubt, even if a second child had not been born,

for Rabbi Shimon said: doubtful naziriteship is treated stringently.

Lest you say: Since we have proof that the first one too was viable, the offering should be consecrated as a certainty—this is not so, for in any event there is no complete certainty here that the first one was viable, because perhaps half the seed was absorbed two or three days before the other half, and it follows that the months of one were completed, whereas the months of the other were not completed.

And if so, according to Rabbi Shimon there is no place for Rabbi Abba’s doubt.

Rather, according to Rabbi Judah, who says: “

doubtful naziriteship is treated leniently,”

it is according to him that Rabbi Abba raised his doubt:

What?

Is it consecrated,

the offering, because of the doubt, since we have strong proof that it was viable, and he became obligated in naziriteship and his offering became consecrated,

or is it not consecrated,

at all, since although we have strong proof that it was indeed viable, nevertheless, since it remains a doubt, he is not obligated in naziriteship, for the nazirite’s intention was not for a doubt at all, and his offering becomes ordinary, since its consecration was in error? And the Gemara explains:

What practical difference

is there in Rabbi Abba’s doubt?

For shearing it and working with it,

for if it is consecrated, it is forbidden for shearing and work, and if it is not consecrated, it is permitted.

And we conclude:

It stands unresolved!

Ben Rahumi asked

Abaye:

One who says:

“I am a nazirite when I will have a son,” and his fellow heard and said

“And I”—

what

is the intention and law of the one who heard? For his words can be interpreted in two ways:

The first: I too am a nazirite when “you” will have a son.

The second: I too am a nazirite when “I” will have a son.

Does “and I”

refer to the speech

of the first, that is, does it

refer

to the entire content of his fellow’s speech, and if so, he too will be a nazirite when a son is born to his fellow?

Or does it refer to himself,

the second,

refer

to himself; that is, he made his naziriteship dependent on a son that he himself will have, and when a son is born to him, he will be a nazirite?

And

if you should say

that when he said “and I,” certainly

it refers to himself,

and he is a nazirite when he himself has a son—there is still a doubt: in a case where the first

said

“I”

am a nazirite when I will have a son,”

and his fellow heard and said

“And I”—

what is the law?

Does the fact that he said “and I”

mean concerning himself, that he will be a nazirite when he himself has a son?

so that he will be a nazirite when he himself has a son?

Or perhaps,

since he said “and I,”

this is what

the second

said:

“I love you like yourself” [I love you as myself] and rejoice in your joy, and I too accept naziriteship upon myself when you merit having a son?

And

if you should say

that certainly his intention when saying “and I” was that he would be a nazirite when his fellow had a son and not when he himself had a son, for

everyone in his presence [

everyone in the presence of the one destined to become a father]

is ashamed of the matter [

he is embarrassed by the matter], not to bring his fellow satisfaction and show him that he desires his welfare, and certainly he intended to accept naziriteship upon himself when his fellow merited having a son and not he—