Nazir 13a (יג.) — the Talmud in English

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

his wife miscarried

and we do not know whether the fetus was nonviable or whether it was a viable male whose gestational months had already been completed,

he is not a nazirite,

even by virtue of the doubt; and the Gemara will explain the reason.

Rabbi Shimon says:

He is a possible nazirite, since it is possible that the fetus was viable, and he must observe naziriteship because of the doubt —

And it is preferable for him to stipulate and

say

at the beginning of his observance of naziriteship:

“If it was a viable male child, I am a nazirite by obligation

to fulfill my vow—

and if not—

that it was not a viable male child—

I am a nazirite

for

a voluntary offering.”

For if he does not do so, since his obligation of naziriteship is uncertain, he will not be able to bring his offerings at the end of his naziriteship, because perhaps they are unconsecrated animals in the Temple courtyard, and he will consequently remain forbidden forever to drink wine, cut his hair, or become impure. But now that he stipulated, in either case he is a nazirite—whether by obligation or as a voluntary offering.

And if, after she miscarried,

his

wife

again gave birth

from a subsequent pregnancy,

he is a nazirite

because of this birth, for his intention was that he should become a nazirite when there would be “a definite birth.”

Rabbi Shimon says:

He is a nazirite only because of a doubt, since perhaps the fetus from the first pregnancy was viable, and he had said that he would be a nazirite only once, and he had already completed his naziriteship when he observed naziriteship the first time because of the doubt. Therefore:

He should now observe a second period of naziriteship, and it is preferable for him to stipulate and

say: If

the

first was viable,

then the observance of naziriteship

first

was

by obligation, and this

that I observe now shall be as

a voluntary offering.

And if not—

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

first

was as

a voluntary offering, and this

that I observe now shall be by

obligation.

Gemara:

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

The Gemara asks:

What is this teaching,

what does this clause come to teach us? It is obvious!?

And we answer: This clause was necessary only

because of

the

latter clause

that we learned: If a

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

We nevertheless ask: Even the latter clause is

obvious

and need not be taught!?

And we answer:

Lest you say,

if the Mishna had not taught us this, I would say that when he said “son,”

he meant ‘when I will be established’

[i.e., when I will have a child],

as in the verse: “She shall place him upon her knees, and I too shall be established through her,” and a female child [or a tumtum or androgynos] is also included—

Therefore,

the Mishna teaches us

that it is

not so;

rather, he literally said “son.”

We learned in the Mishna:

“And if he said

‘when I have a child,’

even if a female child, tumtum, or androgynos is born to him, he is a nazirite”:

And we ask:

Is this obvious!?

And we explain:

Lest you say,

if our Mishna had not taught us this—

we require a child who is considered such among people

that is, the child must be one considered important among people and not a female child, and all the more so not a tumtum or an androgynos—

the Mishna teaches us otherwise!

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 that even though it is uncertain whether his words were fulfilled, he is nevertheless not a nazirite?

It is Rabbi Yehuda of the Keri

Rabbi Yehuda cited in the beraita concerning the pile.

As it is taught in a beraita [cited above, 8a]: “‘I will be a nazirite on condition that this pile contains one hundred kor.’ He went and found that it had been stolen or lost, and so on; Rabbi Yehuda permits him, since a doubt concerning naziriteship is treated leniently.”

Since naziriteship because of a doubt is more stringent for him than definite naziriteship—for if he becomes impure, there is no remedy for him, 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 unconsecrated offering in the Temple courtyard, and he would have to observe naziriteship all the days of his life—it is therefore logical that “a person does not place himself in a situation of uncertainty” [no person places himself in the status of a possible nazirite], and his intention was to be a nazirite only if it would become clear that the pile indeed contained one hundred kor.

So too, in the case of our Mishna, since his doubt is more stringent than certainty, “a person does not place himself in a situation of uncertainty”; and if his wife miscarried and he does not know whether the fetus was viable, according to Rabbi Yehuda he is not even a possible nazirite.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Rabbi Shimon says, he should say:

‘If it was a viable male child, I am a nazirite by obligation; and if not, I am a nazirite as a voluntary offering’”:

a. When a woman gives birth to twins, it is known that there was one drop of semen that divided into two.

b. When a woman gives birth to twins one after the other on the same day, one of whom is of uncertain viability—whether he is viable or a nonviable fetus whose gestational months were not completed—and the other is viable, this is strong evidence that the first one’s gestational months were also completed, since they came from 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, so that the gestational months of one fetus were completed, whereas those of the other were not completed.

Rabbi Abba asked Rav Huna:

One who says:

“I will be a nazirite when I have a son,”

and his wife was carrying twins,

and his wife miscarried

one male fetus, and it is uncertain whether its gestational months were completed or were not completed.

And

her husband

set aside an offering

for his naziriteship, as he thought that he was a nazirite—

Since his wife miscarried, according to Rabbi Shimon the offering is consecrated because of the doubt, whereas according to Rabbi Yehuda it is unconsecrated, since its consecration was in error—

and

once again

his

wife

gave birth

on that same day to the second fetus [even if she gave birth to a female child, which does not obligate him in naziriteship, since he made his naziriteship dependent on a son], in such a manner that there is no uncertainty concerning whether its gestational months were completed —

What

is the ruling? Since a second fetus was born whose gestational months were certainly completed, this provides us with strong evidence that the first fetus’s gestational months were also completed, since they came from one drop that divided into two. If so, did the father become obligated in naziriteship by virtue of the first miscarriage, and did the offering become consecrated in accordance with its law? This will be explained further in the continuation of the Gemara.

The Gemara asks:

According to whom

did Rabbi Abba raise this uncertainty—Rabbi Shimon or Rabbi Yehuda?

If it is according to Rabbi Shimon,

what does he need to ask

Rabbi Abba, and what is there to be uncertain about? Surely the offering is consecrated because of the doubt, even if no second fetus had been born,

as Rabbi Shimon said: a doubt concerning naziriteship is treated stringently.

You might say: Since we have proof that the first fetus too was viable, the offering should be consecrated with certainty. This is not so, for in any event there is no complete certainty that the first fetus was viable, since perhaps one half of the semen was absorbed two or three days before the other half, in which case the gestational months of one fetus were completed, whereas those of the other were not completed.

If so, according to Rabbi Shimon there is no basis for Rabbi Abba’s uncertainty.

Rather, it is according to Rabbi Yehuda, who said:

“A doubt concerning naziriteship is treated leniently,”

that Rabbi Abba raised his uncertainty:

What is the ruling? Is it

consecrated,

the offering being consecrated because of the doubt, since we have strong evidence that the fetus was viable, and the father became obligated in naziriteship and his offering became consecrated,

or is it not consecrated

at all? Although we have strong evidence that it was indeed viable, since nevertheless it remains a matter of doubt, he is not obligated in naziriteship, because the nazirite’s intention does not encompass a doubtful case at all, and his offering becomes unconsecrated, since its consecration was in error. And the Gemara explains:

What practical difference

does Rabbi Abba’s uncertainty make?

For shearing it and working with it,

for if it is consecrated, it is forbidden to shear it or work with it, and if it is not consecrated, it is permitted.

And we conclude:

Teyku!

Ben Rechumi asked

Abaye:

One who says:

“I will be a nazirite when I have a son, and his fellow heard him and said,

‘And I,’

what is

the intention and legal status of the listener? For his words can be interpreted in two ways:

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

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

Does “and I”

refer to the statement

of the first,

meaning

that he accepted upon himself the entire content of his fellow’s statement, and if so, he too will be a nazirite when his fellow’s son is born?

Or does it refer to himself

the second person,

meaning

that is, he made his naziriteship dependent on having a son himself, and when his own son is born, he will be a nazirite?

And

if you should say

that when he said “and I,” it certainly

refers to himself,

and he is a nazirite when he himself has a son—there is still another uncertainty: In a case where the first

said

:

“I will be a nazirite when I have a son,”

and his fellow heard him and said

“And I”—

what is the ruling?

Does the second person, although he said “and I,”

refer to himself,

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 person

said: “I love you as myself

[I love you as myself] and rejoice in your joy, and I too accept naziriteship upon myself when you are blessed with a son?

And

if you should say

that his intention when he said “and I” is certainly that he will be a nazirite when his fellow has a son, and not when he himself has a son, because

everyone in his presence

[everyone in the presence of the man destined to become a father]

is embarrassed by the matter

[he is embarrassed by the matter] of failing to please his fellow and show him that he desires his well-being, and he certainly intended to accept naziriteship upon himself when his fellow is blessed with a son, and not when he himself is—