Nazir 14a — the Talmud in English

If you should conclude

that with regard to

a short nezirut

he does not intend to interrupt it,

since ten days

alone, which do not contain the measure of nezirut,

are what remain [

after he completes the second nezirut]—

therefore

these ten certainly do not accrue to him,

that is to say: these ten days, which do not contain the measure of nezirut, are not fit to join the half of the nezirut with which he began, and therefore he does not wish to interrupt it—

But

a nazir

who undertook an extended nezirut of

one hundred days, since he has eighty

[eighty]

days at the end

which he must complete for the first nezirut,

accrue to him

they are fit to join the days of nezirut that he has already counted. If so, one may say that he intends to begin immediately and is not particular about the interruption, as indeed is implied by his wording—

If not,

does he intend to interrupt his nezirut? And Rava adds and remains uncertain:

b.

And if you should conclude

that with regard to an extended nezirut

the nezirut takes effect

from now, even though he will have to interrupt it—

if

he said: “

I am a nazir after twenty days, and from now I am a nazir forever,”

what is the halakha; does there take effect upon him

from now nezirut olam,

or not?

And because one may say: specifically an interruption in his nezirut by means of similar nezirut does not matter to him, since even at the time that he interrupts it, he practices nezirut of the kind that he vowed—

but when he now undertook “nezirut olam” and after twenty days accepted ordinary nezirut upon himself, one may say that he does not wish to interrupt his nezirut olam with another kind of nezirut.

And Rava adds and remains uncertain:

c. And

if you should conclude,

that

here,

when he accepted nezirut olam upon himself from now,

since it is possible to ask

[to have the second nezirut, which he accepted upon himself, annulled, and then he would not need to interrupt the nezirut that he accepted now; therefore]

it takes effect

this nezirut from now, for it was in his power that there should be no interruption in his nezirut, and therefore even if he does not ask to have it annulled, he practices it.

But if

he said: “

I am a nazir like Samson”—

for this too is a type of nezirut different from the one that he is accepting now, but it cannot be annulled—“

after twenty days, and from now I am an unspecified nazir,”

what is the halakha?

For

here,

that

it is not possible to ask to have annulled

the nezirut Shimshon that is coming to interrupt it,

does there take effect

the unspecified nezirut that he undertook now,

or not,

since it is not reasonable that he intended to interrupt the nezirut that he is accepting now with another type of nezirut, namely, nezirut Shimshon?

And Rava adds and remains uncertain about another matter of nezirut:

d.

A person said: “I will be

like

Moses

[the generation of Moses]

on the seventh of Adar,”

what

is his law, whether he is a nazir or not?

For Moses our teacher was born on the seventh of Adar and also died on it; on the day of his birth they certainly rejoiced with great joy, and on the day of his death, presumably, many vowed vows and nazirites became numerous in Israel because of grief. The uncertainty is how to interpret his wording: whether his intention is to be in great joy like on the day of Moses’ birth, on the seventh of Adar, or whether his intention is to be a nazir like on the day of Moses’ death, on the seventh of Adar.

The Gemara resolves:

Resolve at least the first one

[the first question of Rava, concerning an extended nezirut, should be resolved]:

From that which it is explicitly taught: “

I am a nazir after twenty days, and from now one hundred days”:

This person

counts twenty

days toward the nezirut of one hundred days,

and afterward counts thirty

days on account of the second nezirut,

and afterward

he returns and

counts eighty

days that were lacking for him

in order to complete the first nezirut.

Thus, in any event, with regard to extended nezirut, the nezirut takes effect now.

We learned in the Mishna: “I am a nazir when I have a son, and [I am] a nazir. He began counting his own [nezirut], and afterward a son was born to him; he sets his own [nezirut] aside and counts that of his son, and afterward completes his own [nezirut]”:

And the Gemara brings a dispute of amoraim concerning one who acted according to the law of the Mishna and

became impure during the days of

the practice of the nezirut of

his son,

which was in the middle of his own nezirut:

Rabbi Yohanan says:

This person

invalidates

both neziruyot: both his own, which he interrupted in the middle, and that of his son; and after his purification he returns to count both of them.

Resh Lakish said: He does not invalidate

the nezirut that he interrupted in the middle, but only the nezirut of his son, which he is practicing at the time of the impurity.

And the Gemara explains their reasons:

Rabbi Yohanan said: He invalidates

even his own nezirut, because his nezirut together with the nezirut of his son, which he practices in the middle of his own nezirut, all of it

is one long nezirut [

it is one long nezirut].

Resh Lakish said: He does not invalidate,

for here there is not one long nezirut, but

his own nezirut is separate, and his son’s matter is separate [

his own is separate and his son’s is separate].