Nazir 21a — the Talmud in English

Therefore, anyone who attaches himself immediately after the time of speech has passed is a nazirite, even though this was not "within the time of speech."

Folio 21a

It was taught likewise,

in accordance with the words of Reish Lakish and not in accordance with the words of Rabbi Judah Nesi'a:

One who said "

I am a nazirite,"

and his fellow heard and waited the time of speech, and said

immediately after the time of speech, "

And I,"

behold

he, the first one,

is forbidden, and his fellow is permitted, since he did not attach himself "within the time of speech," but immediately adjacent to it.

And the beraita continues:

And how much is the time of speech?

The time required for a student to greet his teacher.

Let us say that it supports him,

Reish Lakish, from the first part of the first clause of our Mishna: "

One who said, I am a nazirite, and his fellow heard and said:

And I,"

and an additional fellow said

And I"

; and no more,

the tanna did not mention more than two people who attached themselves to the first

;

he did not mention—

And this works out well according to Reish Lakish, who holds that one can attach himself during the entire time of speech, but no further. It is therefore understandable that the tanna mentioned two people who attached themselves and no more, because in the case of the second there is a novelty: his attachment is effective even though the first interrupted him with his speech; but in the case of the third there is no novelty, for it is within the time of speech, and therefore the tanna did not mention it, since what difference is there between it and the second?

But according to Rabbi Judah, who holds that they can attach themselves even after the time of speech, the tanna should have taught the case of four people who attached themselves to the first, in order to teach us that even the fourth, who came after the time of speech, is also caught up in the naziriteship!?

И отвечаем: разве

And we answer: Is that to say that the

tanna is like a shopkeeper, to list and go on [is the tanna a shopkeeper who specifies his merchandise before the buyers]? That is, indeed, the tanna could have taught "And I" four times, but he did not take care to enumerate everything that he could have enumerated.

И возражаем:

And we ask:

Let him teach one, and let him teach us this [let the tanna teach "And I" only once, to teach us the law]! That is, since you say that even though there is a novelty in the fourth, who is caught up in the naziriteship, nevertheless the tanna did not take care to teach it, then for what reason did the tanna mention the third, in order to teach us that his attachment is effective even though the second interrupted him!? And we answer:

This too,

indeed, strictly speaking the tanna should not have taught even the third—

И

And

only

because he teaches in the latter clause: "

If the first was released, they were all released; if the last was released, the last is permitted and all of them are forbidden"

it follows that there is an intermediate one—

and for this reason he teaches "

And I, and I,"

that is: Since, through the tanna's mentioning three people in the latter clause, we can learn to resolve the uncertainty that the Gemara raises later in the discussion, as explained below, it follows that the tanna had to mention three people in our Mishna, and this is what is written: "And I, and I."

It was asked of them,

the students of the academy were uncertain: When two or more people say one after another, "And I"—does

each

one attach himself to his fellow [the one attaches himself to his fellow], meaning that the second attaches his naziriteship to the first, and the third attaches his naziriteship to the second?

Or perhaps

all

attach themselves to the first [both attach their naziriteships to the first]?

What practical difference is there? To attach oneself and continue [to add further attachments], that is: whether it is possible to continue attaching oneself even when the "time of speech" from the naziriteship of the first has passed, as it explains and proceeds.

Какова практическая разница? Чтобы продолжать присоединение

If you say that each one attaches himself to his fellow [if each one attaches himself to the one preceding him], then

they can attach themselves and continue forever [people can continue attaching themselves without limit], provided that each one is "within the time of speech" of the one preceding him. And if you say that they attach themselves to the first [and if you say that all of them attach themselves to the first],

all the more so

beyond the time of speech

from the naziriteship of the first

they cannot attach themselves,

it is impossible to attach oneself.

And once the practical difference has been explained, the Gemara returns to its question:

What—is it according to this side or according to the second side?

Come and hear

to resolve it from the opening of the opening clause in our Mishna, that all attach themselves to the first:

He said "

I am a nazirite"

and his fellow heard and said "

And I," "

And I,"

and nothing more—

that is, the tanna did not mention additional people—behold

learn from it that

it is to the first that they attach themselves [all attach themselves to the first]—

For if it enters your mind that each one attaches himself to his fellow [each one attaches himself to the one preceding him], then

let him teach many "

And I" [let the tanna mention many people who said "And I"], in order to teach us that even though from the fourth onward they cannot attach themselves within the time of speech of the first, nevertheless they are nazirites, because each one attaches himself to his fellow.

And we reject this: Is that to say that the

tanna is like a shopkeeper, to list and go on [is the tanna a shopkeeper who specifies his merchandise]!? That is, although there is indeed a novelty in the fact that the fourth too can attach himself, since he attaches himself to the one who preceded him, nevertheless it can be said that the tanna did not take care to enumerate everything that he could.

отсюда следует, что

And we ask:

If so,

let him teach one and let him teach us all of them [let the tanna teach only that one said "And I," and we will know the law concerning the others]!?

And we answer:

Since he teaches "

If the first was released, they were all released; if the last was released, the last is permitted and all of them are forbidden,"

it follows that there is an intermediate one; for this reason he teaches "And I, and I."

That is: Since, through the fact that three people are mentioned in the law of the latter clause, we can infer that each one attaches himself to his fellow, as the Gemara infers later in the discussion, it necessarily follows that the tanna had to speak of a case in which there were three people.

И отвергаем: разве

таннай обязан перечислять всё, как торговец, расхваливающий свой товар

то есть разве таннай подобен торговцу, который подробно перечисляет свой товар? Иными словами, хотя в том, что даже четвёртый может присоединиться, действительно есть новизна, поскольку он присоединяется к тому, кто был непосредственно перед ним, всё же можно сказать, что таннай не счёл нужным перечислять всё, что можно было бы перечислить.

И возражаем: тогда

пусть таннай упомянет одного и сообщит нам закон обо всех

то есть пусть таннай упомянет только одного, сказавшего «И я», и мы узнаем закон относительно остальных!?

И отвечаем:

поскольку в конце Мишны сказано: «

Если первый получил разрешение, все они получили разрешение; если последний получил разрешение, последний получает разрешение, а все остальные остаются под запретом»,

отсюда следует, что есть средний; поэтому таннай сказал: “И я, и я”.

То есть поскольку из упоминания трёх людей в законе, приведённом в конце Мишны, можно заключить, что каждый присоединяется к своему товарищу, как Гемара заключает далее в ходе сугьи, таннай был вынужден сформулировать Мишну так, чтобы в ней фигурировали три человека.

ta shma

to resolve that all take hold through the first, from the wording of the middle clause of the opening section of our Mishna:

as we learned: "

the first was released, they were all released",

it is implied: only if the

first is released

only then are they all released, including the third],

but

if the

middle one

alone is released—then all

are not

released, including the third among them, for the tannay did not mention that if the middle one was released, the third was released—

and if so,

infer from this that they take hold through the first,

they all take hold through the first, and even the third takes hold through it and not through the middle one; therefore, the naziriteship of the third is not dependent upon the naziriteship of the middle one.

And we reject this:

I can say to you: in fact, one takes hold through the other,

and even if the middle one was released, the last one was released,

and

the reason the tannay did not mention this is that

since he needed to teach "they were all released"

[since the tannay wanted to teach us that they were all released, and not only the last one],

for if

he had

taught "the

middle one

was released",

then

there is a first one that is not released [the first one is not released through the release of the middle one; rather, only the one after it is released]

since the first one is not released through the release of the middle one; only the one after it is released.

for that reason he teaches "the

first

was released" and not "the middle one was released."

ta shma

to resolve from the wording of the concluding clause of the opening section of our Mishna that each one takes hold through the other:

the last one was released; the last one is permitted, and they are all forbidden

for they did not make their naziriteship dependent upon it.

And it is implied: specifically if the

last one was released,

then all are forbidden, since

there are no others after it [there are no further others after it who took hold through it]—

there is no one else after it who linked himself to it.

but if the

middle one, through which there is another after it, was released [there is one after it who took hold through it], then not all are forbidden, but

there is someone after it who linked himself to it, then they are not all forbidden; rather,

the third is released, for if not, the tannay should have taught us this case, and all the more so the case mentioned in the Mishna.

because otherwise the tanna should have taught us this case, and all the more so the case mentioned in the Mishna.

And if so,

infer from this

that

one takes hold through the other.

And we reject this:

in fact, I can say to you that they all take hold through the first,

and even when the middle one was released, it alone is permitted and all the others are forbidden,

and what is the

"last one"

that he teaches in our Mishna, that if it was released they are all forbidden: the

It means: “

middle one—

and

only

since he taught in the opening section:

"first",

therefore

he teaches in the concluding section

"last",

for the middle one, relative to the one preceding it, is the last, and in fact the intention is also the middle one, and not only the ממש last one.

ta shma

to resolve that one takes hold through the other from that which

is explicitly taught [we learned an explicit beraita]:

in a beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna:

the first was released, they were all released; the last was released, the last is permitted and they are all forbidden; the middle one was released, from it and downward

[from the middle one and after it]

is permitted,

for he made his naziriteship take hold through the second, whereas

from it and upward

[from the middle one and before it] is

forbidden,

for he did not make it take hold through it.

Thus

infer from this: "

one takes hold through the other."

And we conclude: indeed,

infer from this

that each one takes hold through the other and not through the first.

We learned in the Mishna:

"I am a nazirite," and his fellow heard and said, "My mouth is like his mouth, and my hair is like his hair,"

he is a nazirite:

The Gemara is astonished at this: Is it

because he said "

My mouth is like his mouth, and my hair is like his hair"

that he is a nazirite!?