Nazir 21b — the Talmud in English

And he raises a contradiction:

a contradiction:

One who said,

“My hands are a nazirite”

and

“my feet are a nazirite,”

has said nothing.

But if he said,

“My head is a nazirite,”

or

“my liver is a nazirite,”

he is a nazirite.

This is the principle:

if he attached his naziriteship to

a thing upon which the soul depends,

such as the head and the liver,

he is a nazirite.

And if so, the difficulty arises: Yet one who says, “My mouth like his mouth,” is only like one who says: My mouth shall be a nazirite like his, and this is not naziriteship, since neither the mouth nor the hair is among the things upon which the soul depends!?

Said

he explained

Rav Yehuda:

He said

the one who becomes a nazirite

in this manner,

that is, since he heard his fellow becoming a nazirite and said, “My mouth like his mouth,” he is considered as though he said: “

Let my mouth become like his mouth with regard to wine,”

for had he said this, it would have been effective, because this is no worse than “designations of naziriteship.”

And

he is considered as though he said: “Let

my hair become like his hair”

with regard to cutting.

We learned in the Mishna:

“I am a nazirite,” and her husband heard and said, “And I”—he cannot annul [her vow].

They raised a question:

the members of the academy were uncertain:

The husband

who annuls his wife’s naziriteship, does he

uproot

uproot

the naziriteship retroactively, as though she had never become a nazirite,

or perhaps

the husband does not uproot it retroactively, but rather

cuts it off

[cutting and severing it] from this point onward?

And we explain:

What practical difference is there?

In the case of a woman who vowed to be a nazirite, and her friend heard and said:

“And I,”

and the husband of the first woman heard and annulled for her

her naziriteship—

For if you say

he uproots it,

the husband, through his annulment, uproots the first woman’s naziriteship retroactively, then

that one too is permitted

[the second woman too is permitted], for this resembles what we learned in our Mishna: if one was permitted—by a Sage, who uproots retroactively—all of them are permitted.

And if you say he cuts it off,

and the naziriteship existed at the time when the second woman attached her naziriteship to it, then

she is permitted

[the wife of the one who annuls is permitted], but

her friend is forbidden.

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

What

is it—is he uprooting it or cutting it off?

Come and hear

from our Mishna that the husband “uproots it”:

“I am a nazirite,” and her husband heard and said, “And I”—he cannot annul;

and it entered our minds that this is because, if the husband were to annul it, the naziriteship that he accepted upon himself would be nullified, and he is not permitted to cause anything that would nullify his vow, as it is stated: “He shall not profane his word.”

The Gemara proves:

And if it enters your mind that the husband cuts it off,

then

let him annul it for his wife, and let him remain forbidden

[and the husband will remain in his prohibition]; and if so, why should he not annul it!?

Rather, is it not to be learned from here that the husband uproots it,

and since her naziriteship was nullified retroactively, his naziriteship too was nullified.

And we reject this:

No,

it is not as you have proved, but

indeed

I can say to you that the husband

cuts it off.

And

indeed

according to the law, he should annul it —

And this is the reason that he cannot annul

[rather, it is only for this reason that he cannot annul it]:

since he said to her

“And I,”

it is like one who said

“I have upheld it for you,”

he is considered

[as though he upheld her nazirite vow, and he can no longer annul it].

Therefore,

if he seeks a release concerning his upholding

[if he asks and they release his upholding for him],

he can annul it, and if not, he cannot annul it.

Come and hear

from the Mishna below, 24a, that the husband cuts it off:

“A woman who vowed to be a nazirite

and her days of naziriteship were completed,

and she set aside her animal

for a sin-offering, a burnt-offering, and peace-offerings, which she is obligated to bring upon completing her days of naziriteship,

and afterward her husband annulled it for her.

If the animal was his,

which the woman had consecrated,

it goes out and grazes among the herd,

that is: it goes out to ordinary status, as the reason is explained in the Gemara below [24a], because the husband did not transfer ownership of an animal to her for her offering unless she needed it; and since she does not need an offering after her husband annulled it, it becomes clear retroactively that sanctity did not take effect upon the offering, for a person cannot consecrate something that is not his.

But if the animal was hers, the sin-offering shall die.

And if it enters your mind

that the

husband

through his annulment

uproots

the naziriteship retroactively, then it is a consecration in error, and

let the sin-offering go out

[go out]

to ordinary status.

Rather, is it not to be learned from here that the husband cuts it off?

And we answer:

Indeed, I can say to you: the husband uproots it.

And this is the reason

that the sin-offering shall die:

since she requires

a little

atonement,

as will be explained, she therefore resolves to consecrate the sin-offering even if she is not a nazirite; and since the sin-offering became consecrated,

it is like a sin-offering whose owners died,

for since her husband annulled it, she is no longer obligated in a sin-offering,

and

it is

a received tradition

a law given to Moses at Sinai

that

a

sin-offering whose owners died

shall die.

The reason that she requires a little atonement is that this Mishna is according to Rabbi Eleazar Ha-Kappar

for the sin-offering comes because she afflicted herself by abstaining from wine. If so, although she is not a nazirite and is not obligated in an offering, nevertheless, in the end she did afflict herself by abstaining from wine; therefore, she resolves to consecrate the sin-offering.

Come and hear

from the Mishna below, 23a, that the husband cuts it off:

“A woman who vowed to be a nazirite, and was drinking wine and becoming impure through the dead, receives forty lashes.”

And

what are the circumstances,

in what manner does the Mishna come to teach us that she receives forty lashes if she violated her naziriteship?

If we say that her husband did not annul it,

then

is it necessary to say

that she receives forty lashes if she violated her naziriteship!?

Rather, it is obvious that her husband annulled it.

And if it enters your mind that the husband uproots it

the naziriteship retroactively, as though she had never vowed to be a nazirite, then

why does she receive

the

forty lashes,

when there is no naziriteship here at all!?

Rather, is it not to be learned from here that the husband cuts it off,

and since, at the time when she violated her naziriteship, the naziriteship existed and she violated it, she therefore receives forty lashes.

And we reject this:

Indeed, I can say to you: the husband,

when he annuls,

uproots

the naziriteship retroactively, and the Mishna is not dealing with one whose husband annulled it. And as for the difficulty you raised against it: What novelty is there in the Mishna!? I can say to you: indeed, there is no novelty here—

And because the latter clause teaches

of that Mishna:

“Her husband annulled it for her, but she did not know, and she was drinking wine and becoming impure through the dead; she does not receive the

forty lashes,”

and there is a novelty in this, to teach you that it is not according to Rabbi Yehuda, who disagreed in the Mishna there and holds that she receives lashes of rebelliousness, since she intended to violate a prohibition.