Nazir 23a (כג.) — the Talmud in English

And the Mishna

is discussing

a case where he said to her

in the form of a question: “

I am a nazirite, and you

?”

He did not make his vow contingent upon her vow;

therefore, he annuls hers, while his remains in force.

Mishna:

A woman who vowed to be a nazirite, and was drinking wine and becoming impure through contact with the dead

which are forbidden to her,

receives the forty lashes.

Her husband annulled

her nazirite vow,

but she did not know that her husband had annulled it,

and intended to violate the prohibition,

and was drinking wine and becoming impure through contact with the dead;

nevertheless,

she does not receive the forty lashes,

because although she intended to commit a prohibited act, what she actually accomplished was permitted.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

If she does not receive the forty lashes

that is, if she is not subject to the Torah obligation of forty lashes, nevertheless

she receives lashes of rebelliousness

by rabbinic decree, because she intended to violate the prohibition.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is written: “But if her husband shall nullify them on the day that he hears them, whatever proceeded from her lips concerning her vows and the prohibition upon her soul shall not stand

; her husband has nullified them, and the Lord

shall forgive her”—

With regard to what does the verse speak,

that she requires forgiveness?

With regard to a woman whose husband annulled her naziriteship,

but she did not know

that he had annulled it,

and transgressed her naziriteship,

the verse speaks of a case in which she requires atonement and forgiveness.

And when Rabbi Akiva would reach this verse, he would weep,

And whenever Rabbi Akiva reached this verse, he would weep,

and say:

And if one who intended to have pork come into his possession,

which is prohibited,

but lamb came into his possession,

which is permitted—as in the case of this woman, who intended to violate a prohibition but what came into her possession was permitted—

requires

he

atonement and forgiveness—

one who intended to have pork come into his possession and

also

had pork come into his possession, all the more so

does he require atonement and forgiveness.

Similarly, you can say,

and you can derive a kal va-chomer from what is stated in the passage concerning a provisional guilt-offering, which is brought in a case of uncertainty:

a. One who unintentionally committed an act for which he is liable to karet, such as one who thought that forbidden fat was ordinary fat, ate it, and it was discovered that it was forbidden fat, is liable to a sin-offering.

b. If it was not established with certainty that it was forbidden fat, but he was uncertain whether it was forbidden fat or ordinary fat, he brings a provisional guilt-offering to protect him from suffering until it becomes known to him with certainty whether it was forbidden fat or ordinary fat; and if it was forbidden fat, he brings a sin-offering.

c. Rashi and Tosafot in Keritot 17 hold that the obligation to bring a provisional guilt-offering applies only to one who, at the time of eating, believed that it was ordinary fat. But if he was already uncertain at the time of eating whether it might be forbidden fat, his provisional guilt-offering does not provide him with atonement. Some of the early authorities disagree and maintain that even in this case he achieves atonement through a provisional guilt-offering.

d. The tannaim disagree concerning liability for a provisional guilt-offering: whether the Torah imposes liability even when the uncertainty concerns a single piece—whether it is forbidden fat or ordinary fat, which is called “one piece”—or whether the Torah imposes liability only when both forbidden fat and ordinary fat are certainly before him, and the uncertainty is which is the forbidden fat and which is the ordinary fat, which is called “one piece from among two pieces.” In Keritot 17b, the amoraim disagree about the reason for this distinction.

It is written: “If a person sins, and commits one of all the mitzvot of the Lord that should not be done

—although he did not know, he is nevertheless guilty and shall bear his iniquity.

And he shall bring a flawless ram from the flock, according to your valuation, as a guilt-offering, to the koen”—

And you can derive the following:

And if one who intended to have lamb come into his possession,

believing at the time he ate it that it was permitted,

had pork come into his possession, such as

when a

piece came into his possession, of which it was uncertain whether

it

was forbidden fat or whether

it

was ordinary fat,

the verse says: “He shall bear his iniquity.”

One who intended to have pork come into his possession and had pork come into his possession, all the more so!

Isi ben Yehuda says: “

Although he did not know, he is nevertheless guilty and shall bear his iniquity”;

and if one who intended to have lamb come into his possession and had pork come into his possession, such as

when he learned that there had been before him

two pieces, one of forbidden fat and one of ordinary fat,

and he ate one without knowing whether it was forbidden fat or ordinary fat—

the verse says: “

He shall bear his iniquity.”

One who intended to have pork come into his possession and had pork come into his possession, all the more so!

For this matter the mourners will grieve [

the expression: “For this our heart has fainted” ]

—those who grieve [

who have a heart with which to grieve ].

And we explain:

And all these—

the three cases mentioned above—

why are they necessary!?

They are necessary!

But

For had it been stated only with regard to the woman

whose husband annulled her vow but she did not know that she required forgiveness and atonement, I would have said:

There it is that she requires atonement and forgiveness, because from the outset she intended to violate a prohibition [

she initially intended to do what was prohibited ].

But

when a

piece came into his possession, of which it was uncertain whether it was forbidden fat or ordinary fat, since he intended what was permitted [

he initially intended what was permitted, as he thought at the time of eating that it was ordinary fat ]

he does not require forgiveness and atonement.

it is certainly

This teaches us otherwise!

And if this

namely, the provisional guilt-offering, had been stated, because

it

is possible that

there is a prohibition, but in the case of the woman whose husband annulled her vow, since

it is certainly

permitted, I would have said that

she

does not require atonement and forgiveness.

And if only these two—

that is, the woman whose vow was annulled by her husband and the provisional guilt-offering for one piece—

had been stated, I would have thought:

But two pieces, one of forbidden fat and one of ordinary fat, where the prohibition was established, I would say that atonement and forgiveness do not suffice for him.

These two cases alone suffice for them to receive atonement and forgiveness [

these two alone require forgiveness and atonement ], because

no

definite prohibition was established,

no certain prohibition was established here.

But in the case of two pieces, one of forbidden fat and one of ordinary fat, where a definite prohibition was established,

I would have said that

atonement and forgiveness do not suffice for him.

For the ways of the Lord are upright, and the righteous walk in them, but transgressors stumble in them,” and the meaning of the verse is that the righteous person and the transgressor both walk in the way of the Lord, and nevertheless the transgressor stumbles in it? It is a parable to two people who roasted their Paschal offerings and ate them in order to walk in the ways of the Lord, one ate it for the sake of a mitzva, and one ate it for the sake of overeating. With regard to the one who ate it for the sake of a mitzva, the verse says: “ And the righteous walk in them”; and with regard to the one who ate it for the sake of overeating, the verse says: “ But transgressors stumble in them.” Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yohanan

This teaches us that there is no difference [

there is no distinction between them ], and in all of these cases he receives forgiveness and atonement.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

What is the meaning of that which is written: “

For the ways of the Lord are upright, and the righteous walk in them, but transgressors stumble in them,”

meaning that both the righteous person and the transgressor walk in the way of the Lord, yet the transgressor stumbles in it?

It is analogous to two people who roasted their Paschal offerings

and ate them in order to walk in the ways of the Lord;

one ate it for the sake of a mitzva, and the other ate it for the sake of gluttonous eating.

Regarding the one who ate it for the sake of a mitzva,

the verse states: “

And the righteous walk in them”;

but regarding the one who ate it for the sake of gluttonous eating,

the verse states: “

But transgressors stumble in them.”

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan

:

But do you call

this one—

the one who ate it for the sake of gluttonous eating—

a “transgressor”

? [

Do you call him a “transgressor”? ] That is, is he a transgressor!? After all,

although he did not perform the mitzva in the optimal manner,

because he ate it “gluttonously,”

the Paschal offering,

that is, the mitzva of the Paschal offering,

he did perform, at least [

he did perform it ]!?

Rather, it is analogous to two people, each with his wife and sister with him: for this one,

who intended his wife,

his wife happened to be there

because he intended to perform a mitzva;

whereas for that one,

the wicked man who intended his sister,

his sister happened to be there.

As for the one whose wife happened to be there,

the verse says concerning him: "

The righteous walk in them."

And as for the one whose sister happened to be there,

the verse says concerning him: "

And the transgressors stumble over them."

And we challenge this:

Are the matters comparable

to what is stated in the verse?!

We are speaking of one path,

meaning: The verse speaks of a righteous person and a transgressor who walk along the same path—the righteous person walks, while the transgressor stumbles—whereas

here

in the analogy, they walk along

two paths:

this one comes upon his wife and that one comes upon his sister?!

It is written [Genesis 19:30]: “Lot went up from Zoar [after the destruction of Sodom] and settled in the mountain, and his two daughters were with him, and so on; and he settled in a cave, he and his two daughters. And the elder said to the younger: ‘Our father is old, and there is no man in the land to come upon us in the manner of all the earth’ [they thought that the entire world had been destroyed, as in the generation of the Flood]. ‘Come, let us give our father wine to drink and lie with him, that we may preserve offspring from our father.’ And they gave their father wine to drink that night, and the elder came and lay with her father, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the elder said to the younger: ‘Behold, I lay with my father last night; let us also give our father wine to drink tonight, and you come and lie with him, that we may preserve offspring from our father.’ And they gave their father wine to drink that night also, and the younger arose and lay with him, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.”

Rather, it is analogous to Lot with his two daughters beside him; they

the daughters

intended it for the sake of a mitzva

to repopulate the world, and the verse says concerning them: "

The righteous walk in them."

But

he, who intended it for the sake of a transgression,

the verse says concerning him: "

And the transgressors stumble over them."

And we challenge this:

Perhaps he—

Lot—

also intended it for the sake of a mitzva,

since we do not find that he was immersed in licentiousness?!

Rabbi Yohanan said:

Indeed, he was immersed in licentiousness, for

this entire verse—[Genesis 13:10] “And Lot lifted his eyes and saw the entire plain of the Jordan, for it was all well watered, before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and so on”—

was stated

was stated with reference to a transgression

of forbidden sexual relations

: “

And Lot lifted,”

as it is stated [Genesis 39:7] concerning the incident of Potiphar’s wife and the righteous Joseph: “

And his master’s wife lifted her eyes

to Joseph and said: ‘Lie with me.’” “

His eyes,”

as it is stated concerning Samson [Judges 14]: “And Samson went down to Timnah and saw a woman in Timnah, of the daughters of the Philistines. And he went up and told his father and his mother, and so on. ‘Now take her for me as a wife.’ And his father and mother said to him: ‘Is there no woman among the daughters of your brothers or among all my people, that you must go to take a wife from the uncircumcised Philistines?’ And Samson said to his father: ‘Take her for me,

for she is upright in my eyes.’” “

And he saw,”

as it is stated [Genesis 34:2]: “

And he saw her”—

Dinah, the daughter of Jacob—

Shechem the son of Hamor

the Hivite, the prince of the land; and he took her, lay with her, and violated her.” “

The entire plain of the Jordan,”

as it is stated [Proverbs 7]: “

For on account of a harlot one is reduced to a loaf of bread.” “

For it was all well watered,”

as it is stated [Hosea 2]: “

I will go after my lovers, who give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink.”

And we still challenge this: Although Lot was a man of transgression,

was he not under duress

[he was under duress] in this act? How, then, can you call him a “transgressor”?!

And we answer:

A tanna

in a beraita

taught in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Rav Huni: Why is there a dot over the vav

“vav”

[and he did not know when she lay down]

“and when she arose”

of the

elder daughter?

To teach that when she lay down he did not know, but when she arose he did know.

And what could he have done,

for

what happened has happened

[and what could he have done once he learned of it only after the act]?!

And we answer:

The practical consequence is that on the following evening he should not have drunk wine

[he should not have drunk wine on the following evening].

Rava expounded

concerning Lot and his two daughters:

What is the meaning of that which is written

[Proverbs 18:19]: “

A brother offended is harder to be won than a fortified city”!

")

And quarrels

[like quarrels]

are like the bars of a citadel”?