Nazir 23a — the Talmud in English

And our Mishna

deals

with a case where he said to her

in the language of a question: “

I am a nazirite, and you” —

what?

And he did not make his vow dependent on her vow, and

for this reason he annuls hers, while his remains in force.

Mishna:

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

which are forbidden to her,

behold, she receives the forty lashes.

Her husband annulled

the vow of her naziriteship,

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

and intended to violate a prohibition,

and was drinking wine and defiling herself through contact with the dead,

nevertheless

she does not receive the forty lashes,

for although she intended to commit a prohibited act, an act of permission resulted from her.

Rabbi Judah says:

If she does not receive the forty lashes,

that is, if she does not have a Torah obligation to receive forty lashes, nevertheless she

receives lashes of rebelliousness

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

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is written [Numbers 30:13]: “But if her husband absolutely annuls them on the day of his hearing, whatever proceeded from her lips concerning her vows and the prohibition upon her soul shall not stand;

her husband has annulled them and the Lord

shall forgive her” —

With what does the verse deal,

that she requires forgiveness?

With a woman whose husband annulled her,

her naziriteship,

and she did not know

that he had annulled it, and transgressed her naziriteship;

the verse speaks of her, that she requires atonement and forgiveness.

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

and he said:

And what of one who intended that swine’s flesh should come into his possession,

which is prohibited,

and lamb’s flesh came into his possession,

which is permitted, and like this woman, who intended a prohibition and permission came into her possession,

requires

he

atonement and forgiveness —

One who intended that swine’s flesh should come into his possession and

even

swine’s flesh came into his possession, how much more so

does he require atonement and forgiveness.

Similarly you say,

and likewise you learn a kal va-chomer from what is stated in the section of the guilt-offering brought in a case of uncertainty:

a. One who inadvertently did something for which he is liable to excision, such as one who thought that forbidden fat was ordinary fat and ate it, and it became clear that it was forbidden fat, is liable to a sin-offering.

b. And if it did not become known to him 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 maintain that the obligation of a provisional guilt-offering applies only to one who, at the time of eating, thought it was ordinary fat; but if he was already uncertain at the time of eating whether perhaps it was forbidden fat, he has no atonement through a provisional guilt-offering. Some early authorities disagree and maintain that even in this case he has atonement through a provisional guilt-offering.

d. The tannaim disagreed concerning the obligation of a provisional guilt-offering: whether the Torah imposed it even when the uncertainty concerns a single piece, whether it is forbidden fat or ordinary fat [and this is called “one piece,”] or whether the Torah imposed it only when both forbidden fat and ordinary fat are certainly before him, and the uncertainty is which is forbidden fat and which is ordinary fat [and this is called “a piece from two pieces”]; and in Keritot 17b the amoraim disagreed concerning the reason for the distinction.

It is written: “And if a person sins, and does one of all the commandments of the Lord that ought not to be done,

and he did not know, and he bears his iniquity.

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

And you learn from this:

And what of one who intended that lamb’s flesh should come into his possession,

for at the time of his eating he thought it was permitted,

and swine’s flesh came into his possession, such as

a piece came into his possession,

uncertain whether it is a piece of ordinary fat,

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

or

uncertain whether it is a piece of forbidden fat,

it

the verse says: “

And he bears his iniquity.”

One who intended that swine’s flesh should come into his possession and swine’s flesh came into his possession, how much more so!

Иси бен Иеуда говорит: «

Issi ben Judah says: “

And he did not know, and he bears his iniquity”:

And what of one who intended that lamb’s flesh should come into his possession and swine’s flesh came into his possession, such as

it became known to him that there were before him

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

and he ate one and did not know whether it was forbidden fat or ordinary fat —

the verse says: “

And he bears his iniquity.”

One who intended that swine’s flesh should come into his possession and swine’s flesh came into his possession, how much more so!

Concerning this matter they shall grieve [the expression: “For this our heart has grieved”] those who grieve [who have a heart with which to grieve].

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

And we explain:

And all these —

the three cases mentioned above — why do I need them!?

They are needed!

For had it taught concerning a woman

whose husband annulled her vow and she did not know that she requires forgiveness and atonement, I would say:

There it is that she requires atonement and forgiveness, because initially she intended a prohibition [she initially intended a prohibition].

But

when

a piece uncertain whether it is forbidden fat or ordinary fat came into his possession, for he intended a permitted matter [he initially intended a permitted matter],

since at the time of eating he thought it was ordinary fat,

he does not require forgiveness and atonement.

But

It teaches us!

And if this were stated,

namely, the provisional guilt-offering, because

it is possible that there is a prohibition, but a woman whose husband annulled her vow, because

it is certainly

permission, I would say that

she would not require atonement and forgiveness.

And if these two were stated —

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

I would have said:

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.

These two are the ones for whom atonement and forgiveness suffice [only these two suffice with forgiveness and atonement], because

the prohibition was not established,

no certain prohibition was established here.

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.

It teaches us that there is no difference [there is no difference between them], and in all of them he has forgiveness and atonement.

Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

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,” 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

concerning this:

And do you call

this one —

the one who ate it for the sake of overeating —

“

a wicked person”

you call him [you call him “a wicked person”]? That is, is he a transgressor!? For

even though he did not perform the mitzva in the best manner

because he ate it as “overeating,”

the Paschal offering

that is, the mitzva of the Paschal offering,

at least he performed

[he did it]!?

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: a parable of two people, each with his wife and sister with him; for this one

who intended [to be with] his wife,

his wife happened to be available to him

because he intended [to perform] a mitzva,

whereas for this one

the wicked man, who intended [to be with] his sister,

his sister happened to be available to him.

As for this one, whose wife happened to be available to him,

the verse says concerning him: "

And the righteous shall walk in them."

And as for this one, whose sister happened to be available to him,

the verse says concerning him: "

And transgressors shall stumble in them."

And we raise an objection against this:

Are the matters comparable

to the matter stated in the verse?!

We are speaking of one path,

that is to say: the verse speaks of a righteous person and a transgressor walking along the same path—the righteous person walks, whereas the transgressor stumbles—while

here

in the parable they are walking on

two paths:

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

It is written [Genesis 19:30]: “And Lot went up from Zoar [after the overturning of Sodom] and settled in the mountain, and his two daughters with him, etc.; 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’ [for 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 let us lie with him, and let us preserve seed 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, and the elder said to the younger: ‘Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us also give our father wine to drink tonight, and come, lie with him, and let us preserve seed from our father.’ And they also gave their father wine to drink that night, and the younger arose and lay with him, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.”

Rather: a parable of Lot and his two daughters with him, they

the daughters—

who intended for the sake of a mitzva

to establish the world; the verse says concerning them: "

And the righteous shall walk in them."

But

as for him, who intended for the sake of a transgression,

the verse says concerning him: "

And transgressors shall stumble in them."

And we raise an objection:

Perhaps he—

Lot—

also intended for the sake of a mitzva,

for we do not find that he was given to lewdness?!

Rabbi Yohanan said:

Indeed, he was given to lewdness, for

this entire verse—

“[Genesis 13:10] And Lot lifted his eyes and saw the entire plain of the Jordan, for it was wholly watered, before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.”—

was stated

with reference to the 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 [Judges 14] concerning Samson: “And Samson went down to Timnah and saw a woman in Timnah, from the daughters of the Philistines. And he went up and told his father and his mother, etc. ‘And now, take her for me as a wife.’ And his father and his mother said to him: ‘Is there no woman among the daughters of your brothers and among all my people, that you are going to take a woman from the uncircumcised Philistines?’ And Samson said to his father: ‘Take her for me,’

for she is right in my eyes.” “

And he saw,”

as it is stated: [Genesis 34:2] “

And he saw her”—

Dinah, the daughter of Jacob—

Shechem 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 because of a prostitute woman, because of a loaf of bread.” “

For it was wholly watered,”

as it is stated [Hosea 2]: “

I shall 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 raise an objection: although Lot was a transgressor,

but was he not completely coerced

in this matter [he was coerced], and how do you call him a “transgressor”?!

And we answer:

The tanna

in a

beraita, in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Rav Honi: “Why is a dot placed over the vav of ‘

and

he did not know when she lay down’ and ‘

when she arose’

of the

elder?”

To say: when she lay down, he did not know, but when she arose, he did know.

And what could he have done,

for

what was, was

[and what could he have done after it became known to him only after the act]?!

And we answer:

There is a practical difference: on another following evening, he should not have drunk wine

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

Rava expounded

concerning Lot and his two daughters:

What is the meaning of that which is written

[Proverbs 18:19]: “

A brother offended is more inaccessible than a fortified city” ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

and disputes

[like quarrels]

are like the bar of a palace”?