Nazir 2a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

The primary acceptance of Nazirut mentioned in the Torah is that a person says, “I hereby am a Nazir.”

a.

All expressions

of Nazirut —

for example, if he said, “I hereby am a Nazik,” as it will explain further — they too are

like Nazirut.

b. And likewise, “partial expressions of Nazirut,” that is, a partial utterance of acceptance of Nazirut, which he began but did not complete his utterance — they are like Nazirut.

And the partial utterance is called a “hand,” as an analogy to someone who grasps the “handle” of a vessel, and through it he lifts the entire vessel. So too this person: since he began the utterance of Nazirut, it is as though he completed his utterance, and he is a Nazir.

What are the partial expressions of Nazirut, which are like Nazirut?

One who says “

I shall be,”

who said a partial utterance, and not the complete utterance, “I hereby am a Nazir” —

he is a Nazir.

Or

one who says: “

I shall be handsome,”

he is a Nazir. And the Gemara will explain this.

These are the partial expressions of Nazirut that are like Nazirut.

And what are the “expressions of Nazirut” that are like Nazirut?

One who says, “I shall be

a Nazir,”

is a Nazir. For this is the primary expression mentioned in the Torah, through which a person accepts Nazirut upon himself.

And also one who says, “I shall be

a Nazik”

which is an expression for the word Nazir], or “I shall be

a Naziah,” “I shall be

a

Paziah,”

he is a Nazir.

And if he said, “

I hereby am like this” —

Or if he said, “

I hereby curl my hair”

turns over his hair], or “

I hereby fold my hair”

folds his hair], or “

I have upon myself letting the hair grow wild” —

he is a Nazir.

And this is not by virtue of the law of “partial expressions”; rather, these expressions are interpreted as Nazirut, and the Gemara will explain this.

One who said, “

I have upon myself birds” —

Rabbi Meir says:

he is

a Nazir.

And the Sages say: He is not a Nazir.

Their position, and that of Rabbi Meir, will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses the placement of tractate Nazir in the Order of Women:

Now,

the

tanna is situated in the Order of Women

[he is in the Order of Women], and if so,

for what reason does he teach

in this order tractate

Nazir?

For he should have taught it in the Order of Temple Service, since tractate Nazir consists of the laws of offerings!?

And we answer: The

tanna

who taught tractate Nazir in the Order of Women

stands upon the verse

[he teaches it according to the words of Scripture]!

For it is stated concerning a man who divorces his wife: “

And it shall be, if she does not find favor in his eyes, because he has found in her a matter of sexual impropriety

[that she committed adultery while married to him], and he sends her away from his house.” Thus, the divorce is carried out because of a matter of sexual impropriety.

And this is what he says:

the tanna teaches us, by teaching tractate Nazir in the Order of Women, which includes tractate Gittin —

who caused her to

commit the

transgression

because of which she is sent away from his house? — The

wine

caused it for her.

And he says,

and the tanna of the Mishna teaches us further:

Anyone who sees a sota in her disgrace,

when they were disgracing her while giving her the water of bitterness to drink,

should separate himself from wine.

The Gemara discusses the order of our Mishna:

The tanna opened

the Mishna

with

the law of “

expressions,”

saying, “All expressions of Nazirut are like Nazirut,”

and

then afterward

explains

what the

partial expressions are, but he does not explain what the expressions are. For the tanna continued and said: “One who says, ‘I shall be,’ he is a Nazir.” And this expression is a partial expression of Nazirut, not an expression of Nazirut!?

He said

Rabbi explained

Rava, and some say Kadi

,

and some say that “Kadi” [the name of a Sage] explained it this way:

Our Mishna is deficient,

and

and this is what it teaches,

and this is how it should be taught: a.

All expressions of Nazirut are like Nazirut. b.

And

partial expressions of Nazirut are like Nazirut.

And these are the partial expressions: One who says “

I shall be,”

he is a Nazir,

and likewise one who says, “I shall be handsome.”

But the Gemara still raises a difficulty concerning the order of the Mishna:

And let him explain the expressions first

[let the tanna first explain what the expressions are], since they were taught first; and why did the tanna first explain the partial expressions, which were taught only after the expressions!?

And we answer:

The tanna, from that which he concluded,

that he explains first.

It is the way of the tanna to explain first that from which he “rose”; that is, the conclusion of his words!

As we learned,

as we learned three examples of this, in three Mishnayot in tractate Shabbat:

a. “

With what

[with which wicks and oils]

may one light

a Shabbat lamp,

and with what may one not light.”

And he explains

the tanna “with what

may one not light,”

first

[at the beginning]. Thus, it is the way of the tanna to explain first the conclusion of his words.

b. “

With what may one insulate

a cooked dish on the eve of Shabbat,

and with what may one not insulate.”

And he explains

the tanna “with what

may one not insulate,”

which is the last clause,

first.

c. “

With what

[with which ornaments]

may a woman go out

on Shabbat,

and with what may she not go out,”

and he explains

the tanna “with what

may a woman not go out”

first.

And we raise an objection:

But we learned

elsewhere in several places differently!?

a. For we learned in tractate Shabbat: “

With what may an animal go out

on Shabbat

and with what may it not go out,”

and he explains

the tanna with what

a camel goes out

first, even though the tanna “rose” from “with what may it not go out”!?

b. And we learned in tractate Bava Batra: “

There are

those relatives who

inherit

[are heirs of]

their relatives who died,

and

also

bequeath

to those relatives when they themselves die; and there are those who

inherit but do not bequeath,

and there are those who

bequeath but do not inherit,

and there are those who

neither inherit nor bequeath” —

And he explains

the tanna “

These inherit and bequeath”

first, even though the tanna “rose” from “they neither inherit nor bequeath”!?

Rather, always

at times

the tanna teaches

in this way

the tanna

here

what he opened with,

and

at times

the tanna teaches

the tanna

here what he concluded with, and everything depends on the matter:

Rather,

there

—

in the three first examples brought from tractate Shabbat — the

prohibition is intrinsic

[the prohibition is because of the person himself], therefore

the tanna explains

the tanna

the intrinsic prohibition first,

[therefore the tanna explains at the beginning what it is forbidden for him to do].

Whereas

regarding an animal

[in the Mishna “With what may an animal go out”], the prohibition is not upon the owner of the animal because of himself, but rather

the prohibition comes because of the animal

[the prohibition comes upon him because of the animal], therefore

the tanna explains

the tanna

the permitted matter first

[the tanna explains at the beginning with what “the animal goes out”].