Nazir 2b — the Talmud in English

Concerning "

There are heirs"

also,

there is reason to explain why the tanna first began by explaining the first clause: because

he explains the principal matter of inheritance in the first clause.

But here—

in our Mishna, where both the designations and the handles are prohibitions in themselves—

he should explain the designations first, since the tanna of the Mishna began with them!?

since the tanna of the Mishna began with them!?

Rather, this is the reason

the tanna first explained the handles:

For

since handles come from exposition, they are dear to him [since the handles come from exposition of the verses, they are therefore dear to him, to place them first], for the handles are not written explicitly in the Torah, and they are learned from what the Torah said: “If a man explicitly utters a vow, dedicating a Nazirite vow to the Lord,” and from the repetition of the expression “a Nazirite vow to dedicate” the law of handles is learned, as explained in Nedarim 3a.

These incomplete expressions are not written explicitly in the Torah. Rather, they are derived from the verse: "When a man shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lord." From the repetition in the wording, "the vow of a Nazirite" and "to consecrate himself," the law of incomplete expressions is derived, as explained in Tractate Nedarim 3a.

And we object:

A

if so,

let him begin

also

with them first [if they are dear to him, let him begin the Mishna with them]!?

if they are dear to him, let him begin the Mishna with them]!?

And we answer:

When the tanna begins, he begins with the principal

sacrifice,

the tanna opens the Mishna with the principal law of the sacrifice, meaning: with the principal matter of the nazirite vow that is written in the Torah and does not require a special exposition and study, for it is a complete acceptance of naziriteship, except that he stated it in the language of a designation—and the way of the tanna is to teach the simple and known matters first.

And

nevertheless,

with regard to explaining [explaining what the handles are and what the designations are],

explaining what yadot are and what kinuyim are],

he explains

the

handles first,

because they are dear to him, since they come from exposition.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who says, “I shall be,” behold, he is a Nazirite:

And we object: When he said “I shall be,” there is no clear proof from his words that his intention was naziriteship, for

perhaps: he said, “I shall be in a fast”,

and if so, he should not have been a Nazirite, for this is not a “conclusive handle”!

Shmuel said:

Our Mishna is dealing

with a case where a Nazirite was passing before him.

Shall we say [is it indeed the case that]

that this is indeed what

Shmuel holds: unproven handles

that do not clearly establish that the intention is naziriteship

are not handles

to be effective as though he had said the entire sentence!?

For if they are “handles,” there would have been no need to answer, “with a case where a Nazirite was passing before him,” because although the word “I shall be” is not a conclusive handle, nevertheless there is here an unproven handle, since the meaning of his words inclines more toward naziriteship than toward a fast, and he should have been a Nazirite.

The members of the academy said:

There is certainly

Certainly not [indeed so],

[indeed so]:

when a Nazirite is passing before him, there is no possibility of another matter [when the Nazirite is passing before him, there is no uncertainty in his words, that perhaps he intended something other than a Nazirite]; that is, indeed Shmuel holds, “Unproven handles are not handles,” and therefore he is a Nazirite only when a Nazirite is passing before him, for then they are conclusive handles, since his intention cannot be understood in any way other than as referring to naziriteship.

When the Nazirite is passing in front of him, there is no reason to doubt that his words were intended to refer to a Nazirite. In other words, Shmuel does indeed hold that incomplete expressions that are not conclusive are not considered incomplete expressions. Therefore, he becomes a Nazirite only when a Nazirite is passing in front of him, because then the expression is conclusive: his intention can be understood in no other way than as referring to Naziriteship.

But

when

the Nazirite is not passing before him, we say: perhaps he said, “

I shall be in a fast,”

he said,

that is, they are “unproven handles,” and therefore he is not a Nazirite.

And we object:

And

why is he a Nazirite even though a Nazirite was passing before him? For

perhaps [lest]

he said this

he said this in order to exempt him from his sacrifices—

of that Nazirite passing before him—

he said!?

And we answer: “In what case are we dealing here?”

That he said

the one making the vow

in his heart

that he wished to be a Nazirite; and although an acceptance of naziriteship in the heart is not effective, for it is stated in the Torah, “when he explicitly utters,” nevertheless, since a Nazirite was passing before him and he also said “I shall be,” behold, he is a Nazirite.

And we are astonished:

If so—

that in his heart he accepted upon himself to be a Nazirite—

what is it coming to teach [what novel point is the Mishna teaching us, when it is obvious]!? And we answer: Nevertheless, there is a novel point in the matter, for

one might have thought

lest you say [perhaps you might say]:

we require that his mouth and his heart be in agreement,

we require his mouth and his heart to be alike,

that is, I might have said that since from the expression he uttered with his mouth there is no proof, there is no speech here, whereas concerning a Nazirite he must speak with his mouth and also think in his heart.

It teaches us

that our Mishna considers him a Nazirite, because in this case the thought that he thought in his heart reveals what is in his mouth, and it follows that it is as though he said it with his mouth in addition to his thought in his heart, and thus “his mouth and his heart are alike.”

We learned in the Mishna: One who says, “I shall be,” behold, he is a Nazirite, or

“I shall be beautiful”:

And we object: Why, when he said “I shall be beautiful,” is he a Nazirite? For

perhaps

he did not intend to beautify himself through the mitzvot of naziriteship, but his intention was that

“I shall beautify myself before Him with

other

mitzvot” —and

and

as it is taught:

It is written: “

This is my God and I shall glorify Him,”

what does “and I shall glorify Him” come to teach:

I shall beautify myself before Him with mitzvot—

How?

I shall make before Him a beautiful sukka, a beautiful lulav, beautiful ritual fringes; I shall write before Him a beautiful Torah scroll and wrap it in beautiful silk cloths [

silk garments]

that are beautiful.

Said

he answered,

Shmuel:

Our Mishna is dealing with a case

where

he was

holding his hair when he said “I shall be beautiful,” and the meaning is: I shall be beautiful through a mitzva that is dependent upon hair, namely, naziriteship.

when he said, "I shall be beautiful." His words therefore indicate: "I shall be beautiful" through a mitzva associated with hair, namely, Naziriteship.

And we object:

But why “

beautiful”?

Why does the Mishna call the Nazirite “beautiful”?

This matter is a matter of transgression [naziriteship is a matter of transgression],

[Naziriteship is a matter involving transgression],

and

how

do we call him beautiful [how do we call him “beautiful”]!?

[how can we call him "beautiful"]!?