Nazir 2b (ב:) — the Talmud in English

Regarding “

There are heirs,”

as well,

there is a reason to explain why the tanna first set out the first clause: because

he explains the primary aspect of inheritance in the first clause.

But here—

in our Mishna, where both the kinuyim and the yadot constitute prohibitions in their own right—

he should have explained the kinuyim first,

since the tanna of the Mishna began with them!?

Rather, this is the reason

the tanna first explained the yadot:

Because

the yadot, since they are derived through exposition, are dear to him [

since they are derived through exposition of the verses, they are dear to him, and therefore he gives them precedence], as the yadot are not written explicitly in the Torah. Rather, they are derived from the verse: “When a man clearly utters a vow to become a nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lord”; from the repetition in the phrase “to become a nazirite, to consecrate himself” the law of yadot is derived, as explained in Nedarim 3a.

And we object:

A

if so,

let him begin

as well

with them first [

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

And we answer:

When the tanna begins, he begins with the primary

offering;

the tanna opens the Mishna with the primary law of an offering, meaning, with the primary aspect of naziriteship that is written in the Torah and does not require a special exposition or derivation, as it constitutes a complete acceptance of naziriteship; it is merely expressed in the language of a kinui. The tanna’s practice is to teach first the straightforward and familiar matters.

And

in any event,

with regard to explaining [

explaining what yadot are and what kinuyim are],

the tanna explains

the

yadot first,

because he holds them dear, as they are derived through exposition.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who says, “I shall be,” is a nazirite:

And we object: When he says “I shall be,” there is no clear proof from his words that he intends naziriteship, as

perhaps he was saying: “I shall be fasting”,

and if so, he should not become a nazirite, as this is not a “conclusive yad”!?

Shmuel said:

Our Mishna is discussing

a case where a nazirite was passing before him.

Shall we say

indeed

that Shmuel holds: yadot that are not conclusive

as a clear indication that the intention is naziriteship

are not yadot

that can be effective as though he had stated the entire sentence!?

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

The members of the academy said:

Indeed,

certainly [

indeed so],

when a nazirite is passing before him, there is no possibility that he meant anything else [

when a nazirite is passing before him, there is no reason to doubt that his words were intended to refer to the nazirite]. That is, Shmuel indeed holds that yadot that are not conclusive are not yadot; therefore, he becomes a nazirite only when a nazirite is passing before him, because then the yad is conclusive, as his intention cannot be understood in any way other than as referring to naziriteship.

But

when

the nazirite is not passing before him, we say: “Perhaps he was saying,

‘I shall be fasting,’

”,

meaning: it is an instance of “yadot that are not conclusive,” and therefore he does not become a nazirite.

And we object:

And

why does he become a nazirite even when a nazirite was passing before him?

Perhaps [

perhaps] he

was saying this in order to exempt him from his offerings—

the offerings of that nazirite who was passing before him—

!?

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

Where he said

the one making the vow

in his heart

that he wished to become a nazirite. And although an acceptance of naziriteship in one’s heart is not effective, as the Torah says, “when he clearly utters,” nevertheless, since a nazirite was passing before him and he also said “I shall be,” he becomes a nazirite.

And we ask:

If so—

that he accepted upon himself in his heart that he would become a nazirite—

what is it teaching us [

what novel point is the Mishna teaching us, when it is obvious]!? And we answer: Nevertheless, there is a novel point, for

lest you say [

perhaps you might say]:

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

meaning: I might have said that since his spoken words contain no indication, there is no utterance here, and with regard to naziriteship one must both state it verbally and intend it in his heart.

It teaches us

that according to our Mishna he is a nazirite, because in this case the thought he had in his heart reveals the meaning of his utterance. It is therefore as though he stated it verbally in addition to his intention in his heart, and his “mouth and heart are in agreement.”

We learned in the Mishna: One who says, “I shall be,” is a nazirite; or

“I shall be beautiful”:

And we object: Why, when he says “I shall be beautiful,” does he become a nazirite?

Perhaps

he did not intend to beautify himself through the mitzva of naziriteship, but he intended that

“I shall beautify myself before Him through

other

mitzvot” —

and

as it is taught:

It is written:

“This is my God and I will glorify Him.”

What does “and I will glorify Him” teach?

“I shall beautify myself before Him through 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] beautiful.

Said

and explained

Shmuel: Our Mishna is discussing a case

where

he

was

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

And we object:

And why

“

beautiful,”

why does the Mishna call the nazirite “beautiful”!?

This is a matter of transgression [

naziriteship is a matter of transgression],

and

how

can we call him beautiful [

how can we call him “beautiful”]!?