Nazir 30a — the Talmud in English

He is standing under his father's authority [that is, he stands under his father's authority for his father to impose a nazirite vow upon him] until he brings two hairs; and if so, even though he has reached the age of vows, his father's naziriteship initially takes effect upon him, and he is not a nazirite on his own account!?

[that is, he remains under his father’s authority with regard to his father imposing nazirite status upon him] until he grows two hairs. If so, even though he has reached the age at which his vows are legally effective, his father’s nazirite status takes effect upon him first, and he is not a nazir for himself]!?

And we answer:

Rather, he said

Rabbi Hanina — according to Rabbi: "

I shall be so on account of my father; I shall be so on my own account," that is: Rabbi Hanina did not mean to say that if he is "too young to make a vow," it shall be on account of his father, and if he is "old enough to make a vow," it shall be on account of his father; rather, if he is young and has not brought two hairs, and his father's authority is over him, then it shall be on account of his father; and if he is grown and his father's authority is not over him, it shall be on his own account. a. The continuation of the sugya is written according to the version of the Rosh and is explained accordingly.

That is, Rabbi Hanina did not mean that if he is “too young to make a vow,” he will be a nazir for his father, and if he is “old enough to make a vow,” he will be a nazir for his father. Rather, if he is young, has not grown two hairs, and remains under his father’s authority, then he will be a nazir for his father; but if he is an adult, so that he is no longer under his father’s authority, he will be a nazir for himself. A. The continuation of the discussion is written according to the version of the Rosh and is explained accordingly.

b. There is a distinction between two hairs and the age of vows: when he has brought two hairs, it is not merely that the father can no longer make him a nazirite; rather, even if he imposed the vow upon him earlier, and the young man brought two hairs in the middle of the days of the naziriteship that his father imposed upon him, the father's naziriteship lapses. But once he has reached the age of vows, even according to the view that the father can no longer impose the vow upon him, nevertheless, if the father imposed it upon him earlier and he reached the age of vows in the middle of his naziriteship, the naziriteship does not lapse unless he brings two hairs.

And we object according to Rabbi's method, that the father makes his son a nazirite until he brings two hairs:

Since they did not examine Rabbi Hanina to determine whether he had brought two hairs, how will the young man bring his offerings when the days of the naziriteship that his father imposed upon him are completed, as is implied by the beraita? For this works well

if

indeed he

brought two hairs from the outset [if he brought two hairs initially] —

that is, at the time his father imposed the vow upon him —

For then

he brings [the offering] by virtue of his own naziriteship [Rabbi Hanina will bring his offerings when the days of the naziriteship imposed upon him by his father are completed, on account of his own naziriteship], for he left his father's authority at the time his father imposed the vow upon him, and his own naziriteship took effect upon him from the very day on which his father imposed the vow, on which day Rabbi Hanina made his vow.

[Rabbi Hanina would bring his offerings when the period of naziriteship imposed upon him by his father ended, because of his own naziriteship], since he had left his father’s authority at the moment his father imposed nazirite status upon him, and his own naziriteship took effect upon him from that same day, the day on which Rabbi Hanina made his vow.

And

this is likewise well understood

if

indeed he did not bring two hairs until

the end,

that is, after he had completed counting thirty days of naziriteship —

For then

he brings [the offering] by virtue of his father's naziriteship [he will bring his offerings on account of his father's naziriteship], which is the one that took effect upon him, and this naziriteship continued throughout all the days, since he did not bring two hairs until the end of the days of the naziriteship.

[he brings his offerings because of his father’s naziriteship], since that was the naziriteship that took effect upon him and continued throughout the entire period, as he did not grow two hairs until the end of the naziriteship.

But if he brought them in the middle [if indeed he brought two hairs before completing the counting of the days of naziriteship],

[if, in fact, he grew two hairs before completing his period of naziriteship],

what then!?

That is: if indeed he brings two hairs during the counting of the days of naziriteship, how can he bring his offerings immediately after completing the days of naziriteship imposed upon him by his father? For his father's naziriteship lapsed in the middle of the days of naziriteship, since he brought two hairs and left his father's authority.

If so, this is difficult: the meaning of the beraita is that immediately upon the completion of the days of naziriteship — which his father established — he brings an offering; yet he cannot bring offerings, for perhaps he brought two hairs in the middle!?

The Gemara explains its objection:

This works well according to Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda, who said:

the father makes his son a nazirite

until he reaches the age of vows,

for then he will bring his offerings when the days of the naziriteship imposed upon him by his father are completed. For, in either case — whether he had reached the age of vows at the time his father imposed the vow upon him or had not reached the age of vows at that time — he is a nazirite during those days, whether on account of his father's naziriteship or on account of his own naziriteship.

And we are not concerned if he reaches the age of vows in the middle of the days of naziriteship, because even if that is so, his father's naziriteship does not lapse; for the age of vows does not terminate the naziriteship, unlike two hairs. And there is no concern that he will bring two hairs, since one may say that by the end of the days of naziriteship Rabbi Hanina will not reach the age of thirteen, and the hairs he brings will be merely a mole and not signs of maturity.

But according to Rabbi, who said: Until he brings two hairs, what is there to say?

That is: how can he bring his offerings immediately upon the completion of the naziriteship!?

They said

the members of the academy to answer:

According to Rabbi, there is no remedy until he sits out his own [na​​ziriteship] and his father's [na​​ziriteship] [according to Rabbi, there is no remedy except that he fulfills his father's naziriteship and his own naziriteship], altogether sixty days.

That is: indeed, he does not bring offerings immediately upon completing his father's naziriteship, but only after he has fulfilled sixty days of naziriteship. For Rabbi Hanina's intention was that if he brings two hairs in the middle of his father's naziriteship and his father's naziriteship is thereby nullified, he vows naziriteship from the time he brings two hairs. Accordingly, he brings an offering at the end of sixty days, in either case: either on account of his father's naziriteship or on account of his own naziriteship.

That is: indeed, he does not bring offerings immediately upon completing his father’s naziriteship, but only after completing sixty days of naziriteship. Rabbi Hanina’s intention was that if he grew two hairs in the middle of his father’s naziriteship and his father’s naziriteship consequently ceased, he would undertake naziriteship from the moment he grew two hairs. Thus, he brings an offering at the end of sixty days in either event: either because of his father’s naziriteship or because of his own naziriteship.

Mishna:

A man [the son]

[that is, a son]

shaves on his father's naziriteship, that is: if his deceased father set aside money for the offerings of his naziriteship, his nazirite son uses it for the offerings of his own naziriteship,

as the Mishna explains below.

And this law is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai, and the scope of this law will be explained in the Gemara.

And a woman [the daughter]

[that is, a daughter]

does not shave on her father's naziriteship,

and all the more so other heirs do not shave; the reason for this is explained in the Gemara.

How

does the man shave on his father's naziriteship?

If he and his father were nazirites, and his father set aside money

unassigned [without specifying which was for a sin-offering, which for a burnt-offering, and which for peace-offerings]

for his naziriteship [for the offerings of his shaving],

[for his offerings brought upon shaving],

and died,

the father,

Rabbi Yosei says:

These are not money concerning which the halakha given to Moses at Sinai was stated, that the son shaves using it, since he was already a nazirite during his father's lifetime;

and therefore:

these shall go to voluntary offerings,

for the upkeep of the altar, as is the law concerning unassigned money that remains after the death of a nazirite.

And who is the one who shaves on his father's naziriteship?

If his father was a nazirite and had unassigned money, and died, and he said

the son after his father's death:

I hereby become a nazirite on condition that I shave using my father's money; this is the one who shaves on his father's naziriteship.

Gemara:

Rabbi Yoḥanan asked:

What is the reason

that a daughter does not shave on her father's naziriteship?

And

Rabbi Yoḥanan said

the reason himself, because

it is a halakha

given to Moses at Sinai

concerning a nazirite, that is: this is how the halakha was stated: a son shaves, but not a daughter.

that this is the law: a son shaves using his father’s money, but a daughter does not.

And the Gemara is astonished at Rabbi Yoḥanan: it is

obvious

that a daughter does not shave on her father's naziriteship, even without an explicit halakha having been stated to this effect —

And

what is the point of stating that a son inherits his father

and

a daughter does not

inherit!?

That is: since it is the son who inherits his father, and not the daughter, it is obvious that she cannot shave using her father's money!? And we answer: indeed, where there is a son, there is no need to state that she does not shave, and

it is necessary only —

the words of Rabbi Yoḥanan and the halakha that a daughter does not shave — where

he has none [the father has no one]

[the father has no]

but a daughter,

who inherits where there is no son.

For

lest you say [perhaps you would say]: "

[that is, one might have thought]:

The heirs

were taught it,"

that they shave using the money of their bequeather when they inherit him, and all heirs are included — and all the more so a daughter —