Nazir 30a (ל.) — the Talmud in English

He is standing under his father's authority [

he remains under his father's authority for his father to impose naziriteship upon him] until he brings two pubic hairs. If so, even though he has reached the age at which his vows are effective, his father's naziriteship initially takes effect upon him, and he is not a nazirite on his own account]!?

And we answer:

Rather, Rabbi Hanina said [

according to Rabbi]—“

I shall be on account of my father; I shall be on my own account.”

That is, Rabbi Hanina did not mean to say that if “he is too young to make a vow,” he will be on account of his father, whereas if “he is old enough to make a vow,” he will be on account of his father. Rather, if he is young and has not brought two pubic hairs, and his father’s authority is over him, then he will be on account of his father; but if he is mature, so that his father’s authority is no longer over him, he will be on his own account. A. The continuation of the sugya is written according to the version of the Rosh and is explained accordingly.

B. There is a distinction between bringing two pubic hairs and reaching the age at which vows are effective. Once he has brought two pubic hairs, not only may his father no longer impose naziriteship upon him, but even if his father imposed it upon him beforehand and the minor brought two pubic hairs in the middle of the period of naziriteship imposed upon him by his father, the father’s naziriteship lapses. By contrast, once he has reached the age at which vows are effective, even according to the view that his father may no longer impose naziriteship upon him, nevertheless, if his father imposed it upon him beforehand and he reached that age in the middle of his period of naziriteship, the naziriteship does not lapse unless he brings two pubic hairs.

And we challenge this according to Rabbi’s method, that a father imposes naziriteship upon his son until he brings two pubic hairs:

Since Rabbi Hanina was not examined to determine whether he had brought two pubic hairs, how could the minor bring his offerings when the period of naziriteship imposed upon him by his father was complete, as implied by the beraita? For this works out only if

indeed

he had

brought two pubic hairs from the outset [

if he had brought two pubic hairs at the beginning] that is, at the time his father imposed naziriteship upon him —

For then he

would bring it on account of his own naziriteship [

Rabbi Hanina would bring his offerings when the period of naziriteship imposed upon him by his father was complete, on account of his own naziriteship], since he had left his father’s authority at the time his father imposed naziriteship upon him, and his own naziriteship took effect upon him from the very day his father imposed it—the day on which Rabbi Hanina made his vow.

And

this is likewise resolved

if he truly had not brought two pubic hairs until

in fact he did not grow two hairs until

the end,

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

For then he

would bring it on account of his father’s naziriteship [

he would bring his offerings on account of his father’s naziriteship], which was the naziriteship that took effect upon him and continued throughout all those days, since he did not bring two pubic hairs until the end of the period of naziriteship.

But if he brought them in the middle [

if he truly brought two pubic hairs before completing the period of naziriteship],

what then!?

That is: If he truly brings two pubic hairs during the count of the days of naziriteship, how can he bring his offerings immediately after completing the days of naziriteship imposed upon him by his father? His father’s naziriteship lapsed in the middle of the period of naziriteship, since he brought two pubic hairs and left his father’s authority.

If so, this is difficult: The implication of the beraita is that immediately upon completion of the period of naziriteship established by his father, he brings an offering. Yet he cannot bring offerings, since perhaps he brought two pubic hairs in the middle!?

The Gemara explains its challenge:

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

a father imposes naziriteship upon his son

until he reaches the age at which vows are effective.

For then he brings his offerings when the period of naziriteship imposed upon him by his father is complete, since in either event—whether he had reached the age at which vows are effective when his father imposed naziriteship upon him or had not reached that age at that time—he was a nazirite during those days, either on account of his father’s naziriteship or on account of his own naziriteship.

It does not matter if he reaches the age at which vows are effective in the middle of the period of naziriteship, because even in that case his father’s naziriteship does not lapse; reaching the age at which vows are effective does not terminate the naziriteship, unlike bringing two pubic hairs. There is no concern that he will bring two pubic hairs, for one may say that by the end of the period of naziriteship Rabbi Hanina will not yet have reached the age of thirteen, and the hairs he brings will be merely non-significant hairs and not signs of maturity.

Rather, according to Rabbi, who says: Until he brings two pubic hairs, what can be said?

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

They said

the members of the academy, to answer:

According to Rabbi, there is no remedy until he fulfills his own period and fulfills his father’s period [

according to Rabbi, the only remedy is for him to fulfill both his father’s naziriteship and his own], a total of sixty days.

That is: Indeed, he does not bring offerings immediately upon completing his father’s naziriteship, but only after fulfilling sixty days of naziriteship. Rabbi Hanina’s intention was that if he brought two pubic hairs in the middle of his father’s naziriteship and his father’s naziriteship consequently lapsed, he would vow to be a nazirite from the time he brought the two pubic hairs. Thus, he brings an offering at the end of sixty days, in either event—either on account of his father’s naziriteship or on account of his own naziriteship.

Mishna:

A man [

a son]

shaves on account of his father’s naziriteship;

that is, if his deceased father had set aside money for the offerings of his naziriteship, his son, who is a nazirite, uses it for the offerings of his own naziriteship, as the Mishna proceeds to explain.

This law is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the Gemara will explain the parameters of this law.

And a woman [

a daughter]

does not shave on account of her father’s naziriteship,

and certainly other heirs, who do not shave, are excluded; the Gemara explains the reason for this.

How

does a man shave on account of his father’s naziriteship?

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

unassigned [

for his naziriteship] [

for the offerings of his shaving],

and died,

the father,

Rabbi Yosei says:

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

and therefore:

they go toward voluntary offerings

for the purchase of wood for the altar, as is the law concerning unassigned money remaining after the death of a nazirite.

And who is the one who shaves on account of 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 account of his father’s naziriteship.

Gemara:

Rabbi Yohanan asked:

What is the reason

that a daughter does not shave on account of her father’s naziriteship?

And

Rabbi Yohanan himself said

the reason, because

it is a halakha

transmitted to Moses at Sinai

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

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

The Gemara is astonished at Rabbi Yohanan:

Is it not obvious

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

and

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

while

a daughter does not

inherit!?

That is: Since it is the son who inherits from 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,

but it is necessary—

Rabbi Yohanan’s statement and the halakha that a daughter does not shave—only where

he has [

the father has no one]

except a daughter,

who inherits when there is no son.

Because

it might enter your mind to say [

perhaps you would say]:

“Heirs”

have been taught the halakha

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