Nazir 30b — the Talmud in English

This teaches us: the halakha

that the daughter does not shave at all using her father's money, and all the more so the other heirs.

We learned in the Mishna: “What is the case? One who, together with his father, was a nazirite, and his father set aside money for his naziriteship, and [the father] died, Rabbi Yosei says: These shall fall for a voluntary offering. And who is one who shaves on his father's naziriteship? It is one whose father was a nazirite and had unspecified money, and died, and [the son] said: ‘I am a nazirite on the condition that I shave using my father's money’; this is one who shaves on his father's naziriteship.”

They raised a problem before them

[the members of the academy were uncertain]: A. Do

the Rabbis disagree

[the Sages disagreed]

with Rabbi Yosei,

as is implied by the wording of the Mishna: “Rabbi Yosei

says,”

or do the Sages not disagree with Rabbi Yosei?

B.

And if you should say

that indeed

the Sages disagree

with Rabbi Yosei, it is necessary to be uncertain about what they disagree: Is it

with regard to the first clause,

that is, the son became a nazirite while his father was still alive, and they hold: Even in this case the son shaves using his father's money?

Or

perhaps, on the contrary,

with regard to the final clause—

when he became a nazirite after his father's death—the Sages disagree, and they hold: Even in this case he does not shave on his father's money, for this halakha was not stated at all, and the money falls in every case for a voluntary offering?

Come and hear

that the Sages disagreed, and it is with regard to the first clause that they disagreed, to say that in every case the son shaves on his father's naziriteship:

As it was taught in a beraita: How did they say that a man shaves using his father's money? One whose father was a nazirite, and his father set aside money for his naziriteship, and died, and said

the son:

“I am a nazirite on the condition that I shave using my father's money,”

this one

shaves using his father's money; but one who, together with his father, was a nazirite, and his father set aside money for his naziriteship, and died—these shall fall for a voluntary offering,

and the son shall not shave using them,

the words of Rabbi Yosei.

Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Yehuda say:

Even

this is one who shaves on his father's naziriteship.

It follows that the Sages disagreed with Rabbi Yosei, and it is with regard to the first clause that they disagreed.

Rabba raised a problem:

If he has—

the father who set aside money for his naziriteship and died—

two nazirite sons

who are fit to shave using their father's money,

What

is their law with regard to the money their father left? Is

the halakha learned that whoever precedes and shaves, shaves,

that is: Was the halakha stated only that the sons shave using their father's money, and was no law of division like that of other inheritance stated concerning it, and if so, whoever preceded the other in vowing to be a nazirite will shave?

Or perhaps: the law of inheritance is learned, and it is half

[half the money for each son], that is: Just as division was stated with regard to inheritance, so division was stated with regard to this money.

Rava raised a dilemma:

Rava raised a problem:

The firstborn and the simple son—

who, with regard to other inheritances, the simple son receives one portion and the firstborn double portions—and they are

nazirites, what is the rule of their division of the unspecified money their father left?

Is

the halakha learned,

that is: Is the fact that the son shaves using his father's money a halakha given to Moses at Sinai, which has no connection to the laws of inheritance at all,

and therefore he does not need to shave according to what he receives

in other inheritance, [and if so, the money is not divided as other inheritances are divided].

Or perhaps:

“Inheritance”

it is,

such that the son inherits the money in order to shave with it,

and

if so:

Just as he receives double portions,

[just as he receives double portions in other inheritance],

so

[in that same proportion—he]

shaves,

and this one shaves using two-thirds and that one using one-third.

Rava adds and raises another uncertainty:

And if you should say

that indeed

it is inheritance, and according to what he receives

the firstborn in other inheritances, he

shaves

using his father's money, that is, double portions for the firstborn; it is still necessary to be uncertain whether in every case the firstborn shaves according to the double portion:

Is

in

the language of

ordinary property

alone

that he has double portions,

that is: Does the firstborn receive double portions specifically when the father did not mention the language of an offering and consecration in his setting aside, but rather said: “This money is for my naziriteship”? —

But in

the language of

consecration,

when the father said: “This money is for the offerings of my naziriteship,” in this case

he does not

receive double portions.

Or perhaps: Since he acquires it

the son

for shaving

[since a halakha was stated that the son acquires the money for shaving], if so

it makes no difference

in what language the father set it aside. Rava raised another uncertainty: Rava further raised a problem:

If his

father was an everlasting nazirite

and set aside money for his shaving,

and he

the son was

an unspecified nazirite,

that is: a naziriteship that is not everlasting but for a fixed period, or his

father was an unspecified nazirite and he

the son was

an everlasting nazirite, what is the law?

And the Gemara explains the sides of the uncertainty:

For the halakha was learned with regard to unspecified naziriteship

[the halakha was stated only with regard to unspecified naziriteship] and not with regard to everlasting naziriteship.

Or perhaps: it makes no difference.

And if you should say

that even when one was an everlasting nazirite and the other an unspecified nazirite, the son can shave using his father's money, since

here

[with an everlasting and an unspecified nazirite]

both this and that

[the father's naziriteship and the son's]

are pure naziriteship,

that is: The money was set aside for pure naziriteship, and the son too brings offerings with it for pure naziriteship; but

Rav Ashi raised a problem:

If his

father was an impure nazirite

and set aside money for the offerings of “the shaving of impurity,”

and he

the son was

a pure nazirite,

that is: The son wants to add to the money and bring with it offerings for “the shaving of purity.”

Or his

father was a pure nazirite and he was an impure nazirite, what is the law?

And we conclude:

Let it stand!

We shall return to you, chapter “One who said.”

And at the opening of the chapter, the Mishna brings a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concerning one who consecrated something through a mistake, whether the consecration takes effect.

And since it is stated concerning a nazir, “He shall be holy” [and therefore there is a possibility of asking about the naziriteship, just as there is a possibility of asking about a consecration, as explained above in Tosafot and in the Rosh on page 9a], the Mishna brought the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concerning mistaken consecration, as an introduction to mistaken naziriteship.

Mishna:

Beit Shammai say: mistaken consecration—

when a person consecrated something through a mistake for consecration or for a sacrifice, it is

consecrated.