Nazir 32b — the Talmud in English

And if, after his animal had been stolen, he took a nazirite vow, he is not a nazir.

For this is not a newly arisen circumstance, since at the time of accepting his nazirite vow his animal had already been stolen; rather, he did not know what had occurred because of his lack of knowledge.

And this is an error,

of the opening with a newly arisen circumstance,

Nahum the Mede erred when Nazirites came up from the Diaspora and found the Temple destroyed.

Nahum the Mede said to them: Had you known that the Temple was destroyed,

would

you have taken nazirite vows

when you would be unable to bring your offerings, and would remain forbidden forever?

They said to him: No!

And Nahum the Mede released them.

And when the matter came before the Sages, they said: Every

nazir

who took a nazirite vow before the Temple was destroyed,

behold, he is

a nazir,

for this opening is a newly arisen circumstance.

And

everyone who took a nazirite vow

after the Temple was destroyed—

is not a nazir.

Gemara:

Rabba said: The Rabbis swept

removed

Rabbi

Eliezer

from his position concerning a newly arisen circumstance,

and established him

and placed him

according to their position!

For we learned

in tractate Nedarim [64a]:

They open with"

a newly arisen circumstance".

The words of Rabbi Eliezer.

And the Sages prohibit

opening with "a newly arisen circumstance".

And Rava said: Even though the Sages said

that

one does not open with"

a newly arisen circumstance",

one does open

with

a condition involving a newly arisen circumstance".

What are the circumstances,

how did he open with "a condition involving a newly arisen circumstance"?

They say to them,

they say to these Nazirites:

Had

at the time when you vowed

a person come

a person had come

and said to you that the Temple would be destroyed

in the future—

would you have vowed?

That is, they find for them an indirect opening, which does not depend on a deficiency in the clarity of their mind, but on their situation at the time of the vow: had someone come at the time of the vow and informed them of what would happen in the future, they would not have vowed then because of his words.

Rav Yosef said: Had I been there, I would have said to them

to the Sages that this is not a newly arisen circumstance, for Jeremiah had already prophesied concerning the destruction of the First Temple and the Second Temple.

For

it is written [

Jeremiah 7 ] “

The Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord are they!”

That is, you must not rely on the words of those who comfort you, saying that you can continue in your evil deeds, and saying that even if the Temple is destroyed, it is destined to be rebuilt anew.

For one Temple

this is the First Temple, and

the second Temple is

the Second Temple,

and if both of them are destroyed, the third will also be built! And the Gemara rejects this:

Granted that they knew that it would be destroyed

from the words of Jeremiah,

who knew when

it would be destroyed?

Abaye said: And

for

did they not know when

the Temple would be destroyed?

And it is written [

Daniel 9 ] “

Seventy weeks

[seven times seventy, that is, four hundred and ninety years from the destruction of the First Temple]

are decreed upon your people and upon your holy city”

the destruction of the Second Temple [that is, seventy years of the Babylonian exile, plus four hundred and twenty years of the Second Temple].

And the Gemara answers:

And still, did we know on which day

of that year the Temple would be destroyed? With regard to this, it is a newly arisen circumstance.

Mishna:

Six men who were

walking on the road, and one came toward them.

One of them said: Behold, I am a nazir that this is

a certain

man.

And one said: Behold, I am a nazir that this is not

a certain

man.

And the third said to the two:

Behold, I am a nazir that one of you is a nazir.

And the fourth said to the two: Behold, I am a nazir

that neither one of you is a nazir.

And the fifth said to the two: Behold, I am a nazir

that both of you are Nazirites.

And the sixth said to all five: Behold, I am a nazir

that all of you are Nazirites.

Beit Shammai say: All of them are Nazirites.

And Beit Hillel say: Only the one whose words were not fulfilled is a nazir,

as the Gemara will explain their words.

And Rabbi Tarfon says: None of them is a nazir,

because nazirite status takes effect only through something that was clarified at the time that he vowed, and not through something uncertain.

He drew back,

the person who had been walking toward them returned

backward—

he is not a nazir.

And this will be explained in the Gemara.

Rabbi Shimon says:

Since the matter is uncertain,

he shall say: “

If it was as I said, I am a mandatory nazir.

And if not, I am a voluntary nazir.”

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Beit Hillel say that only

the one whose words were not fulfilled is a nazir.

And the Gemara is astonished:

Why is he a nazir?

Rav Judah said: Correct the words of Beit Hillel in the Mishna and

say

thus,

say this:

the one whose words were fulfilled.