Nazir 32b (לב:) — the Talmud in English

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

For this is not a nolad—a newly arising circumstance—for at the time he accepted his nazirite vow, his animal had already been stolen; rather, he was unaware of what had occurred because of his lack of knowledge.

And this is an error,

in the matter of opening with a nolad.

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 prohibited forever?

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

They said to him: No!

And Nahum the Mede released them from their vows.

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

nazirite

who took his vow before the Temple was destroyed

is

a nazirite,

for this opening is a nolad.

And

anyone who took a nazirite vow

after the Temple was destroyed—

is not a nazirite.

Gemara:

Rabba said: The Sages swept

—removed—

Rabbi

Eliezer

from his position concerning a nolad,

and placed him

—established him—

in their own position!

As we learned

in tractate Nedarim [64a]:

One may open with “

a nolad,”

the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

And the Sages prohibit

opening with “a nolad.”

And Rava said: Although the Sages said

that

one may not open with “

a nolad,”

one may open

with

a condition based on a nolad.

What are the circumstances?

How did he open with “a condition based on a nolad”?

They say to them,

saying to these nazirites:

Had

you, at the time you took your vows,

a person come

—had a person come—

and said to you that the Temple would be destroyed

in the future—

would you have taken the vow?

This means that they find an indirect opening for them, one that does not depend on a deficiency in the clarity of their judgment, 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 ultimately happen, they would not have taken the vows 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 nolad, for Jeremiah had already prophesied the destruction of the First and Second Temples.

For

it is written [

Jeremiah 7]: “

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

This means that you should not rely on the words of those who comfort you by saying that you may continue in your evil deeds, claiming that even if the Temple is destroyed, it will ultimately be rebuilt.

For one Temple—

this is the First Temple, and

the other, the

Second Temple—

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

Granted, they knew that it would be destroyed

from the words of Jeremiah,

but did they know when

it would be destroyed?

Abaye said: And

did they

not know when

the Temple would be destroyed?

And it is written [

Daniel 9]: “

Seventy weeks” [

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

have been decreed concerning your people and your holy city”—

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

The Gemara answers:

But still, did they know on which day

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

Mishna:

Six people

were walking along a road, and one person was approaching them.

One of them said: I am a nazirite because this

man is

so-and-so.

And another said: I am a nazirite because this

man is not

so-and-so.

And the third said to the two:

I am a nazirite because one of you is a nazirite.

And the fourth said to the two: I am a nazirite

because neither of you is a nazirite.

And the fifth said to the two: I am a nazirite

because both of you are nazirites.

And the sixth said to all five: I am a nazirite

because all of you are nazirites.

Beit Shammai say: All of them are nazirites.

And Beit Hillel say: Only the one whose statement did not come true is a nazirite,

as the Gemara will explain their words.

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

because nazirite status takes effect only with regard to something that was clear at the time he took the vow, and not with regard to something uncertain.

If he retreated

—the person who had been walking toward them turned back—

backward,

he is not a nazirite.

This will be explained in the Gemara.

Rabbi Shimon says:

Since the matter is uncertain,

he should say: “

If it was as I said, I am a nazirite by obligation;

and if not, I am a nazirite voluntarily.”

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Beit Hillel say that only

the one whose statement did not come true is a nazirite.

The Gemara asks:

Why is he a nazirite?

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

say

say

—say it as follows:

the one whose statement came true.