Nazir 3a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

No:

indeed, it is fitting to call him “fine,” for this is not a transgression—

for even according to Rabbi Elazar HaKappar,

who says: “A Nazirite is a sinner,”

he is—

This matter applies with regard to an impure Nazirite, for since he must begin anew

since he must—when he becomes impure—nullify the days of his Nazirite status that he had already counted before becoming impure, and begin counting it anew,

for

behold,

the Merciful One said: “And when a dead person dies upon him, etc.”

“And the first days shall fall, because his Nazirite status became impure”—

therefore, the matter there—

with regard to an impure Nazirite—

is:

since he is concerned

perhaps

because the days have been lengthened for him,

he will come to transgress his Nazirite status [perhaps he will transgress his vow]; therefore, he regrets having accepted the Nazirite status, and “he is a sinner.”

perhaps he will violate his vow of naziriteship], he regrets having accepted naziriteship, and therefore “he is a sinner.”

But a pure Nazirite, “a sinner”

is he not called

by it!

We learned in the Mishna:

“I am like this,”

and so on, he is a Nazirite:

The Gemara had thought that one who says, “I am like this,” is a Nazirite because he was holding his hair, just as the Gemara explained what we learned, “I shall be fine”; and therefore we ask:

Granted, even if he is holding his hair [let it be that he is holding his hair], but in the end,

“

I am a Nazirite”

he did not say!?

That is to say: There is no proof from this that his intention is Nazirite status, so why is he a Nazirite!?

Said

he answered,

Shmuel:

Our Mishna deals

with a case in which a Nazirite was passing before him

and he said, “I am like this,” and therefore he is a Nazirite, even though he is not holding his hair. We learned in the Mishna:

“I am curling”

and so on, he is a Nazirite:

And we ask:

From where [do we know] that this curling of the hair

[turning the hair]

is

that is to say: From where do we know that his intention is turning the hair, which is indeed called “curling,”

as that maidservant in Rabbi’s household said to that man

[as Rabbi’s maidservant said to that man],

“Until when will you”

“curl”

your hair!?”

But

say

“Torah,”

for the expression “curling” also applies to it, as

it is written: “The beginning of wisdom: acquire wisdom, and with all your acquisitions acquire understanding.

Search it [search it, repeatedly examine it carefully]

search it out and review it carefully]

and it will raise you up”!?

Said

he answered,

Shmuel: Here too,

our Mishna deals with a case

in which

he was

holding his hair,

and therefore the meaning of his words is that he will turn his hair. We learned in the Mishna:

“I am thickening”

and so on, he is a Nazirite:

And we ask:

From where [do we know] that this thickening of his hair

[when the hair is thick in one place it is called “thickening”] that is to say: “I am growing hair,” which is indeed called “thickening,”

as we learned

in tractate Shabbat concerning the measure for carrying out from one domain to another on Shabbat, for which one becomes liable:

“Lime”—

its measure is—

“enough to spread lime for thickening, and Rav said: The temple-side lock” [the sides of the head], that is to say: a measure suitable for spreading lime on the hair at the temples in order to lay it down!?

the sides of the head], that is, enough to apply lime to the hair at the sides of the head in order to lay it flat!?

But

say:

perhaps

he accepted upon himself the feeding of the poor

[he accepted upon himself],

as it is written:

“And Joseph sustained his father and his brothers

[in Egypt]”!?

Shmuel said: Here too,

our Mishna deals with a case in which he was

holding his hair.

We learned in the Mishna:

“It is incumbent upon me to let the growth grow forth; he is a Nazirite”:

And we ask:

From where [do we know] that this letting forth is increase

[from where do we know that the expression “to let forth” is an expression of increase, namely, growing hair], as

it is written:

“Your letting-forths are an orchard of pomegranates”!?

“Your growths are an orchard of pomegranates”?

But

say: something of transmission

[it is an expression for removing hair],

as it is written: “And He sends forth water upon the surface of the open places”!?

And we answer: We find that the

tan(n)ai

of

“letting forth, letting forth”

derives

to explain what is stated concerning an ordinary priest, “They shall not let their hair grow forth,” that it means growing hair for thirty days; and this is how he derived it:

It is written here

in the section of the Nazirite:

“He shall be holy; he shall let the growth of his hair grow forth

the hair of his head,” and the ordinary Nazirite status is thirty days;

and it is written there, concerning an ordinary priest:

“They shall not let their hair grow forth,”

and just as with a Nazirite the growth of the hair is thirty days, so with an ordinary priest its meaning is the growth of hair—

And since “They shall not let their hair grow forth” means “the growth of hair,” consequently anyone who says, “It is incumbent upon me to let the growth grow forth,” means that he will grow his hair, and this means that he will be a Nazirite.

And if you wish, say: This

“sending forth water

upon the surface of the open places”

also

is an expression of

increase, for when one waters the fruit tree with water, it grows

[when one waters the fruit trees with water, the fruits grow], and because of the growth of the fruit the watering is called “sending forth water.”

We learned in the Mishna:

“It is incumbent upon me to bring birds,”

Rabbi Meir says: He is a Nazirite.

And we explain:

What is the reason of Rabbi Meir?

Reish Lakish said: He accepted upon himself birds adjacent to

“hair.”

He accepted it upon himself.

As it is written:

“Until his hair grew like eagles’ feathers and his nails like birds”

[until his hair—Nebuchadnezzar’s—grew like eagles’ wings over his entire body, and his nails like a bird’s].

That is to say: What he said, “birds,” means the word “birds,” which was written adjacent to hair, as though he had said: “It is incumbent upon me to perform a mitzva in which there are birds associated with the mitzva of hair,” and this is the offering of an impure Nazirite, which comes from birds [two turtledoves or two young pigeons].

Nevertheless, it is not enough that he said only “birds,” unless a Nazirite was passing before him; but when no Nazirite is passing before him, it is not effective even according to Rabbi Meir, unless he explicitly said, “I accept upon myself birds adjacent to hair.”

And Reish Lakish explains the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages:

Rabbi Meir holds: A person associates [his vow] with something adjacent to it

[a person associates his Nazirite status with the word adjacent to the word he said].