Nazir 3a (ג.) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

No:

indeed, it is appropriate to call him “praiseworthy,” for this is not a transgression—

for even according to Rabbi Elazar HaKappar,

who says: A nazirite is a sinner,

he is a sinner—

This applies to an impure nazirite, who, since he must begin anew [that is, when he becomes impure, he must invalidate the days of his naziriteship that he had already counted before becoming impure and begin counting it anew],

because, when he becomes ritually impure, he must cancel the days of his naziriteship that he had already counted before becoming impure and begin counting them anew],

as

it

the Merciful One said: “And if a person dies suddenly beside him, etc.

And the first days shall fall away, because his naziriteship became impure.”

Therefore, there,

that is, in the case of an impure nazirite,

it is there—

since he is apprehensive

lest

because his days have become extended,

he come to violate his naziriteship [lest he violate his vow]; therefore, he regrets having accepted the naziriteship, 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 as for a pure nazirite, is “

sinner

” not said with regard to him?!

We learned in the Mishna:

“I am like this one,”

and so on—he is a nazirite:

The Gemara had understood that one who says, “I am like this one,” becomes a nazirite because he was holding his hair, just as the Gemara explained the statement we learned, “I shall be praiseworthy.” Therefore, we ask:

Granted, even if he is holding his hair [even if he is indeed holding his hair],

but in the end,

“I am a nazirite”

he did not say!

That is, there is no proof that he intended naziriteship; why, then, is he a nazirite?!

Shmuel

said, that is, he answered:

Shmuel:

Our Mishna is speaking

of a case where a nazirite was passing before him,

and he said, “I am like this one”; therefore, he is a nazirite, even though he was 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 you know that this refers to curling the hair [turning the hair],

turning over the hair]

it

that is, from where do you know that he intended turning the hair, which is indeed called “curling,”

as that maidservant of Rabbi said to that man [as Rabbi’s maidservant said to that man]:

as Rabbi’s maidservant said to that man]:

“How long will you

curl

your hair?!”

But

perhaps say

Torah,

for the expression “curling” also applies to it,

as it is written: “Acquire wisdom as the beginning; and with all your acquisitions, acquire understanding.

Search it out [seek it, returning to it in order to examine it carefully]

and it will exalt you”?!

and it will exalt you”?

Shmuel

said, that is, he answered:

Shmuel: Here too,

our Mishna is speaking of a case in which

he

was

holding his hair,

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

“I am thickening”

and so on—he is a nazirite:

And we ask:

From where do you know that this refers to thickening his hair,

[when the hair is thick in one place, this is called “thickening”] that is, “I am growing my hair,” which is indeed called “thickening,”

as we learned

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

Lime—

its measure is—

enough to lime the thickening, and Rav said: The temple? [the side of the head], that is, a measure sufficient to lime the hair at the temples in order to lay it flat—?!

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

perhaps say,

perhaps he

accepted upon himself the feeding of the poor,

that is, he undertook to feed the poor,

as it is written:

“And Joseph sustained his father and his brothers”

[in Egypt]—?!

Shmuel said: Here too,

our Mishna is speaking of a case in which he was

holding his hair.

We learned in the Mishna:

“It is incumbent upon me to let the hair grow wild”—he is a nazirite:

And we ask:

From where do you know that this letting grow is multiplication,

that is, from where do you know that the expression “to let grow” means multiplication, namely, growing the hair,

as it is written:

“Your shoots are an orchard of pomegranates”—?!

“Your growths are an orchard of pomegranates”?

But

perhaps say: something that is transferred

[the expression refers to removing hair],

as it is written: “And He sends water over the face of the open places”?!

And we answer: We find that the

tanna

who derives from the repeated expression

“let grow, let grow”

derives

the interpretation of what is stated concerning an ordinary priest, “They shall not let their hair grow wild,” namely, that it means growing the hair for thirty days; and this is how he derives it:

It is written here,

in the passage concerning a nazirite:

“He shall be holy; he shall let the growth of the hair of his head grow wild,”

and the unspecified period of naziriteship is thirty days;

and it is written there, with regard to an ordinary priest:

“They shall not let their hair grow wild,”

and just as in the case of a nazirite, letting the hair grow wild means thirty days, so too, in the case of an ordinary priest, it means growing the hair—

And since “They shall not let their hair grow wild” means “they shall grow their hair,” it follows that anyone who says, “It is incumbent upon me to let my hair grow wild,” means that he will grow his hair; that is, he will be a nazirite.

Alternatively, you may say: This

“sending water”

over the face of the open places

also

means

multiplication, for when water is given to a fruit tree and it grows

[when fruit trees are watered, the fruit grows], and it is on account of the growth of the fruit that the watering is called “sending 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 Rabbi Meir’s reason?

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 hair—grew like the wings of eagles over his entire body, and his nails like those of a bird].

That is, when he said “birds,” he meant the word “birds” that is written adjacent to hair, as though he had said: It is incumbent upon me to undertake a mitzva in which birds are relevant, dependent upon the mitzva involving hair; namely, the offering of an impure nazirite, which consists of birds [two turtledoves or two young pigeons].

Nevertheless, it is not sufficient for him to say only “birds,” unless a nazirite is passing before him. But when no nazirite is passing before him, it is not effective even according to Rabbi Meir unless he explicitly says, “I accept upon myself birds adjacent to hair.”

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

Rabbi Meir holds: A person associates his vow with something that is adjacent to it [a person associates his naziriteship with the word adjacent to the word he uttered].

a person associates his naziriteship with the word adjacent to the word he uttered].