Nazir 3b — the Talmud in English

And the Rabbis hold: a person does not associate his statement with something that is adjacent to it.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Everyone—

both Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis—holds that

a person does not associate

his statement with something that is adjacent to it.

Rather, this is the reason for Rabbi Meir’s opinion:

he is a nazirite when he says, “I undertake birds,” because

we are concerned that perhaps he undertook the birds of a nazirite who became impure,

meaning: We are concerned that perhaps he intended to undertake the commandments of nazirite status, which include birds if the nazirite becomes impure.

And we raise an objection:

Since he

says “we are concerned”

he is saying,

meaning: Since you too say that it is not certain that this was his intention, he should not be a nazirite, because:

Perhaps he undertook birds for a voluntary offering

—perhaps he undertook to bring birds as a voluntary burnt-offering. Since it is not clear that he intended nazirite status, we should be lenient and say that he did not undertake nazirite status, because a person does not readily undertake nazirite status, as nazirite status is burdensome for him and entails effort—!?

And we answer:

If so—

if his intention was birds for a voluntary offering—he should have said,

“I undertake a nest”

—two turtledoves or two young pigeons—

he would have needed to say

this, since those who donate a bird burnt-offering customarily use the expression “nest.” It is therefore necessarily the case that his intention was nazirite status.

But we still raise an objection:

Perhaps he

was saying, “I undertake the birds of a leper”—

he is saying,

meaning: I undertake to bring, on behalf of a leper, the birds required for his purification—!?

And we answer: Our Mishna,

for example, is dealing with a nazirite

passing in front of him.

The Gemara had thought that the reference was to an impure nazirite passing in front of him, and therefore it raises the following objection:

Perhaps he meant an impure nazirite, and intended to exempt him from his offerings,

meaning that he undertook to bring the impurity offerings of the nazirite who passed in front of him—!?

And we answer: Our Mishna is dealing with a case

in which a pure nazirite—

who does not bring birds—

was passing in front of him;

and the person making the undertaking intended in his heart to become subject to the commandments of nazirite status, which include birds if he becomes impure.

And we explain:

What difference is there between them,

between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish?

There is a difference between them in a case where he said, “

I undertake birds adjacent to the hair”—

For

according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, even though he said this

explicitly—“birds adjacent to the hair”—

if a nazirite is passing in front of him, it does not [make him a nazirite],

but

if not, it does not.

Whereas

according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish,

since he explicitly said, “I undertake birds adjacent to the hair,”

even if no nazirite is passing in front of him,

he is a nazirite.

And we raise an objection:

Is there anyone who says:

A person does not associate his statement with a matter that is adjacent to it—

and is there anyone who holds this way—!?

But it was taught in a baraita: A person who says, “

Right hand,

I will not eat this loaf,”

this is an oath.

And indeed,

what is the reason

that it is an oath? Is it not

because it is written: “

And He raised His right hand and His left hand toward heaven and swore by the life of the world”?

And since the oath is adjacent to the word “right hand,” it is therefore an oath—!?

The members of the academy

said to resolve this:

No—

rather,

because “right hand” itself is called an oath, as it was taught in a baraita:

From where do we know that one who says “

right hand”

has made an oath? As it is stated: “

The Lord has sworn

by His right hand.”

And from where do we know that one who says “

left”

has made an oath? As it is stated: “

The Lord has sworn by His right hand

and by His mighty arm,”

which refers to the left, because the reference is to the phylacteries worn on the left arm.

Three types of things are forbidden to a nazirite:

a. Impurity from a corpse; b. cutting the hair; c. anything that comes from the grapevine, including the seeds and skins.

Mishna:

One who says: “

I am a nazirite with regard to the grape seeds,”

meaning that he undertook the prohibition against eating grape seeds but did not mention the other prohibitions of nazirite status.

And

so too one who says: “I am a nazirite

with regard to the grape skins,”

and did not mention anything further.

And

so too one who says: “I am a nazirite

with regard to cutting the hair.”

And

so too one who says: “I am a nazirite

with regard to impurity.”

In all these cases,

he is a complete nazirite,

and

all the detailed laws of nazirite status apply to him.

That is: It is obvious that the grapevine products and cutting the hair are forbidden to him even though he did not specify them. Rather, even impurity, which does not apply in every form of nazirite status—for “the nazirite status of Samson,” as discussed below on 4a, permits it—is also forbidden to him.

Gemara:

The Gemara explains:

The Mishna—

our Mishna, which holds that by undertaking one of the prohibitions he becomes forbidden by all the prohibitions of nazirite status—

is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

who disagrees and holds that he does not become a nazirite in this way.

As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: He is not liable

for nazirite status

until he undertakes all of them

—everything forbidden to a nazirite—or says, “I am a nazirite” without qualification, which also includes all of them. But if he comes to specify the prohibitions of a nazirite, he must specify all of them.

And the Rabbis

say: Even if he did not undertake nazirite status

—

he did not forbid himself as a nazirite

but only with regard to one of them

he is a complete nazirite,

as though he had said, “I am a nazirite” without qualification. And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason for Rabbi Shimon,

who holds that he does not become a nazirite when he forbids only one thing to himself?

It is because

the verse says

—the verse states—“

From anything made from the grapevine, from grape seeds to grape skin.”

Therefore, the verse said “from anything,” to teach that he must undertake abstinence from everything made from the grapevine. Since the verse reveals that regarding grapevine products he must specify everything, the same law applies: He must also specify the prohibitions of cutting the hair and impurity.

And we explain:

And the Rabbis—

who disagree with Rabbi Shimon—

what is their reason!?

It is because

the verse says

—the verse states: “

He shall abstain from wine and strong drink.”

The verse had already stated, “From anything made from the grapevine,” which includes wine and strong drink. Rather, this teaches us that even if he undertook abstinence only from wine or strong drink, and did not undertake abstinence from the other grapevine products, nevertheless he is a nazirite with regard to everything. Even when he comes to specify, he need not specify everything.

And we ask:

But Rabbi Shimon too—does it not say “

He shall abstain from wine and strong drink”?

What does this verse come to teach according to him? And we explain:

That

verse—“He shall abstain from wine and strong drink”—

is needed

by Rabbi Shimon; that verse is necessary to teach:

To prohibit even

to a nazirite

wine required by a mitzva

—wine that it is a mitzva to drink—

like ordinary wine!

And we refute this: Is

what is this “wine required by a mitzva”? Surely it is the wine of

“wine for

Kiddush and Havdala”

—the wine used for Kiddush and Havdala—!?