Nazir 3b (ג:) — the Talmud in English

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

The Tosafot did not explain why it is ineffective if he explicitly said, “the birds adjacent to the hair”; surely his intention was Nazirite status.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Everyone—

both Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis—hold:

a person does not associate

his statement with something adjacent to it.

Rather, this is the reason for Rabbi Meir’s ruling

that he becomes a Nazirite when he says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring birds”: because

we are concerned that perhaps he accepted upon himself the birds of a ritually impure Nazirite;

that is, we are concerned that perhaps he intended to accept upon himself the mitzva of Nazirite status, which involves birds if he becomes ritually impure.

And we challenge this:

Since he

said, “we are concerned,”

this indicates

that even you concede that it is not certain that this was his intention—if so, he should not become a Nazirite, because:

Perhaps he accepted upon himself birds for a voluntary offering [that is, perhaps he accepted upon himself the obligation to bring birds for a voluntary burnt offering].

Since it is not clear that he intended Nazirite status, we should be lenient and say that he did not accept Nazirite status upon himself, because a person does not readily accept Nazirite status upon himself, since Nazirite status is stringent for him and entails exertion.!

And we answer:

If so—

that his intention was birds for a voluntary offering—

“It is incumbent upon me to bring a nest” [

two turtledoves or two young pigeons]

he should have said

this, as it is the usual expression of those who donate a fowl burnt offering to use the term “nest.” It is therefore necessarily the case that his intention was Nazirite status.

And we still challenge this:

Perhaps he

said, “It is incumbent upon me to bring the birds of a leper,”

indicating

that he was undertaking to bring, on behalf of a leper, the birds required for his purification.!

And we answer: Our Mishna is discussing a case

where a Nazirite was

passing before him.

The Tosafot raised the following difficulty: Since according to Reish Lakish as well, the Mishna is interpreted as referring to a case where a Nazirite was passing before him [for when no Nazirite is passing before him, saying “birds” alone is ineffective; it is effective only when he says “birds adjacent to the hair,” as explained in the note above], why did the Gemara need to say that our Mishna is discussing a case where a Nazirite was passing before him more in the statement of Rabbi Yohanan than in that of Reish Lakish?! See their words for what they explained regarding this.

The Gemara had assumed that the reference was to a ritually impure Nazirite passing before him, and therefore it challenges:

Perhaps he meant a ritually impure Nazirite, and intended to exempt him from his offerings,

that he accepted upon himself the obligation to bring the impurity offerings of that Nazirite who passed before him.!

And we answer: Our Mishna is discussing a case in which

a ritually pure Nazirite—

who does not bring birds—

was passing before him;

and the one making the vow intended in his heart to become subject to the mitzva of Nazirite status, which involves birds if he becomes ritually impure.

And we explain:

What is the practical difference between them,

between Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish?

The difference between them is in a case where he said: “

The birds adjacent to the hair are incumbent upon me”—

That is, what is the difference between them in interpreting the Mishna? There is no practical halakhic difference here, since all this is according to Rabbi Meir, whose opinion is not the halakha.

For

according to Rabbi Yohanan, even though he said this

explicitly, “the birds adjacent to the hair,”

if a Nazirite is passing before him, it does not [make him a Nazirite];

but

if not, it does.

Whereas

according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish,

since he explicitly said, “the birds adjacent to the hair are incumbent upon me,”

even if no Nazirite is passing before him,

he becomes a Nazirite.

And we challenge this:

Is there anyone who holds: “

A person does not associate his statement with something adjacent to it”—

is there indeed anyone who holds this way?!

But it was taught in a beraita: One who says, “

Right hand

that I will not eat this loaf,”

this is an oath.

And

what is the reason

that it is an oath? Is it

not because it is written: “

And He lifted His right hand and His left hand toward the heavens and swore by the Life of the worlds”?

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

The members of the academy said

to resolve the difficulty:

No—

Rather,

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

From where do we know that one who says “

right hand”

is referring to 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”

is referring to an oath? As it is stated: “

The Lord has sworn by His right hand

and by the arm of His strength.”

This refers to the left, since the intention is to the phylacteries worn on the left arm.

Three types of things are forbidden to a nazirite:

There are three kinds of prohibitions in Nazirite status:

A. Ritual impurity imparted by a corpse; B. shaving; C. anything that comes from the vine, including the seeds and skins.

Mishna:

One who says: “

I am a Nazirite from the seeds,”

accepting upon himself the prohibition against eating grape seeds, but not mentioning the other prohibitions of Nazirite status. And likewise one who says: “I am a Nazirite

from the skins,”

without mentioning anything further.

And likewise one who says: “I am a Nazirite

from shaving.”

And likewise one who says: “I am a Nazirite

from ritual impurity.”

In all these cases,

he is a complete Nazirite,

and

all the details of Nazirite status apply to him.

That is: It goes without saying that anything that comes from the vine and shaving are prohibited to him, even though he did not specify them; rather, even ritual impurity, which does not apply to every form of Nazirite status—for a Samson Nazirite is permitted to come into contact with ritual impurity, as will be explained below, on page 4a—is also prohibited to him.

and

Gemara:

The Gemara explains:

The Mishna—our Mishna, which holds that by accepting one of the prohibitions he becomes prohibited by all the prohibitions of Nazirite status— is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

who disagrees

and holds that he does not thereby become a Nazirite.

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

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

for Nazirite status

until he undertakes all of it [

all that is prohibited to a Nazirite], or until he 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 [that is, he did not prohibit himself by virtue of Nazirite status]

but only with regard to one of them [

one of the matters prohibited to a Nazirite],

he is a complete Nazirite,

as though he had said simply, “I am a Nazirite.”

The Gemara explains:

What is Rabbi Shimon’s reason,

who holds that he does not become a Nazirite when he prohibits only one thing to himself? The reason is that

What is the reason for Rabbi Shimon,

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

the verse says [

as the verse states]: “

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

and therefore the verse says “from anything,” to teach that he must undertake all that is made from the grapevine. Since the verse reveals, with regard to products of the vine, that he must specify everything, the same applies to the prohibitions of shaving and ritual impurity: he must specify them as well.

And we explain:

And the Rabbis—

who disagree with Rabbi Shimon—

what is their reason?!

The reason is that

the verse says [

the verse states]: “

From wine and intoxicating drink he shall abstain.”

But it was already stated, “From anything made from the grapevine,” which includes wine and intoxicating drink. Rather, this teaches us that even if he undertook Nazirite status only from wine or intoxicating drink and did not undertake it from the other products of the vine, nevertheless he is a Nazirite with regard to everything; and even when he comes to specify, he need not specify everything.

And we are astonished:

But Rabbi Shimon too—does it not say “

From wine and intoxicating drink he shall abstain”?

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

That verse, “From wine and intoxicating drink he shall abstain,”

he requires it;

that verse is necessary for Rabbi Shimon to teach:

To prohibit

a Nazirite from even

wine of a mitzva [

wine that it is a mitzva to drink]

like ordinary wine!

And we refute this: “Wine of a mitzva”—

what is it? Surely it refers to wine for

Kiddush and Havdala [

wine for Kiddush and Havdala].!

“wine for

Kiddush and Havdala”

—the wine used for Kiddush and Havdala—!?