Nazir 4a (ד.) — the Talmud in English

And

indeed

it is impossible that the verse came to prohibit this wine, since—

for

he is already sworn and bound concerning it

to drink the wine of Kiddush and Havdala,

from Mount Sinai;

how, then, can you say that the naziriteship does not take effect with regard to it!?

Indeed, there is a Torah mitzva to sanctify Shabbat at its onset and at its conclusion with words of praise and sanctification, but by Torah law one need not recite Kiddush or Havdala over wine; rather, the Sages instituted that Kiddush and Havdala be recited over wine. It follows that there is no Torah mitzva concerning wine, so how can we say that the verse came to prohibit drinking this wine? And we explain:

rather,

the mitzva wine that the verse came to prohibit to a nazirite is

as follows

—for example,

as Rava said:

If one said,

“An oath that I shall drink wine,”

and then said

“I hereby become a nazirite,”—

the naziriteship comes

and

takes effect upon the oath.

The obligation to conduct oneself as a Nazirite takes effect, prohibiting him from drinking wine, and nullifies the obligation that he had undertaken to drink wine because of the oath.

The obligation to conduct oneself as a nazirite comes into force, prohibiting him from drinking wine and annulling the obligation he had assumed through the oath to drink wine.

This wine is “mitzva wine,” and the verse “from wine and intoxicating drink he shall abstain” comes to include this wine, so that it too is prohibited to a nazirite.

And we ask:

and the Sages as well—

who derived from the verse “from wine and intoxicating drink he shall abstain” that one who vows with regard to one of the prohibitions of a nazirite becomes prohibited by all of them—

this is needed for him;

the verse is needed in order

to prohibit mitzva wine like ordinary wine.

If so, how did they derive from it that one who vows with regard to one of the prohibitions of a nazirite becomes a nazirite with regard to all of them!?

And we answer: Although the verse comes to teach the law of mitzva wine, one may nevertheless also derive from it that one who vows with regard to one of the prohibitions of a nazirite becomes prohibited by all of them.

For

if so,

if you say that the verse came to teach only one law,

let the verse say

[let the verse say] only,

“from wine

he shall abstain”—

what

is the reason that the verse added and said

“and intoxicating drink”

[meaning an intoxicating drink made from wine]?

Rather,

you may infer

from the repetition in the verse, “wine and intoxicating drink,”

two

laws: a. To prohibit mitzva wine like ordinary wine.

b. One who vows with regard to one of the prohibitions of a nazirite becomes prohibited by all of them.

The Gemara now discusses Rabbi Shimon’s statement:

And Rabbi Shimon,

who does not derive from this verse that one who vows with regard to one of the prohibitions of a nazirite becomes prohibited by all of them—says to you:

This is the reason the verse wrote it:

the verse used an apparently superfluous expression and said

“intoxicating drink,”

in order

to teach

by means of a gezera shava,

“intoxicating drink” and “intoxicating drink,”

from the nazirite passage

to

one who enters the

Temple

while intoxicated—

as it is written:

“Wine and intoxicating drink, do not drink—you

[Aaron]

and your sons with you

when you enter the Tent of Meeting, lest you die.” One who transgresses this is liable to death at the hands of Heaven and lashes. And from this gezera shava we learn:

Just as concerning a nazirite,

only

wine is prohibited

[wine is what is prohibited],

but other intoxicating beverages

[that cause intoxication]

are not

prohibited to a nazirite.

So too concerning

those intoxicated by wine who enter the

Temple,

as “intoxicating drink” is also stated there—

likewise,

they are liable only if they drank wine or an intoxicating drink made from wine.

For only one intoxicated by

wine is prohibited—

he is the one prohibited from entering the Temple.

But

one who became intoxicated from

other intoxicating beverages—

is not

prohibited.

And

this exposition is

to exclude

[to exclude]

Rabbi Yehuda,

who requires lashes even for one intoxicated by other intoxicating substances who enters the Temple.

And

as it was taught

in a beraita:

Rabbi Yehuda says:

A kohen who

ate a dried fig

called

“Kela’ilit”

[so called after its place], whose consumption causes intoxication—

and drank

[or who drank]

honey and milk,

which likewise cause intoxication—

and entered the Temple

in his intoxicated state,

is liable

for lashes.

a. We maintain that “one prohibition does not take effect upon another prohibition.”

That is, whenever something is prohibited to a person, and another prohibition is subsequently introduced that prohibits what was already prohibited, the second prohibition does not take effect. The person who transgresses the second prohibition is not punished for it; rather, he is punished only with the punishment due for the prohibition that took effect first.

b. The tannaim disagree concerning a case in which the second prohibition is an “inclusive prohibition,” encompassing things that were not prohibited by the first prohibition: Does the second prohibition then take effect as well, so that he becomes liable on account of both prohibitions, or do we also say in the case of an inclusive prohibition that one prohibition does not take effect upon another?

For example, an animal carcass: initially, the prohibition against eating a carcass takes effect upon it, and when Yom Kippur arrives it becomes prohibited to eat on account of Yom Kippur. However, the second prohibition is “inclusive,” encompassing all foods, including kosher foods.

Those who say that the prohibition of Yom Kippur takes effect upon the prohibition of a carcass explain their position as follows: Since the second prohibition now takes effect upon other things, it also takes effect upon the carcass that was prohibited earlier, for the principle that one prohibition does not take effect upon another was stated only where the second prohibition cannot take effect at all.

The Gemara now returns to explain Rabbi Shimon’s view concerning the apparently superfluous wording “from wine and intoxicating drink he shall abstain,” in another manner—

Alternatively,

if you wish, you may now explain it as follows:

The verse did not come to include mitzva wine, such as when one swore to drink wine, as the Gemara explained above. For according to that explanation, we required all that the Gemara said above concerning the positions of Rabbi Shimon and the Sages: that the Sages who disagree with him also derive their teaching from the superfluous wording “wine and intoxicating drink.”

Rather, the teaching derived from the superfluous wording “from wine and intoxicating drink he shall abstain” applies only according to Rabbi Shimon, who requires this inclusion. But according to the Sages, this verse is not superfluous, and they do not need to derive Rabbi Shimon’s law from this superfluity.

For only Rabbi Shimon, according to his own view, maintains that the wording “from wine and intoxicating drink he shall abstain” is superfluous, since he does not expound, as the Sages do, that this verse comes to include one who vows with regard to one of the prohibitions. Therefore, he derives from the verse “from wine and intoxicating drink he shall abstain” the inclusion of one who swore not to drink this particular cup of wine and then vowed to become a nazirite: if he drank that cup, he receives two sets of lashes, and we do not say, “one prohibition does not take effect upon another.”

And now there is no difficulty: The Sages, who derive from the verse “from wine and intoxicating drink he shall abstain” their own teaching, from where will they derive this law? According to their view, it is obvious that he receives two sets of lashes, because an inclusive prohibition does take effect upon another prohibition. Here too, naziriteship prohibits him from other wines besides the particular cup concerning which he swore; therefore, the prohibition of naziriteship takes effect even upon that cup, and he receives two sets of lashes.

The verse “from wine and intoxicating drink he shall abstain” was necessary to teach that he receives two sets of lashes only according to

Rabbi Shimon himself,

who

does not hold that one prohibition takes effect upon another,

even in an inclusive case. Therefore the Torah had to introduce the novel teaching that he receives lashes also on account of his naziriteship.

And

as it was taught

in a beraita, that according to Rabbi Shimon one prohibition does not take effect upon another, even in an inclusive case:

Rabbi Shimon says: One who eats a carcass on Yom Kippur is exempt

on account of Yom Kippur, since the prohibition of Yom Kippur does not take effect upon the prohibition of the carcass that preceded it.

Thus, the prohibition of Yom Kippur does not take effect upon a carcass, even though it is “inclusive,” also encompassing other foods that had not yet been prohibited.

Here the Gemara returns to explain the view of the Sages, who maintain that one who vows with regard to one of the prohibitions of a nazirite becomes prohibited by all of them, and who do not expound like Rabbi Shimon, who derived from the verse “from everything that can be made from the grapevine” that one is not a nazirite until he abstains from all of them:

And according to the Sages as well,

and

it is written

“from everything that can be made from the grapevine,”

so we should derive from this verse that a nazirite is only one who vows with regard to all of them, as Rabbi Shimon holds?

And we explain:

The Sages could say to you: There,

where the verse says “from everything that can be made from the grapevine”—

the verse taught

that

with regard to

all

the prohibitions of a nazirite—

such as fresh and dried grapes, grape seeds, and grape skins —

that they combine with one another

to complete the measure that renders the nazirite liable for lashes.

So that you should not say: The Torah imposed liability only if he ate or drank a complete measure of one of these species. Therefore, the Torah stated: “From anything made from the grapevine, from wine, he shall not eat.”

The Gemara adds and explains:

And Rabbi Shimon,

who derives from “From anything made from the grapevine, from wine” that one is not a nazirite until he takes a nazirite vow with regard to all of them, and for whom the word “anything” is therefore not superfluous to teach combination, follows his own reasoning, because Rabbi Shimon

does not hold of combination.

He does not need an extra word from the verse for this, because in his view there is no need to invoke combination, as he maintains that even with regard to other prohibitions, such as forbidden fat and blood, one is liable to lashes for eating any amount.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon says:

a. It is sufficient to eat a forbidden substance

any amount

in order

to

obligate him to

lashes.

b.

They said [that is, the halakha was not transmitted to Moses at Sinai to measure the eating of a forbidden substance] with

an olive-bulk, but

only

with regard to

liability to a

sin-offering

alone [when one unwittingly eats something for whose deliberate consumption one is liable to karet, such as one who unwittingly eats forbidden fat or blood].

But no measure of an olive-bulk was stated with regard to liability to lashes; rather, he receives lashes for eating any amount of a substance prohibited by a negative commandment.

And since the prohibitions of a nazirite entail only lashes, and according to Rabbi Shimon one becomes liable for any amount, there is no longer any need to teach us that the prohibitions of a nazirite combine with one another; and the verse is superfluous, allowing us to derive from it that one is not a nazirite until he takes a nazirite vow with regard to all of them.

Mishna:

a. Samson son of Manoah was made a nazirite by an angel of the Lord from the womb, as it is stated [Judges 13]: “There was a certain man from Zorah, from the family of the Danites, whose name was Manoah. An angel of the Lord appeared to the woman,” and said to her: “For behold, you shall conceive and bear a son, and a razor shall not come upon his head, for the lad shall be a nazirite of God from the womb, and he shall begin to save Israel from the hand of the Philistines.”

b. The tannaim disagreed [on the following amud] whether a person can undertake “Samson naziriteship” upon himself. Our Mishna follows the view that a person can undertake “Samson naziriteship” upon himself.

d. Samson’s wife was named “Delilah,” as it is stated [Judges 16]: “And it came to pass afterward that he loved a woman in the valley of Sorek, whose name was Delilah.”

And he uprooted the doors of the city of Gaza, as it is stated [Judges 16]: “And Samson went to Gaza. Samson lay until midnight, and rose at midnight, and grasped the doors of the gate of the city and the two doorposts, and pulled them up with the bar, and placed them upon his shoulders.”

And the Philistines gouged out his eyes, as it is stated [Judges 16]: “And she said [Delilah], ‘The Philistines are upon you, Samson!’ And the Philistines seized him and gouged out his eyes.”

One who said: “

I am like Samson,”

and further said,

“like the son of Manoah,”

and added,

“like the husband of Delilah,”

and

like [or like one]

who uprooted the doors of Gaza”; “

and like one whose eyes the Philistines gouged out,”

he is a Samson nazirite.

However, when he says, “I am like Samson,” even if he adds, “like the son of Manoah,” he is not a nazirite unless he adds one of these three expressions, because without this addition, his wording does not clearly demonstrate that he intends Samson the nazirite.

However, if he says any one of these three expressions by itself, he is likewise a “Samson nazirite,” since with such wording there is no possibility of misunderstanding his intention.

Gemara:

The Gemara asks:

Why do I need it to teach all these expressions!?

Why is it not sufficient to say, “I am like Samson,” or “I am like the son of Manoah,” in order to become a nazirite, but it is necessary to add, “I am like Samson, like the son of Manoah, like the husband of Delilah” [or the other two expressions taught in the Mishna]? And we answer:

They are necessary,

meaning: He must add the additional expression!

For if he said “

I am like Samson”

alone,

I might have said [it is possible to interpret his intention] that he did not intend Samson the nazirite, but rather

another Samson—

it teaches us “

like the son of Manoah.”

Therefore, he must add “like the son of Manoah.”

And if it had taught only “like Samson

and like the son of Manoah,”

this too would not be sufficient. For

I might have said,

I would have said,

there is someone who is called by that name,

there is a person whose name is Samson son of Manoah, and he intended to say that he would be like him—therefore

it teaches us

the tanna that he must add and say: “

like the husband of Delilah,” “

and like one [or “like one”]

whose eyes the Philistines gouged out.”

Mishna:

One who undertakes naziriteship without a time limit, saying, “I am a perpetual nazirite,” is a nazirite forever. During the observance of his naziriteship, he has a special status, which will be explained in our Mishna.

What is the difference between a perpetual nazirite and a Samson nazirite?

A perpetual nazirite:

if

his hair becomes heavy

then

he may lighten

his hair

with a razor,

if he wishes.

And he brings

the perpetual nazirite, when he lightens his hair,

three animals,

for a sin-offering, a burnt-offering, and peace-offerings, like the sacrifices of a nazirite at the completion of his naziriteship, even though a perpetual nazirite does not complete his naziriteship.

And if he becomes impure,

the perpetual nazirite, then

he brings a purification offering [two turtledoves or two young pigeons, and a guilt-offering, as do other nazirites].

But

a Samson nazirite,

even if

his hair becomes heavy, he may not lighten

it.

And if he becomes impure, he does not bring a purification offering.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: What is the difference between a perpetual nazirite and a Samson nazirite?

And we challenge this: “

A perpetual nazirite”—

who mentioned him!?

Who mentioned the matter of a perpetual nazirite until now, that the tanna refers to it as a known matter!? And we answer:

The Mishna is incomplete,

and

this is what it teaches

in it:

One who says: “

I am a perpetual nazirite,”

he is a perpetual nazirite!

And

what is the difference between a perpetual nazirite and a Samson nazirite?

A perpetual nazirite,

if

his hair becomes heavy, he may lighten it with a razor, and he brings three animals; and if he becomes impure, he brings a purification offering.

A Samson nazirite,

if

his hair becomes heavy, he may not lighten it with a razor,