Nazir 4b (ד:) — the Talmud in English

And

if he becomes impure,

he does not bring a defilement offering.

We learned in the Mishna: A Nazirite like Samson does not exercise leniency, and if he becomes impure, he does not bring a defilement offering:

And the Gemara deduces: A Nazirite like Samson—only

an offering

for defilement

does he not bring

[he does not bring],

but the naziriteship takes effect upon him

[with regard to defilement], and he is initially prohibited from becoming impure through contact with the dead—and if so, the following difficulty arises:

whose view is our Mishna

[according to whose opinion is our Mishna]? It is

neither Rabbi Yehuda

nor

Rabbi Shimon!?

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: A Nazirite like Samson

the naziriteship takes effect upon him, but

he is permitted to become impure through contact with the dead, as we find that Samson became impure

through contact with the dead, as the Gemara will explain below, where we find that he became impure.

Rabbi Shimon says: One who says “

I am

a Nazirite like Samson”

has said nothing, because we do not find that Samson’s naziriteship emerged from his own mouth;

and if so, this naziriteship is not “a matter subject to a vow” [which comes about through a vow], and a person cannot impose this form of naziriteship upon himself. And if so,

whose

is our Mishna!?

If Rabbi Yehuda

is the view of our Mishna,

did he not say

Rabbi Yehuda:

Even initially

a Nazirite like Samson may become impure through contact with the dead?

And

if

the Mishna teaches: “

If he becomes impure,”

after the fact he does not bring a defilement offering, but initially he may not become impure.

And

if Rabbi Shimon

is the view of our Mishna,

did he not say

Rabbi Shimon:

The naziriteship does not take effect upon him—

upon one who undertakes a Nazirite vow like Samson—

at all?

See there carefully. The Hazon Ish [137:3] wrote that this would seemingly be the case, but he proved from the Gemara’s difficulty here that according to Rabbi Shimon there is no possible instance of a Nazirite like Samson. See there, where he brings further proofs and elaborates on the matter. In Avi Ezri, third edition, it is written that it is impossible to undertake a Nazirite vow like Samson’s without making a comparison; see there for the reasoning, [and this was cited in Arzei HaLevanon]. See also the Meiri’s wording: “According to Rabbi Yehuda, his comparison is effective and he is a Nazirite; but according to Rabbi Shimon, since Samson was not bound by a vow, but rather the angel’s statement made him a Nazirite, the comparison made to him has no effect.”

And we answer:

Actually,

our Mishna is the opinion of

Rabbi Yehuda,

and even initially a Nazirite like Samson may become impure through contact with the dead—

but

you asked: If so, why does it teach “and if he becomes impure,” using language that indicates a case after the fact?

I can say to you:

Since, with regard to an eternal Nazirite, it teaches “

if he becomes impure”

[following the mention of “an eternal Nazirite,” in whose case it teaches “if he becomes impure”],

it also taught with regard to “

a Nazirite like Samson”

“if he becomes impure.”

We learned in the beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: A Nazirite like Samson is permitted to become impure through contact with the dead. Rabbi Shimon says: One who says, “I am a Nazirite like Samson,” has said nothing, because we did not find that Samson’s naziriteship emerged from his own mouth:

It is clear that according to Rabbi Yehuda, although Samson did not impose naziriteship upon himself, nevertheless another person can impose upon himself the naziriteship that Samson had. According to Rabbi Shimon, since Samson’s naziriteship did not come about through a vow, a person cannot impose this upon himself—

Shall we say that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree

about

the dispute between these tannaim—

who disagree with regard to vows as to whether a “matter subject to a vow” is required—

is that the basis of their disagreement?

As we learned: One who makes a vow and compares his vow to another matter, saying, “

This loaf is

forbidden to me

like this loaf

of a firstborn animal”—

Rabbi Yaakov prohibits it,

even though a firstborn animal’s sanctity comes from the womb and is not a matter made subject to a person’s vow.

And Rabbi Yosei permits it,

because it is not a matter made subject to a person’s vow, and the Torah said: “When a man takes a vow”—only when he compares his vow to a matter subject to a vow.

Is it not the case that Rabbi Yehuda—

who holds with regard to naziriteship that a “matter subject to a vow” is not required—

agrees with Rabbi Yaakov, who says

with regard to vows,

we do not require

that he compare his vow to a

matter subject to a vow?

And Rabbi Shimon—

who requires a “matter subject to a vow” with regard to naziriteship—

agrees with Rabbi Yosei, who says: We require

that the vow be compared to a

matter subject to a vow.

And we reject this:

No.

That is, the matter is not as the questioner assumed, that Rabbi Yaakov and Rabbi Yosei disagree as to whether, with regard to vows, one must compare the vow specifically to a “matter subject to a vow.” Rather,

everyone—

both Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yaakov—holds that

we require

that the vow be compared to a

matter subject to a vow.

But here it is different

with regard to comparing a vow to a firstborn animal, for according to Rabbi Yaakov one may compare a vow to a firstborn animal, because

it is written

in the section concerning vows: “

When a man takes a vow

to the Lord,”

to include a firstborn animal,

which is not a matter made subject to a person’s vow, but whose sanctity derives from its being the first issue of the womb and whose sanctity comes from the Lord. The reason is that it is a mitzva to sanctify the firstborn verbally, even though it is also sanctified automatically at birth, as the Gemara will explain below.

And Rabbi Yosei,

who holds that one cannot compare a vow to a firstborn animal—

could say to you: That “

to the Lord”

which is stated with regard to vows did not come to include a firstborn animal, which is not subject to a vow at all.

Rather,

it is needed to include one who compares a vow to a

matter of

a sin offering or a guilt offering,

lest one say that since they come only as obligatory offerings [as a person does not vow or volunteer to bring a sin offering or a guilt offering], he may not compare his vow to them. Therefore, the verse teaches us that one may make vows with reference to them; but one who compares his vow to a firstborn animal does not have a valid vow.

And the Gemara explains:

What have you seen

[what is your basis for interpreting]

“to include a sin offering and a guilt offering”

from the verse

and to exclude a firstborn animal?

I include a sin offering and a guilt offering, since one can compare them to a vow,

for although they come only as obligatory offerings and not as freewill offerings, nevertheless they must be sanctified, and they are a “matter subject to a vow.”

And I exclude a firstborn animal, since one cannot compare it to a vow,

but it is sanctified automatically from the womb and is not a “matter subject to a vow” at all.

And Rabbi Yaakov—

who includes a firstborn animal through “to the Lord”—

could say to you: A firstborn animal, too, can be compared to a vow,

and is included through “to the Lord”!

For

it is

taught in a beraita: The House of Our Rabbi

[Rabbi]

said:

From where do we know that one to whom a firstborn animal is born within his flock, it is a mitzva to sanctify

it

and say: ‘You are hereby sanctified as a firstborn,’

as it is stated: “Every firstborn that is born among your cattle and your flocks,

the male

you shall sanctify.”

And Rabbi Yosei could say to you: Granted, it is a mitzva to sanctify it, but if he does not sanctify it

verbally,

does it not become sanctified

from the womb!? If so, this is not a “matter subject to a vow”; it is merely a mitzva.

Here the Gemara returns to the point explained above: One cannot prove from Rabbi Yaakov’s words that he holds that the naziriteship of Samson takes effect, since a vow involving a firstborn animal is different because “to the Lord” is written; and it asks:

In the final analysis,

is it not also written with regard to a Nazirite: “When a man explicitly takes a vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to sanctify himself

to the Lord,”

to the Lord—

and according to Rabbi Yaakov, should we not include from this verse even the naziriteship of Samson!? And we answer:

That—“to the Lord” written with regard to a Nazirite—

is needed

[it is required]

for that which was taught: Shimon the Righteous said

[who was a kohen]:

In all my days I never ate a guilt offering of naziriteship,

which a Nazirite brings if he becomes impure, because I was concerned that when the Nazirite became impure, he would regret his vow retroactively, since he thereby invalidated the days he had already counted. It would then turn out that he was bringing unconsecrated property into the Temple courtyard.

Except for

the nazirite offerings of

one man who came to me

from the South,

and he was

handsome of eyes and good in appearance, and his locks [

the locks of hair on his head]

were arranged for him in curls —

I said to him: My son! What did you see that made you destroy this beautiful hair

when shaving as a nazirite?

That is, why did you vow to be a nazirite, so that you would have to shave?

He said to me,

that man:

I was a shepherd for my father in my town ,

and I went to draw water from the spring, and I looked at my reflection,

at the appearance of my face reflected in the water,

and my inclination rushed upon me [

it hurried]

and sought to drive me from the world,

to follow the appearance seen by my eyes.

And

I said to him [

I said this to myself]

Empty one!

Why do you pride yourself in a world that is not yours, when in the end you will be

after your death

worms and maggots!?

By the Temple service [

I swear]

! I shall shave you for the sake of Heaven.

When I heard the words of the nazirite:

I stood and kissed him

that nazirite

on his head, and I said to him: Like you —

whose naziriteship was for the sake of Heaven —

may nazirites increase in Israel!

Concerning you the verse says: When a man explicitly vows a nazirite vow, to consecrate himself to the Lord.

That is, the beginning of his vow was entirely for the sake of Heaven, and he was not concerned that he might regret it even if he became impure. But other people who make vows generally make them in a time of distress or because of a sin in their possession, in order to suffer and atone for their transgression; and when the days become more numerous than they had resolved, it is likely that they will regret what they had initially undertaken.

Here the Gemara returns to the statement of Rabbi Shimon, who said: “We do not find that naziriteship issued from Samson’s mouth.” This implies that even his father—who could impose naziriteship upon him, as we learned below, on 28b: “A man may impose naziriteship upon his son”—did not impose it upon him; for if not, he would indeed have been one upon whom a nazirite vow was imposed:

And we challenge this:

Was Samson not a nazirite

through his father

!?

But it is written: “

And an angel of the Lord appeared to the woman. For behold, you shall conceive and bear a son, and no razor shall come upon his head.

For the child shall be a nazirite of God from the womb.”

And it entered our minds that the angel intended to say that his father would impose naziriteship upon him when he was born,

so Samson’s naziriteship did indeed come about through a vow!?

And we answer:

There, it is the angel who said

in prophecy that this is what would happen with Samson, that he would be a nazirite; but he did not command his father to impose naziriteship upon him.

Here the Gemara further explains the words of Rabbi Yehuda in the beraita, who said: “For we find that Samson became impure”:

And from where do we know that Samson became impure

to

the dead?

If you say, from

the fact

that it is written concerning Samson, that he said: “

With the jawbone of the donkey I struck down a thousand men,”

With the jawbone of the donkey I have struck a thousand men,”

so evidently he was not concerned about becoming impure through the dead —

This cannot be explained in this manner, because

perhaps he shot them [

an expression referring to arrows]

and did not touch them,

perhaps he threw the jawbone of the donkey at them from a distance and killed them, but did not touch them.

Rather,

say that

from here

it can be learned that Samson became impure through the dead, as it is written:

And he struck thirty of them and took their garments [

the garments he stripped from them]; thus, he touched them when he stripped them.

This too cannot be said, because

perhaps we stripped them first and then killed them [

we stripped them first and afterward killed them]!?

If so, from where do we know that Samson became impure through the dead?

And we answer: “

And he struck” —

and afterward — “

and he took”

is written,

which indicates that he did not take their garments until after he had struck them.

We still challenge this:

Perhaps they were dying men

whom he rendered so,

he struck them until they were moribund, and then stripped their garments while he remained in a state of ritual purity.

Rather,

it is a received tradition [

it was handed down to them] that he actually killed them and afterward stripped them, so he became impure through a corpse.

Here the Gemara returns to what we learned in our Mishna, that a lifelong nazirite may trim his hair with a razor and bring three animals, and asks:

And where is a lifelong nazirite written [

where is it written that he is permitted to trim his hair]?

And the Gemara explains the source of the ruling from that

as it was taught:

Rabbi says: Absalom,

the son of David,

was a lifelong nazirite —

As it is stated: At the end of forty years, Absalom said to the king: Let me go now and pay my vow that I vowed to the Lord in Hebron.

That is, to pay for his offerings, which he had to bring when he trimmed his hair. And the beraita continues:

And Absalom would shave

his hair

once every twelve months.

As it is said: “

As it is stated: “

And in all Israel there was no man so greatly praised for his beauty as Absalom. And when he shaved his head,

it was at the end of days, from time to time,

when he shaved it, because it was burdensome to him, and he shaved it” —