Nazir 4b — the Talmud in English

And

if he became impure,

he does not bring an offering for impurity.

We learned in the Mishna: A Samson nazirite does not become lenient, and if he became impure, he does not bring an offering for impurity:

And the Gemara infers: A Samson nazirite—only

the offering

of impurity

he does not bring

[he does not bring],

but naziriteship takes effect upon him

[it takes effect upon him with regard to impurity], and he is initially forbidden to become impure through the dead—and if so, this is difficult:

whose view is our Mishna

[according to whose view is our Mishna]? For it is

not Rabbi Judah

nor

and not Rabbi Shimon!?

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Judah says: A Samson nazirite

naziriteship takes effect upon him, but

he is permitted to become impure through the dead, for we find that Samson became impure

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

Rabbi Shimon says: One who says “

I am

a Samson nazirite”

has said nothing, for we have not found that naziriteship emerged from Samson’s mouth,

and if so, this naziriteship is not “a thing subject to a vow” [which comes through a vow], and a person cannot make himself a nazirite with this naziriteship. And if so,

whose

is our Mishna!?

If it is Rabbi Judah

who is the author of our Mishna,

does he not say

Rabbi Judah:

even initially

a Samson nazirite may become impure through the dead,

and

if in

the Mishna it teaches: “

If he became impure,”

after the fact he does not bring an offering for impurity, but initially he may not become impure.

And

if it is Rabbi Shimon

who is the author of our Mishna,

does he not say

Rabbi Shimon:

it does not take effect upon him—

upon one who accepts Samson naziriteship upon himself—

any naziriteship 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 Rabbi Judah,

and even initially a Samson nazirite may become impure through the dead—

and

what is difficult for you: If so, why does it teach “and if he became impure,” wording indicating after the fact?

I can say to you:

Since it teaches concerning an eternal nazirite “

if he became impure”

[along with “eternal nazirite,” in which we learned “if he became impure”],

it also taught concerning “

a Samson nazirite”

if he became impure.

We learned in the beraita: Rabbi Judah says: A Samson nazirite is permitted to become impure through the dead. Rabbi Shimon says: One who says, “I am a Samson nazirite,” has said nothing, for we have not found that naziriteship emerged from Samson’s mouth:

And it is clear that according to Rabbi Judah, although Samson did not make himself a nazirite, nevertheless another person can make himself a nazirite through his naziriteship, whereas according to Rabbi Shimon, since Samson’s naziriteship did not come through a vow, a person cannot make himself a nazirite through this—

Let us say,

Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon disagreed

in the dispute of these tannaim—

who disagreed concerning vows whether a “thing subject to a vow” is required—

do they disagree?

For we learned: One who makes a vow, associating his vow, saying, “

This loaf is

This loaf is upon me

like this loaf

like a firstborn”—

Rabbi Yaakov forbids it,

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

And Rabbi Yosei permits it,

since it is not a thing made subject to a vow by a person, and the Torah said: “When a man vows a vow,” until he vows [associates his vow] with a thing subject to a vow.

Is it not so that Rabbi Judah—

who holds concerning naziriteship that we do not require a “thing subject to a vow”—

agrees with Rabbi Yaakov, who says

concerning vows,

we do not require

that he associate his vow with a “

thing subject to a vow”?

And Rabbi Shimon—

who requires a “thing subject to a vow” concerning naziriteship—

agrees with Rabbi Yosei, who says: We require

that he associate the vow with a

thing subject to a vow.

And we reject this:

No.

That is to say: It is not as the questioner simply assumed, that Rabbi Yaakov and Rabbi Yosei disagreed whether in vows one must associate specifically with a “thing subject to a vow.” Rather,

everyone—

both Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yaakov—holds that

we require

associating the vow with a

thing subject to a vow.

But here it is different

concerning one who associates his vow with a firstborn, for according to Rabbi Yaakov one may associate a vow with a firstborn, since

it is written

in the section of vows: “

When a man vows a vow

to the Lord,”

to include the firstborn,

which is not a thing made subject to a vow by a person, but its sanctity is because it is the first issue of the womb, and it is sacred through the Lord. The reason is that it is a mitzva to sanctify the firstborn verbally, even though it is also automatically sacred at birth, as the Gemara explains below.

And Rabbi Yosei,

who holds that one cannot associate with a firstborn—

can say to you: That “

to the Lord”

which is stated concerning vows did not come to include the firstborn, which is not subject to a vow at all.

Rather,

it is needed to include one who associates with the

one who associates with

a sin-offering and a guilt-offering,

lest it be said that since they come only as an obligation [for a person does not vow or pledge to bring a sin-offering or a guilt-offering], he may not associate his vow with them. Therefore the verse informs us that one may make vows with them; but one who associates with a firstborn—his vow does not take effect.

And the Gemara explains:

What have you seen

[from where do you derive this interpretation],

to include a sin-offering and a guilt-offering

from the verse

and to exclude the firstborn?

I include a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, since one associates them with a vow,

for although they come only as an obligation and not as a voluntary offering, nevertheless one must sanctify them, and they are “a thing subject to a vow.”

And I exclude the firstborn, for one does not associate it with a vow,

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

And Rabbi Yaakov—

who includes the firstborn from “to the Lord”—

can say to you: The firstborn, too, is one with which he associates through a vow,

and it is included from “to the Lord”!

For

behold,

it was taught: The household of our Master

[Rabbi]

said

From where is it derived for

one to whom

a firstborn was born in his herd, that it is a mitzva to sanctify

it and say: “You are sanctified with firstborn sanctity,”

as it is said: “Every firstborn that is born in your cattle and in your flock,

the firstborn male

you shall sanctify.”

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

with his mouth,

is it not sacred

from the womb!? And if so, this is not “a thing subject to a vow,” for it is only a mitzva.

Here the Gemara returns to what was explained above: one cannot prove from Rabbi Yaakov’s words that Samson naziriteship takes effect, since a vow concerning a firstborn is different because “to the Lord” is written. And it objects:

Ultimately,

is it not also written concerning a nazirite: “When a man explicitly vows a nazirite vow, to be a nazirite

to the Lord,”

to the Lord,”

and from this verse, according to Rabbi Yaakov, we should include even Samson naziriteship!? And we answer:

That—“to the Lord” written concerning a nazirite—

is needed

[it is needed]

for that which was taught: Shimon the Righteous said

[who was a koen]:

In all my days have I never eaten a nazirite’s guilt-offering,

which the nazirite brings if he became impure, because I was concerned that when the nazirite became impure, he regretted his vow retroactively, since he invalidates the first days that he had already counted, and it turns out that he is bringing ordinary matter into the Courtyard.

Except for

the offerings of a nazirite of

one man who came to me

from the south,

and he was

of beautiful eyes and handsome appearance, and his locks [

the locks of the hair of 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

in the nazirite shaving?

That is to say: Why did you vow as a nazirite and thereby have to shave?

He said to me,

that man:

I was a shepherd for my father in my city ,

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 hastened [

hurried]

upon me and sought to drive me from the world,

to go after the appearance of my eyes

And

I said to him [

I said to myself]

Empty one!

Why are you becoming haughty over a world that is not yours, whose end will be that you will become

after your death

a maggot and a worm!?

By the service [

I swear]

! I shall shave you for Heaven.

And 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 -

that your naziriteship was for the sake of Heaven -

may nazirites increase in Israel!

Concerning you the verse says: “When a man explicitly vows a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself to Hashem”.

That is to say, that the beginning of his vow was entirely for the sake of Heaven, and he was not concerned that he might regret it even though he became impure. But other people who vow ordinarily vow in a time of distress or because of a transgression in their hands, in order to suffer and atone for their sin; and when the days become more numerous for them than they had resolved in their minds, it is close to the possibility that they will regret what came first.

And here the Gemara returns to the words of Rabbi Shimon, who said: “For we have not found that naziriteship came forth from Samson’s mouth.” And it implies that even his father - who can make him a nazirite, as we learned below, 28b: “A man can make his son a nazirite” - did not make him a nazirite, for if not, he would indeed have been “made the object of a vow”:

And we challenge this:

Was Samson not a nazirite

through his father

!?

But it is written: “

And an angel of Hashem appeared to the woman, saying: Behold, you are pregnant and shall bear a son, and a razor shall not come upon his head.

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

And it entered our minds that the angel’s intention was that his father would make him a nazirite when he was born,

so Samson’s naziriteship came to him through a vow!?

And we answer:

There, it is the angel who says

by prophecy that this is how it would be with Samson, that he would be a nazirite, but he did not command that his father make him a nazirite.

Here the Gemara adds to explain the words of Rabbi Yehuda in the beraita, who said: “For we find with Samson that he became impure”:

And from where do we know that he became impure

Samson

to the dead?

If you say, from

because of

as it is written

concerning Samson, who said: “

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

so he was not concerned about becoming impure to the dead -

This cannot be explained in this way, because

perhaps he shot arrows at them [

the expression of arrows]

and did not touch them,

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

Rather,

say that

from here

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

And he struck thirty of them and took their garments [

clothes that he stripped from them], so he touched them when he stripped them.

This too cannot be said, because

perhaps he stripped them first and afterward killed them [

he stripped them first and afterward killed them]!?

And if so, from where do we know that Samson became impure to the dead?

And we answer: “

And he struck” -

and afterward - “

and he took”

is written,

and it implies that he did not take their garments until after he had struck them.

And we still challenge:

Perhaps they were dying

he made them,

he struck them until they were dying, and then stripped their clothes, while he remained in his purity.

Rather,

it is received as a tradition [

it was a tradition in their hands] that he killed them ממש and afterward stripped them, so he became impure to the dead.

And here the Gemara returns to what we learned in our Mishna, that a lifelong nazirite lightens his head with a razor and brings three animals, and asks:

And a lifelong nazirite, where is it written [

where is it written] that he is permitted to lighten his head?

And the Gemara explains the source of the law from this

as it was taught:

Rabbi says: Absalom

the son of David

was a lifelong nazirite -

As it is said: “And it came to pass at the end of forty years, and Absalom said to the king: Let me go now and pay my vow that I vowed to Hashem in Hebron.”

And that is, to pay his offerings, which he must bring when he lightens his hair. And the beraita continues:

And he would shave

Absalom

once every twelve months.

As it is said: “

And in all Israel there was no man to be praised as very handsome as Absalom. And when he shaved his head

when he shaved it, because it had become heavy upon him, and he shaved it” -

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

which he shaved, because it had become heavy upon him, and he shaved it” -