Nazir 62a — the Talmud in English

Could it be that

the gentiles

are not nazirites?

The verse says: “

a man”!

And we answer:

For it was stated: Rabbi Yohanan said: It is a halakha concerning a nazirite

that a son shaves for his father’s naziriteship, and it is impossible that the verse should come to exclude the gentile from this law.

Rather, necessarily, the verse comes to exclude gentiles who do not undertake naziriteship at all. And this is what we learned in our Mishna: “The gentiles do not have naziriteship.”

And here the Gemara returns to the beraita mentioned above concerning valuations:

It is written in the passage of valuations: “Speak to the Children of Israel and say to them: When a man articulates a vow, [concerning] the valuation of persons to the Lord.” And the tannaim disagreed in the beraita in Arakhin 5b as to what “the Children of Israel” comes to exclude and what “a man” comes to include: The Children of Israel make valuations, but the gentiles do not make valuations. Could it be that [the gentiles] are not subject to valuations? The verse says “a man”; these are the words of Rabbi Meir [and his approach was brought in the Gemara above].

Rabbi Meir said: Since one verse includes and one verse excludes, why do I say: [the gentile] is subject to valuation but does not make a valuation? Because the verse included more with regard to those subject to valuation than with regard to those who make valuations, for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor are subject to valuation, but they do not make valuations.

Rabbi Yehuda says: The Children of Israel are subject to valuations, but the gentiles are not subject to valuations. Could it be that [the gentiles] do not make valuations? The verse says: “a man.”

Rabbi Yehuda said: Since one verse includes and one verse excludes, why do I say: A gentile makes a valuation but is not subject to valuation? Because the verse included more with regard to those who make valuations than with regard to those subject to valuation, for an tumtum and an androgynos make valuations, but are not subject to valuations.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty, both according to Rabbi Meir and according to Rabbi Yehuda: “

When a man articulates a vow, concerning the valuation”

that is stated

in Arakhin—for what do I need it!?

That is to say: Why do I need “a man” to include them, according to one Master as it is appropriate for him, and according to the other Master as it is appropriate for him!?

Since Arakhin were compared to vows [and surely Arakhin were compared to vows], as

[and valuations were equated with vows], as

the verse says: “

When a man articulates a vow, concerning the valuation”—

And was it not taught concerning vows [vows of sanctification]: It is written [Leviticus 22:18]: “

[consecrated vows]: It is written [Leviticus 22:18]:

A man

every man of the House of Israel, etc., who brings his offering for all their vows and for all their freewill offerings that they bring to the Lord as an elevation-offering”—

What does the verse teach by saying “

a man”:

To include the gentiles, that they make vows and freewill offerings like Israel.

And since the gentiles were included with regard to vows, we have learned from the comparison that the same law applies with regard to Arakhin: their law is equal to that of Israel in all their laws. And although the gentiles were necessarily excluded, because it says “the Children of Israel,” implying but not gentiles, nevertheless, since on the other hand the Torah equated them with Israel, we must restrict the exclusion and say: The Torah did not exclude them entirely, so that they would neither make valuations nor be subject to valuations; rather, it excluded them with regard to only one matter—the matter that it is more reasonable to exclude—and that is, according to Rabbi Meir, that they do not make valuations, and according to Rabbi Yehuda, that they are not subject to valuations. And we no longer need to include them with regard to the other matter—

And if so, “

when he articulates”

that is stated

in Arakhin—

to include the gentiles, according to one Master as it is appropriate for him and according to the other Master as it is appropriate for him—

for what do I need it!?

And we answer: Indeed, the beraita does not intend to say that “a man” comes to include the gentiles, for this can be learned from vows,

rather, this “

a man”

is needed to bring in

Israel,

[the one who is] distinguished close to manhood [a minor in his last year before maturity, who has reached the age of vows], who also makes valuations.

[a minor in his final year before adulthood, who has reached the age at which his vows are examined], who may also assign valuations.

And we still raise a difficulty:

This works according to the one who says: “

[the one who is] distinguished close to manhood”

is by Torah law

with regard to vows, for according to his view it is indeed possible to say that the verse includes “the one who is distinguished close to manhood” with regard to Arakhin.

But according to the one who says: “

“The one who is distinguished close to manhood,” whose vow is a vow, is only from

Rabbinic law

if so, “

when he articulates,”

for what do I need it!?

And we answer:

To bring in “

the one who is distinguished close to manhood”

of a gentile,

who makes a valuation.

The Gemara is astonished at this answer:

This works according to the one who says [

Rabbi Yehuda]: “

The Children of Israel are subject to valuations, but the gentiles are not subject to valuations. Could it be that

the gentiles

make valuations? The verse says: ‘A man’” —

it is

proper

to say that “a man” comes to include “the one distinguished close to manhood” of a gentile, who also makes a valuation like adult gentiles.

But according to the one who says [

Rabbi Meir]: “

The Children of Israel make valuations, but the gentiles do not make valuations; could it be that they are not subject to valuations? The verse says: ‘A man’,”

it is certainly impossible to say that “a man” comes to include “the one distinguished close to manhood” of a gentile, who makes a valuation, for even adult gentiles do not make valuations.

Should you say: The verse comes to include a gentile who is “distinguished close to manhood,” who is also subject to valuation like adult gentiles—this too is not so, because:

Even a one-month-old infant is fit for valuations [even an infant from one month old is subject to valuation], and all the more so “the one distinguished close to manhood.” And if so, according to Rabbi Meir: “

[even an infant from the age of one month may be the subject of a valuation], and all the more so one who is exceptionally mature but not yet an adult. If so, according to Rabbi Meir,

when he articulates”

for what do I need it!?

Rav Adda bar Ahava said:

Indeed, “a man” is not needed to teach any law concerning Arakhin, and if it is not relevant to Arakhin, apply it to vows:

Therefore the verse said “when a man articulates” in Arakhin in order

to bring in, that is, to exclude

the vows of

an adult gentile.

For even though he is an adult, if he does not know how to distinguish [knows in whose name he vowed, in whose name he sanctified] he

[if he does not know on whose behalf he made the vow or on whose behalf he consecrated the offering], he

does not

make vows or freewill offerings, whereas an adult Israelite makes vows and freewill offerings even though he does not know how to distinguish.

And here the Gemara proceeds to explain the verse in the passage of naziriteship:

Rather, “

when he articulates”

that the Merciful One wrote concerning naziriteship—for what do I need it!?

Since naziriteship was compared to vows, “

when he articulates”

for what do I need it!?

That is to say: Since “when he articulates” was already stated in the passage of Arakhin, we already knew also concerning naziriteship that it must involve articulation; and everything that is learned from the “articulation” stated concerning Arakhin must also be learned from it concerning naziriteship. And if so, why did the Torah need to repeat and say a second time, concerning naziriteship, “when he articulates”!?

And we explain:

To bring in,

to include

non-conclusive handles [one who comes to undertake naziriteship and does not say a complete and explicit statement that he is a nazirite, but rather a partial statement that does not clearly prove acceptance of naziriteship], which are handles, and he is a nazirite as though he had said the entire statement —

For since the verse said “when he articulates [expresses]” concerning naziriteship, implying: Just as the essence of naziriteship requires articulation—that is, complete expression—so too the handles that were included to accept naziriteship, like the language of complete naziriteship

must involve articulation and not non-conclusive handles. And it further said “when he articulates” concerning Arakhin, which likewise implies excluding non-conclusive handles. And there is a principle in the Torah: “There is no exclusion after exclusion except for inclusion,” and non-conclusive handles were included.

For it was stated: Non-conclusive handles:

Abaye said: They are not handles; Rava said: They are handles.

And we still raise a difficulty:

This works according to Rava,

who holds that non-conclusive handles are handles.

But according to

Abaye—who holds that non-conclusive handles are not handles—

what is there to say, [what does “when he articulates” come to include]!?

[what does “when he expresses a vow” come to include]?

Rather, the second “

when he articulates”

stated concerning naziriteship

is needed for the teaching of Rabbi Tarfon!

For it was taught

above [34b]:

There were [two] people walking on the road, and one person was coming toward them. One said: “I am a nazirite if this is so-and-so,” and the other said: “I am a nazirite if it is not he”:

Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Tarfon: Neither of them is a nazirite, because naziriteship was given only

for articulation,

and because it is stated “when he articulates,” implying that his naziriteship must be explicit concerning certainty, and he is not a nazirite by virtue of uncertainty.

And we raise a difficulty:

This works according to Rabbi Tarfon, but according to the Rabbis, what is there to say [what does “when he articulates” come to include]!?

[What does “when he expresses a vow” come to include]?

Rather, it is needed—for the “two occurrences of ‘when he articulates’” \-

“two occurrences of ‘when he expresses a vow’”— -

for that which was taught:

The release of vows,

the release of vows, which the Sages said that a Sage releases the vow,

floats in the air,

that is to say: There is only a slight hint to this law in Scripture,

and they have nothing upon which to rely,

rather, it is thus transmitted to the Sages in the Oral Torah.

Rabbi Eliezer says: They have upon what to rely, as it is stated: “

When a man articulates, when he articulates”

twice [

in Arakhin and in naziriteship], and this teaches:

One articulation [

expression]

for prohibition,

that is, when he expressed himself and vowed and prohibited himself through a vow,

and one articulation for release,

when he comes before the Sage and explains his vow before him, saying: “Thus I vowed, and with that understanding I vowed, but with this understanding I did not vow,” and he thereby comes to regret, and through this comes to release.