Nazir 62a (סב.) — the Talmud in English

Could it be that

the gentiles

are not nazirites?

The verse states: “

A man”!

And we answer:

This was stated: Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is a halakha with regard to a nazirite

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

Rather, necessarily, the verse came 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.”

The Gemara now returns to the beraita mentioned above with regard to Arakhin:

It is written in the passage concerning valuations: “Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: When a man explicitly takes a vow, according to your valuation of persons to the Lord.” The tannaim disagreed in a beraita in Arakhin 5b concerning what “the children of Israel” comes to exclude and what “a man” comes to include: The children of Israel may valuate, but gentiles may not valuate. Could it be that [the gentiles] may not be valuated? The verse states: “A man.” This is the statement of Rabbi Meir [and his view was cited in the Gemara above].

Rabbi Meir said: Since one verse includes and another verse excludes, for what reason do I say that [a gentile] may be valuated but may not valuate? Because the verse included more cases among those who are valuated than among those who valuate, as a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor may be valuated, but may not valuate.

Rabbi Yehuda says: The children of Israel may be valuated, but gentiles may not be valuated. Could it be that [the gentiles] may not valuate? The verse states: “A man.”

Rabbi Yehuda said: Since one verse includes and another verse excludes, for what reason do I say that a gentile may valuate but may not be valuated? Because the verse included more cases among those who valuate than among those who are valuated, as a tumtum and an androgynos may valuate but may not be valuated.

The Gemara raises a difficulty, according to both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda:

“When a man explicitly takes a vow, according to your valuation”

which is stated

with regard to valuations—why do I need it!?

That is, why do I need “a man” to include gentiles, according to each Sage’s respective interpretation!?

Since valuations are juxtaposed to vows [that is, valuations were juxtaposed to vows], as

[and valuations were equated with vows], as

the verse states: “

When a man explicitly takes a vow, according to your valuation”—

And was it not taught with regard to vows [consecrated vows]: It is written [Leviticus 22:18]: “

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

A man

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

What is the meaning of “

a man”?

To include the gentiles, who make vows and freewill offerings like Jews.

And since gentiles were included with regard to vows, we learn from the juxtaposition that the same is true with regard to valuations: Their law is identical to that of Jews in all its details. Although the gentiles must necessarily have been excluded because “the children of Israel” implies, but not gentiles, since, on the other hand, the Torah equated them with Jews, we must limit the exclusion and say: The Torah did not exclude them entirely, so that they could neither valuate nor be valuated. Rather, it excluded them from only one matter—the matter that it is more reasonable to exclude them from: According to Rabbi Meir, that they may not valuate; and according to Rabbi Yehuda, that they may not be valuated. Consequently, there is no longer a need to include them with regard to the other matter—

And if so,

“when a man explicitly takes a vow”

which is stated

with regard to valuations—

to include gentiles, according to each Sage’s respective interpretation—

why do I need it!?

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

rather, this “

man”

is needed to include a Jew

“

of explicit understanding near majority” [that is, a minor in his final year before majority, who has reached the age of vows], who also may valuate.

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

The Gemara continues to challenge this:

This works according to the one who says that “

explicit understanding near majority” is

by Torah law

with regard to vows, for according to his view it is appropriate to say that the verse includes one of explicit understanding near majority with regard to valuations.

But according to the one who says that “

explicit understanding near majority,” whose vow is a valid vow, is only

by rabbinic law,

then

“when a man explicitly takes a vow,”

why do I need it!?

And we answer:

To include “

one of explicit understanding near majority”

who is a gentile,

who may valuate.

The Gemara is puzzled by this answer:

This works according to the one who says [that is,

Rabbi Yehuda]: “

The children of Israel may be valuated, but gentiles may not be valuated. Could it be that”

the gentiles

may not valuate? The verse states: ‘A man’”—

it is

indeed

possible to say that “a man” comes to include a gentile of explicit understanding near majority, who may also valuate like adult gentiles.

But according to the one who says [that is,

Rabbi Meir]: “

The children of Israel may valuate, but gentiles may not valuate. Could it be that they may not be valuated? The verse states: ‘A man,’”

it is certainly impossible to say that “a man” comes to include a gentile of explicit understanding near majority who may valuate, since even adult gentiles may not valuate.

Perhaps you will say: The verse came to include a gentile of explicit understanding near majority, who may be valuated like adult gentiles. This too is not so, because:

Even a one-month-old infant is fit for valuation [that is, even an infant from the age of one month may be valuated],

and all the more so one of “explicit understanding near majority.” If so, according to Rabbi Meir: “

when a man explicitly takes a vow”

why do I need it!?

Rav Adda bar Ahava said:

Indeed, “a man” is not needed to teach any law with regard to valuations; and if it is not needed for valuations, apply it to vows:

Therefore the verse states, “When a man explicitly takes a vow,” with regard to valuations, in order

to include, that is, to exclude

the vows of a

adult gentile.

For even though he is an adult, if he does not have explicit understanding [that is, if he does not know for whom he made the vow and for whom he consecrated the offering],

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

he may not

make a vow or a freewill offering, although an adult Jew makes vows and freewill offerings even if he does not have explicit understanding.

The Gemara now proceeds to explain the verse in the passage concerning naziriteship:

Rather, “

when he explicitly takes a vow”

that the Merciful One wrote with regard to naziriteship—why do I need it!? [

Since naziriteship is juxtaposed to vows, “

when he explicitly takes a vow”

why do I need it]!?

That is: Since “when he explicitly takes a vow” has already been stated in the passage concerning valuations, we already know that naziriteship too requires explicit articulation. Everything learned from the explicit articulation stated with regard to valuations can likewise be learned with regard to naziriteship. If so, why did the Torah need to repeat and state “when he explicitly takes a vow” a second time with regard to naziriteship!?

And we explain:

To include,

that is, to include

non-conclusive expressions [that is, one who comes to undertake naziriteship and does not state a complete and explicit formulation that he is a nazirite, but rather a partial statement that does not clearly demonstrate acceptance of naziriteship], which nevertheless constitute valid expressions, and he is a nazirite as though he had stated the entire formulation —

For since the verse states “when he explicitly takes a vow [that is, articulates it]” with regard to naziriteship, implying: Just as the essence of naziriteship requires explicit articulation, that is, complete specification, so too the expressions that were included as means of accepting naziriteship, like a complete formulation of naziriteship,

must involve explicit articulation and not non-conclusive expressions. And it further states, “when he explicitly takes a vow” with regard to valuations, which also implies the exclusion of non-conclusive expressions. Thus we have the principle of Torah interpretation: “A restriction following a restriction serves only to include,” and non-conclusive expressions are included.

For it was stated: Non-conclusive expressions:

Abaye says: They are not valid expressions; Rava says: They are valid expressions.

The Gemara continues to challenge this:

This works according to Rava,

who holds that non-conclusive expressions are valid expressions.

But for

Abaye—who holds that non-conclusive expressions are not valid expressions—

what can be said [that is, what does “when he explicitly takes a vow” come to include]!?

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

Rather, the second “

when he explicitly takes a vow”

stated with regard to naziriteship

is needed for the teaching of Rabbi Tarfon!

As it was taught

above [34b]:

If [two people] were walking along the road, and one person was approaching them, one said: “I am a nazirite if that is so-and-so,” and the other said: “I am a nazirite if that is not he”:

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

for explicit articulation,

because it is stated: “When he explicitly takes a vow,” implying that his naziriteship must be explicitly established as certain, and he does not become a nazirite on the basis of uncertainty.

And we challenge this:

This works according to Rabbi Tarfon, but according to the Rabbis, what can be said [that is, what does “when he explicitly takes a vow” come to include]!?

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

Rather, it is needed—for the

“two instances of ‘when he explicitly takes a vow’” \-

for that which was taught:

The annulment of vows,

the annulment of vows, concerning which the Sages said that a Sage releases a person from his vow,

flies in the air

that is, there is only a slight hint of this law in the Written Torah,

and has nothing upon which to rely,

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

Rabbi Eliezer says: It has something upon which to rely, as it is stated: “

When a man explicitly takes a vow, when he explicitly takes a vow”

twice

[in valuations and in naziriteship], and this is intended to teach:

One explicit articulation

[specification]

for prohibition,

that is, when he specifies and makes a vow and prohibits himself through the vow,

and one explicit articulation for release,

when he comes before a Sage and explains his vow to him, saying: “This is what I vowed, and I made the vow intending this, but I did not make the vow intending that.” Thus he comes to regret the vow, and through this comes to its release.