Nazir 7a — the Talmud in English

The Gemara further raises an objection:

But perhaps

“days that require completion” refers to

a year,

for at times it is full, when the months are full, and at times it is deficient, when the months are deficient

; and there is one who says that this indeed is the Gemara’s rejection. b. The Rosh wrote: And it could have answered: “You have grasped much, you have not grasped.” And in Mishmar Ha-Levi [Pninim ve-Igrot] it was noted that from the words of the Rosh there is proof for what the later authorities discussed [see Turei Even, Rosh Hashana 10b, and Arukh La-Ner there, and Arukh La-Ner, Sukka 5b, on Tosafot s.v. “You have grasped”], whether even in a place where the greater amount is a stringency one says, “You have grasped much, you have not grasped,” because one might say that only for leniency do they not grasp the greater amount; and from the words of the Rosh it is compelled that even when the greater amount is a stringency, the principle is that they do not grasp the greater amount. It was further noted there that from the words of the Rosh it can be demonstrated that “You have grasped much, you have not grasped” is stated as a certainty and not as a doubt; see what Rabbi Akiva Eiger wrote in Yoma 72a. And we answer: For the verse says, “until the completion of the days,” and

do we count

a year

by days

—do we count a year by days!?

The Meiri explained according to his approach, that the Gemara’s question was that the month is what completes it, and until that month he will observe nezirut: “Until the completion of the days” is written, and a year is completed by a month and not by days. And according to Tosafot’s explanation of the Gemara’s question, the explanation of the Gemara’s answer is that although in practice the year is completed by days, for at times the months are deficient and at times they are full, nevertheless, according to the truth, the year is completed by months; rather, the days completed the month and the month completed the year, for we do not say that a year has such-and-such days, but rather, “twelve months in a year,” except that the months are not equal. But the Sages of Caesarea said: From where is it derived that one does not count days for years,

that if the year requires intercalation, days are added to it?

As it is stated:

“For the months of the year,”

months are reckoned for years, but days are not reckoned for years.

This is how Tosafot explain it. The Rambam likewise explained it in the Laws of Sanctification of the New Moon. And it is stated in Megilla 5a: Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: “From where is it derived that one does not count days for years?” Rashi explained: For example, if one says, “Wine is konam to me, and I shall not taste it for a year,” he counts twelve months from day to day. If he made the vow on the first of Nisan, he is prohibited until the first of the following Nisan, even though there are still eleven days by which the solar year exceeds the lunar year, or even though at times we make deficient months. The Meiri explained it likewise here. The Keren Ora here and the Turei Even there raised a difficulty with this: In the laws of vows, the principle is “follow the language of people,” and this law is therefore not dependent on verses.

Mishna:

Whether a person said:

“I am a nazir

[nezirut]

one great [period of nezirut]—

or whether he said:

“I am a nazir

[nezirut]

one small [period of nezirut]—

So the Meiri explained the Mishna, and Tosafot’s intention should likewise be explained, as they wrote: “Meaning: it is no different whether he said ‘great’ and it is no different whether he said ‘small.’” And some explain their words differently, and the word “one” is not part of the vower’s language, as though the Mishna had said, “One small and one great,” meaning: whether this or that; they are cited in Arzei HaLevanon, note 124. However, from Tosafot’s words in the Gemara it plainly appears not so, as was noted there in letter 142; see what he brought there to reconcile the matter.

And

even

if he said: “I am

a nazir

from here until the end of the world”—

he is not

a nazir

except

for thirty days,

and in the Gemara this will be explained further.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Even a nazir from here until the end of the world is a nazir for thirty days:

The Gemara is astonished:

Why?

Why should he be a nazir only for thirty days!?

But he said,

“from here until the end of the world,”

from here until the end of the world”

he says,

and the meaning of his words is that he should be a nazir for the length of time that it takes a person to travel from here until the end of the world, which is five hundred years, and he should be a nazir for five hundred years!? And we answer: He did not intend to lengthen the time of his nezirut beyond ordinary nezirut. Rather,

this is what he says:

“This matter is lengthy for me

[the conduct of the nezirut is lengthy in my eyes]

as

though it were to continue

from here until the end of the world.”

Why did the Gemara not raise the same difficulty concerning the first clause, since he said that he was accepting upon himself a Nazirite status of great duration, and would thus be a Nazirite for more than an “ordinary Nazirite status”? This is because when he said “great” without specifying a period of time, it is apparent to the Sages that he did not intend to lengthen the period, but rather, as Tosafot explained, intended to refer to the burden. Here, however, when he said “from here until the end of the world,” his words can be interpreted as referring to five hundred years; concerning this, the Gemara raised the question, “Why?” This is why the Mishna says “even,” since this is a greater novelty. The Rambam’s opinion concerning all this will be explained later in the discussion, in the notes. a. Tosafot explained the reason for interpreting his words in this manner: “If he intended to say ‘from here until the end of the world,’ he should have mentioned the measure of the end of the world, for he surely knows that the world contains a journey of five hundred years; he should have said five hundred years. Therefore, we interpret his words leniently.” See Arzei HaLevanon, letter 127, which cites the later authorities’ discussion of whether Tosafot mean that wherever a person is standing, there is a journey of five hundred years, since the world is spherical; see there. b. The Mishna LaMelekh [Nazirut 3:5] wrote that according to Tosafot, it follows that if the vow-taker says that he did not know that the world’s journey is five hundred years, he would indeed be a Nazirite for five hundred years, and he discusses this at length. c. Explanation of the Rambam ’s method concerning the second clause of the Mishna and the words of the Gemara: The Rambam’s wording [Nazirut 3:1] is: “An ordinary Nazirite status lasts thirty days. How so? If one says—if one says, ‘I am a Nazirite,’ it is no less than thirty days, and even if he says, ‘I am a Nazirite with a very great and exceedingly long Nazirite status,’ he is a Nazirite for thirty days, since he did not specify a period of time.” The Rambam’s intention is to state the law of our Mishna, and according to him the entire Mishna constitutes one law: Anyone who does not specify a period of time is included within an ordinary Nazirite status. In explaining the Gemara’s question and answer, Maran Rabbi Yitzḥak Ze’ev Soloveitchik wrote [Ḥidushei Maran Riẓ HaLevi, Nazirut 4:1], according to the Rambam, that the Gemara’s question was that “from here until the end of the world” implies that he accepted upon himself an everlasting Nazirite status, and if so, he should be an everlasting Nazirite. The Gemara answered that he intended only a great and lengthy Nazirite status, comparable to the distance from here to the end of the world, and not an everlasting Nazirite status. It was also reported orally in his name that, according to the Rambam, the Gemara’s question was that this is like one who explicitly specified his vow for five hundred years.

And we raise an objection from that which

we learned

below:

“I am a nazir from here until such-and-such a place,”

they assess

[estimate]:

how many days

of travel there are

from here until such-and-such a place—

And if the number of days is

less than thirty days,

he is

a nazir for thirty days,

for there is no nezirut of less than thirty days.

But if not—

that the number of days is more than thirty days—he is

a nazir according to the number of days.

And

let us raise the difficulty:

Let us say here—when he said, “from here until such-and-such a place”—

when he says “from here until a certain place,” he

also

he did not intend to establish a time for his nezirut, for if not, he would have said the number of days from here until such-and-such a place—

Rather, this is what he says:

“This matter is lengthy for me like from here until such-and-such a place,”

just as we say in our Mishna when he said, “from here until the end of the world”!?

The Mishna La-Melekh [Nezirut 3:5] asked: According to what Tosafot wrote above as the reason that we interpret his words, “from here until the end of the world,” as meaning, “This matter is lengthy for me”—that if not, he would have said five hundred years, since he knows that this is the distance across the world—if so, let us interpret the Mishna concerning “from here until such-and-such a place” as referring to one who does not know the length of time needed to travel to that place, and therefore his words are interpreted according to their simple meaning; for even when he says “from here until the end of the world,” if he does not know the length of time, he is an eternal nazir!? And he answered: What basis is there for distinguishing them, that one Mishna deals with one who does not know and the other with one who knows? Surely it is reasonable that all of them deal either with one who knows or with one who does not know; see there. Said

he answered,

Rava:

There—in the case of one who says, “from here until such-and-such a place”—the Mishna deals with one

who has set out on the road

to travel to that particular place, and when he is about to begin traveling, he vows. Presumably, because of the dangers of the road he accepted the nezirut upon himself in order to be saved from the danger of the road for the total number of travel days until that place. Therefore, although he did not state the number of days, presumably his intention was to be a nazir for the number of days from here until such-and-such a place. The Gemara further raises a difficulty concerning our Mishna, that when one says “from here until the end of the world,” we do not interpret his words according to their simple meaning:

And let each parsa and parsa [constitute a separate nezirut]?

That is, let us interpret his intention as having accepted upon himself many neziruyot, according to the number of parasot from here until the end of the world!? And we answer: Our Mishna deals

in a place where parasot are not counted

[in a place where it is not customary to define distance according to the number of parasot].

And we still raise a difficulty concerning our Mishna:

And let each avanta and avanta

[a day’s journey is called an “avanta”], that is, he accepted upon himself many neziruyot according to the number of days that a person travels from here until the end of the world, and to shave every thirty days!?

Did we not learn: “I am a nazirite like the dust of the earth, like the hair of my head, or like the sand of the sea—he is an everlasting nazirite”

in the sense of many successive periods of naziriteship,

and he shaves once every thirty days

at the completion of each period of naziriteship—

Behold, we interpret his words as his having accepted upon himself many neziruyot, and we do not interpret leniently that his intention was to say, “This matter is lengthy for me, as though I had said, ‘I am a nazir according to the number of the hairs of my head’”!?

And we answer both the question that we should interpret his words as “each avna and avna” and the preceding question, “Let each parsa and parsa be [a nazirite period]”:

Anything that has an endpoint

[a fixed measure]

is not taught

in that Mishna.

That is to say: It is only in a case where the matter has no fixed measure that we said that we interpret his words as referring to a number of nazirite periods, and do not say that “it is too lengthy for me,” since he could not state the number of nazirite periods. But when he said, “from here to the end of the world,” he knows the number of days according to a calculation of five hundred years; necessarily, his intention is to say that “it is too lengthy for me,” for otherwise he would have stated the number.

And it was taught

[in a conciliatory manner, that there is a distinction between a matter that has a fixed measure and one that has no fixed measure]:

One who says:

I am a nazirite all the days of my life,

since he does not know how many days his life will contain, or who says:

I am a nazirite forever,

he is a permanent nazirite,

and he cuts his hair from time to time, according to the views of the tannaim in this matter.

But if he fixed the period of time,

even

if he said, “I am a nazirite”

for one hundred years,

and

even

if he said, “I am a nazirite”

for one thousand years, this is not

a permanent nazirite

who cuts his hair from time to time,

but he is a nazirite

for

ever.

That is to say: For all the days of his life and beyond, until one hundred or one thousand years, and he does not cut his hair at all.

Rabba said

another reason why, with regard to “from here to the end of the world,” we do not interpret his words as referring to many nazirite periods according to the number of days from here to the end of the world, as we interpret the words of one who says, “I am a nazirite like the dust of the earth, like the hair of my head, and like the sand of the sea,” as referring to a number of nazirite periods without limit:

For

hair

of his head [and likewise the dust of the earth and the sand of the sea]

are separate from one another,

and therefore his words are interpreted as referring to many nazirite periods. This is not so with days, which are not separate from one another; therefore, his words cannot be interpreted as referring to many nazirite periods according to the number of days from here to the end of the world.

And since his words cannot be interpreted as referring to many nazirite periods, we no longer interpret them as meaning that he wanted one nazirite period for five hundred years, for if so he would have said “five hundred years”; rather, his intention is to say, “It is too lengthy for me.”

But the Gemara was astonished:

With regard to days also,

they are separate from one another. For

it is written: “And it was evening and it was morning, one day”,

and the verse’s statement, “one day,” implies that it comes to distinguish it from the day after it!? And we answer:

There—“one day,” which the Torah said with regard to days—

“one day”

does not mean that they are separated from one another

[this is not because they are separate from one another], but

what does it say

[this is what it says]:

Daytime and nighttime,

the day and the night preceding it,

are one day,

and the practical implication is for Shabbat and a festival, whose day follows the night.

And forever

days

are not separated from one another;

they are not distinct from one another, but touch one another.

Rava said: Why do you need to raise all these difficulties?

[Why do you need to ask so much?] What is the difference between our Mishna and one who says, “I am a nazirite like the hair of my head”? The distinction is obvious:

It is different there,

that is, in our Mishna,

for it teaches: I am a nazirite

one

great one, and even “a nazirite from here to the end of the world”; and the word “one” also relates to one who says, “I am a nazirite from here to the end of the world,” for this is what he said: “I am one [period of] nazirite status from here to the end of the world.” If so, he explicitly said that he is one nazirite, and not several nazirite periods.

Mishna:

A person said:

I am a nazirite, and one day,

since he attached the word “nazirite” to “day,” we interpret his words as though he said: “I am a nazirite, and a nazirite for one day”—

or he said:

I am a nazirite and one hour,

since the word “nazirite” was attached to “hour,” we interpret his words as meaning that he accepts ordinary nazirite status, and in addition one hour of nazirite status—

or he said:

I am one and a half nazirites,

for although he did not attach the word “nazirite” to “half,” this is because he could not say, “I am a nazirite and a half,” since these words have no meaning at all; therefore, his words are interpreted as though he said, “I am a nazirite, and a half-nazirite,” that is, an additional half of nazirite status—

This is

in all these cases

two nazirites

[he observes two nazirite periods], since anyone who accepts upon himself one day, one hour, or half of nazirite status is a nazirite for thirty days, and it follows that he accepted upon himself two nazirite periods.

Gemara:

The Gemara asks:

Why does the tanna need to teach

[why must the tanna state]

all these

three examples!?

And the Gemara explains:

They are necessary!

For if it taught

“I am a nazirite and one day”

alone, and it did not teach, “I am a nazirite and one hour,” I would say:

It is only here that there is no nazirite status for one day; therefore it teaches two

[therefore he counts two nazirite periods].

But

“I am a nazirite and one hour,”

let him count thirty-one days.

It teaches us this.