Nazir 7a (ז.) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara raises another difficulty:

Perhaps

it refers to “days that need to be completed,” namely

a year,

which is sometimes full, when the months are full, and sometimes deficient, when the months are deficient

; and there are those who say that this is indeed the Gemara’s refutation. b. The Rosh wrote: It could have answered, “You have grasped too much, and therefore have grasped nothing.” In Mishmar HaLevi [Pininim ve-Igrot], it was noted that the Rosh’s words provide evidence regarding the question discussed by later authorities [see Turei Even, Rosh HaShana 10b; Arukh LaNer, there; and Arukh LaNer, Sukka 5b, Tosafot s.v. “You have grasped”]—whether even in a case where the greater measure constitutes a stringency, we say, “You have grasped too much, and therefore have grasped nothing.” For it may be said that the greater measure is rejected only when doing so leads to leniency; but from the Rosh’s words it is necessarily evident that even when the greater measure constitutes a stringency, the principle is that the greater measure is not adopted. It was further noted there that the Rosh’s words prove that “You have grasped too much, and therefore have grasped nothing” is stated with certainty and not as a doubt; see what Rabbi Akiva Eiger wrote in Yoma 72a. And we answer: The verse says, “until the completion of the days,” and

do we count

a year

by days

[that is, do we count a year by days]

? The Meiri explained according to his approach, that the Gemara’s difficulty was that the month is what completes the year, and that he should observe his Nazirite status until that month: “until the completion of the days” is written, and a year is completed by a month, not by days. According to Tosafot’s explanation of the Gemara’s difficulty, the answer is that although in practice a year is completed by days—since the months are sometimes deficient and sometimes full—in 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 consists of such-and-such a number of days; rather, we say, “twelve months in a year,” except that the months are not equal. But the Sages of Caesarea say: From where is it derived that one does not count days for years,

so that if the year requires intercalation, days should be added to it

?

As it is stated:

“For the months of the year”—months are calculated for years, but days are not calculated 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 says

“I am a Nazirite”

[a Nazirite status]

of great duration—

or whether he says

“I am a Nazirite”

[a Nazirite status]

of short duration—

The Meiri so explained the Mishna, and this is also how Tosafot’s intention should be understood when they wrote: “That is, it makes no difference whether he says ‘great’ or whether he says ‘short.’” Some explain their words differently, and maintain that the word “one” is not part of the vow-taker’s wording; the Mishna is as though it said, “One short and one long,” meaning: in either case. This explanation is cited in Arzei HaLevanon, note 124. However, Tosafot’s words in the Gemara plainly indicate otherwise, as was noted there in letter 142; see also what is brought there to resolve the matter.

And

even

if he says: “I am

a Nazirite

from here until the end of the world”—

he is not

a Nazirite

except for

thirty days,

as will be explained further in the Gemara.

The Gemara will clarify whether our Mishna is dealing with one who said, “I am a Nazirite one from here, and so on,” as in “I am a Nazirite one of great duration,” or not. Tosafot and the Rambam [and see also the opinion of the commentator on this matter] disagree regarding the explanation of the first and second clauses of our Mishna. Here the first clause will be explained, while the second clause will be explained in the Gemara: Tosafot’s opinion: Accordingly, one who accepts upon himself a Nazirite status of great duration or a Nazirite status of short duration is a Nazirite for thirty days, because he has no intention whatsoever of lengthening or shortening the period of his Nazirite status. Rather, “great” means “the Nazirite status is great and burdensome for me,” while “short” means “it is not burdensome for me at all.” Therefore, this is merely an ordinary Nazirite status, which lasts thirty days. The reason for the first clause resembles what they said in the Gemara concerning the second clause, “even from here until the end of the world”: his intention is only to say, “This matter is as lengthy for me as the distance from here to the end of the world.” The Mishna LaMelekh [Nazirut 3:5] objected to Tosafot’s wording, in which they wrote, “‘Or short,’ meaning that it is not burdensome for me at all”: Why did they need to say this? Even if one interprets it according to its plain meaning, anyone who accepts upon himself a Nazirite status of less than thirty days is a Nazirite for thirty days! See what is written concerning this in Birkat Rosh. In Mishmar HaLevi [Pininim ve-Igrot], a resolution is cited: This teaches us that he does not accept upon himself a Nazirite status of less than thirty days, but that it is automatically thirty days, since there is no Nazirite status of less than thirty days. Rather, his intention is to accept an ordinary Nazirite status, which lasts thirty days. The practical difference would be in light of what Minḥat Ḥinukh discussed, in mitzva 368: that one who accepts upon himself a Nazirite status of less than thirty days, although the Nazirite status extends for thirty days, nevertheless does not violate the prohibition of “he shall not profane” because, ultimately, he did not accept thirty days upon himself. If so, when he says “short,” this is equivalent to accepting an ordinary Nazirite status, and he violates “he shall not profane” throughout all thirty days. The Rambam ’s opinion in chapter 2 of the Laws of Nazirite Status, halakha 1, is: “An ordinary Nazirite status lasts thirty days. How so? 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.” It appears that the Rambam intended his wording to include this clause of the Mishna as well [although the Rambam does not mention a short Nazirite status at all, and this requires investigation]. That is, according to the Rambam, the general law of “an ordinary Nazirite status lasts thirty days” includes anyone who accepts a Nazirite status without specifying a period of time, even if he intended to lengthen the period of his Nazirite status. Since he did not specify a period of time, it is included within “an ordinary Nazirite status,” which lasts thirty days [see the writings of Maran Rabbi Yitzḥak Ze’ev Soloveitchik, Ḥidushei Maran Riẓ HaLevi, Nazirut 4:1, where it is shown from several sources that this is the Rambam’s opinion] ; The Meiri likewise explained: “Since, in any event, he did not specify a period of time, he is a Nazirite only for thirty days.” According to the Rambam and the Meiri, it may be said that this Mishna explains the previous Mishna, where we learned: “An ordinary Nazirite status lasts thirty days”; here the Mishna explains what is meant by “an ordinary Nazirite status.” The explanation of the second clause will be presented in the Gemara according to Tosafot’s approach, and the Rambam’s method will be explained in the notes to the Gemara. Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Even if one is a Nazirite from here until the end of the world, he is a Nazirite for thirty days:

The Gemara is astonished:

Why?

Why should he be a Nazirite for only thirty days

?

But “

from here until the end of the world”

he said,

and the meaning of his words is that he should be a Nazirite for the length of time it takes a person to travel from here to the end of the world, which is five hundred years, and he should therefore be a Nazirite for five hundred years ? The Gemara answers: He did not intend to extend the period of his Nazirite status beyond an ordinary Nazirite status. Rather,

this is what he is saying: “

This matter is lengthy for me

[the practice of Nazirite status is lengthy in my eyes]

as

if 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 what

we learned

below: “

I am a Nazirite from here until a particular place”;

they assess

[they estimate]

how many days

of travel there are

from here until that particular place—

And if the number of days is

less than thirty days,

he is

a Nazirite for thirty days,

since there is no Nazirite status of less than thirty days.

But if not—

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

a Nazirite for the number of days.

And

let us raise a difficulty:

Perhaps here,

when he said “from here until a particular place,”

also

he did not intend to establish a period of time for his Nazirite status. If he had, he would have stated the number of days from here until that particular place.

Rather, this is what he is saying: “

This matter is lengthy for me, like the distance from here until that particular place,”

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

? The Mishna LaMelekh [Nazirut 3:5] asked: According to Tosafot’s explanation above of why we interpret his words, “from here until the end of the world,” as meaning, “This matter is lengthy for me”—namely, because otherwise he would have said five hundred years, since he knows that this is the length of the world’s journey—let us interpret the Mishna concerning “from here until a particular place” as referring to one who does not know the length of time required to travel to that place. His words should then be understood according to their plain meaning, for even when he says “from here until the end of the world,” if he does not know the duration of the journey, he should be an everlasting Nazirite ?

He answered: Who has established this distinction? One Mishna could deal with one who knows, and the other with one who does not know; yet it is more reasonable that they all deal either with one who knows or with one who does not know. See there.

Rava answered:

There, when he says “from here until a particular place,” the Mishna deals with one

who has set out on the road

to travel to that particular place. As he is about to begin traveling, he takes the vow, and presumably, because of the dangers of the road, he accepted the Nazirite status in order to be saved from the danger of the journey for the number of days required to travel to that place. Therefore, although he did not state the number of days, his intention is presumably to be a Nazirite for the number of days from here until that particular place. The Gemara raises another difficulty concerning our Mishna, which does not interpret one who says “from here until the end of the world” according to the plain meaning of his words: In its plain sense, there would seemingly be a practical halakhic difference between the Gemara’s initial assumption and its conclusion in explaining the Mishna [apart from the fact that, according to the Gemara’s answer, this law applies only to one who has set out on the road]: According to the initial assumption, we should count the number of days required for an average person to travel from here until that particular place, just as “from here until the end of the world” would be interpreted as five hundred years, calculated according to the journey of an average person ; nor would the essential days of rest be included in the calculation, just as they are not included in the calculation of “from here until the end of the world.” According to the Gemara’s conclusion, however, the number of days of his Nazirite status would be the number of days required for him personally to travel, and the essential days of rest would also be included in the calculation of his Nazirite status, since he accepts the Nazirite status because of the dangers of the road. These are the words of the later authorities.

Should it then be for each parasang and each parasang?

That is, let us interpret his intention as having accepted upon himself many Nazirite statuses, corresponding to the number of parasangs from here until the end of the world ? The Gemara answers: Our Mishna deals with

a place where parasangs are not counted

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

Tosafot wrote: One should not ask: If so, he should have stated the measure of the end of the world. For it may be said that he prefers each parasang to constitute a separate Nazirite status, so that he can shave himself at the end of every thirty days. The Mishna LaMelekh [Nazirut 3:5] explained their intention as follows: Why do we force ourselves to interpret “this matter is burdensome for me,” rather than understanding his words according to their plain meaning? It is because if he accepted five hundred years upon himself, he should have said, “I am a Nazirite for five hundred years.” If so, let us say that his words mean that he accepted upon himself Nazirite statuses corresponding to the number of parasangs to the end of the world. And if you should say that if his intention was to be an everlasting Nazirite, he should have said, “I am a Nazirite for five hundred years,” this is not so, because he prefers each parasang to constitute a separate Nazirite status, so that he can shave himself at the end of every thirty days. His wording permits three interpretations: either he accepted a Nazirite status for five hundred years; or he accepted upon himself a number of Nazirite statuses corresponding to the number of parasangs to the end of the world; or he accepted upon himself only one Nazirite status for thirty days. The first interpretation cannot reasonably be applied to his words, since if so he should have said “five hundred years.” But the second interpretation can be stated, since he prefers to use this wording so that he can shave at the end of every thirty days. This is the substance of his words. Yet it has still not been clarified: Just as a person knows the duration of the journey to the end of the world, so too he knows the number of parasangs, based on the calculation that a person travels ten parasangs per day. If so, he should have said, “I accept upon myself such-and-such a number—as the calculation indicates—of Nazirite statuses.” [Indeed, later in the discussion the Gemara advances this reasoning, but nevertheless, what was the initial assumption?] In the Ḥazon Ish [137, concluding paragraph 9], in the continuation of the Gemara’s words concerning each avuna and each avuna, meaning each day, he wrote: “If we interpret this as accepting many Nazirite statuses and shaving every thirty days, it is easier to understand the wording ‘from here and so on’ than to say ‘days,’ since he would have to clarify his words and state that he is not accepting one lengthy Nazirite status.” According to him, the same applies to parasangs. The Gemara nevertheless raises another difficulty concerning our Mishna:

Should it then be for each avuna and each avuna

[a day’s journey is called an “avuna”], that is, he accepted upon himself many Nazirite statuses corresponding to the number of days that a person travels from here until the end of the world, enabling him to shave every thirty days ? The Mishna LaMelekh, Nazirut 3:5 ; and the Ḥazon Ish 137, concluding paragraph 9, explained the word “avuna” as an inn, meaning each lodging, that is, each day. We likewise find this in Rashi, Ta’anit 11a s.v. “from avuna to avuna,” and the Meiri explained it this way here.

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 a succession of many Nazirite statuses,

and he shaves once every thirty days

at the completion of each Nazirite status—

This is the version found in Tosafot. Thus, we interpret his words as meaning that he accepted many Nazirite statuses upon himself, rather than interpreting them leniently as meaning, “This matter is lengthy for me, as though I had said, ‘I am a Nazirite for the number of hairs on my head’ ”!?

This is the wording of the Tosafot in explaining why all the cases are necessary: “I hereby become a nazirite, and one day”—it is only here that there is no nazirite status for one day. That is, we consider him as though he said, “I hereby become a nazirite, and a nazirite for one day.” If he had said, “I hereby become a nazirite and a nazirite for one day,” since nazirite status for a day is only thirty days, he counts two periods of nazirite status. But when he says, “I hereby become a nazirite, and one hour,” it is as though he said, “a nazirite for one hour,” to be counted as thirty days. One might have thought that it is sufficient to make that hour into a day and combine it with the thirty days, resulting in thirty-one days. It therefore teaches us that since we add something to his statement, we add a complete period of nazirite status. In Birkat Rosh, their words are explained as follows: Naziriteship is counted in days; therefore, we consider him as though he said the word “nazirite” twice: “I hereby become a nazirite, and a nazirite for one day.” But in the case of hours, since nazirite status is not counted in hours, it is as though he said once, “a nazirite and one additional hour,” and it is sufficient for him to observe thirty-one days.