Nedarim 3b (ג:) — the Talmud in English

It teaches

that nezirut takes effect upon nezirut.

That is, when a nazir says, “I am a nazir today; I am a nazir today,” he becomes obligated to observe an additional period of nezirut for thirty days after the days of his first nezirut have been completed. This is the meaning of “a nazir to make himself a nazir”: he accepts an additional nezirut even though he was already a nazir from the moment he first said, “I am a nazir”!

And the Gemara explains:

And according to the one who says “

the Torah spoke in the language of people,” and “

and” “

a nazir to make himself a nazir”

he expounds it to establish that partial expressions of nezirut have the status of full nezirut—

this

that nezirut takes effect upon nezirut—

from where does he derive it?

This works well if he holds like the one who says that nezirut does not take effect upon nezirut.

But if he holds like the one who says “

nezirut takes effect upon nezirut”—

from where does he derive

this?

Let the verse say:

It should have used, with regard to a nazir, wording analogous to that used with regard to a vow. Just as the Torah says with regard to a vow, “to vow,” so too, with regard to a nazir, it should have said, in the corresponding form,

“lizor.”

What

is the reason the Torah changed its wording with regard to a nazir and used the expression “a nazir

to make himself a nazir”?

You can infer from it

from this change in wording

two

laws: both the law that partial expressions of nezirut have the status of full nezirut, and the law that nezirut takes effect upon nezirut.

In the West

in Eretz Yisrael

they say

as follows:

There is a tanna who derives it

who derives [or: learns]

the

law of partial expressions

from “

to vow a vow.”

And there is a tanna who derives it

the law of partial expressions

from

the additional implication of the word “all,” as it is written in the passage concerning vows [Numbers 30], “

Whatever leaves his mouth, he shall do.”

And now the Gemara comes to explain how it is possible to transgress the prohibition of “Do not profane” in the case of nezirut.

The Master said

in the beraita:

And with regard to vows, one transgresses “Do not profane” and “Do not delay.”

The Gemara now assumed that the tanna meant that it is possible to transgress the prohibition of “Do not profane” alone with regard to nezirut, just as with regard to vows one transgresses “Do not profane” alone.

And we raised the following difficulty:

Granted, “

Do not profane”

with regard to vows can be found, for example, when one says, “

I will eat this loaf,”

but he does not eat it—

for

he transgresses “

He shall not profane his word.”

But “

Do not profane with regard to nezirut”—

how can this be found?

In what way can there be a case in which one transgresses only “Do not profane” with regard to a nazir?

But

once he says, “

I am a nazir,”

he becomes

immediately

a nazir,

and if he

eats

grapes,

he stands liable

he immediately becomes liable

for

the prohibition, “

He shall not eat

grapes”; and if he

drinks

wine,

he stands liable,

he immediately becomes liable,

for “He shall not drink”

wine!

And since his liability is on account of his nezirut, and his nezirut takes effect immediately, so that he transgresses it by violating the laws of nezirut, how is it possible for him to transgress only “He shall not profane his word”?

Rava said:

The tanna means to say that the analogy teaches

that he transgresses it twice.

Every nazir who violates the prohibitions of a nazir, in addition to transgressing the prohibitions of a nazir, also transgresses the prohibition applicable to a vow, “He shall not profane his word.” For every nazir accepts his nezirut in the language of a vow; in addition to his nezirut, he also obligates himself by a vow not to profane his nezirut.

We raised a further difficulty: “

Do not delay”

with regard to nezirut—

how can this be found?

In what circumstance can there be a transgression of “Do not delay” in the case of a nazir?

For

once he says, “

I am a nazir,”

he becomes

immediately

a nazir!

And then, if he

eats

grapes,

he stands liable

he immediately becomes liable

for “He shall not eat”

grapes! And where is there any delay of his nezirut?

And we answer: “Do not delay” in the case of nezirut is possible

with

one who

says, “

When I wish—

I shall be a nazir,”

for he does not become a nazir immediately, and if he delays observing his nezirut, he transgresses “Do not delay”!

The Gemara challenges this answer:

But

surely

if he says, “

When I wish

I shall be a nazir,” forever

there is no “

Do not delay,”

for he explicitly said “when I wish”; as long as he does not wish to become a nazir, he is not obligated to become one, and there is no delay here!

And when he wishes, he immediately becomes a nazir, so again there is no delay!

And we answer:

Rava said: For example, when he says, “

I will not depart from the world until I become a nazir.”

From that moment

that he said this

he becomes

obligated to begin immediately observing the conduct of a

nazir,

and if he does not begin observing the nezirut, he is not a nazir, and he immediately transgresses “Do not delay.”

The immediate obligation to observe nezirut is

analogous to the case of

a

koen who says to his wife

[who is an Israelite]

“This is your divorce

one hour before my death,”

so that she is forbidden

the Israelite woman

to eat teruma immediately,

because perhaps the koen husband will die within the hour, in which case she is presently divorced from him, and as an Israelite woman who is not the wife of a koen, she is forbidden to eat teruma.

Apparently,

it follows from the fact that she does not eat teruma because of the concern that her koen husband might die within the hour, that we

say

that

at every moment

we must be concerned

that perhaps he will die

within the hour.

Here too,

one who vows, “I will not depart from the world until I become a nazir,”

is immediately

he must immediately observe the conduct of a

nazir,

because

we say: Perhaps he will die now.

And if he does not immediately accept upon himself the conduct of nezirut, he transgresses “Do not delay.”