Nedarim 3b — the Talmud in English

It teaches ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

that nezirut takes effect upon nezirut.

That is, a nazir who says, “I am a nazir today; I am a nazir today,” becomes obligated to conduct an additional period of nezirut for thirty days after the days of his first nezirut have been completed. And this is the meaning of “a nazir to make himself a nazir”: he accepts an additional nezirut despite the fact that he has been 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 human beings,”

and

“a nazir to make himself a nazir”

he expounds: to make the abbreviated expressions of nezirut like nezirut—

this

that nezirut takes effect upon nezirut—

from where does he derive it?

This works out 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

that nezirut takes effect upon nezirut—

from where does he derive

this?

Let the verse say:

it should have written, using language concerning a nazir similar to that of a vow; just as concerning a vow the verse said “to vow,” so concerning a nazir it should have said, on that same pattern,

“to nazirize.”

What

did the verse change concerning a nazir, using the expression “a nazir

to make himself a nazir”?

You may infer from it

from the change in expression

two

things: both the law that the abbreviated expressions of nezirut are like nezirut, and the law that nezirut takes effect upon nezirut.

In the West—

in the Land of Israel—

they say

as follows:

There is a tanna who derives it

who derives

the

law

of abbreviated expressions from

“to vow a vow.”

And there is a tanna who derives it

the law of abbreviated expressions

from

the amplification in the word “every,” as it is written in the section of vows [Numbers 30]:

“Everything that leaves his mouth, he shall do.”

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

The Master said

in the beraita:

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

And the Gemara now assumed that the tanna’s intention was to say that it is possible to transgress concerning nezirut only “he shall not profane,” just as concerning vows one transgresses only “he shall not profane.”

And we raised the question:

Granted,

“he shall not profane”

with regard to vows, you can find it, for example, when he says

“I will eat this loaf,”

and he did not eat it—

for he

transgresses on account of

“he shall not profane his word.”

But

“he shall not profane with regard to nezirut”—

how can you find it?

In what manner is it possible that he transgresses concerning a nazir only “he shall not profane”?

But

once he says

“I am a nazir,”

he becomes

immediately

a nazir,

and if he

eats

grapes,

he stands liable—

he becomes liable immediately

for

the prohibition,

“he shall not eat

grapes,” and if he

drinks

wine,

he stands liable—

he becomes liable immediately

for “he shall not drink”

wine!

And since his liability is on account of his nezirut, and his nezirut takes effect immediately, and he transgresses it on account of the laws of nezirut, how is it possible that he transgresses only “he shall not profane his word”?

Rava said:

the tanna’s intention is to say that the comparison teaches

to transgress it on two counts.

Every nazir who transgresses the prohibitions of a nazir, besides the transgression of the prohibitions of a nazir, also transgresses the prohibition of a vow, “he shall not profane his word.” For every nazir accepts his nezirut in the language of a vow; besides his nezirut, he also undertakes a vow not to profane his nezirut.

We raised another question:

“he shall not delay”

with regard to nezirut—

how can you find it?

In what matter is it possible to find transgression of “he shall not delay” concerning 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 becomes liable immediately

for “he shall not eat

grapes”! And where is the delaying of his nezirut?

And we answer: “he shall not delay” in 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 conducting his nezirut, he transgresses “he shall not delay”!

And the Gemara is astonished at this answer:

But

behold,

if he says

“when I wish

I shall be a nazir,” forever

there is no

“he shall not delay,”

for he explicitly said “when I wish,” and as long as he does not wish, he is not obligated in nezirut, and there is no delay here!

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

And we answer:

Rava said: for example, when he says

“I shall not depart from the world until I am a nazir.”

From that moment

that he said this,

he becomes

obligated to conduct immediately the conduct of a

nazir,

and if he did not begin conducting the nezirut, he is not a nazir, and he immediately transgresses “he shall not delay.”

And the immediate obligation to conduct nezirut is

as is the case

similar to the law of a kohen

who says to his wife

the Israelite woman,

“This is your divorce document

one hour before my death,”

so that she is forbidden

the Israelite woman

to eat teruma immediately,

because perhaps the kohen husband will die within an hour, and it will turn out that she is now divorced from him, and since she is an Israelite woman who is not the wife of a kohen, she is forbidden to eat teruma.

It follows:

it is proven from the fact that she does not eat teruma because of the concern that perhaps her kohen husband will die within an hour, that we

say

that

at every moment

we must be concerned

lest he die

within an hour.

Here too,

one who vowed, “I shall not depart from the world until I am a nazir,”

is immediately

he must immediately conduct himself with the conduct of a

nazir,

because

we say: “Perhaps he will die now.”

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