nazir

MISHNAH: Samuel was a nazir following the words of Rebbi Nahorai, as it is said: “A shaving knife shall not come on his head.” It is said about Samson “a shaving knife”, and it is said about Samuel “a shaving knife”. Since “a shaving knife” mentioned for Samson refers to nazir, so “a shaving knife” mentioned for Samuel refers to nazir. Rebbi Yose said, but fear is only of flesh and blood! Rebbi Nahorai answered him: Was it not said: “Samuel said, how can I go? Will not Saul hear of it and kill me?” The fear of flesh and blood already was on him.

MISHNAH: If a man performs preliminary marriage using ‘orlah, or kilaim of a vineyard, or an ox sentenced to be stoned, or a calf whose neck was broken, or the birds of a sufferer from skin disease, the hair of a nazir, or the first-born of a she-ass, or meat cooked in milk, or profane meat slaughtered in the Temple precinct, [the woman] is not preliminarily married. If he sells any of these items and uses their proceeds for preliminary marriage, she is preliminarily married.

There, we have stated: “If two groups of witnesses were testifying against a person, one group say that he vowed nazir twice, the others say that he vowed nazir five times. The House of Shammai say, the testimony is split and there is no nezirut there. But the House of Hillel say, five contains two; he should be a nazir twice.” Rav said, they differ in the overall testimony. But in detail, everybody agrees that the testimony is split. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they differ in counting. But in an overall testimony, everybody agrees that five contains two. What is overall and what is counting? Overall, this one says two, the other one says five. Counting, this one says one, two, the other one says three, four.

There, we have stated: “If two groups of witnesses were testifying against a person, one group say that he vowed nazir twice, the others say that he vowed nazir five times. The House of Shammai say, the testimony is split and there is no nezirut there. But the House of Hillel say, five contains two; he should be a nazir twice.” Rav said, they differ in the overall testimony. But in detail, everybody agrees that the testimony is split. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they differ in counting. But in an overall testimony, everybody agrees that five contains two. What is overall and what is counting? Overall, this one says two, the other one says five. Counting, this one says one, two, the other one says three, four.

There, we have stated: “If two groups of witnesses were testifying against a person, one group say that he vowed nazir twice, the others say that he vowed nazir five times. The House of Shammai say, the testimony is split and there is no nezirut there. But the House of Hillel say, five contains two; he should be a nazir twice.” Rav said, they differ in the overall testimony. But in detail, everybody agrees that the testimony is split. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they differ in counting. But in an overall testimony, everybody agrees that five contains two. What is overall and what is counting? Overall, this one says two, the other one says five. Counting, this one says one, two, the other one says three, four.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: In any case of doubt in the public domain, the doubt has to be resolved as pure, but one does not allow to act. But did we not state: “Any case of doubt which was declared pure for heave is pure for sprinkling water, and in any case where it remains unresolved for heave the sprinkling water is poured out.” There is nothing unresolved for the sprinkling water; either it is genuinely pure or genuinely impure. Rebbi Ze`ira said, the Mishnah deals with a situation not caused by a sacrifice; what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to a situation caused by a sacrifice. Everybody agrees that if the person transgresses and acted, it is pure. The arguments of Rebbi Joḥanan are inverted. There, he says, if he transgresses and acted, it is impure. But here he said, if he transgresses and acted, it is pure. There in a private domain, here in the public domain. But you could even say, there and here in the public domain. The arguments of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish are inverted, the arguments of Rebbi Joḥanan are inverted, since they disagreed: A nazir became impure by a grave in the abyss, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the nazir does not shave, but Rebbi Joḥanan said, the nazir has to shave. That is since Rebbi Joḥanan said, a doubt of awareness is awareness, even if the first was because of a crawling animal and the second by a corpse. The first before he converted and the second after he converted. The first before he grew two pubic hairs, the second after he grew them.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: In any case of doubt in the public domain, the doubt has to be resolved as pure, but one does not allow to act. But did we not state: “Any case of doubt which was declared pure for heave is pure for sprinkling water, and in any case where it remains unresolved for heave the sprinkling water is poured out.” There is nothing unresolved for the sprinkling water; either it is genuinely pure or genuinely impure. Rebbi Ze`ira said, the Mishnah deals with a situation not caused by a sacrifice; what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to a situation caused by a sacrifice. Everybody agrees that if the person transgresses and acted, it is pure. The arguments of Rebbi Joḥanan are inverted. There, he says, if he transgresses and acted, it is impure. But here he said, if he transgresses and acted, it is pure. There in a private domain, here in the public domain. But you could even say, there and here in the public domain. The arguments of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish are inverted, the arguments of Rebbi Joḥanan are inverted, since they disagreed: A nazir became impure by a grave in the abyss, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the nazir does not shave, but Rebbi Joḥanan said, the nazir has to shave. That is since Rebbi Joḥanan said, a doubt of awareness is awareness, even if the first was because of a crawling animal and the second by a corpse. The first before he converted and the second after he converted. The first before he grew two pubic hairs, the second after he grew them.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: In any case of doubt in the public domain, the doubt has to be resolved as pure, but one does not allow to act. But did we not state: “Any case of doubt which was declared pure for heave is pure for sprinkling water, and in any case where it remains unresolved for heave the sprinkling water is poured out.” There is nothing unresolved for the sprinkling water; either it is genuinely pure or genuinely impure. Rebbi Ze`ira said, the Mishnah deals with a situation not caused by a sacrifice; what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to a situation caused by a sacrifice. Everybody agrees that if the person transgresses and acted, it is pure. The arguments of Rebbi Joḥanan are inverted. There, he says, if he transgresses and acted, it is impure. But here he said, if he transgresses and acted, it is pure. There in a private domain, here in the public domain. But you could even say, there and here in the public domain. The arguments of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish are inverted, the arguments of Rebbi Joḥanan are inverted, since they disagreed: A nazir became impure by a grave in the abyss, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the nazir does not shave, but Rebbi Joḥanan said, the nazir has to shave. That is since Rebbi Joḥanan said, a doubt of awareness is awareness, even if the first was because of a crawling animal and the second by a corpse. The first before he converted and the second after he converted. The first before he grew two pubic hairs, the second after he grew them.

If he went to immerse himself for a minor impurity and a severe impurity was additional, it does not count for him for the severe impurity. In which respect? If he immersed himself and then entered the Sanctuary he is liable. Therefore not for a severe impurity and a severe impurity was additional. Therefore not for a minor impurity and a minor impurity was additional. If he went to immerse himself for severe impurity and tree limbs and wall extensions were additional are these like severe impurity since Rebbi Joḥanan said that for heave all of them are [impure] from the Torah, or are they like minor impurity since the nazir does not shave because of them?

HALAKHAH: “An oath that I shall eat neither,” etc. “An oath that I shall not eat bread” and he wrapped it in reed leaves or grape leaves and ate, he is liable only once. “An oath that I shall not eat bread nor grape skin nor grape seeds, and he wrapped it in grape skins and grape seeds, he is liable for each one, and if he was a nazir he is liable for three. Rebbi Joḥanan said, in comprehensive form. But in detail, no oaths fall on prohibitions. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even in comprehensive form no oaths fall on prohibitions.

HALAKHAH: “If both of them disavowed simultaneously,” etc. If they dedicated a sacrifice and said, we are going to disavowe in court. This is what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, his sacrifice for the Eternal for his vow of nazir; that his vow of nazir precede his sacrifice, not that his sacrifice precede his vow of nazir. If they were sworn to out of court, dedicated a sacrifice and said, we are going to renege in court, how do you treat this? As if his sin did precede his sacrifice or since the are liable only in court as if their sacrifice did precede their sin?

HALAKHAH: “If both of them disavowed simultaneously,” etc. If they dedicated a sacrifice and said, we are going to disavowe in court. This is what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, his sacrifice for the Eternal for his vow of nazir; that his vow of nazir precede his sacrifice, not that his sacrifice precede his vow of nazir. If they were sworn to out of court, dedicated a sacrifice and said, we are going to renege in court, how do you treat this? As if his sin did precede his sacrifice or since the are liable only in court as if their sacrifice did precede their sin?

HALAKHAH: “If both of them disavowed simultaneously,” etc. If they dedicated a sacrifice and said, we are going to disavowe in court. This is what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, his sacrifice for the Eternal for his vow of nazir; that his vow of nazir precede his sacrifice, not that his sacrifice precede his vow of nazir. If they were sworn to out of court, dedicated a sacrifice and said, we are going to renege in court, how do you treat this? As if his sin did precede his sacrifice or since the are liable only in court as if their sacrifice did precede their sin?

HALAKHAH: “Give me the deposit, the loan,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon implies that if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is not liable for the rest. Rebbi Abba said, even Rebbi (Yasa) will agree with this. If it turns out that he had no wheat, does [the oath] refer to the other kinds? The colleagues said, it does not. Rebbi Ze`ira said, it does. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, a baraita supports what the colleagues said. “A woman made a vow as a nazir and her friend heard it and said, ‘so am I’; the first woman’s husband heard it and dissolved [the vow] for her; the first one is permitted and the second forbidden. If she said, ‘my intention was only to be like her,’ both are permitted.” Because she said, “to be like her, in her state”. Therefore, if she did not say “to be like her, in her state”, the first is permitted and the second forbidden. Since there, where the essence is not an oath, you say it applies, here, where there was an original oath, not so much more? What Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon implies if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is not liable for the rest, if he connects: If he says, [my obligation for] barley shall be like that for wheat; [my obligation for] spelt shall be like that for wheat.

MISHNAH: The following are forbidden and they forbid in the most minute amount: Libation wine, idols, heart-removed skins, and an ox which was stoned, and the calf whose neck was broken, and the birds of the sufferer from skin disease, and the nazir’s hair, and the firstborn donkey, and meat in milk, and profane animals slaughtered in the Temple precinct. These are forbidden and they forbid in the most minute amount.

And the nazir’s hair. He shall put it in the fire which is under the well-being offering.

Rebbi Yose asked in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: May prohibitions of usufruct become insignificant in (combination) [by being shredded]? But did we not state “the ox which was stoned”? Explain it in pieces. But did we not state “the birds of the sufferer from skin disease”? Explain it as a bird among birds. But did we not state “the nazir’s hair”? Can you say a bird among birds? When they came to study `Orlah did Rebbi Jacob object before Rebbi Yose, did we not state, “if somebody weaves the length of a sīt of firstling’s wool, the cloth must be burned. Of nazir’s hair or firstling donkey in sackcloth, the sackcloth must be burned.” He told him, (if the Tanna had said before us, you would have given) correctly.

Rebbi Yose asked in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: May prohibitions of usufruct become insignificant in (combination) [by being shredded]? But did we not state “the ox which was stoned”? Explain it in pieces. But did we not state “the birds of the sufferer from skin disease”? Explain it as a bird among birds. But did we not state “the nazir’s hair”? Can you say a bird among birds? When they came to study `Orlah did Rebbi Jacob object before Rebbi Yose, did we not state, “if somebody weaves the length of a sīt of firstling’s wool, the cloth must be burned. Of nazir’s hair or firstling donkey in sackcloth, the sackcloth must be burned.” He told him, (if the Tanna had said before us, you would have given) correctly.

MISHNAH: If a nazir was drinking wine a whole day long, he is liable only once. If one told him, do not drink, do not drink, if then he drinks he is liable for every single occasion. If he was defiling himself with corpses a whole day long, he is liable only once. If one told him, do not defile yourself, do not defile yourself, if then he defiles himself he is liable for every single occasion. If he was shaving a whole day long, he is liable only once. If one told him, do not shave, do not shave, if then he shaves he is liable for every single occasion. If he was dressed in kilaim a whole day long, he is liable only once. If one told him, do not dress, do not dress, and he took off and put on, he is liable for every single occasion.

MISHNAH: One might plough a single furrow and be liable because of it for eight prohibitions. If one ploughs with an ox and a donkey which had been sanctified for kilaim in a vineyard, in a Sabbatical year, on a holiday, he is a Cohen and a nazir at an impure place. Onias ben Ḥakhinai said, also if he wore kilaim. They told him, this is not of the same category. He told them, neither is the nazir of the same category.

MISHNAH: One might plough a single furrow and be liable because of it for eight prohibitions. If one ploughs with an ox and a donkey which had been sanctified for kilaim in a vineyard, in a Sabbatical year, on a holiday, he is a Cohen and a nazir at an impure place. Onias ben Ḥakhinai said, also if he wore kilaim. They told him, this is not of the same category. He told them, neither is the nazir of the same category.

It is at all events generally admitted that a drunken priest is not allowed to raise his hands. Whence is this view derived? Said R. Simeon b. Pazzi in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi, who reported it in the name of Bar Ḳappara, Why is the portion dealing with the blessing priest placed (in the Bible) immediately after the portion dealing with the Nazir? In order to convey the lesson that as the Nazir is forbidden to drink wine, so is the priest who is to pronounce a blessing. An objection was raised against this statement by 'Ahabah, son of R. Zera, or, as some say, by Joshua b. Gizora: If this deduction is correct, we ought also to say that as the Nazir is forbidden to eat the kernel (Num 6.4), so is the blessing priest! Said R. Isaac, Scripture says (Deut., 10.8): "To minister unto Him, and to bless in His name," which indicates that as the ministering priest is allowed to eat the kernel, so is the priest who is to pronounce a blessing.

It is at all events generally admitted that a drunken priest is not allowed to raise his hands. Whence is this view derived? Said R. Simeon b. Pazzi in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi, who reported it in the name of Bar Ḳappara, Why is the portion dealing with the blessing priest placed (in the Bible) immediately after the portion dealing with the Nazir? In order to convey the lesson that as the Nazir is forbidden to drink wine, so is the priest who is to pronounce a blessing. An objection was raised against this statement by 'Ahabah, son of R. Zera, or, as some say, by Joshua b. Gizora: If this deduction is correct, we ought also to say that as the Nazir is forbidden to eat the kernel (Num 6.4), so is the blessing priest! Said R. Isaac, Scripture says (Deut., 10.8): "To minister unto Him, and to bless in His name," which indicates that as the ministering priest is allowed to eat the kernel, so is the priest who is to pronounce a blessing.

It is at all events generally admitted that a drunken priest is not allowed to raise his hands. Whence is this view derived? Said R. Simeon b. Pazzi in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi, who reported it in the name of Bar Ḳappara, Why is the portion dealing with the blessing priest placed (in the Bible) immediately after the portion dealing with the Nazir? In order to convey the lesson that as the Nazir is forbidden to drink wine, so is the priest who is to pronounce a blessing. An objection was raised against this statement by 'Ahabah, son of R. Zera, or, as some say, by Joshua b. Gizora: If this deduction is correct, we ought also to say that as the Nazir is forbidden to eat the kernel (Num 6.4), so is the blessing priest! Said R. Isaac, Scripture says (Deut., 10.8): "To minister unto Him, and to bless in His name," which indicates that as the ministering priest is allowed to eat the kernel, so is the priest who is to pronounce a blessing.

If you go by such analogy, then, just as a ministering priest must not have any blemish, so must a priest pronouncing the blessing be without blemish! No, in this respect the latter has been compared to a Nazir! But why do you choose your analogies so as to derive a lenient rule? You should rather make the analogies so that a rigorous view is obtained! Answer. The analogies are merely a suggestion of the Rabbis for the purpose of supporting their own view, hence any rule derived therefrom must be in the direction of leniency.

Rather there was only one warning. But then would he be liable [five times]? Bit it was taught in a mishna, A Nazir who was drinking wine all day is only liable once. If they said to him, "Don't drink. Don't drink.", and he drank, than he would be liable for each individual time. Rather [the ruling] was necessary where one dipped his five fingers into a cream and placed them [on his beard] simultaneously, that it constitutes as a warning for each one.

MISHNA: A Nazir who was drinking wine all day is only liable to one [set of malkus]. If they told him, "Don't drink", "Don't drink", and he nevertheless drunk, then he is liable for each every [warning]. If he was contaminating himself with corpses all day, he is only liable to one [set of malkus]. If they told him, "Don't contaminate yourself", "Don't contaminate yourself", and he nevertheless contaminated himself, then he is liable for each every [warning]. If he was shaving all day, he is only liable to one [set of malkus]. If they told him, "Don't shave", "Don't shave", and he nevertheless shaved, then he is liable for each every [warning].

There is a case of where on plows a single row, and is liable on it due to eight separate prohibitions. One who [1]plows with an ox and a donkey, [2,3]which are sanctified, over [4]mixed seeds in a vineyard [5]on the sabbatical year, [6]on a holiday, and he is a [7]Kohen and a [8]Nazir in a house of tumah.

Chananya ben Chachinai said also one who is wearing shatnez. They responded that is not from [the same action]. He said back also a Nazir is not from [the same action].

But doesn't it? There is Hekdesh? [The mishna] is refering to a Bechor [firstling], But there is still Nazir? [The mishna] is refering to a Nazir Shimshon.

But doesn't it? There is Hekdesh? [The mishna] is refering to a Bechor [firstling], But there is still Nazir? [The mishna] is refering to a Nazir Shimshon.

But a Nazir Shimshon can become containment with copses? Rather the Tanna does not hold of an inclusive prohibition.