Jerusalem Talmud Nazir Chapter 4

מִי שֶׁאָמַר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר וְשָׁמַע חֲבֵירוֹ וְאָמַר וַאֲנִי וַאֲנִי וַאֲנִי כּוּלָּן נְזִירִין. הוּתַּר הָרִאשׁוֹן הוּתְּרוּ כוּלָּן הוּתַּר הָאַחֲרוֹן הָאַחֲרוֹן מוּתָּר וְכוּלָּן אֲסוּרִין. הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר וְשָׁמַע חֲבֵירוֹ וְאָמַר פִּי כְפִיו וּשְׂעָרִי כִשְׂעָרוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר. הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר וְשָׁמְעָה אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאָמְרָה וַאֲנִי מֵיפֵר אֶת שֶׁלָּהּ וְשֶׁלּוֹ קַיָים. הֲרֵינִי נְזִירָה וְשָׁמַע בַּעֲלָהּ וְאָמַר וַאֲנִי אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. מִי שֶׁאָמַר. הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר. וְשָׁמַע חֲבֵירוֹ וְאָמַר. וַאֲנִי כול׳. כֵּן הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. וַאֲנִי וַאֲנִי. מָאן תַּנָּא וָוִים. רִבִּי יוּדָה. בְּרַם כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. אֲנִי אֲנִי. מַתְנִיתָא שֶׁהָיוּ כּוּלְּהֶם בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִיבּוּרוֹ שֶׁלָּרִאשׁוֹן. תַּנֵּי. הוּתַּר הָאֶמְצָעִי. מִמֶּנּוּ וּלְמַטָּן מוּתָּר. מִמֶּנּוּ וּלְמַעֲלָן אָסוּר. מַתְנִיתָא אֲפִילוּ אֵין כּוּלְּהֶם בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִיבּוּרוֹ שֶׁלָּרִאשׁוֹן אֶלָּא בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִּיבּוּרוֹ שֶׁלָּזֶה וְזֶה בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִּיבּוּרוֹ שֶׁלָּזֶה. כַּמָּה הוּא כְּדֵי דִיבּוּרוֹ. רִבִּי סִימוֹן בְּשֶׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. כְּדֵי שְׁאֵילַת שָׁלוֹם בֵּין אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ. אַבָּא בַּר בַּר חָנָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כְּדֵי שְׁאֵילַת שֵׁלוֹם בֵּין הָרַב לַתַּלְמִיד וְיֹאמֶר לוֹ. שָׁלוֹם עָלֶיךָ רִבִּי. אֶחָד שֶׁאָמַר. הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מֵאָה יוֹם. וְשָׁמַע חֲבֵירוֹ וְאָמַר. וַאֲנִי מֵאָה יוֹם. וְחָזַר וְאָמַר. וַאֲנִי. נַעֲשֶׂה עִיקָּר טְפֵילָה. אֶחָד שֶׁאָמַר. הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר. וְאָמַר. אֲנִי. בְּתוֹךְ דִּיבּוּרוֹ שֶׁלָּרִאשׁוֹן. וְשָׁמַע חֲבֵירוֹ וְאָמַר. וַאֲנִי. בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִּיבּוּרוֹ שֶׁלַּשֵּׁינִי. הוּתַּר הָרִאשׁוֹן הוּתַּר הַשֵּׁנִי. הוּתַּר הַשֵּׁינִי לֹא הוּתַּר הַשְּׁלִישִּׁי. אֶחָד שֶׁאָמַר. הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שְׁתַּיִם. וְשָׁמְעוּ שְׁנַיִם וְאָמְרוּ. וְאָנוּ. נְזִירִין שְׁתַּיִם אוֹ כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד שְׁתַּיִם. הוּא הוּתַּר הוּתְּרוּ הֵן. לֹא הוּתַּר הוּא. שְׁנַיִם שֶׁאָמְרוּ. הֲרֵי אָנוּ נְזִירִין. וְשָׁמַע אֶחָד וְאָמַר. וַאֲנִי. תַּחַת שְׁנֵיהֶן נָזַר אוֹ תַחַת כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד נָזַר. הוּתְּרוּ הֵן היום הוּא. הוּתַּר הן לֹא הוּתְּרוּ הֵן. פִּי מִן הַיַּיִן. רֹאשִי מִן הַתִּגְלַחַת. יָדִי מִן הַטּוּמְאָה. רַגְלִי מִן הַטּוּמְאָה. רֹאשִׁי נָזִיר. כְּבֵידִי נְזִירָה. נָזִיר. הִילּוּכִי נָזִיר דִּיבּוּרִי נָזִיר. לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. לָמָּה. שֶׁהִתְפִּיס אֶת הַנֶּדֶר בְּדָבָר שֶׁהַנְּשָׁמָה תְלוּיָה בוֹ. נֶדֶר נֶדֶר. מַה נֶדֶר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן דָּבָר שֶׁהַנְּשָׁמָה תְלוּיָה בוֹ. אַף נֶדֶר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן דָּבָר שֶׁהַנְּשָׁמָה תְלוּיָה בוֹ. הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר וְאַתּ כול׳. הוּתָּר הוּא הִיא הוּתְּרָה. הוּתְּרָה הִיא הוּא לֹא הוּתָּר. מָה הֵן וַאֲנִי. מָה אַתְּ עֲבַד לָהּ. בְּאָמֵן וְקַיָים לָךְ. אוֹ יָפֶה עָשִׂית. דְּחִיָיה רוֹבָה וְרִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה רוֹבָה. תַּנֵּי. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּזְרָה בַנָּזִיר וְשָׁמַע בַּעֲלָהּ וְאָמַר לָהּ. מָה רָאִית שֶׁתְּזוֹרִי. מַדּוּעַ עָשִׂית שֶׁנָּזַרְתְּ. וְלֹא הָיִיתִי רוֹצֶה שֶׁתְּזוֹרִי. אֵין כָּאן נֶדֶר אֵין כָּאן שְׁבוּעָה. לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר. יָפֶה עָשִׂית שֶׁנָּזַרְתְּ. וְכָךְ הָיִיתִי רוֹצֶה שֶׁתְּזוֹרִי. וְאִילּוּ לֹא נָזַרְתְּ הָיִיתִי מַזִּירָךְ. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. כּוּלְּהֶם אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. כּוּלְּהֶם יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר בְּאָמֵן וְקַיָים לִיךְ עוֹד אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר.

MISHNAH: If somebody said “I am a nazir ” and another person heard it and said, “and so am I”, “and so am I”, “and so am I”,, A 2 hears A 1 and says “so am I”, A 3 hears A 2 and says “so am I”, A 4 hears A 3 and says “so am I”. all of them are nezirim . If the first one was permitted, all are permitted 9:7. ; if the last was permitted, the last is permitted and all others forbidden. “I am a nazir ” and another person heard it and said, “my mouth is as his mouth and my hair as his hair,” he is a nazir . “I am a nazir ” and his wife heard it and said, “and so am I”, he can dissolve hers Chapter 10). but his vow remains. “I am a nezirah ” and her husband heard it and said, “and so am I”, he cannot dissolve. HALAKHAH: “If somebody said ‘I am a nazir ’ and another person heard it and said, ‘and so am I’,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “and so am I”, “and so am I”. Who is the Tanna of conjunctions? Rebbi Jehudah 9:7, Notes 85–101 . . But following Rebbi Meïr, “I am,” “I am”. Does the Mishnah require that all of them follow immediately after the speaking of the first is reduced to 2, is that because both A 2 and A 3 refer to the original vow, not that A 3 refers to that of A 2 ? In that case, there would not be time for three additional people to express their vow if the rule at the end of the paragraph be followed. ? It was stated is quoted in the Babli, 21a , for the same conclusion. : If the middle one was permitted, all following him are permitted, all preceding him are forbidden. The Mishnah applies even if not all of them follow immediately after the speaking of the first, but each one follows immediately after the speaking of the preceding person’ and another said ‘so am I’ but not immediately after him, the first is forbidden but the second is permitted.” . What means “to follow immediately after the speaking”? 2:1 (Notes 50–52 ), Moʻed qaṭan 3:7 (83c 1. 37). Babli 20b , Makkot 6a , Baba qama 73b , Šebuot 32a . In the Babli, the longer version has an additional word: “peace upon you, my teacher and master.” Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The time needed for greeting between two people. Abba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The time needed for greeting between teacher and student, that he say to him, “peace upon you, my master.” If one said, “I am a nazir for 100 days, and another heard it and said, “so am I for 100 days”, and repeated and said, “so am I”, the main [statement] becomes an accessory. If one said, “I am a nazir ;” somebody said “and I” following immediately the first, another heard it and said, “so am I” following immediately the second. If the first became permitted, so does the second. If the second became permitted, the third was not permitted disagrees with the argument of the preceding section and holds that, since the vow of the second is predicated on the first, the third also depends on the first but not on the third. Therefore, if the first vow is annulled, all are annulled; if any other vow is annulled, that alone is annulled but nothing else. . If one said, “I am a nazir twice,” and two people heard it and said, “so are we”, are they two nezirim or is each of them a nazir twice? If he was permitted, they were permitted. He was not permitted. If two said, “we are nezirim ,” another heard it and said, “so am I,” did he make a vow regarding both of them. or did he make a vow parallel to each of them? If they were permitted, [he] was permitted; if [he] was permitted, they were not permitted. “My mouth [shall be nazir ] from wine. Then it is a valid vow of nazir by Mishnah 1:2 . , my head from shaving, my hand from impurity, my foot from impurity; my head shall be nazir ; my liver shall be nezirah , shall be nazir , he is a nazir as long as x is a body part necessary for survival ( Babli 21b , Tosephta 3:3 ). ” he is a nazir . “My walking shall be nazir ; my talking shall be nazir ”; he did not say anything. Why? Because he referred the vow to something on which life depends. “Vow, vow, “equal cut” (cf. Berakhot 1:1, Note 70 ; Nedarim 1:1, Note 18, 1:4, Note 159 .) The nazir starts his obligation with a vow, mentioned “here” ( Num . 6:2 ). Another personal obligation accepted by a vow is that of paying “the valuation of living persons”, mentioned “there”, ( Lev . 27:2 ). In a different formulation, the argument is in Sifra Beḥuqqotay Parašah 3(6). .” Just as “vow” mentioned there refers to something on which life depends, so “vow” mentioned here refers to something on which life depends. “ “I am a nazir , and you,” etc. If he was permitted, she is permitted. If she was permitted, he is not permitted. What about, “and so am I,” how do you treat this? As “amen, it is confirmed for you,” or “you did well”? The elder [Rebbi] Ḥiyya and the elder Rebbi Hoshaia. It is stated: If a woman made a vow to be a nazir ; her husband heard and said to her, “why did you make a vow of nazir ? What did you do to make a vow of nazir ? I would not like that you made a vow of nazir ! There is neither vow nor oath here;” he did not say anything 10:10, Note 95 ( Babli Nedarim 77b ). . But if he said, “you did well that you did make a vow of nazir ; I liked that you did make a vow of nazir ; if you had not made a vow of nazir I would have told you to make one”, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated on this, in all of these cases he cannot dissolve. But Rebbi Hoshaia stated: In all these cases, he can dissolve unless he said “amen” or “it is confirmed for you”, then he can no longer dissolve.

הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר וְאַתְּ וְאָמְרָה אָמֵן מֵפֵר אֶת שֶׁלָּהּ וְשֶׁלּוֹ בָטֵל. הֲרֵינִי נְזִירָה וְאַתָּה וְאָמַר אָמֵן אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. הוּתְּרָה הִיא הוּתַּר הוּא. הוּתַּר הוּא לֹא הוּתְּרָה הִיא. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְתוֹלֶה נִדְרוֹ בָהּ. בְּאוֹמֵר עַל מְנָת וְאַתְּ. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַבַּעַל שֶׁאָמַר. אֵין כָּאן נֵדֶר אֵין כָּאן שְׁבוּעָה. לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. זָקֵן שֶׁאָמַר. מוּפָר לֵיךְ בָּטֵל לֵיךְ. לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. אֶלָּא זֶה כְהִילְכָתוֹ וְזֶה כְהִילְכָתוֹ. הַבַּעַל אוֹמֵר. מוּפָר לֵיךְ בָּטֵל לֵיךְ. וְזָקֵן אוֹמֵר. אֵין כָּאן נֵדֶר אֵין כָּאן שְׁבוּעָה.

MISHNAH: “I am a nazir , and you?” If she said “amen”, he may dissolve hers, and his is void 13:14), against the Babli in Mishnah and Gemara which reads “confirmed”. Y. Qafeḥ in his edition of Maimonides’s Commentary notes (in his grandfather’s name) that the disagreement between Rav Jehudah and Abbai in the Babli (22b ) may be based on different readings in the Mishnah. . “I am nezirah , and you?” If he said “amen” but he confirmed her vow and, therefore, lost his power of dissolution. , he cannot dissolve. HALAKHAH: If she is permitted, he is permitted. If he is permitted, she is not permitted. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because he makes his vow conditional on hers, if he says, on condition that you [accept]. 10:10, Note 95 . Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The husband who said “there is no vow, there is no oath,” did not say anything. Also the Elder who said “it is dissolved for you, it is voided for you,” did not say anything. But everybody has to follow his own rules. The husband says “it is dissolved for you, it is voided for you,” and the Elder says, “there is no vow, there is no oath”.

הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּדְרָה בַנָּזִיר וְהָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה בַיַּיִן וּמִיטַּמָּא לַמֵּתִים הֲרֵי זוֹ סוֹפֶגֶת אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים. הֵיפֵר לָהּ בַעֲלָהּ וְהִיא לֹא יָדְעָה שֶׁהֵיפֵר לָהּ בַעֲלָהּ וְהָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה בַיַּיִן וּמִיטַּמָּא לַמֵּתִים אֵינָהּ סוֹפֶגֶת אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אִם אֵינָהּ סוֹפֶגֶת אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים תִּסְפּוֹג מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּדְרָה בַנָּזִיר כול׳. מַלְקוּת תּוֹרָה אַרְבָּעִים חָסֵר אַחַת. אוֹמְדִין אוֹתוֹ. אִם יֵשׁ מַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ וְאִם לָאו אֵין מַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ. מַכּוֹת מַרְדּוּת חוֹבְטִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶיְּקַבֵּל אוֹ עַד שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשׁוֹ. כְּתִיב וַיי יִסְלַח לָהּ. מַגִּיד שֶׁטְּעוּנָה סְלִיחָה. כְּשֶׁהָיָה רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב מַגִּיעַ לְפָסוּק זֶה הָיָה אוֹמֵר. מִי שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵון שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה בְיָדוֹ בְּשַׂר חֲזִיר וְעָלָה בְיָדוֹ בְּשַׂר כְּשֵׁירָה צָרִיךְ כַּפָּרָה. הַמִּתְכַּוֵּין שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה בְיָדוֹ בְּשַׂר חֲזִיר וְעָלָה בְיָדוֹ בְּשַׂר חֲזִיר עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. תַּנֵּי. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּדְרָה בַנָּזִיר וְשָׁמְעָה חֲבֵירָתָהּ וְאָמְרָה. וַאֲנִי. וְשָׁמַע בַּעֲלָהּ שֶׁלָּרִאשׁוֹנָה וְאָמַר. מוּתָּר לֵיךְ. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מוּתֶּרֶת וְהַשְּׁנִיָיה אֲסוּרָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. אִם אָמְרָה. לֹא נִתְכַּוַונְתִּי אֶלָּא לִהְיוֹת כְּמוֹתָהּ וּכְיוֹצֵא בָהּ. אַף הִשְּׁנִיָיה מוּתֶּרֶת. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. רִבִּי לָעְזָר אוֹמֵר. עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר שְׁבוּעָה בָאַחֲרוֹנָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר שְׁבוּעָה עַל כַּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. נִמְצָא שֶׁאֵין בְּיָדוֹ חִטִּים פָּטוּר עַל הַשְּׁאָר. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא. אוֹף רִבִּי יוּדָה מוֹדֶה בָהּ. נִמְצָא שֶׁאֵין בְּיָדוֹ חִיטִּין מָהוּ שֶׁתָּחוּל עָלָיו שְׁאָר הַמִּינִין. חֲבֵרַיָיא אָמְרִין. לֹא חָלָה. רִבִּי זְעִירָא אָמַר. חָלָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לַחֲבֵרַיָיא. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּדְרָה בַנָּזִיר וְשָׁ‍מְעָה חֲבֵירָתָהּ וְאָמְרָה. וַאֲנִי. וְשָׁמַע בַּעֲל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְהֵיפֵר לָהּ. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מוּתֶּרֶת וְהַשְּׁנִיָיה אֲסוּרָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. אִם אָמְרָה. לֹא נִתְכַּוַונְתִּי אֶלָּא לִהְיוֹת כְּמוֹתָהּ וּכְיוֹצֵא בָהּ. אַף הִשְּׁנִיָיה מוּתֶּרֶת. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָמְרָה. לִהְיוֹת כְּמוֹתָהּ וּכְיוֹצֵא בָהּ. הָא אִם לֹא אָמְרָה. לִהְיוֹת כְּמוֹתָהּ וּכְיוֹצֵא בָהּ. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מוּתֶּרֶת וְהַשְּׁנִיָיה אֲסוּרָה. מָה אִם תַּמָּן שֶׁאֵין שָׁם עִיקַּר נְזִירוּת אַתְּ אוֹמֵר. חָלָה. כָּאן שֶׁיֵּשׁ כָּאן עִיקַּר שְׁבוּעָה לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן. מָהוּ דְאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן נִמְצָא שֶׁאֵין בְּיָדוֹ חִיטִּין וּפָטוּר עַל הַשְּׁאָר. בְּמַתְפִּישׂ. בְּאוֹמֵר. שְׂעוֹרִין יְהוּ כְּחִיטִּין. כּוּסֲמִין יְהוּ כְּחִיטִּין. פְּשִׁיטָא דָא מִילְּתָא. לֹא הֵיפֵר לָהּ בַּעֲלָהּ שֶׁלָּרִאשׁוֹנָה וְעָבְרָה עַל נִדְרָהּ לוֹקָה. שְׁנִיָיה מָהוּ שֶׁתִּלְקֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. מֵאַחַר שֶׁזּוֹ לוֹקָה זוֹ לוֹקָה. אָמַר רִבִּי לָא. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. וְתֵיעָשֶׂה שְׁנִיָיה כְּאוֹמֶרֶת. הֲרֵינִי נְזִירָה לְאַחַר עֶשְׂרִים יוֹם. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר. שֶׁלֹּא נִתְנַדֵּב כְּדֶרֶךְ הַמִּתְנַדְּבִין.

MISHNAH: If a woman had made a vow of nazir but drank wine or defiled herself for the dead, she receives forty [lashes]. If her husband had dissolved her vow but she did not know that he had dissolved her vow when she drank wine or defiled herself for the dead, she does not receive forty [lashes]. Rebbi Jehudah said, if she does not receive forty, let her receive blows of rebelliousness. HALAKHAH: “If a woman had made a vow of nazir ,” etc. Biblical whippings are 39 lashes 3:10 . . One evaluates him; if he can stand it, one whips him, if not, one does not whip him. Blows of rebelliousness: one strikes him until he accepts or until he dies. It is written: “The Eternal will forgive her. 30:6 , 9 , 13 . The verses refer to girls or women whose vows are dissolved by father or husband. The verses assume that they felt impelled to make vows for some hidden guilt. In the Babli, 23a , the verse is interpreted to refer only to the case of the woman violating her vow, not knowing that it had been dissolved. The speaker there and in Tosephta 3:14 is R. Aqiba. .” This tells that she needs forgiveness. When Rebbi Jacob came to this verse, he used to say: If somebody needs atonement having intended to get pig’s meat but happened to get kosher [animal’s] meat, so much more one who had the intent to get pig’s meat and got pig’s meat. It was stated: “A woman made a vow as nazir and her friend heard it and said, ‘so am I;’ if the first’s husband heard and told her, ‘it is permitted to you,’ the first one is permitted but the second forbidden. . Rebbi Simeon says, if she said, my intention was only to be like her, in her state, the second also is permitted.” There, we have stated 5:3: “If 5 people claim a deposit which he holds for them and he swears that he holds nothing of theirs, and this was false, he can be prosecuted for one perjury. But if he said, an oath that I hold nothing of yours, and of yours, etc. (using the singular in each case), he can be prosecuted for 5 perjuries. R. Eleazer says, [he can be prosecuted for 5 perjuries] only if he mentioned ‘oath’ at the end (to make it clear that he meant an oath for each of them singly.) R. Simeon says, only if he mentioned an oath in every case,” i. e., an oath that I hold nothing of yours, and an oath that I hold nothing of yours, etc. The following Mishnah 5:4 deals with the case that one claimant demands from him wheat, barley, and spelt which he holds, and he swears falsely that he holds nothing, he is prosecuted for one perjury. But if he swears that he holds neither wheat, nor barley, nor spelt, he is prosecuted for each item separately; R. Meïr says, even if he swore that he did not have wheat, barley, spelt. For this part of the Mishnah, cf. Ketubot 13:4, Notes 79–86 . : “Rebbi Eleazar says, only if he mentions ‘oath’ at the end. Rebbi Simeon says, only if he mentions ‘oath’ for every item.” 5:4 (36b 1. 46). Rebbi Joḥanan said, [Rebbi Simeon implies] if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is not prosecutable for the rest 103a .) As long as he did not say, “an oath for barley, and an oath for spelt”, he cannot be prosecuted for lying about these items. . Rebbi Abba said, even Rebbi Jehudah will agree with this that R. Jehudah is the anonymous Tanna of these Mishnaiot. He agrees that no prosecution is possible if the oath regarding the first item of the list was true. . If it turns out that he had no wheat, does [the oath] refer to the other kinds? The colleagues said, it does not, without further thought. This supports the colleagues’ interpretation. ; Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it does. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, the baraita supports the colleagues: “A woman made a vow as nazir and her friend heard it and said, ‘so am I;’ if the first’s husband heard and told her, ‘it is permitted to you,’ the first one is permitted and the second forbidden. Rebbi Simeon says, if she said, my intention was only to be like her, in her state, the second also is 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 there was no original nezirut , you say it applies, here, where there was an original oath, not so much more? When Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon implies that if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is not prosecutable for the rest, if he attaches: If he says, [my obligation for] barley shall be like that for wheat; [my obligation for] spelt shall be like that for wheat. The following is obvious: If her husband did not dissolve for the first [woman] and she transgressed her vow, she is whipped. Can the second be whipped while she undergoes the purification rite, when the second also violated her vow. ? Rebbi Yose said, since one is whipped, the other also is whipped. Rebbi La said, this follows Rebbi Simeon. Can the second not be considered like one who said, I am a nezirah after twenty days? Rebbi Simeon follows his own opinion; for Rebbi Simeon declares him free, because his offering was not according to the custom of offerers. 12:3 (formulated in the masculine), cf. Halakhah 2:4, Note 66 . There does not exist an intermittent vow of nazir ; if the second woman’s vow was valid, it remains valid.

הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּדְרָה בַנָּזִיר הִפְרִישָׁה אֶת בְּהֶמְתָּהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הֵיפֵר לָהּ בַּעֲלָהּ אִם שֶלּוֹ הָיְתָה בְּהֵמָה תֵּצֵא וְתִרְעֶה בָּעֵדֶר. וְאִם מִשֶּׁלָּהּ הָיְתָה בְּהֵמָה הַחַטָּאת תָּמוּת וְהָעוֹלָה תִּיקְרַב עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים יִקְרְבוּ שְׁלָמִים וְנֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד וְאֵינָן טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם. הָיוּ לָהּ מָעוֹת סְתוּמִים יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. מָעוֹת מְפוֹרָשִים דְּמֵי חַטָּאת יֵלְכוּ לְיַם הַמֶּלַח לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין. דְּמֵי עוֹלָה יָבִיאוּ עוֹלָה וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן. דְּמֵי שְׁלָמִים יָבִיאוּ שְׁלָמִים וְנֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד וְאֵינָן טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּדְרָה בַנָּזִיר כול׳. הָא לִיקַּדֵּשׁ קָדְשָׁה. אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁנָּתַן לָהּ אַחֵר מַתָּנָה וְאָמַר לָהּ. עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא לְבַעֲלֵיךְ רְשׁוּת בָּהֶן. שֶׁלָּהּ הֵן. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתַּנְיָיה. בַּמְשַׁלֶּטֶת עַל נְכָסָיו. וְאִם בָּא וּמִיחָה לֹא קָדְשָׁה. וְאִם לָאו קָדְשָׁה. תַּמָּן אַתְּ מוֹצֵא אוֹמֵר. תִּרְעֶה בָעֵדֶר. וָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר אָכֵן. תַּמָּן הַזָּקֵן עוֹקֵר אֶת הַנֶּדֶר מֵעִיקָּרוֹ. בְּרַם הָכָא אֵינוֹ עוֹקֵר אֶלָּא מִיכָּן וְלָבֹא. מִי מֵיפֵר אֶת שֶׁעָלֶיהָ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. גְּזֵירַת הַכָּתוּב הִיא. הֵפֵר אֶת נִדְרָהּ. הֵפֵר אֶת מַה שֶׁעָלֶיהָ. מִי שֶׁהוּא הֵיפֵר נִדְרָהּ הוּא מֵיפֵר מַה שֶׁעָלֶיהָ. תַּנֵּי. אֵין טְעוּנִין לֹא לֶחֶם וְלֹא זְרוֹעַ. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה בָּעֵי. שְׁלָמִים בָּאִין לְאַחַר מִיתָה. (בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן) מָהוּ שֶׁיִּטָעֲנוּ לֶחֶם. חָזַר וָמַר. וְכֵן בַּחַיִים. לֹא עַל הַבַּטָּלָה הֵן בָּאִין. אַתְּ אָמַר. טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם. וָכָא טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. פְּשִׁיטָה לְרִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה בִּשְׁלָמִים הַבָּאִין לְאַחַר הֲפָרָה שֶׁאֵין טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם. מַה בֵין מִיתָה מַה בֵין הֲפָרָה. מִיתָה כְּבָר נִרְאוּ לְהִיטָּעֵן לֶחֶם. הֲפָרָה לֹא נִרְאוּ לְהִטָּעֵן לֶחֶם. תַּנֵּי. אָשָׁם לְאַחַר הֲפָרָה. אֵין אָשָׁם לְאַחַר מִיתָה. מֵתָה אֵין אֲשָׁמָהּ קָרֵב. שֶׁאֵין לָךְ אָשָׁם קָרֵב לְאַחַר מִיתָה. הֵיפֶר לָהּ אֲשָׁמָהּ קָרֵב. שֶׁאֵין לָךְ אָשָׁם בָּא עַל הַבַּטָּלָה כָזֶה. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. מוֹתָר נְזִירִים לַנְּזִירִים. מוֹתָר נָזִיר לִנְדָבָה. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא. וְהוּא שֶׁקָּרְבָה חַטָּאתוֹ בַּסּוֹף. וְאִם קָרְבוּ שְׁלָמָיו בַּסּוֹף מוֹתָרוֹ שְׁלָמִים. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. אֲפִילוּ קָרְבוּ שְׁלָמָיו לְבַסּוֹף הֲלָכָה אַחַת הִיא בַּנָּזִיר שֶׁתְּהֵא מוֹתָרוֹ נְדָבָה. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייעָא לְדֵין וּמַתְנִיתָא מְסַייעָה לְדֵין. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייעָא לְרִבִּי זְעִירָא. אֵילּוּ הֵן מָעוֹת סְתוּמִין. כָּל שֶׁדְּמֵי חַטָּאוֹת מֵיתוֹת מְעוּרָבוֹת בָּהֶן. וַאֲפִילוּ הִפְרִישׁ דְּמֵי חַטָּאוֹת מֵתוֹת מִתּוֹכָן מָעוֹת סְתוּמִין הֵן. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייעָא לְרַב חִסְדָּא. אֵילּוּ לְחַטָּאתִי וְהַשְּׁאָר לִנְזִירוּתִי. וָמֵת. מוֹעֲלִין בְּכוּלָּן וְאֵינָן מוֹעֲלִין בְּמִקְצָתָן. וְלֹא אָמַר. וְאִם מֵת יִפְּלוּ בִּנְדָבָה. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא. מוֹתָר לֶחֶם נָזִיר יִרְקַב. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְיֵאוּת. לְהַקְרִיבוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ אֵי אַתָּה יָכוֹל. שֶׁאֵין לָךְ אָשָׁם קָרֵב בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. לְהַקְרִיבוֹ עִם נְזִירוּת אֲחֶרֶת אֵין אַתְּ יָכוֹל. שֶׁאֵין לָךְ נְזִירוּת בָּאָה עַל לֶחֶם. לְפוּם כֵּן צָרַךְ לוֹמַר. מוֹתָר לֶחֶם נָזִיר יִרְקַב. סָבְרִין מֵימַר. הוּא מוֹתַר לַחְמוֹ הוּא מוֹתַר נְסָכָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. מוֹתַר נְסָכָיו קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים אִינּוּן יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. שְׁמוּאֵל וְרַב חִסְדָּא וְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר שְׁלָשְׁתָּן אָמְרוּ דָבָר אֶחָד. רַב חִסְדָּא. הָהֵן דְהָכָא. שְׁמוּאֵל. דָּמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. עַד תַּמָּן שְׁמַעִת קָל רַב יְהוּדָה שְׁאַל לְרַבֵּינוּ שְׁמוּאֵל. הִפְרִישׁ שִׁקְלוֹ וָמֵת. אָמַר לֵיהּ. יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. מוֹתָר עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה שֶׁלּוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. יוֹלִיכֵם לְיַם הַמֶּלַח. רִבִּי לָעְזָר אוֹמֵר. יִפְּלוּ בִנְדָבָה. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רַב. מָעוֹת סְתוּמִין. אֵין בְּהֵמָה סְתוּמָה. אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. יָכוֹל לֹא יֵצֵא בְקָרְבָּן אָבִיו בִּבְהֵמָה שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ מִן הַקַּלָּה לַחֲמוּרָה וּמִן הַחֲמוּרָה לַקַּלָּה מִן הַקַּלָּה לַקַּלָּה וּמִן הַחֲמוּרָה לַחֲמוּרָה. שֶׁכֵּן אֵינוֹ מְגַלֵּחַ עַל בְּהֵמַת אָבִיו נְזִירוּת. אֲבָל יֵצֵא בְקָרְבָּן אָבִיו בְּמָעוֹת שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ מִן הַקַּלָּה לַחֲמוּרָה וּמִן הַחֲמוּרָה לַקַּלָּה וּמִן הַקַּלָּה לַקַּלָּה וּמִן הַחֲמוּרָה לַחֲמוּרָה. שֶׁכֵּן הוּא מְגַלֵּחַ עַל מָעוֹת נְזִירוּת. בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן סְתוּמִין לֹא בִזְמַן שֶׁהֵן מְפוֹרָשִׁין. תִּלְמוּד לוֹמַר קָרְבָּנוֹ. בְּקָרְבָּנוֹ הוּא יוֹצֵא. אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא בְקָרְבָּנוֹ שֶׁלְּאָבִיו. כְּשֶׁהוּא אֶצֶל הַמָּעוֹת הוּא מַזְכִּיר סְתוּמִין. בְּהֵמָה אֵין עָלֶיהָ הִילְכוֹת סְתוּמִין כַּתְּחִילָּה. יֵשׁ עָלֶיהָ הִילְכוֹת סְתוּמִין בַּסּוֹף. מָעוֹת יֵשׁ עֲלֵיהֶן הִילְכוֹת סְתוּמִין בַּתְּחִילָּה. וְאֵין עֲלֵיהֶן הִילְכוֹת סְתוּמִין בַּסּוֹף. מָעוֹת יֵשׁ עֲלֵיהֶן הִילְכוֹת סְתוּמִין בַּתְּחִילָּה. דְּתַנִּינָן. הָיוּ לָ[הּ] מָעוֹת סְתוּמִין יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. בְּהֵמָה יֵשׁ עָלֶיהָ הִילְכוֹת סְתוּמִין בַּסּוֹף. דִּתְנַן. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. הֵבִיא שָׁלֹשׁ בְּהֵמוֹת וְלֹא פֵירֵשׁ. יֵשׁ עֲלֵיהֶן הִילְכוֹת סְתוּמִין בַּתְּחִילָּה. דִּתְנַן. אֵילּוּ לְחַטָּאתִי וּשְׁאָר לִשְׁאַר נְזִירוּתִי. וָמֵת. מוֹעֲלִין בְּכוּלָּן וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בְּמִקְצָתָן. אֵין עֲלֵיהֶן הִילְכוֹת סְתוּמִין בַּסּוֹף. כְּשֶׁהֵבִיא מְעוֹת וְחִילְלָן עַל בְּהֵמָה. הִפְרִישׁ חֲמוֹר כְּמַפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת. הִפְרִישׁ שׁוֹר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר לוּלִיָינִי תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין בְשֵׁם שַׁמַּי. חַד אָמַר. כְּמַפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת. וְחַד אָמַר. כְּמַפְרִישׁ בְּהֵמָה.

MISHNAH: A woman who had made a vow of nazir and designated her animal when her husband dissolved her vow, if the animal was his, it leaves and grazes with the herd. But if the animal was hers, the purification offering shall die, the elevation offering shall be brought as an elevation offering 1 . , the well-being offering as a well-being offering. 7:16 ) while the nazir ’s well-being offering follows the rules of thanksgiving offerings which may be eaten only during one day and the following night ( Lev . 7:15 ). The nazir ’s offering also needs an accompanying gift of bread, similar to the thanksgiving offering. But since the woman is no nezirah after the husband’s dissolution of her vow, the bread cannot be offered. (The bread is baked on the day it is offered; since the husband has to dissolve the vow before it has run its course, there is no dedicated bread.) , to be eaten on one day; it does not need bread. If she had money not designated, it should be given as a donation. If the monies were designated, the value of the purification offering shall be thrown into the Dead Sea; one may not use it but there can be no larceny. 5:14–16 cannot be applied. . For the value of the elevation offering, they shall bring an elevation offering; it is subject to the law of larceny. For the value of the well-being offering, they shall bring a well-being offering, to be eaten on one day; it does not need bread, but are not “The Eternal’s Sancta ”, never subject to the rules of Lev . 5:14–16 . . HALAKHAH: “A woman who had made a vow of nazir ,” etc. Does this mean it became holy by dedication? But if a third person gave her a gift and said, on condition that your husband have no right of disposition over it 11:8, Notes 69–70 ; Babli 24b .) , then it is hers. Rebbi Mattaniah said, if he gave her power over his properties. If he comes to protest, it did not become holy; otherwise, it became holy. There, you find it possible to say, “it should go grazing”, and here, you say so? There, the Elder eliminates the vow from the start; here, he 74b . eliminates only from that moment onwards. Who dissolves her obligations. 30 gives the husband the right to dissolve his wife’s vows. But where is it written that the husband can eliminate the sacrifices which are implied by his wife’s vow? ? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is a decree of Scripture: “He dissolved her vow;” he dissolved her obligation. 30:9 : “If on the day of his hearing he stops her and dissolves her vow [and] obligations.” . The one who dissolved her vow dissolved her obligation. It was stated: They was dissolved. The Mishnah mentions that no bread is offered; it is a logical consequence that the officiating Cohen does not receive a foreleg from the goat offered as well-being sacrifice since Num . 6:19 makes the gift of the foreleg dependent on the gift of bread. need neither bread nor foreleg. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Do well-being sacrifices which are brought after death need bread? He turned around and said, is it not the same during his lifetime, do they not come for nothing? You say, they need bread, and here they need bread. Rebbi Yose said, it is obvious for Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya that well-being sacrifices which are brought after dissolution do not need bread. What is the difference between death and dissolution? In the case of death, they already were prepared to need bread; In the case of dissolution, they never were prepared to need bread cannot be brought before the period of the vow has expired; before that time the dedication is potential, rather than actual. . It was stated: There is a reparation sacrifice after dissolution; there is no reparation sacrifice after death. 7:7 ). Since purification sacrifices after death are impossible, so are reparation sacrifices. . If she died, her reparation sacrifice is not offered, since there is no reparation sacrifice after death. If he dissolved for her, her reparation sacrifice is offered since that reparation sacrifice does not come for nothing. There, we have stated 2:6 . : “Leftovers for nezirim are for nezirim ; what is left over from a nazir is for donation with the expenses of their sacrifices but not all was used, the remainder has to be kept in trust to be used in the future for the same purpose. But if a person dedicated his own money for his sacrifices and had money left over, that should go to the account for offerings ( Note 68 ). .” Rav Ḥisda said, only if his purification offering was presented last. But if his well-being offering waspresented last, what is left over is for a well-being offering 2:6 also states that leftovers of monies for purification offerings go to the offerings account, but leftovers for well-being offerings must be used for well-being offerings. . Rebbi Ze‘ira said, even if his well-being offering was presented last, it is a general rule for a nazir that his leftover be for donation 2:6 . In the Babli, 25a , this rule is attributed to R. Joḥanan (and, therefore, declared to be practice to be followed.) . A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze‘ira: “The following are undesignated monies: any which contain money for purification offerings that should die. Even if he designated money for purification offerings that should die, it remains undesignated. 3:2 which decrees that money left over from unspecified funds set aside for nazir ’s sacrifices must be given to the Temple’s offering account. Such money can be used for elevation or well-being offerings only if absolutely no money of purification offerings is mixed in (since one has to avoid the danger that the value of purification offerings be totally lost if anything goes wrong with that kind of sacrifice.) ” A baraita supports Rav Ḥisda: “This is for my purification offering and the rest for my nezirut . Then he died. One commits larceny with all of them but not with part of them.” is in the Babli, 26b ; Tosephta Meʻilah 1:10. It does not say, when he died it should be given for donation. Rav Ḥisda said, a nazir ’s leftover bread shall be left to decay. Rebbi Yose said, that is correct. You cannot sacrifice it by itself since (reparation sacrifices). 2 ), no offering of bread alone is authorized. cannot be brought alone. You cannot sacrifice it together with another nazir ’s since no nazir sacrifices without bread. Therefore, it was necessary to say that a nazir ’s leftover bread shall be left to decay. They wanted to say, the same rule applies to his leftover bread as to his leftover wine offering. 6:15 , following the rules of Num . 15:1–16 . . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, his leftover wine offering is most holy; it should be given to donation accounts 2:5 ). . In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Samuel, Rav Ḥisda, and Rebbi Eleazar, all three said the same. Rav Ḥisda, as quoted here. Samuel, as Rebbi Yasa said, when I still was there, I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking our teacher Samuel: If he designated his sheqel and died? He said, it should be given as donation 2:5 ). . The leftover of his tenth of an epha : Rebbi Joḥanan said, he should bring it to the Dead Sea; Rebbi Eleazar said, it should be given as donation 2:5). . Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Money can be non-designated, no animal can be non-designated. Rav Sheshet said, it was stated thus: 6(2), Babli 27b , Keritut 27b . “I might think that one could not satisfy his obligation with his father’s sacrifice, with an animal which he dedicated, whether from a minor sin for a major sin, or from a major sin for a minor sin, or from a minor sin for a minor sin, or from a major sin for a major sin, since he cannot shave for his nezirut with his father’s animal; but he could satisfy his obligation with his father’s sacrifice, with money he dedicated, whether from a minor sin for a major sin, or from a major sin for a minor sin, or from a minor sin for a minor sin, or from a major sin for a major sin, since he can shave on money for his nezirut , any time it is not designated, but not if it is designated. The verse says. 4:29 , 32 . For the nazir, Num . 6:14. The mention of his sacrifice in Lev. 4:32 is redundant; this is given as motivation for the restrictive interpretation of all three verses. , ‘ his sacrifice’, he can only satisfy his obligation with his sacrifice, not with his father’s sacrifice.” Talking about money, one mentions “not designated”. An animal is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, but it is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end. Money is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, but it is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end. Money is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, as we have stated: “If he had money not designated, it should be given as donation.” An animal is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end. It seems that one has to read: An animal is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning . , as we have stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if he brought three animals but did not explain.” They are subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end . as we have stated 1:10. The text there is more complete: “ ‘These are for my purification offering, the remainder is for the rest of my nezirut ’, when he died. The money’s worth of the purification offering shall be thrown into the Dead Sea; one may not use it but there can be no larceny. The remainder may be used for either elevation or well-being offerings . One commits larceny about all but one cannot commit larceny about a part.” If the moneys were under the rules of the non-designated, any surplus would have to be used for donation, i. e., to buy elevation offerings. Since it may also be used for well-being offerings, it is not subject to these rules. : “ ‘These are for my purification offering, the remainder is for the rest of my nezirut’ , when he died. One commits larceny about all but one cannot commit larceny about a part.” It is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end, when he brought money and redeemed it for an animal. If he designated a donkey, it is as if he designated money. If he designated an ox who is required to offer one female and one male sheep, and one male goat. The Babli rules that the animal must be treated as a sacrifice unless it be blemished, when it follows the rules of money (27b). , Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Ḥiyya ben Julianus, both speak in Shammai’s name. One says, he is like one who designates money; the other says, he is like one who designates an animal. 27:10 . .

נִזְרַק עָלֶיהָ אֶחָד מִן הַדָּמִים אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר אֲפִילוּ נִשְׁחֲטָה עָלֶיהָ אַחַת מִכָּל הַבְּהֵמוֹת אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. בַּמֶּה דְבַרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּתִגְלַחַת הַטַּהֲרָה אֲבָל בְּתִגְלַחַת הַטּוּמְאָה יָפֵר שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לוֹמַר אֵי אֶיפְשִׁי בְּאִשָּׁה מְנוּוֶּלֶת. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר אַף בְּתִגְלַחַת הַטַּהֲרָה יָפֵר שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לוֹמַר אֵי אֶיפְשִׁי בְּאִשָּׁה מְגוּלַּחַת. נִזְרַק עָלֶיהָ אֶחָד מִן הַדָּמִים כול׳. מֵיפֵר לָהּ מִפְּנֵי שַׂעֲרָהּ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יֹסֵא בֶּן חֲנִינָה. גְּזֵירַת הַכָּתוּב הִיא. הֵפֵר נְדָרֶיהָ. הֵיפֵר מַה שֶׁעָלֶיהָ. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא מֵיפֵר נְדָרֶיהָ מֵיפֵר מַה שֶׁעָלֶיהָ. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא. מִשֶּׁנִּיתַּק מִלֹּא תַעֲשֶׂה לַעֲשֵׂה. רַבָּנִין אָמְרִין. וְאַחַר יִשְׁתֶּה הַנָּזִיר יַיִן. אַחַר כָּל הַמַּעֲשִׂים הַלָּלוּ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. אֲפִילי אַחַר מַעֲשֶׂה יְחִידִי. אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי בֵּיבַי. בַּמֶּה דְבַרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּתִגְלַחַת טַהֲרָה. אֲבָל בְּתִגְלַחַת טוּמְאָה יָפֵר. שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לוֹמַר אֵי אֶיפְשִׁי בְּאִשָּׁה מְנוּוֶּלֶת. הָא תִגְלַחַת טַהֲרָה אֵינָהּ מְנַוֶולֶת. מָאן דְּאִית לֵיהּ תִגְלַחַת אֵינָהּ מְנַוֶולֶת. לֹא רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבוּן. אוֹף רִבִּי דִּכְוָותָהּ. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר. אוֹף בְּתִגְלַחַת יָפֵר. שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לוֹמַר. אֵי אֶיפְשִׁי בְּאִשָּׁה מְגוּלַּחַת. וְיֵימַר. אֵי אֶיפְשִׁי בְּאִשָּׁה מְנַוֶולֶת וּמְגוּלַּחַת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לֹא אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה אֶלָּא בַחַטָּאת. שֶׁחַטָּאת פְּסוּלָה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ בַחַיִים אֵינָהּ נִמְסֶרֶת לַגְּבוֹהַּ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁחִיטָה.

MISHNAH: If one of the bloods was sprinkled for her is completed. The husband cannot dissolve a vow which no longer is active. , he cannot dissolve. Rebbi Aqiba says, even if one of the animals was slaughtered for her, he cannot dissolve. When has this been said? If she shaves in purity. But if she shaves in impurity he may dissolve since he can say, I cannot stand an unseemly wife she is forbidden to comb her hair, lest she tear one out. . Rebbi says, he may dissolve even if she shaves in purity, since he can say, I cannot stand a shorn wife 11:1 ). . HALAKHAH: “If one of the bloods was sprinkled for her,” etc. He dissolves for her because of her hair 11:1 ). . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: It is a decision of Scripture: “He dissolved her vows,” he dissolves what is on her. But he finds a special dispensation which empowers the husband to dissolve his wife’s vow of nazir . The verse, ( Num . 30:9 ) is slightly misquoted; instead of הפר נדריה it should be והפר את נדרה. As in most cases, the argument is from the part of the verse which is not quoted: “But if on the day on which her husband hears it, he prevents her, and dissolves her vow which is on her … ” This gives the husband the power to dissolve any vow she makes regarding what is on her; i. e., her hair. (In Sifry Num . 153, the verse is interpreted to mean that the husband has a say only over vows which are on her , i. e., after she made them. A preëmptive dissolution is invalid just as the Mishnah here states that a dissolution after the end of the period is invalid.) . Whenever he dissolves her vow, he dissolves what is on her. Rebbi Eleazar said, it completed once the blood of a single animal was sprinkled on the altar in the final ceremony. follows Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion, after she was transferred from the prohibition to the positive commandment is completed according to everybody. . The rabbis say, “afterwards, the nazir shall drink wine,” after all these actions may shave only after the conclusion of the entire ceremony. . Rebbi Simeon says, even after a single action. Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi (Bevai). “When has this been said? If she shaves in purity. But if she shaves in impurity, he may dissolve since he can say, I cannot stand an unseemly wife.” Therefore, shaving in purity does not make her unseemly. Who holds that shaving does not make unseemly to drink wine after the offering of one animal, before he shaves, he asserts that shaving and not drinking wine are separate matters. ? Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, even Rebbi thinks so: “Rebbi says, he may dissolve even if she shaves [in purity], since he can say, I cannot stand a shorn wife.” Should he not say, I cannot stand an unseemly and shorn wife? Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi (Jehudah) said that only for the purification sacrifice, since a purification sacrifice would be invalid if not in her name after the slaughter of her purification offering, that offering would become invalid and would have to be burned outside the Temple precinct. Both elevation and well-being offerings may be used if the original intent became void. . That means, as long as it is alive it is surrendered to Heaven only by slaughter 1:6 ) that “a promise to Heaven is like a delivery to a person”, an animal dedicated as purification offering becomes Heaven’s property only by its slaughter, in contrast to all other sacrifices for which the dedication also equals delivery. .

הָאִישׁ מַדִּיר אֶת בְּנוֹ בַּנָּזִיר וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה מַדֶּרֶת אֶת בְּנָהּ בַּנָּזִיר. כֵיצַד גִּילַּח אוֹ שֶׁגִּילְּחוּהוּ קְרוֹבִים. מִיחָה אוֹ שֶׁמִּיחוּהוּ קְרוֹבִים. הָיְתָה לוֹ בְהֵמָה מְפוֹרֶשֶׁת הַחַטָּאת תָּמוּת. וְהָעוֹלָה תִּקְרַב עוֹלָה. וְהַשְּׁלָמִים יִקְרְבוּ שְׁלָמִים וְנֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד וְאֵינָן טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם. הָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת סְתוּמִים יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. מָעוֹת מְפוֹרָשִׁין דְּמֵי חַטָּאת יֵלְכוּ לְיַם הַמֶּלַח לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין. דְּמֵי עוֹלָה יָבוֹאוּ עוֹלָה וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן. דְּמֵי שְׁלָמִים יָבִיא שְׁלָמִים וְנֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד וְאֵינָן טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם. הָאִישׁ מְגַלֵּחַ עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיו וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה מְגַלַּחַת עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיהָ. כֵּיצַד מִי שֶׁהָיָה אָבִיו נָזִיר וְהִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת סְתוּמִים עַל נְזִירוּתוֹ וּמֵת וְאָמַר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֲגַלַּח עַל מָעוֹת אַבָּא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה אֵין זֶה מְגַלֵּחַ עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיו. אֵיזֶהוּ מְגַלֵּחַ עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיו. מִי שֶׁהָיָה הוּא וְאָבִיו נְזִירִים וְהִפְרִישׁ אָבִיו מָעוֹת סְתוּמִים לִנְזִירוּתוֹ וָמֵת זֶהוּ שֶׁמְגַלֵּחַ עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיו. הָאִישׁ מַדִּיר וכו׳. אִישׁ. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִישׁ. אִשָּׁה מְנַיִין. תִּלְמוּד לוֹמַר. צָרוּעַ. בֵּין אִישׁ בֵּין אִשָּׁה בֵּין קָטָן. אִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר אִישׁ. לְעִנְיָין שֶׁלְּמַטָּן. הָאִישׁ פּוֹרֵעַ וּפוֹרֵם. אֵין הָאִשָּׁה פוֹרַעַת וּפוֹרֶמֶת. הָאִישׁ מַדִּיר וְהָאִישׁ מְגַלֵּחַ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי מֵאִיר. כֹדֹ דְּבָרִים מְקוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּי וּמְחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל וְזֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן. בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. אֵין הָאִישׁ מַדִּיר אֶת בְּנוֹ בַּנָּזִיר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים. מַדִּיר בְּנוֹ בַּנָּזִיר. תַּנֵּי בְנִיזְרֵי מֵרֶחֶם. אִית דְּבָעֵי מֵימַר. עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת. אִית דְּבָעֵי מֵימַר. עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא לְעוֹנַת נְדָרִים. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין שֶׁאִם יָבוֹא לְעוֹנַת נְדָרִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַזִּירוֹ. גִּילַּח אוֹ שֶׁגִּילְּחוּהוּ קְרוֹבִים. מִיחָה אוֹ שֶׁמִּיחוּהוּ קְרוֹבִים בְּכָל לְשׁוֹנוֹת כְּמִי שֶׁמִּיחָה. יָשַׁב לוֹ לִפְנֵי הַסַּפָּר כְּמִי שֶׁלֹּא מִיחָה. קָרוֹב מָהוּ שֶׁיִּמְחֶה. מָהוּ שֶׁתָּחוּל עָלָיו נְזִירוּתוֹ וּנְזִירוּת אָבִיו כְּאַחַת. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּירִבִּי חֲנִינָה בֶּן חֲנִינָה שֶׁהַדִירוֹ אָבִיו וְהָיָה רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בּוֹדְקוֹ אִם הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת. אָמַר לוֹ. מִפְּנֵי מַה אַתָּה בּוֹדְקֵינִי. אִם נְזִירוּת אַבָּא עָלַי הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר וְאִם לָאו הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מִכְּבָר. עָמַד רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וּנְשָׁקוֹ עַל רֹאשׁוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ. בָּטוּחַ אֲנִי שֶׁאֵי אַתְּ יוֹצֵא מִן הַזִּיקְנָה עַד שֶׁתּוֹרֶה הוֹרָאוֹת בְיִשְׂרָאֵל. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר צָדוֹק. אֲנִי רְאִיתִיו יוֹשֵׁב וְדוֹרֵשׁ בְּיַבְנֶה. רִבִּי אָחָא רִבִּי אִימִּי אָמַר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה שָׁאַל. מְלִיקַת הָעוֹף שֶׁלּוֹ מָהוּ שֶׁתֵּיאָכַל. עַד דְּאַתְּ מַקְשֵׁי לָהּ לִמְלִיקַת הָעוֹף קְשִׁיתָהּ לִשְׁחִיטַת הָעוֹף. תַּמָּן סָפֵק אֶחָד. וָכָא שְׁנֵי סְפֵיקוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנִי. וַאֲפִילוּ הָכָא סָפֵק אֶחָד הוּא. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי. הַנּוֹחֵר וְהַמְעַקֵּר אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁחִיטַת חוּלִין בָּעֲזָרָה. רַבָּנִין דְּקַיְסָרִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. אֲפִילוּ סָפֵק אֶחָד אֵינוֹ. כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. אֵין שְׁחִיטַת הָעוֹף מְחוּוֶּרֶת מִדְּבַר תּוֹרָה. וַיִּשְׁטְחוּ לָהֶם שָׁטוֹחַ. וַיִּשְׁטְחוּ לָהֶם שָׁחוּט. עַד כְּדוֹן בְּשָׁוִין. הוּא נָזִיר אַחַת וּבְנוֹ נָזִיר שְׁתַּיִם. הוּא וּבְנוֹ נָזִיר אַחַת. הוּא נָזִיר טָהוֹר וּבְנוֹ נָזִיר טָמֵא. הוּא נָזִיר טָמֵא וּבְנוֹ נָזִיר טָהוֹר. מַאי טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. קָרְבָּנוֹ לַיי עַל נִזְרוֹ. שֶׁיִּקְדּוֹם קָרְבָּנוֹ לְנִזְרוֹ. וְלֹא שֶׁיִּקְדּוֹם נִזְרוֹ לְקָרְבָּנוֹ. הֲווֹן בְּעֵיי מֵימַר. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה יוֹדֵי לְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אַשְׁכְּחֵיה אֲמַר. לֹא דוֹ מוֹדוּ לְדוֹ וְלֹא דוֹ מוֹדוּ לְדוֹ.

MISHNAH: A man can declare his son a nazir but a woman cannot declare her son a nazir . . How is this? If he shaved him or relatives shaved him; if he protested or relatives protested is voided. If the father already had dedicated either animals or the monies needed for them, they have to be treated according to the rules detailed in Mishnah 4 in the case of the woman who had prepared her sacrifices when her vow was dissolved by her husband. , if he had designated animals, the purification offering shall die; the elevation offering shall be brought as elevation offering; the well-being offering shall be brought as elevation offering; it may be eaten for one day and does not need bread. If he had money not designated, it should be given as donation. If the monies were designated, the money’s worth of the purification offering shall be thrown into the Dead Sea; one may not use it but there can be no larceny. For the value of the elevation offering, he shall bring an elevation offering; it is subject to the law of larceny. For the value of the well-being offering, he shall bring a well-being offering, to be eaten on one day; it does not need bread. A man may shave on the basis of his father’s nezirut , but a woman may not shave on the basis of her father’s nezirut . How is this? If his father was a nazir and had set aside unspecified money for his nezirut when he died, and he said, I am a nazir on condition that I may shave on my father’s money, Rebbi Yose said, the money shall be given as donation, for he cannot shave on his father’s money. Who may shave based on his father’s nezirut ? If both he and his father were nezirim and his father had set aside unspecified money for his nezirut when he died; this one shaves on his father’s nezirut . HALAKHAH: “A man can declare his son a nazir ,” etc. 3:9, Note 228 . “A man”. This refers not only to a man; from where for a woman? The verse says, “afflicted with skin disease,” whether man, woman, or minor. If it is so, why is “a man” written? For the next theme, “a man is dishevelled and has open seams, no woman is dishevelled and has open seams.” A man can declare a nazir , and a man can shave, and the son can shave on the offerings which his father brings for him. . Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Meïr: 2:2 . In 24 matters are the House of Shammai lenient but the House of Hillel stringent, and this is one of them: The House of Shammai say, a man cannot declare his son to be a nazir but the House of Hillel say, a man can declare his son to be a nazir . It was stated about those who are nazir from the womb. Some want to say, until he grows two pubic hairs until the latter reaches adulthood. . Some want to say, until he reaches the time of vows 5:6: “The vows of a girl 11 years and one day of age or a boy 12 years and one day of age are checked.” If they know what they are doing, their vows are valid. . Everybody agrees that he can no longer declare him a nazir once he reaches the time of vows. “If he shaved him or relatives shaved him; if he protested or relatives protested,” in any language it is a valid protest. If he sat before a barber, it is not a protest; may a relative protest? May his own vow of nazir and that of his father fall on him together? 5:15 . It happened that Rebbi Ḥanina ben Ḥanina’s father made him a nazir and Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel checked him whether he had grown two pubic hairs. He said to him, why are you checking me? If my father’s nezirut is on me, I am a nazir ; otherwise, I declare being a nazir . Rabban Gamliel stood up and kissed him on his head and said, I am sure that you will not die from old age before you taught instruction in Israel. Rebbi Eleazar bar Ṣadoq said, I saw him sitting and explaining in Jabneh. Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Immi said that Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked: May his bird be eaten when its neck was broken by his father became impure, his father has to bring a couple of birds for him. Both birds (pigeons or turtle doves) are killed by having their necks broken by the Cohen’s thumbnail ( Lev . 5:8 ). The meat of one of them, offered as purification sacrifice, should be eaten by the priests. If the boy’s vow is valid in biblical law, there is no problem. But if it is valid only rabbinically, then the priest who eats this meat commits two sins, since (a) he slaughters in the Temple what is not a legitimate sacrifice and (b) he eats meat forbidden outside the Temple precinct since it was not ritually slaughtered. In the Babli, 29a , R. Joḥanan holds that the vow is biblically valid; there are no problems. R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that the vow is rabbinic; his position is that articulated by R. Mani in this paragraph. ? Instead of asking about a bird whose neck was broken, why do you not ask about a slaughtered bird who finishes his term in purity, whether his purification offering could be eaten by the priests. ? There is one doubt, here are two doubts have only the problem of the validity of his vow in biblical law. The sacrifice of the impure in addition has the problem that the consumption of meat from a bird whose neck was broken is forbidden to everybody except priests in the Temple in the line of duty. . Rebbi Mani said, here also it is one doubt, as it was stated: One who perforates or tears out is not guilty because of profane slaughter in the Temple courtyard 86a . There remains only the problem of eating the meat; the irregular slaughter in the Temple precinct is not an infraction. . The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: There is not even one doubt, following him who says that slaughtering birds is not clear from the Torah. 17:1–7 . When the Israelites entered the Land, profane slaughter was permitted, Deut . 12:21 . Profane slaughter has to be executed “as I commanded you”, i. e., by the method of slaughter used in the Tabernacle. In all of Lev ., slaughter is described by the verb שׁחט, Arabic سحط “to cut the throat”. According to this argument, birds should be killed by breaking their neck, rather than by cutting their throat. : “They spread them a spread,”. 11:32 , speaking of the quail. In Sifry Num . 98, the metathesis שחט - שטח is attributed to R. Jehudah. they spread out slaughtered [birds]. So far, if they are equal. If he was nazir once, his son nazir twice? He and his son nazir once, [but] he was a pure nazir , his son an impure nazir , [or] he an impure nazir , his son a pure nazir precedes the father’s dedication but the actual realization of the vow starts only after the father’s death? Both for the anonymous Tanna, who allows the son unrestricted access to his father’s dedicated money, and for R. Yose, the question arises whether the money can be used for a sacrifice for which it was not intended (money for the offerings in purity for the reparation offering of the impure or vice versa)? The questions are not answered, neither here nor in the Babli (30b ). ? What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? “His offering to the Eternal for his vow”. 6:21 . , that (his sacrifice precede his vow) 10(42), Yalqut #709. but not (that his vow precede his sacrifice). They wanted to say that Rebbi Jehudah (but specified money has to be treated by the rules of Mishnah 6 .) The opinion of R. Yose is shared by R. Eleazar (ben Shamua) and R. Simeon (ben Ioḥai). The problems with the text of Tosephta and Babli are treated at length by S. Lieberman ( Tosefta ki-Fshutah p. 537–538). The Yerushalmi does not treat the anomaly that, by tradition, the daughter cannot use the father’s dedicated money even if she is the only heir ( Babli 30a/b ). would agree with Rebbi Yose. It was found said that neither of them agrees with the other.