MISHNAH: All substitute names. 6:2 reads: “A man or a woman who clearly intend to vow the vow of a nazir , to become a nazir for the Eternal.” This makes it clear that making a vow of nazir , like any other vow, is implicitly an invocation of God’s name. The speaking of any vow therefore is an invocation of God’s name and this should be avoided; cf. Nedarim 1:1, Note 1 . In this the vow of nazir is not different from any other vow. for nazir vows are like nazir vows. If somebody says “I shall be” he is a nazir , when it can be interpreted as “I shall be like him”. , “I shall be beautiful”, he is a nazir , when it can be interpreted as “I shall be like him”. ; naziq , naziaḥ , paziaḥ ”; Mishnah Nedarim 1:2 . Some of these words have meaning in Arabic: نزق “to be quick (or irritable)”, نزح “to be far away”. , he is a nazir . “I shall be like this one”, when it can be interpreted as “I shall be like him”. , “I shall tend my hair,” “I shall groom my hair”. “I shall be obligated to grow my hair”, he is a nazir . “I have to bring birds”, Rebbi Meїr says, he is a nazir who became impure, Num . 6:10 . , but the Sages say, he is not a nazir with the expectation to break the rules, even if unintentionally. .
HALAKHAH: “All substitute names. 6:2 reads: “A man or a woman who clearly intend to vow the vow of a nazir , to become a nazir for the Eternal.” This makes it clear that making a vow of nazir , like any other vow, is implicitly an invocation of God’s name. The speaking of any vow therefore is an invocation of God’s name and this should be avoided; cf. Nedarim 1:1, Note 1 . In this the vow of nazir is not different from any other vow. for nazir vows are like nazir vows,” etc. “All substitute names for vows are like vows,” etc. It is written “Any person who vows,” why does the verse say “a vow”? From here that substitute names for vows are like vows. “Or he swears,” why does the verse say “an oath”? From here that substitute names for oaths are like oaths. One reads that 1:1, Notes 12–22 . at the start of the first Chapter of Nedarim, up to: Rebbi Ismael stated: “any person who vows a vow of nazir ”. From there that a person can obligate himself as nazir while he currently is a nazir .
It was stated: “All substitute names for nazir vows are like nazir vows, and one whips because of them.” Even though Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip for prohibitions 1:1, Note 36 . , he agrees in this case that he is whipped, such an infringement is punishable by law. . Even though Rebbi Simeon said, he does not bring a sacrifice one cannot bring a sacrifice since the Temple does not accept questionable sacrifices. , he agrees in this case that he be whipped. Even though Rebbi Jehudah said, a questionable nazir vow is permitted. 6:2 . , he agrees in this case that he be whipped. Where do we hold? If he has the intention of becoming a nazir , even if he only said, I shall be a nazir if I mention bread, he is a nazir . Similarly, if he had no intention of becoming a nazir , even if he mentioned nazir , he is no nazir ; for example if he was reading the Torah and mentioned nazir , naziq . But we hold about one who says, I declared my vow of nazir by any of these expressions. If one of them is a valid expression of a vow of nazir , it will fall on him, otherwise, will the vow of nazir not fall on him? One tells him: keep the discipline. 12:28 ; if he had the intention of becoming a nazir , even if he did not use exactly the prescribed language. The same expression is used in the Babli, Menaḥot 81b , regarding a person who makes an irregular vow of a sacrifice. .
“I shall be”. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When he saw nezirim pass by without an implicit or explicit reference to the institution of nazir . The reference may be to a nazir passing by. . If he said “beautiful”, what is the rule? Does he ridicule them or [does he mean] “I shall be like them”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel: Certainly, I shall be like them.
“Or I shall be beautiful”. Where do we hold? If he said “beautiful”, is that not the previous case? When he grabs his hair, is that not what we have stated: “I shall be like this one”, following Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina who holds that “I shall be like this one” refers to the case that he is grabbing his hair. But we must hold that he says, “there is nothing more beautiful than this”.
“ Naziq , naziaḥ , paziq ”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are expressions chosen by earlier generations and nobody has the right to add to them. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: raziaḥ , haziaḥ ? Rebbi Shila said, also to expressions chosen by earlier secondary ones nobody has the right to add. 1:2, Notes 115–120 ( נ ). But did not Bar Qappara state ḥeres ? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, that is a name relating to the High One: “If He commands the sun: would it not shine?”. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, these are Gentile words, like those Nabateans who say khaspa for ḥaspa . Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable in other places, but in a place where the nazir is called naziq , do I say that a nazir of people with speech defects should not be a nazir ?
It was stated: “The House of Shammai say, both substitute names and substitutes of substitutes are forbidden 1:1 (cf. also 1:2); Babli Nedarim 10b . The expression “forbidden” refers to “vows of prohibition” rather than to vows of nazir . . But the House of Hillel say, substitute names are forbidden, substitutes of substitutes are permitted.” What are substitutes of substitutes? Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said, menazaqa , menaziqna , mefaḥazna forms of the accepted roots נזק, פזח. . Rebbi Yose said, these are not substitutes of substitutes, they are really substitute names, for is somebody who said menadarna not a nazir ? But one who says menadarna by pi‘el (such as מְהַלֵּךְ for הוֹלֵך), an unusual pi‘el form for נדר “to make a vow” (and equally, for נזר “to vow to be a nazir ”) is valid speech. The form מנזדנא used here makes no sense; most probably one has to read מְנַזַּרְנָא as in the preceding sentence. is like one who said mefaḥazna . Following Rebbi Yose, these are substitutes of substitutes, as we have stated: “I have to bring birds’, Rebbi Meïr says, he is a nazir , but the Sages say, he is not a nazir . “Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of substitutes of substitutes: “Until his hair became mighty as an eagle’s and his fingernails like those of birds.”
“I shall be like this one”; Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, if he grabs [a nazir ’s] hair and says, “I shall be like this one.” was standing nearby and the person making the vow pointed to him. “I shall tend my hair, I shall groom my hair”. If he says, I shall be of those who have to tend or grow their hair is characterized by his long hair, saying that one wants to be “of those who grow their hair” is a clear vow of nazir . . “I shall tend my hair and I shall groom my hair”, if he says I shall neither tend nor grow my hair for less than thirty [days], he means thirty is 30 days. Therefore, mentioning 30 days in a statement regarding hair is a statement of nezirut . . “It shall be my obligation neither to tend nor to grow my hair,” if he says, it shall be my obligation neither to tend nor to grow my hair more than thirty [days], he means thirty. “I shall be obligated to grow my hair”, means “I shall tend my hair, I shall groom my hair”. Or “It shall be my obligation neither to tend nor to groom my hair, but to let it grow wildly.”
“ ‘I have to bring birds’, Rebbi Meïr says, he is a nazir , but the Sages say, he is not a nazir .” Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of substitutes of substitutes: “Until his hair became mighty as an eagle’s and his fingernails like those of birds.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, because an impure nazir brings birds. 6:10 . But no pure person would entertain the idea of becoming a nazir if he expects to become impure since that could extend his period of nezirut indefinitely. . Does he bring birds? He brings turtledoves or young pigeons. There are some Tannaïm who state that all pure birds are called צפור, and there are some Tannaïm who state that all birds, whether pure or impure, are called צפור. He who says that all pure birds are called צפור, “you may eat any pure bird. 14:11 . In Scripture, צפור is feminine. .” He who says that all birds, whether pure or impure, are called צפור, “say to any winged bird. 39:14 . . “What is the rabbi’s reason? He is like somebody offering birds for the upkeep of the Temple. 1:14–17 ) but a couple can be given only as an obligatory sacrifice, i. e., a reparation or a purification sacrifice. These can never be given voluntarily, as result of a vow. Since the vow was formulated for birds , not a bird , it is concluded that the birds have to be given to the Temple for its upkeep, to be sold to persons needing them for obligatory sacrifices, with the proceeds given to the Temple treasury. . What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? He is like somebody offering a reparation sacrifice for the upkeep of the Temple or those required of the person guilty of larceny ( Lev . 5:14–16 , 21–26 ). Since it is impossible to think that a person should want to commit larceny for religious purposes, the state of nazir is the only alternative. . What is the difference between them? If somebody says, “I take upon myself to bring a reparation sacrifice.” In the opinion of Rebbi Meïr he is a nazir since one cannot bring a reparation sacrifice for the upkeep of the Temple. In the opinion of the rabbis he is a nazir since an impure nazir brings a reparation sacrifice a nazir ”; since no person would accept nezirut with the prospect of an indefinite duration unless he spells this out clearly at the start, the vow is invalid because it is unrealistic. If one keeps the original wording, the rabbis and R. Meїr agree not only on the result but also on the reasoning behind it. .
MISHNAH: “I am off grape kernels. 6:4 : “During the period of his vow, he may eat nothing which can be made from wine-grapes, neither kernels nor skin.” Anybody who prohibits to himself anything characteristically forbidden to a nazir makes a vow of nazir (unless explicitly disawoved in the same breath) and is subject to all its rules. ,” or “off grape skin,” or “off hair shaving,” or “off impurity”; he is a nazir and all rules of nezirut apply to him. “I am like Samson ben Manoaḥ, like Dalilah’s husband, like the one who lifted the gates of Gaza, like the one blinded by the Philistines,” he is a Samson- nazir follows the rules not of Num . 6 but of Jud . 13:1 , 5 , 14 : His vow is life-long; he is forbidden wine and any intoxicating drink, and cannot shear his hair. He does not have to avoid the impurity of the dead. . What is the difference between a nazir in perpetuity. 6 for the rest of his life. and a Samson- nazir ? If the hair of a nazir in perpetuity becomes heavy, he shaves it off with a knife and brings three animals period, as prescribed in Num . 6:13–20 , except that at the end of the ceremony he cannot drink wine but immediately starts the next period. The frequency of his shaving is a matter of dispute in the Halakhah. ; if he becomes impure, he brings a sacrifice of impurity. If the hair of a Samson- nazir becomes heavy, he does not shave; if he becomes impure, he does not bring a sacrifice of impurity.
HALAKHAH: “I am a nazir off grape kernels,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “either off grape kernels,” or “off grape skin,” or “off hair shaving,” or “off impurity” if only one of the expressions mentioned were used. One should not translate: “I am off grape kernels and off grape skin and off hair shaving and off impurity”, implying that he only is a nazir if he recited the entire catalogue. In the Babli, 3b , the latter is the opinion of R. Simeon. . If he mentioned nazir with any one of them, following Rebbi Jehudah only if he mentioned “and”, but following Rebbi Meïr even if he did not mention “and” 9:7, Notes 85–101 , mainly in Notes 93–95 . According to R. Jehudah, if he makes a vow to become a nazir and then adds “and forbidden kernels, and forbidden skins, and forbidden haircuts, and forbidden impurity”, each “and” implies a new vow for an additional period of nezirut . According to R. Meïr, just reciting the catalogue adds a new obligation for each item listed, even if the items are not connected by “and”. .
“I am a nazir and a nazir ;” he is two times a nazir , for he could have said, “ “I am a nazir .” “I am a nazir , nazir ,” two. “I am a nazir , once, and repeated,” he is four times a nazir if he said “I am a nazir , once” by the preceding argument, the repetition would apply to all that precedes it. . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, “as they”, eight. “Like they,” sixteen. Following Symmachos, he is a nazir four times, דיגין three times, דריגון ( sic! ) two times. The problem of identifying the numerals is complicated by Babli (8b , Baba batra 164b ): Symmachos says, hen is 1, digon 2, trigon 3, tetragon 4, pentagon 5. The rabbis have stated: A circular house, or one digon, trigon, pentagon , is not subject to the laws of leprosy of houses ( Lev. 14:33–53 ); a house built tetragon is subject to those laws. (A text similar to the last sentence is in Tosefta Nega‘im 6:3; Mishnah Nega‘im 12:1 mentions only a round house and a trigon house.) In Baba batra , the word digon is further determined by the note that of the two consuls ( Archontes ), the one who is not eponymous is called archon digon (in the interpretation of the commentary ascribed to R. Gershom, a person “appointed archon for the second time”.) Under the influence of the Babli, the dictionaries, starting with the 11th Cent. Arukh , have identified the words digon, trigon, tetragon used by Symmachos with the same words used in the Tosephta of Nega‘im . Now it is clear that in the latter Tosephta, trigon corresponds to τρίγωνος “triangular”, tetragon is τετράγωνος “quadrilateral, square”, and pentagon to πεντάγωνος “pentagonal”. In spherical geometry, there exists a notion of digon , but this cannot be traced back earlier than the 17th Cent.; it is a notion foreign to the spirit of Greek mathematics. S. Lieberman ( Tosefta kiFshutah Nazir p. 504) has recognized correctly that a word δίγωνον does not exist in classical or Byzantine Greek. Therefore, the talmudic digon cannot be translated “bi-angular”. The word is more likely to be δίγονος “double, twin”, which certainly makes sense in the statements about nazir and archon ( archon digon “associate archon ”). In parallel, the words trigon and tetragon used for the nazir’s vow have well documented non-geometric meanings τρίγωνος “threefold”, τετράγωνος “fourfold”. There only remains the problem of explaining the word digon used in Tosephta Nega‘im . It cannot mean “biangle” since a house with only two corners automatically must have curved walls and is excluded as a “round house”. Since “house” (at least in the Babli) as a rule means “one-room house”, it could be that the Tosephta excludes multi-room dwellings from the laws of the leprous house, referring here also to δίγονος. : “ Tetragon , four; trigon , three; digon , two.”
“I am” is a handle 1:1, Note 67 , a handle of a vow is an expression of a vow used in disregard of the formal rules of vows. for nezirut , “I am obligated” is a handle for qorban . . 1:1, Notes 75–77 . Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: one catches him because of a handle for qorbān . Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, if he said, I shall not eat from you, does one catch him because of a handle of an oath? Rebbi Yose said, , the text between people … people is missing. people usually say “an oath that I shall not eat from yours;” do they ever say “that I shall not eat from yours, an oath”? Rebbi Mattaniah said, people usually say “handle of an axe”; do they ever say “axe of a handle”?
“I did not vow as a nazir ,” he is permitted but immediately puts in a disclaimer, he is free from all rules of nazir . . “I already had been a nazir ,” he is forbidden might want to be a nazir for a second time. . Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Avina, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If somebody says, I am like ‘orlah juice to Tractate ‘Orlah . , he did not say anything,” if somebody declares that ‘orlah juice is forbidden to him he is not a nazir since ‘orlah juice is forbidden to any Jew. . The colleagues say, that follows Rebbi Simeon in a disagreement. As we have stated there 3:5. : “If somebody said, an oath that I shall not eat, but he ate carcass or torn meat, abominations or crawling things, he is guilty. But Rebbi Simeon declares him free from prosecution.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, they disagree if it is an inclusive statement. But if it is a detailed statement (3:3; Babli 22b , 23b ) this is a matter of dispute and is asserted only by R. Joḥanan (supported in the Babli by Rav and Samuel) but denied by R. Simeon ben Laqish. , everybody agrees that no oath can be applied to prohibitions. And here, we consider an inclusive statement. Rebbi Yudan said, one is about vows, the other about oaths. Vows can be applied to prohibitions but no oaths can be applied to prohibitions 2:2, Note 30 . .
“Just as substitute names for nazir vows are like nazir vows, so substitute names for Samson [vows] are like Samson [vows].” What are substitute names for Samson [vows]? Rebbi Avina said, Šimšok, Šimšor, Šimšoṣ.
From here in perpetuity. , “if his hair became heavy”: Rebbi in perpetuity can bring the required sacrifices in order to shave his hair only if it really is heavy, follows Rebbi. . For Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Immi: The words of Rebbi: A nazir in perpetuity shaves once in twelve months. The words of the Sages: A nazir in perpetuity sometimes shaves every thirty days and is automatically assumed to be the period intended if nothing else is specified. , sometimes once in twelve months. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Assi: It says so: “I am a nazir like the hair on my head, like the dust of the earth, or like the sand of the sea. He is a nazir in perpetuity and shaves every thirty days. Rebbi says, this one does not shave every thirty days,” but once in twelve months. “Who is one who shaves every thirty days? If he says, I am obligated for nezirut like the hair on my head, like the dust of the earth, or like the sand of the sea. is 30 days. He requires the vow to state that the person making the vow intends a multitude of vows (each one implying a major expense for three sacrifices). But a reference to the hair on his head is for him a reference to a big tuft of hair, just as a reference to the dust of the earth is to a mound of earth. The Sages hold that the language used implies a reference to a multitude of separate things (hairs, dust particles, sand grains). ” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, they differ if it was not made explicit. Where do we hold? If he says, “the fullness of my hair”, everybody agrees that he shaves once every thirty days. If he says, “the number of the hairs on my head,” everybody agrees that he shaves after twelve months shave his hair after 12 months, provided he offers the three prescribed sacrifices. But if he refers to the “number of hairs on his head”, he refers to a very great number of separate neziriot , and he can fulfill his obligation only by always offering his sacrifices at the earliest possible moment, after 30 days. He must shave every 30 days. . But we must hold that he says “like hair”. Rebbi says, “the fullness of my hair”. But the rabbis say, he means “the number of the hairs on my head.” And here, why? Why did the man not make the vow? He only encourages himself to avoid prohibitions in perpetuity. . In addition, from the following: “Rebbi Jehudah added: If he said, like that which is collected in the fig harvest, or like sheaves in a Sabbatical year, or like stars in the sky, he is a nazir in perpetuity and shaves every thirty days.” Could you say that Rebbi Jehudah follows the rabbis? He holds with Rebbi, as Rebbi Jehudah added: 3:16 : R. Jehudah the Prince (= Rebbi). In Mekhilta deR. Ismael, Širah 2: R. Jehudah; Mekhilta deR . Simeon ben Ioḥai , p. 75: R. Jehudah the Prince. The Yerushalmi rejects the attribution to Rebbi. Since R. Jehudah admits that a nazir in perpetuity shaves only once a year, he must agree with Rebbi. “Absalom was a nazir in perpetuity and shaved every twelve months.” What is the reason? Because of nezirut . But that would mean for the rabbis that he shaved every thirty days; that is what we have stated: “I am a nazir the house full, or a chest full. One checks him out.” It was stated on that: He shaves every thirty days. But here he said, he shaved every twelve months in perpetuity, it follows that R. Ze‘ira could not be correct when he stated that the rabbis agree that “the fullness of my hair” implies even for the rabbis that he only shaves every 12 months since there is no visible difference between “the fullness of my hair” and “a chest full”. .
If he had counted six months when he became impure has to start his nezirut after he underwent the purification ritual ( Num . 6:12 ). But a nazir in perpetuity has nothing to count; the rules of the regular nazir are no help in answering the question. , does he count another six months or does he start anew counting twelve months? If he completed his term as nazir but did not manage to shave until two or three days had passed when he became impure again, Mishnah 3:4 . . Rebbi Mani asked: Since he did not sanctify his hair, but what permits him to shave: מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא קִידֵּשׁ שְׂעָרוֹ בְּדָם מִי מַתִּירוֹ לְגַלֵּחַ “Since he did not sanctify his hair by blood (i. e., by the prescribed triple sacrifice) what permits him to shave? ? “I am a nazir after two days, already a nazir in perpetuity.” Since he may shave, he is a nazir . “I am a nazir after [20] days, already a nazir in perpetuity.” Since he may shave, is he a nazir , or since if he became impure he has no time to cancel, is he no nazir ? in perpetuity. The question is whether the introductory nezirut represents a valid vow. If the dates are chosen so that the nezirut in perpetuity starts immediately after the end of the regular nazir period, he would be able to fulfill all conditions of that period, which include shaving his head and burning the hair under the well-being offering. But if he should become impure during that time and has to start again, he would not be able at the end of the period to shave his head, and, therefore, could not fulfill the requirements for the triple sacrifice at that time. This might invalidate the first vow. No answer is given; the problem is to be resolved in the future if sacrifices are renewed in a rebuilt Temple. Similarly, the problem remains open in the Babli, 14a . .
“I am a nazir after 30 days, but already a Samson- nazir .” Rebbi Ḥinena said, it is reasonable that the Torah nezirut should preëmpt the Samson- nezirut , including its shaving, as if the Samson- nezirut did not exist. . What is the reason? “Thus he shall proceed, following the Torah of his nazir vow;. 6:21 . ” if his nazir vow follows the Torah. This excludes Samson- nezirut which is not from the Torah.
. “If he becomes impure, he does not bring a sacrifice of impurity.” He only said, “he does not bring a sacrifice of impurity.” But is he whipped. ? The Mishnah follows Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah is formulated in parallel to the sentence about the nazir in perpetuity who is forbidden to become impure. : A Samson- nazir makes himself impure for the dead, since Samson himself was making himself impure for the dead. Rebbi Simeon says, if somebody said, “as Samson”, he did not say anything, since the quality of nazir was not brought on by his mouth. . What is the reason? “By the word of his nazir -vow”. 6:21 . In the Biblical text: כְּפִי נִדְרוֹ “by the mouth of his vow”. . Any whose quality of nazir was brought on by his mouth; this excludes Samson -nezirut which was not brought on by his mouth but by the Word. What is the reason? “For the lad will be God’s nazir from the womb.. 13:5 . ”
MISHNAH: An unspecified nezirut is for thirty days. If he said, I shall be a nazir once large, I shall be a nazir once small, even from here to the end of the world. From Mishnah 6 (cf. Note 106 ) it is clear that he said “I shall be nazir once from here to the end of the world.” , he is a nazir for 30 days. I shall be a nazir [and] one day, I shall be a nazir [and] one hour, I shall be a nazir one and a half times, he is a nazir two times. I am a nazir for thirty days and one hour, he is a nazir for 31 days since a nazir vow cannot be made for hours. 6:13 ) speaks of “fulfilling the days of his nazir vow.” Since he said “30 days and …”, he has to bring the three sacrifices after 30 days, shave, and observe a second period of thirty days. But if he said “30+ x days”, he observes 30+ x days and only then brings the sacrifices. .
HALAKHAH: “An unspecified nezirut is for thirty days,” etc. Bar Qappara said “ιʼεʼιʼεʼ” is thirty. 6:5 : “Until the fulfillment of the days he shall be holy”. Since the verse mentions “the fulfillment of the days”, it must refer to a fixed number; but none is indicated. The number is found by interpreting “he shall be” יהיה in the Alexandrian numbering system using letters as numbers. Since י (ι) = 10, ה (ε) = 5, the sum is 2∙10+2∙5 = 30. (In the Babli, 5a and Sanhedrin 22b , this is attributed to Rav Mattanah; in Sifry Deut . 25 it is a gloss.) . Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Corresponding to the 29 times that in the Chapter about the nazir in the Torah is written “vow, nazir , to vow as nazir ”. Are they not 30? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one has to be removed for its definition can be explained, the notion of nazir has to be defined. . In the opinion of Bar Qappara, if he shaved on the 30th day, he did not fulfill his obligation. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan 22b , R. Samuel bar Naḥman reports a similar statement in the name of R. Joḥanan.) , if he shaved on the 30th day, he fulfilled his obligation. Some want to understand it from here: “To let his head’s hair grow wildly.. 6:5 . ” How much is a hair growth? 30 days. Some want to understand it from here: “She shall cry for her father and her mother the days of a month. 21:13 . The argument is based on the doctrine of uniqueness of lexemes, viz. , that a word used in the Torah has one and only one meaning: A meaning established in one place can be transferred to any other. Cf. Berakhot 1:1, Note 70 . .” Since “days” mentioned there are 30, so also “days” mentioned here. Some want to understand it from here: . 6:12 . “The prior days shall fall, for his nezirut is impure.” The days which became permitted, which Moses and his court had permitted. 10:6 ), which otherwise they would have done for the customary period of 30 days (cf. Num . 20:29 , Deut . 34:8 ). , and that is no less than 30 days. Some want to understand it from here: “Until the days are fulfilled. 6:5 . ”. How much are full days? 30 days. Then if he shaved on the 30th day, he did not fulfill his obligation! Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, “days” are written defectively יָמִם, with a letter י missing.
There for the greater number of 30 days or the days one needs to get to place X. Why is the person who is a nazir to the end of the world not a nazir in perpetuity? Cf. Note 89 . The same explanation is in the Babli, 7a . , we have stated: “I am a nazir from here to place X”, and here, he says so? There is a difference, for he said “once”.
Rav said: “I am a nazir for 30 days and one day was not mentioned and, therefore, the addition was something new, here nazir is mentioned and it is not clear whether the addition is a new vow. ,” he is a nazir twice since he could have said “31 days”. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “I shall be a nazir [and] one day, I shall be a nazir [and] one hour, I shall be a nazir one and a half times, he is a nazir two times.” What could he have said, “30, and an hour” “and an hour”. Since the Mishnah says that if he said “for 30 days and one hour” he is a nazir for 31 days and the mention of “days” does not finish the sentence; each sentence has to be analyzed to determine as to which expressions are covered by nazir . ? A baraita disagrees with the rabbis: Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba did not disagree about one who said, “I am a nazir 30 days and one day,” that he is a nazir only once. Where do they disagree? About one who said, “I am a nazir 30 days and in addition one day,” where Rebbi Ismael said, he is a nazir twice, but Rebbi Aqiba said, he is a nazir only once.
MISHNAH: “I am a nazir like the hair on my head, like the dust of the earth, or like the sand of the sea.” He is a nazir in perpetuity and shaves every thirty days. Rebbi says, this one does not shave every thirty days. Who is one who shaves every thirty days? If he says, “I am obligated for nezirut like the hair on my head, like the dust of the earth, or like the sand of the sea is 30 days. He requires the vow to state that the person making the vow intends a multitude of vows (each one implying a major expense for three sacrifices). But a reference to the hair on his head is for him a reference to a big tuft of hair, just as a reference to the dust of the earth is to a mound of earth. The Sages hold that the language used implies a reference to a multitude of separate things (hairs, dust particles, sand grains). .” “I am a nazir a house full, s. v. פונדק, the reading is מְלֹא חָבית “an amphora full”. , or a chest full.” One checks him out. If he said, I made one large vow of nazir , he is a nazir for 30 days. But if he said, I made an unspecified vow of nazir , one considers the chest as filled with mustard seed and he is a nazir all his days.
HALAKHAH: If somebody says, I am obligated as nazir , etc. Rebbi Manni said, one increases the severity, ending with practically limitless number. . At the start one looks at it as if full of etrogim , after that pomegranates, after that walnuts, after that filberts, after that pepper kernels, after that sesame seeds, after that mustard seed.
Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: If somebody sets a term to his state of nazir , one does not allow him to shave, at the end of which he brings his sacrifices and shaves, and this even if the term he indicated probably exceeds his lifetime. . And it was stated thus: “I am a nazir all my days, I am a nazir in perpetuity in perpetuity” is missing here; it does appear in the parallels. ; 100 years, or 200 years, he is not a nazir in perpetuity for 100 or 200 years, not obligated for any sacrifices but not allowed to shave in the meantime. .”
MISHNAH: “I am a nazir from here to place X.” One estimates how many days it is from here to place X. If less than thirty days, he is a nazir for 30 days, otherwise for the count of the days. “I am a nazir according to the count of the days of the year, he counts nezirut in the count of the days of a year. Rebbi Jehudah said, this happened, and after he had finished, he died.
HALAKHAH: “ “I am a nazir from here to place X,” etc. Where do we hold? If in the count of a solar year, 365 neziriot following the count of a solar year. If in the count of a lunar year, 354 neziriot following the count of a lunar year. But “the count of the days of a year” is problematic, Northvale 1998.) In the Babli, 8b , and the Tosephta, 1:3 , the cases of solar and lunar years are stated as a baraita . The formulation of the Yerushalmi Mishnah, referring simply to “a year” is not found in any of these parallel sources. At this point, the scribe of the ms. wrote גרש ההלכתא קדמייתא דרישא דנדרים עד מטי סופא דהילכתא “One reads here from the the first Halakhah at the start of Nedarim until the end of the Halakhah.” This was deleted by the corrector who prepared the ms. for the printer and inserted the text ( Nedarim 1:1, Notes 93–102 ). The differences in readings are due to the corrector who probably was influenced by his training in the Babylonian Talmud. The main baraita , the story of Simeon the Just, also appears in the Tosephta, 4:7 ; Babli, 4b , Nedarim 9b ; Sifry Naśo 12; Num . rabba 10(7 ). .
It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: This man was destined for death, only his nezirut suspended it.
The Mishnah follows Rebbi Jehudah since it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah , the ancient pious ones desired to bring a purification offering, but the Omnipresent did not let a sin happen to them; so they made a vow of nazir in order to be able to bring a purification offering. Rebbi Simeon says, they became sinners because they made a vow of nazir , for it was said: “He shall atone for himself for what he sinned about the person,” that one sinned against his own person because he barred himself from [drinking] wine. It turns out that the position of Simeon the Just parallels Rebbi Simeon. As it was stated: Simeon the Just said, I never ate the reparation offering of a nazir except once. Once a man came to me from the South, I saw that he was handsome, with beautiful eyes and good looks, and his hair in waves. I said to him, my son, what induced you to cut off that beautiful hair? He said to me: Rabbi, I was a shepherd in my village and I went to fill the water vessel with water when I saw my mirror image in the water and my instinct rushed over me and tried to remove me from the World. I said to it, wicked! You are rushing me to something which is not yours; it is upon me to sanctify you to Heaven! I embraced him, kissed him on his head and said, my son, there should be many more in Israel who fulfill the Omnipresent’s will like you. About you the verse says, “man or woman, if he clearly articulates vowing a vow of nazir , to be a nazir for the Eternal.” Rebbi Mana asked: Why following Simeon the Just, even following Rebbi Simeon? Did Simeon the Just never eat a purification offering for suet? Did Simeon the Just never eat a purification offering for blood? Simeon the Just holds that people make a vow while they are upset. Since they make the vow while they are upset, in the end, they wonder. But if he wonders, his sacrifices become similar to one of those who slaughtered profane animals in the Temple courtyard. But this one made a well thought-out dedication, when his mouth and his thoughts were in unison.