MISHNAH. IF A CUP OF WINE DULY TEMPERED1 IS OFFERED TO A MAN, AND HE SAYS, 'I INTEND TO BE A NAZIRITE IN REGARD TO IT,' HE BECOMES A NAZIRITE. ON ONE OCCASION A CUP OF WINE WAS OFFERED TO A WOMAN ALREADY INTOXICATED AND SHE SAID, 'I INTEND TO BE A NAZIRITE IN REGARD TO IT.' THE SAGES RULED THAT ALL THAT SHE MEANT WAS TO FORBID IT TO HERSELF, AS A SACRIFICE [IS FORBIDDEN].
GEMARA. You cite a case to disprove [the rule]! You begin by saying that HE BECOMES A NAZIRITE, and then quote the case of the woman [who does not become a nazirite], from which I should conclude that [by means of this formula] he forbids to himself only this [cup that is offered to him] but is allowed to drink other wine? — There is a hiatus [in the Mishnah], which should read: 'If a cup of wine duly tempered is offered to a man, and he says "I undertake a nazirite vow [to abstain] from it", he becomes a nazirite.' If, however, he was [already] intoxicated when he said 'I intend to be a nazirite [and abstain] from it', he does not become a nazirite,2 (since he is accounted as having merely forbidden it to himself as a sacrifice is forbidden. If you should object that he ought to have said so [unambiguously], [the reply is] that he thought they would bring a fresh one and importune him, and so he thought, 'I will say something to them which will leave them in no doubt [as to my intention]). ON ONE OCCASION, TOO, A WOMAN [ALREADY INTOXICATED etc.].
MISHNAH. [IF A MAN SAYS,] 'I DECLARE MYSELF A NAZIRITE, ON CONDITION THAT I CAN DRINK WINE, OR CAN HAVE CONTACT WITH THE DEAD', HE BECOMES A NAZIRITE, AND ALL THESE THINGS ARE FORBIDDEN HIM. [IF HE SAYS,] 'I WAS AWARE THAT THERE IS SUCH A THING AS NAZIRITESHIP BUT I WAS NOT AWARE THAT A NAZIRITE IS FORBIDDEN TO DRINK WINE', HE IS BOUND [TO HIS VOW].3 R. SIMEON, HOWEVER, RELEASES HIM.4 [IF HE SAYS,] 'I WAS AWARE THAT A NAZIRITE IS FORBIDDEN TO DRINK WINE,5 BUT I IMAGINED THAT THE SAGES WOULD GIVE ME PERMISSION, SINCE I CANNOT DO WITHOUT WINE', OR 'SINCE I AM A SEXTON',6 HE IS RELEASED.7 R. SIMEON, HOWEVER, BINDS HIM [TO HIS VOW].8
GEMARA. Why does R. Simeon not dissent from the first ruling [also]? — R. Joshua b. Levi said: R. Simeon did in fact dissent from the first ruling also. Rabina said: In the opening clause, R. Simeon does not dissent, because the condition [there attached to the vow]9 is contrary to an injunction of the Torah, and whenever a condition is contrary to an injunction of the Torah, it is void.10 R. Joshua b. Levi, on the other hand, considered that the words ON CONDITION here are equivalent to 'except'.11
It has been taught in support of Rabina's view: If he said, 'I declare myself a nazirite, on condition that I may drink wine, or have contact with the dead,' he becomes a nazirite and all these things are forbidden to him, since the condition he lays down is contrary to an injunction of the Torah; and whenever a condition is contrary to an injunction of the Torah, it is void.12
[IF HE SAYS] I WAS AWARE THAT A NAZIRITE IS FORBIDDEN TO DRINK WINE [etc.]: In the preceding clause,13 we find it is [the Rabbis] who bind him [to his vow] and R. Simeon who releases him [and why is it not the same here]? — Here, too, it should read: [The Rabbis] bind him whilst R. Simeon releases.
Alternatively, you need not reverse the text,
Nazir 11b[and we may explain thus]. In the first clause, where he makes a nazirite vow [to abstain] from one thing1 only, according to the Rabbis, who hold that [the nazirite vow takes effect] even though he forswears one thing only, he becomes a nazirite and [the things forbidden to a nazirite] are forbidden to him; whereas according to R. Simeon who holds that [the nazirite vow does not take effect] until he forswears all of them, [all the things forbidden to a nazirite] are permitted to him. In the subsequent clause where he forswears all, and desires release as regards one thing, according to the Rabbis who declare him to be a nazirite even though he forswears one thing only, if he desires release as regards one only, he is released [from all]; according to R. Simeon who requires him to forswear them all, he cannot obtain release from one, until he obtains release from all. This is the reason we have the reading [in the second clause]: R. SIMEON BINDS HIM.
Yet another solution is possible. The controversy concerns vows [broken] under pressure,2 and the difference [between R. Simeon and the Rabbis] is the same as that between Samuel and R. Assi [in the following passage]. For we have learnt: Four types of vows were remitted by the Sages,3 incentive Vows,4 vows of exaggeration,5 inadvertent vows6 and vows [broken] under pressure.7 And [commenting thereon] R. Judah said: 'R. Assi ruled that it was necessary with these four types of vow to seek remission from a Sage. When I told this to Samuel, he said to me, The Tanna says that the Sages have remitted them, and you say that they must still be asked to remit them!' The Rabbis agree with Samuel,8 R. Simeon with R. Assi.9
MISHNAH. [SHOULD A MAN SAY,] 'I DECLARE MYSELF A NAZIRITE AND I UNDERTAKE TO POLL A NAZIRITE',10 AND SHOULD HIS COMPANION, HEARING THIS, SAY: 'I TOO, AND I UNDERTAKE TO POLL A NAZIRITE', THEN, IF THEY ARE CLEVER THEY WILL POLL EACH OTHER; OTHERWISE THEY MUST POLL OTHER NAZIRITES.
GEMARA. The question was propounded: If his companion, on hearing [his vow], says [simply]: 'I TOO', what are the consequences? Does [the remark] 'I TOO' embrace the whole of the original statement,11 or does it embrace only half of it? If it should be decided that it embraces only half of the statement, is this to be the first half or the second half? — Come and hear: [AND HIS COMPANION, HEARING THIS, SAYS:] I TOO, AND I UNDERTAKE TO POLL A NAZIRITE, THEN IF THEY ARE CLEVER THEY WILL POLL EACH OTHER. From the fact that he is made to say both I TOO' and 'I UNDERTAKE, it may be inferred that 'I TOO' has reference to half of the statement only.
Quite so: it has reference to half of the statement only, but is this the first half or the second half? — This follows from the same [passage]. For since he is made to say AND I UNDERTAKE TO POLL'12 it follows that 'I Too' has reference to the first half.
R. Huna, the son of R. Joshua said to Raba: How can we be sure that this is so? May we not suppose that 'I TOO' really refers to the whole statement, and that the additional 'AND I UNDERTAKE', merely confirms his Undertaking? For if you do not admit this, [what do you make of] the subsequent [Mishnah] that reads: [Should a man say:] 'I undertake half the polling of a nazirite', and should his companion, hearing this, say: 'I too, I undertake half the polling of a nazirite'?13 Are there here two sections to which he can be referring? We can only suppose that there he is merely repeating 'I have undertaken this obligation', and in this case too [it is possible] that he is merely repeating 'I have undertaken this obligation.' Raba replied: How now! If you are prepared to say that in the first [Mishnah the words 'I UNDERTAKE etc.'] are of importance, but not in the subsequent one, then they are repeated in the subsequent one — unnecessarily, it is true — because they are included in the first one where it is important,14 but if you maintain that it is of importance neither in the first [Mishnah] nor in the subsequent one, would it be included unnecessarily in both?
R. Isaac b. Joseph citing R. Johanan said: If a man instructs his representative
- To Next Folio -