Torah Community Connections

Week 78 - Sunday - 20 May 2001

NAZIR: CHAPTER 9: MISHNAH 1

Non-Jews may not undertake nezirut. Women and slaves may undertake nezirut. Greater stringency applies to women than to slaves, for one may compel his slave, but he cannot compel his wife. Greater stringency applies to slaves than to women, for one may revoke his wife's vows, but he cannot revoke his slave's vows. If he revoked his wife's - he revoked permanently. If he revoked his slave's, he went free - he completes his nezirut. If he passed before his face - Rabbi Meir says, He may not drink, and Rabbi Yose says, He may drink.

Kehati

Non-Jews may not undertake nezirut - as it is written, "Speak to the children of Israel" (Num. 6:2), from which it was learned that the children of Israel may undertake nezirut, but non-Jews may not undertake a nezirut. And if a non-Jew undertook nezirut he is not subject to its laws, and he is permitted to drink wine and to become unclean by contact with the dead.

Women and slaves may undertake nezirut - for their nezirut vow is valid; regarding women - as it is written, "If either a man or woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazir (ibid.); regarding servants, as it is written, "Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them" (ibid.), from the additional "and say to them" it was learned that Canaanite servants are included. Greater stringency applies to - the nezirut of - women than to - that of slaves, for one - a master, may compel his slave - to violate the nezirut which he has taken, and compel him against his will to drink wine and to become unclean by contact with the dead, but he - a husband cannot compel his wife - to violate her nezirut, unless he revoked her vow on the day he heard it. Greater stringency applies to - the nezirut of - slaves than to that of women, for one - a husband may revoke his wife's vows - on the day he heard them, and cancel her nezirut, but he cannot revoke his slave's vows - even though he may compel him to violate the nezirut which he undertook, he cannot revoke his vow, and if his master does not compel him, the servant is obligated to fulfill his nezirut (Hameiri).

If he revoked his wife's - he revoked permanently - for vows of self-denial revoked by the husband are completely revoked, even after she leaves his authority. If he revoked his slave's- i.e., he compelled him to violate the nezirut, if - he - the slave, went free, then he completes his nezirut - that he had undertaken while he was a slave.

Rambam interprets this as follows: "If he revoked his slave's, he went free" - if one said to his slave, "It is revoked for you," his (the master's) rights expired, and his slave goes free, and he is obligated to complete his nezirut, i.e., Rambam's version of the mishnah reads "and he completes his nezirut" (see also Hasagat Haravad on Rambam, Hil. Nezirut 2:18).

If - after the slave undertook nezirut, he passed before his face - he ran away from his master, Rabbi Meir says, He may not drink - wine, and Rabbi Yose says, He may drink - the Gemara explains the reason for their disagreement: according to Rabbi Meir, we penalize him to fulfill his nezirut, so that he will regret and return to his master, who will compel him to violate his vow, and he will be permitted wine; and Rabbi Yose holds that he is permitted to drink, even not in the presence of his master, for wherever the slave is, he is considered to be his master's property, and he is prohibited from conducting himself with nezirut, so that he should not be thin and weak when he returns to his master.

NAZIR: CHAPTER 9: MISHNAH 2

If a nazir shaved, and it became known to him that he is unclean: if a known uncleanness - he forfeits. And if the uncleanness of the depths - he does not forfeit. If before he shaved - in either case he forfeits. How so? He descended into a cave to immerse himself and a corpse was found floating at the mouth of the cave - unclean. Found sunk in the floor of the cave, he went down to cool himself - clean. To cleanse himself of a corpse related uncleanness -unclean, for one assumed unclean remains unclean, and one assumed clean - remains clean, for there is a basis for the matter.

Kehati

If a person became unclean with a corpse related uncleanness which was buried in a concealed place, of which no one in the world knew, and after he became unclean this corpse was found sunken in its place of concealment, this uncleanness is called "the uncleanness of the depths," i.e., corpse related uncleanness which was not known to anyone, as if it was hidden in the bottommost depths. This mishnah teaches that if a nazir became unclean with "the uncleanness of the depths" before it was discovered, and the uncleanness was discovered only after he had shaved, he does not forfeit his period of nezirut.

If a nazir shaved - after he completed the period of his nezirut and brought his sacrifices, and it became known to him - afterwards, that he is unclean - by a corpse related uncleanness during the period of his nezirut: if - he became unclean with - a known uncleanness - one which was known to people, he forfeits - his period of nezirut, and he must re-count another nezirut. And if - he became unclean with - the uncleanness of the depths - a corpse related uncleanness which was not known to anyone in the world, as was explained in the introduction to this mishnah, he does not forfeit - his nezirut; this is an orally transmitted law ("it is a tradition" - see the Gemara, Naz. 63a; Rambam, Hil. Nezirut 6:16).

But - If - it became known to the nazir - before he shaved - that he is unclean, in either case - whether he became unclean with a known uncleanness or with the uncleanness of the depths, he forfeits - his period of nezirut. The Gemara explains that this mishnah is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that the tiglahat is a crucial precondition, i.e., as long as he has not shaved, he retains the status of nazir; according to the opinion of the Sages, however, since the blood of one of the sacrifices had been sprinkled on him, it no longer renders forfeiture, i.e., if he became unclean with the uncleanness of the depths during the period of his nezirut, and he only found out after the blood of one of his sacrifices was sprinkled on the altar on his behalf, even though he had not yet shaved, it does not render forfeiture. The law is in accordance with the Sages (Rambam, Hil. Nezirut 6:17).

How so - is the law of the uncleanness of the depths? If a nazir became unclean because of a creeping creature, or because of some similar uncleanness, not corpse related, and He descended into a mikveh in a cave to immerse himself and - after he immersed himself, ~ a corpse was found floating at the mouth of the - mikveh in the - cave - on the water, and it is doubtful whether or not he came in contact with the corpse, he is unclean - because this is a known uncleanness, and in a case of questionable uncleanness in the private domain it is assumed to be unclean. The commentaries explain that the mishnah used the wording "He descended to immerse himself" to teach an additional matter: even though it is usual for the person who descends to immerse himself to be meticulous and beware of any unclean thing, nevertheless, the doubtful case is assumed to be unclean, since this is a known uncleanness. But if a corpse is -

Found sunk in the floor of the cave - and this is an uncleanness of the depths, if he went down to cool himself - he was not unclean, and he went down only to cool himself; even though in such a case he is not watchful about becoming unclean, this one is clean - and if it became known to him after his shaving, that he had become unclean because of this corpse beforehand, when he went down to cool himself, he does not forfeit his nezirut, since this is a case of uncleanness of the depths, and if he went down to the cave -

To cleanse himself of a corpse related uncleanness - the nazir had become unclean by contact with a corpse, and went down and immersed in the cave, and afterwards a corpse was found sunken in the floor of the cave, the nazir is unclean - and even if he did not know about this until after he had counted the period of his nezirut and had performed the tiglahat of cleanness, he forfeits his period of nezirut, even though this is a case of uncleanness of the depths, for one assumed unclean - remains unclean, and one assumed clean - remains clean - we evaluate the nazir on the basis of his current status, and say, since he was unclean, then he is assumed to maintain his status of uncleanness until he will perform an immersion that will undoubtedly remove him from his uncleanness, and only one who is assumed to be clean is not removed from his current status by the uncleanness of the depths, for there is a basis for the matter - there is a logical basis for evaluating the nazir on the basis of his current status; it is therefore logical that the halakhah stating that the uncleanness of the depths does not render the nazir unclean, refers only to a nazir who was assumed to be clean, and not when he was assumed to be unclean.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives