Torah Community Connections

Week 78 - Tuesday - 22 May 2001

NAZIR: CHAPTER 9: MISHNAH 5

Samuel was a nazir; the words of Rabbi Nehorai, as it is written, "and there shall no morah come upon his head" (I Sam. 1:11); it is written regarding Samson, "u-morah" (Jud. 13:5), and it is written regarding Samuel, "u-morah," just as the morah spoken of concerning Samson implies nazir, so too the morah spoken of concerning Samuel implies nazir. Rabbi Yose said, Is not morah surely that of flesh and blood alone? Rabbi Nehorai said to him, Has it not been written before, "And Samuel said: 'How can I go? If Saul hears it, he will kill me"' (I Sam. 16:2), meaning that the morah of flesh and blood was already up on him.

Kehati

This mishnah, which concludes Tractate Nazir, cites a disagreement of the Tannaim, whether or not the prophet Samuel was a nazir, as it is written of Hannah, the mother of Samuel, "And she vowed a vow, and said: 'O Lord of hosts, if You will look on the affliction of Your handmaid, and remember me, and not forget Your handmaid, but will give unto Your handmaid a child, I will give him unto the Lord all the days of his life, and no morah shall come upon his head" (I Sam. 1:11). The Tannaim disagree regarding the meaning of the word morah, whether it means "razor," or "fear" (yir'ah, or morah). Tosefot Yom Tov writes that since the Sages disagree as to whether Samuel was a nazir or not, Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi placed this topic at the end of the tractate.

Samuel was a nazir - and the person who says, "I am as Samuel," is a nazir; Rambam writes: "Samuel of Ramah was a lifelong nazir, therefore if one says, 'I am as Samuel of Ramah,' 'as the son of Hannah,' 'as the son of Elkanah," as the one who cut Agag in pieces in Gilgal,' and similar wordings, is a lifelong nazir" (Hil. Nezirut 3:16); these are the words of Rabbi Nehorai, as it is written - in the vow of Hannah, "and there shall no morah come upon his head" - we learn from this that Samuel was consecrated to be a nazir, for it is written regarding Samson, "u-morah" - in the words of the angel to Manoah's wife: "For, lo, you shall conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come upon his head; for the child shall be a nazir unto God from the womb" (Jud. 13:5), and it is written regarding Samuel, "u-morah" - as was cited above, just as the "morah" spoken of concerning Samson implies "razor," that no razor shall come upon his head, because he will be a nazir - as it is stated explicitly in the continuation of the verse, "for the child shall be a nazir unto God from the womb," so too, the "morah" spoken of concerning Samuel implies that no razor shall come upon his head, i.e., he will be a nazir - all his life.

Rabbi Yose said, Is not the "morah" - mentioned in reference to Samuel, only - the morah ("fear") - surely that of flesh and blood alone? - i.e., Hannah prayed that the fear of man would not be on him; Targum Yonatan, following this interpretation, translates the verse as follows: "and the fear of man shall not be on him." Rabbi Nehorai said to him - to Rabbi Yose, Has it not already been written, "And Samuel said: 'How can I go? If Saul hears it, he will kill me"' (I Sam. 16:2) - we learn from this that - the morah of flesh and blood already was on him - and if Hannah had in mind the fear of flesh and blood, will you say that her words were not fulfilled? Rather, she undoubtedly had in mind a razor, that shall not come upon his head, and we learn from this that the prophet Samuel was a nazir.

SOTAH: CHAPTER 1: MISHNAH 1

One who warned his wife - R. Eliezer says, He must warn her before two, and make her drink on the testimony of one witness or on his own testimony. R. Yehoshua says, He must warn her before two, and make her drink on the testimony of two.

Kehati

The laws of sotah (suspected adulteress) are explained in the Torah in the weekly reading Naso (Num. 5:11-31). The Sages taught that a woman only becomes a sotah in two ways: through warning and through seclusion. How so by means of warning? It is stated (Num. 5:14): "and the spirit of jealousy passed over him, and he had warned his wife;" whence we learn that if a married woman "secluded" herself with another man, she only becomes a sotah if her husband had first warned her concerning that man, saying: "Do not seclude yourself with so-and-so," i.e., he warned her not to enter a secluded place with a certain man.

How so by means of seclusion? It is stated (ibid. v.13): "She had been secluded and became defiled"; the Sages explained that this "seclusion" means she entered a secret place with the man about whom her husband had warned her, remaining with him long enough to become defiled, in other words, long enough to suspect her of having committed adultery with him. But there are no witnesses that she was defiled, as it is said (in the continuation of the same verse): "and there be none to testify against her," meaning there are no witnesses of her defilement. Such a woman, whose husband had initially warned her about a certain man, and who had then secluded herself with that same person, is considered a sotah; she is suspected of adultery and is forbidden to her husband.

If the wife of a priest, she is forbidden to eat terumah until he makes her drink the "bitter curse-causing waters," as explained (ibid. 5:27-28): "And when he has given her the water to drink and it shall come to pass, if she be defiled, and have betrayed her husband, then the curse-causing waters shall enter her to cause bitterness, and her belly will bloat, and her thigh will fall away; and the woman will be a curse among her people. But if the woman had not become defiled, but is pure; then she shall be exonerated, and produce offspring." Hence, if she is found to be pure, she is permitted to her husband once again, and to eat terumah (if her husband is a priest).

This mishnah teaches how many witnesses are required for the husband's warnings and for the woman's seclusion, for the woman to be considered a sotah.

One who warned his wife - i.e., if a man warns his wife not to seclude herself with a certain man, as explained above, R. Eliezer says, He must warn her before two - there must be two witnesses present before whom he warns his wife. If he does not have two witnesses, this is not considered a warning, and she is not forbidden to him if she secludes herself, and make her drink on the testimony of one witness - should she have secluded herself after he warned her in the presence of two witnesses, he then makes her drink the curse-causing waters, as explained in the Chapter about the sotah, on the testimony of one witness, who testifies that he saw her seclude herself with so-and-so, or on his own testimony - the husband himself comes and says that he saw his wife seclude herself with so-and-so after he had warned her about him, so that there is no need for two witnesses to verify the seclusion. This applies specifically when he has two witnesses to his warning, but if he did not warn her in the presence of two witnesses, even if two people come to testify that she had secluded herself, she does not become a sotah; i.e., he does not make her drink the curse-causing waters, nor is she forbidden to him.

However, the following baraita is cited in the Gemara: "R. Yose b. R. Yehudah says in the name of R. Eliezer: If a man warns his wife, he warns her in the presence of one witness or on his own testimony, and makes her drink on the testimony of two." Following this baraita, R. Hanina of Sura said that a man should not nowadays say to his wife, even privately: "Do not seclude yourself with so-and-so, since "if we take into consideration the opinion of R. Yose b. R. Yehudah, his warning would be considered valid, and should she then seclude herself with that man, she would be forbidden to her husband forever, since we have no curse-causing waters by which to render her permitted.

R. Yehoshua says, He must warn her before two and make her drink on the testimony of two - R. Yehoshua holds that two witnesses are required both for warning and for seclusion, and otherwise she is not a sotah. The Gemara explains that R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua disagreed only about warning and seclusion, but regarding defilement both agree that one witness is believed; that is, if he had warned her and she secluded herself, and a single witness testifies that she defiled herself with that same man, he is believed, and she is forbidden to her husband forever, and does not drink the curse-causing waters.

The Gemara explains that our mishnah refers to: "One who warned his wife," i.e., post factum, since according to the Tanna of this mishnah, a man may not serve such a formal warning that involves him in conflict, and disgraces his wife even though she may be pure (Rashi). However, in a baraita in the Gemara (Sotah 3a), R. Yishmael and R. Akiva disagree about the meaning of "and he warned his wife" - this is optional according to R. Yishmael; R Akiva says: It is obligatory. Rambam rules according to R. Akiva (Hil. Sotah 4:18).

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives