Torah Community Connections

Week 76 - Wednesday - 9 May 2001

NAZIR: CHAPTER 5: MISHNAH 3

If one vowed to be a nazir and inquired of a Sage, and he prohibited him- he counts from the time that he vowed. He inquired of a Sage and he permitted him: if he had a designated animal - it may go out and graze with the flock. Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai, Do you not admit here where it is erroneous hekdesh, that it may go out and graze with the flock? Bet Shammai said to them, Do you not admit that one who erred and called the ninth tenth, and the tenth ninth, and the eleventh tenth, that it is consecrated? Bet Hillel said to them, It was not the rod which consecrated it. And if he erred and placed the rod on the eighth and the twelfth, had he perhaps effected something? But the verse that consecrated the tenth also consecrated the ninth and the eleventh.

Kehati

If one vowed to be a nazir - and thought that his wording did not constitute nezirut, and acted permissively regarding his vow, and drank wine, and after some time inquired of a Sage - about his vow, and he - the Sage, prohibited him - i.e., he said to him that his wording constituted the wording of nezirut, and he is prohibited from violating his vow, he counts from the time that he vowed - the Gemara explains, "like from the time he vowed," i.e., he recounts the number of days of his nezirut from the time he inquired of a Sage as the number of days which passed from the time he had taken the vow; for since he violated his vow during those days, they are not included for him within the count, for the Sages penalized him, that he is obligated to observe the prohibitions the same number of days as those during which he acted permissively, as is taught in a baraita (in the Gemara): "Whoever took a nazir his vow and violated his nezirut, they do not respond to him (to annul his vow or to bring his sacrifices - Rabbeinu Asher), unless he counts a prohibited period equal to the [number of] days in which he acted permissively." Rabbi Yose, however, holds (in the baraita in the Gemara) that if he undertook nezirut for an extended period, and violated nezirut for more than thirty days, he is only obligated to count thirty days in their stead.

Other commentators interpret this mishnah literally: "he counts from the hour that he vowed" - since he violated his nezirut unintentionally, for he did not know that he was a nazir, according to Torah law he therefore counts the period of nezirut from the time that he took the vow. According to Rabbinical law, however (according to the baraita), he observes the prohibitions the same number of days as those during which he acted permissively (Rambarn; see also Bartenura and Tosefot Yom Tov). He inquired of a Sage and he permitted him - the Sage told him that the wording of his vow did not constitute the wording of nezirut, and he is not a nazir at all: if he had a designated animal - for he thought that the obligations of nezirut apply to him, and before he inquired of the Sage he designated animals for his nazir sacrifices. What should he do with his animal after he inquired of the Sage and the latter permitted him? It may go out and graze with the flock - with the other non-consecrated animals, for the consecration was not valid, since the designation was erroneous.

Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai, Do you not admit here where it is erroneous hekdesh, that it may go out and graze with the flock? - do you not admit that this animal, which was erroneously designated, is not hekdesh? And why do you disagree above (in the previous mishnayot), and hold that erroneous hekdesh is hekdesh?

Bet Shammai said to them- Bet Shammai did not intend to reply to Bet Hillel's question, for Bet Shammai hold that the law mentioned here, "It may go out and graze with the flock," is not due to the erroneous intent of the vower, but rather because it became clear that he never was a nazir in the first place, and he could not have consecrated the nazir sacrifice; rather they ask Bet Hillel about the latter's opinion that erroneous hekdesh is invalid: Do you not admit that one who erred - regarding animals tithes, about which it is written, "all that passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred unto the Lord" (Lev. 27:32), and he erroneously placed the rod on the ninth sheep, and called the ninth tenth, and the tenth ninth, and the eleventh tenth, do you not admit - that it is consecrated? - Do you not hold that the ninth sheep, and the eleventh sheep, which he called "tenth," are each consecrated with the sanctity of the animal tithes, even though consecrated erroneously? For it was taught in a baraita: From where do we know that if he called the ninth tenth, and the tenth ninth, and the eleventh tenth, that the three of them are consecrated? Because the verse teaches, 'And all the tithes of the herd or the flock, all that passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred unto the Lord' - to include all of them"; this then is proof that erroneous hekdesh is valid.

Bet Hillel said to them - we cannot bring proof from tithing animals to the issue of erroneous hekdesh, for regarding tithing animals, It was not the rod - which he erroneously placed on the ninth sheep and on the eleventh sheep, which consecrated it - as the animal tithe. And if he erred and placed the rod on the eighth and the twelfth - and called them tenth, had he perhaps effected something? - Do you not admit that they are not consecrated? surely according to your opinion, by right they also should be consecrated, for "erroneous hekdesh is hekdesh." What is the reason that only the ninth and the eleventh are consecrated? But the verse that consecrated the tenth - sheep - the same verse also consecrated the ninth and the eleventh - i.e., included also the ninth and the eleventh, which are in proximity to the tenth, so that if he erroneously called them tenth, they also are consecrated as animal tithes, as was explained above. This is a Torah decree, and we cannot use it as a proof regarding erroneous hekdesh which is never valid.

NAZIR: CHAPTER 5: MISHNAH 4

Whoever vowed nezirut and went to bring his animal, and found that it was stolen: if he undertook nezirut before his animal was stolen - then he is a nazir; and if he vowed nezirut after his animal had been stolen - he is not a nazir. And this is the error made by Nahum the Mede: when nezirim came up from the Exile and found the Temple destroyed, Nahum the Mede said to them: "If you had known that the Temple was destroyed, would you have vowed nezirut?" They said to him, "No!" And Nahum the Mede released them. And when the matter came before the Sages, they said to him, Whoever vowed nezirut before the Temple was destroyed - nazir; and after the Temple was destroyed - he is not a nazir.

Kehati

Whoever vowed nezirut - assuming that he would bring the nazir sacrifices from the animals in his possession, and went to bring his animal - i.e., the three animals which he is obligated to offer when completing nezirut (Rambarn), and found that it was stolen - all his animals or even only one of them (Rambarn, Hil. nezirut 2:2; Tosefot Yom Tov), and he therefore changed his mind about his vow and came to a Sage to annul his nezirut on the grounds of regret, for he says, "If I had known that my animal would be stolen, I would not have vowed nezirut, for I do not have the means to purchase another sacrifice,"if he undertook nezirut before his animal was stolen - then he is a nazir - and the Sage may not annul his vow on the grounds of regret, for the matter of the theft is something that arose after the vow, and it has been taught that an unusual development is not grounds for annulment (Ned. 9:2); and if he vowed nezirut after his animal was stolen - if the animal was no longer in his possession at the time he vowed, and he vowed erroneously on the assumption that the animal was in his possession and he could offer it as a nazir sacrifice, he is not a nazir - i.e., the Sage may annul his nezirut on the grounds of regret.

And this is the error made by Nahum the Mede - who held that even an unusual development is a basis for annulment (Tosafot): when nezirim - who had adopted nezirut before the destruction of the Temple, came up from the Exile - in order to complete their period of nezirut and to offer the nazir sacrifices in the Temple, and found the Temple destroyed - and they came before Nahum the Mede, so that he would annul their vow, for otherwise they would face lifelong nezirut, for they could not bring their nazir sacrifices, Nahum the Mede said to them: "If you had known that the Temple was destroyed, would you have vowed nezirut?" They said to him, "No! - if we had known this, we would not have vowed nezirut, because we would not have wanted to face lifelong nezirut, And Nahum the Mede released them - from their vows on these grounds.

And when the matter came before the Sages, they said to him, Whoever vowed nezirut before the Temple was destroyed - is a nazir - i.e., his vow may not be annulled in the manner in which Nahum the Mede annulled, for the destruction of the Temple also is an "unusual development", and may not be used as grounds for annulment; and - whoever undertook nezirut - after the Temple was destroyed - but did not know this, and vowed on the assumption that the Temple exists, he is not a nazir - for this is an erroneous nezirut, and this is a valid ground for annulling his nezirut. The law is in accordance with the Sages.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives