Talmud zu Bamidbar 6:2

MISHNAH: All substitute names¹Num. 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 nazir². But only if stated in the presence of a nazir, when it can be interpreted as “I shall be like him”., “I shall be beautiful”, he is a nazir². But only if stated in the presence of a nazir, when it can be interpreted as “I shall be like him”.; naziq,naziaḥ,paziaḥ³. Names invented to avoid spelling out “nazir”; 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”². But only if stated in the presence of a nazir, 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 nazir⁴The required sacrifice for a nazir who became impure, Num. 6:10., but the Sages say, he is not a nazir⁵It is not reasonable to assume that a person vows to be a nazir with the expectation to break the rules, even if unintentionally..

HALAKHAH: “All substitute names¹Num. 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 written¹²From the list mentioned in the Mishnah. “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 that⁶The text is quoted from Nedarim 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.

HALAKHAH: “Gentiles cannot vow as nazir,” etc. Israelites can vow as nazir, Gentiles cannot vow as nazir. ⁸Sifra Emor Parašah 7(2); Babli Menaḥot 72b. The reference is to Lev. 22:18: “Every man of the House of Israel, and of the sojourners in Israel, who would bring their sacrifices for all their vows and all their gifts, to present them to the Eternal as elevation offerings.” In the same Chapter, v. 25 makes it clear that what is acceptable from the Israelite is accptable from the Gentile both as vow (in which a person engages himself to dedicate an animal) and a gift (in which a person dedicates an animal, in which case he does not have to supply a replacement if anything should happen to the animal before it could be sacrificed.) Since you say, “a man”, why does the verse mention “a man”⁹“Every person” is in Hebrew אִישׁ אִישׁ “man, man”. The repetition has to be explained.? To include Gentiles, who make vows and offer voluntary gifts like Israelites! Why should one not say the same here¹⁰Num. 6:2 reads: “A man or a woman, if he makes a clear vow of nazir to the Eternal.” “Man” should include Gentiles by the preceding argument.? There is a difference, for it is written “He shall atone for him.¹¹Num. 6:11. Since Gentiles are not subject to the rules of impurity, the rituals of purification cannot apply to them.” This refers to one to whom atonement applies. It excludes Gentiles, to whom atonement does not apply.

HALAKHAH: “All substitute names of vows are like vows,” etc. It is written¹²Num. 30:3. “Any person who vows,” why does the verse say “a vow”? From here that substitute names of vows are like vows. “Or he swears,” why does the verse say “an oath”? From here that substitute names of oaths are like oaths. “But any ban,¹³Lev. 27:28.” why does the verse say “which he bans”? From here that substitute names of bans are like bans. “A vow of nazir¹⁴Num. 6:2.”, why does the verse say “to be a nazir”? From here that substitute names of nazir vows are like nazir vows. So far for Rebbi Aqiba who says that these are expressions of additions. ¹⁵Cf. Yebamot 8:1, Note 72, Babli Avodah zarah 27a (and another 18 times without attribution). The quotes are from speeches of Laban and Joseph in Gen. which have no legal implications. This proves that the repetitions are a matter of style. For Rebbi Ismael who said, these are double expressions in the normal style of the Torah, “going you went, desiring you desired, by stealing I was stolen”, from where? “¹²Num. 30:3. Any person who vows a vow to the Eternal or swears an oath to forbid a prohibition on himself shall not profane his word,” why does the verse say “he must fulfill anything coming out of his mouth”? From here that substitute names of vows are like vows and substitute names of oaths are like oaths¹⁶The second half of the verse is clearly written for emphasis. It implies (a) that a vow is valid only if pronounced, not if only thought of and (b) that any speech which can be interpreted as a vow is a vow.
The Babli, 3a/b, quotes both the argument in the style of R. Aqiba and that of R. Ismael without mentioning any names.. And from where that substitute names of bans are like bans? “A vow, a vow”¹⁷This is an application of the second hermeneutical rule of gezerah šawah “equal cut”. If it was established in Num. 30:3 that “vow” means “anything that implies a vow” and in Lev. 27:2 any dedication to the Temple, including bans, is classified as “vow”, it follows that anything which implies a ban is a ban.. Since “a vow” at one place means that substitute names of vows are like vows and substitute names of oaths are like oaths, “a vow” at the other place means that substitute names of bans are like bans. And from where that substitute names of being a nazir are like being a nazir? “A vow, a vow”¹⁸Again this is an application of gezerah šawah, but this time the reference quote is Num. 6:2, cf. Note 14.. Since “a vow” at one place means that substitute names of oaths are like oaths¹⁹This reference is odd since the argument is about vows, not oaths. One has to assume that the scribe left out the relevant portion of the sentence which should be identical to the one used in the preceding case., “a vow” at the other place means that substitute names of being a nazir are like being a nazir.

How does Rebbi Aqiba explain “he must fulfill anything coming out of his mouth”²⁰If a vow cannot be fulfilled completely, it is not a vow.? From here that if part of a vow is invalid, all of it is invalid. Does Rebbi Ismael not agree with this? Everything derives from there. It follows from there that substitute names of vows are like vows and substitute names of oaths²¹That conclusion could have been drawn even if the word כל “all, anything” were not written. Therefore, the clause admits two conclusions independent of one another. are like oaths and it follows from there that if part of a vow is invalid, all of it is invalid. How does Rebbi Ismael explain “any person who vows a vow of nazir¹⁴Num. 6:2.”? From there that a person can obligate himself as nazir while he currently is a nazir²²The pentateuchal state of nazir is always limited in time (when a Temple is in existence. Since a nazir is only permitted to drink wine after he has absolved the required Temple ritual, a person vowing to be a nazir today must remain in that state until the Temple is rebuilt and officiating Cohanim are found who have complete documentary proof of their priestly status going back to the priests officiating in the second Temple.) The prophetic state of nazir, as exemplified by Simson and Samuel, is unlimited but does not include a prohibition of the impurity of the dead. It is noted here that while a person is in the state of a nazir for a fixed period, he can undertake to be a nazir for an additional period, to begin after the Temple procedure for the current nezirut was performed. This statement is needed since the vow of nazir of an unincumbered person makes that person a nazir immediately upon pronouncing his vow.. Does Rebbi Aqiba not agree with this? He agrees and everything derives from there²³The same verse.. He agrees that from there a person can obligate himself as nazir while he currently is a nazir.

“Like vows of the good ones, he did not say anything.” Does this mean that good people make vows⁸³The formulation seems to imply that free-will offerings of the wicked do exist; otherwise how could one speak about them?? Since that one made a vow, he is not a good one. ⁹²Purification offerings cannot be voluntary; they are required either for an inadvertent sin or for purification from a state of impurity. A male who does not sin inadvertently and who does not suffer from an impure sickness has no way to fulfill the commandments relative to the purification offerings. A woman can always bring a purification offering after childbirth. The Mishnah follows Rebbi Jehudah since it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, the ancient pious ones desired to bring a purification offering⁹³From here to the end of the paragraph, the text is also in Nazir 1:6, 51c 1. 36., 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 offering⁹⁴One of the 3 prescribed animal sacrifices at the end of the nazir period; Num. 6:14.. Rebbi Simeon says, they became sinners because they made a vow of nazir, for it was said: “He shall atone for him for what he sinned about the person⁹⁵Num. 6:11. In Sifry Num. 30, R. Ismael points out that this verse is written about the nazir who became inadvertently impure in the impurity of the dead, who is in effect a sinner in respect to the dead person. The Babli, 10a, accepts the argument of R. Simeon, which in the Tosephta, 1:1, is in the name of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.,” that one sinned against his own person because he barred himself from [drinking] wine. It turns out that that of Simeon the Just parallels Rebbi Simeon. As it was stated⁹⁶Babli 9b, Nazir Yerushalmi 1:6, Babli 4b, Sifry Num. 22, Num. rabba10(20).: 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 reddish, with beautiful eyes and good looks, and his hair in nice rows of waves⁹⁷A combination of images referring to David (1S. 17:42) and the friend in the Song of Songs (5:11).. I said to him, my son, what induced you to cut off that beautiful hair? He said to me: Great man, I was a shephard 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 lose me from the World⁹⁸He realized how much money he could make as a male prostitute in a hellenized city but that he would lose the World to Come.. 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 bent my head to him and said, my son, there should be many more in Israel who fulfill the Omnipresent’s will like you. About you the verse says¹⁴Num. 6:2., “man or woman, if he clearly articulates vowing a vow of nazir, to be a nazir for the Eternal.” Rebbi Mana asked⁹⁹Babli 9b.: Why following Simeon the Just, even following Rebbi Simeon? Did Simeon the Just never eat a purification offering for suet¹⁰⁰The standard purification offering is for the purification from an inadvertent sin which at least carries a penalty of extirpation by Divine decree, e. g., if somebody ate suet or blood inadvertently. In order to effect the purification, the Cohanim have to eat the sacrificial meat (Lev. 6:19). How can somebody called “the Just” refuse to purify people?? 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 wonder¹⁰¹They feel that they should not have made the vow. This becomes acute in particular in the case of the reparation offering, which is brought only in case of impurity of the nazir, who has to restart his entire time as nazir after his impurity has been repaired. Since the verse repeatedly requires that offerings in the Temple must be brought willingly (Lev. 1:3, 22:29), an offering brought unwillingly is of questionable validity.. 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 unison¹⁰²Which alone makes the vow unquestionably valid..

Can a man be taken to nezirut by language appropriate for a woman⁴¹Probably one should translate: “a vow formulated in the feminine”; but the explanation given “there” (in Babylonia) then does not quite fit.? There, they say, “a nezirah was passing by⁴²Reading with editio princeps איעבר “passed by” (m.) for אי עבר “did not pass”. This refers to the case discussed in Halakhah 1:1 (Notes 2,23) that a person points to a nazir and indicates that he wants to be like him. It is admitted that he can point to a female.”. Can a man be taken to nezirut by masculine language? Rebbi Yose said, the notion of nezirut is defined in the masculine: “… or a woman if he clearly makes a vow.⁴³Num. 6:2: “A man or a woman, if he clearly makes a vow”. Since a verb referring both to a male and a female is used in the masculine by traditional grammatical rules, he infers that the masculine can be used in all cases.”