תלמוד על במדבר 6:21

“I am a nazir after 30 days, but already a Samson-nazir.” Rebbi Ḥinena said, it is reasonable that the Torah nezirut should preëmpt the Samson-nezirut⁷⁹He keeps the regular nezirut, including its shaving, as if the Samson-nezirut did not exist.. What is the reason? “Thus he shall proceed, following the Torah of his nazir vow;⁸⁰Num. 6:21.” if his nazir vow follows the Torah. This excludes Samson-nezirut which is not from the Torah⁸¹But from the prophets; it is valid as a common usage, not as a biblical precept..

⁸²Here starts the discussion of the rules of the Samson-nazir.“If he becomes impure, he does not bring a sacrifice of impurity.” He only said, “he does not bring a sacrifice of impurity.” But is he whipped⁸³For intentionally violating the commandment of purity of a nazir.? The Mishnah follows Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah⁸⁴Babli 4b, Tosephta 1:5. The Babli explains that the sentence about the Samson-nazir is formulated in parallel to the sentence about the nazir in perpetuity who is forbidden to become impure.: A Samson-nazir makes himself impure for the dead, since Samson himself was making himself impure for the dead. Rebbi Simeon says, if somebody said, “as Samson”, he did not say anything, since the quality of nazir was not brought on by his mouth⁸⁵In the interpretation of the Babli, 4b, R. Simeon negates the possibility for anybody to validly vow to be a Samson-nazir.. What is the reason? “By the word of his nazir-vow”⁸⁶Num. 6:21. In the Biblical text: כְּפִי נִדְרוֹ “by the mouth of his vow”.. Any whose quality of nazir was brought on by his mouth; this excludes Samson-nezirut which was not brought on by his mouth but by the Word. What is the reason? “For the lad will be God’s nazir from the womb.⁸⁷Jud. 13:5.”

HALAKHAH: “If both of them disavowed simultaneously,” etc. If they dedicated a sacrifice and said, we are going to disavowe in court. This is what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, his sacrifice for the Eternal for his vow of nazir; that his vow of nazir precede his sacrifice, not that his sacrifice precede his vow of nazir⁴⁹Num. 6:21. An obligatory sacrifice cannot be brought voluntarily. Therefore it cannot be dedicated before the obligation exists. The dedication cannot be undone (Lev. 27:9). Therefore, the original sacrifice has to be rededicated as voluntary offering and a new sacrifice be given as obligatory sacrifice. Nazir 2:9 (Note 118), 3:2 (Note 32), Tosephta Nazir 2:6, Num. rabba 10(42).. If they were sworn to out of court, dedicated a sacrifice and said, we are going to renege in court, how do you treat this? As if his sin did precede his sacrifice or since the are liable only in court as if their sacrifice did precede their sin⁵⁰The question is not answered. Possibly it is a sequel to R. Jeremiah’s questions in the preceding Halakhah; cf. Terumot 10:11 Note 110.?

What is Rebbi Yose’s reason¹⁶⁴That the son’s vow must precede the father’s dedication.? “His offering to the Eternal for his vow”¹⁶⁵Num. 6:21., that (his sacrifice precede his vow)¹⁶⁶The two parentheses have to be interchanged. The correct text is copied in Num. rabba 10(42), Yalqut #709. but not (that his vow precede his sacrifice). They wanted to say that Rebbi Jehudah¹⁶⁷In the Tosephta, 3:18, it is explained that R. Jehudah and R. Meïr hold that any unspecified money in the estate can be used by the son for a future nezirut (but specified money has to be treated by the rules of Mishnah 6.) The opinion of R. Yose is shared by R. Eleazar (ben Shamua) and R. Simeon (ben Ioḥai). The problems with the text of Tosephta and Babli are treated at length by S. Lieberman (Tosefta ki-Fshutah p. 537–538).
The Yerushalmi does not treat the anomaly that, by tradition, the daughter cannot use the father’s dedicated money even if she is the only heir (Babli 30a/b). would agree with Rebbi Yose. It was found said that neither of them agrees with the other.

Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he polluted himself during his son’s nezirut but was warned because of his own nezirut, he is whipped¹¹⁶Since a nazir is forbidden by biblical law to pollute himself with the impurity of the dead (Num. 6:6–7), if he pollutes himself intentionally and his criminal intent was ascertained because he was warned by two witnesses not to pollute himself and he did it anyway, he is punished in criminal law. In order to lead to prosecution, the warning must correctly state the law which might be broken.. If he dedicated his sacrifices, they are sanctified¹¹⁷In the Babli, 14a, in a different context, R. Joḥanan holds that his two neziriot are only one extended vow. There, it is disputed by R. Simeon ben Laqish.. One does not consider what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “His sacrifice to the Eternal for his nezirut,¹¹⁸Num. 6:21. Tosephta 2:6, Halakhah 3:2 (52c 1. 37), Šebuot 4:4 (35c 1. 58) {Num. rabba 10:42}. In the parallel sources, the statement is accepted as practice.” i. e., his vow of nazir should precede his sacrifice, rather than that his sacrifice precede his vow of nazir.

Rav said, waving stops the nazir²³³The nazir is not permitted to drink wine or become impure unless he perfomed the waving of his well-being sacrifice. This is also quoted in the Babli, 46a/b, but is rejected there as practice.. But did we not state: “The teachings for the nazir,²³⁴Num. 6:21.” whether or not he has wings²³⁵Tosephta 1:5, Babli 46b. “The teaching of the nazir” must be applicable to everybody, whether he has arms and hands (“wings”) or not. But since the wavings have to be given “on the nazir’s hands”, how can they be absolutely required if the nazir has no hands?? What Rav says, if he does, as it was stated thus: For somebody able to wave, waving stops him; for somebody unable to wave, waving does not stop him. Samuel says, measure²³⁶It is unclear what this means. Most authors emend “measure” to “waving”. stops a nazir, as for the waves and thumbs of a sufferer from skin disease²³⁷The poor sufferer from skin disease must wave his reparation offering (Lev. 14:24); every healed sufferer from skin disease must receive blood and oil on his right thumb and great toe (Lev. 14:14,17,25,28).. But did we not state: “The teachings for the sufferer from skin disease,²³⁸Lev. 14:2.” whether or not he has thumbs? He explains it following Rebbi Eliezer who said, he puts it on their place²³⁹Mishnah Nega‘im 14:9; SifraMeṣora‘Pereq 3(11); quoted similarly in the Babli Yoma 61b (cf. Diqduqe Soferim Yoma p. 171 Note ח). In Babli Nazir, 47b, (with a different editorial history) R. Eliezer holds that he cannot ever be purified; R. Simeon is quoted parallel to R. Eliezer in the other sources..