Cytowanie Komentarza do Sędziów 14:19

What difference is there between a nazirite like Samson and a life-nazirite? A life-nazirite if his hair becomes burdensome, he may thin it with a razor and then offer three animal sacrifices. If he should be ritually defiled, he must offer the sacrifice [prescribed] for defilement. The nazirite like Samson if his hair becomes burdensome, he may not thin it. And if he becomes ritually defiled, he does not offer the sacrifice [prescribed] for defilement. This section explains the differences between a nazirite like Samson and a regular life-nazirite. A person can become a life long nazirite if he says, “Behold I am a life-nazirite” or “ “Behold, I am a nazirite all my life.” According to the Talmud, Absalom, son of David, was a life-long Nazirite. This assumption is made because of Absalom’s long hair (II Samuel 14:26) which was also his eventual undoing (II Samuel 18:9). As we shall see in tomorrow’s mishnah, if a person vows a nazirite vow but does not stipulate for how long his naziriteship is to last, he is a nazirite for only thirty days. There are two differences between Samson-nazirites and life-nazirites. If a life-long Nazirite wishes to lighten his heavy hair he may do so. This is derived from Absalom who, once a year when his hair became too heavy, cut it (II Samuel 14:26). However, if he chooses to cut his hair, he must bring three sacrificial animals: one for a sin offering, one for a burnt offering and one for an offering of well-being (Numbers 6:14). If a life-long nazirite becomes impure, he must bring an offering made as a result of impurity, as is mandated in Numbers 6:10-12. In contrast, a Samson-nazirite may never cut his hair, because Samson never cut his hair. However, if he becomes impure he does not bring a sacrifice, just as Samson did not bring a sacrifice when he became impure (Judges 14:19).

In fact [by reviewing the references to gemiri] in many places [throughout the Talmud], one is compelled to accept that [gemiri] does not refer to a law received from Moshe at Mount Sinai. See Nazir 4b²¹The Netziv cites 5b. [which proves that the book of Shoftim relates], according to which Shimshon intentionally became impure by having contact with the dead by gemara gemiri lah.²²An act of killing in battle, not in self-defense, proves that he did not have the same status as a true Nazirite. One bound by the Nazirite vow sets himself apart for Divine service. He must abstain from all products of the vine, including grapes, and from intoxicating drinks, avoid proximity with dead bodies, and let his hair grow. [After attempting to find sources from the book of Shoftim,²³The verses are “With the jawbone of a donkey I have killed a thousand men” (Judges 15:16) and “He went down to Ashkelon and killed thirty men of them, and he took their clothing” (ibid. 14:19). The Talmud mentions that perhaps Shimshon avoided having contact with the dead by throwing the jawbone of the donkey, or that he took their clothing before killing them. the Talmud concludes (Nazir 4b) that these sources are inconclusive and the only way we know that Shimshon did defile himself with the dead is by tradition. [A tradition received from Moshe at Sinai could not possibly be used to provide an interpretation of a verse in a book of the Prophets which was written so much later than the time of Moshe.]²⁴The wording of the Netziv implies that he is following the interpretation of Tosafos on Nazir 4b, s.v. “ela gemara gemiri lah.” In addition, [the Gemara in] Berachos 28a states, “Gemiri, that we may promote [a person or thing] to a higher grade of sanctity, but we must not downgrade.” Yet we see in Menahos 99a that this same principle [not to downgrade] is derived from a Torah verse [and because a scriptural source is not cited when it is a law received from Sinai, this principle cannot have come from Moshe at Sinai]. Furthermore, in Hullin 9b, the Talmud notes “gemiri” [regarding the law that when there is a doubt if something became defiled in a public area, it is deemed to be pure]. Yet this ruling is derived from the laws of sotah²⁵A woman suspected of committing adultery who was required to drink the bitter waters (see Devarim 5:12–31). [and if it is a law received from Moshe at Mount Sinai, there would be no need to derive it from the laws of sotah]. See also Kiddushin 37a, noting [that according to the first opinion stated in the Mishnah], the laws of orlah²⁶The fruit of a tree during the first three years after the tree was planted, which may not be eaten. and kela’im²⁷The forbidden mixing of heterogeneous plants (see Vayikra 19:19). are not applicable outside the Land of Israel [and that this law] is hilchesa gemiri lah. Yet Shmuel [in Kiddushin 38a] is of the opinion that these [same laws] are hilchesa medinah [a law that people of the provinces had voluntarily accepted upon themselves, which obviously occurred after the time of Moshe].[It is clear that after analyzing the use of the term hilchesa gemiri lah and variations thereof in various parts of the Talmud, the phrase cannot possibly mean a law received from Moshe at Sinai.] This [observation that hilchesa gemiri lah refers to a tradition from previous generations rather than a law that was received from Moshe at Sinai] has also been noted in the responsa of the Havos Yair (ch. 192) and in the Tosafos Yom Tov on Sotah 2:2.