Talmud for Nazir 1:1
משנה כל כינוי נזירות כנזירות האומר אהא ה"ז נזיר או אהא נאוה נזיר נזיק נזיח פזיח ה"ז נזיר הריני כזה הריני מסלסל הרי אני מכלכל הרי עלי לשלח פרע הרי זה נזיר הרי עלי צפרים ר' מאיר אומר נזיר וחכמים אומרים אינו נזיר:
From when may one recite Shema in the evening? From the time the Kohanim go in to eat their Terumah (produce consecrated for priestly consumption). Until the end of the first watch, says Rabbi Eliezer. And the Sages say: Until [astronomical] midnight. Rabban Gamliel says: Until the break of dawn. It once happened that his [Rabban Gamliel’s] sons came from a house of feasting. They said to him: We have not recited Shema. He to them: If dawn has not broken, you are obligated to recite it. And it is not only in this case that they said it! Rather, in all cases where the Sages said "only until midnight," the obligation remains until the break of dawn. [e.g.] Burning the fats and limbs [of the sacrifices, on the Temple altar] — the obligation is until the break of dawn. [e.g.:] All [sacrifices] which may be eaten for one day — the obligation is until the break of dawn. If that is so, why did the Sages say, "until midnight?" To distance a person from transgression.
Jerusalem Talmud Nazir
HALAKHAH: “If somebody said, “I am a nazir,” etc. This supports Bar Qappara3Chapter 1:3, Note 93., that if he shaved on the 30th day, he did not fulfill his obligation. This supports Rebbi Jonathan4Chapter 1:3, Note 94., that if he shaved on the 30th day, he did fulfill his obligation. Both of them5One anonymous Mishnah cannot represent two contradictory opinions.? It is only one opinion, “this testimony6Mishnah 2. R. Pappaias testified that a person who vowed two neziriot and shaved for the first on the thirtieth day may shave the second time on the 60th day (since the 30th day is counted for both; cf. Note 1.) Since the testimony is formulated conditionally, “if he shaved on the 30th day”, not as an absolute statement, “he shaves on the 30th and 60th days”, it follows that shaving on the 30th day is irregular. The Mishnah follows neither Bar Qappara nor R. Jonathan but the practice proclaimed by R. Pappaios.”. They knew that it was forbidden to shave on the 30th; they thought that if he shaved on the 30th day, he did not fulfill his obligation. He came to testify that if he shaved on the 30th day, he fulfilled his obligation.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim
Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar disagree, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, one whips for prohibitions36Somebody forbade something for himself without using the language either of vows or of oaths or any of the recognized substitute expressions. If he then breaks his own prohibition this falls under the biblical prohibition of “he shall not profane his word” (Num. 30:3). The question is whether this is a sin or a prosecutable offense. In Nazir 1:1 (51a 1. 34), R. Joḥanan is quoted as holding that it is not a prosecutable offense. Accordingly, one has to read here “one does not whip”, and in the opinion of R. Eleazar “one does whip” since this is also required by the argument quoted later by R. Jacob bar Aḥa. (Alternatively one would have to switch names in that argument, but then the quote in Nazir would remain unexplained.) and Rebbi Eleazar said, one does not whip36Somebody forbade something for himself without using the language either of vows or of oaths or any of the recognized substitute expressions. If he then breaks his own prohibition this falls under the biblical prohibition of “he shall not profane his word” (Num. 30:3). The question is whether this is a sin or a prosecutable offense. In Nazir 1:1 (51a 1. 34), R. Joḥanan is quoted as holding that it is not a prosecutable offense. Accordingly, one has to read here “one does not whip”, and in the opinion of R. Eleazar “one does whip” since this is also required by the argument quoted later by R. Jacob bar Aḥa. (Alternatively one would have to switch names in that argument, but then the quote in Nazir would remain unexplained.). Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, so did Rebbi Joḥanan answer Rebbi Eleazar: According to you, who says one does not whip on prohibitions, did we not state37Mishnah 4:4: “If somebody has vowed not to have any usufruct from another and he goes to visit him (when he is sick), he may stand but not sit down and heal him (but not his animals).” He cannot sit down because he would derive usufruct from the other’s possessions. The question makes sense only if R. Eleazar holds that transgressing the prohibition is prosecutable.: “If somebody has vowed not to have any usufruct from another and he goes to visit him,” let him not enter38If transgressing a private prohibition is not prosecutable, one can explain the Mishnah as referring to a prohibition of usufruct, not a formal vow or oath. But if it is prosecutable as a formal vow, why permit to enter since the person entering will find shelter there from the sun in summer and the rain in winter?! Rebbi Jeremiah said, there is a difference there because of the ways of peace39“Ways of peace” are the obligations of interpersonal relationships necessary in a civilized society; in this case, visiting the sick.. Rebbi Yose asked: If it is because of the ways of peace, should he not also be permitted in case of an oath? But we have stated40Mishnah 2:2: “A vow that I shall not build a tabernacle, that I shall not take a lulab, that I will not wear phylacteries: vows are forbidden, oaths permitted, for one cannot swear to break religious obligations.” If somebody makes a vow that religious objects should be forbidden to him (as if they were dedicated sacrifices), he commits a twofold sin in making a frivolous vow and breaking biblical commandments, but what he did is done. But if he swears that he will not fulfill his religious obligations, the oath is invalid since, in the language of the Babli, “he already is under oath from Mount Sinai”, and a valid oath cannot be superseded by another oath. Since visiting the sick is a religious obligation, if the prohibition of usufruct is interpreted as an oath it should be nonexistent in the case of a visit to a sick person. No answer is given since practice follows R. Joḥanan.: “Vows are forbidden, oaths permitted.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Nazir
“I shall be like this one”; Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, if he grabs [a nazir’s] hair and says, “I shall be like this one.”23In the Babli, Samuel admits the possibility that a nazir was standing nearby and the person making the vow pointed to him. “I shall tend my hair, I shall groom my hair”. If he says, I shall be of those who have to tend or grow their hair24Since in popular speech a nazir is characterized by his long hair, saying that one wants to be “of those who grow their hair” is a clear vow of nazir.. “I shall tend my hair and I shall groom my hair”, if he says I shall neither tend nor grow my hair for less than thirty [days], he means thirty25Mishnah 1:3 states that an unspecified period of nezirut is 30 days. Therefore, mentioning 30 days in a statement regarding hair is a statement of nezirut.. “It shall be my obligation neither to tend nor to grow my hair,” if he says, it shall be my obligation neither to tend nor to grow my hair more than thirty [days], he means thirty. “I shall be obligated to grow my hair”, means “I shall tend my hair, I shall groom my hair”. Or “It shall be my obligation neither to tend nor to groom my hair, but to let it grow wildly26For the standard 30 days..”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy