Nazir 19: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּהֵילֵנִי הַמַּלְכָּה שֶׁהָלַךְ בְּנָהּ לְמִלְחָמָה

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 19

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our mishnah contains a story about Queen Helena, who was the queen of Adiabene, a country in Asia Minor. There are several other stories about her and her sons Munbaz and Izates, who according to both Josephus and rabbinic literature converted to Judaism, several decades before the destruction of the Temple.

She took upon herself to become a nezira for seven years should her son return safely from war. Upon his safe arrival at home, she began her nezirut, and upon completion of the seven years she went to bring her sacrifices in Israel, where she was told by Beit Hillel that she was obligated to begin her nezirut over again. The Mishna relates that at the very end of those seven years she became temeah and was forced to begin her nezirut a third time.

We explore this historical figure and the reset excavations and controversy surrounding her supposed palace near the Kotel unearthed in 2007.

Nazir 18: וְקִדַּ֥שׁ אֶת־רֹאשׁ֖ו

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 18

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara cites a Beraisa in which Rebbi Eliezer rules that when a Nazir becomes Tamei and thereby loses ("Soser") his Nezirus, and on the seventh day of his Tum'ah -- after he has completed the seven-day Taharah process -- he becomes Tamei again, and seven days later when he becomes Tahor from the second Tum'ah he becomes Tamei a third time, he brings only one Korban Tum'ah. However, if he becomes Tamei each of the three times on the eighth day, he brings three Korbenos Tum’ah.

We continue our exploration of the shaving aspect of nezirus and ritual/mythical significance of hair or depilation.

Nazir 17: נָזִיר וְהוּא בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 17

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rav Ashi inquires: If one declared to be a nazir in a cemetery, does he require a head-shaving (on the seventh day of his purification process) or not (in the same manner that he does not require to bring the korbanos)? Perhaps only a nazir tahor that became tamei requires a head-shaving, but not for a tamei person who became a nazir, or perhaps, there is no difference? 

When a person walks into a cemetery and makes himself a Nazir, the Aveirah is considered to begin at the moment he walks into the cemetery and it is considered to be complete when he makes himself a Nazir. Even if he does not intend to become a Nazir at the time he enters, since he eventually makes himself a Nazir while in the cemetery his transgression is considered one long act of an Aveirah. 

We explore the rise of oath taking in late antiquity as well as the difference between nazarene and nazirite in early Christianity. Also Burton Visotzky’s study of Christianities in Rabbinic literature. 

Nazir 16: נזיר אחיו

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 16

To download, click/tap here: PDF

When Yosef was summoned to Pharaoh to interpret his dreams, it is written [Breishis 41:14]: and he shaved and changed his clothes, and he came to Pharaoh. Onkelos translates the word “shaved” as “vesaper.” It is noteworthy that every other place in the Torah, Onkelos translates it as “yegalchinei.” 

What is the explanation behind this? The Rogatchover Gaon answers: It is written [ibid. 49:26]: May they come to Yosef’s head and to the crown of the head of the one who was separated from his brothers. Rabbi Levi understands this verse to mean that Yosef was a nazir. And so we find that from the day that Yosef was separated from his brothers, he did not taste any wine. 

We further explore the interpretation of the verse Gen 49:26

The Ibn Ezra, zt”l, teaches that it is not coincidental that the word nazir has the same root as naizer, crown:

"Neder nazir" - …to distance himself from lusts, and he does this for the sake of God's service, for wine corrupts one's thinking and one's service of God.

Nazir 15: גְּזֵירַת שְׁלֹשִׁים.

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 15

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We have learned in the following braisa: One who buried his dead three days prior to the festival, the decree regarding the seven days of mourning are cancelled. One who buried his dead eight days prior to the festival, the decree regarding the thirty days of mourning are cancelled. He may take a haircut on the eve of the festival; if he did not, he is forbidden from taking a haircut after the festival.

Poskim discuss different applications of this principle. Mordechai discusses a case of a person who on the third day of mourning lost another relative. This person completed the seven days of mourning for the first relative and then observed another seven days for the second relative not wanting the four overlapping days to apply to both relatives. 

We explore the halachos of shloshim and the levels of grief associated with this step in the mourning process.

Nazir 14: כְּמֹשֶׁה בְּשִׁבְעָה בַּאֲדָר

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 14

To download, click/tap here: PDF

If one said: I am hereby a nazirite like Samson after twenty days, and from now I am hereby a nazirite without specification, what is the halakha? Since here it is not possible to request of a halakhic authority to dissolve the vow of naziriteship like Samson, and there is no way of completing the first term of naziriteship, does the first naziriteship take effect or not?

The Gemara adds another question: If one said: I am hereby like Moses on the seventh day of Adar, what is the halakha? Is this considered an expression of naziriteship in that just as Moses passed away on that date and drank no more wine, so too, the speaker vows to be a nazirite? Alternatively, perhaps this phrase does not indicate the acceptance of naziriteship.

We explore the death of Moses, the textual problems, date, the myth, and the agaric traditions.

Nazir 13: כְּשֶׁיִּהְיֶה לִי בֵּן

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 13

To download, click/tap here: PDF

In a case where one said: I am hereby a nazirite now, and I will be a nazirite when I will have a son, and he began counting his own term of naziriteship, i.e., his first vow, and afterward in the middle of this naziriteship period a son was born to him, he first completes his own initial term of naziriteship and afterward he counts the term of naziriteship he vowed on the condition of the birth of his son.

We explore the desire for male progeny over female in antiquity as well as the Dead Sea Scroll discovery of Genesis Apocryphon and the amazing wife of Lemech, Bitenosh and her desire to give him a son, Noah.

Nazir 12: Fiduciary/אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 12

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Gemara presents the case of a man who appointed a messenger to arrange a marriage on his behalf. Rabbi Yohanan rules that if he gave no instructions, we must assume that his messenger did his bidding and that he is now married to someone. In the event that the messenger does not return and we do not know to whom the man is married, we are forced to conclude that the man cannot marry anyone, since she might be an immediate relative (a sister, daughter, mother, etc.) of the woman to whom he is married. 

We explore the role of aprotropos or fiduciary in bible (Eliezer) and in Jewish/Roman law

Nazir 11: שֶׁאֵין אֲנִי יָכוֹל לִחְיוֹת אֶלָּא בְּיַיִן

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 11

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Mishnah states: If one said: I know that a nazirite is prohibited from wine, but I thought that the Sages would permit me to drink wine because I cannot live without wine, or: I thought that the Sages would allow me to contract impurity from corpses because I bury the dead, he is permitted and the vow of naziriteship does not take effect, but Rabbi Shimon prohibitshim.

Rambam addresses two different categories of people who take vows using nazir terminology who do not become nazirim. In one halacha he writes that if a person who was depressed, angry or mourning was offered a cup of wine and he refused by declaring that he is a nazir from that cup of wine he is not a nazir; rather he is merely prohibited to drink that one cup of wine. 

In a second halacha Rambam rules, based on our Gemara, that if a drunk was offered a cup of wine and he refused by declaring that he is a nazir from that cup of wine he is not a nazir; rather he is merely prohibited from drinking that cup of wine. 

The underlying principle for these two cases is that when the person applying the pressure to drink has a specific goal in mind (e.g., to alleviate a person’s suffering, to uplift their spirit, etc.) and the vow is taken to relieve that pressure, it is assumed that the vower only intended to prohibit that cup of wine rather than take a vow of nezirus. 

We explore the notion of powerlessness over alcohol from a recovery perspective as well as a more scientific approach.

Nazir 10: Speaking of Cows

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 10

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna on our daf presents a very strange case – a person who proclaims: “This cow said, ‘I am hereby a nezira if I stand up’.”

Just as we found in yesterday’s Mishna, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree in this case, with Beit Shammai ruling that the person becomes a nazir and Beit Hillel ruling that he does not.

The Gemara opens with the obvious question: how can we possibly understand the suggestion that the cow spoke? Rami bar Hama explains that the cow was lying down and a person who was trying to get the cow to stand up said, “This cow thinks that no one can get her to stand up? I will be a nazir from her meat if she gets up on her own!”

We explore the role of the cow in mythology especially Hindu culture and speaking cows in children’s stories going back to European fables.

Nazir 9: Sacred Hair

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 9

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Perek II begins with a new Mishna.  We learn that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree about whether or not a vow of nazirut is valid.  
The Gemara asks if a nazirite is forbidden from consuming grapes, wine, etc., but figs are not forbidden do we consider the person's intention, which was likely to be a nazirite in this case?  

Because the person stated "I am a nazirite" initially, do we consider this person bound by the halachot of nazirut regardless of the error in her/his secondary statement?   

Do we consider the vow to abstain from figs to be valid on its own? 

We continue our exploration of the nazirite vow with regards to the significance and holiness (?)  of hair from a mystical perspective.

Nazir 8: Nazir Olam

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 8

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The next Mishnah (1:5)  discusses a case where the person declared that “I am a nazir, a houseful”, or “basketful”. The Mishnah explains that we question the person regarding his intent. If he was alluding to a “large” nazir oath then, as we have learnt (1:3) it obligates him with the standard thirty-days. If however the person says he had not specific intent other than how the Chachamim interpret it, then we view the basket as if they are filled with mustard seeds and he is a nazir for “all his days”. The Bartenura explains that he is a nazir olam and can shave once every twelve months.

The Gemara discusses the difference between the case of one who says, "I am a Nazir like the hair on my head," and the case of one who says, "I am a Nazir from here until the end of the world." When one says, "I am a Nazir like the hair on my head," he observes as many Nazir periods as there are hairs on his head. In contrast, when one accepts to become a Nazir as long as "from here until the end of the world," he observes only a single Nezirus. 

We explore different types of Nezirus including Absalom.

Nazir 7: Nazirite Women

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 7

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna does discuss two types of life-long nezeeroot, known in rabbinic parlance as a nazir olam and a nazir Shimson, the latter for one who takes a vow to be like the Biblical Nazir of the same name. The difference between the two is that a nazir olam may trim his hair if it becomes uncomfortable and should such a nazir accidentally come in contact with a dead body would be obligated to bring the three sacrifices that a regular nazir has to bring in such a situation.

We continue exploration of Nazirite women.

Nazir 6: מִקְצָת הַיּוֹם כְּכוּלּוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 6

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rav Masna and Bar Pada disagree about the length of a Nezirus with no specified duration, mid'Oraisa. Rav Masna maintains that the Nezirus is 30 days long, and Bar Pada maintains that it is 29 days long. Bar Pada proves his view that the duration of Nezirus is 29 days from the statement of the Tana, Rebbi Eliezer, who says that a Nazir becomes Tamei on the thirtieth day of his Nezirus, his Tum'ah is only "Soser Shiv'ah" -- he does not observe another 30 days, but rather he waits only seven days, after which time he may bring his Korbanos and conclude his Nezirus. The reason why he does not have to observe another period of Nezirus is that his Nezirus already ended before the arrival of the thirtieth day. This proves that Nezirus lasts for only 29 days.

We explore the commentators further on the laws of nezirut

Nazir 5: Thirty Days

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 5

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Steinsaltz writes:

Someone who accepts nezirut without specifying the amount of time remains a nazir for 30 days (in the language of the Mishna, “Stam nezirut sheloshim yom.“). This law appears in the Mishna on our page with no explanation.

The Gemara demands a source for this rule. Rav Matana suggests that the source is a gematria – that it is based on the numerical value of the letters of the word yihiyeh. Gematria assigns a numeric value to each of the Hebrew letters. The first ten letters (aleph through yod) are valued at 1-10. The next nine letters (kaf through kuf) are valued at 20-100. The final three letters (resh through taf) are the numbers 200, 300 and 400.

The Torah teaches (Bamidbar 6:5) that someone who accepts nezirut “will be holy” – kadosh yihiyeh. Taking the value of the letters:

י – yod = 10

ה – heh = 5

י – yod =10

ה – heh = 5

we arrive at a total of 30.

We explore the An Israelite Self-Offering A New Perspective on the Nazirite by Eliezer Diamond.

Nazir 4: הֲרֵינִי כְּשִׁמְשׁוֹן

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 4

To download, click/tap here: PDF

[If one says,] “Behold, I shall be like Samson”, “like the son of Manoah”, “like the husband of Delilah, or “like the one who uprooted the doors of Gaza,” or “like the one whose eyes the Philistines put out,” he is a nazirite like Samson.

Samson, son of Manoah, husband of Delilah, who uprooted the doors of Gaza, and whose eyes were put out by the Philistines, was perhaps the most famous nazirite ever (see Judges 13). One who uses one of these aspects of Samson’s life to vow a nazirite vow is a nazirite like Samson.

We explore the nazarite Samson and how his lifetime nezirus differed from the classic laws. And the personality of the latter day Nazir Reb Dovid Cohen the student of Rav Kook.

Nazir 3: Of Hair and Feathers

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 3

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our mishna states that if one says: An obligation is hereby incumbent upon me with regard to birds, Rabbi Meirsays: He is a nazirite, and the Sages say: He is not a nazirite. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir? Reish Lakish said: He accepted upon himself an obligation with regard to the birds that are juxtaposed in a verse to hair, as it is written (Dan 4):

The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar; and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hair was grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws

Since the verse juxtaposes birds with growing hair, it is understood that when this individual accepted an obligation with regard to birds, he was referring to growing his hair as a nazirite.

We explore the literary and mythical themes of Daniels dream and Nebuchadnezer’s sentence and the curious connection between feathers and hair phylogenetically.

Nazir 2: Nazir

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 2

To download, click/tap here: PDF 

Steinsalz says:

Standard collections of the Mishna include Massekhet Nazir after Massekhet Nedarim and before Massekhet Sota in Seder Nashim, even though Nazir has no direct connection to marital issues or family law. Nevertheless, since the parsha that discusses the laws of Nazir appears in close proximity with that of Sota – a wife suspected of adultery (see Bamidbar chapters 5–6) – they were placed next to each other in the Mishna, as well. The entire tractate focuses on the laws of a Nazir, although some of these laws were already discussed in Massekhet Nedarim and others find their place in the laws of sacrifices and ritual purity.

We begin the new masechta with some introductory thoughts...

Nedarim 91: מַיםִ גּנְוּביִם

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 91

To download, click/tap here: PDF 

The last story on the last Day of Nedarim describes a man who was in a married woman’s home, apparently with The last story describes a man who was in a married woman’s home, apparently with intentions to seduce her. When her husband suddenly came home, the seducer hid in the house, waiting for an opportunity to escape. While in hiding, he saw a snake eat from the vegetables on the table. He then saw the husband reaching to eat from those vegetables; fearing that the snake may have been venomous and may have tainted the food, he leaped out from his hiding place to warn the husband not to eat the vegetables.

Rava ruled that the concern shown by the seducer for the husband could be taken as proof that nothing untoward had occurred. The concern raised by the Gemara – that some people find a forbidden act (i.e. an affair with a married woman) more desirable than a permitted one (see Mishlei 9:17)

יז מַיִם-גְּנוּבִים יִמְתָּקוּ; וְלֶחֶם סְתָרִים יִנְעָם.

17 'Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant.'

and thus we should worry that the seducer may prefer for the husband to remain alive – is rejected.intentions to seduce her. When her husband suddenly came home, the seducer hid in the house, waiting for an opportunity to escape. While in hiding, he saw a snake eat from the vegetables on the table. He then saw the husband reaching to eat from those vegetables; fearing that the snake may have been venomous and may have tainted the food, he leaped out from his hiding place to warn the husband not to eat the vegetables.

Rava ruled that the concern shown by the seducer for the husband could be taken as proof that nothing untoward had occurred. The concern raised by the Gemara – that some people find a forbidden act (i.e. an affair with a married woman) more desirable than a permitted one (see Mishlei 9:17) and thus we should worry that the seducer may prefer for the husband to remain alive – is rejected.

Nedarim 90: שמים ביני לבינך

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 90

To download, click/tap here: PDF 

Our MISHNA states: "Initially the Sages would say that three women are divorced even against their husbands’ will, and nevertheless they receive payment of what is due to them according to their marriage contract. The first is the wife of a priest who says to her husband: I am defiled to you, i.e., she claims that she had been raped, so that she is now forbidden to her husband.

The second is a woman who says to her husband: Heaven is between me and you, i.e., she declares that he is impotent, a claim she cannot prove, as the truth of it is known only to God. And the third is a woman who takes a vow, stating: I am removed from the Jews, i.e., benefit from sexual intercourse with any Jew, including my husband, is forbidden to me.”

. They subsequently retracted their words and said that in order that a married woman should not cast her eyes on another man and to that end ruin her relationship with her husband and still receive payment of her marriage contract, these halakhot were modified.

We explore further the status of women with Judith Baskin’s work and Michele Murray’s analysis using the feminist scholar Judith Butlers theory of gender construction.