Nazir 27: Agrippas' Dream

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 27

To download, click/tap here: PDF

King Agrippa sought to offer up a thousand olah-offerings in a single day.

He sent a message to the High Priest saying, "Let no one bring any offerings today except for me." A poor man came with two turtledoves in his hand, and said to the priest, "Offer these up."

He replied to him, "The king has commanded me, saying to me, Let no one bring any offerings today except for me.'"

[The poor man] said to him, "My master, High Priest! I capture four every day. I offer up two and I sustain myself with two. If you do not offer them up, you will cut off my sustenance!"

He took them and offered them up.

It appeared to Agrippa in a dream: The offering of a poor person has taken precedence over yours!

He sent a message to the High Priest, saying, "Did I not instruct you that no one should bring any offerings today except for me?"

[The High Priest] told him, "My master, the king! A poor man came with two turtledoves in his hand, and said to me,

'Offer these up. I said to him, 'The king has commanded me, saying to me: Let no one bring any offerings today except for me.' The poor person said to me, 'I capture four every day. I offer up two and I sustain myself with two. If you do not offer them up, you will cut off my sustenance. Was I not to offer them up?"

He said to him, "Everything you did, you did properly.

We explore the midrashim regarding sacrifices or poor people vs royalty and the way chazal

Used such stories to teach morality and purity of intention not wealth.

Nazir 26: יֵלְכוּ לְיָם הַמֶּלַח

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 26

To download, click/tap here: PDF

If someone was obligated to offer a chatas and he proclaimed, “It is upon me to offer an olah” (which constitutes a vow; he now has an obligation to bring a chatas for his sin and an olah for his vow). He then proceeded to separate monies and said, “These are for my obligation” (but he did not specify which one; we are not certain if he meant only one of his obligations or both). In such a case, if he would want to use the money to bring an animal as a chatas, he may not, and if he would want to use the money to bring an animal as an olah he may not (for the obligation to bring the chatas and the obligation to bring the olah are two distinct obligations, and the law is that he cannot use the money for an offering which was not included in his original designation).

If he died and unspecified money was in his possession, the money should be cast into the Dead Sea.

[This law is different than that of a nazir, where we allow the money to be used for voluntary communal offerings.]

We explore the geology and archeology of the salt sea (Yam Hamelach)

Nazir 25: הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 25

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemora had stated: If a nazir died and he had designated an unspecified amount of money for his korbanos, they are to be used for voluntary communal offerings. The Gemora asks: But aren’t monies for the chatas mixed in with them? 

(How can all the money be used for voluntary communal offerings, when the money designated for a chatas must be cast into the Dead Sea?) 

Rabbi Yochanan answers: It is a special Halacha (l’Moshe mi’Sinai) that was said regarding the monies of a nazir. 

Rish Lakish answers: It is written: Whether any of their vows or any of their voluntary offerings. The Torah is teaching us that the leftover funds (from an unspecified amount) should be used for voluntary olah offerings. 

We explore the history and scholarship behind  the concept of הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי including the work of Prof Dovid Weiss Halivni OBM.

Nazir 24: מַה שֶּׁקָּנְתָה אִשָּׁה קָנָה בַּעְלָהּ

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 24

To download, click/tap here: PDF

§ The mishna teaches: If the animal was hers, the sin-offering must be left to die and the burnt-offering is sacrificed.The Gemara asks: She, this married woman, from where does she have her own property? Haven’t you said as a principle that with regard to any item that a woman acquires, her husband automatically acquires it from her? Rav Pappa said: This is referring to a case where she saved it from her dough, i.e., she was able to buy the animal with the money she saved by eating less. 

Our case of מַה שֶּׁקָּנְתָה אִשָּׁה קָנָה בַּעְלָהּ opens up the discussion of wiomen and halachic observance.

Nazir 23: גְּדוֹלָה עֲבֵירָה לִשְׁמָהּ

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 23

To download, click/tap here: PDF

§ Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Greater is a transgression committed for its own sake, i.e., for the sake of Heaven,than a mitzva performed not for its own sake. The Gemara questions this comparison: But didn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rav said: A person should always occupy himself with Torah and mitzvot even not for their own sake, as it is through acts performed not for their own sake that good deeds for their own sake come about? How, then, can any transgression be considered greater than a mitzva not for the sake of Heaven?

Rather, one must emend the above statement and say as follows: A transgression for the sake of Heaven is equivalent to a mitzva not for its own sake.

We explore the notion of sinning for the sake of heaven from different perspectives including an analysis of the controversial Hassidic Master Reb Mordechai Yosef Leiner of Ishbitz.

Nazir 22: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁצִּיעֵר עַצְמוֹ מִן הַיַּיִן נִקְרָא חוֹטֵא

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 22

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the esteemed says: What is the meaning when the verse states:

“And the priest shall prepare one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering, and make atonement for him, for that he sinned by reason of the dead; and he shall hallow his head that same day.”

“And make atonement for him, for that he sinned by reason of the soul”? And with which soul did this nazirite sin? Rather, because he deprived himself of wine he is therefore called a sinner. 

And are not these matters inferred a fortiori: And if this one, who deprived himself only of wine, is nevertheless called a sinner, in the case of one who deprives himself of everything by fasting or other acts of mortification, all the more so is he labeled a sinner.

We explore the sinner vs saint aspect of nezirus including the Rambam’s apparent self contradiction.

Nazir 21: דָּבָר שֶׁהַנְּשָׁמָה תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 21

To download, click/tap here: PDF

If one said: My hand is a nazirite, and similarly, if he said: My foot is a nazirite, he has not said anything of consequence. However, if he said: My head is a nazirite, or: My liver is a nazirite, he is a nazirite. This is the principle: If one accepted naziriteship by means of an entity upon which life depends, i.e., a limb or a body part that he cannot survive without, he is a nazirite. Conversely, if he mentioned part of the body that is not essential for life, he is not a nazirite. In this case, as he referred to his hair, which is certainly not a vital part of him, he should not be a nazirite.

The talmud has a specific understanding of what anatomical organ is “vital” or essential for life.

We explore notions of vital organs in antiquity.

Nazir 20: כְּדֵי שְׁאֵילַת שָׁלוֹם תַּלְמִיד לָרַב

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 20

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishnah at the beginning of the fourth chapter discusses a case where one person declared his becoming a nazir, and several people, in succession, each say they will also become a nazir.

However, the statement of each person is that he will follow the example of the person immediately before him. 

Therefore, if the first person revokes his nezirus, the entire line of commitment collapses, and no one is a nazir. In the Gemara, Reish Lakish adds that the Mishnah must be understood where all of the speakers who accepted nezirus upon themselves did so within a narrow time period of  within the time it takes for a student to greet his Torah teacher (who says the three words —Hello to you, my Rebbe.”) 

We explore the theory of social valorization and how we devalue people in the educational and economic realms.

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.