Nazir 34: רָאָה אֶת הַכּוֹי

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 34

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A new Mishna introduces another typically Talmudic scenario.  

A person might see a koi (which is an unspecified animal - perhaps a deer/goat; perhaps a mouflon or a water buffalo) (see Dan Ditty Yoma 74 for more)  and vows nezirut if the animal is non-domesticated.  

Another might vow similarly if the animal is not non-domesticated. Another might vow nazirut if the animal is domesticated and another if the animal is not domesticated.  A fifth person might vow nazirut if the animal is both; a sixth might vow nazirut if the animal is neither. Another might vow nazirut if one of the others is a nazirite and yet another might vow nazirut if none of the above are nazirites.  Finally, one might vow nazirut if all are nazirites.  

The Mishna concludes that all of the people in this scenario would be nazirites.

We explore the work of Michael Roe and conditional vows with an addendum to Yoma 74 on Aveira Lishma (PhD thesis of Yoval Blankovsky)

Nazir 33: סְפֵק נְזִירוּת לְהָקֵל

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 33

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Steinsaltz tells us:

The Mishna (32b) tells of a group of people walking together who spy a figure walking towards them:

One person says: I will be a nazir if that is So-and-so approaching us.

The second one says: I will be a nazir if it is not So-and-so.

The third says: I will be a nazir if one of you is a nazir.

The fourth says: I will be a nazir if you are both nezirim.

The fifth says: I will be a nazir if all of you are nezirim.

Beit Shammai rules that all of these people are nezirim, based on his position which appears in the first Mishna in the perek (see 30b–31a) that even a mistaken nezirut takes effect. Beit Hillel says that only those whose conditions were not fulfilled become nezirim.

Beit Hillel’s statement is obviously problematic – clearly those people whose conditions were not fulfilled should not become nezirim – and Rav Yehuda suggests amending the Mishna to read that only those whose conditions were fulfilled should become nezirim.

We further explore the concept of סְפֵק נְזִירוּת לְהָקֵל with the Samar Rebbe’s use regarding the heralding of Mashiach and his refusal to testify on behalf of Kastner at his trial.

Nazir 32: Daniel’s 70 Years and Newton

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 32

To download, click/tap here: PDF

When nazirites were ascending from the exile to sacrifice their offerings, and they found the Temple destroyed, Naḥum the Mede said to them: If you had known that the Temple would be destroyed, would you have taken a vow of naziriteship?

They said to him: Certainly not, as there is no remedy for a naziriteship in this case. And Naḥum the Mede dissolved the vow for them. And when the matter came before the Rabbis, they said: His ruling is incorrect. Rather, whoever took a vow of naziriteship before the Temple was destroyed, like these nazirites from the exile, he is a nazirite, as he committed no error at the time of his vow, and one cannot dissolve vows based a new situation.

However, one who stated his vow after the Temple was destroyed is not a nazirite, as he vowed based on an erroneous assumption.

Only people who make nazirite vows after the destruction of the Temple may be released from their vows using the Temple as grounds for the release.

Abaye said: And did they not know when? But isn’t it written:

כד שָׁבֻעִים שִׁבְעִים נֶחְתַּךְ עַל-עַמְּךָ וְעַל-עִיר קָדְשֶׁךָ, לְכַלֵּא הַפֶּשַׁע ולחתם (וּלְהָתֵם) חטאות (חַטָּאת) וּלְכַפֵּר עָוֺן, וּלְהָבִיא, צֶדֶק עֹלָמִים; וְלַחְתֹּם חָזוֹן וְנָבִיא, וְלִמְשֹׁחַ קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים.

24 Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sin, and to forgive iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal vision and prophet, and to anoint the most holy place.

Dan 9:24

We explore the 70 years Daniel prophesied and the curious prophecy calculated by Newton for the end times.

Nazir 31: שׁוֹר שָׁחוֹר

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 31

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our first Mishnah in Perek V states:

What is considered an act of erroneous consecration? If one said: A black bull that will emerge from my house first is consecrated, and a white bull emerged first, Beit Shammai say it is consecrated and Beit Hillel say it is not consecrated.

Similarly, if one said: A gold dinar that will come up first in my hand is consecrated, and when he reached into his pocket a dinar of silver came up, Beit Shammai say it is consecrated and Beit Hillel say it is not consecrated.

Likewise, if one said: A barrel of wine that will come up first in my hand when I enter the cellar is consecrated, and a barrel of oil came up in his hand instead, Beit Shammai say it is consecrated and Beit Hillel say it is not consecrated.

The consecration of an item is considered not merely a promise, but a legal act in and of itself. Therefore, a consecration of an item to the Temple treasury is legally equivalent to transferring ownership of that item to another person. For this reason, it can be argued that even if uttered in error, an act of consecration is binding.

This disagreement leads the Gemara to discuss the advantages and disadvantages connected with white animals and black animals. Rav Ḥisda teaches that “black among white is a deficiency” and that at the same time “white among black is a deficiency.”

We explore the black/white identity among Jews as well as identity politics in recent judicial rulings.

Nazir 30: Women’s (lack of ) Inheritance

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 30

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this difference between a man and a woman? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai with regard to a nazirite. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is so, even without this halakha. What is the purpose of stating this?

Is Rabbi Yoḥanan coming to say that a son inherits from his father whereas a daughter does not, and therefore only a son who inherits from his father can use his animals, but not a daughter?

This is obvious, as it is stated in the Torah that a daughter does not inherit from her father if he has a son (see Numbers 27:8).

We explore inheritance of women in antiquity and in Islam.

Nazir 29: חַיָּיב לְחַנְּכוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 29

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna (28b) teaches that a father (and only a father, not a mother) can make his son a nazir. The source for this law is a point of disagreement between Rabbi Yohanan, who simply says halakha hee be-nazir – 

there is an oral tradition regarding the laws of nezirut that permits this, and Resh Lakish, who says kedei le-hankho be-mitzvot – that it is permitted so that the father can educate his son with regard to the commandments.

We explore the concepts of chinuch from different perspectives.

Nazir 28: פֵאָה נׇכְרִית

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 28

To download, click/tap here: PDF

In many communities today Orthodox women wear wigs in order to cover their hair in public. Some suggest that the source for this tradition is from our daf.

The Mishna teaches that in a case where a woman has completed her nezirut and begins bringing the sacrifices that conclude her time as a nazir, her husband can no longer object to her nezirut and be mefer – the one to nullify her vow of nezirut. 

He can do so, however, if she is bringing sacrifices after having become temeah and is returning to her status as a nezira, since he can argue that her refraining from wine affects their relationship. Rabbi Meir argues that even if the nezirut is over the husband can object, arguing that he can reasonably claim that having a wife with a shaven head is unpleasant for him.

We explore the shaving of women’s heads as well as the Chasm Sofer’s stringencies  on Peah Nochrit, as well as looking at Anthony Synott’s analysis of  the sociology of hair. 

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.