With today’s daf TB Nazir 9 we begin the second chapter of our massekhet. The first Mishna in this chapter discusses how we should understand a person’s intention when his sentences contain two irreconcilable clauses.
The Mishna begins with a confusing sentence “If one says: I am hereby a
nazirite and therefore will refrain from dried figs and from cakes of
dried figs,” (Sefaria.org translation). Unlike other vows
a person could make, the Torah tells us exactly what a Nazirite vow entails.
The person has to abstain from grapes and all grape products, from cutting his
hair, and coming into contact with the dead. Figs play no role in a nazir’s vow. Refraining from dried figs
and cakes of dried figs have no meaning to a nazir’s vow. Does he mean to become a nazir or a nazir who also
refrains from eating those figs? Or is the sentence so nonsensical that it has
no meaning whatsoever and the person doesn’t become a nazir? That is the debate between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.
“Beit
Shammai say:
His statement renders him a full-fledged nazirite, and his addition:
From dried figs, is insignificant, as this fruit is not included in the
prohibitions of a nazirite, which include only products of the grapevine. And
Beit Hillel say: He is not a nazirite, since he did not accept naziriteship
upon himself.” (Sefaria.org translation) The Gemara explains the underpinning
reason for each position.
“It is
stated in the mishna that if one says: I am hereby a nazirite and
therefore will refrain from dried figs and from cakes of dried figs, Beit
Shammai say: He is a nazirite. The Gemara asks: But why? The
Merciful One states in the Torah in the passage dealing with naziriteship: “From
anything that is made of the grapevine…he shall not eat” (Numbers 6:4). In
naziriteship, only the fruit of the vine is prohibited. The Gemara answers: Beit
Shammai hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: A
person does not utter a statement for naught. In other words, if one utters
a statement that cannot be fulfilled as stated, his statement is interpreted in
a manner that renders it relevant. Here too, Beit Shammai say that he misspoke
and actually intended to take a vow of naziriteship.” (Sefaria.org translation)
What is the context of Rabbi Meir statement? In massekhet Arukhin daf 27b a person can donate the market value (damim-דָמִים) of an object or make a valuation of a person’s value (arakhin-עריכין) to the Temple. There are only two considerations when evaluating a person, the person’s age and sex. The term arakhin-עריכין only applies to human beings and not to objects. If a person says that he’s going to make a valuation of an object, he is using incorrect terminology. Rabbi Meir hold that a person does not issue a statement of consecration for naught. His declaration is taken at face value. Consequently, he donates the market value of the object to the Temple even though he is used the wrong terminology. In our case that Shammai understands the person’s intention is to become a nazir and we can ignore the second half of the sentence.
The Gemara
provides two alternative explanations for Beit Hillel’s opinion.
The first
explanation. “And Beit Hillel hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi
Yosei, who says: A person is also held accountable for the conclusion of
his statement. If one states two irreconcilable clauses And this is a
vow with its inherent opening, i.e., reason for dissolution.
Although he said: I am hereby a nazirite, by adding the words: From dried figs
and from cakes of dried figs, he indicated that his intention was that the
naziriteship would not take effect.” (Sefaria.org translation)
What is the
context for Rabbi Yosei’s statement? In massekhet
Temurah, we learn that a person cannot imbue two different sanctities in one
animal. A man is making exchange and says that this animal is both an olah, a whole burnt offering, and a shelamim, a well-being or peace offering.
This is an impossibility. Rabbi Yosei says we look at the person’s sentence in
its totality. In this case we can find a solution that allows the person
original statement to stand. The animal is left to graze until it has a blemish
and not fit for the altar. The animal is sold and half of the money goes to buy
and olah and half the money goes to
buying a shelamim. In our case, the
second half of the statement contradicts the first half. We see that the person
must have had regret in making the vow and is not a nazir.
The
second explanation. “And Beit Hillel hold in accordance with the opinion
of Rabbi Shimon, as we learned in a mishna (Menaḥot 103a): If one
vows to bring a meal-offering from barley, since voluntary meal-offerings are
brought only from wheat, the Rabbis say: He must bring a meal-offering from
wheat, and Rabbi Shimon exempts him entirely, as he did not donate in
the manner typical of donors. Since he donated an offering that
cannot be sacrificed, his vow is meaningless. Here too, since he took a vow of
naziriteship stating that he therefore will refrain from dried figs rather than
from wine, his statement is meaningless.” (Sefaria.org translation) Rabbi
Shimon says when a person vows to bring a voluntary meal offerings (minkha-מִנְחָה) from barley, he
has not pledged anything since he did not pledge in a typical normal fashion.
In our Mishna’s case we can say that the person’s vow to become a nazir was not done in the typical normal
fashion; consequently, he doesn’t become a nazir.
No comments:
Post a Comment