🍇 Mishnah Nazir 5
Chapter 5 of Mishnah Nazir
Verses
Verse 1
בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, הֶקְדֵּשׁ טָעוּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ. כֵּיצַד. אָמַר, שׁוֹר שָׁחוֹר שֶׁיֵּצֵא מִבֵּיתִי רִאשׁוֹן הֲרֵי הוּא הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וְיָצָא לָבָן, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ:
Beit Shammai say: Consecration that one performs in error nevertheless renders property consecrated, and Beit Hillel say it is not consecrated. How so; 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.
Verse 2
דִּינַר זָהָב שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה בְיָדִי רִאשׁוֹן הֲרֵי הוּא הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וְעָלָה שֶׁל כֶּסֶף, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ. חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן שֶׁתַּעֲלֶה בְיָדִי רִאשׁוֹנָה הֲרֵי הִיא הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וְעָלְתָה שֶׁל שֶׁמֶן, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ:
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.
Verse 3
מִי שֶׁנָּדַר בְּנָזִיר וְנִשְׁאַל לְחָכָם וַאֲסָרוֹ, מוֹנֶה מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁנָּדַר. נִשְׁאַל לְחָכָם וְהִתִּירוֹ, הָיְתָה לוֹ בְהֵמָה מֻפְרֶשֶׁת, תֵּצֵא וְתִרְעֶה בָעֵדֶר. אָמְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי, אִי אַתֶּם מוֹדִים בָּזֶה שֶׁהוּא הֶקְדֵּשׁ טָעוּת שֶׁתֵּצֵא וְתִרְעֶה בָעֵדֶר. אָמְרוּ לָהֶן בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, אִי אַתֶּם מוֹדִים בְּמִי שֶׁטָּעָה וְקָרָא לַתְּשִׁיעִי עֲשִׂירִי וְלָעֲשִׂירִי תְשִׁיעִי וְלָאַחַד עָשָׂר עֲשִׂירִי שֶׁהוּא מְקֻדָּשׁ. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית הִלֵּל, לֹא הַשֵּׁבֶט קִדְּשׁוֹ. וּמָה אִלּוּ טָעָה וְהִנִּיחַ אֶת הַשֵּׁבֶט עַל שְׁמִינִי וְעַל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר, שֶׁמָּא עָשָׂה כְלוּם. אֶלָּא כָּתוּב שֶׁקִּדֵּשׁ אֶת הָעֲשִׂירִי, הוּא קִדֵּשׁ אֶת הַתְּשִׁיעִי וְאֶת אַחַד עָשָׂר:
With regard to one who took a vow of naziriteship, who then regretted his vow and stopped observing the prohibition against drinking wine, and later requested of a halakhic authority to dissolve his vow, and the authority ruled that he is bound by his vow, finding no reason to dissolve it, he counts the term of naziriteship from the time that he vowed, including the days when he acted as though the vow were dissolved. In a case where he requested of a halakhic authority to dissolve his vow and the authority dissolved it, if he had an animal separated as a nazirite offering it shall go out and graze among the flock. On the basis of this halakha, and continuing their discussion in the previous mishna, Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Don’t you concede with regard to this case that it is an erroneous act of consecration, and yet the halakha is that it shall go out and graze among the flock? This shows that you too accept the principle that an erroneous act of consecration does not take effect. Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: Don’t you concede with regard to one who was separating the animal tithe from his herd, i.e., passing his animals before him single file and consecrating every tenth one as a tithe, that if he erred and called the ninth animal: Tenth; and the tenth: Ninth; and the eleventh: Tenth, that each of them is consecrated? This proves that an erroneous act of consecration does take effect. Beit Hillel said to them: It is not the rod that consecrates it. The touch of the rod does not consecrate the animal, nor does the fact that he said: Tenth, by mistake. Not all errors cause the tithe to be consecrated, and the proof is as follows: And what would be the halakha if he had erred and placed the rod on the eighth or on the twelfth, and labeled them: Tenth? Can it be suggested that perhaps he performed anything of consequence? The halakha is that the eighth or twelfth animal cannot be consecrated as tithe. Rather, why is the ninth or eleventh animal consecrated? There is a specific reason for this halakha, as the same verse that consecrated the tenth also consecrated the ninth and the eleventh. It is a Torah edict that the consecration takes effect with regard to those two animals. Therefore, one cannot infer from this case that an erroneous act of consecration takes effect.
Verse 4
מִי שֶׁנָּדַר בְּנָזִיר וְהָלַךְ לְהָבִיא אֶת בְּהֶמְתּוֹ וּמְצָאָהּ שֶׁנִּגְנְבָה, אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְנְבָה בְהֶמְתּוֹ נָזַר, הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר. וְאִם מִשֶּׁנִּגְנְבָה בְהֶמְתּוֹ נָזַר, אֵינוֹ נָזִיר. וְזוֹ טָעוּת טָעָה נַחוּם הַמָּדִי כְּשֶׁעָלוּ נְזִירִים מִן הַגּוֹלָה וּמָצְאוּ בֵית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ חָרֵב, אָמַר לָהֶם נַחוּם הַמָּדִי, אִלּוּ הֱיִיתֶם יוֹדְעִים שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ חָרֵב הֱיִיתֶם נוֹזְרִים. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לֹא, וְהִתִּירָן נַחוּם הַמָּדִי. וּכְשֶׁבָּא הַדָּבָר אֵצֶל חֲכָמִים, אָמְרוּ לוֹ, כֹּל שֶׁנָּזַר עַד שֶׁלֹּא חָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, נָזִיר. וּמִשֶּׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, אֵינוֹ נָזִיר:
With regard to one who took a vow of naziriteship and went to bring his animal which he set aside for his nazirite offering and discovered that it was stolen, and due to the need to separate an additional animal now regrets having taken his vow, if he took a vow of naziriteship before his animal was stolen, he is a nazirite, as a vow cannot be dissolved as the result of a later event. But if he took a vow of naziriteship after his animal was stolen, he is not a nazirite, as it is retroactively established that his vow was taken in error from the outset, as he relied on an animal he did not possess. And this was the error that Naḥum the Mede erred when he failed to distinguish between an event that occurred before the vow was taken and an event that occurred afterward. The incident in question was as follows: 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.
Verse 5
הָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְאֶחָד בָּא כְנֶגְדָּן, אָמַר אֶחָד מֵהֶן הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁזֶּה פְלוֹנִי, וְאֶחָד אָמַר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁאֵין זֶה פְלוֹנִי, הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁאֶחָד מִכֶּם נָזִיר, שֶׁאֵין אֶחָד מִכֶּם נָזִיר, שֶׁשְּׁנֵיכֶם נְזִירִים, שֶׁכֻּלְּכֶם נְזִירִים, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים כֻּלָּם נְזִירִים. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ נָזִיר אֶלָּא מִי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְקַיְּמוּ דְבָרָיו. וְרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר, אֵין אֶחָד מֵהֶם נָזִיר:
If there were people walking along the way, and one other person was approaching them, and one of those walking said: I am hereby a nazirite if this person approaching us is so-and-so. And another one of them said: I am hereby a nazirite if this is not so-and-so, while a third member of the group said: I am hereby a nazirite if one of you two is a nazirite, and a fourth said: I am hereby a nazirite if neither of you is a nazirite, and another added: I am hereby a nazirite if both of you are nazirites. Finally, the last person said: I am hereby a nazirite if all you who spoke before me are nazirites. Beit Shammai say that they are all nazirites, as by saying: I am hereby a nazirite, they have accepted naziriteship upon themselves even if their statements turn out to be incorrect. Beit Shammai maintain that a vow of naziriteship taken in error is considered a valid vow of naziriteship. And Beit Hillel say: Only he whose statement was not fulfilled is a nazirite. And Rabbi Tarfon says: Not a single one of them is a nazirite, including those whose statements were correct. Rabbi Tarfon maintains that a vow of naziriteship must be pronounced in an explicit manner, without any hint of uncertainty. In this case, none of them knew for sure the identity of the person coming toward them, and therefore they could not be certain they were nazirites at the time of their vows.
Verse 6
הִרְתִּיעַ לַאֲחוֹרָיו, אֵינוֹ נָזִיר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, יֹאמַר, אִם הָיָה כִדְבָרַי, הֲרֵינִי נְזִיר חוֹבָה. וְאִם לָאו, הֲרֵינִי נְזִיר נְדָבָה:
If the person approaching them turned back so that his identity was never discovered, not one of them is a nazirite. The matter was never clarified, and the halakha is lenient in cases of uncertain naziriteship. Rabbi Shimon says that the halakha is stringent with regard to an uncertainty of this kind, and therefore they should proceed as follows in order to avoid any uncertainty: Each of those who took a vow should say: If it was in accordance with my statement, I am hereby an obligatory nazirite, as my condition was fulfilled, and if not, I am hereby a voluntary nazirite, and in this manner they are all nazirites either way.
Verse 7
רָאָה אֶת הַכּוֹי וְאָמַר, הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁזֶּה חַיָּה, הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁזֶּה אֵינוֹ חַיָּה, הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁזֶּה בְהֵמָה, הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁאֵין זֶה בְהֵמָה, הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁזֶּה חַיָּה וּבְהֵמָה, הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁאֵין זֶה לֹא חַיָּה וְלֹא בְהֵמָה, הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁאֶחָד מִכֶּם נָזִיר, הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁאֵין אֶחָד מִכֶּם נָזִיר, הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁכֻּלְּכֶם נְזִירִים, הֲרֵי כֻלָּם נְזִירִים:
Someone saw a kosher animal with characteristics of both a domesticated animal and a non-domesticated animal [koy], and said: I am hereby a nazirite if this is a non-domesticated animal; and another individual said: I am hereby a nazirite if this is not a non-domesticated animal; and a third person said: I am hereby a nazirite if this is a domesticated animal; and a fourth said: I am hereby a nazirite if this not a domesticated animal. The mishna continues: A fifth person added: I am hereby a nazirite if this is a non-domesticated animal and a domesticated animal, and a sixth person said: I am hereby a nazirite if this is neither a non-domesticated animal nor a domesticated animal. Someone who heard all the above statements said: I am hereby a nazirite if one of you is a nazirite, and another one stated: I am hereby a nazirite if not one of you is a nazirite, and a final person said: I am hereby a nazirite if all of you are nazirites. In this case, they are all nazirites.