🍇 Mishnah Nazir 9
Chapter 9 of Mishnah Nazir
Verses
Verse 1
הַגּוֹיִם אֵין לָהֶם נְזִירוּת. נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים יֵשׁ לָהֶם נְזִירוּת. חֹמֶר בַּנָּשִׁים מִבָּעֲבָדִים, שֶׁהוּא כוֹפֶה אֶת עַבְדּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ כוֹפֶה אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. חֹמֶר בָּעֲבָדִים מִבַּנָּשִׁים, שֶׁהוּא מֵפֵר נִדְרֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ מֵפֵר נִדְרֵי עַבְדּוֹ. הֵפֵר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, הֵפֵר עוֹלָמִית. הֵפֵר לְעַבְדּוֹ, יָצָא לְחֵרוּת מַשְׁלִים נְזִירוּתוֹ. עָבַר מִכְּנֶגֶד פָּנָיו, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, לֹא יִשְׁתֶּה, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, יִשְׁתֶּה:
Gentiles do not have naziriteship, i.e., the halakhot of naziriteship do not apply to gentiles. They are not subject to the prohibitions of a nazirite, nor does one accept their offerings at the end of naziriteship. However, women and Canaanite slaves do have naziriteship. The mishna adds: There is a greater stringency in the case of women than in the case of slaves, as a master may force his slave to drink wine, shave his hair, or become ritually impure from a corpse, despite the slave’s vow of naziriteship, but a husband cannot force his wife to transgress her naziriteship. The previous mishna taught that the naziriteship of women includes a stringency that does not apply to slaves. This mishna adds: There is a greater stringency in the case of slaves than in the case of women, as a man can nullify the vows of his wife but he cannot nullify the vows of his slave, despite the fact that he can prevent him from fulfilling them in practice. Similarly, if he nullified the naziriteship of his wife it is permanently nullified, and it remains nullified even if she is later divorced or widowed. Conversely, if he nullified the naziriteship of his slave by forcing him to violate the terms of his vow of naziriteship, when the slave is emancipated he completes his naziriteship. In a case where a slave took a vow of naziriteship but was prevented by his master from fulfilling the terms of his vow, the Sages engaged in a dispute what the halakha would be if he permanently left his master’s presence, i.e., he ran away without being emancipated. Rabbi Meir says: He may not drink wine. Since the slave is free in practice, his vow goes into effect. And Rabbi Yosei says: He may drink wine, as he is not emancipated.
Verse 2
נָזִיר שֶׁגִּלַּח וְנוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא, אִם טֻמְאָה יְדוּעָה, סוֹתֵר. וְאִם טֻמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם, אֵינוֹ סוֹתֵר. אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא גִלַּח, בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ סוֹתֵר. כֵּיצַד, יָרַד לִטְבֹּל בִּמְעָרָה וְנִמְצָא מֵת צָף עַל פִּי הַמְּעָרָה, טָמֵא. נִמְצָא מְשֻׁקָּע בְּקַרְקַע הַמְּעָרָה, יָרַד לְהָקֵר, טָהוֹר. לִטַּהֵר מִטֻּמְאַת מֵת, טָמֵא, שֶׁחֶזְקַת טָמֵא טָמֵא וְחֶזְקַת טָהוֹר טָהוֹר, שֶׁרַגְלַיִם לַדָּבָר:
With regard to a nazirite who shaved for the conclusion of his naziriteship, and it later became known to him that during his naziriteship he was ritually impure from a corpse, if it was a known impurity, i.e., people were aware of the impurity when he became impure, he negates his entire naziriteship. And if it was ritual impurity imparted by a grave in the depths, one that was unknown at the time, he does not negate his naziriteship. If he discovered he was impure before he shaved, he negates his naziriteship in either case. The mishna asks: How does one differentiate between a known and an unknown impurity? If a nazirite descended to immerse in a cave, and a corpse was found floating at the mouth of the cave, he is impure, as an openly visible corpse is a known impurity. What, then, is an impurity of the depths? This is referring to a case where the corpse was found sunk into the ground of the cave in such a manner that it was unknown. However, even here the circumstances of the case must be taken into account. If one descended not to immerse himself in the water, as he was ritually pure, but to cool himself, he remains pure. If he was impure and entered the water to purify himself from the impurity from a corpse, he is impure. The reason is that something that has the presumptive status of impurity remains impure, and something that has the presumptive status of purity is pure, as there is a basis for the matter. It is reasonable that items or people retain their presumptive status.
Verse 3
הַמּוֹצֵא מֵת בִּתְחִלָּה מֻשְׁכָּב כְּדַרְכּוֹ, נוֹטְלוֹ וְאֶת תְּבוּסָתוֹ. מָצָא שְׁנַיִם, נוֹטְלָן וְאֶת תְּבוּסָתָן. מָצָא שְׁלשָׁה, אִם יֵשׁ בֵּין זֶה לָזֶה מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת וְעַד שְׁמֹנֶה, הֲרֵי זוֹ שְׁכוּנַת קְבָרוֹת. בּוֹדֵק הֵימֶנּוּ וּלְהַלָּן עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה. מָצָא אֶחָד בְּסוֹף עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה, בּוֹדֵק הֵימֶנּוּ וּלְהַלָּן עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה, שֶׁרַגְלַיִם לַדָּבָר, שֶׁאִלּוּ מִתְּחִלָּה מְצָאוֹ, נוֹטְלוֹ וְאֶת תְּבוּסָתוֹ:
One who finds a corpse for the first time, i.e., he discovers a single corpse in a place that was not previously established as a cemetery, if the corpse is lying in the usual manner of Jewish burial, he removes it from there and also its surrounding earth. It is assumed that this corpse was buried there alone. There is no concern that this area is a cemetery and therefore the corpse may not be moved, nor does one take into account the possibility that another corpse may be buried in the vicinity. Similarly, if he found two corpses, he removes them and their surrounding earth. In a case where he found three corpses, if there is a space between this corpse and that corpse of four to eight cubits, in a standard design, this is a graveyard. There is a concern that this might be an ancient cemetery. One must therefore examine from that spot outward for twenty cubits. If one finds another corpse at the end of twenty cubits, he examines from that spot outward twenty cubits, as there is a basis for anticipating the matter. It is likely that he has stumbled upon an ancient gravesite. He is not permitted to relocate the corpses, despite the fact that if he had found the single corpse by itself at first he could have removed it and its surrounding earth.
Verse 4
כָּל סְפֵק נְגָעִים בַּתְּחִלָּה, טָהוֹר עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִזְקַק לַטֻּמְאָה. מִשֶּׁנִּזְקַק לַטֻּמְאָה, סְפֵקוֹ טָמֵא. בְּשִׁבְעָה דְרָכִים בּוֹדְקִין אֶת הַזָּב עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִזְקַק לַזִּיבָה. בְּמַאֲכָל, וּבְמִשְׁתֶּה, בְּמַשָּׂא, וּבִקְפִיצָה, וּבְחֹלִי, וּבְמַרְאֶה, וּבְהִרְהוּר. מִשֶּׁנִּזְקַק לַזִּיבָה, אֵין בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ. אָנְסוֹ וּסְפֵקוֹ וְשִׁכְבַת זַרְעוֹ, טְמֵאִין, שֶׁרַגְלַיִם לַדָּבָר. הַמַּכֶּה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ וַאֲמָדוּהוּ לְמִיתָה, וְהֵקֵל מִמַּה שֶּׁהָיָה, לְאַחַר מִכָּאן הִכְבִּיד וּמֵת, חַיָּב. רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר, פָּטוּר, שֶׁרַגְלַיִם לַדָּבָר:
Any case of uncertainty with regard to leprous sores is initially deemed pure until it is established that it is a case of ritual impurity. Once it has been determined to be a case of impurity, uncertainty concerning it is deemed impure. This mishna discusses another case that includes the statement: There is a basis to anticipate the matter. One examines a man who experienced a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav] in seven ways, as long as he has not been confirmed as having a gonorrhea-like discharge [ziva.] With regard to an individual’s second such discharge, before he has been established as a greater zav, one examines to see whether there may have been a particular trigger of his discharge. One examines him with regard to food and with regard to drink, in case the discharge might have been the result of overeating or excess drinking; with regard to a burden, as it might have been caused by the weight of a heavy burden; and with regard to jumping, in case he jumped and this led to the discharge; and with regard to sickness; and with regard to an arousing sight; and with regard to the thought of a woman. Once he has been confirmed as having a ziva, after two definite discharges of ziva, one no longer examines him in this way, as any discharge is deemed impure. If one experiences three discharges of ziva, he is obligated to bring an offering following his purification. Accordingly, his discharge that was due to circumstances beyond his control, i.e., for one of the seven reasons listed above, and his discharge about which it is uncertain if it is ziva, and even his semen, which is not usually considered the discharge of a zav, are all impure. Why is this so? It is because there is a basis for anticipating the matter. Once he has the status of a zav, it can be assumed that subsequent discharges are of ziva as well. The Sages similarly taught: With regard to one who strikes another with heavy blows, and doctors assessed that he would die as a result of the beating, but his health improved from what it was, so that they then determined that he would not die from his injuries, and afterward his condition worsened and he died, the one who struck him is liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment, as it is assumed that the victim’s death was caused by the assault. Rabbi Neḥemya says: He is exempt, because there is a basis for anticipating the matter. Since the victim began to recover during his illness, it is reasonable to assume that his death was caused by a factor other than the assault.
Verse 5
נָזִיר הָיָה שְׁמוּאֵל, כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי נְהוֹרַאי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמואל א א) וּמוֹרָה לֹא יַעֲלֶה עַל רֹאשׁוֹ, נֶאֱמַר בְּשִׁמְשׁוֹן (שופטים יג) וּמוֹרָה, וְנֶאֱמַר בִּשְׁמוּאֵל וּמוֹרָה, מַה מּוֹרָה הָאֲמוּרָה בְשִׁמְשׁוֹן, נָזִיר, אַף מוֹרָה הָאֲמוּרָה בִשְׁמוּאֵל, נָזִיר. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, וַהֲלֹא אֵין מוֹרָה אֶלָּא שֶׁל בָּשָׂר וָדָם. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי נְהוֹרַאי, וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר (שמואל א טז) וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁמוּאֵל אֵיךְ אֵלֵךְ וְשָׁמַע שָׁאוּל וַהֲרָגָנִי, שֶׁכְּבָר הָיָה עָלָיו מוֹרָה שֶׁל בָּשָׂר וָדָם:
The tractate concludes with an aggadic statement about nazirites. Samuel the prophet was a nazirite, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Nehorai, as it was stated that when Hannah, his mother, prayed for a son, she vowed: “And no mora shall come upon his head” (I Samuel 1:11). How is it derived that mora is an expression of naziriteship? It is stated with regard to Samson: “And no razor [mora] shall come upon his head, for the child shall be a nazirite to God” (Judges 13:5), and it is stated: “And no mora,” with regard to Samuel. Just as the term “mora” that is stated with regard to Samson means that he was a nazirite, so too the term “mora” that is stated with regard to Samuel indicates that he was a nazirite. Rabbi Yosei said: But doesn’t the word “mora” mean nothing other than the fear of flesh and blood? The word should be read as though it were written with an alef, and not a heh, so that it means fear. Rabbi Nehorai said to him: But isn’t it already stated: “And Samuel said: How can I go; if Saul hears it he will kill me” (I Samuel 16:2). This verse indicates that there was fear of flesh and blood upon Samuel. Consequently, the term mora must be understood in accordance with its plain meaning of a razor. If so, Samuel was indeed a nazirite.