Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nazir

Folio 30a

MISHNAH. A MAN CAN POLL [WITH OFFERINGS DUE FOR] HIS FATHER'S NAZIRITESHIP.⁹  BUT A WOMAN CANNOT DO SO. WHERE, FOR EXAMPLE, A MAN'S FATHER HAD BEEN A NAZIRITE, AND HAS SET APART A LUMP SUM OF MONEY FOR [THE SACRIFICES OF] HIS NAZIRITESHIP AND DIED AND [THE SON THEN] SAID, 'I DECLARE MYSELF A NAZIRITE ON CONDITION THAT I MAY POLL WITH MY FATHER'S MONEY. R. JOSE SAID THAT THESE MONEYS ARE TO BE USED FOR FREEWILL-OFFERINGS AND THAT SUCH A MAN CANNOT POLL AT THE EXPENSE OF HIS FATHER'S NAZIRITESHIP. WHO CAN DO SO? HE WHO WAS A NAZIRITE TOGETHER WITH HIS FATHER, AND WHOSE FATHER HAD SET APART A LUMP SUM OF MONEY FOR HIS NAZIRITE [SACRIFICES] AND DIED. [ONLY] SUCH A MAN CAN POLL AT THE EXPENSE OF HIS FATHER'S NAZIRITESHIP.¹⁰

GEMARA. Why [cannot a woman poll with her father's money]? — R. Johanan said: It is a [traditional] ruling with regard to the nazirite.¹¹  Surely this is obvious and so what purpose does [the ruling] serve, for a son inherits his father but a daughter does not do so?¹²  — It is not necessary, except in the case where he had a daughter only.¹³  It might have been thought that the tradition received was that [all] heirs [could poll]¹⁴

1. So that although he could make vows himself, his father could still impose a naziriteship on him.
2. I.e., minor means 'under my father's control.'
3. This is the explanation of R. Han. quoted in Tosaf.
4. For his father's naziriteship will automatically lapse on his reaching manhood; v. Tosef. Naz. III.
5. For on his reaching the age of making vows, vows imposed by his father beforehand are unaffected, and manhood is a long way off.
6. I.e., how do you account for the acceptance by Rabban Gamaliel of the double vow without further ado, since R. Hanina might reach manhood during the naziriteship.
7. If the boy does not wish to be examined.
8. I.e., observe a naziriteship of sixty days, instead of thirty, so that all contingencies are covered.
9. I.e., may purchase the sacrifices due on polling with money set apart for his father's sacrifices.
10. Many MSS. (v. Tosaf.) reverse these two examples, making R. Jose permit him to poll if he becomes a nazirite afterwards, but not if he is a nazirite together with his father. In the parallel passage Tosef. Naz. III, there is the same MS. confusion. Cf. also supra 17b, and infra 30b,
11. No justification is therefore needed.
12. And so she could not obtain the money. For the rules of inheritance, v. Num. XXVII, 6ff.
13. In such a case the daughter inherits (ibid.).
14. So that where there was no son, the daughter could poll.

The question was asked: Do the Rabbis differ from R. Jose or not;¹  and if it should be decided that they differ, whether with the first clause [only] or with the subsequent clause also?²  Come and hear: In what circumstances was it said that a man may poll at the expense of his father's naziriteship? Where his father who had been a nazirite set apart money for [the sacrifices of] his naziriteship and died, and [the son then] said, 'I declare myself a nazirite on condition that I may poll with my father's money,' he [the son] is permitted to poll with his father's money. But where both he and his father were nazirites together, and his father set apart money for [the sacrifices of] his naziriteship and died, the money is to be used for freewill-offerings. The above is the opinion of R. Jose.³  R. Eliezer,⁴  R. Meir and R. Judah said: Just such a one may poll with his father's money.⁵

Rabbah raised the problem: Suppose [the nazirite] has two sons, both nazirites,⁶  what is the law? Did the tradition state [simply] that there is a halachah,⁷  so that the one who was first [to become a nazirite] may poll, or did it state [that the son may use the money because it is his] inheritance and so they divide it?

Raba raised the problem: Suppose [the sons were] the firstborn⁸  and another, what would the law be? Was the tradition received as a halachah and [the first-born] is therefore not entitled to receive for polling the same proportion as he receives [of the rest of the estate], or is [the money for the nazirite sacrifices, part of his] inheritance, and just as he takes a double portion there, so also is it with the [money for] polling?

Should it be decided that [the money for the nazirite sacrifices is part of] the inheritance, so that [the first-born] receives for polling in proportion to what he receives [of the rest of the estate], does [the first-born] receive a double portion only when [the money] is profane, but not when it becomes sacred,⁹  or is there no difference, seeing that he has acquired [a double portion] for polling?¹⁰

Suppose his father was a life-nazirite¹¹  and he an ordinary nazirite, or his father an ordinary nazirite and he a life-nazirite, what would the law be?¹²  Was the halachah received only with regard to ordinary naziriteships,¹³  or is there no difference?¹⁴

Should it be decided that [such is the case] here [because] both the naziriteships¹⁵  were discharged in ritual purity,¹⁶  [then] R. Ashi raised a [further] problem. Suppose his father were an unclean nazirite¹⁷  and he a clean nazirite,¹⁸  or his father were a clean nazirite¹⁹  and he an unclean nazirite,²⁰  what would be the law? The problem was unsolved.

CHAPTER V

MISHNAH. BETH SHAMMAI SAY THAT CONSECRATION IN ERROR IS [EFFECTIVE] CONSECRATION,

1. The problem arises because of the wording of our Mishnah. If no one differs from R. Jose, why say 'R. Jose said'?
2. I.e., do they permit the son to poll in both cases, or do they permit the one R. Jose forbids and vice versa.
3. The opinion here ascribed to R. Jose is not that of our version of the Mishnah, but is that of the MS. versions. One or other must be emended, for consistency (v. Tosaf.).
4. Our text, R. Eliezer, is a common scribal error for R. Eleazar b. Shamua, the colleague of the other Rabbis mentioned.
5. Tosef. Naz. III. 9. Hence, (a) these Rabbis differ from R. Jose. (b) the difference covers both cases, for the 'Just such a one' is emphatic. So Rashi. Tosaf., Maim. Yad. (Neziruth VIII, 15), and most other commentators, however, consider that in the opinion of these Rabbis he may use his father's money under all circumstances.
6. And then dies, leaving money for sacrifices.
7. A ruling. Viz.: that it is possible for the son to use the money left by his father for his own naziriteship, no reason being given as to why he may do so.
8. Who is entitled to a double portion of the heritage. V. Deut. XXI, 17.
9. I.e., he receives two thirds of the money left towards his own nazirite sacrifices, but after the animals have been slaughtered and sacrificed he must return part of the sacred meat to his brother, so that each obtains just half of the meat which is to be eaten. — This question is raised because except for unslaughtered peace-offerings a first-born does not obtain a double portion of the sacred animals left at his father's death.
10. And so he will also keep a double portion of the meat.
11. And he put aside money for his naziriteship and died.
12. I.e., may the son use the money for his own naziriteship or not?
13. And he may not use the money.
14. And he may use the money.
15. Of the father and of the son.
16. And there is no distinction between the kind of naziriteship undertaken.
17. And he had set aside money to buy the sacrifices required for purification (v. Hum. VI, 10), and then died.
18. I.e., may the son use the money towards the sacrifices he must offer on completing his naziriteship.
19. And he had set aside money for the sacrifices and then died.
20. I.e., may the son use the money towards the sacrifices of an unclean nazirite.