Our daf introduces three different Mishnayot. The first teaches that a person cannot be
offered a cup of wine and respond by saying, “I am a nazirite and I cannot
drink from it” without taking on the full obligations of nazirut. But this is immediately contradicted in the
same Mishna: a woman did just this, but she did so because she did not wish to
drink just that cup of wine; it was ‘as an offering’ to her.
The Gemara dives into a discussion about the interpretations
of people’s imprecise words. A person
might say that s/he is a nazirite because that allows the listeners to
immediately understand her/his wishes.
Perhaps this is done because a person is very intoxicated, depressed, or
a mourner and does not wish to drink any more.
In such cases, the vow to abstain from that cup of wine is upheld but
the person is not held to a vow of nazirut.
Our second Mishna tells us that a person might say that s/he
wishes to be a nazirite but will not abstain from alcohol, or may continue to
have contact with corpses, or may want to continue cutting his/her hair. In such a case, Rav Shimon argues with the
other Sages. Must a person uphold the
vow of nazirut if s/he believed that the rabbis would take her/his particular
situation into consideration? What
should be done if the person did not understand the vows of nazirut when taking
her/his vow?
The Gemara discusses these statements within the context of
the four types of vows that are dissolved by our Sages. The first is zeruzin, vows of exhortation,
where one uses his/her vow to oblige another person to take some sort of
action. The second are havai,
exaggeration, where a person is obviously not taking his/her vows
seriously. The example cited by
Steinsaltz involves a vow conditional on seeing a square snake. The third category of vows dissolved by our
Sages is sgagot, untintentional vows, like the above case where a person does
not realize that drinking wine is forbidden to a nazirite. The fourth group of vows are onasin, where
one’s vows cannot be fulfilled due to circumstances beyond his/her control.
Our final Mishna today regards a person who says, “I am a
nazirite and I am obligated to shave another nazirite”. If another person hears the first and
responds with, “And I too am obligated to shave another nazirite”, both are
nazirites. And if they wish to save money, they can shave each other. Otherwise they will have to find other
nazirites to sponsor.
We learn from our notes in Steinsaltz that the obligation to
shave another nazirite actually refers to covering the payment both for that
haircutting and for the nazirite’s offering at the completion of his/her
nazirut.
The Gemara wonders about the two clauses included in these
statements. The first is “I am a
nazirite”, “Me too”. The second is “I
must shave another nazirite”. The rabbis
argue: which clause is more immediately accepted? How do we know that we should interpret the second
speaker’s words as agreeing to nazirut? Perhaps
s/he is simply agreeing to pay for the costs of another nazirite. The rabbis wonder why one clause is taught if
it might be unnecessary to the conversation.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment