Nazir 61: Can We Take On Mitzvot That Are Obliged to Others?

Before beginning Perek IX, our daf shares the Gemara's conclusions concerning our last Mishna.  

• a leper shaves before immersion and again before the blood is sprinkled
• an impure nazirite shaves after immersion and again after the blood is sprinkled
• if hair is removed for the sake of the mitzvah of shaving, a depilatory is permitted
• if hair is removed for the sake of removing hair that grew in a state of tumah, a depilatory is permitted
• thus all four acts of shaving discussed are done for the sake of the mitzvah of shaving

Perek IX shares a new Mitzvah:  Gentiles cannot be nazirites.  Women and slaves can both be nazirites.  Women are more stringent than slaves in their nazirut, for slaves can be forced to break nazirut but women cannot.  

The Gemara picks this apart.  First, why aren't Gentiles nazirites?  The Gemara refers to Numbers 6:2, which says "Speak to the children of Israel", excluding others from the obligation of nazirut.  Second, why are slaves included?  The verse continues with, "And say to them, when a man or woman clearly utters a vow...".  We know that women's obligations are applied to slaves as well.   

Another verse that teaches about the exclusion of Gentiles using those same words is Leviticus 27:2, which refers to valuation vow, which are required of Gentiles in limited ways.  Thus perhaps Gentiles are included in modified vows of nazirut?  Finally, the Gemara points to the conclusion of that verse, which speaks of a person not defiling himself for his father, mother, sister or brother.   The Gemara wonders: do Gentiles even have fathers at all?  They are bound by different rules of inheritance than Jews.  Further, this concerns ritual purity, which does not apply to Gentiles at all.  The Gemara argues that Gentiles are only bound to their own laws regarding valuation.  And because Gentiles cannot end their vows of nazirut through meaningful purification rituals, they are not obliged in nazirut.  

An interesting argument: can a person meet the requirements of rituals that do not apply to them?  We can use this same system of thought to understand arguments against women's participation in traditionally male, time-bound obligations.  If a woman is not bound by those obligations, why would she have any motivation to do them with awe, reverence, or meaning?  And what would be the consequence if she were to do one of the mitzvot incorrectly?  

Perhaps this suggests a mode of thought that is based on punishment and reward.  Do some rabbis imagine that women might not hold ourselves to stringent practice because we are already breaking with tradition to observe in the first place?  And/or are they concerned about their recourse if we were to do a mitzvah incorrectly that was formerly punishable by karet?  If we are not obliged to do the mitzvah in the first place, how can we be held accountable if we mess up?

I understand that this is only one argument against egalitarian participation in religious leadership roles and traditionally male mitzvot.  Usually I am aware of the argument against taking on a role that is not ours; women have our own roles and mitzvot to follow and we are not permitted to take on the obligations of others.  And more...