משנה: הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֱהֵא שׁוֹתֶה בַיַּיִן וּמִיטַּמֵּא לַמֵּתִים הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר וְאָסוּר בְּכוּלָּן. יוֹדֵעַ אֶנִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ נְזִירִים אֲבָל אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהַנָּזִיר אָסוּר בַּיַּיִן הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר בַּיַּיִן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר. יוֹדֵעַ אֶנִי שֶׁהַנָּזִיר אָסוּר בַּיַּיִן אֲבָל סָבוּר הָיִיתִי שֶׁחֲכָמִים מַתִּירִין לִי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינִי יָכוֹל לִחְיוֹת בְּלֹא יַּיִן אוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֲנִי קוֹבֵר אֶת הַמֵּתִים הֲרֵי זֶה מוּתָּר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹסֵר. MISHNAH: “I am a nazir on condition that I may drink wine or become impure for the dead,” he is a nazir and forbidden everything51Since nezirut is defined in the Torah and any stipulation contradicting a biblical law is void (Ketubot 9:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.9.1.1">Ketubot 9:1, Note 5).. “I knew that there are nezirim but I did not know that wine is forbidden to the nazir52A person who declared himself a nazir, and when told that wine was forbidden to him declares that at the moment of the vow he was ignorant of its implications.”; wine is forbidden to him, but Rebbi Simeon permits53Because the vow was made in error and such a vow is excluded by the requirement that the vow be clearly enunciated (Numbers.6.2">Num. 6:2).. “I knew that wine was forbidden to the nazir but I thought that the Sages would permit me because I cannot live without wine, or because I am an undertaker;” he is permitted but Rebbi Simeon forbids54For the majority, the vow is in error; for R. Simeon it is a frivolous vow..
הלכה: מַתְנִיתָא דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. צָרִיךְ לִכְפּוֹל תמן. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא. אָמַר לוֹ. שְׁמוֹר וְשָׁמַעְתָּ. מַתְנִיתָא דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרִבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן תֵּימָא. דְּתַנֵּי. הֲרֵי זֶה גִיטֵּיךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא תִפְרְחִי בָאֲוֵיר. שֶׁלֹּא תַעַבְרִי אֶת הַיָּם הַגָּדוֹל בְּרַגְלַיִיךְ. הֲרֵי זֶה גֵט. עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּפְרְחִי בָאֲוֵיר. עַל מְנָת שֶׁתַּעַבְרִי הַיָּם הַגָּדוֹל בְּרַגְלַיִיךְ. אֵינוֹ גֵט. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶֶּן תֵּימָא אוֹמֵר. גֵּט. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. תֵּדַע לָךְ שֶׁעִילָּה הָיָה רוֹצֶה לְגָֽרְשָׁהּ. שֶׁתְּלָאָהּ בִּדְבָרִים שֶׁאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לַעֲמוֹד. מַה טַעֲמָה דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן תֵּימָא. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁתְּלָאָהּ בִּדְבָרִים שֶׁאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לַעֲמוֹד כְּמִי שֶׁנִּתְקַייֵם הַתְּנַאי בַּגֵּט הוּא. HALAKHAH: The Mishnah follows Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr says, one has to double one’s stipulation57Mishnah Qiddušin 3:3. A legal stipulation must follow the example of the stipulation between Moses and the tribes of Gad and Reuben (Numbers.32">Num. 32), which covers both the positive (if they fulfill the stipulation, they will acquire the land in Transjordan), and the negative (if they fail to fulfill the stipulation, they will be given land in Cisjordan). Since in Nazir 2:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.2.4.1">Mishnah 4 the person declaring himself a nazir failed to state that if he could not be a nazir on his terms, he would not be a nazir, his stipulation is invalid and he is a nazir.. It follows everybody’s opinion58The waiving of any stipulation in violation of biblical law (Nazir 2:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.2.4.1">Note 51) does not depend on R. Meïr’s opinion.; one tells him: Watch and keep discipline59Deuteronomy.12.28">Deut. 12:28; a poetic formulation of the principle of Nazir 2:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.2.4.1">Note 51.. The Mishnah follows Rebbi Meïr60As explained in Nazir 2:4:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.2.4.2">Note 57. or Rebbi Jehudah ben Tema61Who holds that an impossible condition is considered nonexistent. Since a stipulation against biblical law is impossible, the condition mentioned in the first sentence of Nazir 2:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.2.4.1">Mishnah 4 is considered nonexistent., as it was stated62Tosephta Giṭṭin 5:12; Gittin.84a">Babli Giṭṭin 84a.: “This is your bill of divorce, on condition that you not fly in the air, that you not cross the Sea on your feet, that is a bill of divorce. On condition that you fly in the air, that you cross the Sea on your feet, that is no bill of divorce; Rebbi Jehudah ben Tema said, it is a bill of divorce.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, you should realize that he seeks a subterfuge for the bill of divorce63He thinks that he can doubly hurt his wife, by preventing her to remarry and not paying her ketubah, since he may claim that he is waiting for her to satisfy the stipulation. By declaring the stipulation invalid, the court will permit her to remarry and force him to pay., since he attached conditions that cannot be satisfied. What is Rebbi Jehudah ben Tema’s reason? Since he attached conditions that cannot be satisfied, it is as if the condition attached to the bill of divorce were satisfied64In Tosephta and Babli: R. Jehudah ben Tema states as a principle that any stipulation which cannot be satisfied is only intended as a delaying tactic..
מַתְנִיתָא דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. דְּרִבִּי שִמְעוֹן פּוֹטֶר. שֶׁלֹּא הִתְנַדֵּב כְּדֶרֶךְ הַמִּתְנַדְּבִים. וְאָמַר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. שַׁנְייָא הִיא. שֶׁשִּׁייֵר תִּגְלַחַת. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָעֵי. אִם בְּשֶׁשִּׁייֵר תִּגְלַחַת אֱמוֹר דְּבַתְרָהּ. הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר. הֲרֵי שֶׁשִּׁייֵר תִּגְלַחַת טוּמְאָה רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר. שַׁנְייָא הִיא. מִשּׁוּם פְּתִיחַת נֵדֶר. אִם מִשּׁוּם פְּתִיחַת נֵדֶר אֱמוֹר דְּבַתְרָהּ. הֲרֵי זֶה מוּתָּר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹסֵר. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. אֵינוֹ פְּתִיחַת נֵדֶר. וְרַבָּנִין אָֽמְרִין. פְּתִיחַת נֵדֶר הוּא. לָמָּה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּתוֹלֶה נִדְרוֹ בְּחַיָּו. נִיחָא לִשֳׁתּוֹת יַיִן. לְטַמֵּא לַמֵּתִים. אוּמְנוּתוֹ קוֹבֵר מֵתִים. Does the Mishnah follow Rebbi Simeon65Since R. Simeon is quoted as disagreeing in two of the three cases quoted in Nazir 2:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.2.4.1">Mishnah 4, does one have to assume that he agrees in the first case?? For “Rebbi Simeon declares him free, because his offering was not according to the way of offerers.66Menachot 12:3" href="/Mishnah_Menachot.12.3">Mishnah Menaḥot 12:3. If somebody vows an offering of barley flour (which cannot be a voluntary offering), the rabbis require him to bring an offering of wheat flour but “R. Simeon declares him free, because his offering was not according to the way of offerers.” One should assume that R. Simeon declares a person who wants to be nazir on condition that he may drink wine as “offering not according to the way of offerers.” Why does he not disagree in the first case?” And Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, there is a difference because he reserved shaving67Since the person making the vow did not stipulate that he may shave, the vow is valid for the prohibition of shaving and a partially valid vow is valid.. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If it is because he reserved shaving, does not the following state “it is forbidden to him, but Rebbi Simeon permits.” Did he not reserve shaving [and] impurity but Rebbi Simeon frees him68The vow is partially valid; why is it not valid?? There is a difference, because of an opening for the vow69Since he bases his vow on an argument which will automatically grant him a revocation of the vow (cf. Nedarim Chapter 9), the vow is automatically revoked. In the Nazir.11b">Babli, 11b, this argument is attributed to Rav Assi. In the Tosephta, 2:3, it is explicitly attributed to R. Simeon.. If it was because of an opening for the vow, does not the following state “he is permitted but Rebbi Simeon forbids”? Rebbi Simeon does not recognize it as an opening for the vow but the rabbis recognize it as an opening for the vow. Why? Because he connects his vow with his life70If he needs wine for medical purposes, the use of wine must be permitted to him.. One understands, to drink wine. The defile oneself for the dead? It is his profession to bury the dead71The only person who can have a vow of nazir annulled because he has to defile himself for the dead is the undertaker..