משנה: מִי שֶׁנָּזַר בַּנָּזִיר וְהָלַךְ לְהָבִיא אֶת בְּהֶמְתּוֹ וּמְצָאָהּ שֶׁנִּגְנְבָה אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְנְבָה בְהֵמָה נָזַר הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר. וְאִם מִשֶּׁנִּגְנְבָה בְהֵמָה נָזַר אֵינוֹ נָזִיר. זוֹ טָעוּת טָעָה נַחוּם אִישׁ הַמָּדִי כְּשֶׁעָלוּ נְזִירִין מִן הַגּוֹלָה וּמָֽצְאוּ בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ חָרֵב אָמַר לָהֶם נַחוּם אִישׁ הַמָּדִי אִילּוּ הֱיִיתֶם יוֹדְעִים שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ עָתִיד לִיחָרֵב נוֹזְרִין הֱיִיתֶם. אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ לָאו וְהִתִּירָן נַחוּם אִישׁ הַמָּדִי. וּכְשֶׁבָּא דָּבָר אֵצֶל חֲכָמִים אָֽמְרוּ כָּל־שֶׁנָּזַר עַד שֶׁלֹּא חָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ נָזִיר וּמִשֶּׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ אֵינוֹ נָזִיר. MISHNAH: A person vowed to be a nazir and went to bring his animal110And from the start it was his intention to use this animal as his sacrifice at the end of the period of nezirut. when he found that it was stolen; if he vowed before the animal was stolen he is a nazir, after the animal was stolen he is not a nazir111Since the vow was made in error.. This error was made by Naḥum from Media: When nezirim came from the Diaspora112The Parthian empire, which was not touched by the Jewish revolt. and found that the Temple had been destroyed, Naḥum from Media asked them: If you had known that the Temple would be destroyed, would you have made a vow of nazir113The question was legitimate for R. Eliezer (Nedarim 9:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.9.2.1">Mishnah Nedarim 9:2) who admits that people may ask to annul a vow because of unforseeable circumstances, but the anonymous majority forbid this kind of question.? They said to him, no, and Naḥum from Media permitted them. When the case came before the Sages they said, anyone who made his vow before the Temple was destroyed is a nazir, after the Temple was destroyed he is not a nazir.
הלכה: מִי שֶׁנָּזַר בַּנָּזִיר וְהָלַךְ לְהָבִיא אֶת בְּהֶמְתּוֹ כול׳. מָה אֲנָן קַייָמִין. אִם בְּשֶׁרָאָה בְהֵמָה עוֹבֶרֶת בַּשּׁוּק וְאָמַר. הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר עַל בְּהֵמָה זֹאת שֶׁעָֽבְרָה. אֲפִילוּ מִשֶׁנִּגְנְבָה בְהֵמָה נָזִיר. אִם כְּסָבוּר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ וְנִמְצָא שֶׁאֵין לוֹ. כָּךְ אָנוּ אוֹמְרִים. הָיָה עָשִׁיר וְהֶעֱנִי תִּיפָּקַע מִמֶּנּוּ נְזִירוּתוֹ. אֲלָּא אָכֵן אֲנָן קַייָמִין. בָּאוֹמֵר. הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר עַל הַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת. וְהָלַךְ וּמִצָאָהּ שֶׁנִּגְנְבָה. אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְנְבָה הַבְּהֵמָה נָזַר הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר. אִם מִשֶּׁנִּגְנְבָה הַבְּהֵמָה נָזַר אֵין זֶה נָזִיר. תַּלְמִידוֹהִי דְּרִבִּי חִייָה בַּר לוּלְייָנָא אָֽמְרִין. רִבִי יוּדָה שָׁאֵל. הֶחֱזִירוּהָ הַגַּנָּבִים בַּלַּיְלָה. לְמַפְרֵעַ חָזַר עָלַיו נְזִירוּתוֹ אוֹ מִיכָּן וְלָבֹא. HALAKHAH: “If a person vowed to be a nazir and went to bring his animal,” etc. Where do we hold? If he saw an animal passing on the market and said, I am a nazir on that animal which passed by, he is a nazir even if the animal was stolen114Since the animal was not his and he could not be sure that the owners would sell it to him, his vow was not dependent on that animal (unless he would spell out that he would not be a nazir unless the animal was sold to him).. If he thought that he had one and it turned out that he did not, would we say if he was rich and became poor, the nezirut would be invalidated? But we must hold that he said, I am a nazir on the animal I have at home, then went and found it stolen. If he vowed before the animal was stolen he is a nazir, after the animal was stolen he is not a nazir. The students of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Julianus say: Rebbi Jehudah asked: If the thieves returned it in the night, did his nezirut return to him retroactively115From the moment of his vow. or for the future116He has to start anew from the moment the animal was returned. No answer is given.?
זוֹ טָעוּת טָעָה נַחוּם אִישׁ הַמָּדִי. מַה טָעָה. שֶׁפָּתַח לָהֶם בְּנוֹלָד. אָמַר לָהֶם נַחוּם אִישׁ הַמָּדִי. אִילּוּ הָיִיתֶם יוֹדְעִין שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ עָתִיד לִיחָרֵב נוֹדְרִין הָיִיתֶם. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. הֲוָה צָרִיךְ מֵימַר לוֹן. לֹא הָיִיתֶם יוֹדְעִין שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְנַבְּאוּ הַנְּבִיאִים לָכֶם שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ עָתִיד לִיחָרֵב. לֹא הֲװָת כְּנוֹלָד. אָמַר לוֹן רִבִּי הִילָא. עוֹד הוּא כְּנוֹלָד. יָֽכְלִין הֲווֹן מֵימַר. יָֽדְעִין הֲוֵינָן. אֶלָּא הֲוֵינָן סָֽבְרִינָן דְּמִילַּייָא רְחִיקִין. הֶחָזוֹן אֲשֶׁר הוּא חוֹזֶה לְיָמִים רַבִּים. 117Nedarim 9:2:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.9.2.3">Nedarim 9:2, Notes 48–49.“That was the error of Naḥum from Media.” What was his error? That he found for them an opening due to changed circumstances. “Naḥum from Media said to them: ‘Would you have made a vow to become nezirim if you had known that the Temple would be destroyed at some future time?’ ” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the following he should have said to them: Did you not know that the prophets already had prophesied that eventually the Temple would be destroyed? Then there are no changed circumstances. Rebbi Hila said, still it is changed circumstances. They could have said to him, we knew it, but it seemed to us that this referred to the distant future: “The vision he sees is for many years.”
תַּנֵּי. שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת נְזִירִין עָלוּ בִימֵי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שֶׁטַח. מֵאָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים מְצָאוֹ לָהֶם פֶּתַח. וּמֵאָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים לֹא מְצָאוֹ לָהֶם. אָתָא גַבֵּי יַנַּאי מַלְכָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. אִית הָכָא תְּלַת מְאָווָן נְזִירִין בְּעֵיי תְּשַׁע מְאָווָן קָרְבָּנִין. הַב אַתְּ פַּלְגָּא מִן דִּידָךְ וַאֲנָא פַלְגָּא מִן דִּידִי. שְׁלַח לֵיהּ אַרְבַּע מְאָה וְחַמְשִׁין. אֲזַל לִישְׁנָא בִישָׁא אָמַר לֵיהּ. לָא יְהַב מִדִּידֵיהּ כְּלוּם. שָׁמַע יַנַּאי מַלְכָּא וְכָעַס. שָׁמַע שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שֶׁטַח וְעָרַק. לִבְתַר יוֹמִין סָֽלְקִין בְּנֵי נַשׁ רַבְרְבִין מִמַּלְכוּתָא דְפָרַס. אָֽמְרוּ לֵיהּ. נְהִירִין הֲוִינָן דַּהֲוָה חַד גַּבְרָא סָב וַהֲוָה אֲמַר קוֹמֵינָן מִילִּין דְּחָכְמָה. תַּנִּי לוֹן עוּבְדָּא. אָֽמְרוּ לוֹן שְׁלַח אַייְתִיתֵיהּ. שָׁלַח יְהַב לֵיהּ מִילָּה וְאַייְתִיתֵיהּ. אָתָא יְתַב לֵיהּ בֵּין מַלְכָּא לְמַלְכְּתָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. לָמָּה אַפְלֵיתָה בִּי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אֲנָא לָא אַפְלִיתִי בָּךְ. אַתְּ מִמָּמוֹנָךְ וַאֲנָא מִן אוֹרַייְתִי. דִּכְתִיב כִּי בְצֵל הַחָכְמָה בְּצֵל הַכֶּסֶף. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. וְלָמָּה עָרַקְתְּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. שְׁמָעִית דְּמָרִי כְעַס עָלַי וְקַייְמִית הָדֵין קְרָא חֳבִי כִּמְעַט רֶגַע עַד יַעֲבֹר זָעַם. וּקְרָא עִלּוֹי. וְיִתְרוֹן דַּעַת הַחָכְמָה תְּחַיֶּה בְעָלֶיהָ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. וְלָמָּה יָתַבְתְּ בֵּין מַלְכָּא לְמַלְכְתָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. בְּסִיפְרָא דְּבַר סִירָה כְתִיב. סַלְסְלֶיהָ וּתְרוֹמְמֶךָ וּבֵין נְגִידִים תּוֹשִׁיבֶךָ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. הַב כַּסָּא וְנִיבְרִיךְ. יָבוּן לֵיהּ כַּסָּא וָמַר. נְבָרֵךְ עַל הַמָּזוֹן שֶׁאָכַל יַנַּאי וַחֲבֵירָיו. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. וּמַה נֵימוֹר. נְבָרֵךְ עַל הַמָּזוֹן שֶׁלֹּא אָכַלְנוּ. אֲמַר. יֵיבוּן לֵיהּ וְיֵיכוּל. יָבוּן לֵיהּ וְאָכַל. וְאָמַר. נְבָרֵךְ עַל הַמָּזוֹן שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. חֲלוּקִין עַל שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שֶׁטַח. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר. עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. רִבִּי בָּא אָמַר עַל הַשְּׁנִייָה. מֻחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. תָּמֵּן צְרִיכָא לֵיהּ וָכָא פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ. הֵּן דִּצְרִיכָא לֵיהּ כְּרַבָּנִן. הֵן דִּפְשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. דְּתַנֵּי. עָלָה הֵיסֶב וְטִבֵּל עִמָּהֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא אָכַל עִמָּהֶן כְּזַיִת דָּגָן מְזַמְּנִין דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לְעוֹלָם אֵין מְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל כְּזַיִת דָּגָן. דְּתַנֵּי. שְׁנַיִם בַּפַּת וְאֶחָד בַּיָּרָק מְזַמְּנִין. מַתְנִיתָא דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. 118Berakhot 7:2:7" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Berakhot.7.2.7">Berakhot 7:2, Notes 79–90. It has been stated: 300 nezirim came in the days of Rebbi Simeon ben Shetaḥ. For 150 of them he found an opening, for 150 of them he did not find an opening. He came to king Yannai and said to him: There are here 300 nezirim who need 900 sacrifices. You should give half of them from your side, I shall give half from my side. The king sent him 450 animals. An informer went around and said that the other one had not given anything from his own money. King Yannai heard about it and got angry. Simeon ben Shetaḥ heard and fled. After some time, important people from the Persian empire came to king Yannai. They said to him: We remember that there was an old man who gave us a rabbinic discourse. They said to him, send and bring him! He sent and gave him his word; he came and sat between king and queen. He said to him, why did you trick me? He said, I did not trick you; you with your money and I with my learning, as it is written (Ecclesiastes.7.12">Eccl. 7:12) “In the shadow of wisdom, in the shadow of money.” He said to him, why did you disappear? He said to him, I heard that my lord was angry with me and I wanted to fulfill the verse (Isaiah.26.20">Is. 26:20) “Hide a little bit until the rage passes;” he used about himself (Ecclesiastes.7.12">Eccl. 7:12): “Knowledge is an advantage, wisdom lets its possessor live.” He said to him, why did you sit between king and queen? He said to him, it is written in the book of Ben Sirach: “Esteem it and it will raise you and seat you among princes.” He said, bring him a cup that he may recite Grace. They brought him a cup and he said: “Let us give praise for the food that Yannai and his company ate.” He said to him, what should I say, “for the food that we did not eat?” He said, bring him something that he may eat. They brought, he ate and recited: “For the food that we ate.” 119This paragraph has no place here, it refers to the discussion in Berakhot. Rebbi Yoḥanan said, his colleagues disagree with Simeon ben Shetaḥ. Rebbi Jeremiah said, about the first action; Rebbi Abba said, about the second action. Rebbi Jeremiah seems to contradict himself! There he wondered about it and here it is obvious for him! He wondered following the Sages; it is obvious to him following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. We have stated about this: If one came, was lying on a couch, and dipped with them, even if he did not eat grain the volume of an olive one ‘invites’ with him, the words of the Sages. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: One never ‘invites’ anyone unless he has eaten grain the volume of an olive. But did we not formulate, “two [eating] bread and one [eating] vegetable, then one ‘invites’?” This baraita follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.