Rosh Chodesh: Numbers 28:1 (v) Adonai said to Moshe, 2 “Give an order to the people of Isra’el. Tell them, ‘You are to take care to offer me at the proper time the food presented to me as offerings made by fire, providing a fragrant aroma for me.’ 3 Tell them, ‘This is the offering made by fire that you are to bring to Adonai: male lambs in their first year and without defect, two daily as a regular burnt offering.; Numbers 28:3 Tell them, ‘This is the offering made by fire that you are to bring to Adonai: male lambs in their first year and without defect, two daily as a regular burnt offering. 4 Offer the one lamb in the morning and the other lamb at dusk, 5 along with two quarts of fine flour as a grain offering, mixed with one quart of oil from pressed olives. 6 It is the regular burnt offering, the same as was offered on Mount Sinai to give a fragrant aroma, an offering made by fire for Adonai. 7 Its drink offering is to be one-quarter hin for one lamb; in the Holy Place you are to pour out a drink offering of intoxicating liquor to Adonai. 8 The other lamb you are to present at dusk; present it with the same kind of grain offering and drink offering as in the morning; it is an offering made by fire, with a fragrant aroma for Adonai.
9 “‘On Shabbat offer two male lambs in their first year and without defect, with one gallon of fine flour as a grain offering, mixed with olive oil, and its drink offering. 10 This is the burnt offering for every Shabbat, in addition to the regular burnt offering and its drink offering.
11 “‘At each Rosh-Hodesh of yours, you are to present a burnt offering to Adonai consisting of two young bulls, one ram and seven male lambs in their first year and without defect; 12 with six quarts of fine flour mixed with olive oil as a grain offering for the one ram; 13 and two quarts of fine flour mixed with olive oil as a grain offering for each lamb. This will be the burnt offering giving a fragrant aroma, an offering made by fire for Adonai. 14 Their drink offerings will be two quarts of wine for a bull, one-and-one-third quarts for the ram, and one quart for each lamb. This is the burnt offering for every Rosh-Hodesh throughout the months of the year. 15 Also a male goat is to be offered as a sin offering to Adonai, in addition to the regular burnt offering and its drink offering.
Today's Laws & Customs:• Rosh Chodesh Observances
Today is the first of the two Rosh Chodesh ("Head of the Month") days for the month of "Adar II" (when a month has 30 days, both the last day of the month and the first day of the following month serve as the following month's Rosh Chodesh).
Special portions are added to the daily prayers: Hallel (Psalms 113-118) is recited -- in its "partial" form -- following the Shacharit morning prayer, and the Yaaleh V'yavo prayer is added to the Amidah and to Grace After Meals; the additional Musaf prayer is said (when Rosh Chodesh is Shabbat, special additions are made to the Shabbat Musaf). Tachnun (confession of sins) and similar prayers are omitted.
Many have the custom to mark Rosh Chodesh with a festive meal and reduced work activity. The latter custom is prevalent amongst women, who have a special affinity with Rosh Chodesh -- the month being the feminine aspect of the Jewish Calendar.
Links: The 29th Day; The Lunar Files
Daily Quote:
It is the manner of a father to have compassion (rachamim), as it is written, "As a father has compassion on children [so does G-d have compassion for those who fear Him]" (Psalms 103:13). It is the manner of a mother to console, as it is written, "As a man whose mother does console him [so shall I console you]" (Isaiah 66:13). Says G-d: I shall do both as father and as mother[Midrash P’sikta d’Rav Kahana]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Pekudei, 5th Portion Exodus 40:1-40:16 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Exodus Chapter 40
1The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: אוַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־משֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר:
2"On the day of the first month, on the first of the month, you shall set up the Mishkan of the Tent of Meeting. בבְּיֽוֹם־הַחֹ֥דֶשׁ הָֽרִאשׁ֖וֹן בְּאֶחָ֣ד לַחֹ֑דֶשׁ תָּקִ֕ים אֶת־מִשְׁכַּ֖ן אֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵֽד:
3There you shall place the Ark of the Testimony, and you shall spread the dividing curtain toward the ark. גוְשַׂמְתָּ֣ שָׁ֔ם אֵ֖ת אֲר֣וֹן הָֽעֵד֑וּת וְסַכֹּתָ֥ עַל־הָֽאָרֹ֖ן אֶת־הַפָּרֹֽכֶת:
and you shall spread… toward the ark: Heb. וְסַכֹּתָ, an expression denoting protection, for this [dividing curtain] was a partition [not a covering]. וסכת על הארן: לשון הגנה, שהרי מחיצה היתה:
4You shall bring in the table and set its arrangement; you shall bring in the menorah and kindle its lamps. דוְהֵֽבֵאתָ֙ אֶת־הַשֻּׁלְחָ֔ן וְעָֽרַכְתָּ֖ אֶת־עֶרְכּ֑וֹ וְהֵֽבֵאתָ֙ אֶת־הַמְּנֹרָ֔ה וְהַֽעֲלֵיתָ֖ אֶת־נֵֽרֹתֶֽיהָ:
and set its arrangement: [I.e., arrange] the two stacks of the [loaves of] showbread (Lev. 24:6). וערכת את ערכו: שתי מערכות של לחם הפנים:
5You shall place the golden altar for incense before the Ark of the Testimony, and you shall place the screen of the entrance to the Mishkan. הוְנָֽתַתָּ֞ה אֶת־מִזְבַּ֤ח הַזָּהָב֙ לִקְטֹ֔רֶת לִפְנֵ֖י אֲר֣וֹן הָֽעֵדֻ֑ת וְשַׂמְתָּ֛ אֶת־מָסַ֥ךְ הַפֶּ֖תַח לַמִּשְׁכָּֽן:
6You shall place the altar of the burnt offering in front of the entrance of the Mishkan of the Tent of Meeting. ווְנָ֣תַתָּ֔ה אֵ֖ת מִזְבַּ֣ח הָֽעֹלָ֑ה לִפְנֵ֕י פֶּ֖תַח מִשְׁכַּ֥ן אֹֽהֶל־מוֹעֵֽד:
7You shall place the washstand between the Tent of Meeting and the altar, and there you shall put water. זוְנָֽתַתָּ֙ אֶת־הַכִּיֹּ֔ר בֵּֽין־אֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵ֖ד וּבֵ֣ין הַמִּזְבֵּ֑חַ וְנָֽתַתָּ֥ שָׁ֖ם מָֽיִם:
8And you shall set up the courtyard all around, and you shall put up the screen for the gate to the courtyard. חוְשַׂמְתָּ֥ אֶת־הֶֽחָצֵ֖ר סָבִ֑יב וְנָ֣תַתָּ֔ אֶת־מָסַ֖ךְ שַׁ֥עַר הֶֽחָצֵֽר:
9You shall take the anointing oil and anoint the Mishkan and everything within it, and you shall sanctify it and all its furnishings; thus it will become a holy thing. טוְלָֽקַחְתָּ֙ אֶת־שֶׁ֣מֶן הַמִּשְׁחָ֔ה וּמָֽשַׁחְתָּ֥ אֶת־הַמִּשְׁכָּ֖ן וְאֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁר־בּ֑וֹ וְקִדַּשְׁתָּ֥ אֹת֛וֹ וְאֶת־כָּל־כֵּלָ֖יו וְהָ֥יָה קֹֽדֶשׁ:
10You shall anoint the altar for the burnt offering and all its implements; you shall sanctify the altar; thus the altar will become a holy of holies. יוּמָֽשַׁחְתָּ֛ אֶת־מִזְבַּ֥ח הָֽעֹלָ֖ה וְאֶת־כָּל־כֵּלָ֑יו וְקִדַּשְׁתָּ֙ אֶת־הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ וְהָיָ֥ה הַמִּזְבֵּ֖חַ קֹ֥דֶשׁ קָֽדָשִֽׁים:
11You shall anoint the washstand and its base and sanctify it. יאוּמָֽשַׁחְתָּ֥ אֶת־הַכִּיֹּ֖ר וְאֶת־כַּנּ֑וֹ וְקִדַּשְׁתָּ֖ אֹתֽוֹ:
12And you shall bring Aaron and his sons near the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and you shall bathe them in water. יבוְהִקְרַבְתָּ֤ אֶת־אַֽהֲרֹן֙ וְאֶת־בָּנָ֔יו אֶל־פֶּ֖תַח אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֑ד וְרָֽחַצְתָּ֥ אֹתָ֖ם בַּמָּֽיִם:
13And you shall clothe Aaron with the holy garments, and you shall anoint him and sanctify him so that he may serve Me [as a kohen]. יגוְהִלְבַּשְׁתָּ֙ אֶת־אַֽהֲרֹ֔ן אֵ֖ת בִּגְדֵ֣י הַקֹּ֑דֶשׁ וּמָֽשַׁחְתָּ֥ אֹת֛וֹ וְקִדַּשְׁתָּ֥ אֹת֖וֹ וְכִהֵ֥ן לִֽי:
14And you shall bring his sons near and clothe them with tunics. ידוְאֶת־בָּנָ֖יו תַּקְרִ֑יב וְהִלְבַּשְׁתָּ֥ אֹתָ֖ם כֻּתֳּנֹֽת:
15And you shall anoint them, as you have anointed their father, so that they may serve Me [as kohanim]. And this shall be so that their anointment shall remain for them an everlasting kehunah throughout their generations." טווּמָֽשַׁחְתָּ֣ אֹתָ֗ם כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֤ר מָשַׁ֨חְתָּ֙ אֶת־אֲבִיהֶ֔ם וְכִֽהֲנ֖וּ לִ֑י וְ֠הָֽיְתָ֠ה לִֽהְיֹ֨ת לָהֶ֧ם מָשְׁחָתָ֛ם לִכְהֻנַּ֥ת עוֹלָ֖ם לְדֹֽרֹתָֽם:
16Thus Moses did; according to all that the Lord had commanded him, so he did. טזוַיַּ֖עַשׂ משֶׁ֑ה כְּ֠כֹ֠ל אֲשֶׁ֨ר צִוָּ֧ה יְהֹוָ֛ה אֹת֖וֹ כֵּ֥ן עָשָֽׂה:
---------------------
One who recites this psalm three times daily with absolute concentration is guaranteed a portion in the World to Come. Because of its prominence, this psalm was composed in alphabetical sequence.
1. A psalm of praise by David: I will exalt You, my God the King, and bless Your Name forever.
2. Every day I will bless You, and extol Your Name forever.
3. The Lord is great and exceedingly exalted; there is no limit to His greatness.
4. One generation to another will laud Your works, and tell of Your mighty acts.
5. I will speak of the splendor of Your glorious majesty and of Your wondrous deeds.
6. They will proclaim the might of Your awesome acts, and I will recount Your greatness.
7. They will express the remembrance of Your abounding goodness, and sing of Your righteousness.
8. The Lord is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and of great kindness.
9. The Lord is good to all, and His mercies extend over all His works.
10. Lord, all Your works will give thanks to You, and Your pious ones will bless You.
11. They will declare the glory of Your kingdom, and tell of Your strength,
12. to make known to men His mighty acts, and the glorious majesty of His kingdom.
13. Your kingship is a kingship over all worlds, and Your dominion is throughout all generations.
14. The Lord supports all who fall, and straightens all who are bent.
15. The eyes of all look expectantly to You, and You give them their food at the proper time.
16. You open Your hand and satisfy the desire of every living thing.
17. The Lord is righteous in all His ways, and benevolent in all His deeds.
18. The Lord is close to all who call upon Him, to all who call upon Him in truth.
19. He fulfills the desire of those who fear Him, hears their cry and delivers them.
20. The Lord watches over all who love Him, and will destroy all the wicked.
21. My mouth will utter the praise of the Lord, and let all flesh bless His holy Name forever.
Chapter 146
This psalm inspires man to repent and perform good deeds while still alive. Let him not rely on mortals who are unable to help themselves, and who may suddenly pass on. Rather, one should put his trust in God, Who is capable of carrying out all He desires.
1. Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord, O my soul.
2. I will sing to the Lord with my soul; I will chant praises to my God while I yet exist.
3. Do not place your trust in nobles, nor in mortal man who has not the ability to bring deliverance.
4. When his spirit departs, he returns to his earth; on that very day, his plans come to naught.
5. Fortunate is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope rests upon the Lord his God.
6. He makes the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that is in them; He keeps His promise faithfully forever.
7. He renders justice to the oppressed; He gives food to the hungry; the Lord releases those who are bound.
8. The Lord opens the eyes of the blind; the Lord straightens those who are bowed; the Lord loves the righteous.
9. The Lord watches over the strangers; He gives strength to orphan and widow; He thwarts the way of the wicked.
10. The Lord shall reign forever, your God, O Zion, throughout all generations. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 147
This psalm recounts God's greatness, and His kindness and goodness to His creations.
1. Praise the Lord! Sing to our God for He is good; praise befits Him for He is pleasant.
2. The Lord is the rebuilder of Jerusalem; He will gather the banished of Israel.
3. He heals the broken-hearted, and bandages their wounds.
4. He counts the number of the stars; He gives a name to each of them.
5. Great is our Master and abounding in might; His understanding is beyond reckoning.
6. The Lord strengthens the humble; He casts the wicked to the ground.
7. Lift your voices to the Lord in gratitude; sing to our God with the harp.
8. He covers the heaven with clouds; He prepares rain for the earth, and makes grass grow upon the mountains.
9. He gives the animal its food, to the young ravens which cry to Him.
10. He does not desire [those who place their trust in] the strength of the horse, nor does He want those who rely upon the thighs [swiftness] of man.
11. He desires those who fear Him, those who long for His kindness.
12. Praise the Lord, O Jerusalem; Zion, extol your God.
13. For He has strengthened the bolts of your gates; He has blessed your children in your midst.
14. He has made peace within your borders; He satiates you with the finest of wheat.
15. He issues His command to the earth; swiftly does His word run.
16. He dispenses snow like fleece; He scatters frost like ashes.
17. He hurls His ice like morsels; who can withstand His cold?
18. He sends forth His word and melts them; He causes His wind to blow, and the waters flow.
19. He tells His words [Torah] to Jacob, His statutes and ordinances to Israel.
20. He has not done so for other nations, and they do not know [His] ordinances. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 148
The psalmist inspires one to praise God for His creations-above and below-all of which exist by God's might alone.
1. Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens; praise Him in the celestial heights.
2. Praise Him, all His angels; praise Him, all His hosts.
3. Praise Him, sun and moon; praise Him, all the shining stars.
4. Praise Him, hea-ven of heavens, and the waters that are above the heavens.
5. Let them praise the Name of the Lord, for He comman-ded and they were created.
6. He has established them forever, for all time; He issued a decree, and it shall not be transgressed.
7. Praise the Lord from the earth, sea-monsters and all [that dwell in] the depths;
8. fire and hail, snow and vapor, stormy wind carrying out His command;
9. the mountains and all hills, fruit-bearing trees and all cedars;
10. the beasts and all cattle, creeping things and winged fowl;
11. kings of the earth and all nations, rulers and all judges of the land;
12. young men as well as maidens, elders with young lads.
13. Let them praise the Name of the Lord, for His Name is sublime, to Himself; its radiance [alone] is upon earth and heaven.
14. He shall raise the glory of His people, [increase] the praise of all His pious ones, the Children of Israel, the people close to Him. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 149
1. Praise the Lord! Sing to the Lord a new song, [recount] His praise in the assembly of the pious.
2. Israel will rejoice in its Maker; the children of Zion will delight in their King.
3. They will praise His Name with dancing; they will sing to Him with the drum and harp.
4. For the Lord desires His people; He will adorn the humble with salvation.
5. The pious will exult in glory; they will sing upon their beds.
6. The exaltation of God is in their throat, and a double-edged sword in their hand,
7. to bring retribution upon the nations, punishment upon the peoples;
8. to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with iron fetters;
9. to execute upon them the prescribed judgment; it shall be a glory for all His pious ones. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 150
This psalm contains thirteen praises, alluding to the Thirteen Attributes (of Mercy) with which God conducts the world.
1. Praise the Lord! Praise God in His holiness; praise Him in the firmament of His strength.
2. Praise Him for His mighty acts; praise Him according to His abundant greatness.
3. Praise Him with the call of the shofar; praise Him with harp and lyre.
4. Praise Him with timbrel and dance; praise Him with stringed instruments and flute.
5. Praise Him with resounding cymbals; praise Him with clanging cymbals.
6. Let every soul praise the Lord. Praise the Lord!
• Thursday, Adar I 30, 5776 · March 10, 2016
• Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 34
והנה מודעת זאת שהאבות הן הן המרכבה
It is known that “the Patriarchs constitute the Divine Chariot.“1
שכל ימיהם לעולם לא הפסיקו אפילו שעה אחת מלקשר דעתם ונשמתם לרבון העולמים
Throughout their lives, they did not cease even momentarily from binding their mind and soul to the Master of the universe,
בביטול הנ״ל ליחודו יתברך
with the aforementioned absolute surrender to His unity.
I.e., their constant awareness of G‑d’s unity led them to be continuously in a state of self-nullification before G‑d; and, as explained more fully in ch. 23, this self-nullification is what is meant by the term “chariot”, a vehicle submissive to the will of its pilot.
ואחריהם כל הנביאים, כל אחד לפי מדרגת נשמתו והשגתו
After them came all the prophets who similarly nullified themselves before G‑d’s unity in varying degrees, each according to the level of his soul and his understanding.
ומדרגת משה רבנו עליו השלום היא העולה על כולנה, שאמרו עליו: שכינה מדברת מתוך גרונו של משה
The rank of our teacher Moses, peace be upon him, surpassed them all; of him our Sages said:2 “TheShechinah (the Divine Presence) spoke out of Moses‘ throat.”
His was such a total surrender to G‑dliness, that the very words he uttered were Divine speech; the relation of Moses’ throat to Divine speech was that of one’s throat to his own speech.
ומעין זה זכו ישראל במעמד הר סיני
At Mount Sinai, Israel were privileged to experience a glimmer of this level of self-nullification.
רק שלא יכלו לסבול, כמאמר רז״ל: שעל כל דיבור פרחה נשמתן כו׳, שהוא ענין ביטול במציאות הנ״ל
But they could not endure it; as our Sages have said,3 “At every Divine utterance their souls took flight,”and G‑d resurrected them each time. This flight of their soul actually represents the self-nullification spoken of previously.4
לכן מיד אמר להם לעשות לו משכן ובו קדשי הקדשים להשראת שכינתו, שהוא גילוי יחודו יתברך, כמו שכתוב לקמן
Therefore, because they were unable to live with this feeling of self-surrender before G‑d, He commanded them immediately to erect for Him a Sanctuary, in which would be the Holy of Holies, wherein His presence would dwell; i.e., there His unity would be revealed, as will be explained further.5
The Alter Rebbe points out below that when one specific place is singled out as an abode for G‑d’s presence, despite the fact that “his glory fills the entire earth,” the uniqueness of this site lies in the revelation of G‑dliness which occurs there. In contrast to the rest of the world, where G‑d’s unity as the sole existing being stands concealed, in “the abode of G‑d’s presence” it is clearly apparent that “there is naught besides Him.” We thus see that the revelation of G‑d’s unity which the Jewish people experienced at Mount Sinai, but which they could not endure, was continued by means of the Sanctuary.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | See above, ch. 23. |
| 2. | Cf. Zohar III, 232a; commentary of Rabbi David Luria on Shemot Rabbah, end of ch. 3. |
| 3. | Shabbat 88b. |
| 4. | See also below, end of ch. 36. |
| 5. | Ch. 53. |
---------------------
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Thursday, Adar I 30, 5776 · March 10, 2016
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Important Message Regarding This Lesson
The Daily Mitzvah schedule runs parallel to the daily study of 3 chapters of Maimonides' 14-volume code. There are instances when the Mitzvah is repeated a few days consecutively while the exploration of the same Mitzvah continues in the in-depth track.
Positive Commandment 95
The Nullification of Vows
We are commanded to practice the Torah-mandated procedure in the event that a vow is to be annulled.
(This commandment is somewhat based on the verse [Numbers 30:3] "he shall not profane his word," from which the Sages deduce that the one who enacted the vow may not profane his own word, but others – such as a sage or rabbinical court – may do so. Nevertheless, the Talmud says that the "annulment of vows flies in the air, with no [explicit biblical] support...")
The Torah explicitly tells us that a husband and father can nullify vows, and tradition teaches that a sage, too, has the power to do so.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Positive Commandment 92
The Nazirite's Hair
"He shall let the locks of hair on his head grow"—Numbers 6:5.
A nazirite is commanded to allow the hair on his head to grow unimpeded.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Negative Commandment 209
Shaving a Nazirite
"A razor shall not go over his head"—Numbers 6:5.
A nazirite must not shave – even one hair off – his head with a razor. This prohibition also precludes another from shaving the nazirite's head.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Thursday, Adar I 30, 5776 · March 10, 2016Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Important Message Regarding This Lesson
The Daily Mitzvah schedule runs parallel to the daily study of 3 chapters of Maimonides' 14-volume code. There are instances when the Mitzvah is repeated a few days consecutively while the exploration of the same Mitzvah continues in the in-depth track.
Positive Commandment 95
The Nullification of Vows
We are commanded to practice the Torah-mandated procedure in the event that a vow is to be annulled.
(This commandment is somewhat based on the verse [Numbers 30:3] "he shall not profane his word," from which the Sages deduce that the one who enacted the vow may not profane his own word, but others – such as a sage or rabbinical court – may do so. Nevertheless, the Talmud says that the "annulment of vows flies in the air, with no [explicit biblical] support...")
The Torah explicitly tells us that a husband and father can nullify vows, and tradition teaches that a sage, too, has the power to do so.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
The Nullification of Vows
Positive Commandment 95
Translated by Berel Bell
The 95th mitzvah is that we are commanded regarding the annulment of vows.
This does not mean that there is a commandment to annul vows, but rather that there are certain laws to be followed when doing so. You should keep this principle in mind whenever a mitzvah is enumerated — it does not necessarily mean that we are commanded to perform a certain action, but rather that a certain case [whenever it comes up,] must be judged according to certain laws.
The annulment of vows done by a father [to his daughter] and a husband [to his wife] is explained in the Torah1 in detail.
Furthermore, we know from the Oral Tradition that a Torah scholar can nullify anyone's vow or oath. This is hinted to in the verse,2 "He must not nullify his word." [The Sages3 explain,] "He may not nullify his word, but others may nullify it for him." The final conclusion is that there is no real source in Scripture [for the Torah scholar's power to annul a vow, and the verse quoted above is only a hint]. As our Sages4 put it, "The laws regarding the annulment of vows [by a Torah scholar] are flying in the air, with nothing to support them" — except in the Oral Tradition.
The details of this mitzvah are found in the tractate devoted to this subject, tractate Nedarim.
FOOTNOTES
1.Num. 30:4-17.
2.Num. 30:3.
3.Berachos 32a; Chagigah 10a.
4.Chagigah ibid
-------------------------------------------------------Positive Commandment 92
The Nazirite's Hair
"He shall let the locks of hair on his head grow"—Numbers 6:5.
A nazirite is commanded to allow the hair on his head to grow unimpeded.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
The Nazirite's Hair
Positive Commandment 92
Translated by Berel Bell
The 92nd mitzvah is that a Nazirite is commanded to let his hair grow [for the duration of his Nazirite vow].
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "He must let his hair grow long."
In the words of the Mechilta, "The words,2 'he shall be holy' teach us that he should be in a state of holiness when it grows. The words, 'he must let [his hair] grow long' makes this a positive commandment. What is the source of the prohibition?3 The verse,4 'no cutting instrument shall come upon his head.' "
There it also says, "Who is covered by the positive commandment [and not covered by the prohibition]? One who rubs earth or applies depilatories on his head." The meaning of this statement: a Nazirite who places a depilatory on his head does not transgress a prohibition, since a cutting instrument was not used. He will, however, violate the positive commandment, "he must let his hair grow long," since he did not allow it to grow.
[This counts as a positive commandment because] according to our principles, a prohibition which stems from a positive commandment is counted as a positive commandment.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in a number of passages in tractate Nazir.
FOOTNOTES
1.Num. 6:5.
2.Ibid.
3.See N209 below.
4.Ibid.
-------------------------------------------------------Negative Commandment 209
Shaving a Nazirite
"A razor shall not go over his head"—Numbers 6:5.
A nazirite must not shave – even one hair off – his head with a razor. This prohibition also precludes another from shaving the nazirite's head.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Shaving a Nazirite
Negative Commandment 209
Translated by Berel Bell
The 209th prohibition is that a Nazirite is forbidden to cut his hair.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "No cutting instrument shall come upon his head."
The one who cuts the Nazirite's hair also receives lashes, since the one who cuts and the one whose hair is cut are both treated the same.2 The punishment of lashes applies as soon as one hair is cut.3
All the details of this mitzvah are explained in the tractate devoted to this subject [tractate Nazir].
FOOTNOTES
1.Ibid.
2.Nazir 44a.
3.Ibid. 40a.
------------------------------------------------------
• 1 Chapter: Klei Hamikdash Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 4 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 4
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 4
Halacha 1
The priests were set aside from the Levites as a whole [to perform] the sacrificial service, as [I Chronicles 23:13] states: "And Aaron was set apart to sanctify him as holy of holies." It is a positive commandment1 to distinguish the priests, make them holy, and prepare them for the sacrifices, as [Leviticus 21:8] states: "And you shall sanctify him because he offers the food of your God."
Halacha 2
Halacha 3
Moses divided the priests into eight watches: four from Elazar and four from Itamar. This continued until [the days of] Samuel the prophet. At that time, he and King David divided them into 24 watches.5 For each watch, there was one who served as the leader. A watch would ascend to Jerusalem to serve for the entire week. They would switch on the Sabbath day. The previous watch would depart and the one which follows would enter.6 [This cycle would continue] until its completion and then they would start again.
Halacha 4
It is a positive commandment for all the watches to share equal status7 during the pilgrimage festivals. Any one of the priests who comes during the pilgrimage festivals and desires to serve [in the Temple] may serve and receive a portion [of the sacrifices]. We do not tell him: "Go and [wait] until your watch [receives its turn]," as [Deuteronomy 18:6] states: "When the Levite8 will come from one of your cities... [to the place that God will choose, he shall serve..."].
Halacha 5
In which context does the above apply? With regard to the sacrifices of the festivals,9 the division of the showbread,10 and the two loaves [offered on] Shavuot.11 Vowed offerings,12 freewill offerings,13 and the daily offerings are offered only by the watch that serves at that time.14 [This applies] even during the pilgrimage festivals, as [ibid.:8] states: "Portion for portion shall they eat, except for what was transacted by the ancestors." The implication is that they will partake "portion for portion" of the communal offerings, but not of the other sacrifices. For these were already divided by their ancestors and established for each watch in its week.
Halacha 6
Similarly, the service involved with the showbread is performed by the watch whose turn is established. The service involved with the two breads [of Shavuos] is performed by all the watches.15
How do we know that [the verse cited above] is speaking only about the festivals? Because it states: "from one of your cities among all Israel." [One can infer] that it is speaking about a time when the entire Jewish people enter through one gate.16
How do we know that it is speaking about priests?17 For it states: "Portion for portion shall they eat" and there are no presents to be eaten allotted in the Temple except to the priests.
Halacha 7
Similarly, when a priest has a sacrifice [of his own], he may come to the Temple and offer it on any day that he desires,18 as [that verse] states: "He shall come at any [impulse] of his heart's desires and serve." He may even offer his sin offering and guilt offering and bring about atonement for himself. [In such an instance,] the right to the hide and to partake of the sacrifice belongs to him. If he desires he may give his sacrifice to any priest he desires to sacrifice it. [In such an instance,] the right to the hide and to partake of the sacrifice belongs to the priest to whom he gave it.19
Halacha 8
If the priest who brings the sacrifice is physically blemished,20 he should give his sacrifice to the [priests of] the watch serving that week and the hide belongs to them.21 If he was ill or sick to the extent that he could serve only with difficulty, he may give the sacrifice to any priest he desires,22 the hide and the service23 belong to the [priests of] the watch serving that week. If he cannot serve at all, the sacrifice belongs to the [priests of] the watch serving that week in its entirety.24
Halacha 9
If [all the priests of the watch] are impure and a communal sacrifice is involved and all of the priests25 were impure,26 the sacrifice may be given to the priests of that watch who were ritually pure, but have physical blemishes.27 The hide and the service belong to [the priests of] the watch serving that week [even though they are] impure.28
Halacha 10
If the sacrifice belonged to the High Priest and he was in a state of acute mourning,29 he may give it to any priest he desires. The hide and the service belong to [the priests of] the watch serving that week. [The rationale is that] since a High Priest is fit to perform service in a state of acute mourning,30 as will be explained,31 he may appoint an agent for his sacrifice.
Halacha 11
The head of every watch divides his watch into clans32 so that [the priests] in each clan will serve on one of the days of the week, one on one day, another on the next, and another on the next. Each of the clans had a head who was appointed over it.
Halacha 12
A High Priest is appointed33 [to serve as] the head of all of the priests. He is anointed with the anointing oil34 and clothed in the garments of the High Priest,35 as [Leviticus 21:10] states: "And the priest who was elevated over his brethren, over whose head was poured [the anointment oil]...." If there is no anointment oil,36 he is initiated into office merely by [wearing] the garments of the High Priest,37 as [the above verse] states: "...over whose head was poured [the anointment oil] and who was initiated to wear the garments." [Implied is that] just as he is initiated with the anointment oil, so too, he is initiated with the garments [of the High Priesthood].
Halacha 13
How is he initiated with the garments? He puts on the eight garments [of the High Priest] and [later] removes them and does so again on the morrow for seven days, as [Exodus 29:30] states: "The priest from his sons who serves in his stead shall put them on for seven days." Just as he puts on the clothes for seven consecutive days, so too, he is anointed with the oil for seven consecutive days.38 If he performed service before he was initiated by wearing the clothes for all seven days or before he was anointed for all seven days, his service is acceptable.39 Since he was initiated or anointed once, he is a High Priest with regard to all matters.
Halacha 14
There is no difference in [the laws pertaining to] a High Priest who was anointed with the anointment oil and [those applying to] one who was initiated by wearing the garments of the High Priest except [the obligation] for the High Priest to bring a bull [as a sacrifice] if he inadvertently violated one of the mitzvot for which a sin offering is required, as [Leviticus 4:3] states: "If the anointed priest40 will sin...."41 With regard to other matters, they are identical.
Halacha 15
A High Priest should be appointed only by the court of 71 judges.42 He should be anointed only during the day, as [ibid. 6:13] states: "On the day of his anointment...." Similarly, if he was initiated merely by wearing the priestly garments, the initiation should only take place during the day. Two High Priests should not be initiated together.
Halacha 16
We also appoint a priest who will serve the High Priest like a viceroy, he is called the segen and he is also called "the appointed one." He should stand at the right hand of the High Priest at all times.43 This honor is given to him. All of the other priests are under his authority.
Halacha 17
In addition, katikolin44 are appointed to serve the segen as the segen serves the High Priest. There should be no less than two of them.45 No less than seven amerkalin46 should be appointed, The keys to the Temple Courtyard are in their hands.47 If one desires to open [the courtyard], he cannot until all the amerkalin gather and open it.
Halacha 18
Treasurers are appointed under the amerkalin. There should be no less than three. They collect the consecrated articles, redeem those which should be redeemed,48 and use the proceeds for purposes that require these expenses.
Halacha 19
A High Priest who was anointed receives precedence49 over one who was installed by wearing the garments [of the High Priesthood].50 One installed by wearing the garments who is prepared to serve receives precedence over an anointed [High Priest] disqualified because of a seminal emission.51 One disqualified because of a seminal emission receives precedence over one disqualified because of a physical blemish.52 One disqualified because of a physical blemish receives precedence over the priest anointed to lead the nation in war.53 The priest anointed to lead the nation in war receives precedence over the segen.54 The segen receives precedence over a katikol, a katikolover an amerkal, an amerkal over a treasurer, a treasurer over a head of a watch, a head of a watch over a head of a clan, an a head of a clan over an ordinary priest. Thus there are eight rungs in the priesthood,55 one above the other.
Halacha 20
When the king, the High Priest, or any other official dies, his son or anyone fit to inherit him56 is appointed in his stead. Those who are higher in the order of inheritance57 receive precedence with regard to receiving the position of the deceased, provided he is equivalent [to the deceased] in wisdom,58 or in the fear of God, even if he is not comparable in wisdom.59 For [Deuteronomy 17:20] states with regard to a king: "He and his descendants in the midst of Israel." This teaches that the kingship is inherited. This applies with regard to any office amidst the Jewish people.60 If one acquires it, he acquires it for himself and for his descendants.
Halacha 21
The position of being the priest anointed to lead the nation in war is not transferred to one's son.61 Instead, the son is like all other priests. If he is anointed as the leader in war, he is anointed. If he is not anointed, he is not anointed.62 When the priest who was anointed to lead the nation in war serves in the Temple,63 he serves wearing four garments like the other priests.64
A person should be promoted to a higher position than the one he holds and should not be demoted to a lower position, for one must ascend with regard to holy matters and not descend.65 A person should never be removed from a position of authority within the Jewish people unless he acted in an unsuitable manner.66
FOOTNOTES
1.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 32) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 269) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
2.
I.e., to receive the first aliyah in the public reading of the Torah. In the Talmudic era (and so is the practice in some communities today), the person receiving the aliyah would himself read from the Torah.
3.
I.e., to recite the blessing HaMotzi and to lead the Grace (Rashi, Gittin 59b).
4.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Gittin5:8), the Rambam emphasizes that this applies only when there are no sages present whose knowledge surpasses that of the priest. If such sages are present, they are given priority.
5.
More particularly, Samuel divided them into 16 watches and David, into 24 (Ta'anit 27a).
6.
The changing of the watches was marked by the division of the showbread. The entering watch would receive six loaves and the departing watch, six loaves. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 4:12.
7.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 36) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 509) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
There is, however, a difference between the definition of the mitzvah here and that ofSefer HaMitzvot. In that source, the Rambam describes the mitzvah as creating the watches, while here he defines it as allowing all of the watches to serve during the festivals.
8.
All the commentaries agree that this verse is referring to a priest, who is a descendant of the tribe of Levi. See the conclusion of Halachah 6.
9.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that this refers both to the communal offerings required to be offered on the festivals and the individual offerings which people would bring as part of their pilgrimage obligations.
10.
See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 4:12.
11.
See ibid. 8:11.
12.
A pledge to bring a particular type of sacrifice (see Hilchot Nedarim 1:2).
13.
A pledge to bring a designated animal as a sacrifice (ibid.).
14.
I.e., although all the priests had license to come and serve in the Temple during the pilgrimage festivals, there was also one watch which was designated to serve at that time, and that watch was entrusted with offering these sacrifices.
15.
The difference between the two is that the showbread is not offered because of the festival (but is instead, an ongoing obligation for every Sabbath), while the two loaves are (Radbaz).
16.
We have translated the word sha'arechafiguratively as "your cities," even though it literally means "your gates." The implication is that the verse is speaking about a time when all of Israel come to one city, Jerusalem, for the pilgrimage festivals.
17.
For it mentions Levites.
18.
I.e., even if it is not the time when his watch was designated to serve.
19.
The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the priest who brought the sacrifice has the right to partake of it and benefit from its hide, even if he did not offer it. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh debate these two perspectives based on Bava Kama 110a.
20.
In which instance, he is forbidden to bring his own sacrifice.
21.
This follows the version of Bava Kama 109b cited by Rashi. The standard published text follows a different version. Since he is unable to offer the sacrifice, he may not appoint an agent to offer it, but instead, must give it to the members of the watch. Since they offer it, they are entitled to its hide. The owner of the sacrifice may, however, receive a portion of the meat of the sacrifice since he is permitted to partake of sacrificial meat.
22.
Since it is possible for him to serve, he may appoint an agent to act as the owner of the sacrifice.
23.
According to Rashi (ibid. 110a), it appears that the intent is the priests of the watch are given the right to partake of the sacrifice. Since the owner could not partake of it himself, he cannot appoint an agent to do so.
24.
Since he cannot serve himself, he cannot appoint an agent to serve in his place.
25.
I.e., all the priests found in Jerusalem at that time, including those of other watches.
26.
In which instance, the communal sacrifices may be offered by the priests while in a state of impurity, as stated in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:12. Individual sacrifices may not be offered by impure priests even under these circumstances.
27.
In such a situation, the sacrifice should be brought in a state of ritual impurity. Nevertheless, the sacrificial meat itself was ritually pure and it should be eaten by a priest who is ritually impure. Since the priest who is physically blemished is ritually pure and is part of the watch which is serving, he should be given the meat to eat.
28.
A blemished priest cannot perform service in the Temple even in such a situation.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and states that the sacrifice should be given to any priest to offer even though that priest is impure and the right to partake of the sacrifice and use the hide should be given to the priests of that watch who have physical blemishes. The Radbaz explains that the Rambam's intent is that a priest with physical blemishes should receive the meat. The hide, however, belongs to the priests who offered it.
29.
His mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter, or wife died that day.
30.
Hence he can appoint an agent.
31.
Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 2:6. The High Priest may offer sacrifices while in a state of acute mourning, but may not partake of them. Other priests are not allowed to offer sacrifices in this state.
32.
The Radbaz implies that the division was a creative one and that each week, the head of the watch would make a division according to his perception of the needs of the Temple service for that week.
33.
By the High Court of 71 judges as stated in Halachah 15.
34.
Described in Chapter 1, in particular, Halchot 7 and 9.
35.
The eight garments described in Chapter 8, Halachot 1-2. An ordinary priest wears four priestly garments and the High Priest, eight.
36.
As was the case in the latter years of the First Temple and throughout the Second Temple period (see Chapter 1, Halachah 8).
37.
The term marbeh begadim, literally, "increased [his] garments," is used to described this initiation, because he is garbed with the eight garments of the High Priest as opposed to the four of an ordinary priest.
38.
The Radbaz explains that the paradigm for this was set by the initiation of Aaron in the High Priesthood at the time of the dedication of the Sanctuary. Although Aaron was anointed on the first day, Moses served as a High Priest for the first seven days (Radbaz).
39.
Implied is that the initial preference is for him not to perform service. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the obligation to be initiated for seven days before serving applies only with regard to the Yom Kippur service, but not with regard to other matters.
40.
Thus including only a High Priest who was anointed.
41.
See Hilchot Shegagot, ch. 15, for a description of the details of this sacrifice.
42.
Sanhedrin 16a derives this from the advice Yisro gives to Moses (Exodus 18:22): "Any great matter (hadavar hagadol) will be brought to you." Implied is that matters that involve gadlus (greatness) - including the appointment of the kohen gadol (the High Priest) - should be judged by a court with authority equal to that of Moses, i.e., theSanhedrin of 71 judges.
43.
See Chapter 5, Halachot 4-5, 13.
44.
A Greek term meaning "general officer."
45.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 5:2), the Rambam states that there should never be less than two people appointed to take care of communal matters.
46.
Horiot 13a interprets this as a composite of two Aramaic terms meaning "appointed over all." See also the Targum to Numbers 3:32which uses this term to translate nasi, "prince." The Radbaz notes that the wordemir in Arabic means "officer."
47.
I.e., there were seven keys to the Temple Courtyard and each one had one key (Tosefta, Shekalim). In Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 8:5, the Rambam states that the keys to the Sanctuary were entrusted to the elders of the clan. Perhaps the intent is that the elders of the clan were in fact theamerkalin (Ma'aseh Rokeach). Based on the following halachah, that would seem unlikely (Kin'at Eliyahu). See also Chapter 7, Halachah 3, which speaks about a priest appointed to lock the gates of the Temple. Perhaps the intent is that the keys belonged to the amerkalin and each night, they would entrust them.
48.
I.e., those that could be used for the Temple or its service itself should be used for that purpose and not redeemed.
49.
Horiot 13a states that he is given precedence with regard to providing him with his livelihood (and by extension, redeeming him from captivity and returning his lost article). Seemingly, this order also applies - albeit with certain exceptions - with regard to establishing a hierarchy of honor.
50.
The Ritba (in his gloss to Makkot 11a) questions the source of the Rambam's ruling, Horiot, loc. cit. For seemingly, until the oil of anointment was entombed, there were only anointed High Priests and there were none initiated by wearing the priestly garments. And after it was entombed, there were no longer any anointed High Priests. And yet, the passage in Horiot appears to imply that they were contemporaries.
The Ritba offers a resolution, explaining that, in the era of the First Temple, if a High Priest that was anointed was forced to be absent from the Temple for an extended period, e.g., he became ill or was taken captive, a substitute was appointed to serve as a High Priest in his place. He was not anointed, because there may never be two anointed High Priests at the same time, but instead, was initiated in his office by wearing the garments of the High Priesthood.
51.
A priest who experiences a seminal emission becomes impure and is therefore disqualified from offering sacrifices or performing any other service in the Temple until he regains ritual purity.
52.
For the one disqualified because of a seminal is fit for service after he becomes pure, while a blemished priest will never become fit. Even if the blemished can be healed, until it is healed, he is unfit.
53.
See Chapter 1, Halachah 7.
54.
Nazir 47b states that with regard to providing one with his livelihood, the priest appointed to lead the nation in war receives precedence over the segen, because the nation as a whole is dependent on him.
55.
The priest appointed to lead the nation in war is not counted, because he is not involved in the Temple service. Nor are those disqualified because of blemishes or impurity counted, because they do not exist at all times. Similarly, only one level of High Priest is counted, because generally, there was either an anointed High Priest or one installed through wearing the garments. Usually, both did not exist together. See the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh.
56.
I.e., any male. Although females are fit to inherit in certain circumstances, they should not be given any positions of authority among the Jewish people. See Hilchot Melachim 1:5.
57.
The order of inheritance is listed in Hilchot Nachalot, ch. 1.
58.
Hilchot Melachim 1:7 states that he must be equivalent to his predecessor in both wisdom and the fear of God in order to inherit the position. The commentaries suggest emending the text here to follow that reading, because the fear of God is the very foundation of the spiritual heritage of the Jewish people. Anyone who lacks that quality can never be a competent leader, as the Rambam states there: "[However,] under no circumstance should a person who lacks the fear of God be appointed to any position in Israel, even though he possesses much knowledge."
59.
In the above source, the Rambam states: "He should be granted his father's position and given instruction." In that vein, Ketubot103b describes how Rabbi Yehudah Hanasiinstructed that his son Gamliel be given his position, even though his knowledge was not as great as his father's.
If, however, a son is not comparable to his father in the fear of heaven, he should not be given his position at all. The Kessef Mishnehcites the interpretation of Leviticus 16:32which describes the High Priest as one "who was anointed to fill the place of his ancestor." Torat Kohanim (Tzav) comments: "Should he be anointed even though he does not 'fill the place' [i.e., does not equal the level of his] ancestors? No, the Torah states 'fill the place.' If he is not equal to his father, the position should be granted to someone else."
60.
See Sifri, Shoftim.
This law has been a matter of controversy throughout the years. In regard to positions of communal authority, almost all authorities accept this concept. However, controversies have frequently arisen over the inheritance of Rabbinical positions. Here, the Rambam's decision has frequently been challenged.
Maharshdam (Yoreh De'ah, Responsa, n. 85) states that a city must seek out the most capable Rav possible without regard to inheritance. Similarly, the Terumat HaDeshen (Pesakim 128) states "Torah cannot be inherited."
However, many prominent authorities (Rivash, Responsa 271, Ramah, Yoreh De'ah 245, Maharit Algazi, Simchat Yom Tov6) have explained that this law applies even in regard to rabbinical positions.
The difficulties in deciding the question may be seen in the Chatam Sofer's lack of certainty regarding it. In his Responsa (Orach Chayim, Responsum 12), he at first espouses the opinion that rabbinical positions should not be handed down from father to son. However, later (Responsum 13), he reversed himself and granted the son his father's position by inheritance.
In practice, most Rabbis have reached the opinion that if the son is a capable Rabbi, though less qualified than another who seeks the position, his father's position should be awarded to him. However, if the community sees the son as incapable of filling his father's position at all, it may be given to another person.
61.
The Radbaz maintains that this ruling has to do with the unique function this priest serves. Since he leads the nation in war, it is a life or death question and the most capable person is chosen whether he is the heir or not.
In a responsum (Orach Chayim 12), theChatam Sofer takes the opposite perspective, explaining the distinction between this and other positions which are inherited as follows: The kingship and other similar positions are appointments associated with leadership. Hence if the heir is fundamentally capable, he inherits his father's position. The priest who leads the nation in war, by contrast, is an appointment based on holiness. That is not transferred by inheritance. Indeed, the High Priesthood would not be transferred by inheritance were there not a specific verse commanding us to do so.
62.
There is no obligation either way.
63.
While he leads them in war, he wears the eight garments of the High Priest (see Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).
64.
Although he was anointed, he is not given the status of a High Priest and wears the garments of an ordinary priest.
65.
This is a principle applied in several contexts of Torah law. See Menachot 11:7; Hilchot Tefilah 3:16; Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 3:16.
66.
Once he is removed from his position, he should not be reinstated. See Hilchot Sanhedrin 17:9.
67.
See Hilchot Sanhedrin 5:4. Although a case involving a question of capital punishment for a High Priest is judged by a court of 71 judges [rather than the usual 23 (ibid.:1)], we do not say that as a measure of respect for his position, he should be judged by a court of 23 judges. For if he is held liable, he will be lashed in their presence and this will be a public dishonor [Jerusalem Talmud (Sanhedrin 2:1)].
68.
The Jerusalem Talmud (loc. cit.) explains that this comes as a result of the holiness with which the High Priest is endowed. It is a microcosm of God's holiness and hence, like His holiness cannot be nullified.
---------------------
• 3 Chapters: Nedarim Nedarim - Chapter 13, Nezirut Nezirut - Chapter 1, Nezirut Nezirut - Chapter 2 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Nedarim - Chapter 13
Audio: Listen | Download• Nedarim - Chapter 13
Halacha 1
A man may nullify or accept the [vows] of his wife or daughter in any language, even though she does not understand it, for the woman need not hear the nullification or the acceptance [of her vow].1
Halacha 2
How does he nullify [the vow]? He says: "It is nullified," "It is void," "This vow is of no consequence,"2 or uses other terms that imply that the vow is nullified from the outset, whether in the woman's presence or in her absence.1
If, however, he tells her: "I cannot bear your taking a vow" or "This is not a vow," he did not nullify it.3 Similarly, if he tells his wife or his daughter: "[Your vow] is forgiven," "[It] is released," "[It] is absolved," or the like, his statements are of no consequence.4 For a father and a husband do not release a vow like a sage does, but instead, uproot the vow from the outset and nullify it.5
Halacha 3
How does one express his acceptance of a vow? He says to her: "I uphold your vow," "It was good that you vowed," "There is no one like you," "Had you not taken the vow, I would have administered it to you," or any analogous statement that implies that he is happy with this vow.
Halacha 4
When a person voids the vows of his wife or daughter, it is not necessary for him to say anything6 and all of the vows are nullified.
Halacha 5
What is meant by voiding? That he forces her to do something that she forbade herself to do.7 Nullification, by contrast, does not involve forcing her. Instead, he nullifies the vow verbally and allows her [to do as she desires]. If she desires, she may act [in violation of the vow]. If she desires, she need not.8
Halacha 6
What is implied? She took a vow or an oath not to eat or not to drink and he told her: "It is nullified for you." It is nullified and she is permitted to eat and to drink. If he took it and gave it to her, saying: "Take this and eat it," "Take this and drink," she may eat and drink and the vow is automatically nullified.9
Halacha 7
When a person nullifies the vows of his wife or daughter, he must make a verbal statement of nullification. If he nullifies it within his heart, [the vow] is not nullified. When, however, he voids [their vows], he does not have to make a verbal statement. Instead, he nullifies the vow in his heart and compels her to perform [the deed]. Whether she performs it or not, the vow is nullified.
Halacha 8
We may nullify vows on the Sabbath, whether for the sake of the Sabbath10 or not.11 On the Sabbath, however, one should not, however, tell [his wife or daughter]: "[Your vow] is nullified," as one would say during the week.12Instead, he should nullify [the vow] in his heart and tell her: "Take this and eat it," "Take this and drink," or the like.
Halacha 9
When a person tells his wife or his daughter: "All the vows that you will take from now until I come from this and this place are upheld" or "...are nullified," his words are of no substance.13
If he appointed an agent to nullify her vows or to uphold them, his act is of no substance, as [implied by Numbers 30:14]: "Her husband will uphold them, her husband will nullify them." Similarly, her father must act on his own, not through an agent.
Halacha 10
[When a woman takes a vow,] forbidding herself to [partake of] figs and grapes, whether through a vow or through an oath, whether she forbade herself from [partaking of] all types of the species or she said: "These figs and these grapes," if [her husband] upheld [the vow] concerning figs and nullified that concerning grapes or upheld [the vow] concerning grapes and nullified that concerning figs, what he upheld is binding and what he nullified is nullified. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. With regard to the nullification of a vow, we do not say that when a portion of a vow has been nullified, the entire vow is nullified, as is said with regard to the absolution of vows.14
Halacha 11
Halacha 12
What is implied? He heard his wife or his daughter say: "I am a nazirite," and said: "And I am also," he cannot nullify [her vow]17 and they are both nazirites.18 If he said: "I am a nazirite," and she heard and said: "And so am I," he may nullify her vow and his vow is still binding.19 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 13
When a husband takes a vow and administers an identical vow to his wife, having made a certain decision to administer the vow to her, if she saysAmen,20 he may not nullify it. If he took a vow and administered it to her as a question to see what she felt about it, e.g., he asked her "Do you desire to be like me [by taking] this vow or not?" If she says: Amen, he may nullify her vow.
Halacha 14
What is implied? He said: "I am a nazirite and so are you," i.e., you are a nazirite just like me. If she says Amen, he may not nullify her vow.21
If he says: "I am a nazirite. What do you say? Will you be a nazirite like me?" If she says Amen, he may nullify her vow.22 If he nullifies her vow, his vow is also nullified. It is as if he made his vow dependent on her vow.23
If she told him: "I am a nazirite. What about you?", if he answered Amen, he cannot nullify [her vow].24 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 15
[The following rules apply when] a woman takes a vow and another person extends the scope of the vow to include himself, saying "And I [as well]." If her father or husband hears of the vow and nullifies it, her vow is nullified, but that of the person who extended the vow is not.25
Halacha 16
[The following rules apply concerning] a woman who is unmarried and not in her father's domain who says: "Meat will be forbidden to me after 30 days" and she marries within those 30 days. Even though she is in her husband's domain at the time the vow takes effect, he cannot nullify it. [The rationale is that] at the time the vow was taken she was not in his domain. Concerning such a situation, it was said [Numbers 30:10]: "The vow of a widow or a divorcee... shall remain standing." [This applies] even if she was consecrated to [her husband] at the time she took the vow, for a husband may not nullify26[vows that were taken] before [the marriage is consummated], as we explained.27
Halacha 17
[The following rules apply if a woman] took a vow while under her husband's domain that meat will become forbidden to her after 30 days or that she will become a nazirite after 30 days and her husband nullified her vow, but he died or divorced her within those 30 days. Although she will be a divorcee or a widow when the vow will take effect, she is not bound by it, because [her husband] already nullified this vow for her.28
Halacha 18
When a widow or a divorcee says: "Wine will be forbidden to me when I marry," [if] she marries, her husband cannot nullify the vow.29 [If a married woman says]: "I will be forbidden [to eat] meat when I am divorced," her husband may nullify the vow. When she is divorced, she is permitted [to eat meat].30
Halacha 19
When a husband upholds [his wife's vow] in his heart, it has been upheld.31 If he nullifies it in his heart, it is not nullified, as we explained.32 Therefore, if he nullifies it in his heart, he can still retract and uphold it. If, by contrast, he upheld it within his heart, he cannot retract and nullify unless he retracts immediately thereafter.33 [That leniency is granted] so that his thoughts within his heart should not have greater power than the statements he makes.34
Halacha 20
When a person upholds the vows of his daughter or his wife and then changes his mind, he may appeal to a sage to absolve him of his acceptance [of the vow].35 He may then recant and nullify it for her that day.36 If, by contrast, he nullifies it for her and then changes his mind, he cannot appeal to a sage to absolve it so that he can retract and maintain it.37
Halacha 21
When a consecrated maiden takes a vow and only one of her father or husband upholds her vow, while the other nullifies, even if the one who upheld the vow approaches a sage and has his acceptance absolved, he cannot recant and nullify the vow38 together with the one who has already nullified it. [The rationale is that] the two may only nullify [the vow] together.39
Halacha 22
If a man tells his daughter or his wife: "It is upheld for you. It is upheld for you," [even] if he asks to have the first acceptance absolved, the second one takes effect.40
If he tells her: "It is upheld for you. It is nullified for you, but the acceptance will not take effect until after the nullification does," [the vow] is nullified, because the acceptance does not take effect after the nullification.41
If, however, he tells her: "It is upheld for you and nullified for you at the same time,"42 it is upheld.43 If he tells her: "It is upheld for you today," it is upheld forever.44 If he tells her: "It is nullified for you tomorrow," it is not nullified, for he upheld it today and he cannot nullify it on the following day.45If he tells her: "It is upheld for you for one hour," and the day passed without him nullifying it, he has upheld it. We do not say that this is like one who said: "It is nullified for you after an hour," because he never verbally expressed its nullification.46
Halacha 23
When a person takes vows in order to establish his character traits and correct his conduct, he is considered eager and praiseworthy. What is implied? If a person was a glutton and he [took a vow] forbidding meat for a year or two, a person was obsessed with wine and he [took a vow] forbidding himself from drinking wine for a prolonged period or he forbade himself from ever becoming intoxicated, a person would continually pursue illicit gain and was overexcited about wealth [took a vow] forbidding [accepting] presents or benefit from people in a particular country, similarly, a person who would be proud of his comely appearance and took a nazirite vow,50 or the like - all of these are paths in the service of God and concerning such vows and the like our Sages said:51 "Vows are a safeguard for restraint."52
Halacha 24
Although [taking vows] is an element of the service of God, a person should not take many vows involving prohibitions and should not habituate himself to taking them.53 Instead, he should abstain from those things from which one should abstain without taking a vow.
Halacha 25
Our Sages stated:54 "Anyone who takes a vow is considered as having built a private altar."55 If he transgressed and took a vow, it is a mitzvah to ask [a sage] to absolve it,56 so that he will not have an obstacle before him.
When does the above apply? With regard to vows involving prohibitions. With regard to vows involving the consecration of articles, it is a mitzvah to uphold them and not to ask for their absolution unless one is [financially] pressed, as [Psalms 116:14] states: "I will fulfill my vows to God."
Blessed be God who grants assistance.
FOOTNOTES
1.
See Chapter 12, Halachah 18, which explains that even if the woman intended to transgress, if her father or husband nullified the vow beforehand, she is not liable.
2.
Although the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah234:37) mentions the Rambam's view, it also mentions that of Rabbenu Asher who maintains that this last phrase is not effective in nullifying a vow.
3.
For his wording does not imply that the vow is nullified.
4.
I.e., although these expressions are effective for a sage when absolving a vow, they are not effective for a husband or a father.
5.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim13:8), the Rambam explains the statements he makes here. The term "nullify" implies nullifying an entity to the extent that it is as if it never existed. "Releasing," by contrast, implies that a connection existed, but it was released and will not have any effect in the future.
The Rambam's statements have aroused the attention of the commentaries for they appear to run contrary to the understandings of other authorities and the Rambam's own rulings. To explain: From Halachah 15 of this chapter and from Chapter 12, Halachah 19, it appears that until a father or a husband nullifies a vow, the vow is binding. Even when he nullifies it, the nullification affects only the future. SeeHilchot Nazirut 9:11. When a sage absolves a vow, by contrast, it is as if the vow was never taken. See Hilchot Ishut 7:8-9, Hilchot Nazirut 3:10.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that the terminology employed by the Rambam here can be explained as follows: A sage does not "uproot" a vow, he causes it to be considered as if a vow not taken originally. A father or a husband, by contrast, uproot a vow, causing an entity that did exist to be nullified.
6.
I.e., the Rambam is making a distinction between hafarah, "nullification," and bittul, voiding as he proceeds to explain. See also his Commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit.,, where he elaborates on the distinction between these two activities.
7.
E.g., if she took a vow not to drink wine, he causes her to drink wine.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam, maintaining that there is no concept of voiding a woman's vow by causing her to break it. Such concepts apply only with regard to servants. The Radbaz explains the Rambam's wording, stating that with regard to servants, it is necessary to actually compel them to break their vows. Such conduct is not appropriate with regard to one's wife or daughter. Nevertheless, if a husband or a father gently cause a woman to break their vow, that vow is nullified. TheShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:39) mentions both views though it appears to favor the Ra'avad's view.
8.
I.e., since the vow has been nullified, she is under no obligation to keep it. On the other hand, she is not obligated to perform the act forbidden by the vow..
9.
Without him saying anything.
10.
I.e., she took a vow not to wear jewelry or not to partake of a particular food.
11.
Even though the vow has no connection to the Sabbath and it is forbidden to perform any activity for the weekdays on the Sabbath, we allow him to nullify it. The rationale is that, otherwise, he will not be able to nullify it on Saturday night, because the time for nullification will have already passed. As stated in Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:6, on the Sabbath, a sage may absolve only those vows that concern the Sabbath (Kessef Mishneh).
12.
Because it is the Sabbath, it is preferable to change the wording one uses. Even if one uses this wording during the week, the vow is nullified, as indicated by Halachah 6.
13.
This concept is also derived from the prooftext cited below. Until a vow comes into existence and can be upheld, it cannot be nullified (Turei Zahav 234:28).
14.
See Chapter 4, Halachah 11, Chapter 8, Halachah 6. The rationale is that a sage nullifies the vow from the outset, causing it to be considered as if it were never taken. Therefore the entire vow is considered as a single entity. A husband, by contrast, nullifies a vow as it exists. Hence, each element of the vow can be considered independently.
The Rambam's ruling is quoted by theShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:36). TheTur and the Rama differ and maintain that a husband must also nullify the entire vow. Once a portion of a vow is upheld, the vow cannot be nullified.
15.
See Chapter 3, Halachah 3, for an explanation regarding the convention of extending a vow.
16.
For by attaching himself to her vow, he shows that he considers it a viable entity.
17.
As Nedarim 3a states, the laws that apply to the nullification of other vows also apply to the nullification of nazirite vows.
18.
For the reason mentioned in the previous halachah.
19.
For his vow is not at all dependent on hers.
20.
She must, however, state her consent, for he cannot compel her to take a vow against her will. See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.
21.
He is forbidden to nullify his wife's vow, because by doing so, his own vow would be nullified as stated in the conclusion of the halachah. Since he is forbidden to cause his own vow to be nullified, he is forbidden to nullify her vow (see Nazir 22b).
22.
For his commitment is not dependent on hers at all. Even if she refuses to accept a nazirite vow, he is obligated to keep his vow. Hence, his right to nullify her vow is intact.
23.
This refers to the first clause. It is as if he made his vow and her vow a single statement. Thus nullifying her vow would cause his vow also to be nullified. This is forbidden, because he is bound to uphold his vow. Nevertheless, after the fact, if he does nullify her vow, his vow is also nullified (Radbaz). See the Nekudot HaKessef [toShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:54)] who explains that the Rambam's version of Nazir22b follows the Jerusalem Talmud and differs from the standard text of the Babylonian Talmud.
24.
As stated in Halachah 11.
25.
The rationale for this ruling is that the husband's nullification affects the vow only from the time he made it onward. It does not nullify it from the outset. Hence, any extension of a vow that was made before the vow is nullified is binding [Radbaz;Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 234:51)].
26.
I.e., alone, without the nullification of the father (Chapter 11, Halachah 10).
27.
Chapter 11, Halachot 20, 22.
28.
I.e., whether or not his nullification takes effect depends on their relationship at the time he nullifies the vow (Nedarim 89a).
29.
Because he cannot nullify the vows that were taken before marriage, as explained above.
30.
Here also, what is important is the woman's status at the time of the vow and not what her status will be when the vow takes effect.
31.
As stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 18, when a husband remains silent throughout the day, his wife's vow is upheld. This is a sign that his tacit acceptance of a vow is sufficient for it to be binding (Rabbenu Nissim).
32.
As stated in Halachah 7, he must make a verbal statement of nullification. If, however, he voids his wife's vow, her nullification is not binding, as stated in Halachot 4-5.
33.
This term has a specific halachic definition: the time it takes a student to tell his teacher:Shalom Elecha Rabbi (Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:17).
34.
Since a person can nullify a vow or an oath if he retracts within this time, he may certainly retract his acceptance of his wife's oath in thought.
35.
I.e., just as he can appeal to a sage to absolve him of a vow he took, so, too, he may absolve his acceptance of a vow.
36.
I.e., the day he changed his mind, even if it is several days afterwards, is equivalent to the day he heard of his wife's vow. Since he cannot have his acceptance nullified unless he changes his mind, the days when he does not change his mind are considered equivalent to days when he does not know of the vow [Tur (Yoreh De'ah 234)].
There are other Rishonim who maintain that he can ask the sage to have his acceptance absolved only on the day he heard of the vow. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah234:49) mentions both vows without indicating which one should be favored. The Rama maintains that we should be stringent and follow the second view.
37.
Upholding a vow is considered equivalent to taking a vow. Hence, just as a vow can be absolved, the acceptance of one can be absolved. The nullification of a vow, by contrast, cannot be considered as a vow and cannot be absolved. The Radbaz adds that if the person does not know that he can have his acceptance absolved, the day he finds out that information is equivalent to the day he heard of the vow.
38.
The Siftei Cohen 234:16 states that this applies even if he has the acceptance absolved on the day he hears of the vow.
39.
Even if the first one nullified the vow again so that they make a combined statement, their nullification is not accepted.
40.
At the time he stated his acceptance of the vow a second time, his acceptance was of no consequence, because it was unnecessary. Nevertheless, after he nullifies his first acceptance, the second acceptance becomes significant.
41.
As stated in Halachah 20.
42.
The Radbaz states that this ruling applies even if he does not add the words "at the same time."
43.
The two statements cancel each other out. It is as if he remained silent and the vow is therefore upheld. The Kessef Mishnehexplains that the Rambam's rationale is that since the nullification cannot take effect after the vow is upheld, it cannot take effect if it is made simultaneously with the upholding of the vow.
44.
Since, as the Rambam states later on, he did not verbally express his nullification of the vow, it remains binding even after the day passes.
45.
For a vow must be nullified on the day, the man heard about it. In his Nekudot HaKessef, the Siftei Cohen explains that the Rambam's wording implies that he may nullify it that day. The Turei Zahav 234:39-40, however, infers that he cannot nullify it at all once it takes effect for that day.
46.
The instances cited by the Rambam are questions posed by Nedarim 69b, 70a. Since the Talmud continues asking questions, using one instance as a springboard for another, following the pattern of im timtzeh lomar, the Rambam concludes that each of the instances used as a basis for a further question is accepted as halachah (Kessef Mishneh).
47.
This is the last of the series of instances concerning which the Talmud asks in that passage.
48.
Lest her vow in fact be binding.
49.
Because punishment is not given when we are uncertain whether a prohibition exists.
50.
This requires him to allow his hair to grow untrimmed and thus will prevent him from beautifying his appearance. See Nedarim 9b which relates that Rabbi Shimon ben Shetach would almost never partake of the sacrifices of a nazirite. Once, however, he saw a particularly handsome young man who had taken a nazirite vow. He asked him why he had done so and the young man explained that, because of his good looks, he was being tempted by his evil inclination. To rise above the temptation, he took the nazirite vow. Rabbi Shimon ben Shetach praised him for his actions.
51.
Avot 3:13.
52.
In his commentary to that mishnah, the Rambam explains that "taking and maintaining vows to abstain from certain [undesirable] elements [of conduct] ingrains in a person the tendency to bridle the desires he seeks to curb. This tendency will continue and it will be easy for him to acquire the quality of restraint - i.e., the tendency to protect oneself from impurity." See alsoMoreh Nevuchim, Vol. III, the conclusion of ch. 48, which discusses the Divine service associated with taking and maintaining vows.
Nevertheless, the Rambam is not praising restraint as a mode of conduct that is always desirable. On the contrary, in Hilchot De'ot 3:1, he explains that a nazirite is called "a sinner" because he abstains from wine and states:
Our Sages directed man to abstain only from those things which the Torah denies him and not to forbid himself permitted things by vows and oaths. Thus our Sages (Jerusalem Talmud,Nedarim 9:1) asked rhetorically: "Are not the things which the Torah has prohibited sufficient for you? [Why] must you add further prohibitions?"
In the instances mentioned here, however, the person taking the vow is not doing so because he thinks that abstinence is desirable. Instead, he wishes to develop self-control and inner discipline and feels that taking a vow is an effective means to encourage him to do so.
53.
Lest he not keep the vow, and in this way transgress.
54.
Nedarim 22a.
55.
During the time the Sanctuary stood at Shilo and from the time the Temple was built in Jerusalem afterwards, it was forbidden to offer sacrifices on private altars. Similarly, taking a vow is considered undesirable and comparable to building such an altar. Rabbenu Nissim explains the comparison based on the passage from Hilchot De'otcited above, i.e., just as a person who builds a private altar offers a sacrifice to God in an undesirable manner, so, too, a person who takes a vow adds a restriction that the Torah does not require him to observe.
56.
As explained in ch. 4.
Nezirut - Chapter 1
Halacha 1
A nazirite vow is one of the types of vows involving prohibitions,1as [Numbers 6:2] states: "When one will take a nazirite vow...." It is a positive commandment for [a nazirite] to let the hair of his head grow,2 as [ibid.:5] states: "He shall let the mane of the hair of his head grow." If he cuts [his hair] in the midst of the days of his nazirite vow, he violates a negative commandment,3 as [ibid.] states: "A razor shall not pass over his head." Similarly, he is forbidden to contract ritual impurity from a corpse4 or eat those products of a grape vine which the Torah forbids him from eating5 throughout the entire span of his nazirite vow.6
Halacha 2
When [a nazirite] transgressed and cut his hair, became impure [due to contact with a corpse], or partook of wine grapes, he receives two sets of lashes:7one because of the prohibition "He shall not desecrate his word,"8 and one because of the prohibition that he transgressed from the unique prohibitions that apply to a nazirite.9
Halacha 3
When a person takes a nazirite vow and fulfills his vow according to the mitzvah, he has performed three positive commandments: a) "He shall act in accordance with all that he uttered with his mouth,"10 and he has acted [accordingly], b) "He shall let the mane of the hair of his head grow," and he has let it grow, and c) shaving and bringing his sacrifices,11 as [ibid.:18] states: "And the nazirite shall shave at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting."
Halacha 4
When a person says: "I will not depart from the world until I become a nazirite," he becomes a nazirite immediately, lest he die at that time. If he delays [implementing] his nazirite vow, he transgresses the prohibition:12 "Do not delay in paying it." Lashes are not given for the violation of this prohibition.13
Halacha 5
With regard to a nazirite vow, we do not say: [The vow does not take effect] until he makes a statement that every person would be able to understand [that] in his heart [he desired to take a nazirite vow]. Instead, since he made a decision in his heart to take a nazirite vow and verbally expressed concepts that suggest this intent, he is a nazirite although these concepts are distant and [their simple meaning] does not communicate the concept of a nazirite vow.14
Halacha 6
What is implied? A nazirite was passing in front of a person and he said: "I will be," he is a nazirite. Since in his heart, he intended to say that he will be like that person, [it is considered as if he made such a statement] even though he did not explicitly say: "I will be like him." Similarly, if he took hold of his hair15and said: "I will become attractive," "I will grow my hair," "I will cultivate my hair,"16 "I will let my hair grow long," he is a nazirite, provided he made such a decision in his heart.
Halacha 7
Halacha 8
All nicknames for a nazirite vow are considered like a nazirite vow.
What is implied? In places where people mispronounce the words they use, if one says: "I am a nazik, a naziach, a paziach,19 he is a nazirite."
Halacha 9
If a person says: "I am a nazirite only with regard to grape seeds" or "...with regard to grape peels," "I am a nazirite with regard to shaving," or "I am a nazirite only with regard to impurity," he is a nazir in the complete sense and he must keep all the particular laws incumbent on nazirites even though his inten was to forbid himself only with regard to the particular he mentioned. Since the matter concerning which he took the nazirite vow is forbidden to nazirites, he is a nazirite in the full sense of the term.20
Halacha 10
If, however, one says: "I am a nazirite from dried figs," "...from cakes of dried figs," or the like, he is forbidden [to partake of] the article specified, but he is not a nazirite.21
Halacha 11
When a cup of wine was mixed22 for a person and given to he to drink and he said: "I am a nazirite from it," he is a nazirite in the complete sense.23 If he was a morose person, angry, or in mourning and the others were trying to have him drink to release his burden and he said: "I am a nazirite from this [cup]," he is forbidden to drink only that cup, but he is not a nazirite. [The rationale is that] his intent was only that he would not drink that cup.
Halacha 12
Similarly, if a drunken man was given a cup to make him totally inebriated and he said: "I am a nazirite from it," he is forbidden to drink only that cup, but he is not a nazirite. [The rationale is that his intent was] only that they should not have him become overly drunk. If he was as drunk as Lot24 his statements are of no consequence and he is not liable for any transgression that he performs. For when he reaches a state of inebriation equivalent to Lot's, he is not liable at all.25
Halacha 13
When a person says: "I am a nazirite on the condition that I can drink wine," "...become impure because of contact with the dead," or "...cut my hair,"26 he is a nazirite and is forbidden to perform all of the above. [The rationale is that] he made a stipulation against what is written in the Torah and whenever one makes a stipulation against what is written in the Torah, the stipulation is nullified.27
Halacha 14
When a person takes a nazirite vow and [afterwards] says: "I did not know that a nazirite was forbidden to partake of wine..., "...to become impure," or "...to cut hair. Had I known this, I would not have take the vow," he is a nazirite and is obligated in all these prohibitions. [The rationale is that] he knows that he is obligated in at least one of these [prohibitions] and as we explained,28even if one took a [nazirite] vow, forbidding only one of these acts, he is forbidden in all of them.29
Halacha 15
If the person says: "I know that a nazirite is forbidden in all of the above, but I thought that it would be permitted for me to drink wine, because I cannot live without wine," or "[I thought that I would be permitted to become impure,] because I bury the dead," he is not a nazirite,30 because his vow is included in the category of vows made in error31 which need not be absolved by a sage, as we explained.32
Halacha 16
When a person says: "My hand is a nazirite" or "My foot is a nazirite," his words are of no consequence. If, however, he says: "My head is a nazirite" or "My liver is a nazirite," he is a nazarite." This is the general principle: Whenever a person designates as a nazirite an organ upon whose removal33from a living person would cause him to die, he is a nazirite.34
Halacha 17
When a person says: "I will be a nazirite when a ben is born to me," if a son is born to him, he is a nazirite. If, however, a daughter, a tumtum,35 or an androgynus36 is born to him, he is not a nazirite.37
If he says: "I will be a nazirite when offspring is born to me," even if a daughter, a tumtum, or an androgynus is born to him, he is a nazirite. If his wife miscarries, he is not a nazirite. If she becomes pregnant again and gives birth, he is a nazirite.38
FOOTNOTES
1.
Thus it is governed by the laws mentioned in the previous set of halachot. As mentioned in the beginning of Hilchot Nedarim, there are two types of vows: vows involving prohibitions and vows taking on an obligation to bring sacrifices. A nazirite vow also involves bringing sacrifices, as will be explained. Nevertheless, it is considered primarily a vow involving prohibitions (Radbaz).
2.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 92) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 374) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
3.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 209) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 373) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
4.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandments 207-208) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 375-376) include two prohibitions involving this matter among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. See Chapter 5 which describes this prohibition.
5.
This includes prohibitions against drinking wine and eating fresh grapes, raisins, grape seeds, and grape peels. Sefer HaMitzvot(negative commandment 202-206) andSefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 368-372) include five prohibitions against partaking of these grape products among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
6.
The Radbaz explains that the Rambam does not mention these prohibitions in the order that they are mentioned in the Torah, not in the order that they are mentioned in the Mishnah. The rationale is that the mitzvah of letting one's hair grow is mentioned first because it involves both a positive and a negative commandment.
7.
For with his deed, he has violated two of the Torah's prohibitions.
8.
Which applies with regard to the violation of all vows, as stated in Hilchot Nedarim 1:5.
9.
If he violates his nazirite vow in several ways, e.g., he eats grapes and becomes impure, he receives lashes according to the number of violations involved (Radbaz).
10.
I.e., the commandment to observe the vows one takes. See Hilchot Nedarim 1:4.
11.
Which is done at the fulfillment of one's nazirite vow. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 93) and Sefer HaChinuch(mitzvah 377) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. See Chapter 8 which describes this procedure.
12.
Deuteronomy 23:22. As the Rambam states in Hilchot Arachin VaCharamim 1:1, this prohibition applies to any person who delays keeping the vows and pledges he makes. He does not, however, list this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot in these halachot, but instead, in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot (in the introduction to those halachot and in Chapter 14, Halachah 13).
See also Hilchot Arachin 6:33 which uses this law as support for the principle that a pledge to perform a mitzvah is considered as a vow.
13.
For as stated in Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2, lashes are not given for the violation of a prohibition that does not involve a deed. Note, however, Chapter 5, Halachah 21.
14.
This concept, which the Rambam illustrates in the following halachot, expresses the principle (see Nedarim 5b) that yadot nedarim, literally "handles of vows," are considered equivalent to vows themselves.
15.
According to the Rambam, when he makes such statements while holding his hair, it is not necessary that a nazirite pass in front of him for his statement to be binding.
16.
The Hebrew uses two expressions to communicate this and the previous concept. Our translations for these terms are taken from Rav Kappach's translation of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Nazir 1:1).
17.
The offering a nazirite would bring if he became impure (see Numbers 6:10).
18.
I.e., with regard to a nazirite vow. Since it is possible that his statement meant that he intended to offer the doves as a sacrifice, it is not considered as implying a nazirite vow. From the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), it appears that the person is liable to bring these doves as a voluntary offering. It is questionable if here the Rambam is negating that implication.
19.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam writes that gentiles who lived among the Jewish people would mispronounce the word nazir in this manner. As such, there would be some Jews who would make similar mistakes. See parallel concepts in Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:5, Hilchot Nedarim 1:16.
20.
I.e., since he used the term "nazirite" and the object which he mentioned is forbidden to nazirites, the nazirite restrictions all take effect. Note the contrast to the following halachah.
21.
Because the term nazirite does not apply with regard to those objects.
22.
I.e., in the Talmudic era, the wine was very strong. Hence it was customary to mix water into wine before serving it.
23.
I.e., the situation is comparable to those described in Halachah 9.
24.
Who became so drunk that he lost all consciousness of his actions. See Genesis, ch. 19.
25.
I.e., he is considered like a mentally and emotionally incapable person (a shoteh). See Hilchot Ishut 4:18, Hilchot Mechirah29:18.
26.
I.e., he seeks to avoid keeping one or more of the obligations of the nazirite vow although he will keep the others.
27.
This is a general principle applying in many aspects of Torah law, e.g., Hilchot Ishut16:9.
28.
In the previous halachah.
29.
The Ra'avad states that if a person would approach a sage and ask him to absolve his nazirite vow on these grounds, the sage would certainly consent. We are speaking about an instance when the person seeks to have the vow nullified without consulting a sage because it was taken in error. The Radbaz states that the Rambam would also accept this ruling. The Kessef Mishneh, however, does not accept this explanation.
30.
He need not observe any of the nazirite prohibitions, even the ones he had intended to observe.
31.
The Ra'avad considers this as a vow which a person is prevented from keeping by forces beyond his control, citing Nazir 11b which appears to support this interpretation. The Kessef Mishneh and the Radbaz state that while the actual wording of the Talmud fits the Ra'avad's interpretation, the Rambam's explanation can be justified. [Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nazir 2:4), the Rambam uses the wording suggested by the Ra'avad.]
32.
Hilchot Sh'vuot 3:6; Hilchot Nedarim 4:1.
33.
The Or Sameach notes that the Rambam changes slightly the wording of his source,Nazir 21b, based on his ruling in Hilchot Shechitah 8:16. There the Rambam writes that if an animal is born without a liver it may live, but if it was born with a liver and then the liver was removed, it is treifah.
34.
For it is considered as if he took the vow upon his entire person. Compare to Hilchot Arachin 2:1; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot15:2; Hilchot Mechirah 27:8.
35.
A person whose genital area is covered by a piece of flesh and it is impossible to detect his gender.
36.
A person with both male and female sexual organs (Hilchot Ishut 2:24-25).
37.
Although the term ben can be translated as "offspring," its specific meaning is "son." Hence the Rambam rules in this manner.
38.
The fact that his wife miscarried in the interim does not negate the vow.
Nezirut - Chapter 2
Halacha 1
When a person takes a nazirite vow inadvertently,1 is compelled to take one by forces beyond his control,2 takes one in order to encourage a colleague,3or takes one while making exaggerated statements,4 he is exempt as is the law concerning other vows.
When a person takes a nazirite vow and regrets having taking it, he may approach a sage and ask him [to absolve it]. He may release his nazirite vow in the same way he releases other vows.5
Halacha 2
[The following rules apply when a person] took a nazirite vow and went to brings his sacrifices for that vow with the intent that he will bring them on the completion of the days of his vow, but discovered that either all of the animals or one of them were stolen. If he took the nazirite vow before the animal was stolen, he is a nazirite.6 If he took the nazirite vow after [an animal] was stolen, lost, or died, he is not a nazirite. It is as if he took a nazirite vow in error.7
Halacha 3
Halacha 4
If a nazirite was passing before him and he said: "I am like him," he is a nazirite.10 If a colleague of his took a nazirite vow and he said: "My mouth is like his mouth with regard to wine"11 or "My hair is like his hair with regard to cutting it,"12 he is a nazirite. Similarly, if he heard him [take a nazirite vow] and said: "And also I" immediately thereafter,13 [he is a nazirite]. And if a third person said: "And also I" immediately after the second person's statement - even if this continues for 100 individuals14 - they are all nazirites.
Halacha 5
If a person says: "I will be a nazirite when a son will be born to me," and his colleague says: "And also I," his colleague becomes a nazirite immediately.15
Halacha 6
When a person tells a colleague: "I will be a nazirite when a son will be born to you," and his colleague says: "And also I," [his colleague does not become] a nazirite. [The rationale is that] the latter person only had the desire to say that he would love for a son to be born to him to the same degree as the first does. For he is embarrassed in his presence.16
Halacha 7
When a person says: "I will be a nazirite when a son will be born to so-and so,"17 and his colleague heard his statement and said: "And also I," there is an unresolved question concerning the matter. Perhaps his colleague's intent was to become a nazirite like him18 or perhaps he wanted to say that he loved him like the other person did. When there is a question whether a nazirite vow takes effect, we rule leniently.19
Halacha 8
[A nazirite vow can take effect in the following situation.] Two people were walking on the road and saw another person approaching them. One of the said: "The person approaching us is Shimon." The other said: "He is Reuven." The first replied: "I will become a nazirite if it is Reuven" and the second responded: "I will become a nazirite if it is Shimon." If he reaches them and he is Reuven, [the first] is a nazirite. If it is Shimon, the second is a nazirite as per the vows. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. If the person did not reach them, but instead turned backward and disappeared from their sight and they did not discover his identity, neither of them are nazirites.20
Halacha 9
Similarly, when a person says: "I will be a nazirite if there will be 100 kor21 in this grainheap," if when he goes to measure it, he discovers that [some of the produce] was stolen or lost, he is not a nazirite.22 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. [The rationale is that] When there is a question about whether a nazirite vow takes effect, we rule leniently.
Halacha 10
All [of the people who took nazirite vow in the following situation] are nazirites. Several people] were walking on the road and saw a ko'i23from a distance. One said: "I will be a nazirite if that is a wild beast." Another said: "I will be a nazirite if that is a domesticated animal." Another said:24 "I will be a nazirite if that is not a wild beast." Another said: "I will be a nazirite if that is not a domesticated animal." Another said: "I will be a nazirite if that is neither a wild beast, nor a domesticated animal." Another said: "I will be a nazirite if that is both a wild beast and a domesticated animal." [The rationale is that] in certain matters,25 a ko'i resembles a wild beast. In other matters, it resembles a domesticated animal. In still other matters, it resembles both a wild beast and a domesticated animal and in still other matters, it resembles neither a domesticated animal, nor a wild beast.
Similar laws apply if they saw an androgynus and argued whether the person was a man or a woman and took vows similar to those mentioned with regard to a ko'i. They are all nazirities, because there are matters26 in which anandrogynus resembles a man, matters where the resemblance is to a woman, matters in which there is no resemblance to either a man or a woman, and matters in which there is a resemblance to both a man and a woman.
Halacha 11
All of the above applies to the person's status with regard to the mitzvot and not with regard to his nature and physical characteristics. Similarly, the factors involving a ko'i apply with regard to the mitzvot and not with regard to its nature and physical characteristics.
What is implied? [When] a ko'i [is slaughtered, its] blood must be covered as the blood of a wild beast must.27 Its fat is forbidden as is the fat of a domesticated animal.28 It is considered a union of mixed species if it is mated with either a domesticated animal or a wild beast,29 as if it were neither a wild beast or a domesticated animal. And it must be ritually slaughtered as is required for both a domesticated animal or a wild beast. Similarly, there are other halachic considerations that apply with regard to it and they will all be explained in their appropriate place.30
Similarly, an androgynus becomes impure because of a seminal emission like a man and because of uterine bleeding like a woman.31 He cannot be sold as a Hebrew servant, [differing in this way] from both a man and a woman.32 And a person who kills him is executed like one who kills either a man or a woman. There are also other laws applying to him. Each one will be stated in its place.33
Halacha 12
Similar [laws apply]34 if [several people] saw a group of men approaching them which contained sighted people and blind people. One said: "I will be a nazirite if they are sighted people." Another said: "I will be a nazirite if they are not sighted people." Another said: "I will be a nazirite if they are blind." Another said: "I will be a nazirite if they are not blind." Another said: "I will be a nazirite if among them are sighted people and blind people." Another said: "I will be a nazirite if among them are those who are not sighted people and those who are not blind." Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 13
When a minor reaches the age when his vows are of consequence35and he takes a nazirite vow, he is a nazirite and must bring his sacrifices36 even though he has not manifested signs of physical maturity, as he [must uphold] his other vows.
A father may administer a nazirite vow to his son who is underage even though he has not reached the age when his vows are of consequence. A woman, by contrast, may not administer a nazirite vow to her son.37 This is a concept conveyed by the Oral Tradition. It does not apply with regard to other vows.
Halacha 14
What is implied? A father told his son who was a minor: "You are a nazirite"; he said: "My son, so-and-so, is a nazirite;" or he said, [pointing to his son,] "He is a nazirite," and the son remained silent,38 the son is a nazirite. The father must have him conduct himself according to all the particulars of the nazirite laws.39 If [the son] becomes impure, he must bring the sacrifices [associated with the termination] of impurity. When he completes his nazirite vow, he must bring the sacrifices [required when a nazirite vow is completed in] purity.40
Halacha 15
If the son did not desire this and objected to the matter,41 his relatives objected,42 he cut off his hair, or his relatives cut off his hair - thus performing a deed that indicates that either he or his relatives did not desire the nazirite vow,43 he is not a nazirite.44 Until when may his father administer a nazirite vow to him? Until he attains majority,45 and becomes an adult.
Halacha 16
The concept of a nazirite vow does not apply to gentiles, for [Numbers 6:2]46"Speak to the children of Israel."
Halacha 17
The concept of a nazirite vow does apply to women and servants.47A father or a husband may nullify a nazirite vow taken by a woman if he so desires as is the case with regard to other vows.48 With regard to a servant, [to nullify his nazirite vow,]49 his master must compel him to drink [wine] or become impure due to contact with the dead. If he does not compel him,50 he must observe the nazirite vow.
Halacha 18
When a servant takes other vows that involve personal aggravation or that prevent his performance of work or makes a valuation assessment,51 his master does not have to compel him [to act against the vow to nullify it].52[The rationale is that the servant] is not the owner of his self and he cannot cause a vow to take effect regarding his person. To what can the matter be compared? To a person who [takes a vow] forbidding produce belonging to another person to the owner of that produce.53
If, however, a vow does not involve personal aggravation and it is not a matter which holds back work, [the master] cannot compel him [not to observe it].54
If a servant took a nazirite vow and his master told him: "It is nullified for you," [when] he receives his freedom,55 he is obligated to complete his nazirite vow.56 [The rationale is that] a servant must be compelled to nullify his vow. We do not nullify it verbally. If one nullifies it verbally, he is granted his freedom.
Halacha 19
When a servant took a nazirite vow and fled from or abandoned his master,57he is forbidden to drink wine. [This measure was enacted so that] he would suffer difficulty and return to his master's domain.58
If he took a nazirite vow, completed it, and shaved,59 without his master knowing of this, and afterwards, was granted his freedom, he is considered to have satisfied the requirements of his nazirite vow.60 If, however, he took a nazirite vow, but did not shave, and was granted his freedom, he is not considered to have fulfilled his nazirite vow.61 If he became impure and then was granted his freedom, he must begin reckoning [the days of his nazirite vow] from the time he became impure.62
Halacha 20
Nazirite vows must be observed both while the Temple is standing and while the Temple was not standing. Therefore when a person takes a nazirite vow in the present era, he must observe it forever,63 because we do not have a Temple where he can go and offer his sacrifices at the conclusion of his nazirite vow.
Halacha 21
A nazirite vow may be observed only in Eretz Yisrael.64When a person takes a nazirite vow in the Diaspora, he is penalized and obligated to ascend toEretz Yisrael65 and observe his nazirite vow there for as long as he vowed.66Accordingly, when a person takes a nazirite vow in the Diaspora in the present era, we compel him to ascend to Eretz Yisrael and observe his nazirite vow there67 until he dies or until the Temple is built and he brings his sacrifices there at the conclusion of the span of his vow.
Halacha 22
Throughout the entire time he is in the Diaspora, he is forbidden to drink wine, to become impure due to contact with the dead, and to cut his hair.68 He must uphold all of the requirements stemming from a nazirite vow, despite the fact that the days are not counted for him. If he transgressed and drank [wine], cut his hair, or touched a corpse or the like,69 he is liable for lashes.
FOOTNOTES
1.
E.g., he said: "I will be nazirite if I ate today," and he was under the impression that he had not eaten, but in fact he had eaten (Nedarim 25b). See Hilchot Nedarim 8:3 and Chapter 1, Halachah 15.
2.
I.e., people compelled him to take the nazirite vows. See Hilchot Nedarim 4:1.
3.
He said: "I will be a nazirite if you do not eat at my home." See Hilchot Nedarim 4:3.
4.
He said: "I will be a nazirite if I did not see an army as numerous as the Jewish people when they left Egypt." See Hilchot Nedarim4:1; Hilchot Sh'vuot 3:5.
5.
See Hilchot Nedarim 4:5.
6.
We do not automatically say: Had he known that the animal would have been stolen he would not have taken the vow. If, however, he asks a sage to absolve the vow on this account, it is absolved. See Hilchot Nedarim8:5; Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:12.
7.
I.e., his vow was taken on a false assumption, for he believed that he possessed these animals. See Hilchot Nedarim 8:3.
8.
I.e., as illustrated in the following halachah, he states that a nazirite vow taken by a colleague should also apply to him.
9.
Hilchot Nedarim 3:3.
10.
See Chapter 1, Halachah 5.
11.
I.e., "just as he is forbidden to drink wine, so am I."
12.
I.e., "just as he is forbidden to cut his hair, so am I."
13.
This term refers to a specific span of time, the time it takes to say: Shalom Elecha Rebbi (Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:17).
14.
I.e., each one speaking immediately thereafter his colleague.
15.
In contrast to the person who took the vow who does not become a nazirite until the child is born (Chapter 1, Halachah 17). This is the conclusion the Rambam derives from the discussion of the issue in Nazir 13a. The Ra'avad offers a different interpretation of the passage. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam's understanding.
16.
I.e., were he not to make such a statement, it would appear that he does not have genuine love for him. Because of the above, we say that his vow was not made sincerely and he never intended to become a nazirite.
17.
In contrast to the situation described in the previous halachah, in this instance, the person mentioned in the nazirite vow was not present when the vow was taken.
18.
Since the person was not present, we feel that it is less likely that his statements were made merely to make an impression (seeNazir 13a).
19.
The rationale is that at the time of the completion of the vow, the person is required to offer sacrifices. Were his vow not to have taken effect, he would be slaughtering non-sacrificial animals in the Temple courtyard which is forbidden (Rabbenu Nissim).
20.
Because as stated at the conclusion of the previous halachah, if there is a doubt where a nazirite vow is binding, we rule leniently.
21.
A dry measure used in the Talmudic period equivalent to 30 se'ah (Hilchot Arachin 4:4).
22.
For he desired the nazirite vow to take effect only if there was the said amount of grain in the grain heap.
23.
A ko'i is a hybrid born from breeding a deer and a goat. There is an unresolved question among our Sages if it is considered as a domesticated animal (behemah) or a wild beast {(chayah) the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Bikkurim 2:8}. In Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 1:13, he states that the term refers to any hybrid that comes from mating a domesticated animal with a wild beast.
24.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nazir5:6), the Rambam states that if one person made all these statements, he is obligated to fulfill an equivalent number of nazirite vows.
25.
See the following halachah where the Rambam elaborates on these points.
26.
See the following halachah where the Rambam elaborates on these points.
27.
See Hilchot Shechitah 14:4.
28.
See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 1:13.
29.
See Hilchot Kilayim 9:5.
30.
See Hilchot Shechitah 12:8-9; Hilchot Bikkurim 9:5; 10:7; Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 1:6, et al.
31.
I.e., either semen or the secretion of a zav. See Hilchot Mita'amei Mishkav UMoshav1:7; Hilchot Mechusarei Kapparah 3:7.
32.
See Hilchot Avadim 4:1.
33.
See Hilchot Tzitzit 3:9; Hilchot Yibbum VeChalitzah 6:8; Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 22:11,et al.
34.
Note the Radbaz who offers an explanation why all three illustrations of the principle are necessary.
35.
I.e., twelve for a male and eleven for a female. He or she must also be aware of the One for whose sake they are taking vows (Hilchot Nedarim 11:1-4).
36.
The Ra'avad questions this ruling, noting that there are authorities who maintain that the obligation for a minor to keep his vow is Rabbinic in origin. According to their view, it would be forbidden for the minor to bring a sacrifice, for that would be bringing non-sacramental animals as offerings. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh maintain that those authorities follow a minority position.
37.
The commentaries discuss this issue, noting that seemingly, the prophetess Chanah administered a nazirite vow to her son Samuel. They explain that although the inspiration for the vow came from Chanah, it was actually administered by Elkanah, Samuel's father.
38.
I.e., his silence is considered as acceptance. If, however, he refuses to become a nazirite, he is not bound by his father's statements, as stated in the following halachah.
39.
See Chapter 6, Halachot 3, 11.
40.
See Chapter 8, Halachah 1.
41.
The Kessef Mishneh and the Radbaz refer to the difference of opinion between Rashi and Tosafot (Nazir 28b) whether the objection must be made immediately or whether they can be made throughout the span of the nazirite vow. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nazir 4:6), the Rambam espouses the view shared by Tosafot that once the son began observing the nazirite vow, he cannot object to it.
42.
The Minchat Chinuch (mitzvah 368) writes that if the child agrees to observe the nazirite vow, it is binding even if the relatives object.
43.
See the Or Sameach who debates whether drinking wine is also considered a deed which registers the son's objections.
44.
For his father's authority over him is not absolute.
45.
Becomes thirteen years old and manifests signs of physical maturity (Hilchot Ishut 2:2; see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit.).
46.
The verse which introduces the laws of a nazirite vow. By addressing the passage to Jews, the Torah indicates that it does not apply to gentiles.
47.
Numbers 6:2 specifically mentions a woman taking a nazirite vow. With regard to servants, Nazir 62b explains how this concept can be explained by Biblical exegesis.
48.
See Hilchot Nedarim, chs. 11-13.
49.
We are speaking about a Canaanite servant who is his master's property. Accordingly, vows he takes are dependent on his master's consent as indicated by the following halachah.
50.
I.e., with regard to a servant, a verbal nullification of the nazirite vow is not sufficient. The master must physically compel him not to observe it.
51.
See Hilchot Arachin 1:2.
52.
I.e., as the Rambam continues to explain, the vow is void without the master having to take any action at all.
53.
According to the Rambam (based on Nazir62b) , there are four different rulings with regard to vows or oaths a servant takes:
a) All oaths and valuation assessments that a servant takes are nullified automatically. The rationale is that "his body is not his property so that the oath he takes will be effective. With regard to oaths, [Numbers 30:3] states: 'forbid something upon one's soul.' [Implied is that the verse applies to] someone whose soul is his property. It excludes a servant who is someone else's property" (Hilchot Sh'vuot 12:6).
b) Vows other than a nazirite vow that are either aggravating or prevent the servant from working are automatically nullified. The rationale is that, with regard to an oath,Leviticus 5:4 states: "Whether he will do harm or do good." Implied is that he can take an oath - or a vow, because an association is established between vows and oaths - only when he has the choice of either doing good or doing harm to himself. This does not apply to these oaths. Since they harm his master, he has no right to take them.
c) Nazirite vows are not automatically nullified, because the association with vows does not apply with regard to them. Nevertheless, since the servant belongs to his master, the master has the right to nullify his vow.
d) Vows other than a nazirite vow that are neither aggravating nor prevent the servant from working must be fulfilled. The rationale is that in contrast to an oath in which the prohibition is incumbent on the servant (thegavra), for a vow, the prohibition falls upon the object (the cheftza). Since there is no harm to the master involved, such vows can take effect.
54.
Since the master does not suffer any loss, there is no reason that the vow should not take effect.
55.
When a master desires to nullify a vow taken by his servant, he must physically compel him to break it, as mentioned above. If he does not do so, but instead, verbally nullifies it, he is indicating that he no longer considers his servant as having that status, but has freed him. See parallels in Hilchot Avadim 8:17.
Based on a different version of Nazir 62b, the Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and does not agree that verbally nullifying a servant's vow is an indication that he must be freed. The commentaries support the Rambam's understanding.
56.
For the verbal nullification made by his master is of no consequence.
57.
Fleeing from his master is not equivalent to attaining his freedom (Radbaz).
58.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, noting that Nazir 9:1 mentions that this issue is the subject of a difference of opinion between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yossi. Generally, in such instances, the halachah follows Rabbi Yossi and yet the Rambam follows Rabbi Meir's view. The Radbaz explains that the fact that Nazir 61a concludes by mentioning Rabbi Meir's view indicates that the halachah follows his opinion. The Kessef Mishneh suggests (- this, however, is not borne out by the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah -) that the Rambam's text of the mishnah read opposite to the standard version. Others support the Rambam's ruling, based onTosafot who states that the halachah follows Rabbi Meir with regard to his decrees.
59.
I.e., completed the process required of a nazirite at the conclusion of his vow.
60.
We do not say that since the vow was fulfilled without the knowledge of his master, its fulfillment is of no consequence. Although his master could have nullified his vow, since in fact he did not do so, it is considered significant (Radbaz).
61.
I.e., he must begin counting the days of his nazirite vow anew as a free man, without counting the days during which he observed as a servant.
The rationale why these days are not counted is that since he did not complete his vow (by shaving), the status of the vow is left open. For at any time, his master could compel him to drink wine and nullify his vow. As such, he is never considered to have completed a valid nazirite vow. Although the Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, the commentaries justify his approach.
62.
I.e., he does not bring a sacrifice as would a free man who became impure in the midst of his nazirite vow. Instead, he begins his nazirite vow anew when he becomes pure after he attains his freedom.
63.
See Chapter 3, Halachah 12, for a description of how this vow is observed.
64.
This is not a point of Scriptural Law. Instead, the rationale is that since our Sages decreed that the Diaspora - its earth and even its air - conveys ritual impurity, a nazirite cannot observe his vow there (Nazir 54a; seeHilchot Tuma'at Meit 11:1).
65.
So that he can observe his nazirite vow in purity.
66.
Nazir 19b, 20a relates that Queen Heleni took a vow that if her son would return safe from a war, she would be a nazarite for seven years. She observed her vow and came to the Temple to offer her sacrifices. The School of Hillel ruled that she should remain in Eretz Yisrael and observe her vow for another seven years, for the time she observed it in the Diaspora was not counted.
67.
The Ra'avad questions what purpose will be served by ascending to Eretz Yisrael in the present era. We are all impure because of contact with a human corpse (or impurity that results from that) and there are no ashes from the red heifer to purify ourselves. If so, what difference is there between Eretz Yisrael and the Diaspora? In neither place, will one be able to complete his nazirite vow in purity. Hence, the Ra'avad concludes, it is forbidden to take a nazirite vow in the present age, whether in the Diaspora or in Eretz Yisrael.
The Radbaz states that although we are ritually impure, abiding in the Diaspora increases that impurity. Hence, it is preferable for one who takes a nazirite vow to ascend to Eretz Yisrael. The Kessef Mishneh goes further and states that since a person can prevent himself from coming into contact with the ritual impurity associated with a corpse, there is no prohibition against taking a nazirite vow in the present age.
68.
See the parallel in Chapter 6, Halachah 7, for parallels.
69.
For even though we are all ritually impure at present, a nazirite who is impure who comes in contact with a corpse is liable for lashes for each time he comes in contact (Chapter 5, Halachah 17)
---------------------
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• "Today's Day"
Thursday, Adar I 30, 5776 · 10 March 2016
Sunday 30 Adar I, Rosh Chodesh 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: P'kudei, first parsha with Rashi.
Tehillim: 145-150.
Tanya: Ch. 34. It is (p. 153)...explained later (p. 153).
My father said: A chassid creates an environment. If he does not, he had better check his own baggage carefully, to see whether his own affairs are in order. The very fact that he fails to create an environment should make him as broken as a splinter. He must demand of himself: What am I doing in this world?------------------------------------------
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• "Today's Day"
Thursday, Adar I 30, 5776 · 10 March 2016
Sunday 30 Adar I, Rosh Chodesh 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: P'kudei, first parsha with Rashi.
Tehillim: 145-150.
Tanya: Ch. 34. It is (p. 153)...explained later (p. 153).
My father said: A chassid creates an environment. If he does not, he had better check his own baggage carefully, to see whether his own affairs are in order. The very fact that he fails to create an environment should make him as broken as a splinter. He must demand of himself: What am I doing in this world?------------------------------------------
• Daily Thought:
The Prison of Stuff
The stuff you own ends up owning you. You put your heart and soul into getting it, and now your heart jumps at the thought of it slipping away. It becomes the tether that ties you to the ground.
You could give it all away and live as a hermit. But you will be no more than a coward. A slave who runs away is still a slave. Until he becomes his own master.
Here’s how to become your own master: Each time money comes to you, show it who’s boss. Prove you hold the power to set it free. Tear off a chunk and give it away to someone in need.
Keep the rest and use it for good things. Now you are no longer its captive. When the piece you gave away rose to the heavens, all that you owned also rose and was transformed.
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment