א׳
א׳הַנְּזִירוּת הוּא נֵדֶר מִכְּלַל נִדְרֵי אִסָּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ו ב) "כִּי יִדֹּר נֶדֶר נָזִיר" וְגוֹ'. וּמִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁיְּגַדֵּל שְׂעַר רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ו ה) "גַּדֵּל פֶּרַע שְׂעַר רֹאשׁוֹ". וְאִם גִּלֵּחַ בִּימֵי נִזְרוֹ עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ו ה) "תַּעַר לֹא יַעֲבֹר עַל רֹאשׁוֹ". וְכֵן אָסוּר לְהִטָּמֵא לַמֵּתִים אוֹ לֶאֱכל דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֲסָרָן הַכָּתוּב עָלָיו (במדבר ו ד) "מִגֶּפֶן הַיַּיִן" (במדבר ו ד) (במדבר ו ח) "כָּל יְמֵי נִזְרוֹ":
1A nazirite vow is one of the types of vows involving prohibitions,1Thus 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).as [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,2Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 92) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 374) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. 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,3Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 209) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 373) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. as [ibid.] states: "A razor shall not pass over his head." Similarly, he is forbidden to contract ritual impurity from a corpse4Sefer 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. or eat those products of a grape vine which the Torah forbids him from eating5This includes prohibitions against drinking wine and eating fresh grapes, raisins, grape seeds, and grape peels. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 202-206) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 368-372) include five prohibitions against partaking of these grape products among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. throughout the entire span of his nazirite vow.6The 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.
ב׳עָבַר וְגִלֵּחַ אוֹ נִטְמָא אוֹ אָכַל מִגֶּפֶן הַיַּיִן הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם. אַחַת מִשּׁוּם (במדבר ל ג) "לֹא יַחֵל דְּבָרוֹ" שֶׁכּוֹלֵל כָּל הַנְּדָרִים. וְאַחַת מִשּׁוּם דָּבָר שֶׁעָבַר עָלָיו מִדְּבָרִים שֶׁאֲסוּרִין אִסּוּר מְיֻחָד עַל הַנָּזִיר:
2When [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:7For with his deed, he has violated two of the Torah's prohibitions.one because of the prohibition "He shall not desecrate his word,"8Which applies with regard to the violation of all vows, as stated in Hilchot Nedarim 1:5. and one because of the prohibition that he transgressed from the unique prohibitions that apply to a nazirite.9If 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).
ג׳נָדַר בְּנָזִיר וְקִיֵּם נִדְרוֹ כְּמִצְוָתוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹשֶׂה שָׁלֹשׁ מִצְוֹת עֲשֵׂה. הָאַחַת (במדבר ל ג) "כְּכָל הַיֹּצֵא מִפִּיו יַעֲשֶׂה" וַהֲרֵי עָשָׂה. וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה (במדבר ו ה) "גַּדֵּל פֶּרַע שְׂעַר רֹאשׁוֹ" וַהֲרֵי גִּדֵּל. וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁית תִּגְלַחְתּוֹ עִם הֲבָאַת קָרְבְּנוֹתָיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ו יח) "וְגִלַּח הַנָּזִיר פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד" וְגוֹ':
3When 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,"10I.e., the commandment to observe the vows one takes. See Hilchot Nedarim 1:4. 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,11Which 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. as [ibid.:18] states: "And the nazirite shall shave at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting."
ד׳הָאוֹמֵר לֹא אֶפָּטֵר מִן הָעוֹלָם עַד שֶׁאֶהֱיֶה נָזִיר הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר מִיָּד שֶׁמָּא יָמוּת עַתָּה. וְאִם אֵחֵר נְזִירוּתוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹבֵר בְּבַל (דברים כג כב) "תְּאַחֵר לְשַׁלְּמוֹ" וְאֵין לוֹקִין עַל לָאו זֶה:
4When 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:12Deuteronomy 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. "Do not delay in paying it." Lashes are not given for the violation of this prohibition.13For 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.
ה׳אֵין אוֹמְרִין בִּנְזִירוּת עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא בִּשְׂפָתָיו דָּבָר שֶׁמַּשְׁמָעוֹ אֵצֶל כָּל הָעָם כָּעִנְיָן שֶׁבְּלִבּוֹ. אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן שֶׁגָּמַר בְּלִבּוֹ וְהוֹצִיא בִּשְׂפָתָיו דְּבָרִים שֶׁעִנְיָנָם שֶׁיִּהְיֶה נָזִיר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן עִנְיָנוֹת רְחוֹקוֹת וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בְּמַשְׁמָעָן לְשׁוֹן נְזִירוּת הֲרֵי הוּא נָזִיר:
5With 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.14This 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.
ו׳כֵּיצַד. הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה נָזִיר עוֹבֵר לְפָנָיו וְאָמַר אֶהְיֶה הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר הוֹאִיל וּבְלִבּוֹ הָיָה שֶׁיִּהְיֶה כְּמוֹ זֶה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא פֵּרֵשׁ וְאָמַר אֶהְיֶה כְּמוֹ זֶה. וְכֵן אִם אָחַז בִּשְׂעָרוֹ וְאָמַר אֶהְיֶה נָאֶה אוֹ אֱהֵא מְכַלְכֵּל אוֹ אֲהָא מְסַלְסֵל אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר הֲרֵינִי מְסַלְסֵל אוֹ הֲרֵינִי מְכַלְכֵּל אוֹ הֲרֵי עָלַי לְשַׁלֵּחַ פֶּרַע הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר וְהוּא שֶׁיִּגְמֹר בְּלִבּוֹ לְהַזִּיר:
6What 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 hair15According 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. and said: "I will become attractive," "I will grow my hair," "I will cultivate my hair,"16The 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). "I will let my hair grow long," he is a nazirite, provided he made such a decision in his heart.
ז׳אָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי צִפֳּרִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיָה נָזִיר עוֹבֵר לְפָנָיו וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיָה בְּלִבּוֹ לְהַזִּיר אֵינוֹ נָזִיר וַהֲרֵי זֶה כְּמִי שֶׁלֹּא הוֹצִיא בִּשְׂפָתָיו כְּלוּם:
7If he says: "I am obligated to bring doves [as offerings],17The offering a nazirite would bring if he became impure (see Numbers 6:10 . he is not a nazirite even if a nazirite is passing in front of him and even if he had the intent of becoming a nazirite. It is as if he did not say anything.18I.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.
ח׳כָּל כִּנּוּיֵי נְזִירוּת כִּנְזִירוּת. כֵּיצַד. מְקוֹמוֹת הָעִלְּגִים שֶׁמְּשַׁנִּין אֶת הַדִּבּוּר וְאָמַר שָׁם הֲרֵינִי נָזִיק נָזִיחַ פָּזִיחַ הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר:
8All 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,19In 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. he is a nazirite."
ט׳הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מִן הַחַרְצַנִּים בִּלְבַד אוֹ מִן הַזַּגִּים בִּלְבַד אוֹ הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מִן הַתִּגְלַחַת אוֹ הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מִן הַטֻּמְאָה בִּלְבַד הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר גָּמוּר וְכָל דִּקְדּוּקֵי נְזִירוּת עָלָיו וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְּלִבּוֹ לְהַזִּיר אֶלָּא מִדָּבָר זֶה בִּלְבַד הוֹאִיל וְדָבָר שֶׁנָּזַר מִמֶּנּוּ אָסוּר עַל הַנְּזִירִים הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר גָּמוּר:
9If 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 intent 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.20I.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.
י׳אֲבָל הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מִן הַגְּרוֹגָרוֹת אוֹ מִן הַדְּבֵלָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר בָּהֶן וְאֵינוֹ נָזִיר:
10If, 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.21Because the term nazirite does not apply with regard to those objects.
י״אמָזְגוּ לוֹ כּוֹס שֶׁל יַיִן וְנָתְנוּ לוֹ לִשְׁתּוֹת וְאָמַר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מִמֶּנּוּ הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר גָּמוּר. וְאִם הָיָה מַר נֶפֶשׁ אוֹ כּוֹעֵס אוֹ מִתְאַבֵּל וְהָיוּ מְבַקְּשִׁין מִמֶּנּוּ שֶׁיִּשְׁתֶּה כְּדֵי לְשַׁכֵּחַ עֲמָלוֹ וְאָמַר הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר מִמֶּנּוּ הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר בְּאוֹתוֹ הַכּוֹס בִּלְבַד וְאֵינוֹ נָזִיר. שֶׁלֹּא נִתְכַּוֵּן זֶה אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁתֶּה כּוֹס זֶה:
11When a cup of wine was mixed22I.e., in the Talmudic era, the wine was very strong. Hence it was customary to mix water into wine before serving it. for a person and given to him to drink and he said: "I am a nazirite from it," he is a nazirite in the complete sense.23I.e., the situation is comparable to those described in Halachah 9. 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.
י״בוְכֵן שִׁכּוֹר שֶׁנָּתְנוּ לוֹ כּוֹס כְּדֵי לְרַוּוֹתוֹ וְאָמַר הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר מִמֶּנּוּ הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר בְּאוֹתוֹ הַכּוֹס בִּלְבַד וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב בִּנְזִירוּת שֶׁלֹּא נִתְכַּוֵּן זֶה אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא יְשַׁכְּרוּ אוֹתוֹ יוֹתֵר מִדַּאי. וְאִם הִגִּיעַ לְשִׁכְרוּתוֹ שֶׁל לוֹט אֵין דְּבָרָיו כְּלוּם וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַל כָּל עֲבֵרָה שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁמִּשֶּׁהִגִּיעַ לְשִׁכְרוּתוֹ שֶׁל לוֹט אֵינוֹ בֶּן חִיּוּב:
12Similarly, 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 Lot24Who became so drunk that he lost all consciousness of his actions. See Genesis, ch. 19. 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.25I.e., he is considered like a mentally and emotionally incapable person (a shoteh). See Hilchot Ishut 4:18, Hilchot Mechirah 29:18.
י״גהָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֶהֱיֶה שׁוֹתֶה יַיִן אוֹ מִטַּמֵּא לַמֵּתִים אוֹ מְגַלֵּחַ שְׂעָרִי הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר וְאָסוּר בְּכֻלָּם. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִתְנָה עַל מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה וְכָל הַמַּתְנֶה עַל הַכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה תְּנָאוֹ בָּטֵל:
13When 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,"26I.e., he seeks to avoid keeping one or more of the obligations of the nazirite vow although he will keep the others. 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.27This is a general principle applying in many aspects of Torah law, e.g., Hilchot Ishut 16:9.
י״דנָדַר בְּנָזִיר וְאָמַר לֹא הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהַנָּזִיר אָסוּר בְּיַיִן אוֹ בְּטֻמְאָה אוֹ בְּתִגְלַחַת וְאִלּוּ הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ כֵּן לֹא הָיִיתִי נוֹדֵר הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר וְחַיָּב בְּכֻלָּם. שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאָסַר עַצְמוֹ בְּאֶחָד מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה מִינִין וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ לֹא נָדַר אֶלָּא מֵאֶחָד מֵהֶם אָסוּר בְּכֻלָּן:
14When 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,28In the previous halachah. even if one took a [nazirite] vow, forbidding only one of these acts, he is forbidden in all of them.29The 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.
ט״ואָמַר יוֹדֵעַ הָיִיתִי שֶׁהַנָּזִיר אָסוּר בְּכָל אֵלּוּ אֲבָל הָיָה בְּדַּעְתִּי שֶׁמֻּתָּר לִי לִשְׁתּוֹת אֲנִי הַיַּיִן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינִי יָכוֹל לִחְיוֹת בְּלֹא יַיִן אוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֲנִי קוֹבֵר אֶת הַמֵּתִים הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ נָזִיר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵלּוּ בִּכְלַל נִדְרֵי שְׁגָגוֹת שֶׁאֵינָם צְרִיכִין שְׁאֵלָה לְחָכָם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:
15If 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,30He need not observe any of the nazirite prohibitions, even the ones he had intended to observe. because his vow is included in the category of vows made in error31The 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.] which need not be absolved by a sage, as we explained.32Hilchot Sh'vuot 3:6; Hilchot Nedarim 4:1.
ט״זהָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי יָדִי נְזִירָה הֲרֵי רַגְלִי נְזִירָה לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. הֲרֵי רֹאשִׁי נָזִיר כְּבֵדִי נְזִירָה הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר. זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל אֵיבָר שֶׁאִם יִנָּטֵל מִן הַחַי יָמוּת אִם אָמַר הֲרֵי הוּא נָזִיר הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר:
16When 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 removal33The 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. from a living person would cause him to die, he is a nazirite.34For it is considered as if he took the vow upon his entire person. Compare to Hilchot Arachin 2:1; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 15:2; Hilchot Mechirah 27:8.
י״זהָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר כְּשֶׁיִּהְיֶה לִי בֵּן. אִם נוֹלַד לוֹ בֵּן זָכָר הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר. אֲבָל אִם נוֹלְדָה לוֹ בַּת אוֹ טֻמְטוּם אוֹ אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס אֵין זֶה נָזִיר. אָמַר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר כְּשֶׁיִּהְיֶה לִי וָלָד אֲפִלּוּ נוֹלַד לוֹ בַּת אוֹ טֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר. הִפִּילָה אִשְׁתּוֹ אֵינוֹ נָזִיר. חָזְרָה וְנִתְעַבְּרָה וְיָלְדָה הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר:
17When 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,35A person whose genital area is covered by a piece of flesh and it is impossible to detect his gender. or an androgynus36A person with both male and female sexual organs (Hilchot Ishut 2:24-25). is born to him, he is not a nazirite.37Although the term ben can be translated as "offspring," its specific meaning is "son." Hence the Rambam rules in this manner.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.38The fact that his wife miscarried in the interim does not negate the vow.
ב׳
א׳הַנּוֹדֵר בְּנָזִיר בְּשׁוֹגֵג אוֹ בְּאֹנֶס אוֹ שֶׁנָּדַר לְזָרֵז חֲבֵרוֹ אוֹ דֶּרֶךְ הֲבַאי הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר כִּשְׁאָר נְדָרִים. וּמִי שֶׁנָּדַר בְּנָזִיר וְנִחָם עַל נִדְרוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁאָל לְחָכָם וּמַתִּיר לוֹ נְזִירוּתוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמַּתִּירִין שְׁאָר הַנְּדָרִים:
1When a person takes a nazirite vow inadvertently,1E.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. is compelled to take one by forces beyond his control,2I.e., people compelled him to take the nazirite vows. See Hilchot Nedarim 4:1. takes one in order to encourage a colleague,3He said: "I will be a nazirite if you do not eat at my home." See Hilchot Nedarim 4:3. or takes one while making exaggerated statements,4He 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 Nedarim 4:1; Hilchot Sh'vuot 3:5. 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.5See Hilchot Nedarim 4:5.
ב׳מִי שֶׁנָּדַר בְּנָזִיר וְהָלַךְ לְהָבִיא קָרְבְּנוֹתָיו שֶׁנָּזַר עַל דַּעַת שֶׁיְּבִיאֵם בִּמְלֹאת יְמֵי נִזְרוֹ. מְצָאָן שֶׁנִּגְנְבוּ אוֹ נִגְנְבָה בְּהֵמָה מֵהֶן. אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְנְבָה הַבְּהֵמָה נָזַר הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר. וְאִם אַחַר שֶׁנִּגְנְבָה אוֹ שֶׁאָבְדָה אוֹ שֶׁמֵּתָה נָזַר אֵינוֹ נָזִיר שֶׁזֶּה נָזַר בְּטָעוּת:
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.6We 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 Nedarim 8:5; Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:12. 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.7I.e., his vow was taken on a false assumption, for he believed that he possessed these animals. See Hilchot Nedarim 8:3.
ג׳הַמַּתְפִּיס בִּנְזִירוּת הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּדִין כָּל הַמַּתְפִּיס בְּנֵדֶר:
3When a person extends a nazirite vow,8I.e., as illustrated in the following halachah, he states that a nazirite vow taken by a colleague should also apply to him. he is a nazirite, as we explained with regard to the laws concerning the extension of other vows.9Hilchot Nedarim 3:3.
ד׳הָיָה נָזִיר עוֹבֵר לְפָנָיו וְאָמַר הֲרֵינִי כָּזֶה הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר. נָדַר חֲבֵרוֹ בְּנָזִיר וְאָמַר הוּא פִּי כְּפִיו מִיַּיִן אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר שְׂעָרִי כִּשְׂעָרוֹ מִלְּהִגָּזֵז הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר. וְכֵן אִם שָׁמַע וְאָמַר וַאֲנִי בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִּבּוּר [וְשָׁמַע שְׁלִישִׁי בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִּבּוּר] שֶׁל שֵׁנִי וְאָמַר וַאֲנִי וַאֲפִלּוּ הֵן מֵאָה כֻּלָּן נְזִירִין:
4If a nazirite was passing before him and he said: "I am like him," he is a nazirite.10See Chapter 1, Halachah 5. If a colleague of his took a nazirite vow and he said: "My mouth is like his mouth with regard to wine"11I.e., "just as he is forbidden to drink wine, so am I." or "My hair is like his hair with regard to cutting it,"12I.e., "just as he is forbidden to cut his hair, so am I." he is a nazirite. Similarly, if he heard him [take a nazirite vow] and said: "And also I" immediately thereafter,13This term refers to a specific span of time, the time it takes to say: Shalom Elecha Rebbi (Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:17). [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 individuals14I.e., each one speaking immediately thereafter his colleague. - they are all nazirites.
ה׳הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר כְּשֶׁיִּהְיֶה לִי בֵּן וַחֲבֵרוֹ אָמַר וַאֲנִי הֲרֵי חֲבֵרוֹ נָזִיר מִיָּד:
5If 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.15In 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.
ו׳הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר כְּשֶׁיִּהְיֶה לְךָ בֵּן וְשָׁמַע חֲבֵרוֹ וְאָמַר וַאֲנִי אֵין זֶה נָזִיר. שֶׁלֹּא נִתְכַּוֵּן זֶה הָאַחֲרוֹן אֶלָּא לוֹמַר שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹהֵב שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לְךָ בֵּן כְּמוֹ זֶה שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא בּוֹשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ:
6When 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.16I.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.
ז׳הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר כְּשֶׁיִּהְיֶה לִפְלוֹנִי בֵּן וְשָׁמַע חֲבֵרוֹ וְאָמַר וַאֲנִי. הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק שֶׁמָּא לֹא נִתְכַּוֵּן אֶלָּא לִהְיוֹת נָזִיר כְּמוֹתוֹ אוֹ לוֹמַר שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹהֵב אוֹתוֹ כְּמוֹתְךָ. וּסְפֵק נְזִירוּת לְהָקֵל:
7When a person says: "I will be a nazirite when a son will be born to so-and so,"17In 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. 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 him18Since the person was not present, we feel that it is less likely that his statements were made merely to make an impression (see Nazir 13a). 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.19The 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).
ח׳שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ מְהַלְּכִים בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְרָאוּ אֶחָד בָּא כְּנֶגְדָּן וְאָמַר אֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁנַיִם זֶה הַהוֹלֵךְ כְּנֶגְדֵּנוּ שִׁמְעוֹן הוּא. וְאָמַר חֲבֵרוֹ רְאוּבֵן הוּא. וְאָמַר זֶה הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר אִם יִהְיֶה רְאוּבֵן. וְאָמַר הָאַחֵר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר אִם יִהְיֶה שִׁמְעוֹן. הִגִּיעַ אֲלֵיהֶם וַהֲרֵי הוּא רְאוּבֵן הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר. וְאִם הָיָה שִׁמְעוֹן הֲרֵי חֲבֵרוֹ נָזִיר כְּמוֹ שֶׁנָּדְרוּ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. לֹא הִגִּיעַ אֲלֵיהֶם אֶלָּא חָזַר לַאֲחוֹרָיו וְנֶעְלַם מֵעֵינֵיהֶם וְלֹא יָדְעוּ מִי הוּא אֵין אֶחָד מֵהֶן נָזִיר:
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 them 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.20Because as stated at the conclusion of the previous halachah, if there is a doubt where a nazirite vow is binding, we rule leniently.
ט׳וְכֵן הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר אִם יִהְיֶה בִּכְרִי זֶה מֵאָה כּוֹר וְהָלַךְ לְמוֹדְדוֹ וּמְצָאוֹ שֶׁנִּגְנַב אוֹ שֶׁאָבַד אֵינוֹ נָזִיר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. שֶׁסָּפֵק נְזִירוּת לְהָקֵל:
9Similarly, when a person says: "I will be a nazirite if there will be 100 kor21A dry measure used in the Talmudic period equivalent to 30 se'ah (Hilchot Arachin 4:4). 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.22For he desired the nazirite vow to take effect only if there was the said amount of grain in the grain heap. 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.
י׳הָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְרָאוּ אֶת הַכְּוִי מֵרָחוֹק וְאָמַר אֶחָד מֵהֶם הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁזֶּה חַיָּה. וְאָמַר אַחֵר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁזֶּה בְּהֵמָה. וְאָמַר אַחֵר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁאֵין זֶה חַיָּה. וְאָמַר אַחֵר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁאֵין זֶה בְּהֵמָה. וְאָמַר אַחֵר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁאֵין זֶה לֹא חַיָּה וְלֹא בְּהֵמָה. וְאָמַר אַחֵר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁזֶּה בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה הֲרֵי כֻּלָּם נְזִירִים. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַכְּוִי יֵשׁ בּוֹ דְּרָכִים שָׁוֶה בָּהֶן לְחַיָּה וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ דְּרָכִים שָׁוֶה בָּהֶן לִבְהֵמָה וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ דְּרָכִים שָׁוֶה לְחַיָּה וְלִבְהֵמָה וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ דְּרָכִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה לֹא לִבְהֵמָה וְלֹא לְחַיָּה. וְהוּא הַדִּין אִם רָאוּ אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס וְנֶחְלְקוּ בּוֹ אִם הוּא אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה וְנָדְרוּ עַל דֶּרֶךְ שֶׁנָּדְרוּ אֵלּוּ בִּכְוִי הֲרֵי כֻּלָּם נְזִירִים. שֶׁהָאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס יֵשׁ בּוֹ דְּרָכִים שָׁוֶה בָּהֶן לְאִישׁ. וּדְרָכִים שָׁוֶה בָּהֶן לְאִשָּׁה. וּדְרָכִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה בָּהֶן לֹא לְאִישׁ וְלֹא לְאִשָּׁה. וּדְרָכִים שֶׁהֵן שָׁוִין לְאִישׁ וּלְאִשָּׁה:
10All [of the people who took nazirite vow in the following situation] are nazirites. Several people] were walking on the road and saw a ko'i23A 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. from 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:24In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nazir 5:6), the Rambam states that if one person made all these statements, he is obligated to fulfill an equivalent number of nazirite vows. "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,25See the following halachah where the Rambam elaborates on these points. 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 matters26See the following halachah where the Rambam elaborates on these points. in which an androgynus 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.
י״אוְכָל הַדְּרָכִים הָאֵלּוּ בְּעִנְיְנֵי הַמִּצְוֹת וְלֹא בְּטִבְעוֹ וְתוֹלַדְתּוֹ. וְכֵן דַּרְכֵי הַכְּוִי בְּעִנְיְנֵי הַמִּצְוֹת לֹא בְּטִבְעוֹ וְתוֹלַדְתּוֹ. כֵּיצַד. דָּמוֹ טָעוּן כִּסּוּי כְּחַיָּה וְחֶלְבּוֹ אָסוּר כִּבְהֵמָה. וַהֲרֵי הוּא כִּלְאַיִם עִם הַבְּהֵמָה וְכֵן עִם הַחַיָּה כְּאִלּוּ אֵינָהּ חַיָּה וְלֹא בְּהֵמָה. וְטָעוּן שְׁחִיטָה כִּבְהֵמָה וְחַיָּה. וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ דְּרָכִים אֲחֵרִים וְכָל אֶחָד מֵהֶן יִתְבָּאֵר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ. וְכֵן אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס מִטַּמֵּא בְּלֹבֶן כַּאֲנָשִׁים. וּמִטַּמֵּא בְּאֹדֶם כְּנָשִׁים. וְאֵינוֹ נִמְכָּר בְּעֶבֶד עִבְרִי לֹא כַּאֲנָשִׁים וְלֹא כְּנָשִׁים. וְהַהוֹרְגוֹ נֶהֱרָג עָלָיו כַּאֲנָשִׁים וּכְנָשִׁים. וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ דִּינִים אֲחֵרִים וְכָל אֶחָד יִכָּתֵב בִּמְקוֹמוֹ:
11All 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.27See Hilchot Shechitah 14:4. Its fat is forbidden as is the fat of a domesticated animal.28See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 1:13. It is considered a union of mixed species if it is mated with either a domesticated animal or a wild beast,29See Hilchot Kilayim 9:5. 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.30See Hilchot Shechitah 12:8-9; Hilchot Bikkurim 9:5; 10:7; Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 1:6, et al.Similarly, an androgynus becomes impure because of a seminal emission like a man and because of uterine bleeding like a woman.31I.e., either semen or the secretion of a zav. See Hilchot Mita'amei Mishkav UMoshav 1:7; Hilchot Mechusarei Kapparah 3:7. He cannot be sold as a Hebrew servant, [differing in this way] from both a man and a woman.32See Hilchot Avadim 4:1. 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.33See Hilchot Tzitzit 3:9; Hilchot Yibbum VeChalitzah 6:8; Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 22:11, et al.
י״בוְכֵן אִם רָאוּ אֲנָשִׁים בָּאִים כְּנֶגְדָּם מֵהֶם פִּקְחִים וּמֵהֶם סוּמִים וְאָמַר אֶחָד הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁאֵלּוּ פִּקְחִין. וְאָמַר אַחֵר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁאֵין אֵלּוּ פִּקְחִין. וְאָמַר אַחֵר הֲרֵי אֲנִי נָזִיר שֶׁאֵלּוּ סוּמִין. וְאָמַר אַחֵר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁאֵין אֵלּוּ סוּמִין. וְאָמַר אַחֵר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁאֵלּוּ פִּקְחִין וְסוּמִין. וְאָמַר אַחֵר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁאֵין אֵלּוּ לֹא פִּקְחִין וְלֹא סוּמִין. הֲרֵי כֻּלָּם נְזִירִים. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:
12Similar [laws apply]34Note the Radbaz who offers an explanation why all three illustrations of the principle are necessary. 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.
י״גקָטָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְעוֹנַת נְדָרִים וְנָדַר בְּנָזִיר הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר וּמֵבִיא קָרְבְּנוֹתָיו. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת כִּשְׁאָר הַנְּדָרִים. וְהָאִישׁ מַדִּיר אֶת בְּנוֹ קָטָן בְּנָזִיר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לְעוֹנַת נְדָרִים. וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה מַדֶּרֶת אֶת בְּנָהּ בְּנָזִיר. וְדָבָר זֶה הֲלָכָה מִפִּי הַקַּבָּלָה הוּא וְאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בִּשְׁאָר נְדָרִים:
13When a minor reaches the age when his vows are of consequence35I.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). and he takes a nazirite vow, he is a nazirite and must bring his sacrifices36The 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. 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.37The 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. This is a concept conveyed by the Oral Tradition. It does not apply with regard to other vows.
י״דכֵּיצַד. הָאָב שֶׁאָמַר לִבְנוֹ הַקָּטָן הֲרֵי אַתָּה נָזִיר. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר בְּנִי פְּלוֹנִי נָזִיר אוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר. וְשָׁתַק הַבֵּן. הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר וְחַיָּב הָאָב לִנְהֹג בּוֹ כָּל דִּקְדּוּקֵי נְזִירוּת וְאִם נִטְמָא מֵבִיא קָרְבַּן טֻמְאָה. וּכְשֶׁיַּשְׁלִים נְזִירוּתוֹ מֵבִיא קָרְבַּן טָהֳרָה כִּשְׁאָר הַנְּזִירִים הַגְּדוֹלִים:
14What 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,38I.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. the son is a nazirite. The father must have him conduct himself according to all the particulars of the nazirite laws.39See Chapter 6, Halachot 3, 11. 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.40See Chapter 8, Halachah 1.
ט״ולֹא רָצָה הַבֵּן וּמִחָה בְּדָבָר זֶה אוֹ שֶׁמִּחוּ קְרוֹבָיו אוֹ שֶׁגִּלֵּחַ שְׂעָרוֹ אוֹ שֶׁגִּלְּחוּהוּ קְרוֹבָיו שֶׁהֲרֵי נַעֲשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁגִּלָּה דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא רָצָה הוּא אוֹ קְרוֹבָיו בִּנְזִירוּת זוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ נָזִיר. וְעַד מָתַי יֵשׁ לוֹ לְהַדִּירוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּגְדִּיל וְיֵעָשֶׂה אִישׁ:
15If the son did not desire this and objected to the matter,41The 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. his relatives objected,42The Minchat Chinuch (mitzvah 368) writes that if the child agrees to observe the nazirite vow, it is binding even if the relatives object. 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,43See the Or Sameach who debates whether drinking wine is also considered a deed which registers the son's objections. he is not a nazirite.44For his father's authority over him is not absolute. Until when may his father administer a nazirite vow to him? Until he attains majority,45Becomes thirteen years old and manifests signs of physical maturity (Hilchot Ishut 2:2; see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit.). and becomes an adult.
ט״זהָעַכּוּ"ם אֵין לָהֶן נְזִירוּת. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ו ב) "דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל":
16The concept of a nazirite vow does not apply to gentiles, for [Numbers 6:2]46The 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. "Speak to the children of Israel."
י״זנָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים יֵשׁ לָהֶן נְזִירוּת. וְהָאָב אוֹ הַבַּעַל מֵפֵר נְזִירוּת הָאִשָּׁה אִם רָצָה כִּשְׁאָר הַנְּדָרִים. אֲבָל הָעֶבֶד יֵשׁ לְרַבּוֹ לָכֹף אוֹתוֹ לִשְׁתּוֹת וּלְהִטָּמֵא לַמֵּתִים וְאִם לֹא כָּפָה אוֹתוֹ נוֹהֵג נְזִירוּת:
17The concept of a nazirite vow does apply to women and servants.47Numbers 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. A 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.48See Hilchot Nedarim, chs. 11-13. With regard to a servant, [to nullify his nazirite vow,]49We 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. his master must compel him to drink [wine] or become impure due to contact with the dead. If he does not compel him,50I.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. he must observe the nazirite vow.
י״חנָדַר הָעֶבֶד שְׁאָר נְדָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עִנּוּי נֶפֶשׁ אוֹ שֶׁמְּעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמְּלָאכָה אוֹ שֶׁהֶעֱרִיךְ. אֵין רַבּוֹ צָרִיךְ לְכֻפּוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין נַפְשׁוֹ קְנוּיָה לוֹ וְלֹא יָחוּל עָלָיו נֶדֶר. לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה לְאוֹסֵר פֵּרוֹת אֲחֵרִים עֲלֵיהֶם. אֲבָל אִם אֵין שָׁם עִנּוּי וְלֹא דָּבָר שֶׁמְּעַכֵּב מְלָאכָה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְכֻפּוֹ. נָדַר עַבְדּוֹ בִּנְזִירוּת וְאָמַר לוֹ מוּפָר לְךָ יָצָא לְחֵרוּת וְחַיָּב לְהַשְׁלִים נְזִירוּתוֹ. שֶׁהָעֶבֶד כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ וְאֵין מְפֵרִין לוֹ. וְאִם הֵפֵר יָצָא לְחֵרוּת:
18When a servant takes other vows that involve personal aggravation or that prevent his performance of work or makes a valuation assessment,51See Hilchot Arachin 1:2. his master does not have to compel him [to act against the vow to nullify it].52I.e., as the Rambam continues to explain, the vow is void without the master having to take any action at all. [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.53According to the Rambam (based on Nazir 62b) , 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 (the gavra), 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.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].54Since the master does not suffer any loss, there is no reason that the vow should not take effect.If a servant took a nazirite vow and his master told him: "It is nullified for you," [when] he receives his freedom,55When 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. he is obligated to complete his nazirite vow.56For the verbal nullification made by his master is of no consequence. [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.
י״טעֶבֶד שֶׁנָּדַר בִּנְזִירוּת וּבָרַח אוֹ שֶׁהָלַךְ מֵרַבּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר לִשְׁתּוֹת יַיִן כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּצְטַעֵר וְיַחְזֹר לִרְשׁוּת רַבּוֹ. נָזַר וְהִשְׁלִים נְזִירוּתוֹ וְגִלֵּחַ וְלֹא יְדָעוֹ רַבּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ יָצָא לְחֵרוּת הֲרֵי זֶה יָצָא יְדֵי נִדְרוֹ. אֲבָל אִם נָדַר וְלֹא גִּלֵּחַ וְיָצָא לְחֵרוּת לֹא יָצָא יְדֵי נִדְרוֹ. נִטְמָא וְאַחַר כָּךְ יָצָא לְחֵרוּת מוֹנֶה מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁנִּטְמָא:
19When a servant took a nazirite vow and fled from or abandoned his master,57Fleeing from his master is not equivalent to attaining his freedom (Radbaz). he is forbidden to drink wine. [This measure was enacted so that] he would suffer difficulty and return to his master's domain.58The 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 on Tosafot who states that the halachah follows Rabbi Meir with regard to his decrees.If he took a nazirite vow, completed it, and shaved,59I.e., completed the process required of a nazirite at the conclusion of his vow. without his master knowing of this, and afterwards, was granted his freedom, he is considered to have satisfied the requirements of his nazirite vow.60We 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). 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.61I.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. 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.62I.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.
כ׳נְזִירוּת נוֹהֶגֶת בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת. לְפִיכָךְ מִי שֶׁנָּדַר בְּנָזִיר בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר לְעוֹלָם. שֶׁאֵין לָנוּ בַּיִת כְּדֵי שֶׁיָּבִיא קָרְבְּנוֹתָיו בִּמְלֹאת יְמֵי נִזְרוֹ:
20Nazirite 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,63See Chapter 3, Halachah 12, for a description of how this vow is observed. because we do not have a Temple where he can go and offer his sacrifices at the conclusion of his nazirite vow.
כ״אאֵין הַנְּזִירוּת נוֹהֶגֶת אֶלָּא בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. וּמִי שֶׁנָּזַר בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ קוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ וּמְחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ לַעֲלוֹת לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלִהְיוֹת נָזִיר בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּמִנְיַן הַיָּמִים שֶׁנָּזַר. לְפִיכָךְ מִי שֶׁנָּדַר בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לַעֲלוֹת לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלִהְיוֹת נוֹהֵג שָׁם נְזִירוּת עַד שֶׁיָּמוּת אוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּבָּנֶה הַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְיָבִיא קָרְבְּנוֹתָיו בִּמְלֹאת יְמֵי נִזְרוֹ:
21A nazirite vow may be observed only in Eretz Yisrael.64This 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; see Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 11:1). When a person takes a nazirite vow in the Diaspora, he is penalized and obligated to ascend to Eretz Yisrael65So that he can observe his nazirite vow in purity. and observe his nazirite vow there for as long as he vowed.66Nazir 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. Accordingly, 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 there67The 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. until he dies or until the Temple is built and he brings his sacrifices there at the conclusion of the span of his vow.
כ״בוְכָל זְמַן שֶׁהוּא בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר לִשְׁתּוֹת יַיִן וּלְהִטָּמֵא לַמֵּתִים וּלְגַלֵּחַ וְכָל דִּקְדּוּקֵי נְזִירוּת עָלָיו וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין יָמִים אֵלּוּ עוֹלִין לוֹ. וְאִם עָבַר וְשָׁתָה אוֹ גִּלֵּחַ אוֹ נָגַע בְּמֵת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בִּנְגִיעָה לוֹקֶה:
22Throughout 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.68See the parallel in Chapter 6, Halachah 7, for parallels. 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,69For 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). he is liable for lashes.