משנה: הָאִישׁ מַדִּיר אֶת בְּנוֹ בַּנָּזִיר וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה מַדֶּרֶת אֶת בְּנָהּ בַּנָּזִיר. כֵיצַד גִּילַּח אוֹ שֶׁגִּילְּחוּהוּ קְרוֹבִים. מִיחָה אוֹ שֶׁמִּיחוּהוּ קְרוֹבִים. הָֽיְתָה לוֹ בְהֵמָה מְפוֹרֶשֶׁת הַחַטָּאת תָּמוּת. וְהָעוֹלָה תִּקְרַב עוֹלָה. וְהַשְּׁלָמִים יִקְרְבוּ שְׁלָמִים וְנֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד וְאֵינָן טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם. הָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת סְתוּמִים יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. מָעוֹת מְפוֹרָשִׁין דְּמֵי חַטָּאת יֵלְכוּ לְיַם הַמֶּלַח לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין. דְּמֵי עוֹלָה יָבוֹאוּ עוֹלָה וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן. דְּמֵי שְׁלָמִים יָבִיא שְׁלָמִים וְנֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד וְאֵינָן טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם. הָאִישׁ מְגַלֵּחַ עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיו וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה מְגַלַּחַת עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיהָ. כֵּיצַד מִי שֶׁהָיָה אָבִיו נָזִיר וְהִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת סְתוּמִים עַל נְזִירוּתוֹ וּמֵת וְאָמַר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֲגַלַּח עַל מָעוֹת אַבָּא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה אֵין זֶה מְגַלֵּחַ עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיו. אֵיזֶהוּ מְגַלֵּחַ עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיו. מִי שֶׁהָיָה הוּא וְאָבִיו נְזִירִים וְהִפְרִישׁ אָבִיו מָעוֹת סְתוּמִים לִנְזִירוּתוֹ וָמֵת זֶהוּ שֶׁמְגַלֵּחַ עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיו. MISHNAH: A man can declare his son138His underage son. Why a father should have such power is a matter of disagreement in the Nazir.28b-29a">Babli, 28b/29a. a nazir but a woman cannot declare her son a nazir139Since rabbinic law knows no materna potestas.. How is this? If he shaved him or relatives shaved him140If either the son or some relatives provided the sacrifices required while the father already had dedicated either animals or the monies needed for them.; if he protested or relatives protested141If either the son or relatives protested the father’s action, the child’s nezirut is voided. If the father already had dedicated either animals or the monies needed for them, they have to be treated according to the rules detailed in Nazir 4:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.4.4.1">Mishnah 4 in the case of the woman who had prepared her sacrifices when her vow was dissolved by her husband., if he had designated animals, the purification offering shall die; the elevation offering shall be brought as elevation offering; the well-being offering shall be brought as elevation offering; it may be eaten for one day and does not need bread. If he had money not designated, it should be given as donation. If the monies were designated, the money’s worth of the purification offering shall be thrown into the Dead Sea; one may not use it but there can be no larceny. For the value of the elevation offering, he shall bring an elevation offering; it is subject to the law of larceny. For the value of the well-being offering, he shall bring a well-being offering, to be eaten on one day; it does not need bread.
A man may shave on the basis of his father’s nezirut, but a woman may not shave on the basis of her father’s nezirut. How is this? If his father was a nazir and had set aside unspecified money for his nezirut when he died, and he said, I am a nazir on condition that I may shave on my father’s money, Rebbi Yose said, the money shall be given as donation, for he cannot shave on his father’s money. Who may shave based on his father’s nezirut? If both he and his father were nezirim and his father had set aside unspecified money for his nezirut when he died; this one shaves on his father’s nezirut.
הלכה: הָאִישׁ מַדִּיר וכו׳. אִישׁ. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִישׁ. אִשָּׁה מְנַיִין. תִּלְמוּד לוֹמַר. צָרוּעַ. בֵּין אִישׁ בֵּין אִשָּׁה בֵּין קָטָן. אִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר אִישׁ. לְעִנְייָן שֶׁלְּמַטָּן. הָאִישׁ פּוֹרֵעַ וּפוֹרֵם. אֵין הָאִשָּׁה פוֹרַעַת וּפוֹרֶמֶת. HALAKHAH: “A man can declare his son a nazir,” etc. 142Since the Mishnah deals with a difference between a man and a woman, it quotes another difference, regarding people afflicted with skin disease. The text is from Sotah 3:8:7" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.3.8.7">Soṭah 3:9, Note 228.“A man”. This refers not only to a man; from where for a woman? The verse says, “afflicted with skin disease,” whether man, woman, or minor. If it is so, why is “a man” written? For the next theme, “a man is dishevelled and has open seams, no woman is dishevelled and has open seams.”
הָאִישׁ מַדִּיר וְהָאִישׁ מְגַלֵּחַ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי מֵאִיר. כֹדֹ דְּבָרִים מְקוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּי וּמְחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל וְזֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן. בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. אֵין הָאִישׁ מַדִּיר אֶת בְּנוֹ בַּנָּזִיר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים. מַדִּיר בְּנוֹ בַּנָּזִיר. תַּנֵּי בְנִיזְרֵי מֵרֶחֶם. אִית דְּבָעֵי מֵימַר. עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת. אִית דְּבָעֵי מֵימַר. עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא לְעוֹנַת נְדָרִים. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין שֶׁאִם יָבוֹא לְעוֹנַת נְדָרִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַזִּירוֹ. A man can declare a nazir, and a man can shave143A man can declare his son to be a nazir, and the son can shave on the offerings which his father brings for him.. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Meïr: 144Eduyot 2:2" href="/Tosefta_Eduyot.2.2">Tosephta Idiut 2:2. In 24 matters are the House of Shammai lenient but the House of Hillel stringent, and this is one of them: The House of Shammai say, a man cannot declare his son to be a nazir but the House of Hillel say, a man can declare his son to be a nazir. It was stated about those who are nazir from the womb145This sentence seems to be incomplete.. Some want to say, until he grows two pubic hairs146I. e., the father can declare his son to be a nazir until the latter reaches adulthood.. Some want to say, until he reaches the time of vows147Mishnah Niddah 5:6: “The vows of a girl 11 years and one day of age or a boy 12 years and one day of age are checked.” If they know what they are doing, their vows are valid.. Everybody agrees that he can no longer declare him a nazir once he reaches the time of vows148Once a boy’s own vows are valid, his father can no longer make vows for him. In the Nazir.29b-30a">Babli, 29b/30a, the matter remains undecided..
גִּילַּח אוֹ שֶׁגִּילְּחוּהוּ קְרוֹבִים. מִיחָה אוֹ שֶׁמִּיחוּהוּ קְרוֹבִים בְּכָל־לְשׁוֹנוֹת כְּמִי שֶׁמִּיחָה. יָשַׁב לוֹ לִפְנֵי הַסַּפָּר כְּמִי שֶׁלֹּא מִיחָה. קָרוֹב מָהוּ שֶׁיִּמְחֶה. “If he shaved him or relatives shaved him; if he protested or relatives protested,” in any language it is a valid protest149No particular language is prescribed for these protests.. If he sat before a barber150The protest must be verbal; a silent action does not count., it is not a protest; may a relative protest151If the child sits in a barber’s chair, may a relative protest for him? The question needs no answer since the relative can protest anywhere.?
מָהוּ שֶׁתָּחוּל עָלָיו נְזִירוּתוֹ וּנְזִירוּת אָבִיו כְּאַחַת. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּירִבִּי חֲנִינָה בֶּן חֲנִינָה שֶׁהַדִירוֹ אָבִיו וְהָיָה רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בּוֹדְקוֹ אִם הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת. אָמַר לוֹ. מִפְּנֵי מַה אַתָּה בּוֹדְקֵינִי. אִם נְזִירוּת אַבָּא עָלַי הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר וְאִם לָאו הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מִכְּבָר. עָמַד רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וּנְשָׁקוֹ עַל רֹאשׁוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ. בָּטוּחַ אֲנִי שֶׁאֵי אַתְּ יוֹצֵא מִן הַזִּיקְנָה עַד שֶׁתּוֹרֶה הוֹרָאוֹת בְיִשְׂרָאֵל. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר צָדוֹק. אֲנִי רְאִיתִיו יוֹשֵׁב וְדוֹרֵשׁ בְּיַבְנֶה. May his own vow of nazir and that of his father fall on him together152If he is between childhood and adulthood and it is not clear which vow would apply. The positive answer is given by the story.? 153Parallels are in the Nazir.29b">Babli, 29b, and Niddah 5:6" href="/Tosefta_Niddah.5.6">Tosephta Niddah 5:15. It happened that Rebbi Ḥanina ben Ḥanina154In the Tosephta, Ḥananiah ben Ḥananiah. In the Babli, R. Ḥaninah.’s father made him a nazir and Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel155In both other sources, Rabban Gamliel. Since the story presupposes the existence of the Temple, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel would have to be the president of the revolutionary government in the war against the Romans, Rabban Gamliel his father. checked him whether he had grown two pubic hairs. He said to him, why are you checking me? If my father’s nezirut is on me, I am a nazir; otherwise, I declare being a nazir. Rabban Gamliel stood up and kissed him on his head and said, I am sure that you will not die from old age before you taught instruction in Israel. Rebbi Eleazar bar Ṣadoq156A Tanna of the first generation at Jabneh. said, I saw him sitting and explaining in Jabneh.
רִבִּי אָחָא רִבִּי אִימִּי אָמַר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה שָׁאַל. מְלִיקַת הָעוֹף שֶׁלּוֹ מָהוּ שֶׁתֵּיאָכַל. עַד דְּאַתְּ מַקְשֵׁי לָהּ לִמְלִיקַת הָעוֹף קְשִׁיתָהּ לִשְׁחִיטַת הָעוֹף. תַּמָּן סָפֵק אֶחָד. וָכָא שְׁנֵי סְפֵיקוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנִי. וַאֲפִילוּ הָכָא סָפֵק אֶחָד הוּא. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי. הַנּוֹחֵר וְהַמְעַקֵּר אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁחִיטַת חוּלִין בָּעֲזָרָה. רַבָּנִין דְּקַיְסָרִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. אֲפִילוּ סָפֵק אֶחָד אֵינוֹ. כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. אֵין שְׁחִיטַת הָעוֹף מְחוּוֶּרֶת מִדְּבַר תּוֹרָה. וַיִּשְׁטְחוּ לָהֶם שָׁטוֹחַ. וַיִּשְׁטְחוּ לָהֶם שָׁחוּט. Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Immi said that Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked: May his bird be eaten when its neck was broken157If the child who was declared nazir by his father became impure, his father has to bring a couple of birds for him. Both birds (pigeons or turtle doves) are killed by having their necks broken by the Cohen’s thumbnail (Leviticus.5.8">Lev. 5:8). The meat of one of them, offered as purification sacrifice, should be eaten by the priests. If the boy’s vow is valid in biblical law, there is no problem. But if it is valid only rabbinically, then the priest who eats this meat commits two sins, since (a) he slaughters in the Temple what is not a legitimate sacrifice and (b) he eats meat forbidden outside the Temple precinct since it was not ritually slaughtered.
In the Nazir.29a">Babli, 29a, R. Joḥanan holds that the vow is biblically valid; there are no problems. R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that the vow is rabbinic; his position is that articulated by R. Mani in this paragraph.? Instead of asking about a bird whose neck was broken, why do you not ask about a slaughtered bird158Since it is forbidden to bring profane animals into the Temple precinct, one could ask not about birds, but about the animals required for the nazir who finishes his term in purity, whether his purification offering could be eaten by the priests.? There is one doubt, here are two doubts159The sacrifices of the pure underage nazir have only the problem of the validity of his vow in biblical law. The sacrifice of the impure in addition has the problem that the consumption of meat from a bird whose neck was broken is forbidden to everybody except priests in the Temple in the line of duty.. Rebbi Mani said, here also it is one doubt, as it was stated: One who perforates or tears out is not guilty because of profane slaughter in the Temple courtyard160It is forbidden to ritually slaughter profane animals in the Temple precinct. If the animals are killed in other ways than by slaughter, that prohibition was not violated (other prohibitions may have been violated). Cf. Chullin.86a">Babli Ḥulin 86a. There remains only the problem of eating the meat; the irregular slaughter in the Temple precinct is not an infraction.. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: There is not even one doubt, following him who says that slaughtering birds is not clear from the Torah161Ritual slaughter of four-legged animals is clearly prescribed in the Torah. In the desert, all non-sacrificial slaughter was forbidden, Leviticus.17.1-7">Lev. 17:1–7. When the Israelites entered the Land, profane slaughter was permitted, Deuteronomy.12.21">Deut. 12:21. Profane slaughter has to be executed “as I commanded you”, i. e., by the method of slaughter used in the Tabernacle. In all of Lev., slaughter is described by the verb שׁחט, Arabic سحط “to cut the throat”. According to this argument, birds should be killed by breaking their neck, rather than by cutting their throat.: “They spread them a spread,”162Numbers.11.32">Num. 11:32, speaking of the quail. In Sifry Num. 98, the metathesis שחט - שטח is attributed to R. Jehudah. they spread out slaughtered [birds].
עַד כְּדוֹן בְּשָׁוִין. הוּא נָזִיר אַחַת וּבְנוֹ נָזִיר שְׁתַּיִם. הוּא וּבְנוֹ נָזִיר אַחַת. הוּא נָזִיר טָהוֹר וּבְנוֹ נָזִיר טָמֵא. הוּא נָזִיר טָמֵא וּבְנוֹ נָזִיר טָהוֹר. So far, if they are equal. If he was nazir once, his son nazir twice? He and his son nazir once, [but] he was a pure nazir, his son an impure nazir, [or] he an impure nazir, his son a pure nazir163Here starts the discussion of Nazir 4:6:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.4.6.1">Mishnah 7. As explained in the next paragraph, R. Yose requires that the son’s vow precede the father’s dedication. How would R. Yose deal with the case that the vow of the son’s second nezirut precedes the father’s dedication but the actual realization of the vow starts only after the father’s death? Both for the anonymous Tanna, who allows the son unrestricted access to his father’s dedicated money, and for R. Yose, the question arises whether the money can be used for a sacrifice for which it was not intended (money for the offerings in purity for the reparation offering of the impure or vice versa)? The questions are not answered, neither here nor in the Nazir.30b">Babli (30b).?
מַאי טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. קָרְבָּנוֹ לַיי֨ עַל נִזְרוֹ. שֶׁיִּקְדּוֹם קָרְבָּנוֹ לְנִזְרוֹ. וְלֹא שֶׁיִּקְדּוֹם נִזְרוֹ לְקָרְבָּנוֹ. הֲווֹן בְּעֵיי מֵימַר. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה יוֹדֵי לְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אַשְׁכְּחֵיה אֲמַר. לֹא דוֹ מוֹדוּ לְדוֹ וְלֹא דוֹ מוֹדוּ לְדוֹ. What is Rebbi Yose’s reason164That the son’s vow must precede the father’s dedication.? “His offering to the Eternal for his vow”165Numbers.6.21">Num. 6:21., that (his sacrifice precede his vow)166The two parentheses have to be interchanged. The correct text is copied in Num. rabba 10(42), Yalqut #709. but not (that his vow precede his sacrifice). They wanted to say that Rebbi Jehudah167In the Tosephta, 3:18, it is explained that R. Jehudah and R. Meïr hold that any unspecified money in the estate can be used by the son for a future nezirut (but specified money has to be treated by the rules of Nazir 4:6:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.4.6.1">Mishnah 6.) The opinion of R. Yose is shared by R. Eleazar (ben Shamua) and R. Simeon (ben Ioḥai). The problems with the text of Tosephta and Babli are treated at length by S. Lieberman (Tosefta ki-Fshutah p. 537–538).
The Yerushalmi does not treat the anomaly that, by tradition, the daughter cannot use the father’s dedicated money even if she is the only heir (Nazir.30">Babli 30a/b). would agree with Rebbi Yose. It was found said that neither of them agrees with the other.