משנה: הַגּוֹיִם אֵין לָהֶן נְזִירוּת. נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים יֵשׁ לָהֶן נְזִירוּת. חוֹמֶר בַּנָּשִׁים מִבָּעֲבָדִים שֶׁהוּא כוֹפֵף אֶת עַבְדּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ כוֹפֵף אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. חוֹמֶר בָּעֲבָדִים מִבַּנָּשִׁים שֶׁהוּא מֵיפֵר נִדְרֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ מֵיפֵר נִדְרֵי עַבְדּוֹ. הֵיפֵר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ הֵיפֵר עוֹלָמִית. הֵיפֵר לְעַבְדּוֹ יָצָא לְחֵירוּת הִשְׁלִים נְזִירוּתוֹ. עָבַר מִכְּנֶגֶד פָּנָיו רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר לֹא יִשְׁתֶּה. וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר יִשְׁתֶּה. MISHNAH: Gentiles cannot take a vow as nazir1As explained in the Halakhah, Gentiles may vow under Jewish law. Only the special vow of nazir is restricted to Jews.. Women and slaves2Who had been circumcised and become Jewish by immersion in a miqweh. When manumitted, such a slave will be a full member of the Jewish community. While still in servile status, he is obligated to follow all rules imposed on women. can take a vow as nazir. A man’s power is restricted for his wives more than for his slaves since he can force his slave3If the slave makes any vow which inconveniences his master, the latter can veto the execution of the vow as long as the slave is under his authority. but he cannot force his wife. His power is restricted for his slaves more than for his wives since he can dissolve his wife’s vows4Nedarim Chapters 10,11. but not his slave’s vows5If the master vetoed the implementation of his slave’s vow, that vow becomes dormant but not cancelled. Once the master’s authority is lifted, the vow is automatically activated, as explained in the next sentence.. If he dissolved his wife’s, they are eternally dissolved. If he dissolved his slave’s, once the slave gains his freedom he has to fulfill his nezirut. If [the slave]6Who made a vow of nazir against his master’s wishes. is not in the presence of his master, Rebbi Meïr says, he cannot drink7Wine. Similarly, R. Meїr will hold that the slave may not defile himself for the dead without specific instruction by his master., but Rebbi Yose says, he may drink.
הלכה: הַגּוֹיִם אֵין לָהֶן נְזִירוּת כול׳. בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל נוֹדְרִין בַּנָּזִיר וְאֵין הַגּוֹיִם נוֹדְרִין בַּנָּזִיר. כְּמַה דְאַתְּ אָמַר. אִישׁ. מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אִישׁ. לְהָבִיא הַגּוֹיִם שֶׁנּוֹדְרִין נְדָרִים וּנְדָבוֹת כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. אֱמוֹר אַף הָכָא כֵן. שַׁנְייָא הִיא. דִּכְתִיב וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו. אֶת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ כַפָּרָה. יָֽצְאוּ גוֹיִם שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן כַּפָּרָה. HALAKHAH: “Gentiles cannot vow as nazir,” etc. Israelites can vow as nazir, Gentiles cannot vow as nazir. 8Sifra Emor Parašah 7(2); Menachot.72b">Babli Menaḥot 72b. The reference is to Leviticus.22.18">Lev. 22:18: “Every man of the House of Israel, and of the sojourners in Israel, who would bring their sacrifices for all their vows and all their gifts, to present them to the Eternal as elevation offerings.” In the same Chapter, v. 25 makes it clear that what is acceptable from the Israelite is accptable from the Gentile both as vow (in which a person engages himself to dedicate an animal) and a gift (in which a person dedicates an animal, in which case he does not have to supply a replacement if anything should happen to the animal before it could be sacrificed.) Since you say, “a man”, why does the verse mention “a man”9“Every person” is in Hebrew אִישׁ אִישׁ “man, man”. The repetition has to be explained.? To include Gentiles, who make vows and offer voluntary gifts like Israelites! Why should one not say the same here10Numbers.6.2">Num. 6:2 reads: “A man or a woman, if he makes a clear vow of nazir to the Eternal.” “Man” should include Gentiles by the preceding argument.? There is a difference, for it is written “He shall atone for him.11Numbers.6.11">Num. 6:11. Since Gentiles are not subject to the rules of impurity, the rituals of purification cannot apply to them.” This refers to one to whom atonement applies. It excludes Gentiles, to whom atonement does not apply.
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. הַנָּכְרִי. רִבִּי מֵּאִיר אוֹמֵר. נֶעֱרַךְ אֲבָל לֹא מַעֲרִיךְ. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר. מַעֲרִיךְ אֲבָל לֹא נֶעֱרַךְ. וְזֶה וְזֶה מוֹדִין שֶׁהֵן נוֹדְרִין וְנִידָּרִין. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָּעֵי. מָאן דְּאָמַר תַּמָּן מַעֲרִיךְ. וְהָכָא מַזִּיר. מָאן דְּאָמַר נֶעֱרַךְ. הָכָא נִיזּוֹר. מַזִּיר הֵיךְ אֶיפְשָׁר. יִשְׁרָאֵל מַזִּיר אֶת הַגּוֹי. וְשָׁמַע הוּא לֵיהּ. אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁאָמַר יִשְׂרָאֵל. הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר. וְשָׁמַע הַגּוֹי וְאָמַר. מַה שֶׁאָמַר זֶה עָלַי. אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כְפוֹרֵעַ חוֹב. נִיזּוֹר הֵיךְ אֶיפְשָׁר. גּוֹי מַזִּיר אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל. יִשְׂרָאֵל לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינוֹ מַזִּיר וְגּוֹי מַזִּיר אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל. אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁאָמַר הַגּוֹי. הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר. וְשָׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַר. מַה שֶׁאָמַר זֶה עָלַי. מַה מִיעַטְתָּ בוֹ. יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּבַל יָחֵל וְאֵין הַגּוֹי בְּבַל יָחֵל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה. יִשְׂרָאֵל יֵשׁ לָהֶן הֵיתֵר חָכָם. גּוֹיִם אֵין לָהֶן הֵיתֵר חָכָם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. יִשְׂרָאֵל צְרִיכִין הֵיתֵר חָכָם וְהַגּוֹיִם אֵין צְרִיכִין הֵיתֵר חָכָם. וְאַתְייָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹנָה כִּדְרִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. חָדָא גוֹיָה אָתַת לְגַבֵּי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. אָמַר לַאֲבִימֵי בַּר טוֹבִי. פּוּק וּפְתַח לָהּ בְּנוֹלָד. וּדְרִבִּי יוֹנָה כְּרִבִּי אָחָא. דְּאָמַר. הוּא לָבָן הוּא כּוּשַׁן רִשְׁעָתַיִם. וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ כּוּשַׁן רִשְׁעָתַיִים. שֶׁעָשָׂה שְׁתֵּי רִשְׁעִיּוֹת. אַחַת שֶׁחִילֵּל אֶת הַשְׁבוּעָה וְאַחַת שֶׁשִּׁיעְבֵּד בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁמוֹנֶה שָׁנָה. There12Mishnah ‘Arakhin 1:2., we have stated: “The Non-Jew, Rebbi Meїr says, is evaluated but does not evaluate13This refers to Leviticus.27.1-8">Lev. 27:1–8, where “evaluation” amounts are specified to be offered to the Sanctuary for persons of specified age and sex. According to R. Meïr, a Jew may vow to pay a Gentile’s evaluation but a Gentile cannot make such a vow. According to R. Jehudah, a Gentile may vow to pay a Jew’s valuation but a Jew cannot offer to pay the Gentile’s evaluation.; Rebbi Jehudah says, he evaluates but is not evaluated. Both agree that they make vows and are objects of vows14Both Jew and Gentile may make a vow to pay to the Sanctuary the amount another person would fetch were he to be sold on the slave market..” Rebbi Jeremiah asked: For him who says there that he evaluates, here can he declare a nazir? For him who says there that he is evaluated, here can he be declared a nazir15The texts used to introduce a vow of evaluation (Leviticus.27.2">Lev. 27:2) and a vow of nazir (Numbers.6.2">Num. 6:2) are completely parallel. It is to be assumed that the rules derived from the texts are also parallel; if a Gentile can cause an obligation of payment of an evaluation, he also can cause an obligation of nazir; if a Gentile can be the object of an obligation of payment of an evaluation, he also can be the object of an obligation of nazir.? How would it be possible for him to [be declared a nazir]16The context requires to read ניזור for מזיר and vice-versa.? A Israelite can declare a Gentile to be a nazir17Tentative answer.. Would he listen to him18Rejection of the tentative answer.? But the Israelite said, “I am a nazir,” the Gentile heard it and said, “I am responsible for what this one said.” It is only as if he paid a debt19The Gentile may well vow to the Jew’s obligatory sacrifices since by biblical law, Gentiles’ sacrifices are accepted. But this does not make the Gentile a nazir.. How would it be possible for him to [declare a nazir]16The context requires to read ניזור for מזיר and vice-versa.? A Gentile can declare an Israelite to be nazir17Tentative answer.. Since an Israelite cannot declare [another] Israelite to be a nazir, a Gentile cannot declare an Israelite to be a nazir18Rejection of the tentative answer.. But it must be that the Gentile said, “I am a nazir”, the Israelite heard it and said, “I am taking upon me what this one said.20Since the Gentile’s vow is invalid, so is the Jew’s.” What did you exclude from him21This now is R. Jeremiah’s real question. Since it was shown that the power to evaluate is not related to the power to vow for nazir, the question arises whether in general the power of Gentiles to make vows is equal to that of Jews or not.? An Israelite is subject to “not to desecrate”22Numbers.30.3">Num. 30:3; Sifry zuṭa 30:2. Since a Gentile is not subject to biblical laws other than those given to Adam and Noah, he cannot be held responsible if he “desecrates his word,” i. e., does not keep his vow., a Gentile is not subject to “not to desecrate”. Rebbi Jonah said, Israelites can be relieved by a Sage23An Elder can annul the vow; cf. Tractate Nedarim, Introduction and Chapter 9., Gentiles cannot be relieved by a Sage24Since Gentiles are not subject to the Law, they cannot profit from the Law. He will hold that Gentiles, whose informal marriages have biblical sanction, never can be divorced; cf. Kiddushin 1:1:10" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.1.1.10">Qiddušin 1:2, Notes 33 ff.. Rebbi Yose said, Israelites need a Sage to be relieved, Gentiles do not need a Sage to be relieved25Since Gentiles are not subject to the Law, they do not need the Law. He will hold that since Gentiles are not under the biblical obligation of formal marriage, they never need a divorce but can validly terminate a companionship through unilateral action by either one of the parties.. It follows that Rebbi (Jonah) [Yose] follows Rebbi Abbahu. A Gentile woman came before Rebbi Abbahu, who said to Abime bar Tobi: Go and find her an opening by unforeseen circumstances26Which is forbidden to Jews, Nedarim 9:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.9.2.1">Mishnah Nedarim 9:2. He ordered the lady’s vow to be dissolved to give her peace of mind, not because it would have been necessary.. And Rebbi Jonah follows Rebbi Aḥa, who said that Laban was Kushan-Riš‘ataim. Why was he called “Kushan the doubly bad”? Because he committed two evils. One that he desecrated his oath, the other that he subjugated Israel for eight years27Sanhedrin.105b">Babli Sanhedrin 105b, as tannaïtic text. The story would make Laban live more than 300 years..
וְיִכּוֹף אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי הוּנָא. הֲנָייָתִי עָלֶיךָ. כּוֹפֶה וּמְשַׁמְּשָׁתוֹ. הֲנָייָֽתְךָ עָלַי. הֲרֵי זֶה יָפֵר. שַׁנְייָה הִיא שֶׁהוּא הֲנָייָתוֹ וַהֲנָייָתָהּ. וְלֹא יִכּוֹף אֶת עַבְדּוֹ. שַׁנְייָא הִיא. דִּכְתִיב כִּי נֵזֶר אֱלֹהָיו עַל רֹאשׁוֹ. אֶת שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אָדוֹן אַחֵר. יָצָא עֶבֶד שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אָדוֹן אַחֵר. הָיָה יָכוֹל לִמְחוֹת עַל דְּבַר רַבּוֹ. אוֹמֵר לוֹ. הֲלָכָה הִיא. שְׁמַע לְדִבְרֵי רַבָּךְ. כְּפָפוֹ רַבּוֹ וְנִיטְמָא מָהוּ שֶׁיָּבִיא קָרְבַּן טוּמְאָה. וְכִי נָזִיר הוּא. לֹא אַתְּ הוּא שֶׁגָּזַרְתָּה עָלָיו שֶׁיִּטַּמֵּא. אַתְּ אָמַר. מֵבִיא קָרְבַּן טוּמְאָה. וָכָא מֵבִיא קוֹרְבַּן טוּמְאָה. כְּפָפוֹ רַבּוֹ וְנִיטְמָא מָהוּ שֶׁיִּסְתּוֹר. וְכִי נָזִיר הוּא. אֶלָּא אַתְּ הוּא שֶׁגָּזַרְתָּ עָלָיו שֶׁיִּטַּמֵּא. אַתְּ אוֹמֵר. סוֹתֵר. וָכָא סוֹתֵר. 28The argument about the wife’s vow is from Nedarim 11:1:8" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.11.1.8">Nedarim 11:1, Notes 23–25. Why can he not force his wife? Did not Rebbi Huna say, [if she vowed] any benefit from me [shall be forbidden] to you, he forces her and sleeps with her. Any benefit from you [shall be forbidden] to me, he hasto dissolve. There is a difference because it is a benefit for him and her. He should not be able to force his slave! There is a difference, “because his God’s crown is on his head29Numbers.6.7">Num. 6:7.,” a person who has no other master. This excludes the slave who has another master30The master has the power to force the slave to disregard the vow. The slave in obeying his master does not commit any sin.. If he comes to protest his master’s word, one says to him: this is practice31He has to follow his master’s command., obey your master’s orders! If his master pushed him and he became impure, does he have to bring a sacrifice of impurity? Is he a nazir, did not you decide for him that he should become impure32If his master’s action invalidates the slave’s vow, there is no valid vow of nazir. The status of the slave reverts to profane; the slave is not responsible for the lifting of the status of nazir from him. If there were anything sinful in this action, it would be the master’s responsibility.? You say, he brings a sacrifice of impurity; could he bring here a sacrifice of impurity? Does he annul? Is he a nazir, did not you decide for him that he should become impure? You say, he annuls; could he here annul33Argument and meaning are completely parallel to the preceding.?
פְּשִׁיטָא דָא מִילְּתָא. נִיטְמָא וְאַחַר כָּךְ יָצָא לְחֵירוּת מֵבִיא קָרְבַּן טוּמְאָה. מָהוּ. בְּשֶׁכְּפָפוֹ רַבּוֹ אוֹ בְשֶׁלֹּא כְפָפוֹ רַבּוֹ. אִין תֵּימַר בְּשֶׁכְּפָפוֹ. מֵבִיא קָרְבַּן טוּמְאָה. אִין תֵּימַר בְּשֶׁלֹּא כְפָפוֹ. רַבּוֹ יַשְׁלֵם כָּל־זְמַן שֶׁהוּא תַחְתָּיו. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. בְּשֶׁכְּפָפוֹ רַבּוֹ אֲנָן קַייָמִין. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר. הוֹאִיל וְיָצָא לְחֵירוּת תִּפְקַע מִמֶּנּוּ נְזִירוּת בְּטוּמְאָה. לְפוּם כֵּן צָרַךְ מֵימַר. מוֹנֶה לִנְזִירוּת בְטוּמְאָה. The following is obvious: If he became impure and then was manumitted, he brings a sacrifice of impurity. When is that, if his master forced him or if his master did not force him34What was the cause of the slave’s impurity?? If you say that he forced him, how can be bring a sacrifice of impurity35It was shown in the preceding paragraph that no sacrifice is due.? If you say he did not force him, should he not count for his master as long as he still is in the latter’s power36If the slave made a vow of nazir for a specified period, he should be able to count that period as long as he did not violate its terms by his own will.? Rebbi Yose said, we are dealing with the case that his master forced him. You should not say that because he was manumitted, the nezirut in impurity was lifted from him37Even if the slave was manumitted during his nezirut, the days he was impure because of his master’s command are counted. The rules of nezirut of free men apply to him only from the moment of his manumission.. Therefore, it was necessary to say that he counts nezirut in impurity38This is explained somewhat more fully in the Tosephta (6:6): “If [the slave] became impure and was manumitted, he counts from the time he became impure.” In contrast to the free person, the 7 days he counts for his purification by means of the ashes of the Red Cow are counted as days of nezirut..
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. עֶבֶד שֶׁאָמַר. הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר לִכְשֶׁאֵצֵא לְחֵירוּת. כּוֹפוֹ לִנְזִירוּת. עֶבֶד כּוֹפוֹ לִנְזִירוּת וְאֵינוֹ כוֹפֶה לֹא לִנְדָרִים וְלֹא לִשְׁבוּעוֹת. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא. כְּפָפוֹ רַבּוֹ וְנִיטְמָא מָהוּ שֶׁיִּלָּקֶה. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא הֲלָכָה. מָה אֲנָן קַייָמִין. אִם בִּשֶׁנְּזִירוּתוֹ תוֹרָה וַהֲלָכָה יֵשׁ לָכוּף לוֹקֶה. אִם בְּשֶׁאֵילּוּ וָאֵילּוּ מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן לֹא יַלָּקֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. לוֹקִין עַל הַהֲלָכָה. אֶלָּא אָכֵן הוּא. אִם בִּשֶׁנְּזִירוּתוֹ הֲלָכָה וַהֲלָכָה יֵשׁ לָכוּף וְלוֹקֶה. אִם בְּשֶׁאֵילּוּ וָאֵילּוּ מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן לֹא יַלָּקֶה. 39Tosephta 6:6; Nazir.62b">Babli 62b.“Rebbi Yose said, if a slave said, ‘I shall be a nazir when manumitted,’ his master forces him in matters of nezirut40Without having any influence on the status of the vow.. [The master] can force a slave in matters of nezirut; he does not have to force him in matters either of vows or of oaths41Since the slave is not his own master, he has no power to forbid anything to himself by vow or oath (explanation of the Nazir.62b">Babli, 62b)..” Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If his master forced him and he became impure, is he to be whipped? Or is that only practice? Where do we hold? If his nezirut has biblical status and by practice one may force, he is whipped. If both are rabbinical, he is not whipped. Rebbi Mana said, does one whip for practice? But it must be the following: If his nezirut is practice and by practice one may force, he is whipped. If both are rabbinical, he is not whipped42The question of R. Mana shows that two sentences have to be switched. Instead of נזירתו תורה one has to read נזירותו הלכה and vice-versa.
The first version of the argument of R. Jeremiah goes as follows: If the power of the slave to enter into a state of nazir is the same as the power of the master to force him to disregard his vow, and both have status of “practice”, i. e., have quasi-biblical status as part of Judaism as organized by Ezra and his contemporaries, in the absence of a special practice exempting the slave, the latter should be held liable for infractions of his vow even if he was forced. But if the power of the slave to vow as nazir be rabbinical, then there can be no biblical punishment for infraction. On this R. Mana notes that quasi-biblical status is not biblical status, and biblical punishment for non-biblical infractions (Deuteronomy.25.4">Deut. 25:4) is impossible.
Therefore, the question is rephrased: If the power of the slave to enter into a state of nazir is biblical but the power of the master to force him to disregard his vow is only from practice, should the slave not be subject to prosecution for infringing his vow? The question is not to be taken seriously; it rather points out a logical inconsistency between the rule which allows the slave to become a nazir and the rule which allows the master to override, but not abolish, that vow..
כְּפָפוֹ רַבּוֹ לְדָבָר אֶחָד מָהוּ שֶׁיִּכּוֹף אוֹתוֹ לְכָל־הַדְּבָרִים. בָּאנוּ לְמַחֲלוֹקֶת רִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. עָבַר מִכְּנֶגֶד פָּנָיו. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. לֹא יִשְׁתֶּה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. יִשְׁתֶּה. מָה אֲנָן קַייָמִין. אִם בְּשֶׁאָמַר. בֵּין בְּפָנַיי בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְפָנַיי שְׁתֵה. אוֹף רִבִּי מֵאִיר מוֹדֶה. אִם בְּאוֹמֵר. בְּפָנַיי שְׁתֵה שֶׁלֹּא בְפָנַיי אַל תִּשְׁתֶּה. אוֹף רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מוֹדֶה. אֶלָּא כֵן אֲנָן קַייָמִין בְּאוֹמֵר שְׁתֵה. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. בְּפָנַי שְׁתֵה וְשֶׁלֹּא בְפָנַי אַל תִּשְׁתֶּה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. בְּאוֹמֵר. בֵּין בְּפָנַיי בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְפָנַיי שְׁתֵה. If his master forced him in one respect, did he force him in all respects43Nezirut has three aspects: Growing hair, abstention from the fruit of the vine, and avoidance of the impurity of the dead. If the master objected to one aspect, does he reject the others automatically?? We came to the disagreement between Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Yose: “If [the slave] is not in the presence of his master, Rebbi Meїr says, he cannot drink, but Rebbi Yose says, he may drink.” Where do we hold? If he told him, drink whether in my presence or not in my presence, even Rebbi Meїr will agree. If he told him, drink in my presence, do not drink in my absence, even Rebbi Yose will agree. But we hold in the case that he tells him: “drink!” Rebbi Meїr says, [it means] drink in my presence, do not drink in my absence44Therefore, R. Meїr must hold that objection to one aspect does not imply anything for the others, while R. Yose holds that an objection to one aspect is interpreted as objection to all of them unless specified otherwise by the master.. Rebbi Yose says, [it is] as if he said, drink whether in my presence or not in my presence.