Mishnah.org Logo

המשנה היומית של היום

נזיר ה׳:ג׳ - ה׳:ד׳

The Mishnah Yomi for Thursday, August 29, 2019 is נזיר ה׳:ג׳ - ה׳:ד׳

＜ היום הקודםהיוםלמחרת ＞

משנה א

Mishnayos Nazir Perek 5 Mishnah 3

נזיר פרק ה׳ משנה ג׳

3
With regard to one who took a vow of naziriteship, who then regretted his vow and stopped observing the prohibition against drinking wine, and later requested of a halakhic authority to dissolve his vow, and the authority ruled that he is bound by his vow, finding no reason to dissolve it, he counts the term of naziriteship from the time that he vowed, including the days when he acted as though the vow were dissolved. In a case where he requested of a halakhic authority to dissolve his vow and the authority dissolved it, if he had an animal separated as a nazirite offering it shall go out and graze among the flock. On the basis of this halakha, and continuing their discussion in the previous mishna, Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Don’t you concede with regard to this case that it is an erroneous act of consecration, and yet the halakha is that it shall go out and graze among the flock? This shows that you too accept the principle that an erroneous act of consecration does not take effect. Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: Don’t you concede with regard to one who was separating the animal tithe from his herd, i.e., passing his animals before him single file and consecrating every tenth one as a tithe, that if he erred and called the ninth animal: Tenth; and the tenth: Ninth; and the eleventh: Tenth, that each of them is consecrated? This proves that an erroneous act of consecration does take effect. Beit Hillel said to them: It is not the rod that consecrates it. The touch of the rod does not consecrate the animal, nor does the fact that he said: Tenth, by mistake. Not all errors cause the tithe to be consecrated, and the proof is as follows: And what would be the halakha if he had erred and placed the rod on the eighth or on the twelfth, and labeled them: Tenth? Can it be suggested that perhaps he performed anything of consequence? The halakha is that the eighth or twelfth animal cannot be consecrated as tithe. Rather, why is the ninth or eleventh animal consecrated? There is a specific reason for this halakha, as the same verse that consecrated the tenth also consecrated the ninth and the eleventh. It is a Torah edict that the consecration takes effect with regard to those two animals. Therefore, one cannot infer from this case that an erroneous act of consecration takes effect.
מִי שֶׁנָּדַר בְּנָזִיר וְנִשְׁאַל לְחָכָם וַאֲסָרוֹ, מוֹנֶה מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁנָּדַר. נִשְׁאַל לְחָכָם וְהִתִּירוֹ, הָיְתָה לוֹ בְהֵמָה מֻפְרֶשֶׁת, תֵּצֵא וְתִרְעֶה בָעֵדֶר. אָמְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי, אִי אַתֶּם מוֹדִים בָּזֶה שֶׁהוּא הֶקְדֵּשׁ טָעוּת שֶׁתֵּצֵא וְתִרְעֶה בָעֵדֶר. אָמְרוּ לָהֶן בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, אִי אַתֶּם מוֹדִים בְּמִי שֶׁטָּעָה וְקָרָא לַתְּשִׁיעִי עֲשִׂירִי וְלָעֲשִׂירִי תְשִׁיעִי וְלָאַחַד עָשָׂר עֲשִׂירִי שֶׁהוּא מְקֻדָּשׁ. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית הִלֵּל, לֹא הַשֵּׁבֶט קִדְּשׁוֹ. וּמָה אִלּוּ טָעָה וְהִנִּיחַ אֶת הַשֵּׁבֶט עַל שְׁמִינִי וְעַל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר, שֶׁמָּא עָשָׂה כְלוּם. אֶלָּא כָּתוּב שֶׁקִּדֵּשׁ אֶת הָעֲשִׂירִי, הוּא קִדֵּשׁ אֶת הַתְּשִׁיעִי וְאֶת אַחַד עָשָׂר:
ג׳
ברטנורא

מי שנדר בנזיר – in a language that resembled it for him that he was not a Nazirite.

ונשאל לחכם – and who said to him that there is something in that this language formulation of the language of Naziriteship, and he was not careful from drinking wine,

מונה משעה שנדר – and we don’t fine him that he transgressed and drank wine, even though, from doubt, it is prohibited, he should have separated himself until he would seek and ask a Sage.

נשאל לחכם והתירו – who said to him that there is nothing in this language of the language of Naziriteship.

תצא ותרעה בעדר – for setting aside [an animal] by error is a vain talk but it should become non-holy and in this, the School of Shammai agrees for since he is not a Nazirite when he states that it [i.e., the animal] should go for the sacrifices of the Nazirite, and he didn’t say anything, like a person who is not liable for a sin-offering and states: “behold, this is for my sin-offering.”

אי אתם מודים בזה שהוא הקדש טעות – and what is the difference from the beginning of the chapter (i.e., Mishnah 1), when you (i.e., the School of Shammai) stated that [an act of] consecration done in error is binding [i.e., consecrated]?

אמרו להם בית שמאי – they were not anxious to respond t them the essence of their reasoning, but they spoke to them in accordance with their own words “from the ninth and the eleventh that they consecrated in error and we extend the scope/include from (Leviticus 27:32): “All tithes of he herd or flock – [of all that passes under the shepherd’s staff, every tenth one – shall be holy to the LORD].”

אמרו להם ב"ה לא השבט קדשו – to be read [as a question – in astonishment], meaning to say, the decree of the Biblical verse is that the ninth and the eleventh which are near the tenth, the staff sanctifies them, if he called them “the tenth,” and we do not derive from this merely that an act of consecration made in error is consecrated, for were it not for this reason because of an act of consecration made in error, if so, then even the eighty and the twelfth also [would be included], but rather because the Biblical verse that sanctified the tenth, etc., and it is the decree of the Biblical verse (that the tenth one, approximately, would be sanctified) and we don’t derive anything from this.

מי שנדר בנזיר. בלשון שהיה דומה לו שלא היה נזיר:

ונשאל לחכם ואסרו. ואמר לו שיש בלשון זה לשון נזירות, והוא לא נזהר מלשתות יין:

מונה משעה שנדר. ולא קנסינן ליה על שעבר ושתה יין, אע״ג דמספק איסור היה לו לפרוש עד שישאל לחכם:

נשאל לחכם והתירו. שאמר לו שאין בלשון זה לשון נזירות:

תצא ותרעה בעדר. דהפרשה בטעות הואי ותצא לחולין. ובהא מודו ב״ש, דכיון דאינו נזיר, כי קאמר לקרבנות נזירותו, ולא מידי קאמר, כאדם שאינו חייב חטאת ואמר הרי זו לחטאתי:

אי אתם מודים בזה שהוא הקדש טעות. ומאי שנא מריש פרקין דאמריתו הקדש בטעות הוי הקדש:

אמרו להם בית שמאי. לא חשו להשיבם עיקר טעמם, אלא לדבריהם קאמרי להו מתשיעי ואחד עשר דקדשו בטעות דמרבינן ליה מן וכל מעשר בקר וצאן (ויקרא כ״ז:ל״ב):

אמרו להם ב״ה לא השבט קידשו. בתמיה. כלומר גזרת הכתוב היא דתשיעי ואחד עשר הסמוכים לעשירי השבט מקדשן אם קרא להם עשירי, ולא ילפינן מיניה בעלמא דהקדש בטעות הוי הקדש, דאילו הוי טעמא משום הקדש בטעות א״כ אפילו שמיני ושנים עשר נמי, אלא הכתוב שקדש עשירי כו׳, וגזירת הכתוב היא ולא ילפינן מינה:

משנה ב

Mishnayos Nazir Perek 5 Mishnah 4

נזיר פרק ה׳ משנה ד׳

4
With regard to one who took a vow of naziriteship and went to bring his animal which he set aside for his nazirite offering and discovered that it was stolen, and due to the need to separate an additional animal now regrets having taken his vow, if he took a vow of naziriteship before his animal was stolen, he is a nazirite, as a vow cannot be dissolved as the result of a later event. But if he took a vow of naziriteship after his animal was stolen, he is not a nazirite, as it is retroactively established that his vow was taken in error from the outset, as he relied on an animal he did not possess. And this was the error that Naḥum the Mede erred when he failed to distinguish between an event that occurred before the vow was taken and an event that occurred afterward. The incident in question was as follows: When nazirites were ascending from the exile to sacrifice their offerings, and they found the Temple destroyed, Naḥum the Mede said to them: If you had known that the Temple would be destroyed, would you have taken a vow of naziriteship? They said to him: Certainly not, as there is no remedy for a naziriteship in this case. And Naḥum the Mede dissolved the vow for them. And when the matter came before the Rabbis, they said: His ruling is incorrect. Rather, whoever took a vow of naziriteship before the Temple was destroyed, like these nazirites from the exile, he is a nazirite, as he committed no error at the time of his vow, and one cannot dissolve vows based a new situation. However, one who stated his vow after the Temple was destroyed is not a nazirite, as he vowed based on an erroneous assumption.
מִי שֶׁנָּדַר בְּנָזִיר וְהָלַךְ לְהָבִיא אֶת בְּהֶמְתּוֹ וּמְצָאָהּ שֶׁנִּגְנְבָה, אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְנְבָה בְהֶמְתּוֹ נָזַר, הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר. וְאִם מִשֶּׁנִּגְנְבָה בְהֶמְתּוֹ נָזַר, אֵינוֹ נָזִיר. וְזוֹ טָעוּת טָעָה נַחוּם הַמָּדִי כְּשֶׁעָלוּ נְזִירִים מִן הַגּוֹלָה וּמָצְאוּ בֵית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ חָרֵב, אָמַר לָהֶם נַחוּם הַמָּדִי, אִלּוּ הֱיִיתֶם יוֹדְעִים שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ חָרֵב הֱיִיתֶם נוֹזְרִים. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לֹא, וְהִתִּירָן נַחוּם הַמָּדִי. וּכְשֶׁבָּא הַדָּבָר אֵצֶל חֲכָמִים, אָמְרוּ לוֹ, כֹּל שֶׁנָּזַר עַד שֶׁלֹּא חָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, נָזִיר. וּמִשֶּׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, אֵינוֹ נָזִיר:
ד׳
ברטנורא

מי שנדר בנזיר – and at the time that he took the vow [of becoming a Nazirite], he had the animals [for the sacrifice] and with the knowledge/intention that it was for this purpose he made the vow that he would offer up his sacrifices from those animals, and he went and found that they had been stolen and on account of this, regretted that he took the vow of becoming a Nazirite.

אם עד שלא נגנבו בהמותיו נדר, הרי זה נזיר – and a Sage should not absolve him through this opening for retracting a vow (i.e., suggesting reasons which, if known at the time, would have prevented the person from making the vow), for it was a novel incident changing the aspects of a vow and eventually nullifies it, and we don’t open with a novel incident.

ואם לאחר שנגנבו נדר – and he stated: “had I known that they would be stolen, I would not have made this vow, this is an opening that the Sage could annul.

וזו טעות טעה נחום הנדי כשעלו נזירים מן הגולה ומצאו בהה"ק חרב – and they made the vow prior to the Temple’s destruction and he (i.e., the Sage) released them and the Sages said to him that it was a novel incident changing the aspects of a vow, and eventually nullifying it, and we don’t open with a novel incident, and the Halakha is according to the Sages.

מי שנדר בנזיר. ובשעה שנדר היו לו בהמות ואדעתא דהכי נדר שיקריב קרבנותיו מאותם בהמות. והלך ומצאן שנגנבו ומחמת זה מתחרט על שנדר בנזיר:

אם עד שלא נגנבו בהמותיו נדר הרי זה נזיר. ולא יתיר לו החכם בפתח זה, דנולד הוי ואין פותחין בנולד:

ואם לאחר שנגנבו נדר. ואמר אילו הייתי יודע שנגנבו לא הייתי נודר, הרי זה פתח ויתירנו החכם: וזו טעות טעה נחום המדי שכשעלו נזירים מן הגולה ומצאו בהמ״ק חרב. והם נדרו קודם שחרב הבית, והתיר להן, ואמרו לו חכמים דנולד הוא ואין פותחין בנולד. והלכה כחכמים:

שאלות נפוצות על משנה יומית

עדיין יש לכם שאלה? צרו קשר