כׇּל כִּינּוּיֵי נְזִירוּת כִּנְזִירוּת MISHNA: One becomes a nazirite by taking a nazirite vow, in which he simply declares himself a nazirite, as detailed in the Torah (Numbers 6:1–21). Additionally, all substitutes for the language of nazirite vows are like nazirite vows and are binding. Furthermore, intimations of nazirite vows, i.e., incomplete statements that are understood from context to be meant as nazirite vows, are considered binding nazirite vows.
הָאוֹמֵר אֱהֵא הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר אוֹ אֱהֵא נָאֶה נָזִיר נָזִיק נָזִיחַ פָּזִיחַ הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר הֲרֵינִי כָּזֶה הֲרֵינִי מְסַלְסֵל הֲרֵינִי מְכַלְכֵּל הֲרֵי עָלַי לְשַׁלֵּחַ פֶּרַע הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר Consequently, one who says: I will be, without further clarification, is a nazirite, as this is his implied intention. Or, if he said: I will be beautiful, he is a nazirite. The substitutes for the language of nazirite vows are as follows: If one says: I will be a nazik, a nazi’aḥ, or a pazi’aḥ, he is a nazirite. If one says: I am hereby like this, I am hereby a hair curler, I am hereby growing my hair; or: It is incumbent upon me to grow long hair, he is a nazirite.
הֲרֵי עָלַי צִיפּוֹרִים רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר נָזִיר וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ נָזִיר: If one says: An obligation is hereby incumbent upon me with regard to birds, Rabbi Meir says: He is a nazirite. A nazirite brings two bird-offerings if he inadvertently becomes ritually impure from a corpse (Numbers 6:10), and it is understood that the individual used this indirect phrase to take a vow of naziriteship. And the Sages say: He is not a nazirite.
גְּמָ׳ מִכְּדֵי תַּנָּא בְּסֵדֶר נָשִׁים קָאֵי מַאי טַעְמָא תָּנֵי נָזִיר GEMARA: The Gemara begins by clarifying why this tractate appears in the order of Nashim within the six orders of the Mishna. Now, the tanna is engaged in the study of the order of Nashim, which discusses laws concerning marriage and the resulting obligations as well as with forbidden sexual relations. What then is the reason that he teaches the laws of the nazirite here?
תַּנָּא אַקְּרָא קָאֵי וְהָיָה אִם לֹא תִמְצָא חֵן בְּעֵינָיו כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר וְהָכִי קָאָמַר מִי גָּרַם לָהּ לָעֲבֵירָה יַיִן וְקָאָמַר כׇּל הָרוֹאֶה סוֹטָה בְּקִלְקוּלָהּ יַזִּיר עַצְמוֹ מִן הַיַּיִן The Gemara answers: The tanna is engaged in the study of the verse pertaining to divorce: “Then it comes to pass, if she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly matter about her” (Deuteronomy 24:1). And this is what he is saying: What caused the woman to commit the transgression of adultery, alluded to in the verse by the phrase “unseemly matter”? It was wine. And the tanna is saying: Anyone who sees a sota in her disgrace should abstain from wine. Consequently, tractate Nazir is placed in the order of Nashim, immediately preceding tractate Sota, which is about a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful, and tractate Gittin, which discusses divorce.
פָּתַח בְּכִינּוּיִין וּמְפָרֵשׁ יָדוֹת § The Gemara asks a question with regard to the mishna’s presentation of the different topics it addresses: The tanna began with the statement that all substitutes for the language of nazirite vows are considered nazirite vows, but then it explains the halakha of intimations of nazirite vows by providing examples of intimations rather than examples of substitutes for nazirite vows. Why didn’t the mishna provide examples of substitutes immediately after stating the halakha concerning substitutes?
אָמַר רָבָא וְאִיתֵּימָא כְּדִי חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי כׇּל כִּינּוּיֵי נְזִירוּת כִּנְזִירוּת וִידוֹת נְזִירוּת כִּנְזִירוּת וְאֵלּוּ הֵן יָדוֹת הָאוֹמֵר אֱהֵא הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר Rava said, and some say this statement without attribution [kedi]: The mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: All substitutes for the language of nazirite vows are like nazirite vows. And similarly, all intimations of nazirite vows are like nazirite vows. And these are examples of intimations: One who says: I will be, is a nazirite.
וְלִפְרוֹשׁ כִּינּוּיֵי בְּרֵישָׁא תַּנָּא מֵהָהוּא דְּסָלֵיק הָהוּא מְפָרֵשׁ בְּרֵישָׁא כְּדִתְנַן בַּמֶּה מַדְלִיקִין וּבַמֶּה אֵין מַדְלִיקִין וּמְפָרֵשׁ אֵין מַדְלִיקִין בְּרֵישָׁא The Gemara asks: But nevertheless, let the tanna explain the cases of substitutes first, before providing examples of intimations, as the halakha of substitutes is mentioned before the halakha of intimations. The Gemara answers: The tanna employs the general style of the Mishna, which is that the subject with which it concludes is the one that it explains first, as we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 20b): With what may one light the Shabbat lamp and with what may one not light it? And the mishna explains the details of what one may not light first, before providing examples of fuel that may be used to light the Shabbat lamp.
בַּמֶּה טוֹמְנִין וּבַמֶּה אֵין טוֹמְנִין וּמְפָרֵשׁ אֵין טוֹמְנִין בְּרֵישָׁא Similarly, another mishna (Shabbat 47b) states: In what may one insulate a pot of cooked food on Shabbat eve, and in what may one not insulate it? And the mishna explains the cases of material in which one may not insulate it first, before providing examples of materials in which one may insulate a pot of cooked food.
בַּמָּה אִשָּׁה יוֹצְאָה וּבַמָּה אֵינָהּ יוֹצְאָה וּמְפָרֵשׁ לֹא תֵּצֵא אִשָּׁה בְּרֵישָׁא A third example of this style is in the following mishna (Shabbat 57a): With what items may a woman go out into the public domain on Shabbat and with what items may she not go out? And the mishna explains the items with which a woman may not go out first, before providing examples of items with which she may go out.
וְהָתְנַן בַּמֶּה בְּהֵמָה יוֹצְאָה וּבַמֶּה אֵינָהּ יוֹצְאָה וּמְפָרֵשׁ יוֹצֵא גָּמָל בְּרֵישָׁא The Gemara challenges this explanation: But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Shabbat 51b): With what may an animal go out into the public domain on Shabbat, and with what may it not go out? And it explains the items with which a camel may go out first, before providing examples of items with which it may not go out.
יֵשׁ נוֹחֲלִין וּמַנְחִילִין נוֹחֲלִין וְלֹא מַנְחִילִין מַנְחִילִין וְלֹא נוֹחֲלִין לֹא נוֹחֲלִין וְלֹא מַנְחִילִין וּמְפָרֵשׁ אֵלּוּ נוֹחֲלִין וּמַנְחִילִין בְּרֵישָׁא Similarly, it is taught in another mishna (Bava Batra 108a): There are some relatives who inherit and bequeath, e.g., a father and son, who are heirs to each other; some who inherit but do not bequeath; some bequeath but do not inherit; and some do not inherit and do not bequeath. And the mishna explains the cases of those who both inherit and bequeath first, before providing examples of the other categories that were mentioned later in the opening clause of the mishna.
אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם תָּנֵי הָכִי וְתָנֵי הָכִי Rather, the mishna actually teaches in this manner at times, and it teaches in that manner at other times. There are instances where the tanna begins by elaborating on the first principle mentioned in the mishna, while on other occasions he first elaborates upon the last principle mentioned.
אֶלָּא הָתָם דְּאִיסּוּרָא דְנַפְשֵׁיהּ הוּא מְפָרֵשׁ אִיסּוּרָא דְנַפְשֵׁיהּ בְּרֵישָׁא גַּבֵּי בְּהֵמָה דְּאִיסּוּרָא אַיְּידֵי בְּהֵמָה הוּא דְּאָתֵי מְפָרֵשׁ הֶיתֵּירָא בְּרֵישָׁא However, there is a rationale as to when the tanna employs each style. There, in the passages concerning the fuels one may use to light the Shabbat lamp, the materials one may use to insulate a pot on Shabbat eve, and the items with which a woman may go out on Shabbat to the public domain, where it is the individual’s own prohibition that is being discussed, the tanna explains the cases pertaining to the individual’s own prohibition first. By contrast, with regard to the mishna that addresses an animal carrying into the public domain on Shabbat, where the prohibition comes by means of the animal, the tanna explains what is permitted first.