וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי לָא מַתְפֵּיס אִינִישׁ בְּמִידֵּי דִּסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ And the Rabbis hold that a person does not associate the object of his vow with something that is juxtaposed to it in a verse, and the individual did not mean to take a nazirite vow.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֲמַר דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא מַתְפֵּיס אֶלָּא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּחָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא צִפּוֹרֵי נָזִיר טָמֵא קִיבֵּל עָלָיו Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Everyone agrees that one does not associate the object of his vow with something juxtaposed to it in a verse. Rather, this is the reason of Rabbi Meir: We are concerned that perhaps he accepted upon himself the birds of an impure nazirite. Since an impure nazirite must bring two birds as offerings if he inadvertently becomes impure from a corpse (Numbers 6:10), when the individual accepts upon himself an obligation pertaining to birds, he means that he is becoming a nazirite and will be responsible for bringing an offering of birds if he becomes impure.
מִכְּדֵי חָיְישִׁינַן קָאָמַר דִּלְמָא צִפּוֹרֵי נְדָבָה קִיבֵּל עָלָיו אִם כֵּן הֲרֵי עָלַי קֵן מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ The Gemara asks: Since Rabbi Yoḥanan said that, even according to Rabbi Meir, we are concerned that the individual intended to become a nazirite, but it is not clear that this was his intention, it can be argued that perhaps he accepted upon himself a gift offering of birds as a burnt-offering. Consequently, why is he considered a nazirite? The Gemara answers: If it was so, that his intention was to bring a gift offering, he should have said: It is hereby incumbent upon me to bring a nest, which is the common expression used to accept an obligation to bring a gift offering of birds.
וְדִלְמָא הֲרֵי עָלַי צִפּוֹרֵי מְצוֹרָע קָאָמַר כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה נָזִיר עוֹבֵר לְפָנָיו וְדִלְמָא נָזִיר טָמֵא וּלְפוֹטְרוֹ מִן קׇרְבְּנוֹתָיו קָאָמַר כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה נָזִיר טָהוֹר עוֹבֵר לְפָנָיו The Gemara asks further: But perhaps he was saying: It is incumbent upon me to bring the birds of a leper, rendering himself liable to bring a leper’s offerings on a leper’s behalf (see Leviticus 14:4). The Gemara answers: This is a case where a nazirite was passing before him when he spoke, and he clearly had naziriteship in mind. The Gemara asks: But perhaps it was an impure nazirite, and he was saying that he accepts the obligation to exempt the nazirite from his offerings by sacrificing them on the nazirite’s behalf. The Gemara answers: This is a case where a pure nazirite was passing before him.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the opinions of Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan? After all, according to both explanations it is necessary to say that this is a case where a nazirite was passing before him.
אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ כְּגוֹן דְּאָמַר צִיפֳּרִין הַסְּמוּכִין לְשֵׂעָר עָלַי לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַף עַל גַּב דְּאָמַר הָכִי אִי נָזִיר עוֹבֵר לְפָנָיו אִין אִי לָא לָא לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אַף עַל גַּב דְּאֵין נָזִיר עוֹבֵר לְפָנָיו The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in a case where he explicitly said: An obligation is hereby incumbent upon me with regard to the birds juxtaposed in the verse to hair. According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, although he said this, if a nazirite was passing before him, yes, Rabbi Meir considers it a nazirite vow; if not, no, it is not considered a nazirite vow. Conversely, according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, although no nazirite was passing before him, Rabbi Meir considers it a nazirite vow, as he holds that according to Rabbi Meir, one associates the object of his vow with something juxtaposed to it in a verse.
מִי אִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לָא מַתְפֵּיס אִינִישׁ בְּמִילְּתָא דִּסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ וְהָתַנְיָא הָאוֹמֵר יָמִין הֲרֵי זוֹ שְׁבוּעָה מַאי טַעְמָא לָאו מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב וַיָּרֶם יְמִינוֹ וּשְׂמֹאלוֹ אֶל הַשָּׁמַיִם וַיִּשָּׁבַע בְּחֵי הָעוֹלָם The Gemara asks: Is there, in fact, anyone who says that a person does not associate the object of his vow with something juxtaposed to it in a verse? Isn’t it taught in a baraita that in the case of one who says: Right [yamin], that is an expression of an oath? What is the reason for this? Is it not because it is written: “When he lifted up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and swore by Him that lives forever” (Daniel 12:7)? It seems evident that the term “right” indicates an oath merely because in the verse it is juxtaposed to an oath.
אָמְרִי לָא מִשּׁוּם דְּיָמִין גּוּפֵיהּ אִיקְּרִי שְׁבוּעָה דְּתַנְיָא מִנַּיִין לָאוֹמֵר יָמִין שֶׁהִיא שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר נִשְׁבַּע ה׳ בִּימִינוֹ וּמִנַּיִין לָאוֹמֵר שְׂמֹאל שֶׁהִיא שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וּבִזְרוֹעַ עוּזּוֹ: The Gemara rejects this: Say no, it is because the right hand itself is called an oath, as it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that in the case of one who says: Right, that it is an oath? It is derived from the verse where it is stated: “The Lord has sworn by His right hand” (Isaiah 62:8). And from where is it derived that in the case of one who says: Left, that it is an oath? It is derived from the continuation of that verse, where it is stated: “And by the arm of His strength” (Isaiah 62:8). Since this is the complementary phrase for the right hand, it must refer to the left hand. It is clear from here that both right and left are themselves expressions of an oath and do not indicate an oath merely because they are juxtaposed in a verse to an expression of an oath.
מַתְנִי׳ הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מִן הַחַרְצַנִּים וּמִן הַזַּגִּים וּמִן הַתִּגְלַחַת וּמִן הַטּוּמְאָה הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר וְכׇל דִּקְדּוּקֵי נְזִירוּת עָלָיו: MISHNA: If one said: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from grape seeds, or: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from grape skins, or: From shaving, or: From impurity, he is a nazirite. And all details of naziriteship are incumbent upon him. Not only does the prohibition he mentioned take effect, he is bound by all of the strictures of naziriteship.
גמ׳ מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּתַנְיָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיִּדּוֹר מִכּוּלָּם וְרַבָּנַן אָמְרִי אֲפִילּוּ לָא נְזַר אֶלָּא בְּחַד מִנְּהוֹן הָוֵי נָזִיר GEMARA: The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: One is not obligated as a nazirite until he vows that all items and actions forbidden to a nazirite are forbidden to him. And the Rabbis say: Even if he vowed to abstain from only one of them, he is a nazirite.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמַר קְרָא מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר יֵעָשֶׂה מִגֶּפֶן הַיַּיִן מֵחַרְצַנִּים וְעַד זָג וְרַבָּנַן מַאי טַעְמָא אָמַר קְרָא מִיַּיִן וְשֵׁכָר יַזִּיר The Gemara explains: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? The verse states with regard to a nazirite: “All the days of his naziriteship he shall not eat from anything that is made of the grapevine, from pits to grape skin” (Numbers 6:4), which indicates that his vow of naziriteship must include all the prohibitions of a nazirite. The Gemara continues to clarify: And according to the Rabbis, what is the reason that he becomes a nazirite even if he specified only one of the prohibitions of a nazirite? The verse states: “He shall abstain from wine and strong drink” (Numbers 6:3). This implies that even if one vows to abstain only from wine and strong drink, all of the halakhot of a nazirite take effect.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן נָמֵי הָכְתִיב מִיַּיִן וְשֵׁכָר יַזִּיר הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לֶאֱסוֹר יֵין מִצְוָה כְּיֵין הָרְשׁוּת The Gemara asks: And also according to Rabbi Shimon, isn’t it written “he shall abstain from wine and strong drink”? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon requires that verse to prohibit a nazirite from drinking wine that is consumed for a mitzva just as he is prohibited from drinking wine whose consumption is optional.
מַאי הִיא קִדּוּשְׁתָּא וְאַבְדָּלְתָּא The Gemara asks: What is wine that is consumed for a mitzva? Is it the wine of kiddush and havdala?