יָכוֹל לֹא יְהוּ נְזִירִין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אִישׁ הָאִיתְּמַר אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הֲלָכָה הִיא בְּנָזִיר One might have thought that gentiles cannot be nazirites at all. The verse therefore states: “Man,” to teach that they can become nazirites. The Gemara answers: Wasn’t it stated that Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the halakha that a son may use his father’s nazirite offerings is a halakha transmitted to Moses at Sinai with regard to a nazirite? Since this halakha does not appear in the Torah, the verse cannot be coming to exclude it.
אִי הָכִי אִישׁ כִּי יַפְלִא נֶדֶר בְּעֶרְכְּךָ בַּעֲרָכִין לְמָה לִי מִכְּדֵי הָאִיתַּקַּשׁ עֲרָכִין לִנְדָרִים דְּאָמַר קְרָא אִישׁ כִּי יַפְלִא נֶדֶר בְּעֶרְכְּךָ וְהָתַנְיָא גַּבֵּי נְדָרִים אִישׁ מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אִישׁ אִישׁ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַגּוֹיִם שֶׁהֵן נוֹדְרִים נְדָרִים וּנְדָבוֹת כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל § The Gemara asks: If so, why do I need the verse: “When a man shall clearly utter a vow of persons to the Lord, according to your valuation” (Leviticus 27:2), stated with regard to valuations, from which it is derived that gentiles are included in the halakhot of valuations? After all, aren’t valuations juxtaposed to vows, as the verse states: “When a man shall clearly utter a vow of persons to the Lord, according to your valuation.” And isn’t it taught in a baraita with regard to a verse dealing with vows: “Any man [ish] from the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, who sacrifices his offering, whether it be any of their vows, or any of their gift offerings, which are sacrificed to the Lord as a burnt-offering” (Leviticus 22:18), what is the meaning when the verse states the extra emphasis: “Any man [ish ish]”? The baraita explains: This serves to include the gentiles, that they can take a vow for vow offerings and gift offerings like a Jew. It can be derived from this juxtaposition that gentiles are included in the halakhot of valuations.
אִישׁ כִּי יַפְלִא בַּעֲרָכִין לְמָה לִי אֶלָּא הַאי אִישׁ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מוּפְלָא סָמוּךְ לְאִישׁ The Gemara now restates its question: In that case, why do I need the phrase “when a man shall clearly utter a vow” stated with regard to valuations? Rather, this term, “man,” does not include gentiles, but is necessary to include a minor one year before he or she reaches majority. If a minor takes a vow one year before coming of age, and shows a clear understanding of his statement, the vow takes effect. This individual is included in the halakhot of valuations as well.
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מוּפְלָא סָמוּךְ לְאִישׁ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר דְּרַבָּנַן אִישׁ כִּי יַפְלִיא לְמָה לִי לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מוּפְלָא סָמוּךְ לְאִישׁ דְּגוֹי The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the one who says that a minor one year before he or she reaches majority must fulfill his or her vows by Torah law, because the verse serves as the source for this halakha. However, according to the one who says that this halakha applies by rabbinic law, why do I need the verse “when a man shall clearly utter a vow”? The Gemara answers: The verse serves to include a minor one year before he or she reaches majority who is a gentile, that this halakha applies to gentiles by Torah law.
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל נֶעֱרָכִין וְאֵין הַגּוֹיִם נֶעֱרָכִין יָכוֹל לֹא יְהוּ מַעֲרִיכִין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אִישׁ שַׁפִּיר The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the one who says that it is inferred from the phrase: “The children of Israel” (Leviticus 27:2), that Jews can be valuated but gentiles cannot be valuated; and one might have thought that gentiles cannot take a valuation vow. Therefore, the verse states: “Man.” According to this opinion it is fine, as the phrase “when a man shall clearly utter a vow” can teach that if a gentile close to adulthood grasps the meaning of vows, he can take a valuation vow.
אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מַעֲרִיכִים וְאֵין הַגּוֹיִם מַעֲרִיכִים יָכוֹל לֹא יְהוּ נֶעֱרָכִין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אִישׁ אֲפִילּוּ תִּינוֹק בֶּן חֹדֶשׁ בַּר עָירוּכִי הוּא כִּי יַפְלִיא לְמָה לִי However, according to the one who says that the children of Israel can take a valuation vow but gentiles cannot take a valuation vow, one might have thought that gentiles cannot be valuated; therefore, the verse states the additional term: “Man,” to teach that anyone, even a month-old baby, can be valuated according to the assigned value stated in the Torah. According to this opinion, it is of no importance how old the subject of the vow is, and therefore the verse clearly cannot be including a gentile on the verge of adulthood. Consequently, the question remains: Why do I need the phrase “when a man shall clearly utter a vow”?
אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה לְאֵיתוֹיֵי גּוֹי גָּדוֹל דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּגָדוֹל הוּא אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ לְהַפְלוֹת Rav Adda bar Ahava said: The verse is referring to all vows, and serves to include, i.e., to teach, the halakha of a type of adult gentile, who although he is an adult he does not know how to clearly utter a vow. The verse teaches that his vows are invalid, as derived from the phrase “when a man shall clearly vow.” Vows of a gentile are valid only if he can express them clearly.
אֶלָּא כִּי יַפְלִיא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי נְזִירוּת לְמָה לִי מִכְּדֵי הָאִיתַּקַּשׁ נְזִירוּת לִנְדָרִים כִּי יַפְלִיא לְמָה לִי Having clarified the verse concerning valuations, the Gemara asks: However, concerning the verse: “When a man or woman shall clearly utter a vow” (Numbers 6:2), which the Merciful One writes with regard to naziriteship, why do I need it? After all, isn’t the halakha of naziriteship juxtaposed to vows; why do I need the verse “when a man or woman shall clearly utter”?
לְאֵיתוֹיֵי יָדַיִם שֶׁאֵינָן מוֹכִיחוֹת דְּאִיתְּמַר יָדַיִם שֶׁאֵינָן מוֹכִיחוֹת אַבָּיֵי אָמַר הָוְיָין יָדַיִם רָבָא אָמַר לָא הָוְיָין יָדַיִם לְאַבָּיֵי נִיחָא אֶלָּא לְרָבָא מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר The Gemara answers: This verse serves to include the case of one who vowed by means of ambiguous intimations, i.e., he expressed only part of the formula of the vow, so that his meaning is unclear. As it was stated that amora’im had a dispute with regard to this issue: With regard to ambiguous intimations, Abaye said that they are considered intimations to vows, and the vows take effect, and Rava said that they are not considered intimations to vows, and the vows do not take effect. According to the opinion of Abaye, this answer works out well, as the phrase “when a man shall clearly utter,” serves to include all pronouncements indicative of vows, even ambiguous intimations. However, according to the opinion of Rava, what is there to say?
אֶלָּא כִּי יַפְלִיא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן דְּתַנְיָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אֵין אֶחָד מֵהֶן נָזִיר לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא נִיתְּנָה נְזִירוּת אֶלָּא לְהַפְלָאָה הָנִיחָא לְרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אֶלָּא לְרַבָּנַן מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר Rather, the Gemara explains that the phrase “when a man or woman shall clearly utter” is necessary for that which was stated by Rabbi Tarfon, as it is taught in the Tosefta (3:19) that Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Tarfon: If several people took a vow of naziriteship as part of a wager with regard to an uncertain occurrence, not one of them is a nazirite, as naziriteship is imposed upon someone only if his vow is explicitly enunciated. That is, one is a nazirite only if he vows in a definitive manner, not if there was any uncertainty involved. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon. However, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with his ruling, what is there to say?
אֶלָּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא הֶיתֵּר נְדָרִים פּוֹרְחִין בָּאֲוִיר וְאֵין לָהֶן עַל מַה שֶּׁיִּסְמוֹכוּ Rather, the phrase “when a man or woman shall clearly utter” is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: The halakhot of dissolution of vows, namely that one may request from a halakhic authority to dissolve them, fly in the air and have nothing to lean upon, i.e., these halakhot are not mentioned explicitly in the Torah.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר יֵשׁ לָהֶם עַל מַה שֶּׁיִּסְמוֹכוּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אִישׁ כִּי יַפְלִא כִּי יַפְלִא שְׁתֵּי פְעָמִים אֶחָד הַפְלָאָה לְאִיסּוּר וְאֶחָד הַפְלָאָה לְהֶיתֵּר: Rabbi Eliezer says: The halakhot of dissolution of vows have a basis upon which to lean, as it is stated: “When a man shall clearly utter a vow” (Leviticus 27:2) and: “When a man or woman shall clearly utter a vow” (Numbers 6:2), twice. One explicit utterance is for prohibition, i.e., when one takes a vow, he is bound to keep it, and one explicit utterance is for dissolution, i.e., in the event that he provides a halakhic authority with a reason why the vow should no longer apply, the vow can be dissolved and he will no longer be bound by it. This is an allusion in the Torah for the dissolution of vows.