מַתְנִי׳ הַנּוֹדֵר מִיּוֹרְדֵי הַיָּם מוּתָּר בְּיוֹשְׁבֵי הַיַּבָּשָׁה מִיּוֹשְׁבֵי הַיַּבָּשָׁה אָסוּר מִיּוֹרְדֵי הַיָּם שֶׁיּוֹרְדֵי הַיָּם בִּכְלַל יוֹשְׁבֵי הַיַּבָּשָׁה לֹא כְּאֵלּוּ שֶׁהוֹלְכִים מֵעַכּוֹ לְיָפוֹ אֶלָּא בְּמִי שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְפָרֵשׁ גְּמָ׳ רַב פָּפָּא וְרַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא חַד מַתְנֵי אַרֵישָׁא וְחַד מַתְנֵי אַסֵּיפָא מַאן דְּתָנֵי אַרֵישָׁא מַתְנֵי הָכִי הַנּוֹדֵר מִיּוֹרְדֵי הַיָּם מוּתָּר בְּיוֹשְׁבֵי יַבָּשָׁה הָא בְּיוֹרְדֵי הַיָּם אָסוּר וְלֹא כְּאֵלּוּ הַהוֹלְכִים מֵעַכּוֹ לְיָפוֹ דְּהָלֵין יוֹשְׁבֵי הַיַּבָּשָׁה נִינְהוּ אֶלָּא מִמִּי שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לְפָרֵשׁ וּמַאן דְּמַתְנֵי אַסֵּיפָא מַתְנֵי הָכִי הַנּוֹדֵר מִיּוֹשְׁבֵי יַבָּשָׁה אָסוּר בְּיוֹרְדֵי הַיָּם וְלֹא בְּאֵלּוּ הַהוֹלְכִים מֵעַכּוֹ לְיָפוֹ בִּלְבַד אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ בְּמִי שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְפָרֵשׁ הוֹאִיל וְסוֹפוֹ לְיַבָּשָׁה סָלֵיק מַתְנִי׳ הַנּוֹדֵר מֵרוֹאֵי הַחַמָּה אָסוּר אַף בַּסּוֹמִין שֶׁלֹּא נִתְכַּוֵּון זֶה אֶלָּא לְמִי שֶׁהַחַמָּה רוֹאָה אוֹתָן גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא מִדְּלָא קָאָמַר מִן הָרוֹאִין לְאַפּוֹקֵי דָּגִים וְעוּבָּרִים מַתְנִי׳ הַנּוֹדֵר מִשְּׁחוֹרֵי הָרֹאשׁ אָסוּר בַּקֵּרְחִין וּבַעֲלִי שֵׂיבוֹת וּמוּתָּר בַּנָּשִׁים וּבַקְּטַנִּים שֶׁאֵין נִקְרָאִין שְׁחוֹרֵי הָרֹאשׁ אֶלָּא אֲנָשִׁים גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא מִדְּלָא קָאָמַר מִבַּעְלֵי שֵׂעָר וּמוּתָּר בְּנָשִׁים וּבִקְטַנִּים שֶׁאֵין נִקְרָאִין שְׁחוֹרֵי הָרֹאשׁ אֶלָּא אֲנָשִׁים מַאי טַעְמָא אֲנָשִׁים זִימְנִין דְּמִיכַּסּוּ רֵישַׁיְיהוּ וְזִימְנִין דְּמִגַּלּוּ רֵישַׁיְיהוּ אֲבָל נָשִׁים לְעוֹלָם מִיכַּסּוּ וּקְטַנִּים לְעוֹלָם מִיגַּלּוּ
MISHNA: In the case of one who takes a vow that he will not derive benefit from seafarers, he is permitted to benefit from those who live on dry land. But if he takes a vow not to derive benefit from those who live on dry land, he is also prohibited from deriving benefit from seafarers, because seafarers are included within the category of those who live on dry land. The mishna now defines seafarers: Not like those that travel by ship from Akko to Jaffa, which is a short trip, but rather one who customarily departs [lefaresh] to distant locations, e.g., foreign countries. GEMARA: With regard to the mishna’s definition of seafarers, there is a dispute between Rav Pappa and Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika. One teaches this statement with regard to the first clause of the mishna, and one teaches it with regard to the latter clause. The Gemara explains: The one who teaches it with regard to the first clause teaches it like this: One who takes a vow not to derive benefit from seafarers is permitted to derive benefit from those who live on dry land. But he is prohibited from deriving benefit from seafarers, and seafarers are not like those who travel from Akko to Jaffa, for they are treated like those who dwell on the land. Rather, the term seafarers means he took a vow that deriving benefit from those who customarily depart out to sea is forbidden to him. And the one who teaches it with regard to the latter clause of the mishna teaches in this manner: One who takes a vow not to derive benefit from those who dwell on dry land is prohibited from deriving benefit from seafarers, and this is the halakha not only with regard to those who travel from Akko to Jaffa, who are certainly not considered seafarers, but even with regard to one who customarily departs to great distances. Why is such a person also considered a dweller on dry land? Since eventually he will go up onto dry land. No one lives his entire life at sea. Eventually, one will reach dry land, so all people are called dwellers on dry land. MISHNA: One who takes a vow not to derive benefit from those who see the sun is prohibited from deriving benefit even from the blind, although they see nothing. This is because he meant only to include all those that the sun sees, i.e., shines upon with light. GEMARA: The Gemara explains why the mishna states that blind people are included: What is the reason for this? Since he did not say: From those who see, which would exclude blind people. Instead, he employed the phrase: Those who see the sun, which comes to exclude fish and fetuses, who do not see the sun. Consequently, the vow is interpreted to refer to those who are exposed to the sun, including the blind. MISHNA: One who takes a vow not to derive benefit from those that have dark heads [sheḥorei harosh] is prohibited from deriving benefit from those that are bald, although they have no hair at all, and from the elderly who have white hair. This is because the term is not to be understood in its simple meaning but rather in a broader manner. But he is permitted to derive benefit from women and from children, because only men are called: Those with dark heads. GEMARA: What is the reason that the term dark heads does not exclude those that are bald? Because it does not say: From those with hair. The mishna states: But he is permitted to derive benefit from women and from children, because only men are called: Those with dark heads. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this? Men sometimes cover their heads and sometimes uncover their heads. They can be called dark heads since, for the most part, they have dark hair which is often uncovered. But women’s heads are always covered, and children’s heads are always uncovered, and the expression dark heads is referring to men whose hair is sometimes seen.
רַב חֶלְבּוֹ חֲלַשׁ נְפַק אַכְרֵיז רַב כָּהֲנָא רַב חֶלְבּוֹ בְּאֵישׁ לָא אִיכָּא דְּקָא אָתֵי אָמַר לְהוּ לֹא כָּךְ הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה בְּתַלְמִיד אֶחָד מִתַּלְמִידֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא שֶׁחָלָה לֹא נִכְנְסוּ חֲכָמִים לְבַקְּרוֹ וְנִכְנָס רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְבַקְּרוֹ וּבִשְׁבִיל שֶׁכִּיבְּדוּ וְרִיבְּצוּ לְפָנָיו חָיָה אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי הֶחֱיִיתַנִי יָצָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְדָרַשׁ כׇּל מִי שֶׁאֵין מְבַקֵּר חוֹלִים כְּאִילּוּ שׁוֹפֵךְ דָּמִים כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר כׇּל הַמְבַקֵּר אֶת הַחוֹלֶה גּוֹרֵם לוֹ שֶׁיִּחְיֶה וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְבַקֵּר אֶת הַחוֹלֶה גּוֹרֵם לוֹ שֶׁיָּמוּת מַאי גְּרָמָא אִילֵּימָא כׇּל הַמְבַקֵּר אֶת הַחוֹלֶה מְבַקֵּשׁ עָלָיו רַחֲמִים שֶׁיִּחְיֶה וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין מְבַקֵּר אֶת הַחוֹלֶה מְבַקֵּשׁ עָלָיו רַחֲמִים שֶׁיָּמוּת שֶׁיָּמוּת סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אֶלָּא כֹּל שֶׁאֵין מְבַקֵּר חוֹלֶה אֵין מְבַקֵּשׁ עָלָיו רַחֲמִים לֹא שֶׁיִּחְיֶה וְלֹא שֶׁיָּמוּת רָבָא יוֹמָא קַדְמָאָה דְּחָלֵישׁ אָמַר לְהוֹן לָא תִּיגַלּוֹ לְאִינִישׁ דְּלָא לִתְּרַע מַזָּלֵיהּ מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ אָמַר לְהוֹן פּוּקוּ וְאַכְרִיזוּ בְּשׁוּקָא דְּכׇל דְּסָנֵי לִי לִיחְדֵּי לִי וּכְתִיב בִּנְפֹל אוֹיִבְךָ אַל תִּשְׂמָח וְגוֹ׳ וּדְרָחֵים לִי לִיבְעֵי עֲלַי רַחֲמֵי אָמַר רַב כׇּל הַמְבַקֵּר אֶת הַחוֹלֶה נִיצּוֹל מִדִּינָהּ שֶׁל גֵּיהִנָּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אַשְׁרֵי מַשְׂכִּיל אֶל דָּל בְּיוֹם רָעָה יְמַלְּטֵהוּ ה׳ אֵין דַּל אֶלָּא חוֹלֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר מִדַּלָּה יְבַצְּעֵנִי אִי נָמֵי מִן הָדֵין קְרָא מַדּוּעַ אַתָּה כָּכָה דַּל בֶּן הַמֶּלֶךְ בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר וְגוֹ׳ אֵין רָעָה אֶלָּא גֵּיהִנָּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כֹּל פָּעַל ה׳ לַמַּעֲנֵהוּ וְגַם רָשָׁע לְיוֹם רָעָה וְאִם בִּיקֵּר מָה שְׂכָרוֹ מָה שְׂכָרוֹ כִּדְאָמַר נִיצּוֹל מִדִּינָהּ שֶׁל גֵּיהִנָּם אֶלָּא מָה שְׂכָרוֹ בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה ה׳ יִשְׁמְרֵהוּ וִיחַיֵּהוּ וְאֻשַּׁר בָּאָרֶץ וְאַל תִּתְּנֵהוּ בְּנֶפֶשׁ אֹיְבָיו ה׳ יִשְׁמְרֵהוּ מִיֵּצֶר הָרָע וִיחַיֵּהוּ מִן הַיִּסּוּרִין וְאֻשַּׁר בָּאָרֶץ שֶׁיְּהוּ הַכֹּל מִתְכַּבְּדִין בּוֹ וְאַל תִּתְּנֵהוּ בְּנֶפֶשׁ אֹיְבָיו שֶׁיִּזְדַּמְּנוּ לוֹ רֵיעִים כְּנַעֲמָן שֶׁרִיפּוּ אֶת צָרַעְתּוֹ וְאַל יִזְדַּמְּנוּ לוֹ רֵיעִים כִּרְחַבְעָם שֶׁחִילְּקוּ אֶת מַלְכוּתוֹ תַּנְיָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר אִם יֹאמְרוּ לָךְ יְלָדִים בְּנֵה וּזְקֵנִים סְתוֹר שְׁמַע לַזְּקֵנִים וְאַל תִּשְׁמַע לַיְּלָדִים שֶׁבִּנְיַן יְלָדִים סְתִירָה וּסְתִירַת זְקֵנִים בִּנְיָן וְסִימָן לַדָּבָר רְחַבְעָם בֶּן שְׁלֹמֹה אָמַר רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי לָא לִיסְעוֹד אִינִישׁ קְצִירָא לָא בִּתְלָת שָׁעֵי קַדְמָיָיתָא וְלָא בִּתְלָת שָׁעֵי בָּתְרָיָיתָא דְּיוֹמָא כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא לַיסַּח דַּעְתֵּיהּ מִן רַחֲמֵי תְּלָת שָׁעֵי קַדְמָיָיתָא רָוְוחָא דַּעְתֵּיהּ בָּתְרָיָיתָא תָּקֵיף חוּלְשֵׁיהּ
The Gemara relates: Rav Ḥelbo fell ill. Rav Kahana went out and announced: Rav Ḥelbo fell ill. There was no one who came to visit him. Rav Kahana said to the Sages: Didn’t the incident involving one of the students of Rabbi Akiva who became sick transpire in that manner? In that case, the Sages did not enter to visit him, and Rabbi Akiva entered to visit him and instructed his students to care for him. And since they swept and sprinkled water on the dirt floor before the sick student, he recovered. The student said to Rabbi Akiva: My teacher, you revived me. Rabbi Akiva went out and taught: With regard to anyone who does not visit the ill, it is as though he is spilling blood, as it could be that the sick person has no one to care for him. If there are no visitors, no one will know his situation and therefore no one will come to his aid. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: Anyone who visits the ill causes that he will live, and anyone who does not visit the ill causes that he will die. The Gemara asks: In what way are his actions the cause of that result? If we say that anyone who visits the ill pleads for mercy from God that he will live, and anyone who does not visit the ill pleads for mercy that he will die, does it enter your mind that he would pray that the sick person will die? Rather, anyone who does not visit the ill does not plead for mercy for him, neither that he will live nor that he will die. Since he might have saved the sick person with prayers had he visited, his failure to visit is tantamount to causing his death. The Gemara relates with regard to Rava: On the first day that he was ill, he would say to his family: Do not reveal to any person that I am ill, so that his luck not suffer. From this point forward, when his situation deteriorated he would say to them: Go and proclaim in the marketplace that I am ill, as thereby let all who hate me rejoice over my distress, and it is written: “Rejoice not when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles; lest the Lord see it, and it displease Him, and He turn away His wrath from him” (Proverbs 24:17–18). And let all who love me pray that God have mercy upon me. Rav said: Anyone who visits the ill is spared from the judgment of Gehenna, as it is stated: “Happy is he that considers the poor; the Lord will deliver him in the day of evil” (Psalms 41:2). In this verse, the term poor [dal] means nothing other than ill, as it is stated in the prayer of Hezekiah when he was ill: “He will cut me off from the illness [middalla]” (Isaiah 38:12). Alternatively, it may be derived from this verse in which Jonadab asked his sick friend Amnon, son of King David: “Why, son of the king, are you so sick [dal] from morning to morning?” (II Samuel 13:4). And the term evil means nothing other than Gehenna, as it is stated: “The Lord made everything for His own purpose, and even the wicked for the day of evil” (Proverbs 16:4), and the ultimate punishment of the evildoer is Gehenna. And if one visited the ill, what is his reward? The Gemara wonders at that question: What is his reward? It is as Rav said: He is spared from the judgment of Gehenna. Rather, the question is: What is his reward in this world? Rav continues: His reward is as it is written: “The Lord will preserve him, and keep him alive, let him be called happy in the land; and deliver not You him unto the greed of his enemies” (Psalms 41:3). He elaborates: “The Lord will preserve him” from the evil inclination; “and keep him alive” and spare him from suffering; “let him be called happy in the land” means that everyone will be honored from their association with him; “and deliver not You him unto the greed of his enemies,” so that companions like those who counseled Naaman to seek a cure for his leprosy from Elisha (II Kings 5:3) will happen to associate with him, and companions like those who counseled Rehoboam with advice that resulted in the schism in his kingdom (I Kings 12:6–19) will not happen to associate with him. On a similar note, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If youths would say to you: Construct, and Elders would say to you: Demolish, heed the Elders and do not heed the youths, as the construction of youths is demolition, and the demolition of Elders is construction. And a mnemonic device for this matter is “Rehoboam, son of Solomon” (I Kings 12:21). Had he heeded the advice of the Elders and yielded at that time, there would have been no schism. Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: Let one not visit a sick person, neither during the first three hours of the day, nor in the last three hours of the day, so that he will not be diverted from praying for mercy. Rav Sheisha elaborates: During the first three hours the sick person is relieved, as after a night’s sleep his suffering is somewhat alleviated and the visitor will conclude that there is no need for prayer. In the last three hours of the day his weakness is exacerbated, and the visitor will despair of ameliorating his suffering and will conclude that prayer is futile.
כׇּל כִּינּוּיֵי נְזִירוּת כִּנְזִירוּת 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 הֲרֵי עָלַי צִיפּוֹרִים רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר נָזִיר וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ נָזִיר: גְּמָ׳ מִכְּדֵי תַּנָּא בְּסֵדֶר נָשִׁים קָאֵי מַאי טַעְמָא תָּנֵי נָזִיר 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 פָּתַח בְּכִינּוּיִין וּמְפָרֵשׁ יָדוֹת
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. 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. 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. 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? 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. § 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?
הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא אָמַר שִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק מִיָּמַי לֹא אָכַלְתִּי אֲשַׁם נָזִיר טָמֵא חוּץ מֵאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא אֵלַי מִן הַדָּרוֹם יְפֵה עֵינַיִם וְטוֹב רוֹאִי וּקְווּצּוֹתָיו סְדוּרוֹת לוֹ תַּלְתַּלִּים אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ בְּנִי מָה רָאִיתָ לְשַׁחֵת שֵׂעָר נָאֶה זֶה אָמַר לִי רוֹעֶה הָיִיתִי לְאָבִי בְּעִירִי וְהָלַכְתִּי לִשְׁאוֹב מַיִם מִן הַמַּעְיָין וְנִסְתַּכַּלְתִּי בַּבָּבוּאָה שֶׁלִּי וּפָחַז יִצְרִי עָלַי וּבִיקֵּשׁ לְטוֹרְדֵנִי מִן הָעוֹלָם אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ רֵיקָה מִפְּנֵי מָה אַתָּה מִתְגָּאֶה בְּעוֹלָם שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלְּךָ שֶׁסּוֹפְךָ לִהְיוֹת רִמָּה וְתוֹלֵעָה הָעֲבוֹדָה שֶׁאֲגַלֵּחֲךָ לַשָּׁמַיִם עָמַדְתִּי וּנְשַׁקְתִּיו עַל רֹאשׁוֹ אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ כְּמוֹתְךָ יִרְבּוּ נְזִירִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל עָלֶיךָ הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר אִישׁ כִּי יַפְלִא לִנְדֹּר נֶדֶר נָזִיר לְהַזִּיר לַה׳
The Gemara answers: That phrase is required by him for that which is taught in a baraita: Shimon HaTzaddik said: In all my days as a priest, I never ate the guilt-offering of a ritually impure nazirite, apart from the offering of one man who came to me from the South, who had beautiful eyes and a fine countenance, and his locks were arranged in curls. I said to him: My son, what did you see to become a nazirite, which would force you to destroy this beautiful hair, as a nazirite must cut off all his hair at the conclusion of his term? He said to me: I was a shepherd for my father in my town, and I went to draw water from the spring, and I looked at my reflection in the water. And my evil inclination quickly rose against me and sought to drive me from the world. I said to my evil inclination: Empty one! For what reason are you proud in a world that is not yours, as your end is to be maggots and worms when you die. I swear by the Temple service that I will become a nazirite and shave you for the sake of Heaven. Shimon HaTzaddik relates: When I heard his response, I arose and kissed him on his head, and said to him: May there be more nazirites like you in Israel, whose intentions are noble, and who would not regret their vow of naziriteship even if they became impure. With regard to you the verse states: “When either a man or a woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lord” (Numbers 6:2). The verse speaks of a vow that is not undertaken out of anger or spite, but purely for the sake of God. The phrase “to the Lord” in this context means: For the sake of Heaven. It cannot be used to teach that if one declares his intention to become a nazirite like Samson, his statement constitutes a nazirite vow.