## Nazir Daf 11b

###### Nazir 11b:1
[Nazir 11b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/11b:1)

רֵישָׁא, כְּגוֹן דִּנְזַר מֵחֲדָא, לְרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי דַּאֲפִילּוּ לֹא נָזַר אֶלָּא מֵאַחַת מֵהֶן — הָוֵי נָזִיר, וְאָסוּר. לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר עַד שֶׁיַּזִּיר מִכּוּלָּם — מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
in **the earlier clause,** where one said: I did not know that a nazirite is prohibited from drinking wine, that is a case **where he vowed naziriteship** with regard to only **one** of the prohibitions. The difference of opinion is as follows: **According to the Rabbis, who say that even if he vowed naziriteship** with regard to **only one of the** prohibitions of naziriteship **he is** nevertheless **a nazirite,** in that case **he is prohibited** by all of them, despite not knowing about the prohibition against consuming wine. **According to Rabbi Shimon** who **said** he is not a nazirite **unless he takes a vow of naziriteship** with regard to **all of them,** he is **permitted.**


###### Nazir 11b:2
[Nazir 11b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/11b:2)

סֵיפָא דִּנְדַר מִכּוּלְּהוּ, וְאִיתְּשִׁיל מֵחֲדָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Conversely, **the last clause** addresses one who **vowed** naziriteship with regard to **all of them,** thereby accepting upon himself all the *halakhot* of naziriteship, **and** now wishes **to request** dissolution **of one** of the prohibitions, thinking that a halakhic authority can dissolve one aspect of his naziriteship.


###### Nazir 11b:3
[Nazir 11b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/11b:3)

לְרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי אֲפִילּוּ לֹא נָזַר אֶלָּא מֵאַחַת מֵהֶן הָוֵי נָזִיר, כִּי מִתְּשִׁיל מֵחֲדָא מִינַּיְיהוּ — אִישְׁתְּרִי. לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר עַד שֶׁיַּזִּיר מִכּוּלָּם, כִּי מִתְּשִׁיל נָמֵי מֵהָהוּא, עַד דְּמִתְּשִׁיל מִכּוּלְּהוּ. מִשּׁוּם הָכִי קָתָנֵי: וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹסֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **According to the Rabbis, who say that even if he vowed naziriteship** with regard to **only one of the** prohibitions of naziriteship **he is** nevertheless **a nazirite,** in that case too, **when he requests** of a halakhic authority to dissolve **one of them, he is permitted** to engage in all of the behaviors forbidden to a nazirite. Just as the acceptance of one part of naziriteship causes one to be bound by all the *halakhot* of naziriteship, dissolution of one element of naziriteship nullifies the entire naziriteship. **According to Rabbi Shimon, who said** that he is not a nazirite **unless he takes a vow of naziriteship** with regard to **all of them, when he requests** dissolution **of that** prohibition, none of the prohibitions are permitted **until he requests** dissolution **of all of** the prohibitions of naziriteship. **Due to this** the mishna **teaches: And Rabbi Shimon prohibits** him.


###### Nazir 11b:4
[Nazir 11b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/11b:4)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: בְּנִדְרֵי אוֹנָסִין קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל וְרַב אַסִּי. דִּתְנַן: אַרְבָּעָה נְדָרִים הִתִּירוּ חֲכָמִים: נִדְרֵי זֵירוּזִין. נִדְרֵי הֲבַאי. נִדְרֵי שְׁגָגוֹת. נִדְרֵי אוֹנָסִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead: The Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon **disagree with regard to vows** impeded by **circumstances beyond one’s control, and** their disagreement is **in the dispute between Shmuel and Rav Asi. As we learned** in a mishna (*Nedarim* 20b): **The Sages dissolved four** types of **vows** without the requirement of a request to a halakhic authority. The first category is **vows of exhortation,** where one employs a vow to urge another to perform some action. The second category is **vows of exaggeration [*havai*],** where one utters a vow that is dependent upon some outlandish claim, such as: I should be bound by a vow if I did not see a square snake. Since he knows that there are no square snakes, it is evident that he is not serious in taking his vow. The third category is **vows that are unintentional,** where one vows for a particular reason and later discovers he was mistaken with regard to the facts; and the fourth is **vows** whose fulfillment are impeded by **circumstances beyond one’s control.**


###### Nazir 11b:5
[Nazir 11b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/11b:5)

וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: אַרְבָּעָה נְדָרִים הַלָּלוּ, צְרִיכִין שְׁאֵלָה לַחֲכָמִים. כִּי אַמְרִיתַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אָמַר לִי: תַּנָּא קָתָנֵי ״הִתִּירוּ חֲכָמִים״, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ צְרִיכִין שְׁאֵלָה לַחֲכָמִים?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates the dispute between Shmuel and Rav Asi: **And Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav Asi said: These four vows require a request** made **to the halakhic authorities** to dissolve them, and the vows are not dissolved unless one does so. Rav Yehuda related: **When I stated this** *halakha* of Rav Asi **before Shmuel, he said to me: The *tanna* teaches** that **the Sages dissolved** them, **and you say they require a request** made **to the halakhic authorities?** Shmuel holds that they are dissolved automatically.


###### Nazir 11b:6
[Nazir 11b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/11b:6)

רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי כִּשְׁמוּאֵל. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן כְּרַב אַסִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues its explanation: The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon in the last clause of the mishna is also with regard to this *halakha*. This case is referring to a kind of a vow impeded by circumstances beyond one’s control, as he claims that he has no choice but to drink wine or contract impurity from corpses. **The Rabbis hold in accordance with** the opinion of **Shmuel,** and therefore the vow is dissolved automatically, without the need to request dissolution from a halakhic authority; **and Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Asi** that one must make a request to a halakhic authority to dissolve the vow, and he remains a nazirite until he does so.


###### Nazir 11b:7
[Nazir 11b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/11b:7)

**מַתְנִי׳** ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר וְעָלַי לְגַלֵּחַ נָזִיר״, וְשָׁמַע חֲבֵירוֹ וְאָמַר ״וַאֲנִי וְעָלַי לְגַלֵּחַ נָזִיר״. אִם הָיוּ פִּקְחִים — מְגַלְּחִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. וְאִם לָאו — מְגַלְּחִין נְזִירִים אֲחֵרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If one says: **I am hereby a nazirite and it is** incumbent **upon me to shave a nazirite,** meaning he will also pay for the offerings that a nazirite brings when he cuts his hair; **and another heard and said: And I** too am a nazirite **and it is** incumbent **upon me to shave a nazirite,** the other is also a nazirite and is obligated to pay for the offerings of a nazirite. **If they were perspicacious** and wish to limit their expenses, **they shave each other.** They may each pay for the other’s offerings, so that their additional vows will not cost them anything. **And if not,** if this arrangement did not occur to them and each brought his own offerings, **they shave other nazirites,** i.e., they must pay for the offerings of other nazirites.


###### Nazir 11b:8
[Nazir 11b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/11b:8)

**גְּמָ׳** אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: שָׁמַע חֲבֵירוֹ וְאָמַר ״וַאֲנִי״, מַהוּ? ״וַאֲנִי״ — אַכּוּלֵּיהּ דִּיבּוּרָא מַשְׁמַע, אוֹ דִלְמָא אַפַּלְגֵיהּ דְּדִיבּוּרָא מַשְׁמַע. אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר אַפַּלְגֵיהּ דְּדִיבּוּרָא מַשְׁמַע: אַרֵישָׁא, אוֹ אַסֵּיפָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages. If one said: I am hereby a nazirite and it is incumbent upon me to shave a nazirite as well, and **another heard and said** only: **And I, what is** the *halakha*? Do we say that: **And I, indicates** acceptance **of the entire statement** of the first one, which would mean he is both a nazirite and must shave a nazirite, **or perhaps it indicates** acceptance **of** only **half the statement** of the first speaker? **If you say it indicates** acceptance **of** only **half the statement,** does it indicate acceptance **of the first clause,** i.e., I am hereby a nazirite, **or the last clause,** i.e., it is incumbent upon me to shave a nazirite?


###### Nazir 11b:9
[Nazir 11b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/11b:9)

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וַאֲנִי וְעָלַי לְגַלֵּחַ נָזִיר״, אִם הָיוּ פִּקְחִים מְגַלְּחִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. מִדְּקָאָמַר ״וַאֲנִי וְעָלַי״ — שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ וַאֲנִי אַפַּלְגֵיהּ דְּדִיבּוּרָא אָמְרִי. אִין, אַפַּלְגֵיהּ דְּדִיבּוּרָא מַשְׁמַע, מִיהוּ: אַרֵישָׁא, אוֹ אַסֵּיפָא? מִינָּה, מִדְּקָאָמַר ״וְעָלַי לְגַלֵּחַ״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: ״וַאֲנִי״ — עַל תְּחִילַּת דִּיבּוּרָא מַשְׁמַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from the mishna. If a second person said: **And I, and it is** incumbent **upon me to shave a nazirite,** then **if they are perspicacious they shave each other. From** the fact **that it says: And I, and it is** incumbent **upon me,** you can **learn from this** that: **And I, indicates** acceptance **of** only **half the statement,** as otherwise he would not need to add the second part. The Sages **say** in response to this attempted proof: **Yes,** this proves that it **indicates** acceptance **of** only **half the statement. However,** the other question still has not been answered: Is he referring **to the first** part of the original statement **or to the last** part? The Gemara answers: This can be learned **from** the mishna **itself. From** the fact **that it says: And it is** incumbent **upon me to shave** a nazirite, one can **learn from this** that: **And I, indicates** acceptance **of the beginning of the statement** to become a nazirite, which is why one has to add that he must also pay for the offerings of a nazirite.


###### Nazir 11b:10
[Nazir 11b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/11b:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְרָבָא: מִמַּאי דְּהָכִי? לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ ״וַאֲנִי״ — אַכּוּלֵּיהּ דְּדִיבּוּרָא, וְאִי מִשּׁוּם ״וְעָלַי״, מַאי קָאָמַר — ״וְעָלַי״ בְּהָא מִילְּתָא. דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא ״הֲרֵי עָלַי לְגַלֵּחַ חֲצִי נָזִיר״ וְשָׁמַע חֲבֵירוֹ וְאָמַר ״וַאֲנִי עָלַי לְגַלֵּחַ חֲצִי נָזִיר״, הָתָם מִי אִיכָּא תַּרְתֵּין מִילֵּי? אֶלָּא, מַאי קָאָמַר: ״עָלַי״ בְּהָא מִילְּתָא, הָכָא נָמֵי, כִּי קָאָמַר ״עָלַי״ — בְּהָא מִילְּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rava: From where** do you know **that** it **is so** that the words: And I, are referring to the first part of the statement? **Actually, I will say to you** that: **And I,** is referring **to the entire statement, and if** you claim otherwise **because** he added: **And it is** incumbent **upon me,** the explanation of **what he is saying** is: **And it is** incumbent **on me** to do **this matter.** He was merely clarifying what his intention was when he said: And I. **As, if you do not say so,** then with regard to **that which is taught in the last clause,** in the following mishna, that if one said: **It is** incumbent **upon me to shave half a nazirite, and another heard** that **and said: And I, it is** incumbent **upon me to shave half a nazirite,** then **there, are there two statements?** That mishna is addressing only a single vow. **Rather, what is he saying** by using the words: **It is** incumbent **upon me?** He is referring **to that** whole **matter; here too,** in this mishna, **when he says: And it is** incumbent **upon me,** he is referring **to that** whole **matter.**


###### Nazir 11b:11
[Nazir 11b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/11b:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא רֵישָׁא צְרִיכָא סֵיפָא לָא צְרִיכָא — תָּנֵי סֵיפָא דְּלָא צְרִיכָא מִשּׁוּם רֵישָׁא דִּצְרִיכָא. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ רֵישָׁא לָא צְרִיכָא סֵיפָא לָא צְרִיכָא, תָּנֵי רֵישָׁא דְּלָא צְרִיכָא וְתָנֵי סֵיפָא דְּלָא צְרִיכָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to him: How can** these cases **be compared? Granted, if you say** that in **the first clause** it **is necessary** to teach both parts of the statement and in **the latter clause** it **is not necessary** to teach both parts of the statement, then it can be said that **he taught the unnecessary latter clause due to the necessary first clause,** as it is typical for a mishna to phrase both of its sections in the same style. **But if you say** that it **is not necessary** to teach both parts of the statement in **the first clause** and it is also **not necessary** to teach both parts of the statement in **the latter clause,** as one has accepted the other’s entire statement by saying: And I, would the *tanna* **teach an unnecessary first clause and teach an unnecessary latter clause?** Since the addition of: And it is incumbent upon me, is not required in the latter mishna, it must be necessary in this mishna, so the inference of Rava is correct.


###### Nazir 11b:12
[Nazir 11b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/11b:12)

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הָאוֹמֵר לִשְׁלוּחוֹ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ After analyzing the mishna itself, the Gemara turns to a related issue. **Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One who says to his agent:**