## Nazir Daf 23a

###### Nazir 23a:1
[Nazir 23a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/23a:1)

וּמַתְנִיתִין כְּגוֹן דַּאֲמַר לַהּ ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר, וְאַתְּ מַאי?״ מִשּׁוּם הָכִי, מֵיפֵר אֶת שֶׁלָּהּ וְשֶׁלּוֹ קַיָּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the mishna** is referring to a case **where he said to her** in the form of a question: **I am hereby a nazirite, and what** about **you?** This indicates that he himself has completely accepted his naziriteship, and he is simply asking his wife if she would like to join him. **Due to that** reason, as he did not link his vow to hers, **he may nullify hers and his is intact.**


###### Nazir 23a:2
[Nazir 23a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/23a:2)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּדְרָה בְּנָזִיר, וְהָיְתָה שׁוֹתֶה בְּיַיִן וּמִטַּמְּאָה לְמֵתִים — הֲרֵי זֶה סוֹפֶגֶת אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים. הֵפֵר לָהּ בַּעְלָהּ, וְהִיא לֹא יָדְעָה שֶׁהֵפֵר לָהּ בַּעְלָהּ, וְהָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה בְּיַיִן וּמִטַּמְּאָה לְמֵתִים — אֵינָהּ סוֹפֶגֶת אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם אֵינָהּ סוֹפֶגֶת אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים — תִּסְפּוֹג מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **a woman who vowed to be a nazirite, and** she transgressed her vow since **she was drinking wine and rendering herself ritually impure by** contact with **the dead, she incurs the forty** lashes for each of the Torah prohibitions she transgressed. If **her husband nullified her** vow, **and she did not know that her husband had nullified her** vow, **and she was drinking wine and rendering herself impure by** contact with **the dead, she does not incur the forty** lashes, as she is no longer a nazirite. **Rabbi Yehuda says:** Even **if she does not incur the forty** lashes by Torah law, **she should incur lashes for rebelliousness [*makat mardut*],** an extrajudicial punishment imposed by the Sages, for her intention to commit a transgression, since she believed that it was prohibited to her.


###### Nazir 23a:3
[Nazir 23a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/23a:3)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אִישָׁהּ הֲפֵרָם וַה׳ יִסְלַח לָהּ״ — בְּאִשָּׁה שֶׁהֵפֵר לָהּ בַּעְלָהּ וְהִיא לֹא יָדְעָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, שֶׁהִיא צְרִיכָה כַּפָּרָה וּסְלִיחָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught** with regard to a verse in the section discussing vows: **“Her husband has nullified them, and the Lord will forgive her”** (Numbers 30:13), that **the verse is speaking of a woman whose husband nullified her** vow **and she did not know** that he had done so. It teaches **that** if she performs the actions prohibited by the vow **she requires atonement and forgiveness.**


###### Nazir 23a:4
[Nazir 23a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/23a:4)

וּכְשֶׁהָיָה מַגִּיעַ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אֵצֶל פָּסוּק זֶה, הָיָה בּוֹכֶה: וּמָה מִי שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּון לַעֲלוֹת בְּיָדוֹ בְּשַׂר חֲזִיר, וְעָלָה בְּיָדוֹ בְּשַׂר טָלֶה — טָעוּן כַּפָּרָה וּסְלִיחָה. הַמִּתְכַּוֵּון לַעֲלוֹת בְּיָדוֹ בְּשַׂר חֲזִיר וְעָלָה בְּיָדוֹ בְּשַׂר חֲזִיר — עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And when Rabbi Akiva would reach this verse he would cry,** saying: **And if one who intended to pick up pork in his hand** and eat it, **and** in fact **he picked up the meat of a lamb in his hand** and ate it, so that he did not in fact commit a transgression, like this woman who tried to sin and was unaware that her husband had nullified her vow, nevertheless **requires atonement and forgiveness,** then with regard to **one who intends to pick up pork in his hand and** in fact **picked up pork in his hand, all the more so** does he require atonement.


###### Nazir 23a:5
[Nazir 23a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/23a:5)

כַּיּוֹצֵא בַּדָּבָר אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: ״וְלֹא יָדַע וְאָשֵׁם וְנָשָׂא עֲוֹנוֹ״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**On a similar note, you** can **say** and quote the following verse with regard to one who is liable to bring an uncertain guilt-offering, which is brought for a possible transgression: **“Though he does not know it yet he is guilty, and shall bear his iniquity”** (Leviticus 5:17).


###### Nazir 23a:6
[Nazir 23a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/23a:6)

וּמָה מִי שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּון לַעֲלוֹת בְּיָדוֹ בְּשַׂר טָלֶה, וְעָלָה בְּיָדוֹ בְּשַׂר חֲזִיר, כְּגוֹן חֲתִיכָה סָפֵק שֶׁל שׁוּמָּן סָפֵק שֶׁל חֵלֶב — אָמַר קְרָא ״וְנָשָׂא עֲוֹנוֹ״. מִי שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּון לַעֲלוֹת בְּיָדוֹ בְּשַׂר חֲזִיר, וְעָלָה בְּיָדוֹ בְּשַׂר חֲזִיר — עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This verse teaches: **And if** in a case similar to **one who intended to pick up the meat of a lamb in his hand** and eat it, which is permitted, **and he picked up pork in his hand** and ate it, thereby sinning unintentionally, **for example,** where one took **a piece** of meat with regard to which it is **uncertain** whether it is permitted **fat** and **uncertain** whether it is forbidden **fat,** and he ate it, rendering him liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering, **the verse states: “And shall bear his iniquity,”** indicating that he requires atonement via an offering; then with regard to **one who intends to pick up pork in his hand and** in fact **picked up pork in his hand, all the more so** he requires atonement.


###### Nazir 23a:7
[Nazir 23a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/23a:7)

אִיסִי בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״וְלֹא יָדַע וְאָשֵׁם וְנָשָׂא עֲוֹנוֹ״, וּמָה מִי שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּון לַעֲלוֹת בְּיָדוֹ בְּשַׂר טָלֶה, וְעָלָה בְּיָדוֹ בְּשַׂר חֲזִיר, כְּגוֹן שְׁתֵּי חֲתִיכוֹת אַחַת שֶׁל חֵלֶב וְאַחַת שֶׁל שׁוּמָּן — ״וְנָשָׂא עֲוֹנוֹ״. הַמִּתְכַּוֵּון לַעֲלוֹת בְּיָדוֹ בְּשַׂר חֲזִיר, וְעָלָה בְּיָדוֹ בְּשַׂר חֲזִיר — עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Isi ben Yehuda says** that this verse: **“Though he does not know it yet he is guilty, and shall bear his iniquity”** (Leviticus 5:17), should be explained in a slightly different manner: **And if** in a case similar to **one who intended to pick up the meat of a lamb in his hand and he picked up pork in his hand, e.g.,** where there were **two pieces** before him, **one of** forbidden **fat and one of** permitted **fat,** and he picked up one and ate it without knowing which of them was forbidden, it states with regard to him: **“And shall bear his iniquity,”** i.e., he is obligated to bring an offering; then with regard to **one who intends to pick up pork in his hand and picked up pork in his hand, all the more so** is he in need of atonement.


###### Nazir 23a:8
[Nazir 23a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/23a:8)

עַל דָּבָר זֶה יִדְווּ הַדּוֹוִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **And with regard to this matter, those who suffer should suffer,** i.e., one can see from here the extent to which one requires atonement and forgiveness.


###### Nazir 23a:9
[Nazir 23a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/23a:9)

וְכׇל הָנֵי לְמָה לִי? צְרִיכִין, דְּאִי תְּנָא גַּבֵּי אִשָּׁה, הָתָם הוּא דְּבָעֲיָא כַּפָּרָה וּסְלִיחָה — מִשּׁוּם דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא לְאִיסּוּרָא אִיכַּוֵון. אֲבָל חֲתִיכָה סָפֵק שֶׁל חֵלֶב סָפֵק שֶׁל שׁוּמָּן, דִּלְהֶיתֵּרָא אִיכַּוֵּין — לָא בָּעֵי כַּפָּרָה וּסְלִיחָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And why do I** need **all these** examples for the same idea? The Gemara answers: All of them **are necessary, as had we taught** this idea only **with regard to** the case of **a woman,** one might have said that **it is there that she requires atonement and forgiveness because at the outset her intention was to sin. However,** in the case of one who took **a piece** with regard to which it was **uncertain** whether it was permitted **fat** and **uncertain** whether it was forbidden **fat, who intended** to eat **permitted** food, one might have said that **he does not require atonement and forgiveness.**


###### Nazir 23a:10
[Nazir 23a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/23a:10)

וְאִי אִיתְּמַר הָדָא — דְּאִיכָּא אִיסּוּרָא. אֲבָל אִשָּׁה דְּהֵפֵר לָהּ בַּעְלָהּ, דְּהֶתֵּירָא — לָא תִּיבְעֵי כַּפָּרָה וּסְלִיחָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And had this** case concerning one who eats a piece that might be forbidden **been stated** alone, one could say that atonement is required in this situation, **as there is** possibly **a prohibition** present before him. **However,** with regard to **a woman whose husband nullified her** vow, **where** she was in fact **permitted** to perform the actions she performed, perhaps **she does not require atonement and forgiveness.**


###### Nazir 23a:11
[Nazir 23a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/23a:11)

וְאִי אִיתְּמַר הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי הוּא דְּסַגִּי לְהוֹן בְּכַפָּרָה וּסְלִיחָה — דְּלָא אִיקְּבַע אִיסּוּרָא. אֲבָל שְׁתֵּי חֲתִיכוֹת אַחַת שֶׁל חֵלֶב וְאַחַת שֶׁל שׁוּמָּן, דְּאִיקְּבַע אִיסּוּרָא — לָא סַגִּי לֵיהּ בְּכַפָּרָה וּסְלִיחָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא שְׁנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And had** only **these two** cases **been stated, I would say: It is** in **these two** cases in **which atonement and forgiveness are enough for them, as the prohibition is not established;** even one who ate the piece that was possibly forbidden fat has not necessarily committed a sin. **However,** if there were **two pieces, one of** forbidden **fat and one of** permitted **fat, where the prohibition is established,** as there was definitely a forbidden piece before him and nevertheless he proceeded to eat one of them, one might have said that **atonement and forgiveness should not suffice for him.** Isi ben Yehuda therefore **teaches us that** there, it **is no different,** as even this individual is included in the verse: “And he shall be forgiven” (Leviticus 5:18).


###### Nazir 23a:12
[Nazir 23a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/23a:12)

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״כִּי יְשָׁרִים דַּרְכֵי ה׳ וְצַדִּקִים יֵלְכוּ בָם וּפֹשְׁעִים יִכָּשְׁלוּ בָם״ — מָשָׁל לִשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁצָּלוּ אֶת פִּסְחֵיהֶן, אֶחָד אֲכָלוֹ לְשׁוּם מִצְוָה, וְאֶחָד אֲכָלוֹ לְשׁוּם אֲכִילָה גַּסָּה. זֶה שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ לְשׁוּם מִצְוָה — ״וְצַדִּקִים יֵלְכוּ בָם״. וְזֶה שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ לְשׁוּם אֲכִילָה גַּסָּה — ״וּפֹשְׁעִים יִכָּשְׁלוּ בָם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabba bar bar Ḥanna said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What** is the meaning of that **which is written: “For the paths of the Lord are right, and the just walk in them, but transgressors stumble over them”** (Hosea 14:10)? How can the same path lead to such different outcomes? This is **comparable to two people who roasted their Paschal offerings** on Passover eve, in the proper manner. **One ate it for the sake of the mitzva, and one ate it for the sake of excessive eating. This** one, **who ate it for the sake of the mitzva,** has fulfilled: **“And the just walk in them,” while that** one, **who ate it for the sake of excessive eating,** is described by the end of the verse: **“But transgressors stumble over them.”**


###### Nazir 23a:13
[Nazir 23a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/23a:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הַאי ״רָשָׁע״ קָרֵית לֵיהּ?! נְהִי דְּלָא קָא עָבֵיד מִצְוָה מִן הַמּוּבְחָר, פֶּסַח מִיהָא קָא עָבֵיד! אֶלָּא: מָשָׁל לִשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם, זֶה אִשְׁתּוֹ וַאֲחוֹתוֹ עִמּוֹ, וְזֶה אִשְׁתּוֹ וַאֲחוֹתוֹ עִמּוֹ. לְזֶה נִזְדַּמְּנָה לוֹ אִשְׁתּוֹ, וּלְזֶה נִזְדַּמְּנָה לוֹ אֲחוֹתוֹ. זֶה שֶׁנִּזְדַּמְּנָה לוֹ אִשְׁתּוֹ — ״צַדִּקִים יֵלְכוּ בָם״, וְזֶה שֶׁנִּזְדַּמְּנָה לוֹ אֲחוֹתוֹ — ״וּפֹשְׁעִים יִכָּשְׁלוּ בָם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Reish Lakish said to** Rabba bar bar Ḥanna: **You call this** individual **wicked?** Even **though he had not performed the mitzva in the optimal manner** when he eats this Paschal offering, **he has at least performed** the mitzva of the **Paschal offering. Rather,** this is **comparable to two people; this** one has **his wife and sister** in the same house **with him, and that** one has **his wife and sister with him.** Each husband arrives home and engages in sexual intercourse with one of the women. **This** one **happened upon his wife, and that** one **happened upon his sister. This** one, **who happened upon his wife,** is described by the phrase **“And the just walk in them,” and that** one, **who happened upon his sister,** is described by the phrase **“But transgressors stumble over them.”**


###### Nazir 23a:14
[Nazir 23a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/23a:14)

מִי דָּמֵי? אֲנַן קָאָמְרִינַן חֲדָא דֶּרֶךְ. הָכָא — שְׁנֵי דְרָכִים. אֶלָּא, מָשָׁל לְלוֹט וּשְׁתֵּי בְנוֹתָיו עִמּוֹ. הֵן שֶׁנִּתְכַּוְּונוּ לְשֵׁם מִצְוָה — ״וְצַדִּקִים יֵלְכוּ בָם״, הוּא שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּין לְשֵׁם עֲבֵירָה — ״וּפֹשְׁעִים יִכָּשְׁלוּ בָם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **Is it comparable? We said one path;** i.e., two people follow the same path by performing the very same action with two different outcomes; whereas **here** there are **two paths.** Each person engaged in sexual intercourse with a different relative and therefore they cannot be said to have followed the same path. **Rather,** it is **comparable to Lot and his two daughters,** who were **with him. They, who intended** to engage in sexual intercourse with him **for the sake of a mitzva,** as they thought that the entire world was destroyed and wished to preserve the human race, are described in the first part of the verse: **“And the just walk in them.” He who intended** to act **for the sake of a transgression** is described by the last part: **“But transgressors stumble over them.”**


###### Nazir 23a:15
[Nazir 23a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/23a:15)

וְדִלְמָא הוּא נָמֵי לְשׁוּם מִצְוָה אִיכַּוֵּוין? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל הַפָּסוּק הַזֶּה עַל שֵׁם עֲבֵירָה נֶאֱמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And perhaps** Lot **too intended** that his actions should be **for the sake of a mitzva?** The Gemara answers: This was not the case, as **Rabbi Yoḥanan said** with regard to Lot: **This entire verse:** “And Lot lifted up his eyes, and saw all the plain of the Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere” (Genesis 13:10), **is stated with regard to** the **sin** of licentiousness. Since this verse teaches that Lot was a lustful man, it can therefore be assumed he meant to sin with his daughters as well.


###### Nazir 23a:16
[Nazir 23a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/23a:16)

״וַיִּשָּׂא לוֹט״ — ״וַתִּשָּׂא אֵשֶׁת אֲדֹנָיו אֶת עֵינֶיהָ״. [״אֶת עֵינָיו״ —] ״כִּי הִיא יָשְׁרָה בְעֵינָי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan explains: **“And Lot lifted up** his eyes” employs the same expression as a verse that refers to Joseph’s temptation: **“That his master’s wife lifted up her eyes”** (Genesis 39:7), which is clearly referring to sin. The phrase used in reference to Lot, **“his eyes,”** is stated similarly to Samson’s appraisal of the Philistine girl he sought to marry: **“For she is pleasing in my eyes”** (Judges 14:3).


###### Nazir 23a:17
[Nazir 23a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/23a:17)

״וַיַּרְא״ — ״וַיַּרְא אֹתָהּ שְׁכֶם בֶּן חֲמוֹר״. ״אֶת כׇּל כִּכַּר הַיַּרְדֵּן״ — ״כִּי בְעַד אִשָּׁה זוֹנָה עַד כִּכַּר לָחֶם״. ״כִּי כֻלָּהּ מַשְׁקֶה״ — ״אֵלְכָה אַחֲרֵי מְאַהֲבַי נֹתְנֵי לַחְמִי וּמֵימַי צַמְרִי וּפִשְׁתִּי שַׁמְנִי וְשִׁיקּוּיָי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan continues to interpret the verse as a series of references to licentiousness. The phrase **“and saw”** is reminiscent of the verse dealing with Jacob’s daughter Dinah: **“And Shechem, the son of Hamor the Hivite, saw her** and he took her, and lay with her” (Genesis 34:2). The verse continues: **“All the plain [*kikar*] of the Jordan,”** which alludes to the verse: **“For on account of a harlot a man is brought to a loaf [*kikar*] of bread”** (Proverbs 6:26). The last part of the verse: **“That it was well watered everywhere,”** recalls: **“I will go after my lovers, who give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink”** (Hosea 2:7).


###### Nazir 23a:18
[Nazir 23a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/23a:18)

וְהָא מֵינָס אֲנִיס! תָּנָא מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר רַב חוֹנִי: לָמָּה נָקוּד עַל וָיו ״וּבְקוּמָהּ״ שֶׁל בְּכִירָה, לוֹמַר שֶׁבְּשִׁכְבָהּ לָא יָדַע, אֲבָל בְּקוּמָהּ יָדַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** Lot **was forced** to participate in the sexual intercourse, as he was asleep at the time; how can he be considered a sinner? The Gemara answers that this is as a Sage **taught in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Rav Ḥoni: Why is there a dot** in a Torah scroll **over** the letter ***vav* of** the word **“*uvekumah*,” with regard to** Lot’s **elder** daughter, in the verse: “And he did not know when she lay down and when she arose [*uvekumah*]” (Genesis 19:33)? This dot serves **to say that when she lay down he did not know; however, when she arose he knew** what she had done, as he later understood what had happened.


###### Nazir 23a:19
[Nazir 23a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/23a:19)

וּמַאי הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמִיעְבַּד? מַאי דַהֲוָה הֲוָה! נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ, דִּלְפַנְיָא אַחֲרִינָא לָא אִיבְּעִי לְמִישְׁתֵּי חַמְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what could he have done** about it? **What has happened has happened;** i.e., Lot could not change the past. The Gemara answers: The **difference** is **that on the other,** following, **night, he should not have drunk wine** again. By allowing himself to get drunk a second time, he showed that the end result, engaging in sexual intercourse with his younger daughter, was something he desired.


###### Nazir 23a:20
[Nazir 23a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/23a:20)

דָּרֵשׁ רָבָא: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״אָח נִפְשָׁע מִקִּרְיַת עֹז

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava interpreted** a verse **homiletically** with regard to Lot: **What is** the meaning of that **which is written: “A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city,**