## Nazir Daf 29b

###### Nazir 29b:1
[Nazir 29b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/29b:1)

לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּזָכָר — שֶׁכֵּן אִיסּוּר אֶחָד, תֹּאמַר בִּנְקֵבָה — שֶׁשְּׁנֵי אִיסּוּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**No,** you cannot make this claim, because **if you say** that this is true **with regard to a male, when** bringing his offering involves only **one** uncertain **prohibition,** i.e., that he might be bringing non-sacred animals into the Temple courtyard, **shall you** also **say** that this is the case **with regard to a female, whose** case includes **two prohibitions?** This concludes the *baraita*.


###### Nazir 29b:2
[Nazir 29b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/29b:2)

מַאי שְׁנֵי אִיסּוּרִין? לָאו אִיסּוּר נְבֵילָה וְחוּלִּין בַּעֲזָרָה? מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: וְדִילְמָא מִיחַיַּיב עֲלֵיהּ, מִשּׁוּם דְּמִיתְחֲזֵי כִּתְרֵין אִיסּוּרִין מִדְּרַבָּנַן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** are these **two prohibitions?** Are they **not the prohibition** against consuming an unslaughtered **animal carcass** by eating a bird killed by pinching, **and** the prohibition against bringing **non-sacred** animals **into the** Temple **courtyard?** This shows that the prohibition against bringing non-sacred animals into the Temple courtyard applies by Torah law according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. **Rav Aḥa, son** of **Rav Ika, objects to this: And perhaps** one is not liable for these prohibitions by Torah law, rather, the *baraita* means that one **is liable for this because it appears like two** Torah **prohibitions,** although they actually apply only **by rabbinic law.**


###### Nazir 29b:3
[Nazir 29b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/29b:3)

לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי: עַד מָתַי מַדִּיר אֶת בְּנוֹ בְּנָזִיר — עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לְעוֹנַת נְדָרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to the question of whether the ruling that a man can impose naziriteship on his son is a *halakha* transmitted to Moses from Sinai or whether it is part of the boy’s education. **Let us say** that this is **parallel to** a dispute between ***tanna’im*.** As it is taught: **Until when can** a father **vow** that **his son** should **be a nazirite?** It is **until** the son **develops two** pubic **hairs;** this is **the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says:** It is **until he reaches the age of vows,** usually approximately a year earlier, when he demonstrates an understanding of the nature of vows. If he vows at that age and comprehends the significance of his utterance, his vow is valid.


###### Nazir 29b:4
[Nazir 29b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/29b:4)

מַאי לָאו תַּנָּאֵי הִיא? דְּרַבִּי סָבַר הֲלָכָה הִיא בְּנָזִיר, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּהִגִּיעַ לְעוֹנַת נְדָרִים, מַדִּיר לֵיהּ וְאָזֵיל עַד דְּמַיְיתֵי שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לְעוֹנַת נְדָרִים, סָבַר כְּדֵי לְחַנְּכוֹ בְּמִצְוֹת, וְכֵיוָן דְּנָפֵיק מֵרְשׁוּתֵיהּ — תּוּ לָא מִיחַיַּיב?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What, is it not** the case that this **is** a dispute between ***tanna’im*: As Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **holds** that **it is a *halakha*** transmitted to Moses from Sinai **with regard to a nazirite, and** therefore **even though** the son has already **reached the age of vows** and is capable of making his own decision with regard to the vow, this *halakha* states that the father **continues to vow for him until he develops two** pubic **hairs,** the sign of maturity. **And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who says** that the father can vow for the son only **until he reaches the age of vows, holds** that he imposes a vow on his son **in order to educate him in mitzvot, and since** the son **has left** the father’s **supervision** to the degree that he can utter his own vows, the father **is no longer obligated** to educate him in this area of *halakha*.


###### Nazir 29b:5
[Nazir 29b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/29b:5)

אָמְרִי: לָא. דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא הֲלָכָה הִיא בְּנָזִיר, וְהָכָא בְּ״מוּפְלָא הַסָּמוּךְ לְאִישׁ״ קָמִיפַּלְגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this argument. The Sages **say** in response: **No;** this is not the correct explanation of that dispute, as one can say **that everyone,** both Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, agrees with Rabbi Yoḥanan that **it is a *halakha* with regard to a nazirite, and here they disagree with regard to** the issue of **a minor one year before** he or she **reaches majority.** In other words, they dispute the case of a child who utters a vow when he is almost mature, on the verge of puberty. It is an accepted *halakha* that the vow of this child is valid if he understands its meaning. The dispute concerns the source of this *halakha*.


###### Nazir 29b:6
[Nazir 29b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/29b:6)

רַבִּי סָבַר: מוּפְלָא הַסָּמוּךְ לְאִישׁ — דְּרַבָּנַן, וְאָתְיָא דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא דָּחֲיָא דְּרַבָּנַן. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: מוּפְלָא הַסָּמוּךְ לְאִישׁ — דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **holds** that the status of **a minor one year before** he or she **reaches majority** applies **by rabbinic law, and** therefore the *halakha* **by Torah law** that a father can vow on behalf of his son **comes and overrides** the decree that one who is near the age of maturity is considered an independent adult with regard to vows, which is **by rabbinic law. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds** that the status of **a minor one year before** he or she **reaches majority** applies **by Torah law.** Consequently, the *halakha* that a father can vow on behalf of his son does not apply to this case.


###### Nazir 29b:7
[Nazir 29b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/29b:7)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא כְּדֵי לְחַנְּכוֹ בְּמִצְוֹת, וּמוּפְלָא הַסָּמוּךְ לְאִישׁ — דְּרַבָּנַן הִיא. רַבִּי סָבַר: אָתֵי חִינּוּךְ דְּרַבָּנַן וְדָחֵי מוּפְלָא הַסָּמוּךְ לְאִישׁ דְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead **that everyone** agrees that a father vows for his son **in order to educate him in mitzvot,** which means it is by rabbinic law, **and** likewise the status of **a minor one year before** he or she **reaches majority is** also **by rabbinic law.** In that case, the *tanna’im* dispute the following: **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **holds** that the mitzva of **education,** which applies **by rabbinic law, comes and overrides** the status of **a minor one year before** he or she **reaches majority,** which is also **by rabbinic law.**


###### Nazir 29b:8
[Nazir 29b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/29b:8)

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לְעוֹנַת נְדָרִים, קָסָבַר: לָא אָתֵי חִינּוּךְ דְּרַבָּנַן וְדָחֵי מוּפְלָא הַסָּמוּךְ לְאִישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who said** that a father can vow for his son only **until he reaches the age of vows, holds** that the mitzva of **education by rabbinic law does not come and override** the status of **a minor one year before** he or she **reaches majority.** Consequently, there is no necessary connection between this dispute of *tanna’im* and the argument between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish as to whether the ruling that a father can impose naziriteship on his son is a *halakha* transmitted to Moses from Sinai or an educational tool.


###### Nazir 29b:9
[Nazir 29b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/29b:9)

לֵימָא הָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי כִּי הָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא שֶׁהִדִּירוֹ אָבִיו בְּנָזִיר, וֶהֱבִיאוֹ לִפְנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. וְהָיָה רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בּוֹדְקוֹ לֵידַע אִם הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, אִם לֹא הֵבִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the dispute concerning the time period for a father’s vow on behalf of his son, the Gemara suggests: **Shall we say** that the dispute between **these *tanna’im* is like** the dispute between **those** other ***tanna’im*, as it is taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Nidda* 5:9): **An incident** occurred **involving Rabbi Ḥanina** in **which his father vowed** that he should **be a nazirite** when he was a minor, **and they brought him before Rabban Gamliel, and Rabban Gamliel examined him to discern if he had** already **developed two** pubic **hairs,** in which case the vow would not take effect, or **if he had not developed** them, which would mean that the vow was valid.


###### Nazir 29b:10
[Nazir 29b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/29b:10)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: לֵידַע אִם הִגִּיעַ לְעוֹנַת נְדָרִים, אִם לָאו. אָמַר לוֹ: רַבִּי, אַל תִּצְטַעֵר לְבוֹדְקֵנִי, אִם קָטָן אֲנִי — אֶהְיֶה בִּשְׁבִיל אַבָּא, אִם גָּדוֹל אֲנִי — אֶהְיֶה בִּשְׁבִיל עַצְמִי. עָמַד רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וּנְשָׁקוֹ עַל רֹאשׁוֹ, אָמַר: מוּבְטָח אֲנִי בָּזֶה שֶׁמּוֹרֶה הֲלָכָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. אָמְרוּ: לֹא הָיוּ יָמִים מוּעָטִים עַד שֶׁהוֹרָה הוֹרָאָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei says** that Rabban Gamliel examined him **to discern whether he had reached the age of vows or not,** which he maintains is the decisive factor. The child **said to** Rabban Gamliel: **My teacher, do not go to the trouble of examining me,** since **if I am a minor I shall be** a nazirite **due to** my **father’s** vow, and **if I am an adult, I shall be** a nazirite **due to my own** vow. **Rabban Gamliel arose and kissed** the child **on his head. He said: I am certain of this** child **that** he will eventually become **an authority of *halakha* for the Jewish people. They said:** In fact, **it was only a few years** later **that** the child **issued rulings for the Jewish people.**


###### Nazir 29b:11
[Nazir 29b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/29b:11)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לְעוֹנַת נְדָרִים, הַיְינוּ דְּקָאָמַר ״אִם קָטָן אֲנִי אֶהְיֶה בִּשְׁבִיל אַבָּא״. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי, דְּאָמַר: עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת — ״וְאִם גָּדוֹל אֲנִי אֶהְיֶה בִּשְׁבִיל עַצְמִי״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains its suggestion: **Granted, according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who said** that a father can vow on behalf of his son only **until he reaches the age of vows, this is** why the child **said: If I am a minor I shall be** a nazirite **due to** my **father,** as he means: If I have not yet reached the age of vows. **However, according to** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **who said** that a father can vow naziriteship for his son **until he develops two** pubic **hairs,** despite the fact that he is already mature with regard to vows, what is the meaning of: **And if I am an adult, I shall be** a nazirite **due to my own vow?**