## Nazir Daf 30b

###### Nazir 30b:1
[Nazir 30b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/30b:1)

קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן הֲלָכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
the mishna therefore **teaches us** that it is **a *halakha*** that is unrelated to inheritance; there is simply a tradition that a son can use the offerings for his father’s naziriteship while a daughter cannot.


###### Nazir 30b:2
[Nazir 30b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/30b:2)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, אוֹ לָא פְּלִיגִי? וְאִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר פְּלִיגִי, אַרֵישָׁא אוֹ אַסֵּיפָא? תָּא שְׁמַע: כֵּיצַד אָמְרוּ הָאִישׁ מְגַלֵּחַ עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיו?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: Do **the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yosei, or do** they **not disagree? If you say** they **disagree,** do they take issue **with the first clause or with the latter clause** of his *halakha*? The Gemara suggests an answer: **Come** and **hear** the following *baraita*: **How did** the Sages **say** that **a man can shave by** using **his father’s naziriteship?**


###### Nazir 30b:3
[Nazir 30b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/30b:3)

מִי שֶׁהָיָה אָבִיו נָזִיר, וְהִפְרִישׁ אָבִיו מָעוֹת לִנְזִירוּתוֹ וָמֵת, וְאָמַר: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֲגַלֵּחַ עַל מְעוֹת אַבָּא״ — זֶהוּ שֶׁמְּגַלֵּחַ עַל מְעוֹת אָבִיו. אֲבָל מִי שֶׁהָיָה הוּא וְאָבִיו נְזִירִים, וְהִפְרִישׁ אָבִיו מָעוֹת לִנְזִירוּתוֹ וָמֵת — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **one whose father was a nazirite and his father separated money for his naziriteship and died, and** the son **said: I am hereby a nazirite on the condition that I can shave by** using my **father’s money, this is the one who can shave by** means of **his father’s money. However,** if a son **and his father were** both **nazirites, and his father separated money for his** own **naziriteship and died, this** money is **allocated for** communal **gift** offerings. This is **the statement of Rabbi Yosei.**


###### Nazir 30b:4
[Nazir 30b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/30b:4)

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמְרוּ: זֶה הוּא שֶׁמְּגַלֵּחַ עַל מְעוֹת אָבִיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Yehuda said: This is the one who can shave by** using **his father’s money.** Their emphasis of: This is the one, indicates that they disagree with Rabbi Yosei entirely. In other words, where Rabbi Yosei rules that one can use his father’s money, they maintain that he cannot do so; and conversely, in a case where Rabbi Yosei says that one cannot spend his father’s money for his nazirite offerings, the Rabbis rule that he can do so.


###### Nazir 30b:5
[Nazir 30b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/30b:5)

בָּעֵי רַבָּה: יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי בָנִים נְזִירִים, מַהוּ? הִילְכְתָא גְּמִירִין לַהּ: כֹּל דִּקְדֵים גַּלַּח — גַּלַּח, אוֹ דִילְמָא: יְרוּשָּׁה גְּמִירִין לַהּ, וּפַלְגָא הָוֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabba raised a dilemma:** If a father **has two nazirite sons, what is** the *halakha*? The Gemara clarifies the sides of the dilemma: Does one say that **we learned it** as **a *halakha*** that a son can shave using money left for his father’s naziriteship, and therefore **any** son **who precedes** his brother **and shaves** using his father’s money has **shaved** and gained the entire sum? **Or perhaps we learned** this *halakha* from the case of **inheritance, and** consequently, each receives **a half?**


###### Nazir 30b:6
[Nazir 30b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/30b:6)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: בְּכוֹר וּפָשׁוּט, מַאי? הִילְכְתָא גְּמִירִין לַהּ, וְהִילְכָּךְ לָא בָּעֵי גַּלּוֹחֵי לְפוּם מַאי דְּשָׁקֵיל. אוֹ דִילְמָא: יְרוּשָּׁה הִיא, וְכִי הֵיכִי דְּשָׁקֵיל פִּי שְׁנַיִם, הָכִי מְגַלַּח?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, **Rava raised a dilemma:** If one has two nazirite sons, **a firstborn and a regular** son, **what is** the *halakha*? Does one say that **we learned it** as **a *halakha*** that a son may shave using money left for his father’s naziriteship, and this ruling is unconnected to inheritance, **and therefore he does not need to shave** only **in accordance with what he receives** as an inheritance? Instead, either each son receives half the money, or whoever precedes the other receives the entire sum. **Or perhaps it is an inheritance, and just as** the firstborn **takes a double portion** of the estate, **so too he shaves** with a double portion of this money?


###### Nazir 30b:7
[Nazir 30b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/30b:7)

וְאִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר: יְרוּשָּׁה הִיא, וּלְפוּם דְּשָׁקֵיל מְגַלַּח, וּבְחוּלִּין הוּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ פִּי שְׁנַיִם, אֲבָל בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ לָא. אוֹ דִילְמָא: כֵּיוָן דְּקָנֵי לֵיהּ לְגִלּוּחַ, לָא שְׁנָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say it is an inheritance and he shaves in accordance with** the portion **he receives, it is** still possible that it is only with regard **to non-sacred** matters **that** a firstborn **has a double portion, but with regard to consecrated** property this *halakha* does **not** apply. **Or perhaps, since he acquires that** money, although he uses it **for** the purpose of **shaving** it **is no different,** i.e., it does not matter that the money is for a sacred matter.


###### Nazir 30b:8
[Nazir 30b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/30b:8)

אָבִיו נְזִיר עוֹלָם וְהוּא נָזִיר סְתָם, אָבִיו נָזִיר סְתָם וְהוּא נְזִיר עוֹלָם, מַאי? כִּי גְּמִירִין הִילְכְתָא, בִּסְתָם נְזִירוּת, אוֹ דִילְמָא לָא שְׁנָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another dilemma: If **his father** was **a permanent nazirite and he was an unspecified nazirite,** or if **his father was an unspecified nazirite and he was a permanent nazirite, what is** the *halakha*? Can this son shave using money left for his father’s naziriteship? Does one say that **when we learned the *halakha*** that a son can shave using money left for his father’s naziriteship, this applies only **in** a case where they are both **unspecified nazirites, or perhaps** it **is no different,** and the same *halakha* applies even if their naziriteships are of two different kinds?


###### Nazir 30b:9
[Nazir 30b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/30b:9)

וְאִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר: הָכָא אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי, נְזִירוּת טׇהֳרָה, בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: אָבִיו נָזִיר טָמֵא, וְהוּא נָזִיר טָהוֹר. אָבִיו נָזִיר טָהוֹר, וְהוּא נָזִיר טָמֵא, מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say: Here, both** cases are at least similar in that they involve **ritually pure naziriteship,** and therefore the son can make use of his father’s money, then **Rav Ashi raises** a different **dilemma:** If **his father** was **an impure nazirite and he was a pure nazirite,** or if **his father was a pure nazirite and he was an impure nazirite, what** is the *halakha*? Can the son shave using money left for his father’s naziriteship or not? No answer was found for any of these dilemmas, and the Gemara says that they **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Nazir 30b:10
[Nazir 30b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/30b:10)

**הַדְרָן עֲלָךְ מִי שֶׁאָמַר**


###### Nazir 30b:11
[Nazir 30b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/30b:11)

**בֵּית שַׁמַּאי** אוֹמְרִים: הֶקְדֵּשׁ טָעוּת — הֶקְדֵּשׁ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Beit Shammai say: Consecration** that one performs in **error** nevertheless renders property **consecrated,**