## Nedarim Daf 4b

###### Nedarim 4b:1
[Nedarim 4b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/4b:1)

וְאִם גִּילַּח עַל אַחַת מִשְּׁלׇשְׁתָּן — יָצָא, לָא לַיעֲבוֹר עֲלֵיהּ בְּ״בַל תְּאַחֵר״, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**if he shaves upon** bringing **one of the three** offerings that a nazirite must bring when completing his term as a nazirite, i.e., a burnt-offering, a sin-offering, and a peace-offering, **he has fulfilled** his obligation to shave and the restrictions of a nazirite are lifted, **he** therefore **does not violate** the prohibition: **You shall not delay,** for delaying the other offerings. Consequently, **it teaches us** that the prohibition against delaying applies to these offerings.


###### Nedarim 4b:2
[Nedarim 4b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/4b:2)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מַאי חִדּוּשֵׁיהּ — מִשּׁוּם דְּלֹא מַתְפִּיסוֹ בְּנֶדֶר. וְהָא דְּקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ חַטַּאת חֵלֶב — חַטַּאת חֵלֶב קָאָתְיָא לְכַפָּרָה. חַטַּאת נָזִיר לְמַאי אָתְיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish say: What is the novelty** of the nazirite? The *halakha* of naziriteship is considered a novelty **because** the offerings of a nazirite **cannot be accepted through a vow. And that which** poses **a difficulty for you** based on the fact that one cannot accept upon himself **a sin-offering of forbidden fat** through a vow either, and nevertheless the prohibition against delaying applies, can be resolved. **A sin-offering of forbidden fat comes for** the purpose of **atonement,** and therefore if one delays bringing it he violates the prohibition against delaying. However, **for what does the sin-offering of a nazirite come?** Since it does not come to atone for a sin, one might have thought that the prohibition against delaying does not apply.


###### Nedarim 4b:3
[Nedarim 4b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/4b:3)

וַהֲרֵי חַטַּאת יוֹלֶדֶת דְּלָא אָתְיָא לְכַפָּרָה, וְעָבַר עֲלַהּ מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תְּאַחֵר״! הָהִיא — קָא שָׁרְיָא לַהּ לְמֵיכַל בְּקָדָשִׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** there is the precedent of **the sin-offering of a woman who gave birth, which** also **does not come for** the purpose of **atonement, and** yet if she does not bring the offering on time she still **transgresses due to** the prohibition: **You shall not delay.** The Gemara answers: **That** sin-offering of a woman who gave birth **permits** the woman **to eat consecrated food.** Although it does not come to effect atonement, it does come to permit a matter. On the other hand, the sin-offering of a nazirite does not permit anything, and therefore the fact that one cannot accept upon himself an obligation to bring this offering is a novelty. Consequently, it was necessary for there to be a separate source to indicate that one is liable for violating the prohibition against delaying in the case of this offering.


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

אָמַר מָר: וּמָה נְדָרִים, הָאָב מֵיפֵר נִדְרֵי בִתּוֹ וּבַעַל מֵיפֵר נִדְרֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ — אַף נְזִירוּת, הָאָב מֵיפֵר נְזִירוּת בִּתּוֹ וּבַעַל מֵיפֵר נְזִירוּת אִשְׁתּוֹ. לְמָה לִי הֶיקֵּשָׁא? תֵּיתֵי בְּ״מָה מָצִינוּ״ מִנְּדָרִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Master said** in the *baraita* cited above: **Just as** with regard to **vows, a father may nullify the vows of his daughter and a husband may nullify the vows of his wife, so too,** with regard to **nazirite** vows, **a father may nullify the nazirite** vows **of his daughter and a husband may nullify the nazirite** vows **of his wife.** The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need **the juxtaposition** in the verse to teach us this *halakha*? **Let** this *halakha* **come through** the method of analogy known as: **What do we find, from** the *halakha* with regard to **vows.** In other words, the *halakha* in the case of regular vows should serve as a legal precedent that can be applied to nazirite vows even without a biblical juxtaposition.


###### Nedarim 4b:5
[Nedarim 4b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/4b:5)

דִּילְמָא גַּבֵּי נְדָרִים הוּא דְּמֵיפַר, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא אִית לֵיהּ קִיצּוּתָא. אֲבָל גַּבֵּי נְזִירוּת דְּאִית לֵיהּ קִיצּוּתָא, דִּסְתַם נְזִירוּת שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, אֵימָא לָא — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: If not for the juxtaposition, one might have said that **perhaps** it is only **with regard to vows that he may nullify** her statements **because there is no** time **limit** with regard to vows, **but with regard to naziriteship, which has a** time **limit, as unspecified naziriteship is** for **thirty days,** one might **say no,** he may not nullify her vows. Therefore, **it teaches us** through juxtaposition that he may nevertheless nullify her vows.


###### Nedarim 4b:6
[Nedarim 4b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/4b:6)

הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ מוּדָּר אֲנִי וְכוּ׳. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּכוּלָּן עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר, ״שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹכֵל לָךְ״, ״שֶׁאֲנִי טוֹעֵם לָךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is taught in the mishna with regard to **one who says to his fellow: I am avowed** from you, or another intimation of a vow, that the vow takes effect. **Shmuel said: In all** these cases, the vow does not take effect **until he says:** I am avowed from you with regard to **that** which **I eat** of **yours,** or: **That** which **I taste** of **yours.** Without this addition, the statement: I am avowed from you, is not considered even an intimation of a vow.


###### Nedarim 4b:7
[Nedarim 4b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/4b:7)

מֵיתִיבִי: ״מוּדָּר אֲנִי מִמָּךְ״ ״מוּפְרְשַׁנִי מִמָּךְ״ ״מְרוּחָקֵנִי מִמָּךְ״ — הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר. ״שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹכֵל לָךְ״ ״שֶׁאֲנִי טוֹעֵם לָךְ״ — הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר! הָכִי קָתָנֵי: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּאוֹמֵר: ״שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹכֵל לָךְ״ ״שֶׁאֲנִי טוֹעֵם לָךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** based on the following *baraita*: If one says: **I am avowed from you,** or: **I am separated from you,** or: **I am distanced from you, he is prohibited** from benefiting from that individual. If he says: **That** which **I eat** of **yours,** or: **That** which **I taste** of **yours, he is prohibited** from eating or tasting that individual’s food. This indicates that the phrases mentioned in the first clause of the *baraita* take effect as vows even if he does not add the phrases mentioned in the latter clause. The Gemara answers: **This is what** the *baraita* **is teaching: In what** case **is this statement said** i.e., if one says: I am avowed from you, or the like, the vow takes effect? It is **in** a case of **one who says: That** which **I eat** of **yours,** or: **That** which **I taste** of **yours.**


###### Nedarim 4b:8
[Nedarim 4b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/4b:8)

וְהָתַנְיָא אִיפְּכָא: ״שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹכֵל לָךְ״, ״שֶׁאֲנִי טוֹעֵם לָךְ״ — אָסוּר, ״מוּדְּרַנִי מִמָּךְ״ וּ״מוּפְרְשַׁנִי מִמָּךְ״ ״מְרוּחֲקַנִי מִמָּךְ״ — הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר! תָּנֵי הָכִי: ״וּכְבָר אָמַר מוּדְּרַנִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* in **the opposite** order? If one says: **That** which **I eat** of **yours,** or: **That** which **I taste** of **yours, he is prohibited** from eating or tasting that individual’s food, i.e., the vow takes effect. If he says: **I am avowed from you, or: I am separated from you,** or: **I am distanced from you, he is** likewise **prohibited.** In this case, the *baraita* cannot be interpreted as explained above, and it appears that if one said: I am avowed from you, the vow takes effect even if he did not say: I am avowed from you with regard to that which I taste of yours. The Gemara answers: **Teach** the *baraita* **as follows:** The vow takes effect in the cases mentioned in the first clause when **he already said: I am avowed.**


###### Nedarim 4b:9
[Nedarim 4b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/4b:9)

אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ רֵישָׁא! וְעוֹד: ״אָסוּר״ ״אָסוּר״ לְמָה לֵיהּ לְמִתְנֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so, this is** the same as **the first** *baraita* cited above. **And furthermore,** if the vow takes effect only if he combined the statements mentioned in the first and latter clauses of the *baraita*, **why does** the *baraita* **teach** that he is **prohibited** in the first clause of the *baraita* and then repeat that he is **prohibited** in the second clause of the *baraita*? The repetition of this ruling indicates that these are two separate cases.


###### Nedarim 4b:10
[Nedarim 4b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/4b:10)

אֶלָּא, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: טַעְמָא דְּאָמַר ״שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹכֵל לָךְ״ ״שֶׁאֲנִי טוֹעֵם לָךְ״, הוּא דְּאָסוּר וַחֲבֵירוֹ מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Shmuel** actually **said** as follows: **The reason is** that **he said:** I am avowed from you with regard to **that** which **I eat** of **yours,** or with regard to **that** which **I taste** of **yours;** it is for this reason **that he is prohibited** from benefiting from his fellow, **and his fellow is permitted** to benefit from him, as this formulation indicates that he is applying his vow only to himself.