Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 5:2:3-4:1

Sugya Map

• Issue: The status of a vow of nezirut (naziriteship) made under various circumstances of doubt, error, or subsequent annulment, particularly concerning the timing of its commencement and the validity of the vow itself when based on mistaken assumptions.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • Determining the start date of the nezirut period, thus affecting the duration of its prohibitions and the obligation for sacrifices.
  • The validity of the vow altogether, especially when made in error regarding the Temple's existence or the availability of sacrifices.
  • The legal ramifications of animal tithes when mistakenly identified.
• Primary Sources:
  • Mishnah Nazir 5:2-5:4
  • Yerushalmi Nazir 5:2-5:4
  • Mishnah Bekhorot 9:8
  • Leviticus 27:31-33

Text Snapshot

MISHNAH: A person who made a vow of nazir, asked the Sages and they forbade, counts from the moment of his vow. Yerushalmi Halakhah: It was stated: The House of Shammai say, from the moment he asked; but the House of Hillel say, from the moment he vowed.

• Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: The Mishnah presents a scenario where the Sages "forbade" the vow. The Yerushalmi clarifies this as a dispute between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel regarding the commencement of the nezirut period when the Sages annulled (התירו) the vow, not forbade it. The phrasing "אסרו" (forbade) in the Mishnah is likely a shorthand for the Sages confirming the validity of the vow, thus binding the person. The Yerushalmi's "התירו" (permitted/annulled) likely refers to a situation where the Sages initially considered annulling the vow but ultimately affirmed it. The contrast between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel hinges on whether the intention to seek rabbinic guidance (asking) or the actual act of vowing initiates the count.

MISHNAH: If he asked the Sages and they permitted, if he had an animal designated, it leaves and grazes with the herd. Yerushalmi Halakhah: The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel: Do you not agree that this is dedication in error, it leaves and grazes in the herd?

• Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: The key phrase here is "הקדש טעות" (dedication in error). This links the nezirut sacrifice scenario to the laws of animal tithes, where errors in counting can lead to the sanctification of an animal that was not intended to be sacrificed. The Yerushalmi's explanation of the Mishnah Bekhorot provides the parallel: mistaking the ninth for the tenth, or the eleventh for the tenth, results in sanctification. This suggests that the nezir animal, designated in error (because the vow itself was annulled), is treated similarly to an animal erroneously sanctified.

Readings

Penei Moshe on Yerushalmi Nazir 5:2:1:1-6

The Penei Moshe offers a detailed breakdown of the initial Mishnah and Yerushalmi. Regarding the first case, "A person who made a vow of nazir, asked the Sages and they forbade [it]...":

• Penei Moshe on 5:2:1:1 (מתני' מי שנדר בנזיר. בלשון שהיה דומה לו שלא היה נזיר ונשאל לחכם ואסרו ואמר לו שיש בזה לשון נזירות והוא לא נזהר מלשתות יין): "The Mishnah states: 'A person who vowed nazir.' This means in language that appeared to him not to be a vow of nazir, and he asked a sage, and they forbade him [i.e., confirmed it as a valid vow], and told him that this language indeed contains the term of nazir, and he was not careful [i.e., continued to drink wine]." This clarifies that "forbade" in the Mishnah implies the Sages affirmed the vow's validity, not annulled it.
• Penei Moshe on 5:2:1:2 (מונה משעה שנזר. ואותן הימים עולין לו מן המנין): "He counts from the moment he vowed. And those days count for him from the tally." This explains that if the Sages confirmed the vow, the clock starts ticking from the moment of the vow itself.
• Penei Moshe on 5:2:1:3 (נשאל לחכם והתירו. שאמר לו שאין בלשון זה לשון נזירות): "He asked a sage and they permitted [it]." This means "they told him that this language does not contain the term of nazir." This is the contrasting scenario where the vow is annulled.
• Penei Moshe on 5:2:1:4 (תצא ותרעה בעדר. שהחכם עוקר הנדר מעיקרו והפרשה בטעות הוא ותצא לחולין ובהא מודו ב"ש דכיון דאינו נזיר כי אמר לקרבנות נזירותי לאו מידי קאמר כאדם שאינו חייב חטאת ואמר זו לחטאתי): "It leaves and grazes in the herd." The Penei Moshe explains: "For the sage uproots the vow from its root, and the dedication [of the animal] is in error, and it goes out to be profane. And in this, Beis Shammai agree with Beis Hillel, for since he is not a nazir, when he said 'my nezirut sacrifices,' he said nothing, like a person not obligated to a sin-offering who says, 'this is for my sin-offering.'" This is the crux of the nafka mina for the animal sacrifice: if the vow is annulled, the animal designated for it becomes profane. Beis Shammai's agreement here is significant, as it establishes a common ground on the principle of "dedication in error."
• Penei Moshe on 5:2:1:5 (אין אתם מודים בזה שהוא הקדש טעות. ומאי שנא מריש פרקין דאמריתו הקדש בטעות הוי הקדש): "Do you not agree that this is dedication in error? And what is different from the beginning of the chapter where you said, 'dedication in error is dedication'?" This highlights the Hillelites' argument: if an animal designated for an annulled vow is treated as hukdash ta'ut (sanctified in error), then why isn't the principle of hukdash ta'ut universally applied, as the Shammaites themselves seem to hold?
• Penei Moshe on 5:2:1:6 (אמרו להן ב"ש. לא חשו להשיבם עיקר טעמא אלא לדבריהם קאמרי להו והביאו ראיה מתשיעי ואחד עשר דקדשו בטעות): "Beis Shammai said to them. They did not bother to answer the main reason [for the Hillelites' position], but they spoke according to their [own] words, and brought proof from the ninth and eleventh, which are sanctified in error." The Penei Moshe points out that Beis Shammai's response doesn't directly engage with the Hillelites' broader principle about hukdash ta'ut in general vow annulment. Instead, they pivot to the specific case of animal tithes, arguing that their understanding of hukdash ta'ut (as seen in Bekhorot) is the relevant precedent.

Korban HaEdah on Yerushalmi Nazir 5:2:1:1

The Korban HaEdah focuses on the initial statement of the Mishnah:

• Korban HaEdah on 5:2:1:1 (מתני' מי שנדר בנזיר. בלשון שהיה דומה לו שאינו נזיר): "The Mishnah states: 'A person who vowed nazir.' This means in language that appeared to him not to be a vow of nazir." This commentary emphasizes the subjective element of the vow's wording. The person believed they were not making a binding nezirut vow, yet the Sages clarified that their language did indeed constitute such a vow. This sets the stage for the dispute about when the nezirut period begins: from the mistaken vow itself, or from the moment the Sages confirmed its validity.

Friction

The core friction in this sugya lies in the seemingly contradictory application of the principle of hukdash ta'ut (sanctification in error) between the laws of nezirut and animal tithes, and the differing interpretations of "error" by Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel.

The Kushya: Beis Shammai's Apparent Contradiction

The Mishnah presents a dispute regarding an animal designated for a nazir sacrifice. If the nazir vow is annulled by the Sages ("they permitted"), the designated animal is released to the herd (tetzay v'tir'eh ba'adar). The Hillelites challenge the Shammaites: "Do you not agree that this is dedication in error (hukdash ta'ut), it leaves and grazes in the herd?" This implies that hukdash ta'ut should lead to the animal becoming profane.

However, the Shammaites respond by referencing Mishnah Bekhorot 9:8: "if somebody erred and designated the ninth as the tenth, or the tenth as ninth, or the eleventh as tenth, it is sanctified." Here, error in counting tithes results in sanctification, not profanation. The Hillelites counter that the staff itself didn't sanctify, but the pasuk (Leviticus 27:31) sanctified the tenth, and by extension, the ninth and eleventh due to the error.

The kushya is: How can Beis Shammai agree that an animal designated for an annulled nezir vow is profane due to error (hukdash ta'ut), when their own cited example from Bekhorot shows that such errors in animal tithes result in sanctification? If "dedication in error" means sanctification, why does the nezir animal become profane?

The Terutz: Distinguishing the Nature of the Error and Sanctification

The Yerushalmi, through the explanation of the Shammaites' response and the subsequent analysis, provides a sophisticated terutz.

The Shammaites' retort in Bekhorot is not about general hukdash ta'ut but about specific tithe laws. The Yerushalmi explains (implicitly through the Hillelite counter-argument and explicitly in later commentaries like Penei Moshe):

1. The "Sanctification" in Bekhorot is Different: In the case of tithes, the error of counting (ninth as tenth, eleventh as tenth) leads to an actualization of sanctification that was already biblically ordained for the tenth animal. The pasuk in Leviticus 27:32 states, "all the tithe of cattle and flock, whatever passes under the staff, the tenth shall be holy to the Lord." The Shammaite position, as elaborated in Sifra and Bekhorot, is that the staff itself sanctifies the tenth. When one errs, the intent was to fulfill the mitzvah of tithing. The error doesn't create a new sanctification ex nihilo; rather, it brings an animal into the category of holiness that was already designated by the mitzvah, albeit erroneously identified. The ninth and eleventh are sanctified because they are proximate to the intended tenth and fall under the general sanctity of the flock under the staff. This is a form of hukdash ta'ut that results in the animal becoming holy, requiring proper disposition (e.g., the ninth becomes redeemable after a blemish, the eleventh a shelamim sacrifice).

2. The Nezir Animal is Profane because the Vow is Nullified: In contrast, when a nazir vow is annulled by the Sages ("they permitted"), the entire basis of the obligation for the sacrifice is removed. The animal was designated for a sacrifice that will never be required. It's not a case of misidentifying a sanctified animal; it's a case of an animal designated for a nonexistent obligation. As the Penei Moshe states, "since he is not a nazir, when he said 'my nezirut sacrifices,' he said nothing." The animal's designation was predicated on a vow that no longer exists. Therefore, its status reverts to profane (chullin). This is a "dedication in error" in the sense that the owner thought he was dedicating an animal for a valid sacrifice, but the underlying obligation was removed. This error leads to profanation because there is no underlying sanctity to be actualized.

The friction is resolved by understanding that "sanctification in error" in Bekhorot refers to a specific mechanism within tithe law where errors lead to the animal falling under an existing category of holiness. The nezir scenario, however, involves the complete nullification of the underlying obligation, rendering the designated animal profane due to the fundamental error in its intended purpose. The Shammaites' agreement with the Hillelites on the nezir animal becoming profane is not a contradiction of their Bekhorot stance; it's an application of a different principle where the error invalidates the entire purpose.

Intertext

Leviticus 27:31-33 (On Animal Tithes)

"And if a man will redeem aught of his tithe, the fifth part he shall add to it; and it shall be his. And all the tithe of the herd and of the flock, whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the LORD. He shall not search whether it be good or bad; neither shall he change it; and if he change it at all, then both it and that which is redeemed shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed."

This passage is central to the Bekhorot discussion and informs the Yerushalmi's understanding of "sanctification in error" in the context of animal tithes. The mechanism of passing under the "rod" (staff) and the tenth being declared holy is the basis for the Shammaite argument in Bekhorot, and by extension, their stance on the nezir animal. The Yerushalmi leverages this to distinguish between errors that actualize existing sanctity (tithes) versus errors that render a designation pointless (annulled nezir vow).

Mishnah Nedarim 9:2 (On Annulment of Vows)

"If a person vowed concerning a certain thing, and it turned out to be something else, or if he vowed concerning a thing that was not found, or concerning something that was stolen—the Sages may annul it. If he vowed in error, the Sages may annul it."

This Mishnah from Nedarim provides the broader framework for the annulment of vows. The case of the nezir in our sugya where the vow is "permitted" by the Sages falls under this principle. The Yerushalmi Nazir implies that the "permission" or annulment by the Sages is based on the mistaken premise of the vow. This connects to Naḥum from Media's error later in Nazir 5:3-4, where he asks nezirim if they would have vowed had they known the Temple would be destroyed. The Sages' subsequent ruling that those who vowed before the destruction are nezirim and those after are not, highlights how changed circumstances or mistaken assumptions can be grounds for annulment or, as in Nazir 5:2, for the consequences of a vow being mitigated. The principle that "error" can be a basis for annulment is a common thread.

Psak/Practice

The pesak derived from this sugya primarily revolves around the ramifications of vow annulment, especially when sacrifices are involved.

1. Annulment and Sacrifices: When a vow that requires a sacrifice is annulled by the Sages, any animal designated for that sacrifice becomes profane (chullin). This is a practical application of the principle that the underlying obligation is removed, rendering the designation of the animal meaningless for its intended sacred purpose. This is distinct from cases where an error might merely misidentify a sanctified item within a valid framework (like tithes).

2. Timing of Vow Commencement: The dispute between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel regarding when the nezir period begins (moment of vow vs. moment of rabbinic confirmation) has direct practical implications. If the Sages confirm the vow, the counting begins from the initial vow. If they annul it, the counting might not even start, or if it does and is later confirmed, the period might be counted from the annulment. The Yerushalmi's detailed discussion on "scoffing" (glig) and its impact on vow validity further complicates this, indicating that a vow made in jest or with intent to transgress might not be binding from the outset.

3. Hukdash Ta'ut Heuristics: The sugya reinforces a heuristic: "dedication in error" does not always lead to the same outcome. Its consequence (sanctification or profanation) depends on the nature of the error and the underlying legal framework. Errors in tithe counting actualize existing sanctity, while errors in the basis of a vow (leading to its annulment) result in profanation of associated designations.

Takeaway

The precise definition of "error" dictates its halakhic consequence; an error that nullifies the very foundation of an obligation leads to profanation, not sanctification. This sugya teaches that even seemingly similar principles like "sanctification in error" require nuanced application based on the specific context and underlying legal structures.