Nezirut - Chapter 1

Thus it is governed by the laws mentioned in the previous set of halachot. As mentioned in the beginning of Hilchot Nedarim, there are two types of vows: vows involving prohibitions and vows taking on an obligation to bring sacrifices. A nazirite vow also involves bringing sacrifices, as will be explained. Nevertheless, it is considered primarily a vow involving prohibitions (Radbaz).

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 92) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 374) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 209) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 373) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandments 207-208) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 375-376) include two prohibitions involving this matter among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. See Chapter 5 which describes this prohibition.

This includes prohibitions against drinking wine and eating fresh grapes, raisins, grape seeds, and grape peels. Se/er HaMitzvot (negative commandments 202-206) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 368-372) include five prohibitions against partaking of these grape products among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

The Radbaz explains that the Rambam does not mention these prohibitions in the order that they are mentioned in the Torah, nor in the order that they are mentioned in the Mishnah. The rationale is that the mitzvah of letting one’s hair grow is mentioned first because it involves both a positive and a negative commandment.

For with his deed, he has violated two of the Torah’s prohibitions.

Which applies with regard to the violation of all vows, as stated above in Hilchot Nedarim 1:5.

If he violates his nazirite vow in several ways, e.g., he eats grapes and becomes impure, he receives lashes according to the number of violations involved (Radbaz).

I.e., the commandment to observe the vows one takes. See Hilchot Nedarim 1 :4.

Which is done at the fulfillment of one’s nazirite vow. Se/er HaMitzvot (positive commandment 93) and Se/er HaChinuch (mitzvah 377) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. See Chapter 8 which describes this procedure.

Deuteronomy 23:22. As the Rambam states in Hilchot Arachin VaCharamim 1:1, this prohibition applies to any person who delays keeping the vows and pledges he makes. He does not, however, list this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot in these halachot, but instead, in Hilchot Ma ‘aseh HaKorbanot (in the introduction to those halachot and in Chapter 14, Halachah 13). See also Hilchot Arachin 6:33 which uses this law as support for the principle that a pledge to perform a mitzvah is considered as a vow.

For as stated in Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2, lashes are not given for the violation of a prohibition that does not involve a deed. Note, however, Chapter 5, Halachah 21.

This concept, which the Rambam illustrates in the following halachot, expresses the principle (see Nedarim 5b) that yadot nedarim, literally “handles of vows,” are considered equivalent to vows themselves.

According to the Rambam, when he makes such statements while holding his hair, it is not necessary that a nazirite pass in front of him for his statement to be binding.

The Hebrew uses two expressions to communicate this and the previous concept. Our translations for these terms are taken from Rav Kappach’s translation of the Rambam’s Commentary to the :tvfishnah (Nazir 1:1).

The offering a nazirite would bring if he became impure (see Numbers 6:10).

I.e., with regard to a nazirite vow. Since it is possible that his statement meant that he intended to offer the doves as a sacrifice, it is not considered as implying a nazirite vow. From the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (/oc. cit.), it appears that the person is liable to bring these doves as a voluntary offering. It is questionable if here the Rambam is negating that implication.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah the Rambam writes that gentiles who lived among the Jewish people would mispronounce the word nazir in this manner. As such, there would be some Jews who would make similar mistakes.

I.e., since he used the tenn “nazirite” and the object which he mentioned is forbidden to nazirites, the nazirite restrictions all take effect. Note the contrast to the following halachah.

Because the tenn nazirite does not apply with regard to those objects.

I.e., in the Talmudic era, the wine was very strong. Hence it was customary to mix water into wine before serving it.

I.e., the situation is comparable to those described in Halachah 9.

Who became so drunk that he lost all consciousness of his actions. See Genesis, ch. 19.

I.e., he is considered like a mentally and emotionally incapable person (a shoteh). See Hilchot!shut 4:18, H!Jchot Mechirah 29:18.

I.e., he seeks to avoid keeping one or more of the obligations of the nazirite vow although he will keep the others.

This is a general principle applying in many aspects of Torah law, for example, Hilchot!shut 16:9.

In the previous halachah.

The Ra’avad states that if a person would approach a sage and ask him to absolve his nazirite vow on these grounds, the sage would certainly consent. We are speaking about an instance when the person seeks to have the vow nullified without consulting a sage because it was taken in error. The Radbaz states that the Rambam would also accept this ruling. The Kessef Mishneh, however, does not accept this explanation.

He need not observe any of the nazirite prohibitions, even the ones he had intended to observe.

The Ra’ avad considers this as a vow which a person is prevented from keeping by forces beyond his control, citing Nazir l lb which appears to support this interpretation. The Kessef Mishneh and the Radbaz state that while the actual wording of the Talmud fits the Ra’avad’s interpretation, the Rambam’s explanation can be justified. [Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nazir 2:4), the Rambam uses the wording suggested by the Ra’avad.]

Hilchot Sh ‘vuot 3:6; Hilchot Nedarim 4:1.

The Or Sameach notes that the Rambam changes slightly the wording of his source, Nazir 21b, based on his ruling in Hilchot Shechitah 8:16. There the Rambam writes that if an animal is born without a liver it may live, but if it were born with a liver and then the liver was removed, it is treifah.

For it is considered as if he took the vow upon his entire person. Compare to Hi/chat Arachin 2:1; Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 15:2; Hilchot Mechirah 27:8.

A person whose genital area is covered by a piece of flesh and it is impossible to detect his gender.

A person with both male and female sexual organs (Hilchot Ishut 2:24-25).

Although the term ben can be translated as “offspring,” its specific meaning is “son.” Hence the Rambam rules in this manner.

The fact that his wife miscarried in the interim does not negate the vow.