KOL KINUYEI

CHAPTER ONE

9ar

NEDARIM

The Mishnah provides further examples of "partial declarations":

trUrpl il'Tll If one says, "Like the ned,arim of the wicked,"
he has effected a vow,lll
irlg either in regard to becoming iflazir,Lz) Fli??t or in regard to bringing an offering,isl ilYt:t4ft or
in regard to beingbound by an oath.t4l trr1l??
If one says, "Like thenedarim of the virtuous," rES Nb
Etb! he has not said anlrthing.rsl tr!'i:ll-I If he says, "Like their [the virtuous ones'f neda vos,"td 1:l
he has effected a vow,
either in regard to becoming anazir, I+'ti??'r or in regard to bringing an

}..{;i,5ftn41fL

tll+ -

rlp -

offering.ttl

rll -

Understanding the Mishnah as meaning that the

declaration "Like the nedarim of the wicked"
itself effects a vow, the Gemara wonders:
rE$17 r),1 Nt??ll - But perhaps this is what [the person] means
to say: Nl"lll Nt trtyg''l r'llD - "Like the ned,qrim of the
wieked I arn not vowing!" What is the basis for considering his

GgnWfA

declaration a vow?
The intent of the Mishnah is clarified:

b*lnrrl rB$ - Shmuel said: trtl,P'l t'll4 lplNt - The Mishnah refers to a case where he says, "Like the nedarirn of.
the wicked," and then adds, Dnrilt rby rl':!il - either "am I,"
or "upon me," or ttfrom it." ntirlft Ur-lil - If he adds "am
I," he has vowed regarding nezirus; I?li?? lby - if he
adds "upon me," he has vowed regarding an offering; l:trtril
ilylrt{r! - and if he adds "from it," he has vowed regarding
an oath.l8l

NOTES
people
unconcerned for the consequences oftheir words
had a tendency to adopt nedarim, nezirus and oaths freely [in moments
ofanger and the like; see Gemara 21b1. This practice is frowned upon,
since the vower might come to violate his words (Gemara 9b). In the
context of his tendency to vow, therefore, such a person is described by

1. Careless

the pejorative "wicked," although he might be virtuous overall. And

since "wicked" people vow, the expression "like the nednrim of the
wicked" connotes an effective vow. In specific circumstances (as shall be
described), one who employs this expression is bound by the vow for
which he intended (Ran, Ritua).
lThe ternt nedarim in this context is a general expression referring to
various categories of vows, including declarations of nezirus and oaths
(Gemara below, 80b; Ran to 8a, cited there in note 6).1
2. The Gemara explains

that this applies in

a case where the person said,

"Likethenedarim of the wickedam 1," implytng that he should enter a

state like that adopted by the "wicked" when they vow. Ifhe said this

while anazir was passing in front of him, his statement connotes that it
is the state of nezirus he wishes to enter, and on the basis of his partial
declaration (yad,)\e becomes anazir (Ran).
3. The Gemara explains

this as referring to a case where the person said,

"Like the nedarim of the wicked upon me," implying that he should
assume a certain obligation through this vow - and this is the
obligation to bring an offering. Presumably, this applies in a situation
similar to that which the Gemara describes in the context of the
previous rule

i.e. where there was an animal [frt to be offered] located

of the vower (Ran; see Tosafos t:nrnt'by
tr'yur-l r-l-r): n"r; cf.

)liil
in front
Kesef Mishneh, Hil. Maaseh HaKorbanos 14:11).
4. As explained by the Gemara,

this refers to a case in which the person

"Like the nedarim of the wicked, from it shall I not eat." lf

there was an article of food in front of him when he said this, his
statement implies that he should be bound by an oath to refrain from
declared,

eating it [and it is an effective yodl (Ran; cf. Beis Yosef, Yoreh Deah
237:9; see also Bels Yosef ibid. 206:4). [See Rau MiBartenura for an
entirely different understanding of the Mishnah; see also E am.bam, Hil.
Nedarim l:25-26.)
5. Even if he concluded with the phrase "am 1," ot "upon me," or "from
it etc,," and there was a nazir, an animal or an article of food before him,

he is not bound by his declaration. Since virtuous people do not make

nedarim [see below], the expression "Like the nedarim of the virtuous"
is meaningless (Raz).
6. Ned,auos (sing. nedauah) are vows that differ from nedarim, and the
practical difference applies in the context of offerings. A neder of an
offering is a vow in which one says, "I hereby undertake to bring an
offering." The obligation rests upon the vower; thus, ifhe consecrates
an animal in order to fulfill his vow but it dies or is lost before he
actually offers it, he must replace it with anothet one. Aned,auah of an

offering is a vow

in which one declares, "This animal is

hereby

consecrated as an offering." There is no personal obligation upon the

vower; thus, ifthe animal dies or is lost before it is offered, he bears no
responsibility. Although virtuous people do not make nedarim, dtrc to
their reluctance to assume obiigations that they might be prevented
from fulfrlling in the proper time, they do make nedauos, since these do
not involve personal liability (see Ran and .Rosh ).

ifone says, "Like the nedauos ofthe virtuous am I," while anazir is
in front of him, his statement is a valid yad for nezirus aod
renders him a nazir; and if he says, "Like the ned,auos of the virtuous
7. I.e.

passing

upon me," while there is an animal in front of him, his statement is a valid
yod for consecrating the animal
as ifhe said, "It is hereby [consecrated
as] a voluntary offering." However, ifhe says, "Like the nedauos ofthe
virtuous, fom it shall I not eal " his statement is not a valid yad for an
oath, even if there was food in front of him. Whereas virtuous people
sometimes adoptnedauah-t7pe obligations for either offerings or nezirus,
lhey neuer engage in oaths lbecause the Name ofGod is generally invoked
in an oath, and because the consequences ofviolating it are most severe;
Ritual. Arrd although we learned above (8a) that it is permissible to
stimulate oneselfto perform a mitzvah by swearing to do so, that type of
oath is not called anedauah (literally: benevolent vow), since the person
was previously obligated to perform the mitzvah (Ran). [Rosh, following
the view of Rarnban (cited above, 8a note 5), explains that the reason is
because the oath to fulfill the mitzvah has no legal effectiveness.l
.Bon wonders: As explained in the previous note, a neder is distinguished from a nedauaD in that the declaration "I hereby undertake
. . ." is defined as aneder, whereas the declaration "This is hereby . . ."
is defrned as a nedauah. This distinction exists only in the context of
offerings, where one has the choice of either undertaking a personal
obligation or directly consecrating an animal. Concerning nezirus,

however, no such distinction exists, since afl nezirus vows are alike.
What, then, is the difference between "nedarirn" and,"nedauos" fof the
virtuousl in regard to nezirus?
Roz therefore posits that the practical difference between aned,er and,
anedauah stems from amore fundamental distinction between the meanings ofthe term s "neder" and "nedauah." "Neder" cornotes a vow that is
tendered somewhat dispassionately, whereas "nedauah" connotes a vow
that is tendered enthusiasticaliy, and hence, regarded more favorably (see
also Roshi to Exodus 25:2). Based on this distinction, we describe the vow
of "I hereby undertake to bring an offering" as aneder, because since the
vower did not donate the offeringimmediately he seems gmdging. And we
describe a vow of "This animal is hereby consecrated" as a nedauah,
because the vower acted benevolently and his vow is more worthy. Since
the underlying difference between a neder and a nedauah is in the
attitude ofthe vower, these terms can be applied evenlo nezirus - de'
spite the fact that on the practical level allnezirus vows invoke the same
type of obligation. A person who undertakes nezirus with pure intentions
is said to have m ade a ''nedauah" of nezirus , whereas one who undertakes
it with inferior intentions is said to have made a"ned,er" of nezlras. Thus,
thenezirusvows of wicked people, which are made with flawed intent, are
"nedarim," but the nezirus vows of virtuous people, which are made
wholehearteilly and purely, are "ned.auos." lndeed, the Gemara (9b) cites,
as an example of a nedauah, the vow of a certain nazir whose intent was
purely for the sake of Heaven (see also -Eanzbam, Hil. Nezirus t014).
In conclusion, then, "Like the nedauos of the virtuous" is a meaningful statement and qualifies as ayod. However, "Like the ned.auos of the
wicked" is meaningless, since the wicked are incapable of tendering
nedauos. One who does make a nedauah is not considered "wicked"
within the context of that vow (Ron; see also Rashba, and, Tosafos lo

Chullin 2b end of

):x

n--i).

8. See notes 2-4, and, Gemara further.

KOL

KINIIYEI

CHAPTER ONE

The first part of Shmuel's explanation is questioned:

- You say that if he adds "am I," he has vowed
regardingnezirusl? rpgi? ntryIt rnrir NF?:T - Perhaps he is
saylng, "I am in a fast.t't1ol - ? Shmuel responds:
fXllrri rn$ - Shmuel said: uIDb t:ty rrq iqlp? - We are
dealing with a case where a nazir was passing in front of [the

ternnrlllll r;t1i!

vower] while he made his declaration. In this situation, his

declaration is clearly avow of nezirus.tril
The last part of Shmuel's explanation is now Questioned:rDr
irgl]tpl tltflir (Fii;t rfy; - You say that if he adds "from it," he
has vowed regarding an oath, meaning that he is under oath
not to eat it!? 'lEg? NJhtN:r llhril NEh - Perhaps he means to
say, "From it shall I eat."l13l - ? A clarification is cited:
Nll 'rn$ - Rava said: b:tx XbW llhrir tDS'r - We are dealing

with a case where [the vower] said explicitly, "From

16f g1f,.t'tla)

it I shall

The Gemara counters:

Nl4t)-:? rNE r),1 rx - If so, what need is there for the Mishnah to
state that his vow is effective?
The Gemara answers:
Nlitrni urD - You might have said, ilrh|l5r: ilvlftli iTtED Nb N,l "lVhy, he did not express an oath from his mouth, and should
not be bound by his words 6f sll"ttsr f.l I? ypqb xp - [The
Mishnahl therefore informs us this - that your argument is
invalid and "Like the nedarim of the wicked etc." does qualify as
a partial declaration ofan oath.r6l

9a2

NEDARIM

The Mishnah stated:

,'ril 'llf trltIID D!5! rES iib trtlurl t":!lf? If one says, ,,LrKE rHE
NEDARIM oF THE vIRTUous," HE HAs Nor sArD aNyT slNc. If he
says, "LfKE nrrm [the virtuous ones'] lrraAyos,- HE IrAs EFFECTEDAV0W etc.

The Gemara inquires after the authorship of this ruling:

il?'llb tl) pl nrb rxur:r xl5 IxD - Who is this Tanna who
differentiates between a neder and a nedaaah insofar as
considering the former inappropriate and the latter virtuous?
iJtitr r!'l Nbr rrxn 'r!r Nb NFrb - Shall we say it is neither
R' M,eir nor R' Yehudah? NlfD! - For it was taught in
a Baraisa: ,,,u1 r\n'xt rU$ rtu,, Scripture states'tul
BETTER THAr

you Nor vow etc, [than that you uow and not pay].

In this passage, Scripture describes three categories ofpeople one who vows and pays, one who does not vow at all, and
one who vows and does not pay.tml b3 r1,i: tlxu, ilmt ilm llu
rPry - BETTER TIraN both THrS ONE AND THAT Owg (i.e. one
who vows and does not pay aad one who vows and pays) ls

oNE wrro DOES NOT VOgr 41 411.irst tr1{D U-l rl?T _ These are
THE WORDS OF R', MEIR. ltltN il-Jtil! tl'l - R' YEHUDAH

SAYS: nlgral Tru illlit illlr

flu -

BETTER TrIAN BOTH THIS

oNE AND TIIAT oNE (i.e. one who does not vow and one who
vows and does not pay) Is oNE wuo vows AND pAys.t20l Neither

R' Meir nor R' Yehudah distinguishes between a neder and a

nedauahtt2| _ ? _
The Gemara responds:
.lr$n r!-l xprs 1fr55 Actuqlly, you can sayt22l that the Mishnah
accords with R' Meir.

NOTES
synonym for "oaths" (see end of note 1). [Therefore, when "Like the
ned,arim of the wicked" is combined with the clarification "from it shall
10. Le. although "Like the nedarim ofthe wicked am I" implies that
I not eat," which is indicative of an oath - since it obligates the person
the vower wishes to enter a certain state through his vow, this can refer
to the state of fasting as well as the state of nezirus. Why does the not to eat, and does not render theitern forbidden (see 2b note 5) - it
Mishnah rule it a declaration of nezirus and not of a fast? (R' Akiua renders him bound by an oath not to eat that item.l
Eiger, based, on Ran below; cf. Rosh to Nazir 2b). [See ?osoflos for t7. Ecclesiastes 5:4.
discussion of why the pejorative "wicked" would apply to one who
18. The preceding verse in Ecclesiastes (v. 3) concludes with the words
makes a vow to fast.l
n?U rr5-rqx nx, That which you uow, pay! This is followed by the verse
11. Actually, If a nazir is passing in front of the vower, he becomes a
cited here (v. 4): Better that you not uow than that you uow and not pW.
nazir even if he merely states, "I am," because this phrase is indicative
19. R' Meir interprets "That which you uow, pay! Better that you not uow
of nezirus even without the preface "Like the nedarim of the wicked."
than that you uow and not pay" as meaning that even ifyou always pay
The Mishnah focuses on the case where he did say, "Like the nedarim of what you
vow, it is better that you not vow at all, lest you once vow and
the wicked," in order to teach through inference that ifhe says "Like
not pay (Ran; Rashi to Chullin 2a; cf . Rosh; Tosafos to Chullin ibid. n"-r
the nedarim of the uirtuous, " his vow of "I am" is ineffective even :ru).
where a nazir ls passing in front of him (.Bon, based on Gemara
20. R' Yehudah understands That which you uow, pay! as describing the
Kidd,ushin 5b; see fton for an alternative explanation).
optimal approach. The following verse means literally that it is better
(that
12. The Gemara questioned the first part ofShmuel's explanation
not to vow at all than to vow and not pay; it does not mean that this is
adding "am I" makes the declaration a yad for nezirus), and it now better than to vow and pay. One might wonder, accordingly, why the
questions the final part (that adding "from it" makes the declaration a
latter verse is needed. Obviously, one who will not pay should refrain
ya.d, for an oath). However, it does not question the middle part of
from vowing! The answer is that one might have thought that vowing
Shmuel's explanation - that adding "upon me" makes the declaration
[in the expectation ofpaying] is itselfvirtuous, and ifone later forgets or
a yod. for a vow to bring an offering. This is because we learned above
is unable to pay he will nevertheless be rewarded [for his good inten(6a) that'?y,-r\ It is hereby upon me, is an effectiveya.d. for an offering,
tionl. Scripture therefore informs us that one is not rewarded for the
and "upon me" is no different (Shitah Mehubetzes).
vow itself but for its fulfillment. [Thus, the unfulfrlled vow provides no
13. And since it is unclear whether he means to swear that he will eat or
benelit and is simply a stumbling blockl (Ran; see Rashash).
that he will not eat, this should be considered a case of nln,Jlh lrlsu trlll,
21. According to R' Meir, the verse teaches that it is best to refrain from
partial d,eclarations that are inconclusiue, which according to Shmuel
vowing altogether - whether wlth a neder or with a nedauah. [N(see 5b) are ineffective (Ran; see R'Akiua Eiger; cf. Rosh).
though the verse mentions only a neder, for it states 'r.rn-N9 tt N flu,
14. And there was an article of food in front of him at the time (.Bon
literally: better that you notvow aned.ea I ifthis would apply only to the
above; see note 4).
ned,er method, it would have stated that the best approach of all is to
15. I.e. he did not say, "I swear that I shall not eat it" (Mefaresh), lbut
make a nedauah (fian). And according to R' Yehudah, the verse
merely stated, "Like the nedarim ofthe wicked etc." Although "Like
sanctions even the neder method,, for R' Yehudah interprets it as
the nedarim of the wicked" can effect a vow of nezirus or a vow to bring
meaning that the best approach is o?rarrr rrt:, literally: vowing a neder
an offering, perhaps it cannot effect anoathTt.
and paying (Gemara, top of 10a)l Our Mishnah does not accord with
16. The expression "nedarim of the wicked" is inclusive even of oaths either of these opinionsl
(Rosh; Meiri to Mishnah), for "nedarim" is occasionally used as a 22. Literally: You can even say. See 2b note 6.
9. The emendation follows Hagahos HaBach.

rtil

1{

1il

[:
t'

gbt
irl

KOL KINTIYEI

CHAPTER

lr$n rI: .lDSi? rI - When did B' Meir say it is best not to vow at
all? i'll1 - Regarding a nedcr vow. rpry;7 xb il?Iff -

Regarding anedaaah vow, he did not say this.rlr

The Gemara objects:
I+'li??'r rrlH

lll

il

rll trlt]l)I

tlni? N,ll But [the Mishnah] teaches:

If one states, "LrKE THEIR (the virtuous ones') ,vgoAyog'HE IIAS
EFFECTED A "NEDER" either rN nrcmo ro becoming ANAZIR oR
IN REGARD To bringing AN oFFERING. This implies that the
virtuous ones effect eyennedarimlt2l - ? The Gemara responds:
Itli??'t ltlll l:l r-)n - Teach the Mishnah as follows: "He has
effected a'ncda.vah' either in regard to becoming anazir or in
regard to bringing an offering."

ONE

NEDARIM

PERSON EVEI COMMITTED ME'II,AH WITH HIS OTA}' OF'FERING IN

ALL HIS p4vg.{sl nl!!? Itbtn NrilUr! i:tNrfp - IHILLELI WOULD
always BRING IHIS OFFERINGI TO THE Temple COURTYARD WIIILE

IT wAS yet LINCoNSECR-aTED,I6] irtftltt ! irtby :lhtDl irurrii?Dt

AND upon arrival, would coNspcRATE rr, I,EAN his hands tpor.l

11tzl

4tvp

SLAUGHTER

IT. By minimizing the amount of time

between the consecration ofthe offering and its slaughter, Hillel

eliminated the occurrence of me'ilah. t8l This is the manner in
which virtuous people make nedauos.tet
The Gemara asks further:
nt)+ti?i ir?'!l Nnuir - This fits well regarding lhe ned.aaah of

offerings, tprnb x:rx

rND

n!ir!l:I ttl1f

nedaaah of nezirus what is there to

hut regarding the

say?t101

The Gemara responds:

The Gemara now analyzes the distinction between aneder and
anedauah:
NbI r:lr xlP rxn - lYhat is unique about making a neder,
leading R' Meir to say that one should not do so? il! !n$ NEh
rr!p5 r1f - It is obviously the concern that perhaps one will

I,

to a transgression through it.tsr x5 tnl il?If - A

nedaaah should also not be made, n!p4 rlrf i'il rn$ xn?,1 because of the concern that perhaps one will come to a
lu

ili

iTti'lyil

ltyrturl

(il, t:D) - A vow of nezirus is considered a

in a case such as that of Shimon the
- For it was taught in a Baraisa: rB$
sHrMoN THE RTGHTEoUS sArD: N.b rDlh

ruedauah, i.e. virtuous,

Righteous.tllr xlln!
irrryil lytlri (r:'1) ,{Dg

lrrr trr?{ tnh$

TNALLMyDAys,TNEvERATE of

rnnesrear

come

oFFERING oF a rrrazrR who b ecame TAMET,I.u) 1tr!,( Nh..

transgression through it.l4l

FORONE. trtt:lil In ttlf r[!". tr'l],r N+ nE]_. truE - oNcEACERTATN

MAN, A NAZIR who had been tamei, CIilIN FROM THE S0UTH.
rNli ltu! trr!'ry i'r!r IrIilu DnrN"rl - AND I sAw THAT HE HAD

The Gemara answers:

il?p 5?il? - Anedauah is virtuous when tendered in accordance
with the method of Hillel the Elder. Nlgrl - For it was

taught in a Baraisa: Ii?lir bbrn by rip$

rrrLLEL rHE

ELDER 'trE: bl tnltVl tr]$ byD

rltny

NbV.j

sAID ABour
rrrAr No

BEAUTIFUL EYES AND WAS GOOD

LOOKING,

ExcEpT

Tb NTTI-TU ITNTYI'Ii?]

trtDh - AND HTsLocxswEREARRANGEDTNCURLs. tb rI-'!D!,t

- rsArDroHrM: rl! - .,MysoN, tll:l'lvt{ nN nlnurilb It$l ilF
ilt{lir - wHY DID YOU Spp fit rO Oe SrnOY THrS BEAUTTFUL rrArR OF
yOURS?,'tl3] rl fE$
- HE REPLIED TO ME: xlgb rniln ngir

NOTES
1. The verse that R' Meir expounds refers only to nedarim, notto nedauos 8. [Hillel's method also eliminated the possibility of the owner's trans(Ran). $.e. R' Meir does not understand the verse as coming to inform us gressing the prohibition againstdelaying payment, sincethe nedauahvov
the best approach to vowing. Rather, he understands it as coming to wasinitiatedattheCourtyardentrance,lHowever,Hillelwouldnotmake
conveytheimproprietyofinvokingneder-typevows.Thus,heinterprets a neder vow even while standing with his animal at the Courtyarc
its reference to neder vows literally, and derives only that it is better not entrance, since if the animal would die suddenly before being offered - or
to make a "neder" than to make one and pay it. As for nedauos, R' Meir a disqualification would occur during the process ofits being offered - he
may hold that they are virtuous, as taught in our Mishnah.l
would remain personaJly responsible to bring another offering, and this
(see ?osofos and Rashba
2. Thus, the Mishnah cannot be interpreted in accordance with R' Meir. would leave him vulnerable to a transgression

Furthermore, the Mishnah is self-contradictory! On the one hand, it 9. When the Mishnah teaches that "Like the nedauos of the virtuous
differentiates between "Like the nedarim of the virtuous" and "Like effects a nedauah regarding an offering, it refers to a case where
t]neir nedauos," and on the other hand, it states that "Like their someonesaysthisaboutananimalstandingintheCourtyard[entrance,

anederl

(Ran, Rosh).
nedauos" invokes
Others contend that the Mishnah implies the vow is always effective
The Gemara could have raised the latter point before discussing
authorship ofthe Mishnah. However, it chose to first address the matter They therefore explain that since there is some form of nedauafr that i:
considered virtuous, the declaration "Like the nedauos of the virtuous'
of the Mishnah's distinction between "Like th e nedarim" arrd "Like
is meaningful and, always effects a vow. According to this explanatior
nedauos," and to focus only afterwards on the statement that
lheir nedauos" invokes a "neder" (Ran, in the name of his teachers; the declaration can effect not only a vow to bring an offering, but eve:,
a prohibitive neder li.e. "Let this article be prohibited to me like th.,
Tosafos; see Ran for his own variant explanation, and see Rosh for
nedauos of the virtuous"l (Tosafos; see aiso Rambam, Hil. Maase.
another

the

the
"Like
yet

approach).

himsetf.] HaKorbanos l(Ll)'

4. [Althoueh rhe animal is consecrated immediately, and,the vower l3"j;?.liX,$1H|]iiTr'j1enlir"ffifi$i,};]:#ff#T',]*:"r*:
cannot transgress that prohibition,l he might tarry more than,three
ao.i"Stlr"i" iezirusterm (,Ean ).
festivals in offering it and violate the prohibition asainst delayins -. -:payrnent (Ran; see Ba note 17 for the sources or t1.." irot ilitionsl cL 11' shimon the Righteous, one of the greatest Kohanim Gedolim, sen-e3. [He might fail to fu-Ifrll the obligation that he placed upon

Mefaresh and. Hagahos R' Betzalel Ronsburg). tA]ro, ori." un u"i;; i;

consecrated one is forbidden to benefit from it and is in danser of
transgressing this prohibition (see further).1
Accordingly, even the statement "Like the nedauos ofthe virtuous"
should not effect a vow (see Raz 55n: n-:).

at the beginning of the Second remple Era. He was one of the last of

tL:

rr7rr4,J-rt_p)!'PfN,Menof theGreatAssembly (Auosl:2). [Theemend..

tion of the text follows 'Eon' l
12. A nazir who became tamei through contact with a corpse, whe:.
purifred of his fumah,brirtgs aspecial offering of two birds and a lamb -

the.birdsasanolahandchatas' andthelambasanasham' Heforfeitsti'=

uruawfuily deriving benefit from a consecrated
-"""""*,"; days of his nezirus term that he had counted and must begin the ter::
obJecl (see lJeuttlcus D:Ic-Ib). t(ecog'nlzlng tnat havrng
a consecrated
, ^;",.;
:;" steps
-:::: anew {.Ron, from Numbers 6:9-I2t. The oLaiz is burned on the A.ltar in :: i
arumal In one s possessron 16 an rnvrtauon Eo me t|an, flrllel;;tooK
entirety, but the meat of the chatas and asham is eaten by Koharuto mrnlmrze lne possrDlll[y oI rnrs occurrence
shimon the Righteous refrained from partaking ofeither ofthese offe:.
6. It is actually prohibited to bring an unconsecrated animal into the ings (Rashba; Rosh below). See note 25 for the reason he mentioned or...
Temple Courtyard. The intent is that Hillel brought it to the Courtyard the asham.
b. Me-tLanrs the s1n or

entrance before consecrating

7.

it

(Ran; cf. Shitah Mekubetzes).

Itisobligatoryfortheownertoleanhishandsonhisofferingbefore

it is slaughtered

(see Leuiticus

l:4).

t3. Anazir is required to shave his head entirely at the end ofhis ter=
(ibid. v. 18). By taking the vow of nezirus, therefore, the nazir l,:
committed himself to destroying his beautiful head of hair.

I
:

,
I

I
I

gbz

KOL

KINUYEI

CHAPTER

I'ltlr+ -,.r wAS A STIEPHERD FOR MY FATHER IN MY TO\yN. tn?!,?

Itlt Er-r In trrD nrNbDl - Once, I wEI{r ro FILI, a pail with wernR
FROM THE SPRING TbUI N$I:?T tNhDPI] _ AND I STABED AT MY
REFLECTTON in the water. t1y! tly rnpt - rnsN My evil
TNCLTNATToN RUsHED ovER

ME

n!tu,1 1n

r:rliul

uri?lr

soucHT To BANIsH ME FRoM THE woRr,D.llal lb tn'lDt(

TO tMY EWL INCLINATIONI:

yql -

'WICKED

ONE!

AND

r sAID
ll[!-. n,,l?

t:rxrz ultul nxlnn - wHYAREYoUCoNCEITEDINAWORLD

rrrAr rs NoTYouRs, i1y?tn] npr ntrnS lrny Nrilri rE! - WITH
1!r4r

oNE WHO IS DESTTNED TO BE consumed by WOmIS AND MAGGOTS?

illtr1r[

1:thryq - rHAr I
sTIALL sHAvE you FoR the sake of HEAvrNr' "t161 tn']Dv .t:lr
turx'r by tDi?tgp - IMMEDIATEIy (Shimon the Righteous continues), l ABosp AND r(ssnD HInn oN rrrs HEAD, tb tn"!D!,( - and r
By rHE TEMeLE snRvrcn,ti5r tr?Dgb

Sxlrtt+ nr'lrrr rrri) r!11 :llhl

sArD ro HrMr rr!
"MY
MAY THERE BE MORE VOWERS OF NEZIRUS LIKE YOU IN ISRA,EL!

'1)6tN

soN,

rtn?il l'r?y - It is asour a nazir such as you that

STATES: " 'nl rrlnb .1rll .lJl r'"rll xbpt r! . . . urx,,

ONE

na,zir who became tamei, that [Shimon the Bighteous] would

not eat of it? NItt:! ty rIrSJ - Presumably, ii is the fact that
[the offering] comes on account of a transgression.tlsl bp
br:rb xb rEI nthqr$ - Then he should not have eaten ofany
other asham offerings either, lng Nt n by:r - for they all

?
come on account oftransgressions.uel
R'Mani's objection is resolved:
illtr r!'l ilr? rES R'Yonah said to him: NEt p Drlil This is
the true reason that Shimon the Righteous refrained from eating

- -

A MAN . , . WHO SHALL DISSOCIATE HIMSELF BY VOWING A NEDDR

ANAZIRTO ABSTNN FOR ITHD SAKE OFl HASHDM,IIT] This was the
nazir who had been tamei of whose asham, offering I ate." When a
man makes the vow of nezirus with this degree of sincerity, there

AS

is no concern that he will come to violate

it

and

it is therefore

considered a nedauah, i.e. virtuous.

R'Mani counters:
r:ir rx

- If so, lE! 'rtilt, .ttl tbr!$ -

then even the offering of a

have been considered

nazir who remained talwr, too, should

?
unworthy by Shimon the Righteous.t%l
R'Yonah responds:
x b r tng i rt:
The offering of a nazir who remained folror is not
because he surely
considered unworthy, ilrui5l lrD$ t.tlh$J

- -

assessed himself before

The Gemara digresses to analyze the statement of Shimon the

Righteous:
rfr-i tt't n! qr;lnra
- R'Mani objected to this: lrtl trrl$ xfp txD
5;ry xb1 Nnp - What is unique about the asham offering of a

specifically the asharn. of a nazir: I.tril fil'in lilq? - In his

times, when [peoplel felt remorse for their misdeeds, they
would take vows of nezirus,tzor tn? Iittbg If'U f$Ft lr 1;q?t
nt'trlf - but when it occurred that they bec ame tam.ei and the
days of nezirus increased for them,tzrt 1;'t lrtl"![{tn * they
would regret their vows,t22' nllq? Irbn fxr:n lxyrl:-l - and
they were thus found to be bringing unconsecrated [animals]
to the Courtyard to be offered.P3l

SCRIPTURE

NEDARIM

vowing 'rtill 5tr:t

and concluded

that he was able to make the vow and fuffiU it. Only when the
term was extended beyond the duration for which the vower
initially intended is there reason to be concerned that he
regretted his

vow.t25l

NOTES

to use my beauty in sinful pursuits (Ron). ["The 23. [Theirregretnul]ifiedtheiroriginalvowsof nezirus,eliminatingthe

World" refers to the World to Come (see ?os. R' Akiua Eiger, Auos requirement to bring offerings, so that the animals they offered were
14. By urging me

4:2I).)

[il

lr

15. This expression connotes an oath (Rashi, Taanis 24a; however, see
14b note 2 and, Tos. Yom Tou, Kesubos 2:9 nta plnn n"r).

l'

16. To overcome his vanity, the shepherd swore to become a nazir, and
hence, to shave his beautiful hair in the performance of a mitzvah for
the sake ofHeaven (Rosh).

lr
lr

17 . Leuiticus 6:2. This man was the prototype of a nazir tnlJy motivated
by a sincere desire to devote himself to the service of God (Eaz )! He was
also deserving of the title u'ri7, holy, thatSuipture (ibid. v. 5) ascribes to
anazir (Rosh). lMost nezirim had less laudable motives, as we shall see
below.l See Maharsha ar,d Chasam Sofer for further insight into this

narrative.
18. The nazir is not allowed to become tarnei (ibid' v. 6), md the asham
comes to atone for his turnah [even if it occurred inadvertently] (Ean ).
Presumably, Shimon the Righteous considered it unfitting for a person

of his stature to partake of an offering that comes on account of a

transgression lexcept in the unusual case that he mentioned] (Rosh).
19. See Leuiticus 5:14-26, where the criteria for most asham obligations
are described. [Shimon the Righteous should certainly also have refrained from ever eating the meat of a chatas offering (Rosh).1

tr
i

20. Most people who became nezirim did so in moments of regret for
earlier misdeeds [seeking atonement through the vow of abstinence]
(Ran), or seeking to ward off Heavenly retribution (Tosafos).
Others explain l,il'in as meaning became agitated. Thus, the Gemara
says: When people became agitated by affliction that visited them, and
they attributed the affliction to Heavenly retribution for their misdeeds,
they took vows of nezirus as penance (EosD; see Mefaresh for yet
another explanation).
21. The tumah canceled the days that they observed beforehand (see
note 12), causing their term of nezirus to be extended beyond the thirty

days [i.e. the standard term] for which they originally intended (see

Ran).
22. [Because they had not undertaken nezirus purely "for the sake of
Hashem," but rather, in search of some form of benefit which they
thought they could gain by observing the thirty-day term.l

considered "unconsecrated." Hence, bringing them to the Temple was a

violation of the law (see note 6),1 The Gemara does not mean this
Iiterally, for the nullifrcation ofa vow on the basis ofregret requires the
decision of a competent sage, and since the nezirim brought the
standard offerings they obviously had not gone to a sage for annulment

Thus, the offerings were actually obligatory despite their regreti

Rather, the Gemara means that the offerings werelike unconsecratei
ones. Since the nezirim's intent was wanting [and actually provided a
basis for annulmentl, their offerings were considered unworthy [ar:
Shimon the Righteous therefore avoided theml. However, in the case c:
the one nazir whom Shimon the Righteous described, since his inten:
was absolutely pure in the first place, there was no concern that h=
regretted the vow even when his term was extended on account r-:
tumah (Ran; see also Rashba; cf. Teshuuos MaBit $99 ar,d. Teshutt,
Maharit I:28, cited by Haflaos Nedarim).

24. lSince he considered most nezirim insincere,] he should have bee:concerned for regret of the vow even in a case where the nazir did n,:.'.
become tamei (Tos. Yeshanim).
lParoshas Ned,arim finds R'Mani's question puzzling, since R'Yonstated explicitly that Shimon the Righteous'concern stemmed from t:-.
fact that the nozir's term was extended due to tumah, and,this obviou..'
does not apply to anazir who remained roDor! Therefore, he explains follows: Shimon the Righteous implies that he had no qualms about ea:.
ing the offerin g of a nazir tahor even if his vow of nezirus was for mi: :
longer than the standard term of thirty days. Why was he less concer::
for regret there than in the case of anazir who initially took the vor : . :
only thirty days but whose term was extended because of tumah? )
25. Having concluded this segment of the Gemara's discussion, let -'
note that every nazir must make an offering of an olah, chatas ;-'shelamim when he completes his term of nezirus (Leuiticus 6:14). Ii::.
nazir becomes tamei dt:rrng his term, he offers an olah, chatas ,:.'oshamlapon beingpurifred of lhetumah, and then, when he eventul
completes his nezirus in taharah, he offers the standard olah, ch.;:,
and, shelamim. As is the case with all such offerings, the olah is bur:,. in its entirety on the Altar whereas the meat of the chatas and shela-. *
is eaten. According to the Gemara's explanation of Shimon the R:.:

ix

rl

gb3

KOL

KINIIYT,I

CHAPTER

ONE

NEDARIM

rt

It

The Gemara returns to the original question as to the

nah's authorship and offers an alternative explanation:

Mish-

NlFrx

nlylrNl

or, if you prefer, say:

ll
Ir
Ir

Ir

Iu
i

li

[{
!1{

l
1

NOTES

I
I

it is clear that he refrained from eating not only of the crated." Thus, we may ask: Why did Shimon the Righteous single
ashaminthetumah offering,butalso of thechatas inthatoffering. theashamasanofferingheavoided?
Furthermore, he must also have avoided eating of lhe chatas and The answer is that since Shimon the Righteous' practice applied
shelamimin the final, taharah, offeingof anazir whose term had been to the nazir who had become tamei, he specified the offering th.:
teous' reasoning,

,-

extended due to tumah

and

since in the event th

nazir tegtelled his

vow

it was considered "annulled," all ofthese offerings were "unconse-

unique to this nazir - iz. the asham, which is never offered by a 1 - -who remains tahor (Rosh; see also Rashba).

il
,i
,l
I
,i
,i

il
ll
itl

l
I

{
u

rl
T

KOL
''T'JIilr

KINTIYEI

CHAPTER

rlI

NFrn ItrS$ - You can even say that the Mishnah

with R'Yehudah. As for the question that the Mishnah

accords

in the Baraisa that it is virtuous to vow and pay -

apparently referring even to nedarimtr

respond: r!-l tBN r!

rJtit! - When did R'Yehudah say that vowing and paying is

-'irtuous? il?lfl
- He said it regarding a nedaaah vow.

tlf+ -

Regarding anedcr vow, he did not say this.

- But

[the Baraisa] teaches: irlEt irID

rE$ Nb

offerings, tErnb xlrx

:tu -

R'
Yehudah says: BETTER TIrAN THIs oNE AND THAT oNr (i.e. one who
loes not vow and one who vows and does not pay) Erli2ht t':lt: IS ONE WHO VOWS ANEDEft AND FULFILLS it. Clearly, he considers

- ?

The Gemara answers:

or!'iZnt :1.i: rtn - Teach the Baraisa as stating: "Better than this
one and that one is one who vows a nedaaah and fulfills it."t2r
The Gemara analyzes B'Yehudah's opinion:
xh rl'il NIP txD - What is unique about making a neder,
ieading R'Yehudah to say that one should not do so? rnx NhSr:l
nlBp rlrf n1 - It is obviously the concern that perhaps one will
come to a transgression through it.t:l rpl tl?lf - Anedaaah
should also not be made, n!B;r t1$ rnN xnbr:r
because of the
concern that perhaps one
;+ll4l

will come to a transgression through

.,

ilJtilr r!1 - R' Yehudah follows his own reasoning,

rpl,tl - for [R' Yehudah] said: The procedure for making a
nedauah is as follows: tlllyl inpl! N',ln trJ$ - A man brings

his lamb to the Courtyard while yet unconsecrated, nur:rl:D!

iitlfi'itu: il'tby lll.iEl - and upon arriving there, he consecrates it,
leans his hands upon it, and slaughters it.tsl When a nedq.uah is
made in this manner, there is no concern that one might come to
a transgression through it, and it is therefore considered virtuous.l6l

The Gemara asks further:

This fits well regarding the nedauah of

but regarding the

say?t?l

R'Yehudah follows his own reasoning.rsr

For
it
in a Baraisa: "thtx nJtilr rl'l - R'
was
taught
YEHLIDAH SAYS: nNgr-l ]r"!P xrl,l? IIt!-<nB rril trr:iu,N']n trr'rrDE
_ TIIE EARLY PIOUS ONES WOULD LONG TO BRING A CHATAS

to

Nrir ttr? urtli?il ItNu, tlb

BECAUSETHEHOLYONE,BLESSEDISHE,
DOES NOT BRING ABOUT A TRANSGRESSION THROUGH THEM.Ig]
Iturly ttil nn wrrAT woul,D rHEY Do? ntttlt l!):u!)rr I1121y

trti7pb

THEvwour,D RrsE AND MAKE ABENEvoLENT (nedauah)

vow oF NEZIRUS rO TIrE OMNTPRESENT, nNlpE lr"!i? lr:!nn!P I'IP

trlir4l - so THAT THEY SHOULD BE OBLTGATED to bring A CHATAS
OFFEBING TO TIIE OMNIPRESENT upon the completion of their
term of nezirus.Illt In these circumstances, the vow of nezirus is
considered virtuous.
Having cited the Baraisa containing R'Yehudah's opinion, the
Gemara quotes the remainder of the Baraisa, which contains a
dissent:

rntxJtlFrIrl'! R'sHrMoNsAYs: rrlf?rrlf NS ITHEEARLY

PIOUS ONESI DID NOT MAKE VOWS OF NEZIRUS.,1L) Nh,(
RATHER, they acted as follows: nltu xr:nb ily'ir,l
oNE wuo
wrsHED To BRING AN ol"arr oFFDRING, which may be done volun-

Nrrh!

f::llln -

woULDDoNATE anolahAsANEDAVA.U
Drn?U - One who wished to bring ASHELTLMTM
oFFERING, which may also be done voluntarily, Nrf,itt l:IIIn WOULD DONATE a shelamim AS A NEDAVAII AND BRING it. itJtIr
il4nl t)rn ily+"t!-(l - One who wished Lobring aroota oFFERTNG
AND ITS FOUR TypES OF BREADll2l Ntlht ::I|I1E _ WOULD
DONATE thEM AS A NEDAYAII AND BRING thEM.Uil NIIIIIT b?{
lf:llnil xb - sur runy (the pious ones) DrD Nor rAKE BENEvoLENrvows oFNEZIRUS, Irxu'tn tN'li?! xbt rt! - soTHATTHEY
AND BRrNG

irrn1'rg?

t11]f

iltilr !!'t -

N:lItT

tarily,

The Gemara responds:

nl)?ri?l i]?'JI nlrn

nttrlll

The Gemara answers:

iltn1lt??

trilI.Ir bY NIPN Xr:B

evennedaimvirtuous!

rNB

OFFERING, which they were unable

The Gemara objects:

'|lDizil!

lOat

NEDARIM

nedaaah of nczirus what is there to

:onsiders nedauos but notnedarim virtuous, whereas R'Yehudah

.tates

ONE

it.

SHOULDNOTBECALLED"STNNERS."

lp|flq -

FORTTTSSTATED:

il

GARDING THE SOT]L,IT4]

ri

NOTES
1. See 9a notes 19 and 20.
2. Thus, R' Yehudah

actually expounds the verse (Better that you not uow

thanthatyouuow and. notpay ) in the manner ofR'Meir."Betterthatyou

not uow" mearts that not vowing is better even than vowing and paying
(see 9a note 18). However, R'Yehudah understands this as referring
only to ned.er vows, for the verse says 'fir-r-N, ttpll flu, literally, Better
that you not uow a neder! Vowing and paying nedauos is considered
virtuous - and is in fact most favorable of all. By contrast, R' Meir (in
this version ofthe Gemara) understands the verse as discouraging even
nedauah vows (.Boz). [Scripture sometimes uses the word tt: as
referring even to a nedauah (see Eosh at end of 9b and Ritua).1
3. See 9b note 3.

11

9. They desired to make every type of offering but were unable to offer
the chatas since they never committed a transgression, even inadvertently (Eosfr).
10. As explained previously (9b note 24), when a nazir concludes his
nezirus term he brings a set of offerings including a chaios.

11, As R' Shimon shall explain

considered virtuous.

later, the vow of nezirus is never

12, A todah (thanksgiving) offering consists of an animal accompanied

by forty breads in four categories. Ten ofthe breads are leavened, and of

the remaining thirty - which are unleavened - ten are prepared as

matzah loaves, ten as matzah wafers, and ten as scalded-matzah loaves
(Ran, from Leuiticus 7:L2-L3; see further, L2anote 23).

5. I.e. he follows the method of Hillel the Elder, described above (9b

13. A tod,ah offering is obligatory in various circumstances (see Rashi,

Leuiticus 7:12), bttt may also be offered voluntarily (Rambam, HiL

notes 6-8).

M aas eh H aKorbano s 9 :5).

4. See 9b note 4.

it

this type of nedauah,

lest one thereby become accustomed to vowing and begin to make
ordinxy nedauos or evennedarim (Ritua; see also Tosafos to Chullin 2b
6. R' Meir, however, feels

):x n-:;

cf.

is better to avoid even

Ramban ard, Rashba there).

7. How can a vow of nezirus ever be considered virtuous, when the

it at some time during his

concern always exists that one might violate

nezirus term (Tosafos; see 9b note 10).

8. Earlier, when discussing R' Meir's opinion, the Gemara responded to

the parallel question by citing the case ofthe viri,;.totx nazir described by

Shimon the Righteous. Here, in discussing R'Yehudah's opinion, the

Gemara responds in a similar vein, but cites a case described by R'
Yehudah himself (?osolos ).

l,t

,,ur+,:-5y Ng! rp$n Dby rFlJ,,

- AND nr lthe Kohen] saarz
PRovrDE nru [the nazirl ,ArowuaeNr FoR HAyING SINNED RE-

t4. Numbers 6:11. This verse is stated in the context of the nazir who
became tamei drrirg his term. However, as the Gemara shall explain
below, R' Shimon understands it as referring even to a nazir who
completed his term without becoming tamei. The reason Scripture
considers him a "sinner" will be explained shortly.
[The Baraisa does not mention asham offeings. These offerings fall
into two distinct categories - the asham of certainty [,xT nq$], which

was brought to atone for specific known transgressions, and,the asham

ofdoubt
trvl5], which was brought to atone for possible inadvertent
transgressions. There is a Tannaic opinion that an asham of doubt may
be brought voluntarily
i.e. to atone for the possibility ofsin even when

iil
l

lr
1il

l!

[\r!

there is no particular reason to believe that a sin occurred. Another

opinion holds that the asharn of doubt is brought only by one who

1[

ll
il
It
t"

KOL KINUYEI

CHAPTER

-\ related statement is cited:

''t$ .tE!,r - Abaye said: iTrlyir lty,tq, - Shimon the Righ:eous ltybrl, ''Ill - and R' shimon itiz,l ..llvb!-( r!'!1 - and
R' Elazar HaKappar II nE!-( iruru I?t! - are all uni{ied in
,:aring the same approach - rlir Nt 'in rtllJ - that anazir is
:

-nsidered a sinner.tlsl
-{baye elaborates:

"tnu' rt'll

irrryi-1 ltynu - That Shimon the Righteous and

R' Shimon take this approach Il,?X! Nir - is evident from
:hat which we stated above.n6r tll+ .tpptl rlv?$ tl:l -{-nd that R' Elazar HaKappar Berabinr shares this approach
.: evident, NIIDI - for it was taught in a Baraisa: rl'l

rl'll rPizir rlv?t( - R'ELAZAR HAKAPPAR BERABT sAys:

uplt-l-b! NpE rp$n t$y r5ll,, - Scripture states concerning
'.'te nazir: AND HD SHALL AT1NE FoR HIM FoR HAvING S/NNED
.nrx

REGARDING THE

souL.tta) ill

NV[r vrEr

]ic

lr*! rlr -

Now, REGARD-

pERwrrAT sour, DrD IrE srN?tlel l!!t_l ID lhyy 'tyryu, N?N

it refers to the fact TTIAT HE DISTRESSED HIMSELF by
:bstaining FRoM wrNE and in doing so sinned against his own

FORCE,
r9q]llzol

R' Elazar HaKappar continues:

rr:rn1 5p

trrr::r Nbill - Now, do these MATTERS Nor

lend

ONT,

lOaz

NEDARIM

themselves to e,xetvAcHoMER, as follows? iy'rv xbu, i1t irEr

I!![ In xh". t]:Yy - IF EvEN rHIS orvs, i.e. the nazir, who abstained
from only one thing, Nu'in NJ;?I - Is oALLED A sINNER,
rtT bln 'iEcp tt YDil - then oNE wrro DIsrREssEs HIMSELF by
abstaining FRoM EvERylrHING, i,e. one who fasts, npl nrl$ ty
ilnl1 - How MUCH MoRE so should he be considered a sinner!

INt)l
Npln

that

ntlyI;

|<l?)
furt',il bI
FRoM rrERE we derive
wHoEvER OBSERVES AN unnecessary FAST IS CALLED A

SINNER.I2l]

R' Shimon and R' Elazar HaKappar interpreted the verse ond
he shall atone for hint for hauing sinned, regarding the soul as
referring to every nazir, The Gemara questions this interpretation:

rrn!

Nhu '1rll!

N.1i7

lrlill - But this verse is written in the

- ?-

context of a nqzir who became tq.mei!122)

The Gemara answers:

xtil Np[I iiltlr:I trrrrh - It is written there because fthe nazir

who became tameil compounded his sin. Besides distressing
himself through abstinence, he additionally allowed himself to
become tanxei.L2s) However, it actually means to confer the
pejorative "sinner" even on anazir who did not become tamei.t2a)

ll{;isfingt7- The first Mishnah of the tractate taught that equivalent

terms fot nedarim, charamim, oaths and

declarations of nezirus are effective like genuine terms. The Mishnah now elaborates:
Dlli, nlti, EltiT (I"rtrnb) iptN,l - If one says "honarn," "honach" or "honas," llrpb prquS tbx rrt - these are
equivalent terms for horban (an offering).t25r q'ln l.ln ir'l[ - If one says "cheireh," "cheirech" or "cheiref,"
NOTES

lefinitely committed an act that involved a possible transgression - e.g. becoming tamei he caused his term of nezirus to be extended (Tosafos,
:here were forbidden fats (cheileu) and permitted fats (shurnan)before Rosh).
rim, and he ate one of them but does not know which (see Mishnah 24.Thisinterpretationisbasedonasuperfluityintheverse. Ifitreferred
Kereisos 25a). According to the former opinion, the early pious ones were only to the nazir who became tamei, the verse could have stated merely
able to bring volttntary asham offerings. According to the latter opinion, ma nn shall atone
for him for hauing sinned, li.e. by becoming tameii.
however, this was not possible. For further discussion ofthis matter, see Why did it add regarding the soul? This implies that besides the sin of
Tur Orach Chairn l:6-7 with Bels Yosef and, Magen Auraharz 1:11. See tumah the nazir committed another sin lagainst his own soul] inasmuch
also Shahnei Ned,arirn and,Eino,yirn LaMishpat atlengfih, and,Teshuuos as he deprived himself of wine. We thus learn that every nazir is con,,sinn
Chasam Sofer, Yoreh Deah $2L9,)
sidered a
ef ' (Ran; see Rashi to Taanis llat xun u!: irpx: ,:r ir,,'r).
15.

Thisdoesnotmeanthatallofthemholdtheidenticalopinion.Aswe

anazir tobe a sinner only

if he becomes tamei, because his term is then extended beyond the
length for which he originally intended and he regrets his vow. R'
Shimon and R'Elazar HaKappar, however, consider every nazir asinner, as shall be explained. Abaye means merely that all three Tannaim
share the approach that the title "sinner" applies to some category of
nazir (Ran; cf . Meiri; see Teshuuos Rashbal:A\|andMaharatz Chayes).
16. Shimon the Righteous stated that except in one case he never
partookof theofferings of anazir whohadbeentamei, andR'shimon
stated that "the early pious ones" did not make vows of n ezirusbecause
have learned, Shimon the Righteous considers

they did not wish to be called

"sinners."

According to our Gemara's conclusion, R' Yehudah concedes to R'

Meir that it is best not to make nedarim at a7l; he condones only nedauos

llr

see
thatareofferedimmediatelyupontheirconsecration(Rif,Ramban;
note 2 and note 6). However, the Rishonim note that this is apparently
contradicted by the verse (Genesis 28:20) which quotes our forefather
Jacob as makin g aneder when fleeing Esav and traveling to the house of
Lavanl Tosafos (Chullin 2b ):x n,,r) explain, based on the Midrash
(Bereishis Rabbah 70:1), that it is proper to make nedarim in times of
crisis,andthatiswhyJacobmadetheneder atthattime. Rituanotes
that for the same reason we find the nation of Israel making aneder
while preparing for war with the Canaanites (Numbers 2L:2). Ritua adds
that this is the basis for the widespread custom of making charitable
pledges (which are somewhat like nedaim; see 7a note 7) in the syna-

rrl,

,,Berabi" was a title bestowed on a scholar who was preeminent in

gogue on Rosh Hashanah andYom Kippur. Since these are Days ofJudghis generation (Rashi, Chullin I1b rnrx rf-.If, Nltnir,t i.r,,'.r).
ment, they are analogous to times of crisis. As for the practice in some
lg, Numbers 6:ll.
1e. rArthough in ts simpre meaning the verse refers to a
yho
17.

\az! as i:##Hii[ij:#rjJrJi?]l'Jj:ifl:"T,};]l;'Hll$.iTj]:Tj;3
oii., *uy orruising the necessary funds for charity. Furthermore, since
referring to every nazir, for the reason that shall be explained below.l
i*rt... are appoinied to colleci ihe pledged funds immediately, there is
20. Thus, we see that R' Elazar HaKappar considers ev-ery naz_ir a no concern that people will violate [heiipledges (Ritua; see also yoreh
sinner. [It is noteworthy that the Gemara in Nazir 3a understands R' Deah Z0J.4-5 *rtt Eirn i yosef; cf. Rarn|anind Rashba, Chullin 2a).
Elazar HaKappar's opinion differently than our Gemara.l
It is certainly virtuous to maire vows in order to avoid indulgence that
21. This refers to one who has no particular reason to fast, or who may lead to sin. As the Mishnah states explicitly (Auos 3:13): rlp o,'t1)
became tamei throttgh a corpse, R' Elazar HaKappar understands.it

undertakes a fast out of anger or frustration. He sins by distressing

himself needlessly. One who undertakes a fast as a means of repenting
for his sins, however, is considered highly virtuous, if he feels incapable
of attaining true repentance without the fast (Meiri, Shitah Mehubetzes;
cf. Tosafos to Taanis ibid.; see further, Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim
l7l:lwithMagen Auraharn, andsee Einayin'r LaMishpat).
22. [Understood simply, the verse means that the nazir requires atonement for not having been more scrupulous in avoidingtumah.l
23. Ran. Alternatively, he compounded his sin of abstinence, since by

lll

ntur't!!,

Ned,arim are a hedge

for abstinence (Rambam, Hil. Nedarim

it is permissible to make

a vow in order to spur oneself

to fulfilt a mitzvah that he might otherwise neglect, as we learned above,
8a (see Yoreh Deoh ibid. $6-7).

13:23). Similarly,

28. As explained on 2a (see note 2 there), abasic ned.er consists of the

,.This item shall be (like) a horban to me.,, The Mishnah
declaration,
teaches that one may substitute honam, konach or konas for korban.
IRegarding the possible necessity for the conjunction "like, " see 13a, end
of note 21.1