Nazir 39 – The direction of hair growth

If a nazir shaves his head – or bandits grab him and shave it – he must wait at least thirty more days before concluding his term. This is because the standard (and the minimal) term is thirty days, and when he shaves his hair, it must have at least thirty days of growth.

A question: is the hair growing from the root or the end? Why would we want to know? – If the hair is growing from its root, and the bandits gave him a haircut but left seven days' worth of hair growth on his head – does he now wait for thirty days still, or only for twenty-three? For example, if the hair grows from the root, then that hair he consecrated has grown down by now and was cut by the bandits, so he will have to wait another thirty days. But if the hair grows from the end down, then he will only need twenty-three days. So?

Let's look at a nit (louse). It always remains at the root – so it must be that the hair grows from the end! – Not so fast! Maybe the nit is alive and keeps crawling to the root. Well, let's look at a dead nit – it is always found at the end of the hair, so it must grow from the root! – No, because perhaps when the nit is dead and cannot resist gravity, it keeps sliding down as the hair grows.

The final proof comes from the beards of old men who die them black. We see that the whitish color of gray hair appears at the root – so it is proven that it grows from the root!

Art: Portrait of a bearded old man by Rembrandt Van Rijn

Nazir 33 – Five answers to one problem

Six people were walking together on the road, and they saw someone coming toward them. The first said, "I am a nazir if this is John." The second one said, "I am nazir if this is not John." The third one said to the first two - "I am a nazir if one of you is now a nazir." The fourth one said, "I am a nazir if one of you two is not a nazir." The fifth one said, "I am a nazir if both of you are nazirim." And the sixth said – talking to all five – "I am a nazir that you are all nazirim." What is their status?

1) Beit Shammai says that they are all nazirim. They all wanted to become nazirim and added their qualifications as a by-the-way, but not essential to their vow.

2) Beit Hillel said that only those with fulfilled conditions become nazirim. This is the most straightforward logic.

3) Rabbi Tarfon says that nobody is a nazir. A conditional vow does not make a nazir; it must be clear and direct.

If now the person in question suddenly turned back, and they never found out who he was, what is their status then?

4) Rabbi Yehudah says that no one becomes a nazir because a person never accepts to be a nazir out of doubt.

5) Rabbi Shimon says that he has a real problem: he is a nazir out of doubt, but cannot get out of this because only a real nazir is allowed to shave his head, so if he is not a nazir, he cannot complete his vow. Therefore, he should declare: "If I am a real nazir – well and good, but if not, I am now become one out of my free will."

Art: Still Life With Wine, Bottles, And A Cigar by Christian Schmidt

Nazir 32 – They knew when the Temple would be destroyed

If one became a nazir but kept drinking wine – hoping, perhaps, that his vow would be annulled – but a Sage affirmed his vow – he continues his period of being a nazir and finishes it. However, the Sages imposed upon him a penalty: he cannot even ask about annulment until he behaves appropriately for as many days as he previously violated by drinking wine. Suppose a Sage annulled his vow of being a nazir, and he already separated an animal for the concluding sacrifices. In that case, we are back to the argument between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai. Beit Hillel simply allow the animal to go back to its flock.

If one thought that he had an animal to conclude his nazir's vow and declared himself a nazir, but then discovered that the animal was stolen – if it was stolen before the vow, then he is not a nazir. If it was stolen after his vow, then he was a valid nazir for the time the animal was still in his possession, so his vow is valid.

Nachum HaMede made this mistake: he annulled all nazir vows for people who made them close to the Temple destruction. The Sages corrected him: if they vowed before the destruction, their vows were, in fact, valid. But they knew the Second Temple would be destroyed 490 (seventy weeks ) years after the first one, so how could they vow in earnest?! – They still hoped their period of being a nazir would finish while the Temple stood.

Art: In The Wine Cellar by Jan David Col

Nazir 31 – Mistakes

What if one said, "The black ox, which will emerge out of my house first, shall be a sacrifice," – and instead, a white ox comes out first? Will the white ox become a sacrifice?

Beit Shammai says that, indeed, it will. Why? Because Beit Shammai claims that even done by mistake, consecrations are still valid. One cannot undo a consecration to the Temple if done by mistake. Another explanation is that he really made no mistake. He planned for the first ox to become sacred. To emphasize, he specified that it would be black (as this was more valuable to him). But even if a white one comes out first – it will become sacred, and the color does not matter.

Which reason is the real one? Do his mistakes become consecrations, or do we simply reinterpret his words to make sense? The Talmud tries to derive the answer from the rule above, but to every proof, it finds an exception disproving it. Thus, the question remains unresolved – in this particular discussion.

Beit Hillel states that his statement must agree precisely with the intended effect, and his consecration becomes valid only then.

Art: Cart With Red And White Ox by Vincent Van Gogh

Nazir 30 – Father's money

If a father was a nazir, separated some money to bring the concluding sacrifices, and died, his son can declare, “I am a nazir, and I will use my father's money for MY concluding sacrifices.” Usually, you cannot re-use someone else's sacrifice, but you can in this case.

This rule was taught by God to Moses on Sinai and has not been recorded in the Torah. But what is its logic? Is it an exception to all rules, or does it work as an inheritance? And if you say that a daughter would not share in the inheritance anyway, what if the man has only one daughter? Can she become a nazir (nazirah) and use her father's money? The rule above tells us that only a son can do so.

And yet we can ask another question. If there are many sons, do they equally share in this money? If one of the sons is a firstborn, does he get the double portion? And furthermore, is this rule valid only for a regular nazir? What about a lifetime nazir or a Samson-like nazir? – To all these questions, the Sages did not find an answer.

Art: Maria Riezler-White, granddaughter of the artist Max Liebermann

Nazir 29 – Father and son, a nazir

We said that a father can pronounce his son a nazir. This can only be true if the son is not grown up because the father would have no rights over his son's religious observances after that. Only if the son is young and the father feels that this would be a proper measure for his son's education could such a law be possible.

And yet, who mandated it? Was it the Torah that made a notable exception to its usual rules? Or did the Sages decide to give this additional power to the father? If it is the Torah, then we will not question, for example, why it gave this power to the father but not to the mother. This is indeed the view of Rabbi Yochanan. However, Resh Lakish ascribes the rule to the Sages. Now Resh Lakish will have to explain every detail of this enactment. First, he answers that only the father, not the mother, is responsible for the son's observances.

Furthermore, why did the Sages establish that relatives can annul this father's decree? – Because if the relatives teach the boy to negate the father's command, it is hardly conducive to proper education. But how did the Sages allow to shave off the hair on the head? Isn't it prohibited to shave off the peyot? Resh Lakish will tell you that shaving the whole head is permitted. And yet, how can the Sages permit an animal sacrifice of a nazir if it is not needed!? – Resh Lakish will answer that it is actually permitted to bring unnecessary sacrifices

The father of (future) Rabbi Chanina pronounced his son Chanina a nazir, and they took the boy to Rabban Gamliel to examine if he was still a child. But Chanina said, “Please do not trouble yourself. If I am still a minor, I do what my father says. And if I am a grownup, then I declare myself a nazir.”

Rabban Gamliel kissed Chanina on the forehead and predicted that he would be a great Sages, which soon came to pass.

Art: Haircut day By Hugh Carter

Nazir 28 – A wife must drink with her husband

If a husband hears of his wife's vow, he can annul it – but only on the day he hears it. If he heard of his wife becoming a nazir (or "nazirah") on the last day of her vow, he can annul it then. However, if the blood of one of the required sacrifices was already thrown on the Altar, he cannot annul it any longer – because from then on, she is not deprived of anything and can drink wine and go to the cemetery. His rights extend only to her self-deprivation, but not further.

This is true, however, if she concluded her promised time of being a nazirah correctly. Suppose she accidentally touched a dead body and is bringing sacrifices because of that. In that case, he can still annul the vow so that she does not continue her period of abstinence because he can demand that she drink wine with him.

Rabbi Meir says that even if she did everything right, he can stop it at the last moment – because he can claim, "I don't want my wife to shave off her hair!" (which every nazir finally does). And the first teacher, what did he think? – That she can wear a wig. And Rabbi Meir? – That the husband won't like the wig.

The father can declare his son a nazir. However, his son or any relative can stop that and free the son from the obligation. Another unusual law (known only to those who study unwritten Torah): if the father was a nazir and prepared money for his concluding sacrifices but died, the son can use that money for his own nazir sacrifice. This is not true for any other type of sacrifice or money – they cannot be re-used by the son.

Art: Young Woman with a Wine Glass by Octave Tassaert

Nazir 27 – What to do with the remaining money?

If a woman became a nazir (more correctly, nezirah), fulfilled her promised term, and prepared the animal sacrifices required at the end – and then her husband annulled her vow of a nazir – the sacrifices are, of course, not needed. What should she do with them?

If the animal is from the husband's flock, it can go back to graze. The husband implicitly gives permission to his wife to use the animals – but only if she indeed has to bring a sacrifice. If, on the other hand, she used her own animals, then there is no way out, and the sin offering will have to remain in this state until it dies. What about the money she separated for the libations? – It should be dropped into the communal collection box in the Temple.

What happens if she separates metal pieces (ingots)? Such pieces were used for trading for animals and then used for metal works. The same questions would arise if one separated the ingots for his being a nazir but did not specify how they should be used and then died. Since these ingots require appraisal and cannot be readily sold, they remain in their unresolved state and should be destroyed to avoid confusion. That is what the Sages say. However, Rav Nachman disagreed. One can easily barter the ingots for animals and then sell the animals. Therefore, they are equivalent to cash. And just as cash should be deposited into communal boxes for voluntary offerings, so too the ingots should be disposed of in the same manner.

Art: Guiding The Flock by Francesco Paolo Michetti

Nazir 19 – Deriving different things from the same word

A nazir is forbidden to visit a cemetery. Suppose he accidentally comes in contact with a dead body and thus becomes ritually impure. In that case, he needs to purify himself, shave all his hair, bring sacrifices, and restart being a nazir. Say he became impure again the night before he could bring the sacrifices. Then later, he will need to bring two sets of sacrifices. Why? – The Torah said, "He shall sanctify his head on that day and restart being a nazir" – even if he did not bring his sacrifices yet. Thus the new impurity happens to a fresh new nazir and causes another obligation.

This is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. It results in bringing the most sacrifices. The Sages also pay attention to the extra words of "on that day," but it teaches them that that he does not restart his being a nazir until he brings the guilt offering. Thus, right now, he has not started another term yet and just needs to purify himself. This is all one long period of impurity, and later he brings only one set of sacrifices.

This seems to cover all possibilities. But Rabbi Ishmael says something else: if he did not bring all sacrifices, including the burnt offering, he is still not a nazir again. Until then, he only brings one set of sacrifices when he finishes being a nazir.

Practical law? – Follow what the Sages have said since they are the majority.

Art: View of Pere Lachaise Cemetery by Pierre Courvoisier

Nazir 14 – Nazir because of the birth of a son

If one says, “I am becoming a nazir,” and “When a son is born to me, I will become a nazir,” he becomes a nazir and begins counting his thirty days. If a son is born to him before he completes his own period of nazir (which he did not expect), then he completes his own, and after that, he becomes nazir for the birth of his son.

However, if he says, “I will be a nazir when I have a son born to me, and I am also a nazir now,” – then he indeed becomes a nazir now. But when a son is born to him, he sets aside his own time of nazir behavior and starts the one which he promised for the birth of his son. He completes that and then resumes his own counting of nazir's days. This is because he fully expected that his son would be born to him before his own nazir period was completed.

A question comes up: at the end of his son's nazir period, he is supposed to shave his head, like he does at the end of every nazir period, but he should not do it – because he is now back to his own nazir – and as such he is not allowed to touch his hair. Here there are two points of view. The Talmud then discussed combinations of various nazir periods, overlapping and taken for various lengths.

Art: The Return of the Prodigal Son by Rembrandt Van Rijn

Nazir 9 – Nazir who did not like figs

If one says, "I am a nazir, so I cannot eat figs," – this is a strange statement. Being a nazir means specifically abstaining from grapes, nothing else. However, Beit Shammai says that he does become a nazir nevertheless. How so? People usually do not make nonsensical statements. This one probably wanted to become a nazir but added that he meant figs. He could have made a mistake, thinking there was such a thing. Or, he really could have changed his mind and was preparing a loophole for himself. But the problem is that Beit Shammai does not accept the idea of changing one's mind regarding Temple-related things. So either way, he becomes a nazir.

What about Beit Hillel? They say that the man is not a nazir. He made a statement, that is true, but it was not a valid legal statement about becoming a nazir. So it did not take effect at all.

Art: Melon And Bowl Of Figs by Gustave Caillebotte