Nedarim 38

הא מכירין אסורין

but if they were familiar [therewith], it would be binding?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it would still be doubtful to which he referred. ');">¹</span>

אמר רבא גבי כרי קסבר כל שספיקו חמור מוודאי לא מעייל נפשיה לספיקא דאילו גבי נזיר ודאי מגלח ומביא קרבן ונאכל על ספיקו לא מצי מגלח

— Raba answered: In the case of the stack he holds that since doubt is graver than certainty, one will not put himself into that doubtful position. For if he is a certain <i>nazir</i>, he may shave<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the expiration of his term of neziroth. ');">²</span>

אמר ליה רב הונא בר יהודה לרבא אמר הריני נזיר עולם מאי

and offer his sacrifice, which may be eaten, but if he is a doubtful <i>nazir</i>, he may never shave.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because this must follow his sacrifices. But being a doubtful nazir, he cannot offer any at all, lest he be not one, in which case the animal, having been wrongfully designated as a nazir's sacrifice, is hullin (q.v. Glos.), which may not be brought to the Temple Court. ');">³</span>

אמר ליה נזיר עולם נמי ספיקו חמור מודאי דאילו ודאי הכביד שערו מיקל בתער ומביא שלוש בהמות ואילו ספיקו לא

R. Huna b. Judah asked Raba; But what if he said, 'Behold! I will be a lifelong nazir'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Here the doubt cannot he more stringent than the certainty, as the term never expires, and since R. Judah draws no distinction in neziroth, his ruling must apply even to such. ');">⁴</span>

אמר הריני נזיר שמשון מאי

He replied; Even then, a lifelong <i>nazir</i>, his doubt is graver than his certainty; for a certain <i>nazir</i> lightens the burden of his hair and offers three animals,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Nazir, 4. ');">⁵</span>

אמר ליה נזיר שמשון לא תניא אמר ליה והאמר רב אדא בר אהבה תניא נזיר שמשון אמר ליה אי תניא תניא

but not so a doubtful <i>nazir</i>. But what if he said, 'Behold! I will be a Samson nazirite'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. ibid. In which case his hair may never be cut. ');">⁶</span>

רב אשי אמר ההיא רבי יהודה משום רבי טרפון היא דתניא רבי יהודה משום רבי טרפון אומר אין אחד מהם נזיר לפי שלא ניתנה נזירות אלא להפלאה

— He replied: A Samson nazirite was not included.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The term nazir may include a lifelong nazir, but not a Samson nazir, which would require special mention. ');">⁷</span>

אי הכי מאי איריא שנגנב או שאבד אלא להודיעך כוחו דרבי שמעון דאף על גב דנגנב או שאבד קסבר מעייל איניש נפשיה לספיקא

Said he to him: But R. Adda b. Ahabah said: A Samson Nazirite was taught?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [I.e., that R. Judah declares that he is not a nazir even in the case of a Samson nazirite vow (Ran).] ');">⁸</span>

רבי יהודה אומר סתם תרומה ביהודה כו' הא מכירין אסורין אלמא ספיקא לחומרא

He replied; If it was taught, it was taught.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I cannot answer it. ');">⁹</span>

אימא סיפא סתם חרמים ביהודה מותרין ובגליל אסורין שאין אנשי הגליל מכירין את חרמי הכהנים הא מכירין מותרין אלמא ספיקא לקולא

R. Ashi said: That [the Mishnah in Toharoth] gives the view of R. Judah quoting R. Tarfon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not his own view. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר אביי סיפא רבי אלעזר ברבי צדוק היא דתניא רבי יהודה אומר סתם תרומה ביהודה אסורה רבי אלעזר ברבי צדוק אומר סתם חרמים בגליל אסורין

For it was taught: R. Judah said on the authority of R. Tarfon: Neither is a <i>nazir</i>, because neziroth must be expressed with certainty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refers to the following case: If two persons were walking together, and one said: 'I will be a nazir, if the man who is coming towards us is one'; whereupon the other said: 'I will be a nazir if he is not', the vow is binding upon neither, because of the element of doubt in each when it was made, v. Naz. 34a. ');">¹¹</span> If so, why particularly if the stack was stolen or destroyed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if the stack is intact and contains the stipulated measure, the vow of neziruth is invalid, since when it was taken it was unknown. ');">¹²</span> — To shew how far-reaching is R. Simeon's view, that even if it was stolen or destroyed, he still maintains that one places himself in a doubtful position. R. JUDAH SAID: AN UNSPECIFIED REFERENCE TO <i>TERUMAH</i> IN JUDEA etc. But if they were familiar therewith, it would be binding, which shews that the doubt is ruled stringently. Then consider the last clause: UNQUALIFIED ALLUSIONS TO HARA MIM IN JUDEA ARE NOT BINDING BUT IN GALILEE THEY ARE, BECAUSE THE GALILEANS ARE UNFAMILIAR WITH PRIESTLY HARAMIM. But if they were familiar, they would be invalid: thus in doubt we are lenient? — Abaye answered: The last clause is the view of R. Eleazar b. R. Zadok. For it was taught: R. Judah said: An unspecified [reference to] <i>terumah</i> in Judah is binding. R. Eleazar son of R. Zadok said: unspecified [references to] haramim in Galilee are binding.