First impressions on Nazir
Catching up a bit...
I’m a bit behind on articles I need to write and review, so I haven’t posted in a few days. Aside from my discussion in the previous post,
here are a few thoughts I had when learning through the first few pages, this time around daf yomi. I apologize for the somewhat scattered presentation of these musings.
1] I found the justifications for various shorthands (e.g. “I will be”) and alternative phrasings (e.g. “Behold I will mesalsel”) somewhat surprising. Especially the Biblical prooftexts, to show it refers to hair or that it doesn’t. Isn’t nazir a subset of neder, and don’t we conclude in Nedarim (though a matter of dispute) that we follow leshon benei adam, human speech, rather than leshon Torah? So why cite a verse (Nazir 3a) about mesalsel to attack the meaning of curling hair?
[Indeed, a separate surprise is that the verse is used to attack, when the proof is this:
״הֲרֵינִי מְסַלְסֵל״ — מִמַּאי דְּהָדֵין סִלְסוּל שַׂעְרָא? כְּדַאֲמַרָה לֵיהּ הָהִיא אַמְּתָא דְבֵי רַבִּי לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא: עַד מָתַי אַתָּה מְסַלְסֵל בִּשְׂעָרְךָ?
The mishna rules that one who says: I am hereby a hair curler is a nazirite. The Gemara asks: From where is it known that this term is referring to the curling [silsul] of hair by allowing it to grow? The Gemara answers: As that maidservant of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to a certain man who grew his hair long: Until when will you curl [mesalsel] your hair? This shows that mesalsel means to grow hair.
and that proof is drawn from Megillah 18a, where the meaning of the very verse is clarified by this usage by Rabbi’s maidservant.
לָא הֲווֹ יָדְעִי רַבָּנַן מַאי ״סַלְסְלֶהָ וּתְרוֹמְמֶךָּ״. שַׁמְעוּהָ לְאַמְּתָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי דַּהֲווֹת אָמְרָה לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה מְהַפֵּךְ בְּמַזְיֵיהּ, אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: עַד מָתַי אַתָּה מְסַלְסֵל בִּשְׂעָרְךָ?
Likewise, the Sages did not know what is meant by salseleha in the verse: “Get wisdom…salseleha and it will exalt you” (Proverbs 4:7–8). One day they heard the maidservant in Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s house talking to a certain man who was twirling his hair, saying to him: How long will you go on twirling [mesalsel] your hair? And from this they understood that the verse is saying: Turn wisdom around and around, and it will exalt you.
It is the same twirling!]
I think the idea is that the wording is still ambiguous, because it could refer to X or Y. Not that it necessarily follows Biblical language, but the Biblical example of human speech allows for ambiguity in referring to different targets, so how can we say it must refer to hair?!
I would have answered that, just like “Gosh Darn It”, people use imprecation language for vows and nezirut. They mess up their language (nazik, naziach), say part of the famous phrasing (“I will be”), or use synonyms or allusions. But while it potentially could refer to any commitment (“I will be in taanit, I will be a talmid chacham, I will beautify myself in the mitzvah of sukkah”) that is not the referent anyone would dream of. They are being cagey and playful, dancing around the famous, known vow of nezirut, the one mentioned explicitly by name in the Torah. The very point of such nicknames is that it isn’t open-ended, but that people would guess it. So as long as there is one plausibly avenue towards nezirut, that is obviously what he intended. That isn’t what the gemara says, so.
2] I’m not sure how many times Shmuel said what he said, that he is grabbed onto his hair when stating the ambiguous statement. It could be every time, or it could be the Talmudic Narrator transferring it.
On 2b, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שֶׁתָּפוּס בִּשְׂעָרוֹ, וְאָמַר ״אֶנָּאֶה״ sounds like an original statement of Shmuel.
Similarly, for הָאוֹמֵר ״אֱהֵא״ — הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר. דִּלְמָא ״אֱהֵא בְּתַעֲנִית״ קָאָמַר? אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה נָזִיר עוֹבֵר לְפָנָיו, this seems like an original statement.
Meanwhile, later on ״הֲרֵינִי כָּזֶה״ — נְהִי נָמֵי דְּתָפוּס בִּשְׂעָרוֹ, ״הֲרֵינִי כָּזֶה״ — לָא אָמַר! אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה נָזִיר עוֹבֵר לְפָנָיו. The first assumption, holding onto his hair, is anonymous, not attributed to Shmuel, and it that a nazir passes by. Regarding אֵימָא תּוֹרָה, דִּכְתִיב ״סַלְסְלֶהָ וּתְרוֹמְמֶךָּ״? אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הָכָא נָמֵי שֶׁתָּפוּס בִּשְׂעָרוֹ, is this actually Shmuel saying this, or an application of Shmuel’s teaching earlier? And אֵימָא מֵיזַן עַנְיֵי, כְּדִכְתִיב: ״וַיְכַלְכֵּל יוֹסֵף אֶת אָבִיו וְאֶת אֶחָיו״. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הָכָא נָמֵי שֶׁתָּפוּס בִּשְׂעָרוֹ, again, is this Shmuel or an application?
I’d expect an introduction of כדשמואל, “like Shmuel, for Shmuel said”, but the Talmudic language in Nedarim and Nazir differs from elsewhere in Shas.
In the parallel Yerushalmi, אמר ר' יוסי בר חנינה בתפוש בשערו והוא אמר הריני כזה, so they have someone apply the hair-grabbing to the word kazeh, matching the hava amina in Bavli and contradicting the position attributed to Shmuel, that nazirs were passing before him. Rabbi Yossi bar Chanina was a talmid-chaver of Rabbi Yochanan. Also in Yerushalmi, אהא שמעון בר בא בשם ר' יוחנן בשראה נזירין עוברין, we have the nazirs passing before him when he says “I will be”, from a student citing Rabbi Yochanan, matching Shmuel in Bavli.
We don’t find similar Yerushalmi statements about other examples in the Mishnah, such as that when saying אֶנָּאֶה, he is holding onto his hair, or that “Behold I will be mesalsel”, he is holding onto his hair.
3] Regardless, when I encountered שֶׁתָּפוּס בִּשְׂעָרוֹ, וְאָמַר ״אֶנָּאֶה״, I was surprised that this was taken as physically grabbing his hair. Instead, I immediately gravitated to halachic language such as תפוס לשון ראשון, that if someone makes a declaration and the first seemingly contradicts the second half, we conceptually seize upon the first (or alternatively, the last) as the primary and only intent.
Applied to hareini kazeh, the question is the referent of “like this”. It could be to “this” person, a nazir passing before him, as Shmuel in Bavli, or it could be referring to his, or it could be his ever-present hair, like Rabbi Yochanan in Yerushalmi. Zeh always refers to something you can point to, so needs to be present.
As for this language of tofes meaning referent, I kept reading in our very own masechta of Nazir and saw this language repeatedly employed. E.g. on Nazir 3a, רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: מַתְפֵּיס אִינִישׁ בְּמִידֵּי דִּסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ, Rabbi Meir holds that a person associates the object of his vow with something that is juxtaposed to it in a verse. And so too the Rabanan and Rabbi Yochanan ad loc. Or Nazir 22b, כִּי מַתְפֵּיס אִינִישׁ בְּעִיקָּרָא מַתְפֵּיס אוֹ דִּלְמָא בִּצְנָנָא מַתְפֵּיס, When a person associates himself with a prohibition by means of another object, does he associate himself with it by its fundamental state? Or Nazir 10b, פָּרָה מִי קָא מַתְפֵּיס בָּהּ מִידֵּי, But does he take a vow and extend any prohibition to the cow?
I don’t know that such a reading of tofes is possible to work out, but the possibility should be mentioned.
4] The dispute about how often Avshalom cut his hair on Nazir 5a was also surprising, unless it meant that those like him with nezir olam, how often they may cut their hair, once the weight gets too heavy for them. The pasuk states (II Shmuel 14:26):
וּֽבְגַלְּחוֹ֮ אֶת־רֹאשׁוֹ֒ וְֽ֠הָיָ֠ה מִקֵּ֨ץ יָמִ֤ים ׀ לַיָּמִים֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יְגַלֵּ֔חַ כִּי־כָבֵ֥ד עָלָ֖יו וְגִלְּח֑וֹ וְשָׁקַל֙ אֶת־שְׂעַ֣ר רֹאשׁ֔וֹ מָאתַ֥יִם שְׁקָלִ֖ים בְּאֶ֥בֶן הַמֶּֽלֶךְ׃
When he cut his hair—he had to have it cut every year, for it grew too heavy for him—the hair of his head weighed two hundred shekels by the royal weight.
Literally, it means at the end of some period of days, not even a year, but the days at which it grew too heavy for him. Even suggesting this means every year is difficult, for would hair grown in a year really be two hundred shekels by the royal weight? All the more so for Rabbi Yossi, who said it was from each Friday. If you say that that is the measure of kaved alav, OK. But saying Avshalom grew 200 units in a week is surprising and supernatural.
Indeed, four perakim later in II Shmuel 18:9:
יִּקָּרֵא֙ אַבְשָׁל֔וֹם לִפְנֵ֖י עַבְדֵ֣י דָוִ֑ד וְאַבְשָׁל֞וֹם רֹכֵ֣ב עַל־הַפֶּ֗רֶד וַיָּבֹ֣א הַפֶּ֡רֶד תַּ֣חַת שׂ֩וֹבֶךְ֩ הָאֵלָ֨ה הַגְּדוֹלָ֜ה וַיֶּחֱזַ֧ק רֹאשׁ֣וֹ בָאֵלָ֗ה וַיֻּתַּן֙ בֵּ֤ין הַשָּׁמַ֙יִם֙ וּבֵ֣ין הָאָ֔רֶץ וְהַפֶּ֥רֶד אֲשֶׁר־תַּחְתָּ֖יו עָבָֽר׃
Absalom encountered some of David’s followers. Absalom was riding on a mule, and as the mule passed under the tangled branches of a great terebinth, his hair got caught in the terebinth; he was held between heaven and earth as the mule under him kept going.
and a brayta in Sotah 10b explains this as being caught by his hair, since he was so proud of his hair. The typical short hair that princes wear, cutting from week to week, is not something that can get caught. Even a year’s growth wouldn’t necessarily help me arrive at my mental image of Avshalom with extremely long tresses, caught by his hair in a tree.
5] Finally, we can end with a textual variant, regarding Shimshon on Nazir 4b:
וּמְנָלַן דְּאִיטַּמִּי לְמֵתִים? אִילֵּימָא מִדִּכְתִיב ״בִּלְחִי הַחֲמוֹר הִכֵּיתִי אֶלֶף אִישׁ״ — דִּילְמָא גָּרוֹיֵי גָּרִי בְּהוּ וְלָא נְגַע בְּהוּ!
The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that Samson became impure from corpses? If we say it is from the fact that it is written: “And Samson said: With the jawbone of an ass, I smote a thousand men” (Judges 15:16), perhaps he thrust the jawbone at them but did not touch them, and he remained pure.
Pseudo-Rashi has a resh instead of a daled:
דילמא גרדויי גרד להו - מחתך חתך בהן אבל הוא גופיה לא נגע בהו:
where it means that he merely cut them, but didn’t himself touch them. Meanwhile, Tosafot has with just the resh:
גרויי גרי - לשון חצים כלומר מרחוק זורק בהם והרגם:
Such that he threw the jawbone at them from a distance to kill them. He’d presumably have to repeatedly pick up that single jawbone, unless it boomeranged back to him. Unless the intent is (as per the translation) thrusting while still holding on to the jawbone. Now, our printed texts have just the resh, but the resh / resh daled distinction is a dispute between Munich 95 and Vatican 110.
Munich 95 has just the resh, גרויי גרי בהו:
Vatican 110 has גרדויי גרד בהו, according to Hachi Garsinan’s transription.
Those daleds look a lot like reshes, but I suppose the daled’s leg is a bit thicker.