שֶׁהַנְּזִירוּת חָל עַל הַנְּזִירוּת.

that a term of naziriteship takes effect upon a previously accepted term of naziriteship. Consequently, if one became a nazirite and then again declared: I am hereby a nazirite, then when his term of naziriteship is completed he must observe a second term of naziriteship.

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה כִּלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם, וְ״נָזִיר לְהַזִּיר״ דָּרֵישׁ לַעֲשׂוֹת יְדוֹת נְזִירוּת כִּנְזִירוּת, שֶׁהַנְּזִירוּת חָל עַל הַנְּזִירוּת מְנָא לֵיהּ? הָנִיחָא אִי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין נְזִירוּת חָל עַל נְזִירוּת, אֶלָּא אִי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר נְזִירוּת חָל עַל נְזִירוּת מְנָא לֵיהּ?

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that the Torah spoke in the language of men and therefore nothing can be derived from the phrase “to utter a vow [ lindor neder ],” and he expounds the phrase “the vow of a nazirite to consecrate himself [ nazir lehazir ]” to render intimations of nazirite vows like nazirite vows, from where does he derive that a term of naziriteship takes effect upon a previously accepted term of naziriteship? This works out well if he holds in accordance with the one who says that a term of naziriteship does not take effect upon a previously accepted term of naziriteship; however, if he holds in accordance with the one who says that a term of naziriteship takes effect upon a previously accepted term of naziriteship, from where does he derive this halakha ?

נֵימָא קְרָא ״לִיזּוֹר״ מַאי ״לְהַזִּיר״ – שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינָּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.

The Gemara answers: Let the verse say: To consecrate himself [ lizor ]. What is the reason the verse expressed this same idea with the word lehazir ? Learn two halakhot from this: That intimations of nazirite vows are considered nazirite vows, and that a term of naziriteship takes effect upon a previously accepted term of naziriteship.

בְּמַעַרְבָא אָמְרִי: אִית תַּנָּא דְּמַפֵּיק לֵיהּ לְיָדוֹת מִן ״לִנְדֹּר נֶדֶר״, וְאִית תַּנָּא דְּמַפֵּיק לֵיהּ מִן ״כְּכָל הַיֹּצֵא מִפִּיו יַעֲשֶׂה״.

The Gemara adds: In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say: There is a tanna who derives intimations of vows from the phrase “to utter a vow [ lindor neder ],” as he holds that the Torah did not speak in the language of men. And conversely, there is a tanna who holds that the Torah spoke in the language of men, and therefore derives this halakha of intimations from the verse: “He shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth” (Numbers 30:3). The inclusive formulation of this verse comes to include intimations of vows.

אָמַר מָר: וּמַה נְּדָרִים עוֹבֵר בְּ״בַּל יָחֵל״ וּ״בַּל תְּאַחֵר״. בִּשְׁלָמָא ״בַּל יָחֵל״ דִּנְדָרִים מַשְׁכְּחַתְּ לָהּ, כְּגוֹן דְּאָמַר ״כִּכָּר זוֹ אוֹכַל״ וְלֹא אֲכָלָהּ – עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל יָחֵל דְּבָרוֹ״,

§ The Master said in the baraita cited earlier: Just as with regard to vows, one who breaks his vow transgresses the prohibition: He shall not profane, and one who does not fulfill his vow in time transgresses the prohibition: You shall not delay, so too, the same is true with regard to nazirite vows. The Gemara asks: Granted, you can find a case where one transgresses the prohibition: He shall not profane, in the case of vows. For example, where one said: I will eat this loaf, and he does not eat it, he violates the prohibition: He shall not profane his word.

אֶלָּא ״בַּל יָחֵל״ דִּנְזִירוּת – הֵיכִי מַשְׁכְּחַתְּ לָהּ? כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר״ – הֲוָה לֵיהּ נָזִיר. אָכַל – קָם לֵיהּ בְּ״בַּל יֹאכַל״. שָׁתָה – קָם לֵיהּ בְּ״בַּל יִשְׁתֶּה״! אֲמַר רָבָא: לַעֲבוֹר עָלָיו בִּשְׁנַיִם.

However, with regard to transgressing the prohibition: He shall not profane, in the case of nazirite vows, how can you find these circumstances? Once he said: I am hereby a nazirite, he is a nazirite as of that moment. If he then ate grapes, he is liable for violating the prohibition: He shall not eat (see Numbers 6:4), and if he drank wine, he is liable for violating the prohibition: He shall not drink (see Numbers 6:3). When would he ever become liable for violating the prohibition against profanation? Rava said: The prohibition against profanation serves to render him liable for violating two prohibitions.

״בַּל תְּאַחֵר״ דִּנְזִירוּת הֵיכִי מַשְׁכְּחַתְּ לָהּ? כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר״ – הָוֵי לֵיהּ נָזִיר. אָכַל – קָם לֵיהּ בְּ״בַּל יֹאכַל״! בְּאוֹמֵר ״לִכְשֶׁאֶרְצֶה אֱהֵא נָזִיר״. וְאִי אָמַר ״כְּשֶׁאֶרְצֶה״ – לֵיכָּא ״בַּל תְּאַחֵר״!

The Gemara further asks: With regard to violating the prohibition: You shall not delay, in the case of nazirite vows, how can you find these circumstances? Once he said: I am hereby a nazirite, he is a nazirite as of that moment. If he then ate grapes, he is liable for violating the prohibition: He shall not eat. When would he ever become liable for violating the prohibition against delaying? The Gemara answers: It is when he specifically says: I will become a nazirite when I wish, in which case he does not become a nazirite immediately. The Gemara asks: But if he said: When I wish, there is no prohibition of: You shall not delay, as there is no particular time by which he must become a nazirite.

אָמַר רָבָא: כְּגוֹן דְּאָמַר ״לֹא אֶיפָּטֵר מִן הָעוֹלָם עַד שֶׁאֱהֵא נָזִיר״, דְּמִן הַהִיא שָׁעְתָּא הֲוָה לֵיהּ נָזִיר. מִידֵּי דַּהֲוָה הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ ״הֲרֵי זוֹ גִּיטֵּיךְ שָׁעָה אַחַת קוֹדֶם מִיתָתִי״ – אֲסוּרָה לֶאֱכוֹל בִּתְרוּמָה מִיָּד. אַלְמָא אָמְרִינַן: כָּל שָׁעְתָּא וְשָׁעְתָּא דִּילְמָא מָיֵית, הָכָא נַמִי – לְאַלְתַּר הָוֵי נָזִיר, דְּאָמְרִינַן: דִּילְמָא הָשְׁתָּא מָיֵית.

Rava said: It is, for example, when he said: I will not depart the world until I become a nazirite, as he is a nazirite from that time because he does not know when he will depart this world. This is just as it is in the case of a man who says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce that will take effect one hour before my death. If he is a priest and she is the daughter of a non-priest, she is prohibited from partaking of teruma immediately. Apparently, we say every moment that perhaps he is now dead and she is therefore already divorced. Here, too, with regard to naziriteship, he is a nazirite immediately, as we say that perhaps he is now about to die.