We are beginning with the Mishnah in the Talmud Bavli. When a person accepts upon himself the status of a Nazirite, he is forbidden to eat grapes, the pits of grapes, or the grape husks. The pits are called grape seeds, and the husk is the outer shell of the grape. He is also forbidden to cut his hair and to become impure through contact with the dead.
The normal way to accept Nazirite status is simply to say, “I am a Nazirite.” Once a person says that, everything is included; it is a complete package. The Mishnah is discussing a different case: a person accepted upon himself only part of the Nazirite restrictions. He intended to become a full Nazirite, but when he made his acceptance, he mentioned only one of the specific restrictions.
For example, he said, “I am a Nazirite with regard to grape pits.” Alternatively, he said, “I am a Nazirite with regard to grape husks,” or, “I am a Nazirite with regard to cutting my hair,” or, “I am a Nazirite with regard to becoming impure.” The question is whether mentioning only one of these details brings the entire Nazirite status upon him.
The ruling of the Mishnah is that he is a Nazirite, and all the details of Nazirite status apply to him. Even though he mentioned only one of the restrictions, he is forbidden in all of them.
Tosafot, at the bottom of the page, points out that there is a type of Nazirite status that we will learn about later called Samson Nazirite status. Samson had a special type of Nazirite status with its own laws and ramifications. Samson was permitted to become impure, whereas an ordinary Nazirite is not. Therefore, when the Mishnah says that all the details of Nazirite status apply to him, it is referring to an ordinary Nazirite, not to one who accepted Samson Nazirite status. An ordinary Nazirite may not become impure, unlike someone with Samson Nazirite status.
The Gemara now wants to know who is the author of the Mishnah, meaning which opinion maintains that a person may accept one particular aspect of Nazirite status and thereby become a full Nazirite. It cannot be the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, because we learned in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says a person must accept upon himself all the conditions of Nazirite status. He cannot accept only part of it.
It should be emphasized that everyone agrees that if a person simply says, “I am a Nazirite,” that statement is all-inclusive. The disagreement begins when he starts specifying individual restrictions. If he says, “I am a Nazirite with regard to grape pits,” Rabbi Shimon says that this is not sufficient. He must either make the general declaration or accept all the details: grape pits, grape husks, hair-cutting, and impurity. According to Rabbi Shimon, it is all or nothing; a person cannot accept only one part of Nazirite status.
The Rabbis, however, say that even if a person accepts only one of the details, he becomes a full-fledged Nazirite. The Gemara now seeks the sources for Rabbi Shimon’s position and for the position of the Rabbis.
What is Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning? The verse says, “From anything made from the grapevine, from the grape seeds to the grape husk.” Since the verse is discussing a person who accepts Nazirite status, why does it need to specify all these components? It could simply have said “wine,” and once a person accepts a prohibition against wine, everything associated with it would be included.
Rabbi Shimon understands the verse as teaching that a person must accept all the conditions of Nazirite status. If he accepts only one of them, the others are not included. That is Rabbi Shimon’s position.
Tosafot asks a related question. If Rabbi Shimon derives from the laws of wine that a person must accept all the details of Nazirite status, how do we know that he must also accept upon himself the prohibition against cutting his hair and the prohibition against becoming impure?
Tosafot explains that the principle is established through the laws of wine. Once we know that a person must accept all the relevant details in the area of wine, that becomes the model for the entire Nazirite status. From there, we learn that he must also accept the prohibition against cutting his hair and the prohibition against becoming impure. This is the general principle from which the other details are derived.
That is Rabbi Shimon’s interpretation of the verse, “from anything made from the grapevine.” What is the reasoning of the Rabbis, who say that the entire Nazirite status takes effect even when a person mentions only one detail?
They derive it from the verse, “From wine and intoxicating drink he shall abstain.” Even if he accepts upon himself only wine, without saying anything else, he becomes a Nazirite. The mention of wine alone is sufficient to establish the complete Nazirite status.
Tosafot notes that the wording of the verse indicates that even one of these declarations is enough. The verse has already told us that the prohibition applies to everything made from the grapevine. Why, then, does it need to mention wine separately? It teaches that even if a person is being specific and says only “wine,” that alone is sufficient. Therefore, the author of the Mishnah cannot be Rabbi Shimon.
The Gemara now asks what Rabbi Shimon does with the verse used by the Rabbis, “From wine and intoxicating drink he shall abstain,” and what the Rabbis do with the verse used by Rabbi Shimon, “from anything made from the grapevine.” The Gemara must account for all the verses.
What does Rabbi Shimon do with the verse, “From wine and intoxicating drink he shall abstain”? He uses it to teach that when a person accepts Nazirite status, he is forbidden not only to drink ordinary wine but also to drink wine associated with a mitzvah.
One might have thought that wine used for a mitzvah would be excluded. The verse therefore says, “From wine and intoxicating drink he shall abstain,” indicating that all wine is included, even wine used for a mitzvah.
What is an example of wine used for a mitzvah? The Gemara suggests the wine used for Kiddush and Havdalah. One might have thought that a person who accepted Nazirite status could nevertheless drink the wine of Kiddush or Havdalah, since that wine is being consumed for a religious purpose. The verse teaches that he may not drink even that wine.
The Gemara then raises a question. The obligation to use wine for Havdalah is rabbinic. In fact, the requirement to use wine for Kiddush on Friday night is also rabbinic. According to Torah law, one must sanctify the Sabbath with words, but the Rabbis instituted the use of wine. Why, then, would we think that a Nazirite is permitted to drink this wine? Since Nazirite status is a Torah prohibition, it should obviously override a rabbinic requirement to drink wine.
The Gemara presents the question rhetorically: “Is he obligated and sworn from Mount Sinai?” In other words, is he obligated by Torah law to drink this wine? If he were obligated by the Torah to drink it, then there would be a real novelty in teaching that Nazirite status overrides that obligation. But he is not obligated by the Torah to drink the wine; the requirement is rabbinic. It should therefore be obvious that the Nazirite prohibition applies to it.
This is how Tosafot understands the question. Tosafot cites the reading of Rabbeinu Tam, who explains that the question is: Why should the wine of Kiddush or Havdalah be forbidden? It is not wine that a person is obligated to drink by Torah law. The requirement to sanctify the Sabbath with wine is rabbinic. Therefore, why would a verse be necessary to tell us that the Nazirite may not drink it?
Rabbeinu Tam therefore proposes another example of wine used for a mitzvah. Suppose a person swore, “I swear that I will drink wine.” Once he makes that oath, it becomes a mitzvah for him to drink wine, because he is obligated to fulfill his oath. The obligation created by the oath is a mitzvah that applies to him personally.
The novelty of the verse would then be the following: Even though he has an obligation to drink wine because of his oath, once he accepts Nazirite status, the Nazirite prohibition overrides the oath. He may no longer drink the wine. Thus, the verse teaches that Nazirite status overrides not only ordinary wine, but even wine that has become a mitzvah for him because of an oath.
The Gemara then asks: If that is the case, the Rabbis also need the verse to teach this novelty. How, then, can the Rabbis use the verse to teach that mentioning wine alone establishes the complete Nazirite status?
The Gemara answers that the two words in the verse serve two purposes. The word “wine” teaches that both ordinary wine and wine associated with a mitzvah are included. The word “intoxicating drink” teaches that a person does not have to accept every individual detail upon himself; even a partial acceptance establishes the complete Nazirite status.
What does Rabbi Shimon do with the extra word “intoxicating drink”? He uses it to establish a comparison between Nazirite status and the prohibition against a priest drinking wine when entering the Temple. The Torah uses the word “intoxicating drink” both with regard to a Nazirite and with regard to priests serving in the Temple.
Rabbi Shimon derives that just as the prohibition for a Nazirite applies specifically to wine, and not to every beverage that can intoxicate a person, so too the prohibition for a priest entering the Temple applies specifically to wine, and not to every intoxicating beverage. The word “intoxicating drink” refers to wine that causes intoxication.
There is, however, another opinion. A baraita teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says that if a priest ate dried figs from a certain place, or drank honey or milk, and then entered the Temple, he is liable. These foods and beverages can intoxicate a person to some degree. According to Rabbi Yehuda, the prohibition applies to any beverage or food that causes intoxication, not only to wine.
Rabbi Shimon disagrees. Just as a Nazirite is prohibited specifically from wine, he says, the priest is prohibited specifically from wine when entering the Temple. Thus, according to Rabbi Shimon, the word “intoxicating drink” teaches that the prohibition applies to wine that intoxicates, but not to other intoxicating substances.
With this interpretation, all the verses are accounted for. The Rabbis use “wine” to include both ordinary wine and wine associated with a mitzvah, and they use “intoxicating drink” to teach that mentioning one detail is enough to establish the complete Nazirite status. Rabbi Shimon uses “wine” to include wine associated with a mitzvah and uses “intoxicating drink” to establish the comparison between Nazirite status and the prohibition of a priest drinking wine before entering the Temple.
The Gemara offers another possibility regarding Rabbi Shimon’s use of the word “intoxicating drink.” Rabbi Shimon maintains the general principle that one prohibition does not take effect on top of another prohibition. If an item is already forbidden to a person and he then imposes another prohibition on that same item, the second prohibition does not take effect.
We learned in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says that if a person ate an animal carcass on Yom Kippur, he is exempt from the punishment associated with eating on Yom Kippur. Eating on Yom Kippur is ordinarily punishable, but the carcass was already forbidden before Yom Kippur. Since the item was already prohibited, the Yom Kippur prohibition does not take effect on top of it.
By contrast, if a person ate an otherwise permitted item on Yom Kippur, he is liable, because the prohibition of Yom Kippur is what makes the item forbidden. In the case of the carcass, however, the carcass itself was already forbidden before Yom Kippur.
What, then, does the word “intoxicating drink” teach according to Rabbi Shimon? It teaches that Nazirite status is an exception to this principle. Suppose a person swore, “I swear that I will not drink wine,” and then accepted Nazirite status. Now there are two prohibitions applying to the same wine: the oath and the Nazirite status.
According to the ordinary principle that one prohibition does not take effect on top of another, we might have thought that if he drinks the wine, he violates only the oath, because the wine was already forbidden to him. The word “intoxicating drink” teaches that Nazirite status is different. Both prohibitions take effect, and if he drinks the wine, he receives one punishment for violating the oath and another for violating the Nazirite prohibition.
Tosafot explains this explicitly. Whether the person first swore not to drink wine and then accepted Nazirite status, or first accepted Nazirite status and then swore not to drink wine, when he drinks the wine he violates both prohibitions. The extra word “intoxicating drink” teaches this special principle regarding Nazirite status.
The Gemara now returns to the verse used by Rabbi Shimon, “from anything made from the grapevine.” What do the Rabbis do with that verse? The Rabbis do not use it to teach that a person must accept all the details of Nazirite status, because they maintain that mentioning one detail is sufficient.
The Rabbis use the verse to teach the law of combining different prohibited substances. To be liable for violating Nazirite status, a person generally must consume the minimum measure, an olive-sized portion. The novelty is that he does not have to consume an olive-sized portion of one particular substance.
For example, he may eat a small amount of grape husk and a small amount of grape seeds, with the total amount equaling an olive-sized portion. The different prohibited substances may be combined to complete the required measure. The verse, “from anything made from the grapevine,” teaches that all of the prohibited grape products can combine to reach the required measure.
Rabbi Shimon does not accept this principle of combining them. A baraita teaches that Rabbi Shimon says that with regard to punishments for eating prohibited substances, even a minute amount is sufficient. He does not require an olive-sized portion.
Tosafot explains that Rabbi Shimon is not merely saying that different substances do not combine. He maintains that, with regard to the prohibition itself, even a tiny amount is sufficient for liability. The requirement of an olive-sized portion applies to bringing a sacrifice, not necessarily to receiving lashes.
For example, if a person accidentally ate forbidden fat, he would need to bring a sin offering only if he consumed an olive-sized portion. If he ate less than that, he does not bring the sacrifice. But according to Rabbi Shimon, with regard to lashes, even a small amount is sufficient. The olive-sized measure is relevant to the sacrifice.
This distinction does not apply in the same way to Nazirite status. A Nazirite who drinks even a small amount of wine violates his Nazirite status and receives lashes. There is no sacrifice for every individual violation of the Nazirite prohibition. The sacrifices associated with a Nazirite are brought when the period of Nazirite status is completed, or in the case of impurity, under the relevant laws of impurity.
Accordingly, all the verses have now been explained according to both Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis.
The next Mishnah discusses Samson Nazirite status, a special type of Nazirite status with its own laws. Samson’s status is described in the Book of Judges. His Nazirite status was announced by an angel before his birth, when his mother was pregnant with him. He was to be a Nazirite from birth.
Ordinary Nazirite status lasts for a defined period, with thirty days being the minimum period, and includes the ordinary restrictions. A person may also accept upon himself Samson Nazirite status, but the Mishnah says that he must be very specific in doing so.
It is not enough for him to say, “I am a Nazirite like Samson.” He must identify which Samson he means by saying, “Samson, the son of Manoah, the husband of Delilah.” He must then add a specific detail from Samson’s life. He can say, “Like the one who uprooted the gates of Gaza,” referring to the time Samson uprooted the gates of the city. Alternatively, he can say, “Like the one whose eyes were gouged out by the Philistines.”
Thus, he must identify the person and mention one of the distinctive events of his life. He can say, “Samson, son of Manoah, husband of Delilah, the one who uprooted the gates of Gaza,” or, “Samson, son of Manoah, husband of Delilah, the one whose eyes were gouged out by the Philistines.”
The Gemara asks why such detailed wording is necessary. Why can the person not simply say, “I am a Nazirite like Samson”?
The Gemara answers that if he said only, “I am a Nazirite like Samson,” one might think he was referring to any Samson. The additional identification establishes that he means Samson the warrior. If he said only “Samson,” one might not know which Samson he meant.
If he said only “Samson, son of Manoah,” one might think that there was another person named Samson, son of Manoah. Therefore, he must add that this was the Samson who was the husband of Delilah. Even then, perhaps there was another Samson, son of Manoah, who was married to Delilah. The final identifying detail removes all doubt: he must refer to the one who uprooted the gates of Gaza or the one whose eyes were gouged out by the Philistines.
Tosafot points out that it is not necessary to mention all three details. The person must provide two identifying details about Samson and one event from his life. For example, he can say, “Samson, son of Manoah, who uprooted the gates of Gaza,” or, “Samson, son of Manoah, whose eyes were gouged out by the Philistines.” Mentioning one of those events is sufficient.
The next Mishnah immediately introduces another subject: permanent Nazirite status. A person can accept upon himself permanent Nazirite status, and there is also Samson Nazirite status. The Mishnah compares the two.
If a person accepts permanent Nazirite status and his hair becomes heavy, he may lighten it by cutting it with a razor. When he cuts his hair, he must bring three animals as sacrifices. Even though he is permitted to cut his hair because it has become burdensome, the cutting marks the interruption of that period of Nazirite status, and sacrifices are required.
In addition, if a permanent Nazirite becomes impure, he brings the impurity sacrifice, just as an ordinary Nazirite does. He brings the birds required in the case of Nazirite impurity.
Samson Nazirite status is different. If the person’s hair becomes heavy, he may not cut it at all, regardless of how burdensome it becomes. If he becomes impure, he does not bring the impurity sacrifice. This is the distinction between permanent Nazirite status and Samson Nazirite status.
The Gemara asks who discussed permanent Nazirite status in the Mishnah. The Gemara answers that some words are missing from the Mishnah and explains that the Mishnah means as follows: If a person says, “I am a permanent Nazirite,” he becomes a permanent Nazirite. The Mishnah then compares the laws of a permanent Nazirite with those of a person who accepts Samson Nazirite status.
A permanent Nazirite may cut his hair when it becomes burdensome, and when he cuts it, he brings three sacrifices. If he becomes impure, he brings the impurity sacrifice. A person with Samson Nazirite status may not cut his hair, even when it becomes burdensome, and he does not bring an impurity sacrifice if he becomes impure.
The Gemara analyzes the wording of the Mishnah. It sounds as though a person with Samson Nazirite status is not permitted to become impure, but if he does become impure, he does not bring a sacrifice. That would mean that impurity is still prohibited for him, even though there is no sacrifice for violating it.
Who is the author of that position? Rabbi Yehuda teaches that Samson himself was regularly involved in situations involving impurity. He was a warrior, and his battles brought him into contact with the dead. According to Rabbi Yehuda, there is no prohibition at all for someone with Samson Nazirite status to become impure.
Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the entire concept. He says that a person cannot accept Samson Nazirite status upon himself. Samson did not accept his Nazirite status through a verbal declaration. His status was established from birth, before he could make any acceptance. Therefore, a person cannot create that status for himself through words.
Tosafot explains the underlying principle. Ordinarily, when a person makes a vow, he must make the vow with reference to an item that can itself become prohibited through a vow. For example, a person can say, “I forbid this bread to myself like a consecrated offering.” A consecrated offering is an item that can become holy through a verbal declaration. It was initially an ordinary animal, and its owner designated it as an offering.
Samson, however, was not made a Nazirite through a verbal acceptance. His status was established automatically, from before his birth. Therefore, according to Rabbi Shimon, Samson cannot serve as the object of a verbal vow in the same way that a consecrated offering can. A vow cannot be based on something that was holy automatically and was never made holy through a vow.
The Gemara therefore asks again who the author of the Mishnah is. The Mishnah appears to maintain that a person can verbally accept Samson Nazirite status and that he is permitted to become impure, although he does not bring a sacrifice for doing so.
The Gemara answers that the author is Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda agrees that, like Samson himself, a person with Samson Nazirite status may become impure. The Mishnah says “if he becomes impure” only because it uses the same wording that it used previously with regard to a permanent Nazirite. In the case of a permanent Nazirite, the phrase means that he became impure despite the prohibition. In the case of Samson Nazirite status, the language is used for consistency, but there is no actual prohibition against becoming impure.
The Gemara then attempts to connect the disagreement between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon to another disagreement among the Tannaim. We know that a firstborn male animal is automatically holy. It must be brought to the Temple and given to a priest.
Suppose a person makes a vow and says, “This loaf of bread is forbidden to me like a firstborn animal.” Rabbi Yaakov says that the loaf becomes forbidden through the vow. Rabbi Yosef says that the vow does not take effect.
What is the basis of their disagreement? Perhaps Rabbi Yehuda, who says that a person can accept Samson Nazirite status, follows Rabbi Yaakov. Rabbi Yaakov maintains that when a person makes a vow, he does not need to base it on an item that can itself become prohibited through a vow. A firstborn animal becomes holy automatically, not through a vow, yet a person can still say that his bread is like a firstborn animal and thereby prohibit it.
According to this approach, Samson Nazirite status is also something that came about automatically from birth. Therefore, if Rabbi Yaakov allows a person to make a vow based on the status of a firstborn animal, Rabbi Yehuda can allow a person to accept Samson Nazirite status, even though Samson’s status was not created through a verbal vow.
Rabbi Shimon, who does not allow a person to accept Samson Nazirite status, would then follow Rabbi Yosef. Rabbi Yosef maintains that a vow must be based on something that can become prohibited through a vow. Since a firstborn animal becomes holy automatically, it cannot serve as the basis for a vow. Similarly, Samson Nazirite status, which was established automatically, cannot be created through a verbal acceptance.
The Gemara rejects this proof. Everyone may agree that when a person makes a vow and wants to compare one item to another, the item used as the comparison must generally be something that can become prohibited through a vow. Rabbi Yaakov allows the vow regarding a firstborn animal only because there is a special verse that creates an exception.
The verse says, “For the Lord your God,” and the extra wording is understood to teach that even a firstborn animal, which becomes holy automatically, can be used as the basis for a vow. According to Rabbi Yaakov, the firstborn animal is an exception to the general rule.
Rabbi Yosef does not interpret the verse as referring to a firstborn animal. He uses the extra wording to teach that a person may base a vow on a sin offering or a guilt offering. For example, a person can say, “This loaf of bread is like a sin offering,” or, “This loaf is like a guilt offering.”
Why does Rabbi Yosef choose a sin offering and a guilt offering rather than a firstborn animal? A voluntary offering is an obvious example of something that can become holy through a vow. A person independently decides to bring it and designates the animal. A sin offering and a guilt offering are different, because a person becomes obligated to bring them as a result of a sin. Nevertheless, he must still designate the animal as a sin offering or a guilt offering. They therefore retain an element of something that becomes holy through a declaration.
A firstborn animal, by contrast, becomes holy as soon as it emerges from the womb. Even if the owner does nothing, it is still holy. Rabbi Yosef therefore says that it is not an item that becomes holy through a vow, and it cannot ordinarily be used as the basis for one.
Rabbi Yaakov responds that even a firstborn animal must be designated. Although it becomes holy automatically, there is still a mitzvah to consecrate it and identify it as the firstborn offering. Since a designation is still required, Rabbi Yaakov considers it sufficiently similar to an item that becomes holy through a vow.
Rabbi Yosef answers that there is a mitzvah to designate the firstborn animal, but the animal is holy even if the owner fails to do so. Therefore, it is not truly an item whose holiness depends on a vow.
The attempted comparison therefore does not establish anything about Samson Nazirite status. Rabbi Yaakov and Rabbi Yosef may disagree only about the special case of a firstborn animal, while both may agree that a person cannot accept Samson Nazirite status through a verbal declaration.
The Gemara then asks: If there is an extra verse concerning a firstborn animal, and that verse teaches that even an automatically holy item may serve as the basis for a vow, perhaps the same principle should apply to Nazirite status. Perhaps the verse concerning Nazirite status can also teach that a person may accept Samson Nazirite status, even though Samson’s status was automatic.
The Gemara answers that the wording concerning Nazirite status is needed for another purpose. It teaches that when a person accepts Nazirite status, he must do so for the sake of Heaven. His acceptance must be a sincere religious commitment.
The Gemara illustrates this principle with a story told by Shimon HaTzadik. He said that during his entire life he never ate from the guilt offering of a Nazirite who had become impure, except in one case.
Let us review the situation. A person accepts Nazirite status for a period, perhaps thirty days. During that period, he becomes impure. His initial days of Nazirite status are void, and he must begin the period again. He must also bring the sacrifices required for Nazirite impurity, including a guilt offering.
Shimon HaTzadik was the High Priest, and he said that he ordinarily would not eat from the guilt offering of a Nazirite who had become impure. He was concerned that the person regretted his original acceptance of Nazirite status. Why had the person accepted it in the first place? Perhaps he had committed a sin, or perhaps he had experienced a moment of inspiration and wanted to improve himself.
The person might have been willing to observe Nazirite status for thirty days. But once he became impure and learned that he had to begin all over again, he might regret the entire decision. When he brought the guilt offering, perhaps it was being brought without sincere intent, because he no longer wanted the Nazirite status he had originally accepted.
There was one exception: a young man who came to Shimon HaTzadik from the southern part of the Land of Israel. He was handsome, with beautiful eyes and attractive features, and he had long, curly hair.
Shimon HaTzadik asked him why he had decided to destroy such beautiful hair by becoming a Nazirite. At the end of his Nazirite period, he would have to cut it off. What had led him to accept this status?
The young man answered that he had been a shepherd for his father in his city. One day he went to draw water from a well. As he drew the water, he saw his reflection in it and realized how handsome he was.
At that moment, his evil inclination began to influence him very strongly. He said that he wanted to drive the evil inclination out of the world. He addressed himself and said, in effect, “You empty person, are you becoming arrogant because of something that does not belong to you? In the end, you will be with the worms and maggots. Why are you allowing yourself to be drawn after this world?”
He gave himself moral instruction and reminded himself that this world does not ultimately belong to him. He then said that he would cut off his hair for the sake of Heaven, so that he would not be drawn after the evil inclination. That was why he accepted Nazirite status.
When Shimon HaTzadik heard this, he stood up, kissed the young man on his head, and said to him, “My son, may there be more people like you who accept Nazirite status in Israel.” This was the proper way to accept Nazirite status: with sincere intent and for the sake of Heaven.
Shimon HaTzadik was not concerned that this young man would regret his Nazirite status. He saw that the young man’s acceptance had been based on a serious and lasting conviction, not merely on a passing emotional moment. Therefore, he was willing to eat from the guilt offering of this Nazirite who had become impure.
This is what the verse teaches when it says that the Nazirite status must be accepted for the sake of Heaven. It does not teach that a person can accept Samson Nazirite status. It teaches that the acceptance of Nazirite status must be sincere.
Tosafot explains that Shimon HaTzadik was willing to eat from the other sacrifices of a Nazirite who became impure. His concern related specifically to the guilt offering, because the guilt offering could indicate that the person regretted his Nazirite status. Once the initial days had been nullified, he might not want to begin again. In the case of the young man, however, Shimon HaTzadik was certain that the acceptance had been entirely for the sake of Heaven.
The Gemara now returns to Samson. We have been saying that Samson did not accept his Nazirite status through a vow, but that it was established automatically. The verses, however, seem to indicate that Manoah, Samson’s father, was instructed to consecrate him as a Nazirite. The law is that a father can consecrate his minor son as a Nazirite. Perhaps Samson’s Nazirite status was created by his father’s declaration.
The Gemara rejects this interpretation. The angel was not telling Manoah that he himself had to make the boy a Nazirite. Rather, the angel was telling him that the child would be born with Nazirite status. The status was established from Heaven and was not dependent on a verbal declaration by either the father or the mother.
The wording means that the child would be a Nazirite from birth. No one needed to make a verbal declaration. The angel was announcing that this child would enter the world with that status. His Nazirite status was therefore automatic.
The Gemara then addresses another point. We learned that a person with Samson Nazirite status may become impure through contact with the dead. Where do we see that Samson himself became impure through contact with the dead?
The verse says that Samson killed one thousand Philistines with the jawbone of a donkey. Perhaps he threw the jawbone at them without touching their bodies. The verse about the thirty Philistines likewise says that he attacked them and took their clothing. Perhaps he removed their clothing before killing them, or perhaps he merely incapacitated them and they were still alive when he took the clothing.
The Gemara explains that there is a received tradition concerning the sequence of events. Samson killed them and then took their clothing. Since they were already dead when he removed the clothing, we see that he came into contact with the dead. The verse therefore demonstrates that Samson’s Nazirite status permitted him to become impure.
It cannot be suggested that they were merely in the final stages of life. A person who is in that condition is still treated as a source of impurity, and a Nazirite may not approach him. Therefore, the interpretation must be that they were actually dead when Samson came into contact with them.
Before concluding, it is worth clarifying a point from the earlier Mishnah. When a person accepts Samson Nazirite status, he needs two identifying details concerning which Samson he means and one event from Samson’s life. He does not need to mention all three identifying elements. For example, he can say, “Samson, son of Manoah, the one who uprooted the gates,” or, “Samson, son of Manoah, the one whose eyes were gouged out.” One of those events is sufficient to identify the Samson to whom he is referring.