A person who takes a neder to keep nezirus for one day, for example, is automatically a nazir for 30 days, as that is the minimim shiur of nezirus. Similarly, if a person takes a neder to be a nazir only from drinking wine, there is no such thing, and he becomes a full nazir with all the associated prohibitions. Minchas Chinuch has a safeik whether there would be bal yacheil in these cases if the nazir violates the part of nezirus that he has not verbally accepted, but which halacha imposes upon him. Is the issur about contradicting the words that come out of a person's mouth, or is the issur about undermining the effect/outcome of those words.
The Rambam paskens that if Reuvain takes a neder that all of his property should be assur to Shimon and then gives Shimon something he owns, Reuvain would get malkos for violating bal yacheil. The Ran, however, disagrees and holds the opposite: it is Shimon that gets malkos for violating the neder, not Reuvain (see Lechem Mishna, Hil Nezirus 5:1). The Steipler points out that here we have a test case where Reuvain is the one uttering the words that are being violated, but the effect those words have stop Shimon, not Reuvain himself, from doing something. Rambam is mechayeiv Reuvain in malkos because Rambam understands bal yacheil as a violation of the words. Ran is mechayeiv Shimon because he looks at the net effect.
One can also understand the safeik of the Minchas Chinuch is a more narrow way. Accepting upon onself a neder of nezirus is not really the same as taking a neder not to drink wine, take a haircut, and become tamei. Achronim point out (see Avnei Miluim in the teshuvos #15 quoting Mahari"t, also brought by the Shalmei Nedarim on 2b in Nedarim) that the issurei nezirus are the result of a chalos that transforms the person. A person who says "hareini nazir" never mentions wine, haircuts, or tumah, but nontheless becomes a nazir and as a result is bound by all those issurim + bal yacheil for violating them. So perhaps the safeik of the M.C.. applies specifically to nezirus, because specifically here bal yacheil is about violating a status, not about violating specific terms/words of a neder.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
how can you differentiate between bal yacheil of nedarim and nezerut if the issur is the same?
ReplyDeleteAccording to Maharit, if nezirus is not a neder, why should there be bal yacheil at all? You have to say that that gufa is the chidush din of the gemara's derasha in Nedarim 3. So I will say similarly that it is a chidush din with its own parameters that fit the special case of nezirus.
ReplyDelete(I keep thinking this over and for some reason dont like my own answer, but I cant pinpoint exactly what bothers me.)
"wine, haircuts, or tumah"
ReplyDelete(why these 3? the eitz ha'daas, a grape vine; the natural hair = the nakedness of gan eiden; tumah avoidance, the gan before death/tumas meis.
nazirus as a garden stay {maybe married couples should vow together, marking their own little tikun for adam and chava?})
((supporting evidence: unlike a kohen hedyot, a kohen gadol mustn't m'tamei himself for his wife, mother, father, children, brother or sister (Vayikra 21:2-3), while by the nazir, only father mother brother sister are written (Bamidbar 6:7), omitting wife and children. why? because as stated in the garden (2:24) of natural nakedness (2:25), a man leaves his father mother brother sister for* a wife and children of his own...
Delete*maybe even suggesting a nazir could m'tamei himself for a wife or child))