Study Nazir folio 32B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
But if he took a vow of naziriteship after his animal was stolen, he is not a nazirite, as it is retroactively established that his vow was taken in error from the outset, as he relied on an animal he did not possess. And this was the error that Naḥum the Mede erred when he failed to distinguish be
And when the matter came before the Rabbis, they said: His ruling is incorrect. Rather, whoever took a vow of naziriteship before the Temple was destroyed, like these nazirites from the exile, he is a nazirite, as he committed no error at the time of his vow, and one cannot dissolve vows based a
Talmud: In relation to the Mishnah’s statement with regard to the dissolution of a vow of naziriteship due to a new situation, the Talmud cites a statement that Rabba said: The Rabbis overwhelmed R' Eliezer until he retracted his ruling and established the halakha in accordance with their opinion.
And Rava said, with regard to the same issue: Even though the Rabbis said that they may not broach dissolution by asking about a new situation, however, they may broach dissolution by asking about the conditions of a new situation, i.e., with situations similar to a new situation. What are the ci
Rav Yosef said: If I had been there, when those nazirites arrived, I would have said the following to them, in order to dissolve their vows: Isn’t it written: “The Sanctuary of YHWH, the Sanctuary of YHWH, the Sanctuary of YHWH, are these” (Jeremiah 7:4). This thrice repetition of “Sanctuary of YH