Nazir — Daf 29b

לא אם אמרת בזכר שכן איסור אחד תאמר בנקבה ששני איסורין

מאי שני איסורין לאו איסור נבילה וחולין בעזרה מתקיף לה רב אחא בריה דרב איקא ודילמא מיחייב עליה משום דמיתחזי כתרין איסורין מדרבנן

לימא כתנאי עד מתי מדיר את בנו בנזיר עד שיביא שתי שערות דברי רבי רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר עד שיגיע לעונת נדרים

מאי לאו תנאי היא דרבי סבר הלכה היא בנזיר ואע"ג דהגיע לעונת נדרים מדיר ליה ואזיל עד דמייתי שתי שערות ור' יוסי ברבי יהודה דאמר עד שיגיע לעונת נדרים סבר כדי לחנכו במצות וכיון דנפיק מרשותיה תו לא מיחייב

אמרי לא דכולי עלמא הלכה היא בנזיר והכא במופלא הסמוך לאיש קמיפלגי

רבי סבר מופלא הסמוך לאיש דרבנן ואתיא דאורייתא דחיא דרבנן ור' יוסי בר' יהודה סבר מופלא הסמוך לאיש דאורייתא

ואיבעית אימא דכולי עלמא כדי לחנכו במצות ומופלא הסמוך לאיש דרבנן היא רבי סבר אתי חינוך דרבנן ודחי מופלא הסמוך לאיש דרבנן

ור' יוסי בר' יהודה דאמר עד שיגיע לעונת נדרים קסבר לא אתי חינוך דרבנן ודחי מופלא הסמוך לאיש

לימא הני תנאי כי הני תנאי דתניא מעשה ברבי חנינא שהדירו אביו בנזיר והביאו לפני רבן גמליאל והיה רבן גמליאל בודקו לידע אם הביא שתי שערות אם לא הביא

רבי יוסי אומר לידע אם הגיע לעונת נדרים אם לאו אמר לו רבי אל תצטער לבודקני אם קטן אני אהיה בשביל אבא אם גדול אני אהיה בשביל עצמי עמד רבן גמליאל ונשקו על ראשו אמר מובטח אני בזה שמורה הלכה בישראל אמרו לא היו ימים מועטים עד שהורה הוראה בישראל

בשלמא לרבי יוסי בר' יהודה דאמר עד שיגיע לעונת נדרים היינו דקאמר אם קטן אני אהיה בשביל אבא אלא לרבי דאמר עד שיביא שתי שערות ואם גדול אני אהיה בשביל עצמי

R. Aha, the son of R. Ika [however] demurred [to this inference  being drawn], for it is surely possible that [the eating was forbidden]  because it would appear as though two rabbinic enactments were being transgressed. Can we say that [the controversy between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish] is the same as that between [the following] Tannaim? [For it has been taught:] Rabbi says that he can impose a nazirite vow on his son until his majority;  but R. Jose son of R. Judah says, [only] until he reaches the age of making vows [for himself].  Now surely [the controversy between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish] is the same as [that between these] Tannaim, Rabbi considering it to be a [traditional] ruling with regard to the nazirite, so that though [the son] may have reached the age of making vows [for himself, the father] can still impose a [nazirite] vow on him until he attains his majority, whereas R. Jose son of R. Judah who asserts [that he can do so only] until [the son] reaches the age of making vows [for himself] is of the opinion that [the father may impose a naziriteship] in order to train him to [carry out his] religious duties, and, now that he has passed out of his [father's] control,  there is no longer an obligation [to train him]?  — I will tell you; not at all. Both [Rabbi and R. Jose son of R. Judah may] agree that this is a [traditional] ruling with regard to the nazirite. Where they differ is about [the vows of] one who can discriminate  [but] who has not quite reached manhood. Rabbi considers that [a youth] who can discriminate [but] who has not quite reached manhood is [permitted to make vows] only by enactment of the Rabbis and so the right granted by the Torah [to the parent]  overrules the Rabbinical right [of the youth];  whereas R. Jose son of R. Judah considers that [a youth] who can discriminate [but] who has not quite reached manhood, has a Scriptural right [to make vows]. Alternatively, it may be that both [Rabbi and R. Jose son of R. Judah] would agree that [the father may impose a naziriteship] in order to train him to [carry out his] religious duties, and that [the right of a youth,] who can discriminate [but] who has not quite reached manhood, [to make vows] is Rabbinic. Rabbi, on the one hand, holds that [the parent's duty] to train, which is itself Rabbinic, overrules [the right of the youth,] who can discriminate [but] who has not quite reached manhood, [to make vows for himself] which is also Rabbinic;  whilst R. Jose son of R. Judah, who says [that the father's right lasts only] until [the lad] reaches the age of making vows, holds that the Rabbinic duty to train [the lad] does not set aside [the right of a youth] who can discriminate [but] who has not quite reached manhood [to make his own vows, although this is also Rabbinic]. Can we say that [the controversy between] the above Tannaim  is the same as that between the following Tannaim?  For it has been taught: It is related that R. Hanina's father once imposed a nazirite vow upon him and then brought him before R. Gamaliel. R. Gamaliel was about to examine him to discover whether or not he had reached his majority  — according to R. Jose  it was to discover whether he had reached the age of making vows  — when [the young Hanina] said to him, 'Sir, do not exert yourself to examine me. If I am a minor, then I am a nazirite because of my father's [imposition], whilst if I am an adult,  I undertake it on my own account.' Thereupon R. Gamaliel rose and kissed him upon his head, and said, 'I am certain that this [lad] will be a religious leader  in Israel.' It is said that in a very short space of time, he became in fact a religious leader in Israel. Now on R. Jose son of R. Judah's view that [the father's control lasts only] until [the boy] reaches the age at which he can make vows [for himself], we can understand why he should have said, 'If I am a minor,  I shall be [a nazirite] because of my father's [action, and so on].' But on Rabbi's view that [it lasts] until manhood, [of what value was the statement], 'whilst if I am an adult, I undertake it on my own account,'