Nazir

I might go on to infer from this that [gentiles] cannot become nazirites [at all]. Scripture [therefore] says man? — But it has been stated: R. Johanan said, This is a [traditional] ruling with regard to the nazirite. Now if it is a fact [that 'man' includes gentiles],  what need is there for the expression, When a man shall clearly utter a vow … according to thy valuation  occurring in connection with 'Arakin? For consider! 'Arakin are compared [in this verse] with vows, as it says, When a man shall clearly utter a vow … according to thy valuation,  and it has been taught in connection with vows: Scripture mentions the word man  in order to include gentiles, who are allowed to vow vowed-offerings  and freewill-offerings,  just as Israelites do.  What need then is there for the verse, 'When a man shall clearly utter' in connection with 'Arakin?  — In point of fact, this [word] 'man' is required for the inclusion of [a youth] who can discriminate but has not quite reached manhood. This is all very well [if we accept the view of] the authority  who considers that a youth who can discriminate but has not quite reached manhood has a Scriptural right [to make Vows],  but [if we accept the view of] the authority  who considers this right to be rabbinic, what need is there for, When a man shall clearly utter [etc.]?  It serves to include a gentile [youth] who can discriminate but has not quite reached manhood. This is all very well if we accept the view of the authority  who argues [as follows: The words 'children of Israel' imply that] Israelites can be the subject of 'Arakin vows but not gentiles. I might go on to infer from this that [gentiles] cannot vow 'Arakin, Scripture [therefore] says man.  If, however, we accept the view of the authority  who argues [as follows: The words children of Israel imply that] Israelites can vow 'Arakin but not gentiles. I might go on to infer from this that [gentiles] cannot be the subject of 'Arakin, Scripture [therefore] says man: [our difficulty remains]. For seeing that even a baby a month old can be the subject of an 'Arakin vow, what need is there of, 'when [a man] shall clearly utter'?  — R. Adda b. Ahaba replied: Its purpose is to bring within the scope of the rule an adult gentile who although he is an adult [cannot make even ordinary vows, if he] cannot discriminate. Now what need is there of [the phrase,] 'when [a man] shall clearly utter' mentioned in connection with the naziriteship? For seeing that the naziriteship is compared with [ordinary] vowing  what need is there of 'when [a man] shall clearly utter'? — It serves to include allusions the significance of which is not manifest.  For it has been stated: Abaye said that allusions whose significance is not manifest have the force of a direct statement, whilst Raba said that they have not the force of a direct statement.  Now if we accept Abaye's view, there is no difficulty,  but if we accept Raba's view what can we reply?  In point of fact 'when [a man] shall clearly utter' is necessary for R. Tarfon's case. For it has been taught: R. Judah on behalf of R. Tarfon said that not one of these people  is a nazirite, because naziriteship is not intended except when assumed unequivocally.  This is all very well if we accept the view of R. Tarfon, but [if we accept the view of] the Rabbis what can you reply?  In point of fact it is necessary for [the following] which has been taught: Annulment of vows has no foundation  and is without [Scriptural] support.  R. Eliezer says that it has [Scriptural] support, for Scripture says twice 'when [a man] shall clearly utter'?  one signifies a distinct binding expression,  and one a distinctness [which opens the way] to annulment.