Nazir Chapter 5, Mishnah 4. Continuing the subject of mistakes involving animals that were designated for the nazirite offerings, our Mishnah presents another variation on the same theme, revolving around this question: a person who wishes to find a 'petach' - to have his vow annulled on the basis of information that was not available to him at the time of the vow - is he able to do so?
The words of the Mishnah - the stolen animal:
"Mi shenadar b'nazir" - a person who took a nazirite vow and completed the days of his nezirus, and now comes to bring the nazirite offerings.
"V'halach l'havi es behemto" - his animals are standing in his barn, and he goes to bring them and offer them as the nazirite offerings.
"U'matza shenignevah" - the animals are not there. On the basis of this discovery he seeks to have his vow annulled: to approach a sage or a beis din and say, "Retroactively I do not wish to be a nazir, since I have no animals to offer."
The Mishnah rules that it depends on the sequence of events:
"Im ad shelo nignevah behemto nazar - harei zeh nazir" - if he took the nazirite vow before the animals were stolen, he cannot use the theft as a 'petach' and say, "Had I known they would be stolen, I would never have become a nazir," since at the time of the vow they had not yet been stolen. This is an example of 'nolad' - a new development that arose only after the vow was made, and one does not use such a development as a petach to annul a vow. Therefore he is a nazir, and he remains bound by his nezirus.
"U'mishenignevah behemto nazar - eino nazir" - if he took the nazirite vow after the reality was already that the animals had been stolen, he is not a nazir, meaning that he is able to have the nazirite vow annulled on this basis.
The mistake of Nachum HaMadi:
This principle - that the matter one wishes to use as a petach must already exist at the time of the vow and cannot be a 'nolad' - is the basis for the mistake made by Nachum HaMadi, as the Mishnah states: "V'zu ta'us ta'ah Nachum HaMadi".
"Kesh'alu nezirin min hagolah" - a group of people who had taken nazirite vows came up from the exile to Eretz Yisrael in order to fulfill their nezirus, "u'matz'u beis hamikdash shecharav" - and there was no Beis HaMikdash in which to bring their offerings. They sought to have the nazirite vow annulled, and they came before Nachum HaMadi.
Nachum HaMadi said to them: "Ilu hayisem yod'im shebeis hamikdash charav, hayisem nozrim?" - would you have taken a nazirite vow? They answered him: "Lo" - we never would have vowed, for we have no desire to remain nezirim forever. "V'hitiran Nachum HaMadi" - on the basis of this petach he annulled their vows for them.
The ruling of the Sages:
"U'ksheba hadavar etzel chachamim" - when the matter came before the Sages and they heard about it, they said to him:
"Kol shenazar ad shelo charav beis hamikdash - nazir" - anyone who took a nazirite vow before the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash remains a nazir, and cannot have his vow annulled, because the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash is a 'nolad' - a new development that arose after the vow.
"U'misheicharav beis hamikdash - eino nazir" - but one who took a nazirite vow after the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed is not a nazir, since at the time he vowed the information already existed in reality, and had he known that the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed he never would have taken the nazirite vow.
In summary: in this Mishnah we learned the definition of 'nolad' with regard to the annulment of vows: a petach for annulling a vow can rest only on a reality that existed at the time of the vow, and not on something that came about afterward. For this reason one who vowed before his animal was stolen remains a nazir, while one who vowed after the theft is not a nazir; and by the same measure the ruling of Nachum HaMadi was rejected, for he annulled the vows of nezirim on the basis of the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash, which occurred after their vows.