daf bit: Nazir 62

[cellio]

As we near the end of tractate Nazir, the discussion turns to slaves. Can a slave make a nazarite vow? Yes, and not only that but, according to the mishna, the nazarite vow of a slave is more stringent than one of a woman, because a man can annul his wife's vow but cannot annul his slave's vow. If a slave's master disapproves of the slave's vow, it appears that the master's only recourse is to free the slave. (62b)

(I assume, though I couldn't confirm one way or the other in the Aramaic text, that this is talking about an eved ivri, a Jewish slave. Jewish slaves get freed eventually anyway, so this would just mean accelerating the schedule, and I would be surprised if non-Jews can (per torah) take nazarite vows. (Of course they can vow anything they like, but it wouldn't be governed by torah, I would think.)

Comments

[cellio]

A simple preference may not be neccesarily honored.
I assume that if it were a vow, the master would have to respect it, or free him.

See, that's the thing -- taking the nazarite vow is also a preference. How is being indirectly compelled by a preference (the vow) different from being directly compelled by one (the prime-rib diet)? There are, so far as I know, no circumstances under which one is required to take a nazarite vow, and vows in general are discouraged.

[zevabe.livejournal.com]

By preference I meant an expressed preference without the strength of a vow. A modern vegetarian for example, has likely not taken a vow that all meat should be prohibited to them like the meat of sacrifices.

Take for example my roommate from college. He is a vegetarian. However, while on Parris Island (Marine corps boot camp) he ate meat. He would not have starved to death by not eating the meat, but he would not have recieved other food to replace it. So he chose to eat the meat. Had it been a vow, he would have needed to find a beit din to attempt to do hatarat nedarim (nullification of vows), at which point the beit din may or may not have allowed him to eat meat.