The gemara asks why do we need a pasuk to teach avadim slaves are included among those who may adopt nezirus dont we hold "kol mitzvah shehaisha chayiv ba eved chayiv ba"- Any mitzvah that a woman is obligated in a slave is obligated in? (So just as there is nezirus for a woman so too should there be nezirus for a slave)? And the Gemara answered shani hacha since the pasuk states...
Fine But i dont understand the Gemaras Kashe since nezirus isnt a chiyuv an obligation and womanm are not obligated in nezirus so how could Gemara say just as woman are chayiv to do this mitzvah so too are slaves obligated but there is no obligation for woman!? There is no mitzvah to be a nazir in fact we are even not suppose to become nezirim! unless there is a case like Shimon Hatzadiks (on nazir 4b and in nedarim 9 i think) where he praised a certain individual for becoming a nazir-But that was only in that case because "his yetzer hara wanted to drive him out of this world" and yet even in that case there is certainly no obligation to do so. ??
Daniel Fishman, Lawrence, America
The Gemara means to say the following: Since the Torah tells us that a woman who says, "I am a Nazir" is obligated to do or not do certain things, so too an Eved who says, "I am a Nazir" is obligated in those same things.
This is something like saying, "Just as a woman who wants to eat meat must arrange for its slaughter, so too a slave . . ."
Be well,
Mordecai Kornfeld
I understand the Kollel's answer and what the Gemara is trying to say but why then does the Gemara say "Kol Mitzvah shehaisha chayiv ba eved nami chayiv ba" -This principle teaches us every mitzvah that a woman is obligated to do a eved must do that mitzva too like just as woman are obligated to hear the Megila so too would an eved be obligated to hear the megila because we learn out from a connection of the terms "la" "la" eved to isha.However, this case is different becuase saying "Iam a nazir" is not a mitzvah or obligation of any kind.But the point the Gemara is making is that just as if a woman says "i am a nazir" they are obligated to do certain things so too an eved if an eved says "i am a nazir" a eved is obligated to do certain things.The case here is on a action that is not a mitzvah or obligation but its a statement that forces one upon certain obligations.
In addition, the obligation here by nazir is created by ones own action if one will do something, but by megila where we should apply "la la" connection the obligation was created by the Torah originally as a regular command or mitzvah for instance hear the megila , so by megila i would understand how we may connect eved to isha through la la since thats a mitzvah a woman is obligated in which we apply samething to eved. But Nazir is not a mitzvah its an obligation that is created through ones action that should not have been originally done -so how could we apply this principle of "kol mitzvah..." based on the connection of "la la" ??
You must mean Megilah is d'Rabanan (or Divrei Kabalh), not a Torah obligation; and the Beis Yosef (beginning of OC 689) explains that Lah-Lah does not apply to it.
As for Nazir, look at him as a new type of creature (which comes in male or female or slave form) that a person can "morph" himself into. The Torah says that a female Nazir is prohibited in certain things, so we can derive from Lah-Lah that that same Din applies to a slave Nazir.
Perhaps you would feel better about this according to the opinions who maintain that the Isurim of Nazir are not considered Eino Shaveh la'Kol. These opinions maintain that the laws of Nazir apply to everyone (Nazir and non-Nazir alike), on the condition that they say Hareini Nazir. (See Tosfos Nazir top of 42b and Teshuvas Avnei Milu'im #22).
Best wishes,
Mordecai Kornfeld