Nazir 10a — the Talmud in English

Rather

[but]

when he said “

from barley,”

I would have said:

Certainly he

did not intend to retract, but

this is what he is saying: If it can be consecrated

[if the barley-offering that I will bring can become consecrated]

like the Omer offering ![](pamud.bmp "

exact column position")

or like the Sota offering

which are brought from barley—

let it become consecrated

also this one that I will bring; that is, I undertake to bring a barley-offering, since it will become consecrated when I bring it—

and

if not—

for the offering that I will bring cannot become consecrated as a voluntary offering—

not

will I bring an offering at all.

It teaches us

our Mishna,

that

even when he said “from barley,” he did not make his acceptance conditional upon this, but rather intended to retract, and therefore

he brings

[he brings] an offering

from wheat,

since he cannot retract, in accordance with Beit Shammai, who say: There is no inquiry and retraction with regard to consecrated property.

MISHNA:

One who

said: “

This cow said

[which was lying before him]:

I am a nazirite if I stand.”

And likewise one who said: “

This

door said”

[which was locked before him]:

I am a nazirite if I open.”

In both of these cases:

Beit Shammai say,

he is

a nazirite, and Beit Hillel say he is not a nazirite.

Rabbi Judah said

to dispute the first tanna:

Even when Beit Shammai said

that he had made a vow,

they did not say

that he is a nazirite,

but rather: by saying

[that is, this is treated as though he said]

“This cow is a consecrated offering for me if”

“it stands,”

and he is one who has vowed with regard to the cow, but he is not a nazirite.

The entire Mishna will be explained in the Gemara.

GEMARA:

We learned in the Mishna: “This cow said: I am a nazirite if I stand”:

And we raise an objection:

Does a cow speak

[and is it the way of a cow to speak like human beings]?

He said

[he explained],

Rami bar Hama:

Indeed, there is here no speech of the cow or of the door, but rather a thought, as it were,

and

the matter here concerns

a case where a cow was lying powerfully before him,

in such a manner that it appeared unable to stand on its own:

and he said: “

This cow thinks

that it

cannot stand,

and it vows and says: ‘I am a nazirite if I stand.’”

And this is equivalent to his saying:

“I am a nazirite from its flesh if it stood by itself,”

and

indeed—

it stood by itself,

and the condition was fulfilled.

And similarly, where the door was locked before him, and he said: “This door thinks that it cannot open, and it vows and says: ‘I am a nazirite if I open’”—

And this is equivalent to his saying: “I am a nazirite from the boards of the door if it opens by itself,” and indeed the door opened by itself, and the condition was fulfilled.

And because, although he did not say of himself “I am a nazirite,” but made his statement dependent upon the cow and the door, which are as though they accepted naziriteship upon themselves, nevertheless he is a nazirite. For if he did not intend to fulfill the “statement of the cow” and the “statement of the door,” why would he tell these things?

And Beit Shammai followed

in our Mishna

their method

in the preceding Mishna,

and Beit Hillel

also followed

their method

there!

For Beit Shammai, who say

above: One who says, “I am a nazirite

from dried figs and from a fig cake,”

is a nazirite,

because the statement “from dried figs” is merely regret concerning what he previously said, “I am a nazirite,” and Beit Shammai hold that a person does not undertake naziriteship and then regret it, just as there is no mistaken consecration and no inquiry and regret—

So too, when he said, “I am a nazirite

from

its flesh, he is a nazirite,”

because the statement “from its flesh” is merely regret concerning what he said, “I am a nazirite,” and since according to Beit Shammai there is no regret in naziriteship, he is a nazirite.

And Beit Hillel

who say above that one who says “from dried figs” is not a nazirite, because there is inquiry and regret in naziriteship, therefore even concerning one who says “I am a nazirite from its flesh,”

Beit Hillel say:

he is not a nazirite

.

Rabbi Judah, too, followed his method in the preceding Mishna: One who says, “I am a nazirite from dried figs,” is equivalent to one who says, “These dried figs are forbidden to me as a consecrated offering.” Likewise, in our Mishna, when he said, “I am a nazirite from the flesh of the cow,” he is equivalent to one who says, “The flesh of the cow is forbidden to me as a consecrated offering,” and he is one who has made a vow but is not a nazirite.

And we raise an objection against the words of Rami bar Hama, who explains the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel in our Mishna according to their method in the earlier Mishna:

“But Beit Shammai already stated it once”

[did Beit Shammai not already state this law once, and why did they repeat their words]!?

And we answer:

He said

[he answered],

Rava

[the words of Rami bar Hama]: The tanna needed to teach us their dispute in

two or three

clauses.

And Rabbi Hiyya likewise taught

[in his Tosefta] this dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel in

two or three

clauses: “One who says, ‘I am a nazirite from dried figs,’ and one who says, ‘I am a nazirite from cow flesh and from the boards of a door.’”

And Rabbi Oshaya likewise said

“two or three.”

And

they are necessary,

the words of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concerning dried figs and a fig cake, and concerning flesh and a door:

For if it was stated

[if their words were taught] only

in this case

of

dried figs and a fig cake,

we would say:

The reason of Beit Shammai is not that a person does not undertake naziriteship and regret it; in truth, he can regret it, and

there,

[in the earlier Mishna],

Beit Shammai say: “He is a nazirite,”

because there is no regret there, and his intention was to say “from grapes,” but

because

dried figs and a fig cake are confused

with

grapes,

as all of them are fruits, therefore “dried figs” came to his mouth instead of “grapes”; and he is a nazirite since he said, “I am a nazirite,” and there is no regret in what he said, “from dried figs,” since he did not intend to retract.

But flesh and grapes

can be said to

not be confused

[people do not ordinarily exchange one for the other], and if so, he is regretting the naziriteship; and it may be said that even according to Beit Shammai a person may regret it and is not a nazirite.

And if it was stated

[if their words were taught] only concerning

flesh,

we would say:

Specifically

here,

[in our Mishna],

Beit Shammai say: “He is a nazirite,”

because people’s customary meal consists of

flesh and wine

together and wine was exchanged for flesh—

But dried figs and a fig cake,

say

not

are exchanged, and there is regret here, so he is not a nazirite even according to Beit Shammai—

It teaches us.

And if it was stated

[in the Mishna]

these two

[dried figs and flesh], we would say:

It is these that Beit Shammai say

because they are exchanged,

but a door,

with regard to which it is not applicable to attribute the exchange of his wording,

say that they agree with Beit Hillel,

that one who says, “I am a nazirite from the boards of a door,” has undertaken naziriteship and regrets it, and is not a nazirite even according to Beit Shammai—

It teaches us that he is a nazirite, for according to Beit Shammai there is no regret in naziriteship.

And if the tanna taught

the dispute of Beit Hillel against Beit Shammai concerning

a door,

we would say:

In this case,

[with a door],

Beit Hillel say

that he is not a nazirite, because, since it is impossible to attribute the exchange of his wording, it is necessarily his intention to regret; therefore he is not a nazirite, because according to Beit Hillel regret is effective in naziriteship.

But with those two

[dried figs and flesh],

say that they agree with Beit Shammai

that he is a nazirite, because we attribute that there is no regret here, but that dried figs and flesh were exchanged for grapes and wine; and if so, he should be a nazirite—

Therefore

it teaches us—

these clauses concerning dried figs and flesh—

that they do not

agree with Beit Hillel, for we do not attribute that dried figs and flesh were exchanged for grapes and wine; rather, his intention is to regret his naziriteship, and therefore he is not a nazirite.

Rava said

[he raised a difficulty]

to Rami bar Hama’s

words, who says that the one making the vow made his naziriteship conditional upon the cow’s standing “by itself”:

Does

[is it the case that]

the Mishna teach

in the Mishna:

“If it stood by itself”?

But it teaches, “I am a nazirite if I stand,” and this does not indicate specifically by itself!?

Rather, he said

[he explained],

Rava

our Mishna:

For example, a cow was lying powerfully before him,

with force,

and

thus

he said:

“People think that no one can make the cow stand, and the cow is as though it said: ‘I am a nazirite if I stand.’ But I say: On the contrary, if the cow does not stand,

it is incumbent upon me

to bring it as a

sacrifice

of naziriteship”— and the cow stood by itself. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disputed whether the condition was fulfilled and he is a nazirite, or whether it was not, as the Gemara explains below. However, the arranger of the Talmud did not allow him to finish his words, and rejected them immediately:

But

granted, a cow

indeed

is fit to be a sacrifice,

and it is possible to explain the words of the Mishna as saying, “It is incumbent upon me to bring it as a sacrifice of naziriteship”;

but a door—

does it

constitute a sacrifice

of naziriteship?

It does!?

Rather, Rava said: For example, a cow was lying powerfully before him,

so strongly that people thought no one could make it stand,