Nazir 10b (י:) — the Talmud in English

And he said: “

People generally think that no person can make it stand, and this is as though it had said ‘This cow: I am not standing,’ whereas I say, on the contrary,

‘I hereby become a

nazir from wine if it does not stand’ [

let the cow stand],”

and

afterward

the cow stood

by itself.

And this is how the wording of the Mishna is explained according to Rava: “

‘The cow said’—with regard to its standing—‘I am not standing,’ and I say: ‘I hereby become a nazira,’ meaning: I become a nazir from wine on account of it, ‘if—it does not —stand’ [the Mishna is lacking the word ‘does not’], ‘I’—that is, I hereby accept nezirut upon myself,” and the vow-maker’s wording is repetitive.

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree as to what his intention was when he said, “if it did not stand”:

Beit Shammai hold: The torphei

[his disclosure of his intention and desire]

of this man

[the vow-maker]

was specifically on account of his making it stand himself

only;

but he did not make it stand

for it stood by itself, and it is therefore as though it had not stood; consequently, they said: “This person is a nazir.”

And Beit Hillel—

who say that he is not a nazir—

hold:

The torphei of this man was on account of its lying down

[the vow-maker’s desire was that the cow rise and not lie down],

and it has risen

[for the cow stood], so his desire was fulfilled; therefore, he is not a nazir.

And we object:

If so,

according to your explanation, that the vow-maker explicitly said, “I hereby become a nazir from wine,”

say the latter clause,

which demonstrates that your explanation is incorrect, for the latter clause teaches:

Rabbi Yehuda said: Even when Beit Shammai said

that his statement is a vow-taking statement,

they said this only when one says, ‘This cow is forbidden to me as an offering’—

But if he says, “I hereby become a nazir from wine,” why should the cow be forbidden through konam, like an offering? He explicitly said “from wine,” and not “from the cow”!

And we answer:

Rather,

with what are we dealing here?

For example, he said: “

‘This cow said, “I am not standing,” and I say, on the contrary,

“I hereby become a nazir from its flesh”

of the cow,

if it does not stand

the cow,”

and

afterward

it stood by itself.

And the explanation of the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is:

Beit Shammai hold: The torphei

[the desire]

of that man

was specifically

on account of his making it stand himself

[himself, and not through others];

but he did not make it stand,

and therefore he is a nazir.

And Beit Hillel hold: The torphei

[the desire]

of this man

to vow was

on account of its lying down, and it has risen,

and the condition was not fulfilled; therefore, he is not a nazir.

And we challenge this:

And

why,

do Beit Hillel hold

that

if it did not rise

[if the cow did not stand], indeed

he would be a nazir!

For according to your explanation, the reason for Beit Hillel’s view that he is not a nazir is only that in the end the cow stood; this implies that otherwise he would be a nazir.

But they say

[Beit Hillel hold] that one who says, “I hereby become a nazir from dried figs,” is not a nazir, since in this case there is nezirut together with regret; and the same applies to one who says, “I hereby become a nazir from flesh,” so how can you explain, according to Beit Hillel, that he is not a nazir only because the cow stood!?

And we answer: Indeed, Beit Hillel themselves hold that in every event he is not a nazir, because he regretted accepting nezirut. But what Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai in our Mishna was

according to their position

[their approach]

that Beit Shammai stated;

and this is what Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai:

It is unnecessary

for us

[according to our approach], that a person can regret what he accepted upon himself as nezirut—

For

even if it did not rise

the cow,

he would likewise not be a nazir,

since his statement, “from its flesh,” expresses regret and nullifies the nezirut.

Rather, even

according to you

[according to your approach]

who say

[that you say] that regret is ineffective with regard to nezirut, and one who says, “I hereby become a nazir from flesh,”

would be a nazir—

at least concede to us

[at any rate]

that the torphei of this man was on account of its lying down, and it has risen,

and the condition was not fulfilled, so he is not a nazir.

And Beit Shammai,

who disagree and say that he is a nazir, hold:

It is not so,

as Beit Hillel say, for

the torphei of this man was on account of his making it stand himself, but he did not make it stand,

and the condition was fulfilled, so he is a nazir.