Nazir 10b — the Talmud in English

And he said: "

the world thinks that no person can make it stand, and this is as though he had said this cow: I am not standing, but I say, on the contrary,

I hereby

become a nazir from wine if it did not stand

[let the cow stand],"

and

afterward

the cow stood

of its own accord.

And thus the wording of the Mishna is interpreted according to Rava: "

‘The cow said’—with regard to its standing—‘I am not standing,’ and I say: ‘I hereby become a nazira,’ meaning: a nazir from wine on account of it, ‘if—it does not—stand’ [the Mishna is deficient by the word ‘does not’], ‘I,’ meaning: I undertake nazirite status upon myself"; and the doubling of his wording is the wording of the one making the vow.

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

Beit Shammai hold: torfeya

[the revelation of his intention and desire]

of this man

[the one making the vow]

was specifically on account of making it stand by his own hands

only,

but he did not make it stand

for it stood of its own accord, and it is as though it had not stood; therefore they said, Beit Shammai: This person is a nazir.

And Beit Hillel—

who say that he is not a nazir—

hold:

The torfeya of this man was because it was lying down

[the desire of the one making the vow was that the cow should rise and not lie down],

and it has risen

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

And we object:

If so,

according to your words, that the one making the vow explicitly said, “I hereby become a nazir from wine,”

say the latter clause,

from which it is proved that this is not according to your words, for the latter clause teaches:

Rabbi Judah said: Even when Beit Shammai said

that his statement is a statement of a vow,

they said this only when one says: ‘This cow is a sacrifice to me’—

And if you say that he said, “I hereby become a nazir from wine,” why should the cow be forbidden by konam as a sacrifice? For he explicitly said “a nazir from wine,” and not from the cow!?

And we answer:

Rather,

with what are we dealing here?

For example, when he said: “

This cow said, ‘I am not standing,’ but I say, on the contrary,

I hereby become a nazir from its flesh

of the cow,

if it did not stand

the cow,”

and

afterward

it stood of its own accord.

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

Beit Shammai hold: The torfeya

[the desire]

of that man

specifically

was on account of making it stand by his own hands

[himself, and not through others];

but he did not make it stand,

and therefore he is a nazir.

And Beit Hillel hold: The torfeya

[the desire]

of this man

was to vow

because it was lying down, and it has risen,

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

And we refute:

And

if

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 words, the reason of Beit Hillel for saying that he is not a nazir is only because in the end the cow stood; it follows that if this were not so, he would be a nazir.

But they say

[behold, Beit Hillel hold] that one who says, “I hereby become a nazir from dried figs,” is not a nazir, since there is here nazirite status and regret, and the same applies to one who says, “I hereby become a nazir from flesh,” and if so, how do you interpret Beit Hillel’s position—that he is not a nazir only because the cow stood!?

And we answer: Indeed, Beit Hillel themselves hold that in every case he is not a nazir, because he regretted accepting nazirite status; but what Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai in our Mishna—

according to their own view

[according to their position]

they said;

and this is what Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai:

It is unnecessary

according to us

[according to our position], that a person can regret what he accepted upon himself as nazirite status—

for

even if it did not rise

the cow,

he would likewise not be a nazir,

for what he said, “from its flesh,” is regret, and it nullifies the nazirite status.

Rather, even

according to you

[according to your position],

who say

[that you say] that regret is not effective with regard to nazirite status, and one who says, “I hereby become a nazir from flesh,”

is a nazir—

at least concede to us

[in any event]

that the torfeya of this man was because it was lying down, and it has risen,

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

And Beit Shammai,

who disagree and say that this person is a nazir, hold:

Not so,

as Beit Hillel say, for

the torfeya of this man was because making it stand by his own hands was his intention, but he did not make it stand,

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