Nazir 9b (ט:) — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara explains that

the Mishna

[our Mishna]

is not in accordance with this tanna

who interprets the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concerning one who says, “I am a nazirite with regard to dried figs,” in a different manner:

As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Natan says,

with regard to one who says, “I am a nazirite with regard to dried figs”:

Beit Shammai say:

He is

bound by a vow

with regard to dried figs

and is a nazirite

with regard to all the prohibitions of a nazirite, unlike our Mishna’s presentation of the opinion of Beit Shammai, for according to the first tanna he is a nazirite but is not bound by a vow, whereas according to Rabbi Yehuda he is bound by a vow but is not a nazirite.

And Beit Hillel say:

He is

bound by a vow

with regard to dried figs

but is not a nazirite

at all, [and this is the opinion of Beit Shammai according to the tanna of our Mishna].

And the Gemara explains the rationale of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel according to Rabbi Natan’s approach:

Beit Shammai follow the opinion of Rabbi Meir

that “a person does not utter his words in vain.” Since he mentioned the language of nazirite status, he certainly intended to accept nazirite status,

and

also follow

Rabbi Yehuda

of our Mishna, for he is bound by a vow with regard to the dried figs, since his statement is treated as though he said, “They are forbidden to me as a sacrifice.” We do not say, “He did not make his donation in the manner in which people make donations.”

And Beit Hillel follow the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda—

the opinion of our Mishna according to Beit Shammai—that he is bound by a vow with regard to the dried figs, since his statement is treated as though he said, “They are forbidden to me as a sacrifice,” even though he did not make his donation in the manner in which people make donations.

Some recite it differently

[another version of the words of the baraita]:

Rabbi Natan says:

Beit Shammai say:

He is

bound by a vow but is not a nazirite.

And Beit Hillel say: He is neither bound by a vow nor a nazirite

as explained in our Mishna according to everyone.

And the Gemara explains:

Beit Shammai follow Rabbi Yehuda

of our Mishna, who holds that he is bound by a vow because his statement is treated as though he said, “They are forbidden to me as a sacrifice,” even though he did not make his donation in the manner in which people make donations.

And Beit Hillel follow Rabbi Shimon,

who maintains that he is not even bound by a vow, since he did not make his donation in the manner in which people make donations, as explained earlier in the Gemara.

We learned there

in Menahot 103a:

All meal-offerings are brought from wheat, except for the omer offering and the meal-offering of a sota; and all meal-offerings are brought from fine flour, which is sifted flour, except for the meal-offering of a sota, which is brought from ordinary flour; and all meal-offerings are brought with oil and frankincense, except for the meal-offering of a sinner and the meal-offering of a sota.

One who

volunteers and

says:

“It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering from barley”—

He shall bring a meal-offering

from wheat,

as required for a freewill meal-offering.

And if he said: “It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering from

ordinary flour”—

He shall bring

a meal-offering of

fine flour.

And if he said: “It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering

without oil and frankincense”—

He shall bring it with oil and frankincense. “

Half an issaron”—

He shall bring a full issaron,

as no meal-offering is brought with less than an issaron. “

An issaron and a half”—

He shall bring two.

Rabbi Shimon exempts him entirely,

since

he did not make his donation in the manner in which people make donations.

And the Gemara explains:

Who is the tanna,

who is the first tanna who maintains

that when he says, “

It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering from barley,”

he brings one from wheat?

Hezekiah said: It is stated as a dispute,

and

it is Beit Shammai

of our Mishna

who hold this opinion!

Is that so?

[Do

Beit Shammai say

in our Mishna

that when he says, “

I am a nazirite

with regard to dried figs and pressed figs,”

he is a nazirite?

And their rationale was explained above: They maintain that a person does not utter his words in vain. When he said, “I am a nazirite,” he intended to accept nazirite status; and when he said, “with regard to dried figs and pressed figs,” he retracted his original acceptance. Since there is no annulment of a nazirite vow, he cannot retract it, and he is therefore a nazirite.

So

too, when he says, “

from barley,”

he brings one from wheat,

since a person does not utter his words in vain. When he said, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering,” he intended a meal-offering from wheat, and by saying “from barley” he intended to retract. Since a consecration cannot be annulled, his retraction is ineffective.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: You may even say,

that the statement of the first tanna in Menahot—“It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering from wheat; he shall bring one from barley”—

is according to everyone,

both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel of our Mishna:

For in the Mishna in Menahot we are dealing

with one who says: “

Had I known that one does not make vows in this manner

[to bring one from barley],

I would not have made the vow in this manner

[to bring one from barley],

but in this manner

[to bring one from wheat],” except that he mistakenly thought that one may also make a vow to bring one from barley.

Therefore, even Beit Hillel, who maintain in our Mishna that if one says, “I am a nazirite with regard to dried figs,” he is not a nazirite, agree here that he must bring one from wheat.

The Gemara cites here another dispute between Hezekiah and Rabbi Yohanan, in which it appears at first glance that they have reversed their positions:

Hezekiah said: They taught

in the Mishna in Menahot that when one volunteers a meal-offering from barley, he brings one from wheat

only

when he

said: “

It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering

from barley,”

since a species of barley is brought as an offering upon the altar in the omer offering and in the meal-offering of a sota.

But

if he

said: “

It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering

from lentils,”

since no offering of their species is brought upon the altar, therefore

he brings nothing at all

[he does not bring a meal-offering at all].

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Now,

Beit

Hezekiah himself

[earlier in the Gemara]

according to whom does he interpret

[according to whose opinion does he explain]

the Mishna

in Menahot?

According to Beit Shammai,

of our Mishna, who maintain that if one says, “I am a nazirite with regard to dried figs,” he is a nazirite; and likewise, one who volunteers a meal-offering from barley brings one from wheat.

And

if so, this poses a difficulty to Hezekiah’s own words:

Lentils with regard to a meal-offering,

from which no offering of their species is brought,

are comparable to dried figs with regard to a nazirite

[they are comparable], for no item of their species is forbidden to a nazirite—

and

nevertheless

Beit Shammai say

that

he is a nazirite,

because we divide his statement into a vow and a retraction. If so, when one volunteers a meal-offering from lentils as well, we should divide his statement into a vow and a retraction. What difference does it make that no offering of their species is brought upon the altar!?

And we answer:

Hezekiah retracted

[he changed his position],

Hezekiah,

and he too explains the reason for the Mishna in Menahot in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan: The Mishna deals only with one who subsequently said, “Had I known that one does not make vows to bring one from barley, I would have made a vow to bring one from wheat.”

Therefore, Hezekiah distinguishes between one who volunteered to bring one from barley, since there are people who mistakenly say that even a freewill meal-offering may be brought from barley, and one who volunteered to bring one from lentils, since no one mistakenly thinks that a meal-offering may be brought from them, as no meal-offering whatsoever is brought from lentils.

And the Gemara explains:

And why did he retract

[why did Hezekiah retract] his initial explanation of the Mishna in Menahot, that the statement of the first tanna follows the opinion of Beit Shammai of our Mishna?

Rava said:

Because

the Mishna posed a difficulty to him

[the wording of the Mishna in Menahot was difficult for him]. That is, if you maintain that the tanna’s rationale is based on the reasoning of Beit Shammai, the following difficulty arises:

Why specifically did he teach “

from barley”

[why did we teach the case of one who accepted upon himself to bring one from barley]—

let him teach “

from lentils,”

[let the tanna teach another case: that he volunteered a meal-offering from lentils], for this would be a greater novelty!?

Rather,

it must be that

there

in the Mishna in Menahot, the rationale

is that he was mistaken

[because he mistakenly thought that a meal-offering may be brought from barley], in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan. That is, he mistakenly thought that it is possible to bring a meal-offering from barley; therefore, this law applies only when he volunteered to bring one from barley, and not when he volunteered to bring one from lentils.

And

Rabbi Yohanan—

who disagreed with Hezekiah—

said: Even

when he volunteered to bring one

from lentils,

he brings one from wheat according to the first tanna in the Mishna in Menahot.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But Rabbi Yohanan

himself

is the one who said—

in explaining the rationale of the first tanna—that the Mishna deals

with one who says: “

Had I known that one does not make vows in this manner

[with regard to barley],

I would not have made the vow in this manner

as I made the vow

but in this manner

[‘It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering from wheat].’”

If so, this applies only to one who volunteered to bring one from barley, since there are people who mistakenly think this; but when he volunteered to bring one from lentils, concerning which no one makes such a mistake, why did Rabbi Yohanan say that he brings one from wheat!?

And we answer: Indeed, according to Rabbi Yohanan’s own opinion, if he volunteered to bring one from lentils, he does not bring one from wheat. Rather,

Rabbi Yohanan said this according to Hezekiah’s position,

that is: According to your approach, since you disagreed with me in explaining the Mishna in Menahot, you should have maintained your position and said that even one who volunteers to bring one from lentils brings one from wheat—

for

why did you retract your position

[why did you retract] your interpretation?

Because it was not taught

explicitly in the Mishna: “

from lentils,”

which according to you would be the greater novelty—

this is not a sufficient reason for you to retract, because:

For

perhaps the tanna

is saying, “It is not necessary

to state”

the following.

That is: It is not only when he volunteered to bring one from lentils that he brings one from wheat, but even when he volunteered to bring one from barley [that is, on the contrary, the case of barley is the greater novelty]—

it is not necessary to say that when he said ‘from lentils,’ he brings an excellent meal-offering

[that he brings a fine meal-offering from wheat],

for one might say that he intended to retract

[because we say that he intended to retract],

and

if so,

we uphold the initial wording,

for he cannot retract, in accordance with Beit Shammai, who maintain that a consecration cannot be annulled.