Nazir 9b — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara explains that

the Mishna

of ours is

not in accordance with this tannaitic opinion,

which interprets the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concerning one who says, “I am a nazirite from dried figs,” in another manner:

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Natan says:

One who said, “I am a nazirite from 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 according to the view of Beit Shammai; for according to the First Tanna, he is a nazirite but is not bound by a vow, whereas according to Rabbi Judah, 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 view of Beit Shammai according to the tannaitic opinion of our Mishna].

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

Beit Shammai agree with Rabbi Meir,

who says that “a person does not utter his words in vain.” Since he mentioned the language of naziriteship, he certainly intended naziriteship,

and

also

with Rabbi Judah

of our Mishna, for he is bound by a vow with regard to dried figs, because he becomes like one who says, “They are a sacrifice upon me.” We do not say, “He did not make his offering in the manner of those who make offerings.”

And Beit Hillel agree with Rabbi Judah—

of our Mishna according to Beit Shammai—that he is bound by a vow with regard to dried figs, because he becomes like one who says, “They are a sacrifice upon me,” even though he did not make his offering in the manner of those who make offerings.

Another wording was stated,

another version of the words of the beraita:

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 is explained in our Mishna according to everyone.

And the Gemara explains:

Beit Shammai follow Rabbi Judah,

of our Mishna, who says that he is bound by a vow because he becomes like one who says, “They are a sacrifice upon me,” even though he did not make his offering in the manner of those who make offerings.

And Beit Hillel follow Rabbi Shimon,

who holds that he is not even bound by a vow, since he did not make his offering in the manner of those who make offerings, as explained earlier in the Gemara.

We learned there,

in tractate Menahot 103a:

All meal-offerings come from wheat, except for the omer-offering and the meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery; all meal-offerings come from fine flour, which is sifted flour, except for the meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery, which comes from ordinary flour; and all meal-offerings come with oil and frankincense, except for the meal-offering of a sinner and the meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery.

One

who makes an offering

and says: “A meal-offering is upon me, to bring it from barley”—

He shall bring

a meal-offering

from wheat,

as is the law of a freewill meal-offering.

And if he said: “A meal-offering is upon me from

flour”—

He shall bring

a meal-offering of

fine flour.

And if he said: “A meal-offering is upon me”

without oil and frankincense—

He shall bring it with oil and frankincense. “

Half an issaron”—

He shall bring a complete issaron,

for a meal-offering is not brought in an amount less than an issaron. “

An issaron and a half”—

he shall bring two.

Rabbi Shimon exempts him

entirely, because

he did not make his offering in the manner of those who make offerings.

And the Gemara explains:

Who is the Tanna,

who is the First Tanna holding

that when he says “

A meal-offering is upon me from barley,”

he brings it from wheat?

Hezekiah said: It is stated as a dispute, and Beit Shammai

of our Mishna

are the ones!

of our Mishna

are they!

Is it not

the case that

Beit Shammai said

in our Mishna,

when he says, “

I am a nazirite

from dried figs and from a fig cake,”

he is a nazirite,

as their reasoning was explained above: because they hold that a person does not utter his words in vain; when he said, “I am a nazirite,” he intended naziriteship, and when he said, “from dried figs and from a fig cake,” he retracted his original acceptance. Since there is no annulment in naziriteship, he cannot retract it, and he is therefore a nazirite.

So

also, when he says, “

from barley,”

he brings it from wheat,

because a person does not utter his words in vain; when he said, “A meal-offering is upon me,” he intended a meal-offering from wheat, and by what he said, “from barley,” he intended to retract. Since there is no annulment with regard to consecrated property, his retraction is ineffective.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: You may even say,

you may say that the words of the First Tanna in Menahot, “A meal-offering is upon me to bring it from wheat; he shall bring it from barley,”

are the words of everyone—

both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel of our Mishna.

For in the Mishna in Menahot we are dealing

with one who says: “

If I had known that one does not make vows in this manner

to bring it from barley,

I would not have made a vow in this manner

to bring it from barley,

but in this manner

to bring it from wheat”—except that I erred and thought that one also makes vows from barley.

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

And the Gemara brings here another dispute between Hezekiah and Rabbi Yohanan, in which it appears at first glance that they have exchanged their positions:

Hezekiah said: They taught

in the Mishna in Menahot that when one makes an offering of a meal-offering from barley, he brings it from wheat

only

when he

said: “A meal-offering is upon me to bring it

from barley,”

because there is a species of theirs that is offered upon the altar, in the omer-offering and in the meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery.

since a sacrifice of that type is brought on the altar in the omer offering and in the offering of a woman suspected of adultery.

But

if he

said: “A meal-offering is upon me to bring it

from lentils,”

since no member of their species is offered upon the altar, therefore

he

brings nothing at all

and does not bring a meal-offering whatsoever.

And the Gemara asks:

Now,

Hezekiah

himself [earlier in the Gemara]

himself [earlier in the Gemara]

according to whom does he establish it

according to whose view does he explain

the Mishna

in Menahot?—

According to Beit Shammai,

of our Mishna, who hold that if one says, “I am a nazirite from dried figs,” he is a nazirite; so too, one who makes an offering of a meal-offering from barley brings it from wheat.

And

if so, an objection can be raised against Hezekiah himself:

Now, lentils with regard to a meal-offering,

which have no species that is offered,

are comparable to dried figs with regard to a nazirite

for they have no species that is prohibited with regard to a nazirite—

and

nevertheless

Beit Shammai say

that

he is a nazirite,

because we divide his words into a vow and a retraction. If so, when he made an offering of a meal-offering from lentils as well, we should divide his words into a vow and a retraction; what difference does it make that no member of their species is offered upon the altar!?

And we answer:

Hezekiah retracted

from his view;

Hezekiah

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

Therefore Hezekiah distinguishes between one who made an offering from barley, for there is one who errs and says that even a freewill meal-offering comes from barley, and one who made an offering from lentils, for no person errs concerning the possibility that it comes from lentils, since no meal-offering whatsoever comes from lentils.

And the Gemara explains:

And why did he retract

[why did Hezekiah retract] from his first words in explaining the Mishna in Menahot, that the words of the First Tanna follow the view of Beit Shammai of our Mishna?

Rava said:

Because

the Mishna presented him with a difficulty

the wording of the Mishna in Menahot was difficult for him. That is to say, if you say that the Tanna’s reason is because of the reasoning of Beit Shammai, the following difficulty arises:

Why specifically did he teach “

from barley”

why did we teach the case in which he accepted upon himself an offering from barley—

let him teach “

from lentils,”

let the Tanna teach another case: that he made an offering of a meal-offering from lentils, for this is the greater novelty!?

Rather,

it must be that

there

in the Mishna in Menahot, the reason is

because of an error,

because he erred, thinking that a meal-offering comes from barley, and it is according to Rabbi Yohanan. That is, he erred and thought that it is possible to bring a meal-offering from barley; therefore this law applies only when he made an offering from barley, but not when he made an offering from lentils.

And

Rabbi Yohanan—

he disagreed with Hezekiah—and

said: Even

when he made an offering

from lentils,

he brings it from wheat according to the First Tanna in the Mishna in Menahot.

And the Gemara asks:

But Rabbi Yohanan

himself

is the one who said—

in explaining the reason of the First Tanna—that the Mishna deals

with one who says: “

If I had known that one does not make vows in this manner

from barley,

I would not have made a vow in this manner

as I made the vow,

but in this manner

‘A meal-offering is upon me from wheat.’”

If so, this applies only to one who made an offering from barley, for there is one who errs in this matter; but when he made an offering from lentils, concerning which no person errs, why did Rabbi Yohanan say that he brings it from wheat!?

And we answer: Indeed, according to Rabbi Yohanan himself, if he made an offering from lentils, he does not bring it from wheat; rather,

Rabbi Yohanan said this according to the words of Hezekiah,

that is, according to your method, since you disagreed with me in explaining the Mishna in Menahot, you should have maintained your own view and said that indeed even one who makes an offering from lentils brings it from wheat—

for

for what reason did you retract

from your explanation?

Because he did not teach

explicitly in the Mishna: “

from lentils,”

which according to you is the greater novelty—

this is not a sufficient reason to retract, because:

For

perhaps, the Tanna

said “it is not necessary”

and stated

this case.

That is: not only when he made an offering from lentils does he bring barley, but even when he made an offering from barley [that is, on the contrary, when he made an offering from barley it is the greater novelty]—

it is not necessary when he says, “from lentils,” that he brings an excellent meal-offering

that he brings a fine meal-offering from wheat,

for it may be said that he intended to retract,

for we say that he intended to retract,

and

if so,

hold on to the first expression,

for he cannot retract, as is the view of Beit Shammai, who say that there is no annulment with regard to consecrated property.