Nedarim 19b (יט:) — the Talmud in English

But if they recognize them -

they are forbidden!

And we answer:

Rava said: Regarding the pile, he holds that

Rabbi Yehuda,

whoever finds his doubt more stringent than his certainty

in his own case -

does not subject himself to uncertainty.

And with regard to a nazirite who took his vow on the condition that the pile contained one hundred kor, and the matter is uncertain, it turns out that his certainty is more stringent than his doubt -

For if, with regard to a certain nazirite,

he shaves

his hair at the completion of his naziriteship,

and brings an offering, and it is eaten.

But

in the case of his uncertainty -

he cannot shave

his hair ever, for he may shave his hair only after bringing his offerings, and this nazirite cannot bring the offerings of a nazirite. For if he is not a nazirite, he cannot consecrate offerings designated for a nazirite; and if he consecrates them because of the uncertainty and brings them, there is concern that perhaps he is bringing non-sacred animals into the Temple courtyard. Therefore, he cannot sacrifice them, and he cannot shave.

Rav Huna bar Yehuda said to Rava:

And if he

said, “

I am a lifelong nazirite

if this pile contains one hundred kor,” for in this case his doubt is not more stringent than his certainty, since a lifelong nazirite never shaves -

what is the ruling?

He said to him: In the case of a lifelong nazirite as well, his doubt is more stringent than his certainty!

For if

a lifelong nazirite is

certainly a nazirite,

if

his hair becomes heavy - he

trims

it,

with a razor, and brings

for his shaving

three animals

as offerings: a sin-offering, a burnt-offering, and a peace-offering, as is the law with regard to a ritually pure nazirite who shaves at the completion of his naziriteship; except that a lifelong nazirite continues in his naziriteship afterward.

But in the case of his doubt -

he does not

shave at all, since he cannot bring his offerings.

But the difficulty still remains: if he

said, “

I am a Samson nazirite

if this pile contains one hundred kor,” in which case he does not shave even if his hair becomes heavy -

what is the ruling?

He said to him: A Samson nazirite -

is not taught

in the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, and an unspecified naziriteship does not indicate Samson naziriteship.

He said to him: But did Rav Adda bar Ahava not say, “It is taught

explicitly in the statement of Rabbi Yehuda as well:

a Samson nazirite!”

He said to him: If it is taught -

it is taught.

Rav Ashi said: That

beraita in which Rabbi Yehuda permits the case of the pile -

is Rabbi Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Tarfon.

As it is taught:

Two people were standing, and a third person passed before them. One of the two said, “I am a nazirite if this person is a nazirite,” and the other said, “I am a nazirite if this person is not a nazirite” -

Rabbi Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Tarfon says: Neither of them is a nazirite!

For naziriteship takes effect only through explicit designation,

when he states it explicitly and with certainty, while clearly knowing that at the time of undertaking his naziriteship he is becoming a nazirite, and not when the matter is uncertain to him.

And we challenge this:

If so, why specifically

does the beraita teach

that it was stolen or lost

and we now do not know how much it contained? Even if the pile remained in its place, since at the time of his naziriteship he did not know whether it contained one hundred kor, this is not naziriteship undertaken through explicit designation!

And we answer: The beraita stated this

only to inform you of the force of Rabbi Shimon, who says that even though it was stolen or lost

he is a nazirite,

as he holds: A person does subject himself to uncertainty.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: Ordinary teruma in Judea

is forbidden, while in the Galilee it is permitted, because the people of the Galilee do not recognize the teruma of the Temple treasury chamber.

And we raised a question about it:

But if they recognize them -

they are forbidden.

Apparently,

and it is evident that when there is

uncertainty

whether they intended the teruma of the treasury chamber or the teruma of the threshing floor, we follow the

stringent approach.

If so,

say the latter clause:

Ordinary herem declarations in Judea are permitted, but in the Galilee -

they are forbidden, because the people of the Galilee do not recognize the herem of the priests.

And we should infer:

But if they recognize them -

they are permitted.

Apparently, uncertainty is treated leniently!

And the contradiction between the first clause and the latter clause is difficult!

Abaye said: The latter clause -

is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Tzadok.

As it is taught: Rabbi Yehuda says: Ordinary teruma in Judea is forbidden.

Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Tzadok says: Ordinary herem declarations in the Galilee are forbidden.