Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nazir

Folio 9a

CHAPTER II

MISHNAH. [IF A MAN SAYS.] 'I INTEND TO BE A NAZIRITE [AND ABSTAIN] FROM DRIED FIGS AND PRESSED FIGS', BETH SHAMMAI SAY THAT HE BECOMES A NAZIRITE [IN THE ORDINARY SENSE].¹  BUT BETH HILLEL SAY THAT HE DOES NOT BECOME A NAZIRITE. R. JUDAH SAID: EVEN THOUGH BETH SHAMMAI DID AFFIRM [THAT THE FORMULA IS OF SOME EFFECT]. THEY MEANT ONLY WHERE HE SAID,²  'THEY ARE [FORBIDDEN] TO ME, AS IS A SACRIFICE.'³

GEMARA. [IF A MAN SAYS,] 'I INTEND TO BE A NAZIRITE [AND ABSTAIN] FROM DRIED FIGS AND PRESSED FIGS, BETH SHAMMAI SAY THAT HE BECOMES A NAZIRITE: But why? Does not the Divine Law say, nothing that is made of the grape-vine?⁴  — Beth Shammai adopt the view of R. Meir, who said that a man does not make a declaration without meaning something,⁵  whilst Beth Hillel adopt the view of R. Jose that a man's intentions are to be gathered from⁶  the concluding portion of his statement [equally with the first portion], and [in consequence] the vow here carries with it its annulment.⁷

But surely Beth Shammai also agree that the vow here carries with it its annulment? — We must therefore say, that Beth Shammai adopt the view of R. Meir, who said that a man does not make a declaration without meaning something, and so immediately he utters the words 'I INTEND TO BE A NAZIRITE', he becomes a nazirite, and in adding '[AND ABSTAIN] FROM DRIED FIGS AND PRESSED FIGS, his purpose is to obtain release⁸  [from his vow], and Beth Shammai [reject this] in accordance with their general principle that there can be no release from [vows made for] sacred purposes, and since there can be no release from [vows made for] sacred purposes, there can be no release from naziriteship. Beth Hillel, on the other hand, agree with R. Simeon, as we have learnt:⁹  R. Simeon declared him free¹⁰  [of obligation], since his offering was not undertaken in the customary manner:

1. I.e., he must abstain from wine and grapes.
2. I.e., he added (Rashi). [Tosaf: … as if he said'; Asheri: … here he intended'].
3. They then become forbidden, but he does not become a nazirite even according to Beth Shammai.
4. Num. VI, 4, which would show that naziriteship applies only to wine etc.
5. Even though taken altogether his words are meaningless, and we therefore select that part which has a meaning and hold him to it.
6. Lit., 'a man is held by'.
7. Lit., 'its door' for escape; by his concluding remarks, he has withdrawn from his nazirite vow.
8. Lit., 'to ask for remission.
9. In connection with one who vowed to bring a meal-offering of barley flour; v. infra.
10. From bringing the offering, since a meal-offering could be brought only of wheaten flour.

Our Mishnah is not in agreement with the following tanna. For it has been taught: R. Nathan said that Beth Shammai declare him both to have vowed [to abstain from figs] and to have become a nazirite, whilst Beth Hillel declare him to have vowed [to abstain from figs], but not to have become a nazirite. [Here,] Beth Shammai agree with R. Meir¹  and R. Judah,²  and Beth Hillel with R. Jose.³

According to another report, R. Nathan said that Beth Shammai declare him to have vowed [to abstain from figs], but not to have become a nazirite, whilst Beth Hillel declare him neither to have vowed, nor to have become a nazirite. [Here,] Beth Shammai agree with R. Judah, and Beth Hillel with R. Simeon.⁴

We have learnt elsewhere: A man who says, 'I undertake to bring a meal-offering of barley-flour,' must [nevertheless] bring one of wheaten flour.⁵  If he says, 'of coarse meal,' he must [nevertheless] bring fine meal. If,'without oil and frankincense,' he must [nevertheless] add oil and frankincense; 'of half a tenth,' he must offer a whole tenth; 'of a tenth and a half', he must offer two tenths. R. Simeon declared him, free [of obligation], since his offering was not undertaken in the customary manner.⁶

Who is the Tanna [who asserts that] if anyone undertakes to bring a meal-offering of barley-flour, he must bring one of wheaten flour? — Hezekiah replied: The matter is a subject of controversy, [the Tanna here] representing Beth Shammai. For have not Beth Shammai averred that when a man says ['I intend to be a nazirite and abstain] from dried figs and pressed figs,' he becomes a nazirite? So too, if he says 'of barley-flour', he must bring one of wheatenflour. R. Johanan, on the other hand, replied that it is possible to maintain that [the passage quoted] represents the views of both [Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel] and that it refers to a man who says, 'Had I known that such vows are not made, I should not have vowed in this wise, but in the [correct] manner

Hezekiah said: The rule just laid down applies only where he said 'of barley', but if he says 'of lentils',⁷  he need bring nothing at all. [Can this be so?] Consider: To whom does Hezekiah ascribe the Mishnah [containing this ruling]? To Beth Shammai! Now lentils in regard to a meal-offering, are as dried figs to a nazirite, and there Beth Shammai declare him to be a nazarite?⁸  Hezekiah relinquished that opinion.⁹  Why did he relinquish it? — 10 Raba said: Because he found that Mishnah difficult to understand. Why does it say 'barley' and not 'lentils'?¹¹  And so Hezekiah concluded that Beth Shammai's assertion was what R. Judah [maintained it to be].¹²

R. Johanan, on the other hand, affirmed that [the rule of the Mishnah is applicable] even if he says 'of lentils'. But was it not R. Johanan who averred that [he only brings the offering if] he affirms: Had I known that such vows are not made, I should not have vowed in this wise, but in the [correct] manner?¹³  — He¹⁴  was arguing on Hezekiah's premises. You relinquished your former opinion,¹⁵  because [the Mishnah] does not mention [the case] 'of lentils'. But might it not be a case of progressive argument, viz, not only is it true that when he says, 'of lentils' he must bring a proper mealoffering, since we may hold that he is there repenting [of his vow], and so we lay stress upon the opening portion of his statement, but even if he says 'of barley', where we could take it as certain that his intention is: If it can become consecrated after the manner of the 'Omer meal-offering,¹⁶

1. That a man does not make a declaration without meaning something.
2. Of our Mishnah.
3. That a man's intention may be gathered from the concluding portion of his statement, and not like R. Simeon; cf. n. 7.
4. That a vow must be undertaken in the customary manner.
5. Which alone was permissible for a meal-offering. v. Lev. II. 2: And when anyone bringeth a meal-offering unto the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour; and he shall pour oil upon it and put frankincense thereon.
6. M. Men. 103a.
7. There was an obligatory offering of barley for the 'Omer but no offering of lentils at all (v. Lev. XXIII, 10ff.).
8. And so here he ought to bring a meal-offering of wheaten Hour if he says 'of lentils'.
9. That the Tanna of the Mishnah of Men. 103a is Beth Shammai. [He will consequently accept the explanation of R. Johanan (Tosaf.).]
10. He could still have maintained that the Mishnah of Men. represents the view of Beth Shammai, and retract from the second statement holding that the ruling applies even if the man said 'of lentils'!
11. If the view of Beth Shammai is that we hold a man to the first portion of his vow, then even if he says, 'I intend to offer a mealoffering of lentils', he should be obliged to bring one of wheaten flour.
12. [The text is in disorder, and the interpretations suggested are many and varied. It appears to be best understood on the basis of Rashi's interpretation of R. Judah's statement in our Mishnah, viz., that he actually added, THEY ARE FORBIDDEN TO ME AS IS A SACRIFICE (v. supra p. 28, n. 2). On this view, even according to Beth Shammai, where he vowed to bring a meal-offering from barley, he would not be obliged to bring one of wheat unless he, e.g., explicitly stated that had he known that such vows are not made, he would have vowed in the correct manner, as R. Johanan (supra p. 30), but while such a plea would be accepted if he vowed barley because it could have been a bona-fide error, it could not be admitted if he undertook to offer 'lentils'. Granted this, the Mishnah in Men. can represent the views of both Beth Hillel and Beth Shammai, as R. Johanan stated, hence the reason for Hezekiah relinquishing his former opinion (v. p. 30, 11. 4).]
13. [A plea which is not admitted if he vowed to bring 'lentils', v. n. 4.]
14. [R. Johanan, in affirming that the ruling is applicable even if he says 'of lentils'.]
15. [V. supra p. 30, n. 4.]
16. Which was of barley. v. Lev.XXIII, 10ff.