Talmud Nazir (E)

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
 — He
14
 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.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 10a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 10a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 10a
or the meal-offering of the faithless wife,
1
 then I desire it to become consecrated, but not otherwise
— even there we are told that he must bring one of wheaten flour.
2
 
    MISHNAH. IF HE SAYS, ‘THIS HEIFER IS SAYING I SHALL BECOME A NAZIRITE IF I
RISE,’
3
 OR ‘THIS DOOR IS SAYING I SHALL BECOME A NAZI RITE IF I OPEN’, BETH
SHAMMAI SAY THAT HE BECOMES A NAZIRITE, BUT BETH HILLEL SAY THAT HE
DOES NOT BECOME A NAZIRITE. R. JUDAH SAID: EVEN THOUGH BETH SHAMMAI DID
AFFIRM [THAT THE FORMULA WAS OF SOME EFFECT], IT WAS ONLY WHERE HE
SAYS:
4
 ‘THIS HEIFER SHALL BE [FORBIDDEN] TO ME AS IS A SACRIFICE, IF IT SHOULD
STAND UP [OF ITSELF]’.
 
    GEMARA. Is it possible for a heifer to talk? — Rami b. Hama replied: [The Mishnah] here, refers
to where a heifer lay crouching before him, and he said, ‘This heifer thinks that it is not going to
stand up. I intend to be a nazirite [and abstain] from its flesh, if it stands up of its own accord,’ and it
then arose of its own accord. Beth Shammai now apply their customary view and Beth Hillel their
customary view. Beth Shammai who affirm that [in spite of his saying], ‘from dried figs and pressed
figs’, he becomes a nazirite, assert here that [even] when he says ‘from its flesh’, he becomes a
nazirite, whilst Beth Hillel declare that he does not become a nazirite.
 
    But have not Beth Shammai asserted this once, already? Raba replied: A second and a third time
5
[did they repeat it]. R. Hiyya, too, taught it a second and a third time, and so did R. Oshaia teach it a
second and a third time, and they are all necessary statements; For if the rule had been stated merely
in the case of dried figs and pressed figs, [it might have been argued] that Beth Shammai were of the
opinion there that his words take effect and he becomes a nazirite because [figs and] grapes can be
confused,
6
 whereas flesh and grapes cannot be confused. Similarly had it been affirmed regarding
flesh [it might have been argued] that Beth Shammai were of the opinion in this instance that he
becomes a nazirite, because flesh and wine [are naturally associated],
7
 but it would not apply to dried
figs and pressed figs, and so this case also is given explicitly. Again, had it been affirmed in these
two cases [only, it might have been argued] that only in these cases was Beth Shammai's assertion to
be applied, whilst as concerns the door, they would defer to Beth Hillel.
8
 Further, had only the door
been referred to, [it might have been argued] that only in this case do Beth Hillel dissent, but in the
other two they defer to Beth Shammai, and so we are told that this is not so.
 
    [Nevertheless,] said Raba, does the Mishnah say if [the cow] rises of its own accord?
9
 But, said
Raba, we must explain thus: The heifer, for example, is recumbent before him, and he says, ‘I
undertake to bring it as a sacrifice’.
 
    This is all very well as regards the heifer which can be offered as a sacrifice but can a door be
sacrificed?
10
 — Raba therefore [corrected himself and] said: The heifer, for example, is recumbent
before him,
11
____________________
(1) This was also barley, v. Num. V, 15.

---