Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 1, 2015 | 讬状讝 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Nazir 10

讗讜 讻诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 转拽讚讜砖 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诪讬讬转讬 诪谉 讛讞讬讟讬诐

or like the meal-offering of a sota, both of which are made of barley, it should become consecrated, and if it is not possible to volunteer a meal-offering from barley, it should not be a meal-offering at all. The mishna therefore teaches us that one nevertheless brings a meal-offering made from wheat. Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that the difficulty raised by 岣zkiyya against his own explanation is inconclusive, and he need not have retracted it.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诪专 讗诪专讛 驻专讛 讝讜 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专讛 讗诐 注讜诪讚转 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讛讚诇转 讛讝讛 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专讛 讗诐 谞驻转讞 讗谞讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讝讬专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 谞讝讬专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗祝 讻砖讗诪专讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讗 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗诇讗 讘讗讜诪专 讛专讬 驻专讛 讝讜 注诇讬 拽专讘谉 讗诐 注讜诪讚转 讛讬讗

MISHNA: If one said: This cow said: I am hereby a nazirite if I stand up; or if he said: This door says: I am hereby a nazirite if I am opened, Beit Shammai say he is a nazirite, and Beit Hillel say he is not a nazirite. Rabbi Yehuda said: Even when Beit Shammai say that the vow is effective, they say so only with regard to one who said: This cow is hereby forbidden to me as an offering if it stands up. In that case it is as if he took a vow that the cow is forbidden. However, Beit Shammai concede that although the vow takes effect, it is not a vow of naziriteship.

讙诪壮 驻专讛 诪讬 拽讗 诪讬砖转注讬讗 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬转讛 驻专讛 专讘讜爪讛 诇驻谞讬讜 讜讗诪专 讻住讘讜专讛 驻专讛 讝讜 讗讬谞讛 注讜诪讚转 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诪讘砖专讛 讗诐 注诪讚讛 诪讗诇讬讛 讜注诪讚讛 诪讗诇讬讛 讜讛诇讻讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇砖讬讟转谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇砖讬讟转谉

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Does a cow speak? What is the meaning of the statement: A cow said: I am hereby a nazirite? Rami bar 岣ma said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where there was a prone cow before him, and he tried, without success, to cause it to stand, and he said: This cow thinks it will not stand; I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from its flesh if it stands of its own accord, and in fact it stood of its own accord. Beit Shammai follow their standard approach and Beit Hillel follow their standard approach.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚讗诪专讬 诪谉 讛讙专讜讙专讜转 讜诪谉 讛讚讘讬诇讛 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬 讗诪专 诪讘砖专讛 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专

The Gemara explains: Beit Shammai, who say that one who vows to be a nazirite and therefore will refrain from dried figs and from cakes of dried figs is a nazirite, say that here too, when he says: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from its flesh, is a nazirite. Since one does not utter a statement for naught, he is held to the first part of his statement: I am hereby a nazirite, and the words: And therefore will refrain from its flesh, are disregarded. And Beit Hillel say: He is not a nazirite.

讜讛讗 讗诪专讜讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 转专转讬 转诇转 讜讻谉 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 转专转讬 转诇转 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 转专转讬 转诇转

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if Rami bar 岣ma is correct, didn鈥檛 Beit Shammai already say this halakha one time? According to Rami bar 岣ma鈥檚 explanation, this mishna and the previous one differ only with regard to the examples provided, but the principle is identical. Rava said: It is normal for the Sages to cite two or three examples from different cases that offer novel perspectives, although they essentially reflect the same principle. And Rabbi 岣yya also taught two or three examples with regard to this same issue. And Rabbi Oshaya also said two or three examples.

讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讗 讙专讜讙专讜转 讜讚讘讬诇讛 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬讞诇驻谉 讘注谞讘讬诐 讗讘诇 讘砖专 讘注谞讘讬诐 诇讗 诪讬讞诇祝 讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘砖专 讛讻讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 讘讘讬砖专讗 讜讞诪专讗 讗讘诇 讙专讜讙专讜转 讜讚讘讬诇讛 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

And all these cases are necessary, as, if it were stated only that he is a nazirite in this case of dried figs and cakes of dried figs, it could have been said that it is only there that Beit Shammai say he is a nazirite, since figs are confused with grapes, and it is reasonable to assume that he had grapes in mind. But meat is certainly not confused with grapes, and it could be that in the case of the mishna he is not a nazirite even according to Beit Shammai. And if it were stated only that he is a nazirite where he vowed that meat was forbidden to him, it could have been said that it is here that Beit Shammai say he is a nazirite because he was referring to the often-paired meat and wine, and it is reasonable to assume that he might have had wine in mind. But dried figs and cakes of dried figs are not paired with wine, so he should not be a nazirite. To counter that claim, the mishna teaches us that he is a nazirite in both cases.

讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛谞讬 转专转讬 讛谞讬 讛讜讗 讚拽讗诪专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讘诇 讚诇转 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讜 诇讛讜 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜讗讬 转谞讗 讚诇转 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讘诇 讘讛讱 转专转讬 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讜 诇讛讜 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗

And if it were stated only that he is a nazirite with regard to these two cases of figs and meat, it could be said: It is in these cases that Beit Shammai say he is a nazirite, but in the case of a door, I will say they concede to Beit Hillel that such a statement certainly does not constitute a vow of naziriteship. Therefore, this case had to be stated as well. And conversely, if it taught only the case of a door, the opposite could be said, i.e., that it is in this case that Beit Hillel say there is no naziriteship, but in these two earlier cases I will say they concede to Beit Shammai that the individual has taken a vow of naziriteship. The tanna therefore teaches us that this is not the case; in fact, Beit Shammai hold that he is a nazirite in all three cases, and Beit Hillel hold that he is not.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讗诐 注诪讚讛 诪讗诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬转讛 驻专讛 专讘讜爪讛 诇驻谞讬讜 讜讗诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 拽专讘谉 讘砖诇诪讗 驻专讛 讘转 拽专讘谉 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讚诇转 讘转 拽专讘谉 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬转讛 驻专讛 专讘讜爪讛 诇驻谞讬讜

After providing the answer to one difficulty raised against Rami bar 岣ma鈥檚 explanation, Rava presents another problem. Rava said: Is the mishna teaching: If it stood of its own accord? The mishna states: If it stands, and does not mention the condition of: On its own accord. Rather, Rava said: The mishna is referring to a case where there was a prone cow before him, and he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring it as a nazirite offering, and in this way the individual accepts naziriteship upon himself. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Granted, a cow can be an offering, but can a door be an offering? How can his vow that a door should be an offering be considered an acceptance of naziriteship? Rather, Rava said it means the following: It is a case where there was a prone cow before him refusing to stand,

讜讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诪讬讬谉 讗诐 诇讗 注诪讚讛 讜注诪讚讛 诪讗诇讬讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 转讜专驻讬讛 讚讛讗讬 讙讘专讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讜拽诪讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 诇讗 讗讜拽诪讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬注讗 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 拽诪转

and he said: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from wine if it does not stand, since I will force it to do so, and it stood of its own accord, without him causing it to stand. Beit Shammai hold: This man鈥檚 intention [turpeih] is based upon him having it stand by his own hand, and he did not have it stand. Since he did not cause it to stand, his vow of naziriteship takes effect. And Beit Hillel hold: His intention is based upon the fact that it was prone, and now it has stood. Since the cow stood up it does not matter what caused it to stand, and his vow of naziriteship does not take effect.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗祝 讻砖讗诪专讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讘讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讛谉 注诇讬 拽专讘谉 驻专讛 诪讬 拽讗 诪转驻讬住 讘讛 诪讬讚讬

The Gemara asks: If so, say the latter clause of the mishna as follows: Rabbi Yehuda said: Even when Beit Shammai said the vow is effective they said so only with regard to one who said: They are hereby forbidden to me as an offering. But does he take a vow and extend any prohibition to the cow? Since according to this approach, he explicitly mentions naziriteship, the cow is not rendered forbidden but is merely the subject of a condition of the vow, so why does Rabbi Yehuda speak of a prohibition on the cow?

讗诇讗 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诪讘砖专讛 讗诐 诇讗 注诪讚讛 讜注诪讚讛 诪讗诇讬讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 转讜专驻讬讛 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讜拽诪讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 诇讗 讗讜拽诪讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 转讜专驻讬讛 讚讛讗讬 讙讘专讗 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬注讗 讜讛讗 拽诪转

The Gemara offers another explanation: Rather, the mishna is referring to a case where he said: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from its flesh if it does not stand, and it stood of its own accord. Beit Shammai hold: That man鈥檚 intention is based upon him having it stand by his own hand, and he did not have it stand. Since he did not cause it to stand, his vow of prohibition takes effect. And Beit Hillel hold: This man鈥檚 intention is based upon the fact that it was prone, and now it has stood, so his vow does not take effect.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 讗讬 诇讗 拽诪转 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 讜讛讗诪专讬 诪讘砖专讛 诇讗 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专

The Gemara asks: And do Beit Hillel hold that if the cow does not stand he will be a nazirite? But didn鈥檛 they say that if one states: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from the cow鈥檚 flesh, he is not a nazirite, just as they ruled in a case where one states that he is a nazirite from dried figs?

诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讚讬讚谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 拽诪转 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讚讗诪专讬转讜 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 讗讜讚讜 诇谉 诪讬讛转 讚转讜专驻讬讛 讚讛讚讬谉 讙讘专讗 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬注讗 讜讛讗 拽诪转 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讗讜 转讜专驻讬讛 讚讛讗讬 讙讘专讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讜拽诪讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 诇讗 讗讜拽诪讛

The Gemara answers: They stated their opinion in accordance with the reasoning of Beit Shammai: According to our opinion, even if the cow does not stand he is also not a nazirite, since naziriteship takes effect only if he vowed that products of the vine are forbidden to him. However, according to your reasoning that you say he is a nazirite, in any event concede to us that this man鈥檚 intention is based upon the fact that the cow was prone, and it has stood, so the naziriteship should not take effect. And Beit Shammai hold: Isn鈥檛 this man鈥檚 intention based upon him having it stand by his own hand, and he did not have it stand? Since his condition was not fulfilled, the naziriteship does not take effect.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Nazir 10

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 10

讗讜 讻诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 转拽讚讜砖 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诪讬讬转讬 诪谉 讛讞讬讟讬诐

or like the meal-offering of a sota, both of which are made of barley, it should become consecrated, and if it is not possible to volunteer a meal-offering from barley, it should not be a meal-offering at all. The mishna therefore teaches us that one nevertheless brings a meal-offering made from wheat. Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that the difficulty raised by 岣zkiyya against his own explanation is inconclusive, and he need not have retracted it.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诪专 讗诪专讛 驻专讛 讝讜 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专讛 讗诐 注讜诪讚转 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讛讚诇转 讛讝讛 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专讛 讗诐 谞驻转讞 讗谞讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讝讬专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 谞讝讬专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗祝 讻砖讗诪专讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讗 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗诇讗 讘讗讜诪专 讛专讬 驻专讛 讝讜 注诇讬 拽专讘谉 讗诐 注讜诪讚转 讛讬讗

MISHNA: If one said: This cow said: I am hereby a nazirite if I stand up; or if he said: This door says: I am hereby a nazirite if I am opened, Beit Shammai say he is a nazirite, and Beit Hillel say he is not a nazirite. Rabbi Yehuda said: Even when Beit Shammai say that the vow is effective, they say so only with regard to one who said: This cow is hereby forbidden to me as an offering if it stands up. In that case it is as if he took a vow that the cow is forbidden. However, Beit Shammai concede that although the vow takes effect, it is not a vow of naziriteship.

讙诪壮 驻专讛 诪讬 拽讗 诪讬砖转注讬讗 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬转讛 驻专讛 专讘讜爪讛 诇驻谞讬讜 讜讗诪专 讻住讘讜专讛 驻专讛 讝讜 讗讬谞讛 注讜诪讚转 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诪讘砖专讛 讗诐 注诪讚讛 诪讗诇讬讛 讜注诪讚讛 诪讗诇讬讛 讜讛诇讻讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇砖讬讟转谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇砖讬讟转谉

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Does a cow speak? What is the meaning of the statement: A cow said: I am hereby a nazirite? Rami bar 岣ma said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where there was a prone cow before him, and he tried, without success, to cause it to stand, and he said: This cow thinks it will not stand; I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from its flesh if it stands of its own accord, and in fact it stood of its own accord. Beit Shammai follow their standard approach and Beit Hillel follow their standard approach.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚讗诪专讬 诪谉 讛讙专讜讙专讜转 讜诪谉 讛讚讘讬诇讛 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬 讗诪专 诪讘砖专讛 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专

The Gemara explains: Beit Shammai, who say that one who vows to be a nazirite and therefore will refrain from dried figs and from cakes of dried figs is a nazirite, say that here too, when he says: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from its flesh, is a nazirite. Since one does not utter a statement for naught, he is held to the first part of his statement: I am hereby a nazirite, and the words: And therefore will refrain from its flesh, are disregarded. And Beit Hillel say: He is not a nazirite.

讜讛讗 讗诪专讜讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 转专转讬 转诇转 讜讻谉 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 转专转讬 转诇转 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 转专转讬 转诇转

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if Rami bar 岣ma is correct, didn鈥檛 Beit Shammai already say this halakha one time? According to Rami bar 岣ma鈥檚 explanation, this mishna and the previous one differ only with regard to the examples provided, but the principle is identical. Rava said: It is normal for the Sages to cite two or three examples from different cases that offer novel perspectives, although they essentially reflect the same principle. And Rabbi 岣yya also taught two or three examples with regard to this same issue. And Rabbi Oshaya also said two or three examples.

讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讗 讙专讜讙专讜转 讜讚讘讬诇讛 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬讞诇驻谉 讘注谞讘讬诐 讗讘诇 讘砖专 讘注谞讘讬诐 诇讗 诪讬讞诇祝 讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘砖专 讛讻讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 讘讘讬砖专讗 讜讞诪专讗 讗讘诇 讙专讜讙专讜转 讜讚讘讬诇讛 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

And all these cases are necessary, as, if it were stated only that he is a nazirite in this case of dried figs and cakes of dried figs, it could have been said that it is only there that Beit Shammai say he is a nazirite, since figs are confused with grapes, and it is reasonable to assume that he had grapes in mind. But meat is certainly not confused with grapes, and it could be that in the case of the mishna he is not a nazirite even according to Beit Shammai. And if it were stated only that he is a nazirite where he vowed that meat was forbidden to him, it could have been said that it is here that Beit Shammai say he is a nazirite because he was referring to the often-paired meat and wine, and it is reasonable to assume that he might have had wine in mind. But dried figs and cakes of dried figs are not paired with wine, so he should not be a nazirite. To counter that claim, the mishna teaches us that he is a nazirite in both cases.

讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛谞讬 转专转讬 讛谞讬 讛讜讗 讚拽讗诪专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讘诇 讚诇转 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讜 诇讛讜 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜讗讬 转谞讗 讚诇转 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讘诇 讘讛讱 转专转讬 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讜 诇讛讜 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗

And if it were stated only that he is a nazirite with regard to these two cases of figs and meat, it could be said: It is in these cases that Beit Shammai say he is a nazirite, but in the case of a door, I will say they concede to Beit Hillel that such a statement certainly does not constitute a vow of naziriteship. Therefore, this case had to be stated as well. And conversely, if it taught only the case of a door, the opposite could be said, i.e., that it is in this case that Beit Hillel say there is no naziriteship, but in these two earlier cases I will say they concede to Beit Shammai that the individual has taken a vow of naziriteship. The tanna therefore teaches us that this is not the case; in fact, Beit Shammai hold that he is a nazirite in all three cases, and Beit Hillel hold that he is not.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讗诐 注诪讚讛 诪讗诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬转讛 驻专讛 专讘讜爪讛 诇驻谞讬讜 讜讗诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 拽专讘谉 讘砖诇诪讗 驻专讛 讘转 拽专讘谉 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讚诇转 讘转 拽专讘谉 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬转讛 驻专讛 专讘讜爪讛 诇驻谞讬讜

After providing the answer to one difficulty raised against Rami bar 岣ma鈥檚 explanation, Rava presents another problem. Rava said: Is the mishna teaching: If it stood of its own accord? The mishna states: If it stands, and does not mention the condition of: On its own accord. Rather, Rava said: The mishna is referring to a case where there was a prone cow before him, and he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring it as a nazirite offering, and in this way the individual accepts naziriteship upon himself. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Granted, a cow can be an offering, but can a door be an offering? How can his vow that a door should be an offering be considered an acceptance of naziriteship? Rather, Rava said it means the following: It is a case where there was a prone cow before him refusing to stand,

讜讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诪讬讬谉 讗诐 诇讗 注诪讚讛 讜注诪讚讛 诪讗诇讬讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 转讜专驻讬讛 讚讛讗讬 讙讘专讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讜拽诪讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 诇讗 讗讜拽诪讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬注讗 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 拽诪转

and he said: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from wine if it does not stand, since I will force it to do so, and it stood of its own accord, without him causing it to stand. Beit Shammai hold: This man鈥檚 intention [turpeih] is based upon him having it stand by his own hand, and he did not have it stand. Since he did not cause it to stand, his vow of naziriteship takes effect. And Beit Hillel hold: His intention is based upon the fact that it was prone, and now it has stood. Since the cow stood up it does not matter what caused it to stand, and his vow of naziriteship does not take effect.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗祝 讻砖讗诪专讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讘讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讛谉 注诇讬 拽专讘谉 驻专讛 诪讬 拽讗 诪转驻讬住 讘讛 诪讬讚讬

The Gemara asks: If so, say the latter clause of the mishna as follows: Rabbi Yehuda said: Even when Beit Shammai said the vow is effective they said so only with regard to one who said: They are hereby forbidden to me as an offering. But does he take a vow and extend any prohibition to the cow? Since according to this approach, he explicitly mentions naziriteship, the cow is not rendered forbidden but is merely the subject of a condition of the vow, so why does Rabbi Yehuda speak of a prohibition on the cow?

讗诇讗 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诪讘砖专讛 讗诐 诇讗 注诪讚讛 讜注诪讚讛 诪讗诇讬讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 转讜专驻讬讛 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讜拽诪讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 诇讗 讗讜拽诪讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 转讜专驻讬讛 讚讛讗讬 讙讘专讗 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬注讗 讜讛讗 拽诪转

The Gemara offers another explanation: Rather, the mishna is referring to a case where he said: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from its flesh if it does not stand, and it stood of its own accord. Beit Shammai hold: That man鈥檚 intention is based upon him having it stand by his own hand, and he did not have it stand. Since he did not cause it to stand, his vow of prohibition takes effect. And Beit Hillel hold: This man鈥檚 intention is based upon the fact that it was prone, and now it has stood, so his vow does not take effect.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 讗讬 诇讗 拽诪转 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 讜讛讗诪专讬 诪讘砖专讛 诇讗 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专

The Gemara asks: And do Beit Hillel hold that if the cow does not stand he will be a nazirite? But didn鈥檛 they say that if one states: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from the cow鈥檚 flesh, he is not a nazirite, just as they ruled in a case where one states that he is a nazirite from dried figs?

诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讚讬讚谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 拽诪转 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讚讗诪专讬转讜 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 讗讜讚讜 诇谉 诪讬讛转 讚转讜专驻讬讛 讚讛讚讬谉 讙讘专讗 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬注讗 讜讛讗 拽诪转 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讗讜 转讜专驻讬讛 讚讛讗讬 讙讘专讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讜拽诪讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 诇讗 讗讜拽诪讛

The Gemara answers: They stated their opinion in accordance with the reasoning of Beit Shammai: According to our opinion, even if the cow does not stand he is also not a nazirite, since naziriteship takes effect only if he vowed that products of the vine are forbidden to him. However, according to your reasoning that you say he is a nazirite, in any event concede to us that this man鈥檚 intention is based upon the fact that the cow was prone, and it has stood, so the naziriteship should not take effect. And Beit Shammai hold: Isn鈥檛 this man鈥檚 intention based upon him having it stand by his own hand, and he did not have it stand? Since his condition was not fulfilled, the naziriteship does not take effect.

Scroll To Top