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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 31, 2015 | 讟状讝 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 9

诪转谞讬壮 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诪谉 讛讙专讜讙专讜转 讜诪谉 讛讚讘讬诇讛 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 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讘讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讛谉 注诇讬 拽专讘谉

MISHNA: If one says: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from dried figs and from cakes of dried figs, Beit Shammai say: His statement renders him a full-fledged nazirite, and his addition: From dried figs, is insignificant, as this fruit is not included in the prohibitions of a nazirite, which include only products of the grapevine. And Beit Hillel say: He is not a nazirite, since he did not accept naziriteship upon himself. Rabbi Yehuda said: Even when Beit Shammai said that this vow takes effect, they said that only in a case where one said that he meant: They are hereby forbidden to me as an offering. In that case it is as though he took a vow rendering the figs forbidden to him. However, Beit Shammai concede that although the vow takes effect, it is not a vow of naziriteship.

讙诪壮 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诪谉 讛讙专讜讙专讜转 讜诪谉 讛讚讘讬诇讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讝讬专 讜讗诪讗讬 诪讻诇 讗砖专 讬注砖讛 诪讙驻谉 讛讬讬谉 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 诇讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讜爪讬讗 讚讘专讬讜 诇讘讟诇讛

GEMARA: It is stated in the mishna that if one says: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from dried figs and from cakes of dried figs, Beit Shammai say: He is a nazirite. The Gemara asks: But why? The Merciful One states in the Torah in the passage dealing with naziriteship: 鈥淔rom anything that is made of the grapevine鈥e shall not eat鈥 (Numbers 6:4). In naziriteship, only the fruit of the vine is prohibited. The Gemara answers: Beit Shammai hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: A person does not utter a statement for naught. In other words, if one utters a statement that cannot be fulfilled as stated, his statement is interpreted in a manner that renders it relevant. Here too, Beit Shammai say that he misspoke and actually intended to take a vow of naziriteship.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 讘讙诪专 讚讘专讬讜 讗讚诐 谞转驻住 讜讛讗讬 谞讚专 讜驻转讞讜 注诪讜 讛讜讗

And Beit Hillel hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says: A person is also held accountable for the conclusion of his statement. If one states two irreconcilable clauses, e.g., this animal is a substitute for a burnt-offering, a substitute for a peace-offering; the second clause is not disregarded, and the animal assumes both statuses. And this is a vow with its inherent opening, i.e., reason for dissolution. Although he said: I am hereby a nazirite, by adding the words: From dried figs and from cakes of dried figs, he indicated that his intention was that the naziriteship would not take effect.

讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 谞诪讬 谞讚专 讜驻转讞讜 注诪讜 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: And according to Beit Shammai too, it is a vow with its inherent opening, and since they certainly agree that a vow of this kind does not take effect, why do they hold that this vow takes effect?

讗诇讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 诇讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讜爪讬讗 讚讘专讬讜 诇讘讟诇讛 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 谞讝讬专 讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪谉 讛讙专讜讙专讜转 讜诪谉 讛讚讘讬诇讛 诇讗讬转砖讜诇讬 讛讜讗 讚拽讗转讬 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 砖讗诇讛 讘讛拽讚砖 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬谉 砖讗诇讛 讘讛拽讚砖 讗讬谉 砖讗诇讛 讘谞讝讬专讜转

The Gemara explains the dispute: Rather, Beit Shammai hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: A person does not utter a statement for naught, and once he said: I am hereby a nazirite, he is immediately rendered a nazirite. When he then says: And therefore I will refrain from dried figs and from cakes of dried figs, he is coming to request that a halakhic authority dissolve his vow, as he regrets having taken the vow and is now seeking to dissolve it. And Beit Shammai follow their standard line of reasoning, as they say: One cannot request that a halakhic authority dissolve a vow of consecrated property, which one can do for vows of prohibition. And since one cannot request that a halakhic authority dissolve a vow of consecrated property, likewise one cannot request that a halakhic authority dissolve a vow of naziriteship, as the legal status of a vow of naziriteship is like that of a vow of consecrated property in this regard.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 砖诇讗 讛转谞讚讘 讻讚专讱 讛诪转谞讚讘讬诐

And Beit Hillel hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as we learned in a mishna (Mena岣t 103a): If one vows to bring a meal-offering from barley, since voluntary meal-offerings are brought only from wheat, the Rabbis say: He must bring a meal-offering from wheat, and Rabbi Shimon exempts him entirely, as he did not donate in the manner typical of donors. Since he donated an offering that cannot be sacrificed, his vow is meaningless. Here too, since he took a vow of naziriteship stating that he therefore will refrain from dried figs rather than from wine, his statement is meaningless.

诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讚讜专 讜谞讝讬专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讚讜专 讜讗讬谉 谞讝讬专 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 诇讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬

搂 The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Natan says that if one says: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from dried figs, Beit Shammai say: He has rendered dried figs forbidden to himself by a vow, and he is also a nazirite; and Beit Hillel say: He has rendered dried figs forbidden to himself by a vow, but he is not a nazirite. According to Rabbi Natan, Beit Shammai hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir that a person does not utter statements for naught and that he becomes a nazirite as soon as he says: I am hereby a nazirite; and he explains the opinion of Beit Shammai as Rabbi Yehuda does, i.e., that one in this situation has vowed that dried figs are forbidden to him, since the rest of his statement also has significance. And Beit Hillel hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei that one is held to the conclusion of his statement, and he has therefore vowed that dried figs are forbidden to him.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讚讜专 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讝讬专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 谞讚讜专 讜诇讗 谞讝讬专 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Some say a different version of the baraita: Rabbi Natan says that Beit Shammai say: He has rendered dried figs forbidden to himself by a vow and he is not a nazirite; and Beit Hillel say: He has not rendered dried figs forbidden to himself by a vow, and he is not a nazirite. According to this version, the opinion of Beit Shammai is as Rabbi Yehuda explained in the mishna, and Beit Hillel hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that a donation not performed in the manner typical of donors is not a donation.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 诪谞讞讛 诇讛讘讬讗 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬诐 讬讘讬讗 诪谉 讛讞讬讟讬诐 拽诪讞 讬讘讬讗 住讜诇转 砖诇讗 讘砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讬讘讬讗谞讛 讘砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讞爪讬 注砖专讜谉 讬讘讬讗 注砖专讜谉 砖诇诐 注砖专讜谉 讜诪讞爪讛 讬讘讬讗 砖谞讬诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 砖诇讗 讛转谞讚讘 讻讚专讱 讛诪转谞讚讘讬诐

搂 The Gemara discusses a case mentioned earlier. We learned in a mishna there (Mena岣t 103a): With regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering from barley, since voluntary meal-offerings are made only with wheat he must bring a meal-offering from wheat. If one vows to bring a meal-offering from flour, since a standard meal-offering is made from fine flour he must bring one from fine flour. If one vows to bring a meal-offering without oil and frankincense, he must bring it with oil and frankincense, in accordance with the halakha. If one vows to bring a meal-offering with half of a tenth of an ephah of fine flour, he must bring a meal-offering with a full tenth, since a meal-offering cannot have less than one-tenth of an ephah of flour. If one vows to bring a meal-offering with a tenth and a half, he brings two units of a tenth of an ephah in his meal-offering. Since half of one-tenth of an ephah is the minimum, his vow is increased to two full tenths. Rabbi Shimon exempts him entirely in all these cases, as he did not donate in the manner typical of donors.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚讻讬 讗诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 诪谞讞讛 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬诐 诪讘讬讗 诪谉 讛讞讬讟讬诐 讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讘诪讞诇讜拽转 砖谞讜讬讛 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 诇讗讜 讗诪专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讻讬 讗诪专 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 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讻讬 讗诪专 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬谉 诪讘讬讗 诪谉 讛讞讬讟讬诐

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that when one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering from barley, he brings a meal-offering from wheat? 岣zkiyya said that this halakha is taught as a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, and it is the opinion of Beit Shammai. He explains: Didn鈥檛 Beit Shammai say that when one said: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from dried figs and from cakes of dried figs, he is a nazirite, indicating that he is held to only the first part of his statement, and the conflicting details are ignored? So too, when he said that he will bring a meal-offering from barley, he brings it from wheat, and the same analysis applies to the other cases listed in this mishna.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讘讗讜诪专 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讬转讬 讬讜讚注 砖讗讬谉 谞讜讚专讬谉 讻讱 诇讗 谞讚专转讬 讻讱 讗诇讗 讻讱

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: You can even say that all, including Beit Hillel, agree with the opinion of the Rabbis of the mishna, as the mishna may be stated with regard to one who later says, to clarify his earlier statement: Had I known that one cannot vow in this manner, that one cannot bring a voluntary meal-offering from barley, I would not have vowed that way, only this way, to bring a meal-offering from wheat. Mentioning barley was an error on his part rather than a condition, and he actually meant to bring a standard meal-offering. In this case even Beit Hillel, who maintain in the mishna here that there is no vow at all, deem him liable to bring a proper meal-offering.

讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗诪专 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬诐 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诪谉 讛注讚砖讬诐 诇讗 诪讬讬转讬 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

With regard to this ruling 岣zkiyya says: They taught that he must bring a meal-offering from wheat only if he said that he will bring a meal-offering from barley. But if he said he will bring a meal-offering from lentils, he does not bring anything. The difference is that the meal-offerings of the omer and of a sota are made from barley, so if he said: From barley, he may have mistakenly believed that a voluntary meal-offering can be prepared from barley as well. As everyone knows that no meal-offering is made from lentils, his statement demonstrates that he never intended to bring a meal-offering.

诪讻讚讬 讞讝拽讬讛 讻诪讗谉 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讛讗 注讚砖讬诐 诇讙讘讬 诪谞讞讛 讻讙专讜讙专讜转 诇讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 讚诪讜 讜拽讗诪专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讞讝拽讬讛

The Gemara asks: Now consider, in accordance with whose opinion does 岣zkiyya establish the mishna in Mena岣t? It is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. But lentils relative to a meal-offering are comparable to dried figs relative to a nazirite, as everyone is likewise aware that one cannot be a nazirite and therefore refrain from figs, and yet Beit Shammai say he is a nazirite. Why not say that one who vows to bring a meal-offering from lentils is obligated to bring a standard meal-offering? The Gemara answers: 岣zkiyya retracted from it and no longer holds that the mishna in Mena岣t is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai.

讜讗诪讗讬 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽砖讬转讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚转谞讬 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬诐 诇讬转谞讬 诪谉 讛注讚砖讬诐 讗诇讗 住讘专 讞讝拽讬讛 讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛转诐 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: And why did he in fact retract from it? Rava said: The mishna caused him difficulty and demonstrated his error. If the mishna is in accordance with Beit Shammai鈥檚 opinion with regard to a nazirite, why does the tanna specifically teach the case of one who says that he will bring a meal-offering from barley? Let him teach a greater novelty, i.e., that even one who vowed to bring a meal-offering from lentils is obligated to bring a meal-offering made from wheat. Rather, 岣zkiyya holds that when Beit Shammai stated their opinion there, i.e., in the mishna with regard to a nazirite, their intention was as explained by Rabbi Yehuda, that one鈥檚 statement is interpreted to be meaningful and it can have the meaning of creating a vow that dried figs are forbidden to him. In the case of the meal-offering, even they agree that since one鈥檚 vow has no meaning, as there cannot be a meal-offering made of lentils, no vow takes effect.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪谉 讛注讚砖讬诐 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讘讗讜诪专 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讬转讬 讬讜讚注 砖讗讬谉 谞讜讚专讬谉 讻讱 诇讗 谞讚专转讬 讻讱 讗诇讗 讻讱 诇讚讘专讬讜 讚讞讝拽讬讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讗诪专

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Even one who vowed to bring a meal-offering from lentils must bring a meal-offering from wheat. The Gemara asks: But Rabbi Yo岣nan is he who said that the mishna is referring to a case of one who says: Had I known that one cannot vow in this manner, I would not have vowed that way, only this way? In the case of the lentils, it is not reasonable to say that he erred in thinking that one may vow to bring a meal-offering from lentils. The Gemara answers: He stated this ruling in accordance with the statement of 岣zkiyya. Rabbi Yo岣nan was not stating his own opinion; he was challenging the ruling of 岣zkiyya.

讗转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽讗 讛讚专转 讘讱 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 诪谉 讛注讚砖讬诐 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讻讬 讗诪专 诪注讚砖讬诐 讚诪讬讬转讬 诪谞讞讛 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讬讛讚专 讛讜讗 讚讛讚专 讘讬讛 讜转驻讜住 诇砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 讗诇讗 讻讬 讗诪专 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬谉 讜讚讗讬 讚讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬 拽讚砖讛 讻诪谞讞转 讛注讜诪专

The Gemara explains his challenge: What is the reason you retracted your earlier opinion that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? You did so because it does not teach: From lentils. That is not conclusive, as perhaps it is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary, as follows: It is not necessary to say that when one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering from lentils, that he brings a proper meal-offering of wheat. In that situation it can be said that by saying: From lentils, he is retracting his first statement and now wants to rescind his vow. And yet Beit Shammai hold that he is held to the first part of his statement, and they do not allow the rescinding of a vow of consecration. But if he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering from barley, since it is possible to explain that certainly this is what he said: If this meal-offering that I have vowed to bring from barley is consecrated like the omer meal-offering,

  • 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 9

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 9

诪转谞讬壮 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诪谉 讛讙专讜讙专讜转 讜诪谉 讛讚讘讬诇讛 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 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讘讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讛谉 注诇讬 拽专讘谉

MISHNA: If one says: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from dried figs and from cakes of dried figs, Beit Shammai say: His statement renders him a full-fledged nazirite, and his addition: From dried figs, is insignificant, as this fruit is not included in the prohibitions of a nazirite, which include only products of the grapevine. And Beit Hillel say: He is not a nazirite, since he did not accept naziriteship upon himself. Rabbi Yehuda said: Even when Beit Shammai said that this vow takes effect, they said that only in a case where one said that he meant: They are hereby forbidden to me as an offering. In that case it is as though he took a vow rendering the figs forbidden to him. However, Beit Shammai concede that although the vow takes effect, it is not a vow of naziriteship.

讙诪壮 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诪谉 讛讙专讜讙专讜转 讜诪谉 讛讚讘讬诇讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讝讬专 讜讗诪讗讬 诪讻诇 讗砖专 讬注砖讛 诪讙驻谉 讛讬讬谉 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 诇讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讜爪讬讗 讚讘专讬讜 诇讘讟诇讛

GEMARA: It is stated in the mishna that if one says: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from dried figs and from cakes of dried figs, Beit Shammai say: He is a nazirite. The Gemara asks: But why? The Merciful One states in the Torah in the passage dealing with naziriteship: 鈥淔rom anything that is made of the grapevine鈥e shall not eat鈥 (Numbers 6:4). In naziriteship, only the fruit of the vine is prohibited. The Gemara answers: Beit Shammai hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: A person does not utter a statement for naught. In other words, if one utters a statement that cannot be fulfilled as stated, his statement is interpreted in a manner that renders it relevant. Here too, Beit Shammai say that he misspoke and actually intended to take a vow of naziriteship.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 讘讙诪专 讚讘专讬讜 讗讚诐 谞转驻住 讜讛讗讬 谞讚专 讜驻转讞讜 注诪讜 讛讜讗

And Beit Hillel hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says: A person is also held accountable for the conclusion of his statement. If one states two irreconcilable clauses, e.g., this animal is a substitute for a burnt-offering, a substitute for a peace-offering; the second clause is not disregarded, and the animal assumes both statuses. And this is a vow with its inherent opening, i.e., reason for dissolution. Although he said: I am hereby a nazirite, by adding the words: From dried figs and from cakes of dried figs, he indicated that his intention was that the naziriteship would not take effect.

讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 谞诪讬 谞讚专 讜驻转讞讜 注诪讜 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: And according to Beit Shammai too, it is a vow with its inherent opening, and since they certainly agree that a vow of this kind does not take effect, why do they hold that this vow takes effect?

讗诇讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 诇讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讜爪讬讗 讚讘专讬讜 诇讘讟诇讛 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 谞讝讬专 讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪谉 讛讙专讜讙专讜转 讜诪谉 讛讚讘讬诇讛 诇讗讬转砖讜诇讬 讛讜讗 讚拽讗转讬 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 砖讗诇讛 讘讛拽讚砖 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬谉 砖讗诇讛 讘讛拽讚砖 讗讬谉 砖讗诇讛 讘谞讝讬专讜转

The Gemara explains the dispute: Rather, Beit Shammai hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: A person does not utter a statement for naught, and once he said: I am hereby a nazirite, he is immediately rendered a nazirite. When he then says: And therefore I will refrain from dried figs and from cakes of dried figs, he is coming to request that a halakhic authority dissolve his vow, as he regrets having taken the vow and is now seeking to dissolve it. And Beit Shammai follow their standard line of reasoning, as they say: One cannot request that a halakhic authority dissolve a vow of consecrated property, which one can do for vows of prohibition. And since one cannot request that a halakhic authority dissolve a vow of consecrated property, likewise one cannot request that a halakhic authority dissolve a vow of naziriteship, as the legal status of a vow of naziriteship is like that of a vow of consecrated property in this regard.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 砖诇讗 讛转谞讚讘 讻讚专讱 讛诪转谞讚讘讬诐

And Beit Hillel hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as we learned in a mishna (Mena岣t 103a): If one vows to bring a meal-offering from barley, since voluntary meal-offerings are brought only from wheat, the Rabbis say: He must bring a meal-offering from wheat, and Rabbi Shimon exempts him entirely, as he did not donate in the manner typical of donors. Since he donated an offering that cannot be sacrificed, his vow is meaningless. Here too, since he took a vow of naziriteship stating that he therefore will refrain from dried figs rather than from wine, his statement is meaningless.

诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讚讜专 讜谞讝讬专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讚讜专 讜讗讬谉 谞讝讬专 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 诇讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬

搂 The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Natan says that if one says: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from dried figs, Beit Shammai say: He has rendered dried figs forbidden to himself by a vow, and he is also a nazirite; and Beit Hillel say: He has rendered dried figs forbidden to himself by a vow, but he is not a nazirite. According to Rabbi Natan, Beit Shammai hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir that a person does not utter statements for naught and that he becomes a nazirite as soon as he says: I am hereby a nazirite; and he explains the opinion of Beit Shammai as Rabbi Yehuda does, i.e., that one in this situation has vowed that dried figs are forbidden to him, since the rest of his statement also has significance. And Beit Hillel hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei that one is held to the conclusion of his statement, and he has therefore vowed that dried figs are forbidden to him.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讚讜专 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讝讬专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 谞讚讜专 讜诇讗 谞讝讬专 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Some say a different version of the baraita: Rabbi Natan says that Beit Shammai say: He has rendered dried figs forbidden to himself by a vow and he is not a nazirite; and Beit Hillel say: He has not rendered dried figs forbidden to himself by a vow, and he is not a nazirite. According to this version, the opinion of Beit Shammai is as Rabbi Yehuda explained in the mishna, and Beit Hillel hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that a donation not performed in the manner typical of donors is not a donation.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 诪谞讞讛 诇讛讘讬讗 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬诐 讬讘讬讗 诪谉 讛讞讬讟讬诐 拽诪讞 讬讘讬讗 住讜诇转 砖诇讗 讘砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讬讘讬讗谞讛 讘砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讞爪讬 注砖专讜谉 讬讘讬讗 注砖专讜谉 砖诇诐 注砖专讜谉 讜诪讞爪讛 讬讘讬讗 砖谞讬诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 砖诇讗 讛转谞讚讘 讻讚专讱 讛诪转谞讚讘讬诐

搂 The Gemara discusses a case mentioned earlier. We learned in a mishna there (Mena岣t 103a): With regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering from barley, since voluntary meal-offerings are made only with wheat he must bring a meal-offering from wheat. If one vows to bring a meal-offering from flour, since a standard meal-offering is made from fine flour he must bring one from fine flour. If one vows to bring a meal-offering without oil and frankincense, he must bring it with oil and frankincense, in accordance with the halakha. If one vows to bring a meal-offering with half of a tenth of an ephah of fine flour, he must bring a meal-offering with a full tenth, since a meal-offering cannot have less than one-tenth of an ephah of flour. If one vows to bring a meal-offering with a tenth and a half, he brings two units of a tenth of an ephah in his meal-offering. Since half of one-tenth of an ephah is the minimum, his vow is increased to two full tenths. Rabbi Shimon exempts him entirely in all these cases, as he did not donate in the manner typical of donors.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚讻讬 讗诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 诪谞讞讛 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬诐 诪讘讬讗 诪谉 讛讞讬讟讬诐 讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讘诪讞诇讜拽转 砖谞讜讬讛 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 诇讗讜 讗诪专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讻讬 讗诪专 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 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讻讬 讗诪专 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬谉 诪讘讬讗 诪谉 讛讞讬讟讬诐

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that when one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering from barley, he brings a meal-offering from wheat? 岣zkiyya said that this halakha is taught as a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, and it is the opinion of Beit Shammai. He explains: Didn鈥檛 Beit Shammai say that when one said: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from dried figs and from cakes of dried figs, he is a nazirite, indicating that he is held to only the first part of his statement, and the conflicting details are ignored? So too, when he said that he will bring a meal-offering from barley, he brings it from wheat, and the same analysis applies to the other cases listed in this mishna.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讘讗讜诪专 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讬转讬 讬讜讚注 砖讗讬谉 谞讜讚专讬谉 讻讱 诇讗 谞讚专转讬 讻讱 讗诇讗 讻讱

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: You can even say that all, including Beit Hillel, agree with the opinion of the Rabbis of the mishna, as the mishna may be stated with regard to one who later says, to clarify his earlier statement: Had I known that one cannot vow in this manner, that one cannot bring a voluntary meal-offering from barley, I would not have vowed that way, only this way, to bring a meal-offering from wheat. Mentioning barley was an error on his part rather than a condition, and he actually meant to bring a standard meal-offering. In this case even Beit Hillel, who maintain in the mishna here that there is no vow at all, deem him liable to bring a proper meal-offering.

讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗诪专 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬诐 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诪谉 讛注讚砖讬诐 诇讗 诪讬讬转讬 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

With regard to this ruling 岣zkiyya says: They taught that he must bring a meal-offering from wheat only if he said that he will bring a meal-offering from barley. But if he said he will bring a meal-offering from lentils, he does not bring anything. The difference is that the meal-offerings of the omer and of a sota are made from barley, so if he said: From barley, he may have mistakenly believed that a voluntary meal-offering can be prepared from barley as well. As everyone knows that no meal-offering is made from lentils, his statement demonstrates that he never intended to bring a meal-offering.

诪讻讚讬 讞讝拽讬讛 讻诪讗谉 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讛讗 注讚砖讬诐 诇讙讘讬 诪谞讞讛 讻讙专讜讙专讜转 诇讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 讚诪讜 讜拽讗诪专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讞讝拽讬讛

The Gemara asks: Now consider, in accordance with whose opinion does 岣zkiyya establish the mishna in Mena岣t? It is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. But lentils relative to a meal-offering are comparable to dried figs relative to a nazirite, as everyone is likewise aware that one cannot be a nazirite and therefore refrain from figs, and yet Beit Shammai say he is a nazirite. Why not say that one who vows to bring a meal-offering from lentils is obligated to bring a standard meal-offering? The Gemara answers: 岣zkiyya retracted from it and no longer holds that the mishna in Mena岣t is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai.

讜讗诪讗讬 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽砖讬转讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚转谞讬 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬诐 诇讬转谞讬 诪谉 讛注讚砖讬诐 讗诇讗 住讘专 讞讝拽讬讛 讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛转诐 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: And why did he in fact retract from it? Rava said: The mishna caused him difficulty and demonstrated his error. If the mishna is in accordance with Beit Shammai鈥檚 opinion with regard to a nazirite, why does the tanna specifically teach the case of one who says that he will bring a meal-offering from barley? Let him teach a greater novelty, i.e., that even one who vowed to bring a meal-offering from lentils is obligated to bring a meal-offering made from wheat. Rather, 岣zkiyya holds that when Beit Shammai stated their opinion there, i.e., in the mishna with regard to a nazirite, their intention was as explained by Rabbi Yehuda, that one鈥檚 statement is interpreted to be meaningful and it can have the meaning of creating a vow that dried figs are forbidden to him. In the case of the meal-offering, even they agree that since one鈥檚 vow has no meaning, as there cannot be a meal-offering made of lentils, no vow takes effect.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪谉 讛注讚砖讬诐 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讘讗讜诪专 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讬转讬 讬讜讚注 砖讗讬谉 谞讜讚专讬谉 讻讱 诇讗 谞讚专转讬 讻讱 讗诇讗 讻讱 诇讚讘专讬讜 讚讞讝拽讬讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讗诪专

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Even one who vowed to bring a meal-offering from lentils must bring a meal-offering from wheat. The Gemara asks: But Rabbi Yo岣nan is he who said that the mishna is referring to a case of one who says: Had I known that one cannot vow in this manner, I would not have vowed that way, only this way? In the case of the lentils, it is not reasonable to say that he erred in thinking that one may vow to bring a meal-offering from lentils. The Gemara answers: He stated this ruling in accordance with the statement of 岣zkiyya. Rabbi Yo岣nan was not stating his own opinion; he was challenging the ruling of 岣zkiyya.

讗转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽讗 讛讚专转 讘讱 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 诪谉 讛注讚砖讬诐 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讻讬 讗诪专 诪注讚砖讬诐 讚诪讬讬转讬 诪谞讞讛 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讬讛讚专 讛讜讗 讚讛讚专 讘讬讛 讜转驻讜住 诇砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 讗诇讗 讻讬 讗诪专 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬谉 讜讚讗讬 讚讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬 拽讚砖讛 讻诪谞讞转 讛注讜诪专

The Gemara explains his challenge: What is the reason you retracted your earlier opinion that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? You did so because it does not teach: From lentils. That is not conclusive, as perhaps it is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary, as follows: It is not necessary to say that when one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering from lentils, that he brings a proper meal-offering of wheat. In that situation it can be said that by saying: From lentils, he is retracting his first statement and now wants to rescind his vow. And yet Beit Shammai hold that he is held to the first part of his statement, and they do not allow the rescinding of a vow of consecration. But if he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering from barley, since it is possible to explain that certainly this is what he said: If this meal-offering that I have vowed to bring from barley is consecrated like the omer meal-offering,

Scroll To Top