One who vowed to be a nazir not to eat figs, is that person considered a nazir? Are they forbidden from eating figs? Or is it just an absurd statement that means nothing? Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai disagree about this case. There are three different explanations about what Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai actually hold. According to one of the interpretations, Beit Hillel’s opinion is based upon an opinion of Rabbi Shimon in a Mishna in Menachot 103a. That Mishna is brought and Chizkiya and Rabbi Yochanan disagree about two issues in that Mishna. Firstly, to whom does tanna kama’s opinion correspond? What would be the case if the declaration there was made with lentils instead of barley (the Mishna’s case is with barley)?
Nazir 9
02.01.2023 | י׳ בשבט תשפ״ג
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
Nazir 9
״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מִן הַגְּרוֹגְרוֹת וּמִן הַדְּבֵילָה״, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: נָזִיר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ נָזִיר. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אַף כְּשֶׁאָמְרוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא בְּאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי הֵן עָלַי קׇרְבָּן״.
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.
גְּמָ׳ ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מִן הַגְּרוֹגְרוֹת וּמִן הַדְּבֵילָה״ — בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: נָזִיר. וְאַמַּאי? ״מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר יֵעָשֶׂה מִגֶּפֶן הַיַּיִן״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא! בֵּית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי לַהּ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: אֵין אָדָם מוֹצִיא דְּבָרָיו לְבַטָּלָה.
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: “From anything that is made of the grapevine…he shall not eat” (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.
וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּאָמַר: בִּגְמַר דְּבָרָיו אָדָם נִתְפָּס. וְהַאי נֶדֶר וּפִתְחוֹ עִמּוֹ הוּא.
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.
וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי נָמֵי, נֶדֶר וּפִתְחוֹ עִמּוֹ הוּא!
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?
אֶלָּא: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי לַהּ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: אֵין אָדָם מוֹצִיא דְּבָרָיו לְבַטָּלָה. וְכֵיוָן דְּאָמַר ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר״ — הֲוָה לֵיהּ נָזִיר, כִּי קָאָמַר ״מִן הַגְּרוֹגְרוֹת וּמִן הַדְּבֵילָה״ — לְאִיתְּשׁוֹלֵי הוּא דְּקָאָתֵי. וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּאָמְרִי: אֵין שְׁאֵלָה בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ. וְכֵיוָן דְּאֵין שְׁאֵלָה בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ — אֵין שְׁאֵלָה בִּנְזִירוּת.
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.
וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דִּתְנַן: וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר, שֶׁלֹּא הִתְנַדֵּב כְּדֶרֶךְ הַמִּתְנַדְּבִים.
And Beit Hillel hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as we learned in a mishna (Menaḥot 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.
מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: נָדוּר וְנָזִיר, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: נָדוּר וְאֵין נָזִיר. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי לַהּ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר וּכְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי.
§ 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.
לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא אָמְרִי לַהּ: רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: נָדוּר וְאֵינוֹ נָזִיר, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: לֹא נָדוּר וְלֹא נָזִיר. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וּבֵית הִלֵּל כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
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.
תְּנַן הָתָם: הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה לְהָבִיא מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִים״ — יָבִיא מִן הַחִיטִּים. ״קֶמַח״ — יָבִיא סוֹלֶת. ״שֶׁלֹּא בְּשֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה״ — יְבִיאֶנָּה בְּשֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה. ״חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן״ — יָבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן שָׁלֵם. ״עִשָּׂרוֹן וּמֶחֱצָה״ — יָבִיא שְׁנַיִם. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר, שֶׁלֹּא הִתְנַדֵּב כְּדֶרֶךְ הַמִּתְנַדְּבִים.
§ The Gemara discusses a case mentioned earlier. We learned in a mishna there (Menaḥot 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.
מַאן תַּנָּא דְּכִי אָמַר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִים״ מֵבִיא מִן הַחִיטִּים? אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: בְּמַחֲלוֹקֶת שְׁנוּיָה, וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי הִיא. לָאו אָמְרִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי כִּי אָמַר ״מִן הַגְּרוֹגְרוֹת וּמִן הַדְּבֵילָה״ הָוֵי נָזִיר, הָכִי נָמֵי כִּי אָמַר ״מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין״ — מֵבִיא מִן הַחִיטִּים.
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? Ḥizkiyya said that this halakha is taught as a dispute between tanna’im, and it is the opinion of Beit Shammai. He explains: Didn’t 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.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל — בְּאוֹמֵר ״אִילּוּ הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין נוֹדְרִין כָּךְ, לֹא נָדַרְתִּי כָּךְ אֶלָּא כָּךְ״.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁאָמַר ״מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִים״, אֲבָל אָמַר ״מִן הָעֲדָשִׁים״ — לָא מַיְיתֵי וְלֹא כְּלוּם.
With regard to this ruling Ḥizkiyya 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.
מִכְּדִי חִזְקִיָּה כְּמַאן מוֹקֵים לָהּ לְמַתְנִיתִין — כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי, וְהָא עֲדָשִׁים לְגַבֵּי מִנְחָה כִּגְרוֹגְרוֹת לְגַבֵּי נָזִיר דָּמוּ, וְקָאָמְרִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הָוֵי נָזִיר! הֲדַר בֵּיהּ חִזְקִיָּה.
The Gemara asks: Now consider, in accordance with whose opinion does Ḥizkiyya establish the mishna in Menaḥot? 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: Ḥizkiyya retracted from it and no longer holds that the mishna in Menaḥot is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai.
וְאַמַּאי הֲדַר בֵּיהּ? אֲמַר רָבָא, מַתְנִיתִין קְשִׁיתֵיהּ: מַאי אִירְיָא דְּתָנֵי ״מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִים״? לִיתְנֵי ״מִן הָעֲדָשִׁים״! אֶלָּא סָבַר חִזְקִיָּה: כִּי קָאָמְרִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הָתָם — כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
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’s 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, Ḥizkiyya 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’s 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’s vow has no meaning, as there cannot be a meal-offering made of lentils, no vow takes effect.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ ״מִן הָעֲדָשִׁים״. וְהָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הוּא דְּאָמַר, בְּאוֹמֵר ״אִילּוּ הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין נוֹדְרִין כָּךְ, לֹא נָדַרְתִּי כָּךְ אֶלָּא כָּךְ״! לִדְבָרָיו דְּחִזְקִיָּה הוּא דְּקָאָמַר.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even one who vowed to bring a meal-offering from lentils must bring a meal-offering from wheat. The Gemara asks: But Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Ḥizkiyya. Rabbi Yoḥanan was not stating his own opinion; he was challenging the ruling of Ḥizkiyya.
אַתְּ מַאי טַעְמָא קָא הָדְרַתְּ בָּךְ — מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא קָתָנֵי ״מִן הָעֲדָשִׁים״. דִּלְמָא לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא כִּי אָמַר ״מֵעֲדָשִׁים״, דְּמַיְיתֵי מִנְחָה מְעַלַּיְיתָא, דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר מִיהְדָּר הוּא דַּהֲדַר בֵּיהּ, וּתְפוֹס לָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן. אֶלָּא כִּי אָמַר ״מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין״, וַדַּאי דְּהָכִי קָאָמַר: אִי קָדְשָׁה כַּמִּנְחָת הָעוֹמֶר,
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,
Follow
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Rookie Billet
Jerusalem, Israel
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
Dena Heller
New Jersey, United States
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld
Far Rockaway, United States
“I got my job through the NY Times” was an ad campaign when I was growing up. I can headline “I got my daily Daf shiur and Hadran through the NY Times”. I read the January 4, 2020 feature on Reb. Michelle Farber and Hadran and I have been participating ever since. Thanks NY Times & Hadran!
Deborah Aschheim
New York, United States
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Joanna Rom
Northwest Washington, United States
I started with Ze Kollel in Berlin, directed by Jeremy Borowitz for Hillel Deutschland. We read Masechet Megillah chapter 4 and each participant wrote his commentary on a Sugia that particularly impressed him. I wrote six poems about different Sugiot!
Fascinated by the discussions on Talmud I continued to learn with Rabanit Michelle Farber and am currently taking part in the Tikun Olam course.
Yael Merlini
Berlin, Germany
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Goldie Gilad
Kfar Saba, Israel
At almost 70 I am just beginning my journey with Talmud and Hadran. I began not late, but right when I was called to learn. It is never too late to begin! The understanding patience of staff and participants with more experience and knowledge has been fabulous. The joy of learning never stops and for me. It is a new life, a new light, a new depth of love of The Holy One, Blessed be He.
Deborah Hoffman-Wade
Richmond, CA, United States
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Wendy Dickstein
Jerusalem, Israel
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
Rabbi Nicki Greninger
California, United States
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Joséphine Altzman
Teaneck, United States
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Nancy Kolodny
Newton, United States
Robin Zeiger
Tel Aviv, Israel
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Yafit Fishbach
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
I saw an elderly man at the shul kiddush in early March 2020, celebrating the siyyum of masechet brachot which he had been learning with a young yeshiva student. I thought, if he can do it, I can do it! I began to learn masechet Shabbat the next day, Making up masechet brachot myself, which I had missed. I haven’t missed a day since, thanks to the ease of listening to Hadran’s podcast!
Judith Shapiro
Minnesota, United States
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Leah Goldford
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
Rabbi Nicki Greninger
California, United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Shira Eliaser
Skokie, IL, United States
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Sharon Mink
Haifa, Israel
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Lisa S. Malik
Wynnewood, United States
Nazir 9
״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מִן הַגְּרוֹגְרוֹת וּמִן הַדְּבֵילָה״, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: נָזִיר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ נָזִיר. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אַף כְּשֶׁאָמְרוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא בְּאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי הֵן עָלַי קׇרְבָּן״.
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.
גְּמָ׳ ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מִן הַגְּרוֹגְרוֹת וּמִן הַדְּבֵילָה״ — בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: נָזִיר. וְאַמַּאי? ״מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר יֵעָשֶׂה מִגֶּפֶן הַיַּיִן״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא! בֵּית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי לַהּ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: אֵין אָדָם מוֹצִיא דְּבָרָיו לְבַטָּלָה.
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: “From anything that is made of the grapevine…he shall not eat” (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.
וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּאָמַר: בִּגְמַר דְּבָרָיו אָדָם נִתְפָּס. וְהַאי נֶדֶר וּפִתְחוֹ עִמּוֹ הוּא.
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.
וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי נָמֵי, נֶדֶר וּפִתְחוֹ עִמּוֹ הוּא!
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?
אֶלָּא: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי לַהּ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: אֵין אָדָם מוֹצִיא דְּבָרָיו לְבַטָּלָה. וְכֵיוָן דְּאָמַר ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר״ — הֲוָה לֵיהּ נָזִיר, כִּי קָאָמַר ״מִן הַגְּרוֹגְרוֹת וּמִן הַדְּבֵילָה״ — לְאִיתְּשׁוֹלֵי הוּא דְּקָאָתֵי. וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּאָמְרִי: אֵין שְׁאֵלָה בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ. וְכֵיוָן דְּאֵין שְׁאֵלָה בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ — אֵין שְׁאֵלָה בִּנְזִירוּת.
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.
וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דִּתְנַן: וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר, שֶׁלֹּא הִתְנַדֵּב כְּדֶרֶךְ הַמִּתְנַדְּבִים.
And Beit Hillel hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as we learned in a mishna (Menaḥot 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.
מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: נָדוּר וְנָזִיר, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: נָדוּר וְאֵין נָזִיר. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי לַהּ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר וּכְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי.
§ 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.
לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא אָמְרִי לַהּ: רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: נָדוּר וְאֵינוֹ נָזִיר, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: לֹא נָדוּר וְלֹא נָזִיר. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וּבֵית הִלֵּל כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
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.
תְּנַן הָתָם: הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה לְהָבִיא מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִים״ — יָבִיא מִן הַחִיטִּים. ״קֶמַח״ — יָבִיא סוֹלֶת. ״שֶׁלֹּא בְּשֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה״ — יְבִיאֶנָּה בְּשֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה. ״חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן״ — יָבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן שָׁלֵם. ״עִשָּׂרוֹן וּמֶחֱצָה״ — יָבִיא שְׁנַיִם. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר, שֶׁלֹּא הִתְנַדֵּב כְּדֶרֶךְ הַמִּתְנַדְּבִים.
§ The Gemara discusses a case mentioned earlier. We learned in a mishna there (Menaḥot 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.
מַאן תַּנָּא דְּכִי אָמַר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִים״ מֵבִיא מִן הַחִיטִּים? אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: בְּמַחֲלוֹקֶת שְׁנוּיָה, וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי הִיא. לָאו אָמְרִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי כִּי אָמַר ״מִן הַגְּרוֹגְרוֹת וּמִן הַדְּבֵילָה״ הָוֵי נָזִיר, הָכִי נָמֵי כִּי אָמַר ״מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין״ — מֵבִיא מִן הַחִיטִּים.
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? Ḥizkiyya said that this halakha is taught as a dispute between tanna’im, and it is the opinion of Beit Shammai. He explains: Didn’t 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.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל — בְּאוֹמֵר ״אִילּוּ הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין נוֹדְרִין כָּךְ, לֹא נָדַרְתִּי כָּךְ אֶלָּא כָּךְ״.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁאָמַר ״מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִים״, אֲבָל אָמַר ״מִן הָעֲדָשִׁים״ — לָא מַיְיתֵי וְלֹא כְּלוּם.
With regard to this ruling Ḥizkiyya 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.
מִכְּדִי חִזְקִיָּה כְּמַאן מוֹקֵים לָהּ לְמַתְנִיתִין — כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי, וְהָא עֲדָשִׁים לְגַבֵּי מִנְחָה כִּגְרוֹגְרוֹת לְגַבֵּי נָזִיר דָּמוּ, וְקָאָמְרִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הָוֵי נָזִיר! הֲדַר בֵּיהּ חִזְקִיָּה.
The Gemara asks: Now consider, in accordance with whose opinion does Ḥizkiyya establish the mishna in Menaḥot? 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: Ḥizkiyya retracted from it and no longer holds that the mishna in Menaḥot is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai.
וְאַמַּאי הֲדַר בֵּיהּ? אֲמַר רָבָא, מַתְנִיתִין קְשִׁיתֵיהּ: מַאי אִירְיָא דְּתָנֵי ״מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִים״? לִיתְנֵי ״מִן הָעֲדָשִׁים״! אֶלָּא סָבַר חִזְקִיָּה: כִּי קָאָמְרִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הָתָם — כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
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’s 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, Ḥizkiyya 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’s 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’s vow has no meaning, as there cannot be a meal-offering made of lentils, no vow takes effect.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ ״מִן הָעֲדָשִׁים״. וְהָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הוּא דְּאָמַר, בְּאוֹמֵר ״אִילּוּ הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין נוֹדְרִין כָּךְ, לֹא נָדַרְתִּי כָּךְ אֶלָּא כָּךְ״! לִדְבָרָיו דְּחִזְקִיָּה הוּא דְּקָאָמַר.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even one who vowed to bring a meal-offering from lentils must bring a meal-offering from wheat. The Gemara asks: But Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Ḥizkiyya. Rabbi Yoḥanan was not stating his own opinion; he was challenging the ruling of Ḥizkiyya.
אַתְּ מַאי טַעְמָא קָא הָדְרַתְּ בָּךְ — מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא קָתָנֵי ״מִן הָעֲדָשִׁים״. דִּלְמָא לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא כִּי אָמַר ״מֵעֲדָשִׁים״, דְּמַיְיתֵי מִנְחָה מְעַלַּיְיתָא, דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר מִיהְדָּר הוּא דַּהֲדַר בֵּיהּ, וּתְפוֹס לָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן. אֶלָּא כִּי אָמַר ״מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין״, וַדַּאי דְּהָכִי קָאָמַר: אִי קָדְשָׁה כַּמִּנְחָת הָעוֹמֶר,
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,
Follow
