Nazir - Daf 9

  • הריני נזיר מן הגרוגרות ומן הדבילה

The second Perek begins: הריני נזיר מן הגרוגרות ומן הדבילה – If one said, “I am a nazir from dried figs,” or “from pressed figs,” neither of which are forbidden by nezirus, Beis Shammai say he becomes a nazir, and Beis Hillel say he does not. The Gemara asks why Beis Shammai would consider this a valid declaration of nezirus, and after the first suggestion is rejected, the Gemara explains that Beis Shammai hold like Rebbe Meir, who says אין אדם מוציא דבריו לבטלה – a person does not express his words for nothing. Therefore, since his declaration at face value would be meaningless, we reinterpret it as a declaration to be a nazir, followed by an attempt to retract, by adding “from figs.” Although an immediate retraction would normally be effective, Beis Shammai’s opinion is אין שאלה בהקדש – there is no annulment for hekdesh declarations (and the same applies to nazir, since the Torah describes it with the word קדוש), so no retraction is possible. The Gemara adds that Beis Hillel hold like Rebbe Shimon, elaborated on below, who holds that an invalid declaration is not reinterpreted to be valid. Two more versions of the machlokes between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel are recorded, in our Mishnah and a Baraisa.

  • האומר הרי עלי מנחה להביא מן השעורים

The Gemara brings a Mishnah from Menachos, which states: האומר הרי עלי מנחה להביא מן השעורים – One who says, “It is upon me to bring a minchah from barley,” which must be brought from wheat, יביא מן החיטים – he must bring one from wheat. Three more similar examples are brought. Rebbe Shimon exempts him from bringing anything, שלא התנדב כדרך המתנדבים – because he did not donate in the way of donors. He holds that since the neder is meaningless as is (because one cannot vow to bring a minchah of barley), it is invalid and not reinterpreted. The Gemara asks who the Tanna Kamma is who obligates the vower in a normal minchah. Chizkiyah initially explains that it is Beis Shammai, who said that a declaration of nezirus from figs, which is equally meaningless, nevertheless renders him a nazir. Here, too, we would interpret his declaration as a neder to bring an ordinary minchah, followed by an attempted retraction (which is ineffective by hekdesh according to Beis Shammai).

  • אילו הייתי יודע שאין נודרין כך, לא נדרתי כך אלא כך

Rebbe Yochanan disagrees with Chizkiyah and says that the Tanna Kamma can agree with Beis Hillel. The case is where the vower said afterward: אילו הייתי יודע שאין נודרין כך, לא נדרתי כך אלא כך – If I would have known that one cannot vow like that (e.g., a minchah from barley), I would not have vowed like that way, rather like this (from wheat; the correct neder). This plausible explanation is accepted, and his neder is thus valid. In our Mishnah, however, even if he subsequently explains that he thought that nezirus prohibits figs, he is not believed, and the declaration is disregarded according to Beis Hillel. The Gemara continues that Chizkiyah as well, who had explained the Mishnah only according to Beis Shammai, later retracted and explained the Mishnah as Rebbe Yochanan does. He was bothered why the Mishnah taught a case where he vowed a minchah of barley (which is a conceivable error, since there are menachos which are brought from barley), and not a case of lentils. From this he inferred that the Tanna Kamma’s reason is because the vower may have made a mistake, as Rebbe Yochanan explained.