Nazir - Daf 10
- אמרה פרה זו הריני נזירה אם עומדת אני
The next Mishnah states: אמר אמרה פרה זו הריני נזירה אם עומדת אני – If one said: “This cow says, ‘I am a nazir if I stand up,’” אומר הדלת הזה הריני נזירה אם נפתח אני – or “This door says, ‘I am a nazir if I am opened,’” Beis Shammai say he is a nazir, and Beis Hillel say he is not. Rebbe Yehudah presents a different version of the machlokes, as he did in the previous Mishnah. Rami bar Chama explains that the Mishnah is discussing a cow lying before him, and the person said to himself: כסבורה פרה זו אינה עומדת- "This cow thinks it cannot get up.” הריני נזיר מבשרה אם עמדה מאליה ועמדה מאליה – ”I am a nazir from its meat if it gets up on its own” (meaning, in this imaginary statement, that the cow “wishes” it could get up, and that someone should become a nazir from its meat if it succeeds), and it stood up on its own. A similar interpretation would apply to a door that appeared jammed. Although he never declared his own nezirus, we assume that he intends to accept what he expresses as the cow’s declaration. The machlokes, then, is identical to the previous Mishnah’s, where one declared to be a nazir from figs. Here, too, where nezirus from meat is patently impossible, Beis Shammai consider it a nezirus declaration followed by (an ineffective) retraction, and Beis Hillel do not.
- The need for the cases of figs, meat, and door
The Gemara asks, if Beis Shammai are following their position in the previous Mishnah, why does the Mishnah need to teach multiple cases? It explains: If only the case of figs was taught, one might think that only there do Beis Shammai say he is a nazir, משום דמיחלפן בענבים – because they can be confused with grapes (both being fruit), and he may have intended to say “from grapes,” and mistakenly said figs. אבל בשר בענבים לא מיחלף – But meat is not confused with grapes, so perhaps Beis Shammai would agree he is not a nazir (because one could think their reason in the case of figs is not as Rami bar Chama explained, but rather because the vower simply misspoke). If only the case of meat was taught, one might think that only meat would be confused with grapes because they are grouped together in the Torah, as opposed to figs. The Rosh explains that the passuk in Mishlei states: “אל תהי בסבאי יין בזללי בשר למו” – Do not be of those who guzzle wine or glut themselves on meat. If these two were taught, they could both be because of errors, but Beis Shammai would agree in the case of a door, where no error is possible, that he is not a nazir. This final case clarifies that Beis Shammai’s reason must be as Rami bar Chama explained above.
- Rava’s explanation: אם לא עמדה ועמדה מאיליה
Rava objects to Rami bar Chama’s interpretation, based on the language of the Mishnah, and finally explains: כגון דאמר הריני נזיר מבשרה אם לא עמדה ועמדה מאליה – it is a case where he said, “I am a nazir from its meat if it does not stand up,” and it stood up on its own. Beis Shammai hold: תורפיה דההוא גברא משום אוקמה בידיה הוא והא לא אוקמה – the man’s intent is to stand it up with his hands, and he did not, so he is a nazir (since Beis Shammai additionally hold that a declaration of nezirus from meat is effective, as Rami bar Chama explained above). Beis Hillel disagree and say that his intent was that it merely should stand up, which it did (beside that Beis Hillel would not consider a nezirus declaration from meat to be valid anyway).
