## Nazir Daf 9a

###### Nazir 9a:1
[Nazir 9a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/9a:1)

״**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״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Nazir 9a:2
[Nazir 9a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/9a:2)

**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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Nazir 9a:3
[Nazir 9a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/9a:3)

וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּאָמַר: בִּגְמַר דְּבָרָיו אָדָם נִתְפָּס. וְהַאי נֶדֶר וּפִתְחוֹ עִמּוֹ הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Nazir 9a:4
[Nazir 9a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/9a:4)

וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי נָמֵי, נֶדֶר וּפִתְחוֹ עִמּוֹ הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Nazir 9a:5
[Nazir 9a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/9a:5)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nazir 9a:6
[Nazir 9a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/9a:6)

וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דִּתְנַן: וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר, שֶׁלֹּא הִתְנַדֵּב כְּדֶרֶךְ הַמִּתְנַדְּבִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.