## Nazir Daf 9b

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

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.

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


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

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.

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


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

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.

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


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

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל — בְּאוֹמֵר ״אִילּוּ הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין נוֹדְרִין כָּךְ, לֹא נָדַרְתִּי כָּךְ אֶלָּא כָּךְ״.

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


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

אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁאָמַר ״מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִים״, אֲבָל אָמַר ״מִן הָעֲדָשִׁים״ — לָא מַיְיתֵי וְלֹא כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nazir 9b:7
[Nazir 9b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/9b:7)

מִכְּדִי חִזְקִיָּה כְּמַאן מוֹקֵים לָהּ לְמַתְנִיתִין — כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי, וְהָא עֲדָשִׁים לְגַבֵּי מִנְחָה כִּגְרוֹגְרוֹת לְגַבֵּי נָזִיר דָּמוּ, וְקָאָמְרִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הָוֵי נָזִיר! הֲדַר בֵּיהּ חִזְקִיָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nazir 9b:8
[Nazir 9b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/9b:8)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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.

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


###### Nazir 9b:10
[Nazir 9b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/9b:10)

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,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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,**