Previous Folio / Nazir Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nazir

Folio 10a

or the meal-offering of the faithless wife,1  then I desire it to become consecrated, but not otherwise — even there we are told that he must bring one of wheaten flour.2

MISHNAH. IF HE SAYS, 'THIS HEIFER IS SAYING I SHALL BECOME A NAZIRITE IF I RISE,'3  OR 'THIS DOOR IS SAYING I SHALL BECOME A NAZIRITE IF I OPEN', BETH SHAMMAI SAYS THAT HE BECOMES A NAZIRITE, BUT BETH HILLEL SAY THAT HE DOES NOT BECOME A NAZIRITE. R. JUDAH SAID: EVEN THOUGH BETH SHAMMAI DID AFFIRM [THAT THE FORMULA WAS OF SOME EFFECT], IT WAS ONLY WHERE HE SAYS:4  'THIS HEIFER SHALL BE [FORBIDDEN] TO ME AS IS A SACRIFICE, IF IT SHOULD STAND UP [OF ITSELF]'.

GEMARA. Is it possible for a heifer to talk? — Rami b. Hama replied: [The Mishnah] here, refers to where a heifer lay crouching before him, and he said, 'This heifer thinks that it is not going to stand up. I intend to be a nazirite [and abstain] from its flesh, if it stands up of its own accord,' and it then arose of its own accord. Beth Shammai now apply their customary view and Beth Hillel their customary view. Beth Shammai who affirm that [in spite of his saying], 'from dried figs and pressed figs', he becomes a nazirite, assert here that [even] when he says 'from its flesh', he becomes a nazirite, whilst Beth Hillel declare that he does not become a nazirite.

But have not Beth Shammai asserted this once, already? Raba replied: A second and a third time5  [did they repeat it]. R. Hiyya, too, taught it a second and a third time, and so did R. Oshaia teach it a second and a third time, and they are all necessary statements; For if the rule had been stated merely in the case of dried figs and pressed figs, [it might have been argued] that Beth Shammai were of the opinion there that his words take effect and he becomes a nazirite because [figs and] grapes can be confused,6  whereas flesh and grapes cannot be confused. Similarly had it been affirmed regarding flesh [it might have been argued] that Beth Shammai were of the opinion in this instance that he becomes a nazirite, because flesh and wine [are naturally associated],7  but it would not apply to dried figs and pressed figs, and so this case also is given explicitly. Again, had it been affirmed in these two cases [only, it might have been argued] that only in these cases was Beth Shammai's assertion to be applied, whilst as concerns the door, they would defer to Beth Hillel.8  Further, had only the door been referred to, [it might have been argued] that only in this case do Beth Hillel dissent, but in the other two they defer to Beth Shammai, and so we are told that this is not so.

[Nevertheless,] said Raba, does the Mishnah say if [the cow] rises of its own accord?9  But, said Raba, we must explain thus: The heifer, for example, is recumbent before him, and he says, 'I undertake to bring it as a sacrifice'.

This is all very well as regards the heifer which can be offered as a sacrifice but can a door be sacrificed?10  — Raba therefore [corrected himself and] said: The heifer, for example, is recumbent before him,11

Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
  1. This was also barley, v. Num. V, 15.
  2. I.e. although his vow ban a certain meaning even if taken at face value, and there is no need for us to emphasise the first clause to the exclusion of the second, yet we do so.
  3. Apparently this is taken as a clumsy way of saying: 'If I do not make this cow get up, I vow abstinence from its flesh.'
  4. Cf. supra p. 28, n. 2.
  5. The case of the DOOR.
  6. So that when he said figs he may have meant grapes.
  7. And when he spoke of the one, he thought of the other.
  8. Because there is no association between a door and grapes.
  9. Whilst admitting the necessity of restating the principle in our Mishnah, Raba objects to the explanation of Rami b. Hama on the ground that the word 'rises' might mean with the help of others, whereas according to Rami b. Hama the vow is effective only when the heifer rises of its own accord.
  10. Since the case of the door in the Mishnah is parallel to that of the heifer, any explanation applying to the heifer must hold good if the door is substituted.
  11. And appears as if it will never rise, even if force is used.

Nazir 10b

 and he says, 'I undertake a nazirite-vow [to abstain] from wine if it does not stand up,' and it then stood up of its own accord. In Beth Shammai's opinion, the substance1  of this man's vow lay in his intention to cause [the heifer] to rise by force,2  and this he did not do,3  whereas Beth Hillel are of the opinion that [the vow was made] because [the heifer] was recumbent,4  and it has risen.5

If this is [the meaning of the Mishnah], how is the subsequent clause to be understood, viz.: R. JUDAH SAID: EVEN THOUGH BETH SHAMMAI DID AFFIRM [THAT THE FORMULA WAS OF SOME EFFECT], IT WAS ONLY WHERE HE SAYS, AND SHALL BE FORBIDDEN TO ME AS A SACRIFICE ETC.'? Does [his vow] then, attach to the heifer at all?6  — [It must be] therefore, that he said, for example, 'I undertake a nazirite vow [to abstain] from its flesh if it should not stand up,' and it then stands up of its own accord. In Beth Shammai's opinion, the substance of this man's VOW is his intention to cause [the heifer] to rise by force, and this he has not done, whereas according to Beth Hillel, the substance of his vow lies in the fact that [the heifer] was recumbent, and it has risen.7

But are Beth Hillel of the opinion that if [the heifer] does not stand up, [the man] becomes a nazirite? Have they not said that [by a vow to abstain] from flesh, he does not become a nazirite?8  — They were arguing on the premises of Beth Shammai. In our opinion, he does not become a nazirite even if [the heifer] should not stand up, but you who say that he does become a nazirite9  should at least admit that the substance of his vow lay in the fact that [the heifer] was recumbent, and it has since risen. Beth Shammai reply that this is not so, and the substance of the man's vow lay in his intention to cause [the heifer] to rise by force, and this he has not done.10

Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
  1. Lit., 'the obligation'.
  2. Lit., 'with his hand'. The word 'stand up' being taken to mean 'stand up through me'.
  3. He therefore becomes a nazirite.
  4. And can only take effect if it remains recumbent.
  5. He does not therefore become a nazirite.
  6. The words 'it is forbidden to me as a sacrifice' imply that the heifer itself was the object of the vow, whereas in Raba's explanation it is the heifer's not standing up which is the condition for the operation of the man's naziriteship, and he has no intention of attaching any sanctity to the heifer.
  7. But if it did not rise he would be a nazirite.
  8. Even as in the case of a vow to abstain from pressed figs, v. supra p. 32.
  9. Where he says simply, 'I undertake to he a nazirite (and abstain) from flesh.'
  10. And so he becomes a nazirite.