משנה: הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מִן הַגְּרוֹגְרוֹת וּמִן הַדְּבֵילָה בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים נָזִיר וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ נָזִיר. אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אַף כְּשֶׁאָֽמְרוּ בֵית שַׁמַּאי לֹא אָֽמְרוּ אֶלָּא בְאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי הֵן עָלַי קָרְבָּן. MISHNAH: “I shall be a nazir [abstaining] from dried figs and fig cake1Figs and all their derivatives are permitted to a nazir.,” the House of Shammai say, he is a nazir2If he said “I shall be a nazir”, he became a nazir. The qualification he appended is irrelevant. (In the Nazir.9a">Babli, 9a, this argument is attributed to R. Meïr, who thinks that “people do not say nonsensical things.”), but the House of Hillel say, he is no nazir3Since a nazir is permitted figs, his statement makes no sense and nobody can become a nazir by a nonsensical statement since Numbers.6.2">Num. 6:2 requires that the vow of nezirut be “clearly stated.”. Rebbi Jehudah said, when the House of Shammai expressed an opinion, it was about one who said, they are qorban for me4He disputes the Mishnah; nobody can become a nazir by vowing to abstain from figs and fig products. But anybody can make a vow to abstain from figs by declaring them qorban for himself (cf. Introduction to Tractate Nedarim.).
הלכה: הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מִן הַגְּרוֹגְרוֹת כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. טַעֲמָא דְבֵית שַׁמַּי מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהוֹצִיא נְזִירוּת מִפִּיו. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. מִשּׁוּם כִּינּוּיֵי כִינּוּיִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן פָּזִי. קִרְייָא מְסַיֵּיעַ לְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. כֹּה אָמַר יי֨ כַּאֲשֶׁר יִמָּצֵא הַתִּירוֹשׁ בָּאֶשְׁכּוֹל וגו׳. תּוֹרָה קָרָאת לָאֶשְׁכּוֹל תִּירוֹשׁ. וּבְנֵי אָדָם קוֹרִין לַגְּרוֹגֶרֶת תִּירוֹשׁ. מִשּׁוּם כִּינּוּיֵי כִינּוּיִין. מַה נְפַק מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן. אָמַר. הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מִן הַגְּרוֹגְרוֹת וּמִן הַדְּבֵילָה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן נָזִיר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אֵינוֹ נָזִיר. הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מִן הַכִּכָּר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן נָזִיר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֵינוֹ נָזִיר. מִן הַכִּכָּר. לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. רִבִּי עוּקְבָא בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. מִחְלְפָה שִיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין. יָבִיא מִן הַחִיטִּים. וָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. שֶׁהוֹצִיא מִנְחָה מִתּוֹךְ פִּיו. וָכָא הוּא אָמַר אָכֵן. אִית לֵיהּ הָכֵין וְאִית לֵיהּ הָכֵין. אִית לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהוֹצִיא נְזִירוּת מִפִּיו. וְאִית לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם כִּינּוּיֵי כִינּוּיִין. תֵּדַע לָךְ שֶׁהוּא כֵן. דְּתַנִּינָן. אָמַר. אָֽמְרָה פָרָה זוֹ. כְּלוּם אָֽמְרָת. לֹא מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהוֹצִיא נְזִירוּת מִתּוֹךְ פִּיו. וָכָא. מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהוֹצִיא נְזִירוּת מִתּוֹךְ פִּיו. HALAKHAH: “I shall be a nazir [abstaining] from dried figs and fig cake,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of the House of Shammai: because he mentioned the state of nazir2If he said “I shall be a nazir”, he became a nazir. The qualification he appended is irrelevant. (In the Nazir.9a">Babli, 9a, this argument is attributed to R. Meïr, who thinks that “people do not say nonsensical things.”). Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, because of substitutes of substitutes5Since the House of Shammai accept very far-fetched comparisons and substitutes for a vow of nezirut; cf. Nazir 1:1:7" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.1.1.7">Chapter 1, Note 19. In the Tosephta, 2:1, this is explicitly given as the reason of the House of Shammai. The Tosephta must have been unknown to the editors of the Yerushalmi.. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, a verse supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “So says the Eternal, as cider is found in the grape bunch, etc6Isaiah.65.8">Is. 65:8..” The Torah called a grape bunch “cider”. And people call a dried fig cider, because of substitutes of substitutes. What is the difference between them? If he said, “I shall be a nazir[abstaining] from dried figs and fig cake.” In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion he is a nazir, in Rebbi Simeon’s opinion he is not a nazir7This is difficult since the House of Shammai declare in the Mishnah that he is a nazir and the entire discussion only proceeds according to the House of Shammai. One has to assume that the person making the vow was asked what he understood by “dried figs.” If he answered, dried figs, R. Simeon ben Laqish cannot consider this as substitutes of substitutes, but for R. Joḥanan he still pronounced the word nazir. (This interpretation is that of Menachot 103a:7:2" href="/Tosafot_on_Menachot.103a.7.2">Tosaphot Menaḥot 103a, s.v. הריני in the name of Rabbenu Tam.). “I shall be a nazir[abstaining] from a loaf of bread,” in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion he is a nazir, in Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion he is not a nazir8A loaf of bread is not a grape derivative by any stretch of the imagination.. “From a loaf of bread,” he did not say anything9Since the word nazir was not used. One has to assume that the expression הֲרֵינִי was used, since הֲרֵי עָלַי כִכָּר would be a vow to abstain from bread as qorban (Nazir 1:2:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.1.2.4">Chapter 1, Notes 44–45).. Rebbi Uqba asked before Rebbi Mana: The opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems to be inverted, as we have stated there10Menachot 12:3" href="/Mishnah_Menachot.12.3">Mishnah Menaḥot 12:3. A voluntary flour offering is prescribed as an offering of fine wheat flour. Barley is prescribed only for some purification offerings which cannot be voluntary.: “ ‘I take upon myself the obligation to bring a flour offering from barley.’ He shall bring from wheat.” And Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, because he mentioned “flour offering.11One would have expected R. Simeon ben Laqish to hold that the vow of the offering was invalid since it was impossible. In the Nazir.9b">Babli, 9b, his opinion is quoted as generally accepted.” And here, he says so? He accepts one and he accepts the other. He accepts12He does not dispute the reason given by R. Joḥanan but only adds a second reason. because he mentioned the state of nazir, and he accepts because of substitutes of substitutes. You should know that it is so since we have stated13Nazir 2:3:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.2.3.1">Mishnah 2:3. This discussion now also proceeds according to the House of Hillel.: “If he said, the cow said.” She did not say anything; it is because he mentioned the state of nazir, and here he mentioned the state of nazir.
כָּל־הַלְּשׁוֹנוֹת מְשַׁמְּשִׁין לְשׁוֹן נְזִירוּת חוּץ מִלְּשׁוֹן קָרְבָּן. כָּל־הַלְּשׁוֹנוֹת מְשַׁמְּשִׁין לְשׁוֹן קָרְבָּן חוּץ מִלְּשׁוֹן נְזִירוּת. אָמַר לָאֶשְׁכֹּל. [כָּלוּי] אֲנִי מִמְּךָ. פָּרוּשׁ אֲנִי מִמְּךָ. מָנוּעַ אֲנִי מִמֶּנּוּ. הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מִמֶּנּוּ. הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר. הֲרֵי עָלַי קָרְבָּן. לֹא אֲסָרוֹ עָלָיו אֶלָּא לְשֵׁם קָרְבָּן. אָמַר לַכִּכָּר. כָּלוּי אֲנִי מִמֶּנּוּ. פָּרוּשׁ אֲנִי מִמֶּנּוּ. מָנוּעַ אֲנִי מִמֶנּוּ. הֲרֵי הוּא עָלַי קָרְבָּן. לֹא אֲסָרוֹ עָלָיו אֶלָּא לְשֵׁם קָרְבָּן. הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מִמֶּנּוּ. הֲרֵי הוּא נָזִיר. אָהֵן מָנוּעִ מְשַׁמֵּשׁ לְשׁוֹן נְזִירוּת וּלְשׁוֹן קָרְבָּן. אָהֵן אֶשְׁכּוֹל אִית בֵּיהּ נְזִירוּת וְאִית בֵּיהּ קָרְבָּן. אָמַר לָאֶשְׁכּוֹל. כָּלוּי אֲנִי מִמֶּנּוּ. בָּא לְאוֹכְלוֹ אוֹמֵר לוֹ. לְדָמִים קָדוֹשׁ. פריו וּבָא לְאוֹכְלוֹ אוֹמֵר לוֹ. לֹא נָזִיר אַתָּה. Any expressions can be used for nezirut16If otherwise they are appropriate. except the expression qorban. Any expressions can be used for qorban16If otherwise they are appropriate. except the expression nezirut. If he said about a bunch of grapes, “I am locked away from you, I am separated from you, I am prevented from you, I am nazir from you,” he is a nazir. “It is for me qorban,” he only forbade it for himself as qorban17He cannot use any of the grapes of the bunch but is permitted any other grapes in the world. If he said, “grapes are qorban for me,” he is forbidden all grapes and their derivates but is not a nazir.. If he said about a loaf of bread, “I am locked away from it, I am separated from it, I am prevented from it, it is qorban for me,” he only forbade it for himself as qorban.18Since nothing connected with a loaf of bread has any relation with the rules of nazir, any restriction must be interpretated as a vow of qorban. “I am nazir from it,” he is a nazir19Because he used the word nazir, not because of any connection with the loaf.. “Prevented” implies both nezirut and qorban. If somebody said about a bunch of grapes, “I am prevented from it,” if he wanted to eat it, one tells him, is it not holy for its money’s worth? If he redeemed it, one tells him, are you not a nazir20An ambiguous vow has to be interpreted restrictively in all respects. If the vow could be interpreted as qorban or nazir, it is both (and, in fact, is a triple vow since qorban may mean either a prohibition “as if it were a qorban” or an offering to the Temple.) Therefore, when the bunch of grapes was redeemed and its value given to the Temple, the person making the vow still cannot eat it since he might be a nazir (even though one vow cannot be both qorban and nazir.)?
כָּל־הַלְּשׁוֹנוֹת מְשַׁמְּשִׁין לְשׁוֹן חִילּוּל חוּץ מִלְּשׁוֹן תְּמוּרָה. כָּל־הַלְּשׁוֹנוֹת מְשַׁמְּשִׁין לְשׁוֹן תְּמוּרָה חוּץ מִלְּשׁוֹן חִילּוּל. אָמַר לְקָדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ. הֲרֵי זֶה תַּחַת זֶה. תְּמוּרַת זוֹ. חֲלִיפֵי זוֹ. הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרָה. זוֹ מְחוּלֶּלֶת עַל זוֹ. אֵינָהּ תְּמוּרָה. אָמַר לְקָדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת. הֲרֵי זוֹ תַּחַת זוֹ. חֲלִיפֵי זוֹ. נִתְפְּשָׂה בְדָמִים. תְּמוּרַת זוֹ. לֹא נִתְפְּסָה בְדָמִים. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. חֲלִיפֵּי זוֹ. תְּמוּרַת זוֹ. לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. אָהֵן מְשַׁמֵּשׁ לְשׁוֹן חִילּוּל וּלְשׁוֹן תְּמוּרָה. אִילֵּין קָדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ אִית בָּהוּ חִילּוּל וְאִית בָּהוּ תְּמוּרָה. קָדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת שֶׁקָּדַם הֶקְדֵּישָׁן אֶת מוּמָן הֲרֵי זוֹ תַּחַת זוֹ. בָּא לְהַקְרִיב תְּמִימָה אוֹמְרִים לוֹ. לְדָמִים קָֽדְשָׁה. בָּא לוֹכַל בַּעַל מוּם אוֹמְרִים לוֹ. לִתְמוּרָה קָֽדְשָׁה. וְהָיָה הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ יִהְיֶה קוֹדֶשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר לָֽעְזָר. מִכֵּיוָן שֶהוּא יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁכָּל־הַמֵּימַר לוֹקֶה אַף הוּא לֹא עָלַת עַל דַּעְתּוֹ לְהָמִיר. Any expressions can be used for redemption except the expression “exchange”21Animals dedicated for use on the altar acquire what is called קְדֻשַּׁת הַגּוּף “bodily sanctity.” An animal used for the altar must be without blemish. Such an animal cannot be redeemed. It also should not be exchanged for another unblemished animal (Leviticus.27.10">Lev. 27:10). While any attempt to redeem the animal while unblemished, i. e., to subtract it to profane status, is simply impossible, the substitution of one unblemished animal for another, while sinful, nevertheless is possible and results in both animals being dedicated to the altar. If an altar animal develops a blemish, its bodily sanctity is reduced to קְדֻשַּׁת דָּמִים “holiness of monetary value.” The animal must be redeemed, i. e., its sanctity transferred to the money paid for it, and the money then used to buy a replacement animal. In this case, a substitution is impossible; there is no shortcut to avoid the redemption process.
Anything donated to the Temple treasury has only קְדֻשַּׁת דָּמִים from the start; it can be redeemed but not substituted.. Any expressions can be used for exchange except the expression “redemption.” If he said about dedications to the altar: “this one is for that one, exchange for that one, barter for that one,” it is an exchange22Sinful but valid.. “This is redeemed for that one,” it is no exchange23If an unblemished animal was offered as exchange for an unblemished altar animal but the language of redemption was used, the transaction is void; the animal offered remains profane.. If he said about dedications for the upkeep of the Temple: “this one is for that one, barter for that one,” its money’s worth is engaged24The object originally given to the Temple has been redeemed by the object offered as redemption (provided that the monetary value of the thing given in redemption was stated; Temurah 5:5" href="/Mishnah_Temurah.5.5">Mishnah Temurah 5:5).. “Exchange for that one,” he did not say anything25Since תְּמוּרָה is impossible for anything but unblemished animals dedicated as sacrifices.. The other [expressions] serve for redemption and exchange. Dedications to the altar are subject both to redemption and to exchange. [Animals] dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple26This text is impossible since objects dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple are not subject to exchange but only to redemption. Unblemished animals may not be offered for the upkeep of the Temple; they automatically would be offered to the altar. Therefore, a “dedication for the upkeep of the Temple whose dedication preceded its defect” is an altar animal which developed a blemish and, therefore, has the reduced status of קְדֻשַּׁת דָּמִים and can be redeemed. Blemished animals cannot be dedicated to the altar; any such dedication is invalid. who were dedicated before developing a defect, “this one is for that one,” if he wants to sacrifice a perfect animal, one tells him that its sanctity is for its money’s worth. If he wants to eat it after it developed a blemish, one tells him that it is holy as exchange27If an animal originally destined for the altar but later disqualified was redeemed not by money but by the offering of an unblemished animal and use of a term which can be interpreted to mean either redemption or substitution, the original animal is redeemed but the other animal is both a substitute and a redemption. It cannot be sacrificed since it is a redemption; one cannot wait until it develops a blemish with age because it is a substitution. It must be redeemed to eliminate the “holiness of monetary value” and then be sacrificed on the altar.: “Itself and its exchange shall be holy28Leviticus.27.10">Lev. 27:10..” Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, since he knows that anybody who exchanges is whipped, it never occured to him to exchange29He objects to the construction of a case in which an expression was used that might mean both redemption and substitution. Since redemption is required but substitution is sinful, it is obvious that only redemption was intended..
כָּל־הַלְּשׁוֹנוֹת מְשַׁמְּשִׁין לְשׁוֹן עֲרָכִין חוּץ מִלְּשׁוֹן דָּמִים. כָּל־הַלְּשׁוֹנוֹת מְשַׁמְּשִׁין לְשׁוֹן דָּמִים חוּץ מִלְּשׁוֹן עֲרָכִין. אָמַר לְאָדָם. עִילּוּיִין עָלַי. סִידּוּרוֹ עָלַי. שׁוּמוֹ עָלַי. עֶרְכּוֹ עָלַי. נוֹתֵן אֶת עֶרְכּוֹ. דָּמָיו עָלַי. נוֹתֵן אֶת דָּמָיו. אָהֵן שׁוּם מְשַׁמֵּשׁ לְשׁוֹן עֲרָכִים וּלְשׁוֹן דָּמִים. אָהֵן אָדָם אִית בֵּיהּ עֲרָכִים וְאִית בֵּיהּ דָּמִים. אָמַר לְאָדָם. שׁוּמוֹ עָלַי. אִם הָיָה נָאֶה נוֹתֵן אֶת דָּמָיו. אִם הָיָה כָאוּר נוֹתֵן אֶת עֶרְכּוֹ. Any expressions can be used for valuation30“Valuation” is the sum fixed for vows in which a person promises to pay his or another person’s valuation to the Temple (Leviticus.27.1-8">Lev. 27:1–8). The valuation depends on age and gender; it is fixed by the Biblical text (assuming a known ratio of the Biblical šeqel to the local currency.) “Money’s worth” of a person is the value he would fetch if sold as a slave. This worth can be promised by a vow, but not by a valuation. except the expression “money’s worth”. Any expressions can be used for money’s worth except the expression “valuation.” If he said about a human, “I shall pay his cost, I shall pay his settlement, I shall pay his estimate, I shall pay his valuation,” he has to pay his valuation31If an expression is ambiguous but “paying the valuation” is one of the meanings, in the absence of a definite indication to the contrary that is the legal meaning.. “I shall pay his money’s worth,” he has to pay his money’s worth. “Estimate” is used as an expression both for valuation and money’s worth. A human has both valuation and money’s worth. If he said about a human, “I shall pay his estimate,” if he was good looking, he pays his money’s worth; if he was ugly, he pays his valuation32In every case, he pays the larger sum..
בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. נָדוּר וְנָזוּר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים. אֵינוֹ נָדוּר וְאֵינוֹ נָזוּר. The House of Shammai say, he is bound by a vow and is a nazir, but the House of Hillel say, he is neither bound by a vow nor is he a nazir33This refers to the Mishnah. The person made an inappropriate vow of nazir, referring to food permitted to a nazir. The House of Shammai hold that he is forbidden all kinds of dried figs because of his vow, and he is a nazir since he used the word nazir. The House of Hillel hold that an inappropriate choice of words invalidates both vow and nezirut. This rejects R. Jehudah’s interpretation.
The parallel in the Nazir.9b">Babli, 9b, shows that this is a baraita. There, it is given in two versions (of which the Yerushalmi text is a combination). In one, the House of Shammai say, he is bound by a vow and is a nazir, but the House of Hillel say, he is bound by a vow but not a nazir. In the other, the House of Shammai say, he is bound by a vow but not a nazir, but the House of Hillel say, he is neither bound by a vow nor is he a nazir..