Talmud for Menachot 12:3

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 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. 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, etc⁶Is. 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 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 (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 there¹⁰Mishnah 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 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 stated¹³Mishnah 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.

The following is obvious: If her husband did not dissolve for the first [woman] and she transgressed her vow, she is whipped. Can the second be whipped⁵⁷If the second woman stated that “my intention was only to be like her, in her state,” and the first violated her vow and now cannot be a nezirah while she undergoes the purification rite, when the second also violated her vow.? Rebbi Yose said, since one is whipped, the other also is whipped. Rebbi La said, this⁵⁸R. Yose’s statement. follows Rebbi Simeon. Can the second not be considered like one who said, I am a nezirah after twenty days⁵⁹That the vow should count again after the first woman was purified.? Rebbi Simeon follows his own opinion; for Rebbi Simeon declares him free, because his offering was not according to the custom of offerers.⁶⁰Mishnah Menaḥot 12:3 (formulated in the masculine), cf. Halakhah 2:4, Note 66. There does not exist an intermittent vow of nazir; if the second woman’s vow was valid, it remains valid.

Does the Mishnah follow Rebbi Simeon⁶⁵Since R. Simeon is quoted as disagreeing in two of the three cases quoted in Mishnah 4, does one have to assume that he agrees in the first case?? For “Rebbi Simeon declares him free, because his offering was not according to the way of offerers.⁶⁶Mishnah Menaḥot 12:3. If somebody vows an offering of barley flour (which cannot be a voluntary offering), the rabbis require him to bring an offering of wheat flour but “R. Simeon declares him free, because his offering was not according to the way of offerers.” One should assume that R. Simeon declares a person who wants to be nazir on condition that he may drink wine as “offering not according to the way of offerers.” Why does he not disagree in the first case?” And Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, there is a difference because he reserved shaving⁶⁷Since the person making the vow did not stipulate that he may shave, the vow is valid for the prohibition of shaving and a partially valid vow is valid.. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If it is because he reserved shaving, does not the following state “it is forbidden to him, but Rebbi Simeon permits.” Did he not reserve shaving [and] impurity but Rebbi Simeon frees him⁶⁸The vow is partially valid; why is it not valid?? There is a difference, because of an opening for the vow⁶⁹Since he bases his vow on an argument which will automatically grant him a revocation of the vow (cf. Nedarim Chapter 9), the vow is automatically revoked. In the Babli, 11b, this argument is attributed to Rav Assi. In the Tosephta, 2:3, it is explicitly attributed to R. Simeon.. If it was because of an opening for the vow, does not the following state “he is permitted but Rebbi Simeon forbids”? Rebbi Simeon does not recognize it as an opening for the vow but the rabbis recognize it as an opening for the vow. Why? Because he connects his vow with his life⁷⁰If he needs wine for medical purposes, the use of wine must be permitted to him.. One understands, to drink wine. The defile oneself for the dead? It is his profession to bury the dead⁷¹The only person who can have a vow of nazir annulled because he has to defile himself for the dead is the undertaker..