Study Nazir folio 10B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
ואמר: ״הריני נזיר מיין אם לא עמדה״, ועמדה מאליה. בית שמאי סברי: תורפיה דהאי גברא משום אוקמה בידיה הוא, והא לא אוקמה. ובית הלל סברי: משום דרביעא הוא, והא קמת.
and he said: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from wine if it does not stand, since I will force it to do so, and it stood of its own accord, without him causing it to stand. Beit Shammai hold: This man’s intention [turpeih] is based upon him having it stand by his own hand, and he did not have it stand. Since he did not cause it to stand, his vow of naziriteship takes effect. And Beit Hillel hold: His intention is based upon the fact that it was prone, and now it has stood. Since the cow stood up it does not matter what caused it to stand, and his vow of naziriteship does not take effect.
אי הכי, אימא סיפא, אמר רבי יהודה: אף כשאמרו בית שמאי, לא אמרו אלא באומר ״הרי הן עלי קרבן״. פרה מי קא מתפיס בה מידי?
The Talmud asks: If so, say the latter clause of the Mishnah as follows: R' Yehuda said: Even when Beit Shammai said the vow is effective they said so only with regard to one who said: They are hereby forbidden to me as an offering. But does he take a vow and extend any prohibition to the cow? Since according to this approach, he explicitly mentions naziriteship, the cow is not rendered forbidden but is merely the subject of a condition of the vow, so why does R' Yehuda speak of a prohibition on the cow?
אלא כגון דאמר ״הריני נזיר מבשרה אם לא עמדה״, ועמדה מאליה. בית שמאי סברי: תורפיה דההוא גברא משום אוקמה בידיה הוא, והא לא אוקמה. ובית הלל סברי: תורפיה דהאי גברא משום דרביעא, והא קמת.
The Talmud offers another explanation: Rather, the Mishnah is referring to a case where he said: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from its flesh if it does not stand, and it stood of its own accord. Beit Shammai hold: That man’s intention is based upon him having it stand by his own hand, and he did not have it stand. Since he did not cause it to stand, his vow of prohibition takes effect. And Beit Hillel hold: This man’s intention is based upon the fact that it was prone, and now it has stood, so his vow does not take effect.