Nazir 2B

גבי ״יש נוחלין״ נמי, מפרש עיקר נחלה ברישא.

Similarly, with regard to the Mishnah that teaches that there are some relatives who inherit and bequeath, the tanna also had a reason for initially providing examples from the first category: He thereby explains the principal case of the Torah’s halakhot of inheritance first.

אלא [הכא] לפרוש כינויי ברישא! אלא היינו טעם: ידות, הואיל ואתיין ליה מדרשא, חביבין ליה.

The Talmud now returns to its question: But here, let the tanna explain the cases of substitutes first. The Talmud explains: Rather, this is the reason: Since intimations are derived from the exposition of verses and are not explicitly mentioned in the Torah, they are dear to the tanna and he therefore mentions them first.

וליפתח בהון ברישא! תנא כי מתחיל ⁠— מתחיל בעיקר קרבן, ולענין פירושי ⁠— מפרש ידות ברישא.

The Talmud asks: But if that is so, then let him begin with them first in the opening clause of the Mishnah as well. The Talmud answers: When the tanna begins, he begins with the main offering of the nazirite, i.e., with the halakha that has a basis in the Torah. But with regard to the explanation of these halakhot, he explains the cases of intimations first, as he favors that topic.

האומר ״אהא״⁠ — הרי זה נזיר. דלמא ״אהא בתענית״ קאמר? אמר שמואל: כגון שהיה נזיר עובר לפניו.

§ The Mishnah taught: One who says: I will be, is a nazirite. The Talmud asks: Perhaps he is saying: I will be fasting, i.e., his intention is to take a vow that will obligate himself to fast rather than to be a nazirite. The Talmud answers that Shmuel said: The Mishnah is describing a case where a nazirite was passing before him, so that it is clear that he is taking a nazirite vow.

לימא קסבר שמואל ידים שאינן מוכיחות לא הוויין ידים? אמרי: בזמן שנזיר עובר לפניו ליכא לספוקא במילתא אחרינא. אבל ודאי אין הנזיר עובר לפניו, אמרינן: דלמא ״אהא בתענית״ קאמר.

The Talmud asks: should we say that Shmuel holds as a principle that ambiguous intimations are not considered intimations, i.e., they are not considered vows? The Talmud rejects this suggestion: Say that when a nazirite is passing before him, there is no reason to doubt his intention. There is no possibility that he is referring to another matter, and therefore his statement is definitely an intimation of naziriteship. However, it is certainly the case that when a nazirite is not passing before him, and he states: I will be, we say that perhaps he is saying: I will be fasting. It is only in the latter case, where one’s intimation is so ambiguous that it offers no evidence whatsoever of his intentions, that Shmuel holds that one’s statement is not considered a vow.