משנה: הָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְאֶחָד בָּא כְנֶגְדָּן אָמַר אֶחָד מֵהֶן הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁזֶּה אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי. וְאֶחָד אָמַר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁאֵינוֹ הוּא. הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁאֶחָד מִכֶּם נָזִיר שֶׁאֵין אֶחָד מִכֶּם נָזִיר שֶׁשְּׁנֵיכֶם נְזִירִין שֶׁכּוּלְּכֶם נְזִירִין. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים כּוּלָּן נְזִירִין. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ נָזִיר אֶלָּא מִי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְקַייְמוּ דְבָרָיו. וְרִבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר אֵין אֶחָד מֵהֶן נָזִיר. הִרְתִּיעַ לַאֲחוֹרָיו אֵינוֹ נָזִיר. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר יֹאמַר אִם הָיָה כִדְבָרַי הֲרֵינִי נְזִיר חוֹבָה. וְאִם לָאו הֲרֵינִי נְזִיר נְדָבָה. רָאָה אֶת הָכּוֹי וְאָמַר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁזֶּה חַיָּה הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁאֵין זֶה חַיָּה. הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁזֶּה בְּהֵמָה הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁאֵין זֶה בְּהֵמָה. הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁזֶּה חַיָּה וּבְהֵמָה. הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁאֵין זֶה לֹא חַיָּה וְלָּא בְהֵמָה. הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁאֶחָד מִכֶּם נָזִיר שֶׁאֵין אֶחָד מִכֶּם נָזִיר שֶׁשְּׁנֵיכֶם נְזִירִין הֲרֵי כּוּלָּם נְזִירִין. MISHNAH: If they were walking on the road and a person came towards them when one said, “I am a nazir unless he is Mr. X”, and another said, “I am a nazir if it is not he”; “I am a nazir unless one of you is a nazir”, “unless both of you are nezirim”, “unless all of you are nezirim”. The House of Shammai say, they are all nezirim120By their rule, anybody who said “I am a nazir” is a nazir, even if his condition was not satisfied., but the House of Hillel say, only those whose assertions prove wrong are nezirim. Rebbi Ṭarphon said, none of them is a nazir121Since Numbers.6.2">Num. 6:2 requires that a vow of nazir be clearly expressed, but these people did mention nazir only to emphasize their statements, there is no valid vow..
If he suddenly returned, no one is a nazir122This is a continuation of the previous Mishnah. The object of the disagreement of the travelers suddenly disappears and it is not possible to determine who is right and who is wrong, who should be a nazir and who should not.. Rebbi Simeon says, one123Everyone whose vow is in doubt. On the one hand, not to fulfill one’s vow is a grave sin; on the other hand, the sacrifices at the end of the period of nezirut can be offered only if they are due, otherwise the animals would be sinful profane offerings in the Temple. Therefore, it is necessary to offer a new vow which takes care of all possibilities. should say: If it was as I said, I am a nazir by obligation, otherwise I am a nazir voluntarily. If one saw a koy124An animal neither wild nor domesticated, which partially follows the rules of both kinds (Bikkurim 2:6:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bikkurim.2.6.1">Mishnah Bikkurim 2:9 ff., Note 154). and said, “I am a nazir if this is a wild animal”, “I am a nazir if this is not a wild animal”125These are statements by different prople walking together. Since all assertions are more or less true, all persons involved are nezirim., “I am a nazir if this is a domestic animal”, “I am a nazir if this is a not a domestic animal”, “I am a nazir if this is a wild and domestic animal”, “I am a nazir if this is neither a wild nor a domestic animal”, “I am a nazir if one of you is a nazir”, “if one of you is not a nazir”, “if both of you are nezirim”, then all of them are nezirim.
הלכה: הָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין בַּדֶּרֶךְ כול׳. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. מִי שֶׁנִּתְקַיימוּ דְּבָרִים. לָשׁוֹן הָפוּךְ הוּא. דְּלָא קָֽבְרָת בְּרָהּ. HALAKHAH: “If they were walking on the road,” etc. Should the Mishnah not read: “whose assertions are correct”?126If Mishnah 6 is translated strictly literally, it reads: “I am a nazir if he is Mr. X”, and another said, “I am a nazir if he is not”; “I am a nazir if one of you is a nazir”, “if both of you are nezirim”, “if all of you are nezirim”. In that case, the House of Hillel should state that the ones whose statements are correct are nezirim. It is language of opposites, “that she did not bury her son.”127One does not want to express anything negative. A woman who is afraid for the life of her son will assert that she will not bury her son. A different explanation of the paragraph is given by J. N. Epstein, מבוא לנוסח המשנה2 pp. 332–335, more in accordance with the Nazir.32b-33a">Babli (32b–33a).
תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן. אֵין אֶחָד מֵהֶן נָזִיר. שֶׁאֵין נְזִירוּת אֶלָּא עַל הַתְרָייָה. הָדָא הִיא דְרִבִּי יוּדָה אָמַר. סְפֵק נְזִירוּת מוּתָּר. It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Ṭarphon: None of them is a nazir since nezirut exists only by warning.”128In the Babylonian sources, Nazir.34a">Babli 34a, Tosephta 3:19, “nezirut exists only by הפלאה ‘clear statement’ ”. The meaning is the same here; a legal warning for a breach of the vow could only be issued if the vow was clearly stated. That is what Rebbi Jehudah said, “doubtful nezirut is permitted.129Mishnah Ṭahorot 4:12.”
מַה נָן קַייָמִין. אִם בְּשֶׁזֶּה אוֹמֵר. רְאוּבֵן. וְזֶה אוֹמֵר. שִׁמְעוֹן. מַה נַפְשֵׁךְ. רְאוּבֵן הוּא נָזִיר הוּא. שִׁמְעוֹן הוּא נָזִיר הוּא. אֶלָּא כִּי נָן קַייָמִין. בְּשֶׁזֶּה אוֹמֵר. רְאוּבֵן. וְזֶה אוֹמֵר. שִׁמְעוֹן. הִרְתִּיעַ לַאֲחוֹרָיו אֵינוֹ לֹא רְאוּבֵן וְלֹא שִׁמְעוֹן אֵינוֹ נָזִיר. 130Here starts the discussion of Nazir 5:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.5.4.1">Mishnah 7. Where do we hold? If one says, Reuben, and the other says, Simeon, as you take it, if he is Reuben, one is a nazir, if he is Simeon, one is anazir. But we must hold that one says, Reuben, and the other says, Simeon. He suddenly disappeared, he was neither Reuben nor Simeon; nobody is a nazir.
הָדָא הִיא דְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן עַד שֶׁיִהְיֶה. That is what Rebbi Simeon said, he cannot bring a sacrifice unless it exists131The statement of R. Simeon parallels his own in Nazir 2:8:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.2.8.1">Mishnah 2:8, regarding the man who vowed to be nazir if his wife bore a son and she had a miscarriage..
תַּנֵּי. וְכוּלָּן מוֹנִין תִּשְׁעָה נְזִירִיּוֹת. וְהָא אִינּוּן עֶשֶׂר. אֵי אֶפְשַׁר שֶׁלֹּא נִתְקַייְמוּ דִּבְרֵי אֶחָד מֵהֶן. אָמַר רִבִּי יָסָא. דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי הִיא. דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. הֶקְדֵּשׁ טָעוּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ. It was stated132In the Tosephta, 3:19, this refers to people who meet a hermaphrodite and quarrel whether or not he is a man, a woman, or a man and a woman. In the Nazir.34a">Babli, 34a, there is a question whether to read “9 neziriot”, or “9 nezirim”. The formulation of the Mishnah in the Yerushalmi clearly speaks of only two people who dispute and pile vow onto vow.: “All of them count nine neziriot”. Are they not ten?133The questioner has a slightly different reading in the Mishnah which exhausts all logical possibilities: Wild animal or not, domestic or not, wild and domestic or not, neither wild nor domestic, one or none or both nezirim. It is impossible that the words of any of them should not be correct. Rebbi Yasa said, this134The Tosephta which counts 9 possibilities. is the House of Shammai’s, since the House of Shammai say, dedication in error is dedication.