Talmud su Isaia 65:8

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.