QUESTION: The Mishnah states that a person who accepts upon himself to become a Nazir from dried figs becomes a Nazir according to Beis Shamai. According to Beis Hillel, he does not become a Nazir. Rebbi Yehudah says that according to Beis Shamai, he does not become a Nazir but he does become prohibited from figs because of a Neder. The Gemara discusses the reasoning behind the rulings of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel. The Gemara says that the opinions of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel depend on the views of other Tana'im, such as Rebbi Meir who says that a person does not utter words for no purpose.

TOSFOS cites the Tosefta which refers to this dispute between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel as a dispute about whether "Kinuyei Kinuyim" work for Nezirus. Tosfos then cites the Yerushalmi which explains that the word "Deveilah" is a Kinuy of a Kinuy for wine, because people call figs "Tirosh," a word which is also used to mean wine.

Why does the Gemara give a completely different explanation for the dispute between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel? How can the explanation of the Gemara be reconciled with that of the Tosefta?

ANSWER: To understand the intent of the Gemara, it is necessary to review the Gemara's complex approach to the dispute between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel in the Mishnah, according to the view of Tosfos.

The statement, "I am a Nazir from figs," may be interpreted in one of four ways:

1. It is an illogical, meaningless statement, since everyone knows that a Nazir is prohibited from grape products, and not from figs. The Gemara explains that his statement is not interpreted in this way because a person does not willingly make a meaningless statement. Both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree with this principle.

2. The person intends to make himself a Nazir when he says the first two words, "Hareini Nazir" ("I am a Nazir"), but he immediately changes his mind and -- in order to revoke his acceptance of Nezirus in a subtle way without explicitly retracting his words -- he ends his statement by saying that he will be a Nazir "from figs." He thereby renders his first statement (of acceptance of Nezirus) meaningless, since a person cannot be a Nazir from figs. His statement now is not meaningless; the beginning of the statement was an acceptance of Nezirus, and the end of the statement served to revoke his acceptance of Nezirus by adjusting it within the period of "Toch Kedei Dibur."

Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel both accept this as a valid interpretation of the person's statement, but they argue about the outcome of such a statement. Beis Hillel maintains that a person may change his mind within "Toch Kedei Dibur" and therefore he is not a Nazir, since he immediately retracted his statement. Beis Shamai, however, maintains that a person cannot retract his oath of Nezirus, and therefore the person is a Nazir and is prohibited from wine.

There are two other ways to interpret his statement:

3. The person intends to accept Nezirus, and he merely makes his statement in an unusual manner ("she'Lo k'Derech ha'Misnadvim"). His statement is not considered meaningless since he indeed intends to make himself a Nazir with his statement, even though the words ("from figs") at the end of his statement add nothing. (Why did he add those words if they have no meaning? Perhaps he meant to say, "If I would be able to make myself a Nazir who is prohibited from figs, I would do so. But since the only type of Nazir the Torah recognizes is one who is prohibited from grape products, I will become a Nazir who cannot eat grape products.") This is the classic case of one who uses a strange wording for a Neder, in which Rebbi Shimon rules that the Neder is not valid since the odd statement does not clearly convey that he wants to become a Nazir. The Chachamim disagree with Rebbi Shimon and maintain that such a statement is a valid oath even though it is odd. (This is the way the Gemara originally interprets the dispute between Rebbi Shimon and the Chachamim, and it conforms with Chizkiyah's explanation on 9b.)

According to Beis Hillel, there is one way to interpret his words in which he will not be a Nazir. Therefore, although there is a possibility that he has this intention in mind and does intend to make himself a Nazir, there remains a doubt about his true intention and thus the rule of "Safek Nezirus l'Hakel" applies (and he does not become a Nazir).

However, if Beis Shamai would rule like Rebbi Shimon that an odd statement cannot be a valid way to become a Nazir, he should rule in the case of the Mishnah that the person is not a Nazir since it is possible that he had this intention in mind, and "Safek Nezirus l'Hakel." The Gemara explains that indeed Beis Shamai rules like the Chachamim who disagree with Rebbi Shimon and say that an odd statement is a valid way to make oneself a Nazir. (This answers the question of the GILYON HA'SHAS on 9b.)

(This interpretation of the person's statement is viable only according to Rebbi Meir, who says that a person does not make meaningless statements. According to the Chachamim, who maintain that a person does make meaningless statements, it is much more logical to assume that the entire statement is meaningless than to assume that he is making such an odd statement of Nezirus. This is evident from TOSFOS (9b, DH Lav and DH Michdi). This is why Rebbi Yehudah in the Mishnah asserts that the person did not accept a Nezirus; Rebbi Yehudah maintains that a person does say meaningless words, and therefore he does not interpret the statement as an oddly-worded Nezirus.)

4. The person intends to make a Neder to prohibit figs upon himself, and he makes his Neder in an unusual manner ("she'Lo k'Derech ha'Misnadvim"). Again, his statement is not considered meaningless, since he indeed intends to make a Neder with his statement. Tosfos adds that when the word "Nazir" is used in such a context, it means "separated from" and not Nezirus (otherwise, his statement would have no implication of Neder).

According to this interpretation as well, the dispute between Rebbi Shimon and the Chachamim would apply to determine whether he becomes prohibited from figs or not.

Why does Beis Hillel not consider this statement a Safek Neder, due to this possible interpretation of the statement? The rule with regard to Nedarim is that "Safek Nedarim l'Hachmir," and thus the Neder should take effect out of doubt. For this reason, the Gemara concludes that Beis Hillel must follow the view of Rebbi Shimon that an oddly-formulated statement of Neder is not a valid Neder. (TOSFOS, DH Beis Hillel)

Why, though, does the Gemara not suggest a more basic answer? Perhaps Beis Hillel maintains that the word "Nazir" cannot be interpreted to mean "separated from," and therefore there is no implication of Neder at all in the statement. This indeed must be the reason why Beis Shamai (according to the Tana Kama of the Mishnah who argues with Rebbi Yehudah) does not interpret the person's statement as a Safek Neder, even though he rules that odd statements are valid (like the Chachamim who disagree with Rebbi Shimon)!

The answer is that the Gemara prefers to explain Beis Hillel's opinion in a way which does not conflict with the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah who says that "Nazir" can be interpreted as "separated from," a valid wording of Neder. Beis Shamai, however, according to the Tana Kama, certainly argues with Rebbi Yehudah. (See a similar suggestion with regard to another question in ARZEI HA'LEVANON #18.) This is also the reason why Chizkiyah, later in the Gemara, assumes that Beis Hillel does not rule like the Chachamim who argue with Rebbi Shimon.

This is the essence of the dispute between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel, according to Tosfos. This explains why Beis Shamai considers one's statement a valid oath of Nezirus even when he says that he is a Nazir from figs or a Nazir from using a certain door (Mishnah, 10a).

When the Tosefta says that Beis Hillel argues with Beis Shamai about whether a Kinuy of a Kinuy may be used for Nezirus (see also Nedarim 10b), it means that there is a fifth way to interpret the statement, "I am a Nazir from figs." It is possible that the person uses the word "figs" as a reference to grapes (either because of the Yerushalmi which says that figs are called "Tirosh," or because of the logic of the Bavli (10a) that people confuse one type of fruit with other types of fruit). The Tosefta teaches that Beis Hillel does not accept this as a valid interpretation since the word "figs" does not have a strong enough connotation of "grapes." Beis Shamai argues with this as well and says that the word "figs" does have a strong enough connotation of "grapes." However, even if it did not have that connotation, or even if the person said, "I am a Nazir from meat" (as in the case on 10a), Beis Shamai still would rule that it is a valid Nezirus, and that is why the Gemara offers a different explanation (from the explanation of the Tosefta and Yerushalmi) for the dispute between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel.

QUESTION: According to one version of Rebbi Nasan's Beraisa, when a person says "I am a Nazir from figs," Beis Shamai rules that he becomes a Nazir and has a Neder (prohibiting him from figs).

Why does he become a definite Nazir and bound by a definite Neder at the same time? If the intention of his statement was to make a Nezirus, he did not intend to make a Neder, and if he intended to make a Neder, he did not intend to make a Nezirus! (When the Beraisa says that he is a Nazir, it cannot mean that he is a Safek Nazir, because the rule is that "Safek Nezirus l'Hakel.")

(a) TOSFOS in Menachos (103a) and the ROSH here explain that Rebbi Yehudah in the Mishnah rules that the statement, "I am a Nazir from figs," is a Neder only if the person later explains that he actually meant to make a Neder. This is the meaning of Rebbi Yehudah's words in the Mishnah, "... b'Omer..." -- "when he says that they are prohibited to me like a Korban." Accordingly, Rebbi Nasan is saying that according to Beis Shamai, the person could be either a Nazir or have a Neder, but not both. If he says later that he intended to make a Neder, it is a Neder, and if he says later that he intended to make a Nezirus, it is a Nezirus.

(b) The TOSFOS RID explains that he indeed is a Nazir and has a Neder at the same time. It is assumed that he intended to make two statements and not just one: the first statement is "I am a Nazir," and the second is "and [I am prohibited] from figs." The Tosfos Rid also explains that, according Rebbi Yehudah in the Mishnah, the person automatically has a Neder and does not have to explain his words.

QUESTION: Rebbi Yochanan says that when a person says, "I obligate myself to bring a Minchah offering from Adashim (lentils)," he is required to bring a Minchah offering (from wheat) according to the Chachamim who argue with Rebbi Shimon. The reason is that it is assumed that he originally intended to accept upon himself the obligation to bring a Minchah, and he immediately changed his mind. Since the Halachah is "Tefos Lashon Rishon" (we follow the first of two consecutive, contradictory statements), his first statement overrides his second statement.

Why does the rule of "Tefos Lashon Rishon" apply in a case in which the second statement contradicts the first? TOSFOS earlier (9a, DH Ein Adam Motzi) writes that everyone agrees that we follow the end of a person's statement when his second statement is a retraction of the first, such as "I am a Nazir from figs" (where "from figs" is a retraction of his statement "I am a Nazir"). Here, too, we should follow the end of his statement since he retracts the first part of his statement within "Toch Kedei Dibur" of his pledge to bring a Minchah offering.

ANSWER: The term "Tefos Lashon Rishon" here is not used in its normal sense, but appears to be a borrowed phrase. The Gemara means that the Tana Kama follows the view of Beis Shamai, that a person cannot retract Nidrei Hekdesh or Nezirus, even "Toch Kedei Dibur," and thus his first statement remains valid.

Indeed, when the Gemara in Menachos (103a) cites the Mishnah and most of the Sugya here, it explains that Beis Shamai's reasoning in the Mishnah here is "Tefos Lashon Rishon." There, too, the Gemara cannot mean the conventional application of "Tefos Lashon Rishon." Rather, the Gemara borrows this phrase to allude to what the Gemara here concludes, that Beis Shamai rules that a person cannot retract his oath of Hekdesh even "Toch Kedei Dibur," as the CHIKREI LEV (YD 204) explains (as cited by ARZEI HA'LEVANON #6*).

(The question of the GILYON HA'SHAS earlier on this Daf applies to this point in the Gemara.)