הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מִן הַגְּרוֹגְרוֹת וּמִן הַדְּבֵילָה בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים נָזִיר וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ נָזִיר אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַף כְּשֶׁאָמְרוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא בְּאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי הֵן עָלַי קׇרְבָּן: MISHNA: If one says: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from dried figs and from cakes of dried figs, Beit Shammai say: His statement renders him a full-fledged nazirite, and his addition: From dried figs, is insignificant, as this fruit is not included in the prohibitions of a nazirite, which include only products of the grapevine. And Beit Hillel say: He is not a nazirite, since he did not accept naziriteship upon himself. Rabbi Yehuda said: Even when Beit Shammai said that this vow takes effect, they said that only in a case where one said that he meant: They are hereby forbidden to me as an offering. In that case it is as though he took a vow rendering the figs forbidden to him. However, Beit Shammai concede that although the vow takes effect, it is not a vow of naziriteship.
גְּמָ׳ הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מִן הַגְּרוֹגְרוֹת וּמִן הַדְּבֵילָה בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים נָזִיר וְאַמַּאי מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר יֵעָשֶׂה מִגֶּפֶן הַיַּיִן אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא בֵּית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי לַהּ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּאָמַר אֵין אָדָם מוֹצִיא דְּבָרָיו לְבַטָּלָה GEMARA: It is stated in the mishna that if one says: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from dried figs and from cakes of dried figs, Beit Shammai say: He is a nazirite. The Gemara asks: But why? The Merciful One states in the Torah in the passage dealing with naziriteship: “From anything that is made of the grapevine…he shall not eat” (Numbers 6:4). In naziriteship, only the fruit of the vine is prohibited. The Gemara answers: Beit Shammai hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: A person does not utter a statement for naught. In other words, if one utters a statement that cannot be fulfilled as stated, his statement is interpreted in a manner that renders it relevant. Here too, Beit Shammai say that he misspoke and actually intended to take a vow of naziriteship.
וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי דְּאָמַר בִּגְמַר דְּבָרָיו אָדָם נִתְפָּס וְהַאי נֶדֶר וּפִתְחוֹ עִמּוֹ הוּא And Beit Hillel hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says: A person is also held accountable for the conclusion of his statement. If one states two irreconcilable clauses, e.g., this animal is a substitute for a burnt-offering, a substitute for a peace-offering; the second clause is not disregarded, and the animal assumes both statuses. And this is a vow with its inherent opening, i.e., reason for dissolution. Although he said: I am hereby a nazirite, by adding the words: From dried figs and from cakes of dried figs, he indicated that his intention was that the naziriteship would not take effect.
וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי נָמֵי נֶדֶר וּפִתְחוֹ עִמּוֹ הוּא The Gemara asks: And according to Beit Shammai too, it is a vow with its inherent opening, and since they certainly agree that a vow of this kind does not take effect, why do they hold that this vow takes effect?
אֶלָּא בֵּית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי לַהּ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּאָמַר אֵין אָדָם מוֹצִיא דְּבָרָיו לְבַטָּלָה וְכֵיוָן דְּאָמַר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר הֲוָה לֵיהּ נָזִיר כִּי קָאָמַר מִן הַגְּרוֹגְרוֹת וּמִן הַדְּבֵילָה לְאִיתְּשׁוֹלֵי הוּא דְּקָאָתֵי וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּאָמְרִי אֵין שְׁאֵלָה בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ וְכֵיוָן דְּאֵין שְׁאֵלָה בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ אֵין שְׁאֵלָה בִּנְזִירוּת The Gemara explains the dispute: Rather, Beit Shammai hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: A person does not utter a statement for naught, and once he said: I am hereby a nazirite, he is immediately rendered a nazirite. When he then says: And therefore I will refrain from dried figs and from cakes of dried figs, he is coming to request that a halakhic authority dissolve his vow, as he regrets having taken the vow and is now seeking to dissolve it. And Beit Shammai follow their standard line of reasoning, as they say: One cannot request that a halakhic authority dissolve a vow of consecrated property, which one can do for vows of prohibition. And since one cannot request that a halakhic authority dissolve a vow of consecrated property, likewise one cannot request that a halakhic authority dissolve a vow of naziriteship, as the legal status of a vow of naziriteship is like that of a vow of consecrated property in this regard.
וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דִּתְנַן וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר שֶׁלֹּא הִתְנַדֵּב כְּדֶרֶךְ הַמִּתְנַדְּבִים And Beit Hillel hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as we learned in a mishna (Menaḥot 103a): If one vows to bring a meal-offering from barley, since voluntary meal-offerings are brought only from wheat, the Rabbis say: He must bring a meal-offering from wheat, and Rabbi Shimon exempts him entirely, as he did not donate in the manner typical of donors. Since he donated an offering that cannot be sacrificed, his vow is meaningless. Here too, since he took a vow of naziriteship stating that he therefore will refrain from dried figs rather than from wine, his statement is meaningless.