אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה כִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בִּנְדָבָה בְּנֶדֶר לָא אָמַר Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, it can be argued that when Rabbi Yehuda said that it is good to take a vow and fulfill it, he said it with regard to a gift offering, but he did not say it with regard to vows.
וְהָקָתָנֵי טוֹב מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה נוֹדֵר וּמְקַיֵּים תְּנִי נוֹדֵב וּמְקַיֵּים The Gemara asks: But isn’t the mishna teaching that according to Rabbi Yehuda, better than both this and that is one who vows [noder] and pays, which indicates that he says this even about vows? The Gemara answers: Teach the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with the following, emended formulation: Better than both this and that is one who volunteers [nodev] a gift offering and pays it.
מַאי שְׁנָא נוֹדֵר דְּלָא דִילְמָא אָתֵי בָּהּ לִידֵי תַקָּלָה נְדָבָה נָמֵי דִּילְמָא אָתֵי בָּהּ לִידֵי תַקָּלָה The Gemara asks: What is different about one who vows, i.e., one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring an offering, which is not proper to do due to the concern that perhaps he will encounter a stumbling block and not bring it promptly, thereby violating the prohibition against delaying? One should also not designate a particular animal as a gift offering, due to the concern that perhaps he will encounter a stumbling block with it.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְטַעְמֵיהּ דְּאָמַר אָדָם מֵבִיא כִּבְשָׂתוֹ לָעֲזָרָה וּמַקְדִּישָׁה וְסוֹמֵךְ עָלֶיהָ וְשׁוֹחֲטָהּ The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he said explicitly in a baraita: A person brings his lamb to the Temple courtyard and consecrates it there, and immediately leans on it and slaughters it. Consequently, there is no concern that he will encounter a stumbling block.
תִּינַח נְדָבָה דְקׇרְבָּנוֹת נְדָבָה דִנְזִירוּת מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר The Gemara asks: That works out well with regard to voluntary gifts in the context of offerings, but with regard to the volun-tary acceptance of naziriteship, what is there to say? There is still room for concern that one will not fulfill the obligations incumbent upon him as a nazirite.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְטַעְמֵיהּ דְּתַנְיָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר חֲסִידִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים הָיוּ מִתְאַוִּין לְהָבִיא קׇרְבַּן חַטָּאת לְפִי שֶׁאֵין הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מֵבִיא תַּקָּלָה עַל יְדֵיהֶם מָה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין עוֹמְדִים וּמִתְנַדְּבִין נְזִירוּת לַמָּקוֹם כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּתְחַיֵּיב קׇרְבַּן חַטָּאת לַמָּקוֹם The Gemara answers: Here, too, Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The early generations of pious men would desire to bring a sin-offering but did not have the opportunity to do so because the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not bring about a stumbling block through them, and they would not sin even unwittingly. What would they do? They would rise and volunteer naziriteship to the Omnipresent in order to be liable to bring a sin-offering of a nazirite to the Omnipresent.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר לֹא נָדְרוּ בְּנָזִיר אֶלָּא הָרוֹצֶה לְהָבִיא עוֹלָה מִתְנַדֵּב וּמֵבִיא שְׁלָמִים מִתְנַדֵּב וּמֵבִיא תּוֹדָה וְאַרְבָּעָה מִינֵי לַחְמָהּ מִתְנַדֵּב וּמֵבִיא אֲבָל בִּנְזִירוּת לֹא הִתְנַדְּבוּ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִקָּרְאוּ חוֹטְאִין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו מֵאֲשֶׁר חָטָא עַל הַנָּפֶשׁ Rabbi Shimon says: They did not take a vow of naziriteship. Rather, one who would want to bring a burnt-offering would volunteer and bring it; one who would want to bring a peace-offering would volunteer and bring it; and one who would want to bring a thanks-offering and its four types of bread would volunteer and bring them. However, they did not volunteer naziriteship in order that they not be called sinners. According to Rabbi Shimon, naziriteship involves some element of sin, as it is stated: “And he shall make atonement for him, for that he sinned against the soul” (Numbers 6:11).
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי שִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר כּוּלָּן שִׁיטָה אַחַת הֵן דְּנָזִיר חוֹטֵא הָוֵי שִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הָא דַּאֲמַרַן § Abaye said: Shimon HaTzaddik, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Elazar HaKappar are all of the same opinion, that a nazirite is a sinner. The statements of Shimon HaTzaddik and Rabbi Shimon in this regard are that which we already said.
וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר בְּרַבִּי דְּתַנְיָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר בְּרַבִּי אוֹמֵר וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו מֵאֲשֶׁר חָטָא עַל הַנָּפֶשׁ וְכִי בְּאֵיזוֹ נֶפֶשׁ חָטָא זֶה אֶלָּא שֶׁצִּיעֵר עַצְמוֹ מִן הַיַּיִן וַהֲלֹא דְּבָרִים קַל וָחוֹמֶר וּמָה זֶה שֶׁלֹּא צִיעֵר עַצְמוֹ אֶלָּא מִן הַיַּיִן נִקְרָא חוֹטֵא הַמְצַעֵר עַצְמוֹ מִכׇּל דָּבָר עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה מִכָּאן כׇּל הַיּוֹשֵׁב בְּתַעֲנִית נִקְרָא חוֹטֵא And Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished agrees, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished says: It is written with regard to the priest who sacrificed the offering of a nazirite: “And he shall make atonement for him, for that he sinned against the soul.” Against which soul did the nazirite sin? Rather, his sin is that he caused himself suffering by refraining from wine. Are these matters not inferred a fortiori: Just as this nazirite, who causes himself suffering only by refraining from wine, is called a sinner, one who causes himself suffering by refraining from everything is all the more so to be considered a sinner. From here it can be derived that whoever fasts unnecessarily is called a sinner.
וְהָדֵין קְרָא בְּנָזִיר טָמֵא כְּתִיב מִשּׁוּם דְּשָׁנָה בְּחֵטְא הוּא The Gemara raises a question with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar HaKappar. Isn’t this verse written with regard to a ritually impure nazirite? Consequently, only a nazirite who becomes impure shall be considered a sinner. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Elazar HaKappar holds that the verse uses this terminology with regard to a ritually impure nazirite because he repeated his sin. However, becoming a nazirite is itself considered a sin.
מַתְנִי׳ הָאוֹמֵר (לַחֲבֵירוֹ) קוּנָּם קוּנָּח קוּנָּס הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כִּינּוּיִין לַקׇּרְבָּן חֶרֶק חֶרֶךְ חֶרֶף הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כִּינּוּיִין לַחֵרֶם נָזִיק נָזִיחַ פָּזִיחַ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כִּינּוּיִין לִנְזִירוּת שְׁבוּתָה שְׁקוּקָה נוֹדֵר בְּמוֹהִי הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כִּינּוּיִין לַשְּׁבוּעָה: MISHNA: In the case of one who says to another that a certain object is konam, konaḥ, or konas, these expressions are substitutes for the term offering [korban], and the vow takes effect. Ḥerek, ḥerekh and ḥeref; these are substitutes for the term indicating a dedication [ḥerem] to the Temple treasury. Nazik, naziaḥ, and paziaḥ; these are substitutes for the term naziriteship [nazir]. Shevuta, shekuka, or one who vows with the term mohi, these are substitutes for the term oath [shevua].
גְּמָ׳ אִיתְּמַר כִּינּוּיִין רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר לְשׁוֹן אוּמּוֹת הֵן רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר לָשׁוֹן שֶׁבָּדוּ לָהֶם חֲכָמִים לִהְיוֹת נוֹדֵר בּוֹ וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר בַּחֹדֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר בָּדָא מִלִּבּוֹ GEMARA: It was stated that amora’im disagreed about substitutes for the language of vows. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They are terms from a language of other nations that mean offering, dedication, naziriteship, or oath. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: These terms employ language that the Sages devised [badu] with which one can take a vow. In order to explain the word badu, he adds: And so it states with regard to Jeroboam: “In the month that he had devised [bada] in his own heart” (I Kings 12:33).
וְטַעְמָא מַאי תַּקִּינוּ רַבָּנַן כִּינּוּיִין דְּלָא לֵימָא קׇרְבָּן וְלֵימָא קׇרְבָּן דִּילְמָא אָמַר קׇרְבָּן לַה׳ וְלֵימָא קׇרְבָּן לַה׳ דִּילְמָא אָמַר לַה׳ וְלָא אָמַר קׇרְבָּן וְקָא מַפֵּיק שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם לְבַטָּלָה And according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, what is the reason that the Sages established substitutes for the language of vows? The Gemara answers: It is so that one not explicitly say the term offering. The Gemara asks: And let him say the term offering; what is wrong with that? The Gemara answers: Perhaps he will say: An offering to the Lord. The Gemara asks: And let him say: An offering to the Lord. The Gemara answers: Perhaps he will say: To the Lord, and he will then change his mind and not say: An offering, and he will thereby express the name of Heaven in vain.
וְתַנְיָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר And similarly, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: