אפילו תימא רבי יהודה כי אמר רבי יהודה בנדבה בנדר לא אמר

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.

והקתני טוב מזה ומזה נודר ומקיים תני נודב ומקיים

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.

מאי שנא נודר דלא דילמא אתי בה לידי תקלה נדבה נמי דילמא אתי לידי תקלה

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.

רבי יהודה לטעמיה דאמר אדם מביא כבשתו לעזרה ומקדישה וסומך עליה ושוחטה

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.

תינח נדבה דקרבנות נדבה דנזירות מאי איכא למימר

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.

רבי יהודה לטעמיה דתניא רבי יהודה אומר חסידים הראשונים היו מתאווין להביא קרבן חטאת לפי שאין הקדוש ברוך הוא מביא תקלה על ידיהם מה היו עושין עומדין ומתנדבין נזירות למקום כדי שיתחייב קרבן חטאת למקום

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.

רבי שמעון אומר לא נדרו בנזיר אלא הרוצה להביא עולה מתנדב ומביא שלמים מתנדב ומביא תודה וארבעה מיני לחמה מתנדב ומביא אבל בנזירות לא התנדבו כדי שלא יקראו חוטאין שנאמר וכפר עליו מאשר חטא על הנפש

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).

אמר אביי שמעון הצדיק ורבי שמעון ורבי אלעזר הקפר כולן שיטה אחת הן דנזיר חוטא הוי שמעון הצדיק ורבי שמעון הא דאמרן

§ 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.

ורבי אלעזר הקפר ברבי דתניא רבי אלעזר הקפר ברבי אומר וכפר עליו מאשר חטא על הנפש וכי באיזו נפש חטא זה אלא שציער עצמו מן היין והלא דברים קל וחומר ומה זה שלא ציער עצמו אלא מן היין נקרא חוטא המצער עצמו מכל דבר, על אחת כמה וכמה מכאן כל היושב בתענית נקרא חוטא

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.

והדין קרא בנזיר טמא כתיב משום דשנה בחטא הוא

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.

מתני׳ האומר (לחבירו) קונם קונח קונס הרי אלו כינויין לקרבן חרק חרך חרף הרי אלו כינויין לחרם נזיק נזיח פזיח הרי אלו כינויין לנזירות שבותה שקוקה נודר במוהי הרי אלו כינויין לשבועה:

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].

גמ׳ איתמר כינויין רבי יוחנן אמר לשון אומות הן רבי שמעון בן לקיש אמר לשון שבדו להם חכמים להיות נודר בו וכן הוא אומר בחדש אשר בדא מלבו

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).

וטעמא מאי תקינו רבנן כינויין דלא לימא קרבן ולימא קרבן דילמא אמר קרבן לה' ולימא קרבן לה' דילמא אמר לה' ולא אמר קרבן וקא מפיק שם שמים לבטלה

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.

ותניא רבי שמעון אומר

And similarly, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: