or like the meal-offering of a sota, both of which are made of barley, it should become consecrated, and if it is not possible to volunteer a meal-offering from barley, it should not be a meal-offering at all. The mishna therefore teaches us that one nevertheless brings a meal-offering made from wheat. Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that the difficulty raised by Ḥizkiyya against his own explanation is inconclusive, and he need not have retracted it.

MISHNA: If one said: This cow said: I am hereby a nazirite if I stand up; or if he said: This door says: I am hereby a nazirite if I am opened, Beit Shammai say he is a nazirite, and Beit Hillel say he is not a nazirite. Rabbi Yehuda said: Even when Beit Shammai say that the vow is effective, they say so only with regard to one who said: This cow is hereby forbidden to me as an offering if it stands up. In that case it is as if he took a vow that the cow is forbidden. However, Beit Shammai concede that although the vow takes effect, it is not a vow of naziriteship.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Does a cow speak? What is the meaning of the statement: A cow said: I am hereby a nazirite? Rami bar Ḥama said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where there was a prone cow before him, and he tried, without success, to cause it to stand, and he said: This cow thinks it will not stand; I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from its flesh if it stands of its own accord, and in fact it stood of its own accord. Beit Shammai follow their standard approach and Beit Hillel follow their standard approach.

The Gemara explains: Beit Shammai, who say that one who vows to be a nazirite and therefore will refrain from dried figs and from cakes of dried figs is a nazirite, say that here too, when he says: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from its flesh, is a nazirite. Since one does not utter a statement for naught, he is held to the first part of his statement: I am hereby a nazirite, and the words: And therefore will refrain from its flesh, are disregarded. And Beit Hillel say: He is not a nazirite.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if Rami bar Ḥama is correct, didn’t Beit Shammai already say this halakha one time? According to Rami bar Ḥama’s explanation, this mishna and the previous one differ only with regard to the examples provided, but the principle is identical. Rava said: It is normal for the Sages to cite two or three examples from different cases that offer novel perspectives, although they essentially reflect the same principle. And Rabbi Ḥiyya also taught two or three examples with regard to this same issue. And Rabbi Oshaya also said two or three examples.

And all these cases are necessary, as, if it were stated only that he is a nazirite in this case of dried figs and cakes of dried figs, it could have been said that it is only there that Beit Shammai say he is a nazirite, since figs are confused with grapes, and it is reasonable to assume that he had grapes in mind. But meat is certainly not confused with grapes, and it could be that in the case of the mishna he is not a nazirite even according to Beit Shammai. And if it were stated only that he is a nazirite where he vowed that meat was forbidden to him, it could have been said that it is here that Beit Shammai say he is a nazirite because he was referring to the often-paired meat and wine, and it is reasonable to assume that he might have had wine in mind. But dried figs and cakes of dried figs are not paired with wine, so he should not be a nazirite. To counter that claim, the mishna teaches us that he is a nazirite in both cases.

And if it were stated only that he is a nazirite with regard to these two cases of figs and meat, it could be said: It is in these cases that Beit Shammai say he is a nazirite, but in the case of a door, I will say they concede to Beit Hillel that such a statement certainly does not constitute a vow of naziriteship. Therefore, this case had to be stated as well. And conversely, if it taught only the case of a door, the opposite could be said, i.e., that it is in this case that Beit Hillel say there is no naziriteship, but in these two earlier cases I will say they concede to Beit Shammai that the individual has taken a vow of naziriteship. The tanna therefore teaches us that this is not the case; in fact, Beit Shammai hold that he is a nazirite in all three cases, and Beit Hillel hold that he is not.

After providing the answer to one difficulty raised against Rami bar Ḥama’s explanation, Rava presents another problem. Rava said: Is the mishna teaching: If it stood of its own accord? The mishna states: If it stands, and does not mention the condition of: On its own accord. Rather, Rava said: The mishna is referring to a case where there was a prone cow before him, and he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring it as a nazirite offering, and in this way the individual accepts naziriteship upon himself. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Granted, a cow can be an offering, but can a door be an offering? How can his vow that a door should be an offering be considered an acceptance of naziriteship? Rather, Rava said it means the following: It is a case where there was a prone cow before him refusing to stand,