but where they are familiar, it is forbidden, even if the person mentioned teruma without specification, and there is still uncertainty with regard to which teruma he was referring.

Rava said that the contradiction can be resolved as follows: With regard to the case of a vow conditioned on the volume of a heap, Rabbi Yehuda holds that wherever uncertainty is more stringent than certainty, one does not enter himself into a state of uncertainty. Uncertain naziriteship is more stringent than definite naziriteship, as while a definite nazirite has a remedy, i.e., at the end of his naziriteship he shaves his hair and brings an offering and it is eaten, one cannot shave his hair for uncertain naziriteship. He cannot bring an offering in case he is not a nazirite, which would render his offering a non-sacred animal in the Temple courtyard. Since he cannot bring an offering he may not shave.

Rav Huna bar Yehuda said to Rava: According to your answer, that Rabbi Yehuda holds that he is not a nazirite only because uncertain naziriteship is more stringent than definite naziriteship, if one said: If there are a hundred kor in this heap I am hereby a permanent nazirite, what is the halakha? In this case, uncertainty is apparently not more stringent than certainty, as the naziriteship will never end even if it is definite.

Rava said to him: Even with regard to a permanent nazirite, his uncertainty is more stringent than certainty with regard to a different halakha: As when the hair of a definite nazirite is too heavy for him he may lighten the hair with a razor and bring the three animal offerings that a nazirite brings when he has completed his term of naziriteship, before continuing to observe naziriteship; whereas in a case of uncertainty he cannot do so. Since it is not certain that he is a nazirite, he cannot bring these offerings and is therefore prohibited from shaving. Therefore, uncertainty is more stringent than certainty with regard to a permanent nazirite as well.

Rav Huna further asked him: If one said: If there are one hundred kor in this heap, I am hereby a nazirite like Samson (Judges, chapters 13–16), i.e., he would be like Samson, whose permanent naziriteship could not be dissolved and who had no remedy at all, even by bringing offerings, and therefore could never shave, what is the halakha? Uncertainty is definitely not more stringent than certainty in this case.

Rava said to him: The concept of a nazirite like Samson is not taught. It was not mentioned at all by the Sages, as the naziriteship of Samson could not have been created through a vow. It was a one-time, divine order that cannot be emulated. Rav Huna said to him: But didn’t Rav Adda bar Ahava say that the concept of a nazirite like Samson is taught in a baraita, which shows that it takes effect? Rava said to him: If this baraita is taught, it is taught, and I cannot take issue with it. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda acknowledges that in this case even uncertain naziriteship takes effect.

Rav Ashi said a different resolution to the contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Yehuda. That baraita, in which Rabbi Yehuda treats uncertain naziriteship leniently, is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Tarfon. As it is taught in a baraita: If a number of people wager on the truth of a statement, and they stipulate that whoever is correct will be a nazirite, Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Tarfon: None of them is a nazirite no matter who is correct, because naziriteship was given to take effect only through explicitness of intent. A vow of naziriteship takes effect only if it is taken unconditionally. Therefore, in the case of the heap, since the speaker was uncertain of its volume at the time the vow of naziriteship was taken, the vow does not take effect.

The Gemara asks: If so, why is it specifically stated that the heap was stolen or that it was lost? Even if it was still present and measured, the naziriteship would not have taken effect as it was conditioned and was not a clear expression. The Gemara answers: Rather, that detail was established to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that even if it is the case that it was stolen or that it was lost and consequently cannot be measured, nevertheless he holds that a person enters himself into uncertainty, and therefore the vow takes effect.

§ It is stated in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: Unspecified teruma in Judea is forbidden, but in the Galilee it is permitted, as the people of the Galilee are unfamiliar with the collection of the Temple treasury chamber. The Gemara infers: Where they are familiar with the collection of the chamber, it is forbidden. Apparently, uncertainty with regard to vows is treated stringently.

However, say the latter clause of the mishna: Unspecified dedications in Judea are permitted, but in the Galilee they are forbidden, because the people of the Galilee are unfamiliar with dedications allotted to the priests. It may be inferred that where they are familiar with dedications allotted to the priests they are permitted, due to the uncertainty. Apparently, uncertainty with regard to vows is treated leniently.

Abaye said: The latter clause is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, not of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that unspecified teruma in Judea is forbidden. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says that unspecified dedications in the Galilee are forbidden.