QUESTIONS: The Mishnah states that when a person says, "This cow said, 'I am a Nazir if I stand up,'" Beis Shamai rules that the person becomes a Nazir. The Amora'im disagree about how to explain the case.

(a) Rami bar Chama explains (according to Tosfos and the Rosh in the name of Rabeinu Yosef) that the case refers to a person who sees a certain cow which looks like it wants to stand up and would accept a vow of Nezirus if it could. The person says, "I will fulfill its will by making myself a Nazir from its flesh if it succeeds in standing up by itself." The cow then stands up by itself. Beis Shamai maintains that the person becomes a Nazir, even though he accepted Nezirus only from the flesh of the animal. He is considered as though he accepted Nezirus from wine (as the Gemara explains on 9a).

Why does Rami bar Chama explain that the person's stipulation is that he will become a Nazir if the cow stands up by itself? This detail of the person's condition is missing from the words of the Mishnah. Rami bar Chama should explain instead that the person says that he will be a Nazir whenever the cow stands up, either by itself or with assistance, so that the case as recorded in the Mishnah would lack no words.

(b) Rava rejects Rami bar Chama's explanation because the Mishnah does not mention that the Nezirus was conditional on the cow standing up "by itself." Rava explains instead that the Mishnah refers to a person who sees a recumbent cow and takes note that the cow appears as though it refuses to stand up; the cow seems to stubbornly challenge anyone who can make it stand, as if it is saying, "If anyone can stand me up, I will become a Nazir." The person says, "I do not believe that the cow can resist my efforts, and thus I will be a Nazir from its flesh if it does not stand up [as a result of my efforts]." The cow then stands up by itself. Beis Shamai rules that the person's goal to get the cow to stand has not been achieved because he did not lift up the cow himself, and thus he becomes a Nazir. Beis Hillel argues that even if one could become a Nazir by saying, "I am a Nazir from its flesh," in this case he would not become a Nazir because his intention was that the cow should stand up in any manner, whether by itself or with his help, and he would become a Nazir only if the cow did not stand up at all.

Why is Rava's explanation of the Mishnah not subject to the same question that he asked on Rami bar Chama's explanation? According to Rava's explanation as well, the Mishnah is missing words. The Mishnah omits part of the description of the case, the fact that the cow actually stood up by itself.

(a) TOSFOS and the other Rishonim explain that the Mishnah cannot mean that the person accepted to be a Nazir whether the cow stands by itself or whether it stands only as a result of the person's efforts. If that were the case, he certainly would become a Nazir since it is clear that at some point the cow will stand, whether by itself or with help. If the person intended to make himself a Nazir, he would have said so outright and he would not have made it contingent upon the cow's position. However, since he makes his Nezirus contingent upon the cow's position, his Nezirus must be conditional. He must mean that he will become a Nazir only if the cow stands by itself.

(b) The Rishonim propose a number of explanations for why Rava's question on Rami bar Chama's explanation is not a question on his own explanation.

1. TOSFOS (10a, DH Mi, and 10b, DH Beis Shamai) answers that according to Rava, although the Mishnah omits the fact that the cow stood by itself, this detail may be inferred from the fact that Beis Shamai rules that the person becomes a Nazir. If the person caused the cow to stand, he should not become a Nazir. On the other hand, if the cow never stood up, even Beis Hillel agrees that the person becomes a Nazir! Since Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue, it must be that the cow stood up by itself. Although the Mishnah does not specify that it stood by itself, this fact may be inferred from the very argument between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel. Therefore, the Mishnah does not have to mention this detail explicitly.

However, according to Rami bar Chama, the reason the condition in the Mishnah must be that the cow stands up by itself is merely because of logic; if this condition is not the person's intent, there would be no need for a condition. No part of the Mishnah itself, however, implies that the condition was that the cow stands up by itself. The Mishnah does not usually omit words unless they can be inferred from the argument recorded in the Mishnah.

2. The ROSH disagrees with Tosfos. He explains that even according to Rami bar Chama, it is important for the Mishnah to mention the condition of the cow standing up. The Mishnah wants to teach that when one stipulates that he will become a Nazir if the cow stands up, it is assumed that he means that he will be a Nazir only if the cow stands up by itself and not if someone lifts it. According to this approach, the fact that the cow stood up by itself is the main point of the Mishnah, and therefore the Mishnah should not have omitted these words.

According to Rava, on the other hand, the reason why the Mishnah mentions the condition about the cow's standing up is that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel disagree about the interpretation of that condition. Beis Shamai explains that it means that he will raise up the cow, and Beis Hillel explains that it means that the cow will stand up (by any means). Since the argument between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel is stated explicitly in the Mishnah, the main point is written in the Mishnah.

3. The MEFARESH (10b, DH v'Amar) explains that according to Rami bar Chama, the Mishnah should mention that the cow stood up by itself since both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree that it makes a difference whether it stood up by itself or whether it stood up with help. However, according to Rava, Beis Hillel maintains that it makes no difference whether the person himself raised up the cow or whether the cow stood up by itself. Therefore, the Mishnah does not have to mention that it stood up by itself.