only in the case where he determined [the kind of vessel] at the time of his vowing, but [where he determined the kind of vessel] at the time of his setting it apart, it is not [invalid]; [for Scripture says,] According as thou hast vowed, and not ‘according as thou hast set apart’. This has also been stated: R. Aha b. Hanina said in the name of R. Assi who said it in the name of R. Johanan, This has been taught only in the case where he determined the kind of vessel at the time of his vowing, but [where he determined the kind of vessel] at the time of his setting it apart, it is not [invalid]; [for Scripture says,] ‘According as thou hast vowed’, and not ‘according as thou hast set apart’. MISHNAH. IF A MAN SAID, ‘I TAKE UPON MYSELF TO BRING A MEAL-OFFERING OF BARLEY’, HE MUST BRING ONE OF WHEAT; IF ‘OF COARSE MEAL’, HE MUST BRING IT OF FINE FLOUR; IF ‘WITHOUT OIL AND WITHOUT FRANKINCENSE’, HE MUST NEVERTHELESS BRING IT WITH OIL AND FRANKINCENSE; IF ‘HALF A TENTH, HE MUST BRING A WHOLE TENTH; IF A TENTH AND A HALF’, HE MUST BRING TWO. R. SIMEON DECLARES HIM EXEMPT, BECAUSE HE DID NOT MAKE HIS OFFERING IN THE MANNER IN WHICH PEOPLE USUALLY MAKE THEIR OFFERINGS. GEMARA. But why is this? Here is a vow and also its annulment! — The view [expressed in our Mishnah], said Hezekiah, Is that of Beth Shammai who maintain that one must always regard the first words [of a man's statement as binding]. For we have learnt: [If a man said,] ‘I will be a Nazirite [and abstain] from dried figs and pressed figs’, Beth Shammai say, He becomes a Nazirite [in the ordinary sense]; but Beth Hillel say, He does not become a Nazirite. R. Johanan said, You may even say that it is the view of Beth Hillel too, for [we assume that] the man added,’ Had I but known that one may not vow a meal-offering in this manner, I should not have vowed in this manner but in that’. Hezekiah said, This was taught only in the case where he said a meal-offering of barley’, but where he said ‘a meal-offering of lentils’, he has not [to bring a meal-offering of wheat]. But let us consider: Hezekiah explained our Mishnah according to the view of Beth Shammai, did he not? But since Beth Shammai maintain that one must always regard the first words [of a man's statement] as binding then surely it is immaterial whether he said ‘of barley’ or ‘of lentils’! — He abandoned that view. But why did he abandon it? — Raba said, Because our Mishnah was to him difficult to understand. Why does it state ‘a meal-offering of barley’ and not ‘of lentils’? Obviously it is because of the man's error; now in regard to barley a man may err but surely not in regard to lentils. R. Johanan, however, said, Even [if he said] ‘of lentils’, But consider: R. Johanan explained our Mishnah in accordance with the view of Beth Hillel, did he not? And Beth Hillel's view is based upon the man's error; now [I grant you that] a man may err in regard to barley, but surely he would not err in regard to lentils! — He said so only as the result of Hezekiah's argument. [For he reasoned with him thus:] Why did you abandon your view? Because our Mishnah does not state ‘of lentils’. But it may be that [that was so obvious that] it was not even necessary to be stated! Thus not only where he said ‘of lentils’,in which case it can only be said that he is revoking his vow, do we hold that we must adopt the first words [of his statement]; but even where he said ‘of barley’, in which case it might be said that he has erred, we still say that we must adopt the first words [of his statement].ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠ