Nazir

MISHNAH. IF A CUP OF WINE DULY TEMPERED  IS OFFERED TO A MAN, AND HE SAYS, 'I INTEND TO BE A NAZIRITE IN REGARD TO IT,' HE BECOMES A NAZIRITE. ON ONE OCCASION A CUP OF WINE WAS OFFERED TO A WOMAN ALREADY INTOXICATED AND SHE SAID, 'I INTEND TO BE A NAZIRITE IN REGARD TO IT.' THE SAGES RULED THAT ALL THAT SHE MEANT WAS TO FORBID IT TO HERSELF, AS A SACRIFICE [IS FORBIDDEN]. GEMARA. You cite a case to disprove [the rule]! You begin by saying that HE BECOMES A NAZIRITE, and then quote the case of the woman [who does not become a nazirite], from which I should conclude that [by means of this formula] he forbids to himself only this [cup that is offered to him] but is allowed to drink other wine? — There is a hiatus [in the Mishnah], which should read: 'If a cup of wine duly tempered is offered to a man, and he says "I undertake a nazirite vow [to abstain] from it", he becomes a nazirite.' If, however, he was [already] intoxicated when he said 'I intend to be a nazirite [and abstain] from it', he does not become a nazirite,  (since he is accounted as having merely forbidden it to himself as a sacrifice is forbidden. If you should object that he ought to have said so [unambiguously], [the reply is] that he thought they would bring a fresh one and importune him, and so he thought, 'I will say something to them which will leave them in no doubt [as to my intention]). ON ONE OCCASION, TOO, A WOMAN [ALREADY INTOXICATED etc.]. MISHNAH. [IF A MAN SAYS,] 'I DECLARE MYSELF A NAZIRITE, ON CONDITION THAT I CAN DRINK WINE, OR CAN HAVE CONTACT WITH THE DEAD', HE BECOMES A NAZIRITE, AND ALL THESE THINGS ARE FORBIDDEN HIM. [IF HE SAYS,] 'I WAS AWARE THAT THERE IS SUCH A THING AS NAZIRITESHIP BUT I WAS NOT AWARE THAT A NAZIRITE IS FORBIDDEN TO DRINK WINE', HE IS BOUND [TO HIS VOW].  R. SIMEON, HOWEVER, RELEASES HIM.  [IF HE SAYS,] 'I WAS AWARE THAT A NAZIRITE IS FORBIDDEN TO DRINK WINE,  BUT I IMAGINED THAT THE SAGES WOULD GIVE ME PERMISSION, SINCE I CANNOT DO WITHOUT WINE', OR 'SINCE I AM A SEXTON',  HE IS RELEASED.  R. SIMEON, HOWEVER, BINDS HIM [TO HIS VOW]. GEMARA. Why does R. Simeon not dissent from the first ruling [also]? — R. Joshua b. Levi said: R. Simeon did in fact dissent from the first ruling also. Rabina said: In the opening clause, R. Simeon does not dissent, because the condition [there attached to the vow]  is contrary to an injunction of the Torah, and whenever a condition is contrary to an injunction of the Torah, it is void.  R. Joshua b. Levi, on the other hand, considered that the words ON CONDITION here are equivalent to 'except'. It has been taught in support of Rabina's view: If he said, 'I declare myself a nazirite, on condition that I may drink wine, or have contact with the dead,' he becomes a nazirite and all these things are forbidden to him, since the condition he lays down is contrary to an injunction of the Torah; and whenever a condition is contrary to an injunction of the Torah, it is void. [IF HE SAYS] I WAS AWARE THAT A NAZIRITE IS FORBIDDEN TO DRINK WINE [etc.]: In the preceding clause,  we find it is [the Rabbis] who bind him [to his vow] and R. Simeon who releases him [and why is it not the same here]? — Here, too, it should read: [The Rabbis] bind him whilst R. Simeon releases. Alternatively, you need not reverse the text,