Nazir

Our Mishnah is not in agreement with the following tanna. For it has been taught: R. Nathan said that Beth Shammai declare him both to have vowed [to abstain from figs] and to have become a nazirite, whilst Beth Hillel declare him to have vowed [to abstain from figs], but not to have become a nazirite. [Here,] Beth Shammai agree with R. Meir  and R. Judah,  and Beth Hillel with R. Jose. According to another report, R. Nathan said that Beth Shammai declare him to have vowed [to abstain from figs], but not to have become a nazirite, whilst Beth Hillel declare him neither to have vowed, nor to have become a nazirite. [Here,] Beth Shammai agree with R. Judah, and Beth Hillel with R. Simeon. We have learnt elsewhere: A man who says, 'I undertake to bring a meal-offering of barley-flour,' must [nevertheless] bring one of wheaten flour.  If he says, 'of coarse meal,' he must [nevertheless] bring fine meal. If,'without oil and frankincense,' he must [nevertheless] add oil and frankincense; 'of half a tenth,' he must offer a whole tenth; 'of a tenth and a half', he must offer two tenths. R. Simeon declared him, free [of obligation], since his offering was not undertaken in the customary manner. Who is the Tanna [who asserts that] if anyone undertakes to bring a meal-offering of barley-flour, he must bring one of wheaten flour? — Hezekiah replied: The matter is a subject of controversy, [the Tanna here] representing Beth Shammai. For have not Beth Shammai averred that when a man says ['I intend to be a nazirite and abstain] from dried figs and pressed figs,' he becomes a nazirite? So too, if he says 'of barley-flour', he must bring one of wheatenflour. R. Johanan, on the other hand, replied that it is possible to maintain that [the passage quoted] represents the views of both [Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel] and that it refers to a man who says, 'Had I known that such vows are not made, I should not have vowed in this wise, but in the [correct] manner Hezekiah said: The rule just laid down applies only where he said 'of barley', but if he says 'of lentils',  he need bring nothing at all. [Can this be so?] Consider: To whom does Hezekiah ascribe the Mishnah [containing this ruling]? To Beth Shammai! Now lentils in regard to a meal-offering, are as dried figs to a nazirite, and there Beth Shammai declare him to be a nazarite?  Hezekiah relinquished that opinion.  Why did he relinquish it? — 10 Raba said: Because he found that Mishnah difficult to understand. Why does it say 'barley' and not 'lentils'?  And so Hezekiah concluded that Beth Shammai's assertion was what R. Judah [maintained it to be]. R. Johanan, on the other hand, affirmed that [the rule of the Mishnah is applicable] even if he says 'of lentils'. But was it not R. Johanan who averred that [he only brings the offering if] he affirms: Had I known that such vows are not made, I should not have vowed in this wise, but in the [correct] manner?  — He  was arguing on Hezekiah's premises. You relinquished your former opinion,  because [the Mishnah] does not mention [the case] 'of lentils'. But might it not be a case of progressive argument, viz, not only is it true that when he says, 'of lentils' he must bring a proper mealoffering, since we may hold that he is there repenting [of his vow], and so we lay stress upon the opening portion of his statement, but even if he says 'of barley', where we could take it as certain that his intention is: If it can become consecrated after the manner of the 'Omer meal-offering,