Gemara: One verse is to exempt him from a Korban.

Explanation: I.e. the verse "Lehara Oh Leheitiv" written about Shevu'as Bituy.

Gemara: And one verse is to exempt him from the Lav of a Shevu'ah.

Explanation: This is the verse "Lo Yachel Devaro."

Mishnah: There is a Neder amidst a Neder... he said 'I am a Nazir if I will eat'...

Implied question: The Gemara explains that this is not only if he said "if I eat." The same applies if he said Hareini Nazir Hareini Nazir. He is liable [to be a Nazir] for each one (acceptance)!

Answer: Since [the Tana] taught regarding Shevu'ah "that I will not eat", he taught also regarding Nazir "if I will eat."

Explanation #1: We say that he is liable for each, to teach that he is liable to conduct Nezirus for each acceptance;

Note: Below (18a DH Hacha), the Ran brings a second Perush, that 'he is liable for each' means that for one eating, he is liable for each acceptance, but he rejects it..

When he said Hareini Nazir Hareini Nazir, he is obligated two Neziros. He counts 30 days [of Nezirus], bring Korban[os Nazir], counts [another] 30 days, and bring Korban[os Nazir].

In the Gemara, we learn this from "Nazir Lehazir." We call such a case a Neder amidst a Neder, because the latter Nezirus takes effect in the time of the first, just he cannot count it until he counts the first;

If it did not take effect at the time of his vow, how could it take effect afterwards? He does not vow then (afterwards)! Since it does not take effect now, it does not take effect also afterwards.

Rather, surely it takes effect now. Therefore, it taught that there is a Neder amidst a Neder.

Explanation: Regarding Shevu'os, we do not find two Chiyuvim;

He is not lashed two [sets of] lashes for eating one matter [forbidden through two Shevu'os], for once he said "Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Kikar Zeh", he is Mushba v'Omed (already bound through a Shevu'ah), so a second Shevu'ah does not take effect.

Also, he does not [have two obligations to] count two [periods of Isur], for we do not find such a case. This is unlike Nezirus;

Granted, [a Nazir] is not lashed twice for one eating, but we find two Chiyuvim when he doubled his vow, i.e. he counts two [Neziros]. This does not apply to Shevu'os.

Explanation: This text is written in some Seforim. It means as follows. Once he said Hareini Nazir... he asked one question that is difficult for two reasons.

Firstly, why do we make Nezirus dependent on eating? Once he said Hareini Nazir Hareini Nazir, he is a Nazir, and he must count Nezirus twice;

It is also difficult for him, [even] if Nezirus depends on eating, it would suffice to teach once Hareini Nazir Im Ochal;

We hold in Shevu'os (27b) that one who swore "I will not eat this loaf", he swore about every k'Zayis in it.

Therefore, one who made his if Nezirus dependent on "if I eat", his Nezirus depends on every k'Zayis in it.

Gemara: If he eats much.

Explanation: I.e. many k'Zeisim.

Explanation: [They warned him] in between each k'Zayis, and said that if he eats it, he will be obligated one Nezirus. He is obligated [one Nezirus] for each eating.

Implied question: Why must we warn him in between each k'Zayis?

Answer: It is because these acts of eating are no better to be obligated for them Nezirus, when he made his if Nezirus dependent on them, than to be liable a Korban or lashes when he swore that he will not eat this loaf;

To be liable a Korban or lashes [for each k'Zayis], we require a separation between each k'Zayis. For lashes, it must be warning. For a Korban, it must be two Ha'alamos (i.e. another forgetting. He realized in between that he transgressed);

Also here, when he made his Nezirus dependent on them (acts of eating), we require that warnings separate.

Surely, even though one who swore not to eat this loaf, he swore about every k'Zayis, even so, if they warned him only once, he is lashed only once;

For all Isurim in the Torah, one is liable for every k'Zayis. Even so, he is lashed twice only if he had separate warnings. Also for Korban, he is liable only one, unless there were two Ha'alamos;

Also here, when he made his Nezirus dependent on eating a loaf, there must be warnings separating every k'Zayis in it;

If not, this is called only one eating, and he is obligated only one Nezirus, like I mentioned above.

Remark: I saw other Meforshim [write about this] things that I disagree with.

Explanation (cont.): [The Tartzan] answers that since it taught "Shevu'ah that I will not eat..." I.e. indeed, [for Nezirus] it suffices to say 'Hareini Nazir Hareini Nazir';

Even if he made his Nezirus dependent on eating, it suffices to say once 'Hareini Nazir Im Ochal.'

Rather, since he needed to make the Shevu'ah dependent on eating, and double 'she'Lo Ochal she'Lo Ochal', for if not, obviously he is liable only once, he made also Nezirus dependent on eating, and doubled it.

Explanation: When he said "I will be a Nazir tomorrow", this implies that from tomorrow and onwards, he will count 30 days;

It turns out that due to his second vow he is liable one day more than the first Nezirus.

And since we hold in Nazir (7a) that one who says "I am a Nazir only this day", he counts 30 days, also this person, since due to his second vow he must count one day more than the first Nezirus, Al Korcho (against his will) he counts 30.

Gemara: And Shmuel said that even if he said "I am a Nazir today. I am a Nazir today"...

Explanation: Nezirus takes effect on Nezirus. He holds that "Nazir Lehazir" implies that in such a case, he counts two Neziros.

Question: Also for Shmuel, this is difficult! Also according to him, we should have distinguished and taught [a case in which] there is no Neder b'Soch Neder;

We find that when he said "Konam Alai this loaf. Konam Alai this loaf", he is liable only once!

Our Mishnah teaches that there is Neder b'Soch Neder only to count [Nezirus] twice, like I explained. Therefore, according to Shmuel himself, we could have distinguished within Neder itself!

Answer: When we challenge Rav Huna, that the Mishnah should teach that there is Neder b'Soch Neder, and [sometimes] there is not Neder b'Soch Neder, we do not ask that rather than distinguishing between Neder and Shevu'ah, we should distinguish within Neder itself, like every time the Gemara says "distinguish within it (the case) itself";

If we did ask this, this would be difficult also for Shmuel, like I explained!

Rather, we do not ask this. This is not difficult at all, for the Tana was teaching the stringency of Nedarim over Shevu'os.

Therefore, he wanted to teach a stringency of Neder over Shevu'ah regarding Neder b'Soch Neder. Therefore, it is not relevant to ask "we should distinguish within [Neder] itself";

Rather, we ask as follows. According to Rav Huna, how did the Tana teach "there is Neder b'Soch Neder", which implies in every case? He should have explained his teaching, lest we err about it!

Afterwards, he should teach in such a case what is the stringency of Neder over Shevu'ah.

This is difficult for Rav Huna. It is not difficult for Shmuel at all, for he holds that in Nezirus, there is always Neder b'Soch Neder.

Implied question: In any case, regarding "Konam Alai this loaf. Konam Alai this loaf" there is not Neder b'Soch Neder!

Answer: One cannot err about this, for the Tana taught Nezirus, and not Konamos;

Just the contrary! Since he discussed Nezirus and not Konamos, he teaches that regarding Konamos, there is not Neder b'Soch Neder!

Implied question: Why did the Makshan compare [Nezirus to] one who says "Shevu'ah that I will not eat figs", and then he said "Shevu'ah that I will not eat grapes", and in the answer, we compare it to [when the latter Shevu'ah was] "Shevu'ah that I will not eat figs and grapes"?

Answer: So we ask and answer. The Makshan asked based on the law, and the Tartzan answered based on the expression.

Explanation: He asked "surely, you say about "I am a Nazir today. I am a Nazir tomorrow", that Nezirus takes effect on Nezirus, because when he said "I am a Nazir today", he accepted on himself the first 30 days...

When he said "I am a Nazir tomorrow", he accepted on himself the 31st [day], and since there is no Nezirus less than 30 days, he must count another 30.

It turns out that the second Neder does not overlap the first at all. Each stands by itself.

Therefore, also correspondingly regarding a Shevu'ah, we find this only when he said "Shevu'ah that I will not eat figs", and then he said "Shevu'ah that I will not eat grapes";

In such a case, even for Shevu'os, a Shevu'ah takes effect on a Shevu'ah!

Rather, surely since the Mishnah teaches that for Shevu'os, there is no Shevu'ah b'Soch Shevu'ah, you are forced to say that when two Shevu'os take effect on one matter, we find this in a case corresponding to what was taught about Nedarim, Yesh Neder b'Soch Neder. This is difficult for Rav Huna.

Explanation: I.e. do not follow the law, rather, follow the expression;

When he said "I am a Nazir tomorrow", he means from tomorrow until 30 days, and it is as if he said [via both acceptances together] "I am a Nazir today and tomorrow";

Also here, 29 days of the second Neder overlap the time of the first Neder;

Implied question: Those 29 days do not take effect at all due to the second Neder [only due to the first]!

Answer #1: In any case, in this version, his vow takes effect so that the 31st day will be the end of 30 days of the second Nezirus, for so he vowed;

It turns out that for [the last] 29 days of the first Nezirus, the second Nezirus takes effect, [not for Isurei Nezirus, rather,] so that the 31st day will be in his [second] Nezirus.

However, since there is no Nezirus less than 30 days, he must count more to complete 30 days [of Isurei Nezirus] due to the second Neder.

Similarly regarding Shevu'os, when he said "Shevu'ah that I will not eat figs", and then he said "that I will not eat figs and grapes", the latter Shevu'ah does not take effect on figs at all;

Rav Huna holds that a Shevu'ah does not take effect on a Shevu'ah, even through Kolel. (He does not say that since the latter forbids grapes, which were permitted until now, it also puts another Isur on figs.

Retraction: I am unhappy with this answer. In any case, just like the latter Shevu'ah does not take effect on figs, because he already swore about them, so the second Nezirus does not take effect on the first 29 days [starting tomorrow], for he already accepted Nezirus for them!

Answer #2: When we say that later he said "Shevu'ah that I will not eat figs and grapes" he means that he will not eat them [together] like one.

Support: It is explained like this in Shevu'os (29a).

Explanation: We ask that Rabah said that [if one said] "Shevu'ah...", since [the latter Shevu'ah] takes effect on grapes, it takes effect also on figs.

This is relevant if he forgot the first Shevu'ah and ate figs and grapes, and they warned him about the second. He is lashed due to the second.

We say that Rav Huna does not hold like Rabah. In such a case, he holds that the second Shevu'ah does not take effect at all;

Since it does not take effect on figs, there is no place for it at all, for he swore about both of them together, and not on grapes alone.

Also regarding Nedarim, if the law would be like Shevu'os, we should have said that since the second Nezirus does not take effect on 29 days, also on day 30 it does not take effect;

When he said "I am a Nazir tomorrow", he intended for 30 days together, and not for the 30th day by itself. The 29 days are like figs, and the 30th day is like grapes.

Explanation: The two Neziros take effect in such a case. If not, what does it mean 'he is Yotzei the second through the first'? The second did not take effect at all!

Question: What was the question? Granted, if he does not ask to permit the first, the second does not take effect, like Rav Huna...

[However,] if he asks [to permit the first], there is room for the second to take effect, like Rava said below, that even though a Shevu'ah does not take effect on a Shevu'ah, if he asked about the first, the second takes effect on it.