My question is:-
1. Gemorroh of a few weeks ago states that by Nozir there is a problem of masneh al mah shekosuv batorah.
2. Now the Ran in Neadrim by the mishnah of Nidrei Shegagos says that in teh case of koinem if he eats tomorrow, that is the time the neder is chal, so if he forgets the koinem tomorrow and eats then, the neder is not chal, as he is not at that time "ho-odom bishevuoh".
3. This implies, as I think R'Nochum or someone says, that there is no "tenai milsah achariti" by neder.
4. I think this means a sfollows. Since a neder is only dibbur, a tenai imposes an implicit condition, and the ma'aseh is nothing without it.
5. Now the idea of masneh al mah shekosuv betorah where the maaseh is chal but the tenai botel, as tosefos in kesuvos explains, is based on the chiddush of tenai bnei gad & reuvein.
6. It would seem that this is only applicable where the tenai is a chiddush, i.e. dibbur mevatel ma'aseh, like there, but where it is not a chiddush, i.e. there is no real da'as for teh ma'aseh to begin with, then we do not apply "tenaoi botel".
7. this accords with Tosefos all over the place that there are three types of tenai, i.e. where there is no question that there was an implicit tenai (to'us) or where it is genuinely questionable (esrog al menas lachzor), we do not need tenai koful.
8. Therefore, in neder and nozir (where the tenai is not milso achariti), we should not apply this din of tenaoi botel. So why does the gemorroh apply it ???
9. Or shall we say that since he is being mekabel nezirus immediately, he has da'as uncondidtionally, so it is again a chiddush that tenai should work at all, so again masneh al mah shekosuv batorah will be tenaoi botel.
10. if we answer this, this answers R' Akiva Eiger's question on the sugya in nozir in Gilyon HaShass, as there is is "im erchatz", i.e. future, so again there is no milsah achariti.
What do you think ? Would appreciate a reply.
idea of Tenai Milsa achariti would seem to apply only where in reality the masneh has done a complete ma'aseh
S. Abraham, Manchester, UK
Allow me to relate to number 10 first:
Rebbi Akiva Eiger is not speaking about "Masneh Al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah." Rather, he is discussing the problem of "Lesa bi'Shelichus." Tosfos writes that Nezirus can be made "Al Tenai" even though it is Lesa bi'Shelichus since the Nazir's Korbanos can be brought through a Shaliach. On this, Rebbi Akiva Eiger asks that a Neder can also be made with a Tenai, even though there are no Korbanos involved.
I assume that you are saying Nedarim do not need to follow the rules of Tenai Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven. If this is true, then you are correct that a Tenai stipulated in a Neder will not need "Isa bi'Shelichus" either. However, Rebbi Akiva Eiger assumed that a Tenai of Nedarim does need to follow the rules of Tenai Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven.
What you quoted from "Rav Nochum or someone" is brought by the Brisker Rav in the name of Rav Chaim. Rav Chaim raises all the points you mentioned, including the question of Rebbi Akiva Eiger (see Chidushei Maran Riz ha'Levi in his first piece on Hilchos Nezirus, p.34).
D. Zupnik