1) I understand that he said, "Hareini Nazir Al Menas she'Lo Eheyeh Nazir."

2) It seems to me that this is similar to the Mishnah (Nazir 11a) where someone said, "I am a Nazir on condition that I can drink wine and touch dead bodies." The Gemara (11a) states, according to Ravina, that Rebbi Shimon agrees with this because this person was "Masneh Al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah," and the Halachah is that if one makes a condition against what is stated in the Torah, the condition is automatically nullified. Tosfos (DH Al) writes that this means that when he said "Hareini Nazir" he became a Nazir in every respect. Then, when he placed a condition on the way he wants to be a Nazir -- namely, he said he wants it to be with wine and Tum'ah -- that condition is worthless, so it follows that all that remains of what he said is that he is a full Nazir, and he is not allowed to drink wine or have contact with corpses, like any other Nazir.

3) It seems to me that this is similar to when he said "Hareini Nazir Al Menas she'Lo Eheyeh Nazir." The moment he said "Hareini Nazir" he becomes a Nazir. When he says "Al Menas she'Lo Eheyeh Nazir" this contradicts what it says in the Torah, since the Torah says that when you say "Hareini Nazir" you are a Nazir. It follows that his second statement is worthless, so all that we are left with is that he said "Hareini Nazir." Accordingly, he is a full Nazir.

4) Let us look into an explanation of what this man meant. If we think about what he said, it does not seem to make sense. He made a Neder of Nezirus Al Tenai that he is not a Nazir. That is a contradiction in terms. If we are to ascribe to this individual any degree of intelligence, we can say that what he meant to say was that "I am a Nazir but not a Nazir -- namely, I am not a full-scale Nazir. I am a Nazir that does not drink wine, but I am not a full-scale Nazir because I will still be allowed to enter a cemetery." The psychology behind what this person is saying is that he started by saying that he will be a Nazir but then he regretted speaking so hastily and tried to qualify what he said. He decided that he does not mind so much not being able to drink wine for 30 days, but he is not prepared to miss an important funeral, or an important yahrtzeit date and visit to the cemetery, if one should come up.

5) I found that the Chidushei ha'Ramban to Bava Basra 126b cites the Mishnah in Nazir 11a in this way. He seems to cite the Mishnah as saying, "I am a Nazir on condition that I can touch dead bodies." He did not mention any condition that he can still drink wine. The Ramban writes that in this case, too, he is a Nazir and the Tenai is annulled. Again, the reasoning is that the moment he said "I am a Nazir" he became a Nazir of the Torah, which is a full-scale Nazir, so he is not able to qualify this and say that he is only a Nazir for one aspect (namely, that he will still be allowed to have contact with corpses).

6) Let us now focus on the question of his Tenai. The Ma'aseh (being a Nazir) and the Tenai (that he is not a Nazir) are on the same matter, so it is not similar to the law of Tena'im that we learn from Bnei Gad u'Vnei Reuven. I posed this question to a big Talmid Chacham and he replied immediately, "This is Tenai u'Ma'aseh b'Davar Echad!"

He is referring to the Gemara in Gitin 75a, where Rav Ada bar Ahavah said that since we derive all the laws of Tena'im from the Tenai of Bnei Gad u'Vnei Reuven (see Mishnah, Kidushin 61a), it follows that the Tenai (that Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven must cross the Yarden River) and the Ma'aseh (that they will receive their inheritance on the eastern side of the river) must be about two different matters, like it was back then. It is only if that detail is fulfilled that a Tenai can take effect. In our case, the Ma'aseh is that he will be a Nazir, and the Tenai is that he is not a Nazir, so there is only one issue involved here -- namely, the Nazir. Therefore, the Tenai does not work, and since he said that he will be a Nazir, he remains a Nazir since the Tenai cannot remove the Ma'aseh of being a Nazir.

7) Now let us address the point that the second thing he said contradicts the first thing he said.

Tosfos (Gitin 75b, DH d'Tenai writes that the reason why "Tenai u'Ma'aseh b'Davar Echad" -- the action he said he would do and the condition that he applied to it are on the same matter -- is not an effective Tenai is because the Tenai contradicts the action. This seems very suitable to our example, where he first said he is accepting Nezirus and then immediately added that he is not a Nazir. Those two statements are absolute opposites. Therefore, the Tenai does not work according to Rav Ada bar Ahavah.

Dovid Bloom

1) He said, "Al Menas she'Lo Eheyeh Nazir Hareini Nazir."

2) This is similar to the Rosh (Kidushin 1:29, just before the letter Tzadi of the Korban Nesanel), who writes: Nosein Matanah l'Chavero v'Omer Lo Al Menas she'Lo Yehei Shelcha Yihyrh Lecha d'Kanah d'Chol Tenai she'Soser ha'Ma'aseh Lo Havei Tenai:

"He gave a present to his friend and said, 'On condition that it will not be yours, it will be yours.'" The Rosh writes that the friend thereby acquired the present because whenever the Tenai contradicts the action (see Tosfos to Gitin 75b, DH d'Tenai) the Tenai is invalid. This means that he gave him the present without the Tenai so the friend does receive the present.

3) In our case, he said first, "On condition that I will not be a Nazir," and then said he will be a Nazir so the Tenai contradicts the action. The Tenai is invalid, and therefore he is a Nazir.

Yasher Ko'ach Gadol,

Dovid Bloom