The bolded (capital letters) in context implies that these are the words of Tosfos here. They sat no such thing here. Perhaps in Nedarim (though I didn;t see it there either). Either way, a correction is needed.
>>(b) TOSFOS here (see following Insight) and the ROSH in Nedarim (4a) explain that when the Gemara says that Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree with regard to Malkus, it indeed refers to Malkus for becoming Tamei. Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish agree that Malkus is given for consuming wine and cutting hair, because there is no reason for the Nezirus not to take effect with regard to those laws. Their dispute is only with regard to Malkus for becoming Tamei.
Still, though, why should one be liable for Malkus for becoming Tamei, which is a "Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh"? TOSFOS and the Rosh explain that Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish are discussing the opinion of those who maintain that one does receive Malkus for a "Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh." Alternatively, they do not mean literally that Malkus is administered, but rather that it is an Isur of Malkus (that is, becoming Tamei is forbidden and it would have been punishable with Malkus had an action been involved).<<
M. Cohen
Yes Moshie, I think you are probably right, that a correction is needed, but I am going to be stubborn and try to defend what we wrote. What I write may not be the simple undersanding of things, but I think we may learn something about the Sugya on the way.
1) We wrote, "TOSFOS here (see following Insight)...." In the next Insight (#2), we wrote "TOSFOS (end of 17a)." Now, in the very last line of Tosfos 17a, Tosfos writes, "This is considered a Lav that does involve an action, by the fact that he does not leave the cemetery when he made a Neder to be a Nazir."
2) Tosfos says a big Chidush; that when a Nazir does not leave the Beis Hakevaros, this is considered as a positive action, not merely something passive. In the INSIGHTS we described this as a "cryptic statement" and wrote at length to try and explain what Tosfos means.
3) I will also point out that Maharav Rensburg (#9, on the last line of Tosfos) also writes that the logic of Tosfos is a "little distant," because how can not leaving a cemetery be considered an action? The Maharav Rensburg then refers us to Tosfos in Shevuos (17a, DH O) who writes "forcedly" that it goes according to the opinion that one does receive Malkus for a Lav without a Ma'aseh, or, alternatively, Tosfos means it is an Isur of Malkus. Tosfos (Shevuos 17a) therefore is the same as the Rosh in Nedarim 4a that we cited in Insights #1, as we have quoted above.
4) I am going to suggest (I concede that this is Dochek) that Maharav Rensburg learns that there is no dispute between Tosfos in Nazir 17a and Tosfos in Shevuos 17a. If so, we can also say that there is no dispute between Tosfos in Shevuos 17a, and Rosh in Nedarim 4a!
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom