1) TOSFOS DH Ha Mani Beis Shamai Hi... (cont.)
úåñôåú ã"ä äà îðé áéú ùîàé äéà... (äîùê)
åé''ì ãìî''ã àéï ôåúçéï áçøèä ð÷è èòîà ãá''ä ãñáø ëø''ù
(a) Answer #1: According to the opinion that we are not Pose'ach with regret (it is not a sufficient reason to permit a vow), it mentioned the reason that Beis Hillel hold like R. Shimon;
åèòîà ãá''ù ð÷è ìùðåéé àôé' ìî''ã ôåúçéï ãìî''ã àéï ôåúçéï ìà äåé öøéê ìôøåùé èòîà ãá''ù îùåí ãàéï ùàìä ìä÷ãù
1. The reason for Beis Shamai, it answered even according to the opinion that we are Pose'ach, for according to the opinion that we are not Pose'ach, we would not need to explain Beis Shamai's reason due to there is no She'elah about Hekdesh.
åòåã éù ìôøù ãðéçà ìéä ìôøåùé èòîà ãáéú äìì ëø''ù îùåí ãäééðå ðîé èòîà ãá''ù ìø' éäåãä ã÷úðé ñéôà àîø øáé éäåãä àó ëùàîøå á''ù ìà àîøå àìà áàåîø äøé äï òìé ÷øáï
(b) Answer #2: He prefers to explain the reason for Beis Hillel like R. Shimon, because this is also the reason for Beis Shamai according to R. Yehudah, for the Seifa teaches "R. Yehudah says, even when Beis Shamai said (he is a Nazir), they said only when he said "they are a Korban upon me."
ôéøåù ëùáã÷ðåäå àç''ë ìîàé ðúëååï àîø ìäéåú îï äâøåâøåú òìé [ö"ì ÷øáï - öàï ÷ãùéí] ðúëååðúé àæ äåà ðãåø îï äâøåâøåú ëàéìå àîø âøåâøåú åãáéìä òìé ÷øáï
(c) Explanation: When they checked him afterwards what he intended, he said "I intended to refrain from dried figs, that they are [forbidden] to me like a Korban." Then he is Nadur (forbidden due to a vow) from dried figs, as if he said "dried figs and fig cakes are a Korban upon me";
åàéï æä ãáøéí ùáìá ùìáå àéðå îùåðä îîä ùáôéå ãäåöàú ôéå ìà îùîò ðæéøåú
1. This is not Devarim sheb'Lev, for his heart (intent) is not different than [what he said with] his mouth, for the words he said do not connote Nezirus. (We can say that "Nezirus" means separation);
àáì (ìøáðï) [ö"ì ìú"÷ - öàï ÷ãùéí] ëé àîø äëé äåé ðæéø ãäåöàú ôéå îùîò ìäå ìùåï ðæéøåú ëãîôøù ìäå áâî' ãâøåâøåú åãáéìä ìà ôúç ðãøå äåà
2. However, according to the first Tana, when he said so he is a Nazir, for the words he said connote Nezirus, like the Gemara explains that ["I intended to merely forbid] dried figs and fig cakes" is not a Pesach for his vow;
åðæéø äåé åìà ðãåø äåé àôé' ðúëåéï ìåîø ÷øáï òìé ãäà ìøáé îàéø [ö"ì îðé - öàï ÷ãùéí] ìà äåé ðãåø ìáéú ùîàé åëé ôìéâé ø' éäåãä åúðà ÷îà àìéáà ãá''ù ôìéâé åìà ìáéú äìì
i. He is a Nazir, and not Nadur, even if he intended to say "Korban Alai", for also according to R. Meir he is not Nadur according to Beis Shamai. (Even though R. Meir holds that one does not say vain words, and it is more reasonable to say that he meant to vow from dried figs, than to say that he retracted, he holds that he is a Nazir, and he is permitted dried figs.) R. Yehudah and the first Tana argue according to Beis Shamai, and not according to Beis Hillel.
åäùúà ìáéú ùîàé ëéåï ãàîøé àéï ùàìä áä÷ãù àîàé ìà äåé ðæéø
(d) Question: Now, according to Beis Shamai, since they say that there is no She'elah about Hekdesh, why is he not a Nazir?
àìà ñáéøà ìéä ìøáé éäåãä [ö"ì èòîà ãá"ù - öàï ÷ãùéí] ëøáé ùîòåï ãìà ðãø ëãøê äðåãøéí åìäëé àîø èòîà ãáéú äìì [ö"ì ðîé - öàï ÷ãùéí] áäëé ãäåé äùúà çã èòîà ìúøåééäå
(e) Answer: R. Yehudah holds that Beis Shamai's reason is like R. Shimon, that he did not vow the way people vow. Therefore, he said that this is also Beis Hillel's reason, for now there is one reason for both of them.
åîéäå ÷ùä ìôé' æä ãùîòé' ìéä ìøáé éäåãä áñåó ô''á ãæáçéí (ãó ì.) ãàéú ìéä úôåñ ìùåï øàùåï åì÷îï îôøù èòîà ãø' ùîòåï îùåí ãáùéèú ø' éåñé àîøä ãàó áâîø ãáøéå àãí ðúôñ
(f) Question: This Perush is difficult, for we know that R. Yehudah holds in Zevachim (30a) that we follow has initial words, and below (103b) it explains that R. Shimon's reason is because he holds like R. Yosi, that we follow also his final words!
åáî÷åí ùðäâå ðîé àîø ø''ù ñáø ìä ëø' éåñé
1. Strengthening of question: Also in Pesachim (53b) it says that R. Shimon holds like R. Yosi!
åàí úàîø ãäùúà àîø ìáéú ùîàé ãàéï ùàìä áä÷ãù åëï îåëç [ö"ì ðîé - éùø åèåá] áô' ðòøä äîàåøñä (ðãøéí ãó òç.) åáôø÷ éù ðåçìéï (á''á ãó ÷ë:)
(g) Question: Now it says that according to Beis Shamai, there is no She'elah about Hekdesh, and so it is proven also in Nedarim (78a) and in Bava Basra (120b);
åàéìå áô' áéú ùîàé (ðæéø ãó ìà:) úðï îé ùðãø áðæéø åðùàì ìçëí åàñøå îåðä îùòä ùðãø ðùàì ìçëí åäúéøå (îåðä îùòä ùðãø åàí) [ö"ì àí - áøëú äæáç] äéúä ìå áäîä [îåôøùú] úöà åúøòä
1. Whereas in Nazir (31b), a Mishnah teaches that if one vowed to be a Nazir, and asked a Chacham, and he forbade him, he counts from the time he vowed. If he asked a Chacham and he permitted him, if he had separated an animal, it may graze [with his flock, for it is not Hekdesh];
àîøå ìäí á''ä ìá''ù åàé àúí îåãéí [áæä] ùäåà ä÷ãù èòåú ùúöà åúøòä áòãø
2. Beis Hillel said to Beis Shamai "don't you agree about this, that it is mistaken Hekdesh, that it may graze with his flock?
îùîò ùâí á''ù îåãéí ìá''ä ãéëåì çëí ìäúéø
i. Inference: Also Beis Shamai agree to Beis Hillel that a Chacham can permit!
åé''ì ãðùàì ìçëí ãäúí äééðå ìéãò àí áìùåï ðæéøåú ðãø àå ìà
(h) Answer: There, "he asked a Chacham", i.e. to know whether or not he vowed in an expression of Nezirus.
åìäëé ð÷è ìùåï åàñøå (ùàîøå) [ö"ì ùàîø - áàøåú äîéí] ìå éù áìùåï äæä ìùåï ðæéøåú
(i) Support #1: Therefore it says an expression "he forbade him", i.e. he told him that it is an expression of Nezirus. (It did not say "he did not permit", which connotes that from the beginning, we knew that there is an Isur.)
åìäëé àéöèøéê ìé' ìîéîø ëùàñøå ãîåðä îùòä ùðãø ãìà úéîà (òã ùéãò ùäåà ðæéø ìà éúçéì ìîðåú) [ö"ì ãìà éúçéì ìîðåú òã ùéãò ùäåà ðæéø - öàï ÷ãùéí]
(j) Support #2: Therefore it needs to say that when he forbade him, he counts from the time he vowed, lest one say that he does not begin to count until he knows that he is a Nazir.
åîéäå àéï îæä øàéä ãàéöèøéê ìéä ìàùîåòéðï àò''ô ùòáø åùúä ééï áéîé ðæéøåúå àôéìå äëé òåìéï ìéîé äîðéï ëãîåëç äúí áâî'
(k) Rebuttal: This is not a proof. It needs to teach us that even though he transgressed and drank wine in the days of his Nezirus, even so they count towards the days of his count, like is proven there in the Gemara.
åà''ú îàçø ãîôøùé èòîà ãá''ù îùåí ãàéï àãí îåöéà ãáøéå ìáèìä åëé àîø äøéðé ðæéø äéä áãòúå ìâîåø åìôøù îï äééï
(l) Question #1: Since [the Gemara in Nazir 9a] explains Beis Shamai's reason because one does not say vain words, and when he said "I am a Nazir", he intended to finish and specify "from wine"...
àí ëï ÷ùä àîàé àéöèøéê ìîéîø èòîà ãá''ä îùåí ãñáøé ëøáé ùîòåï ìéîà ã÷ñáøé àãí îåöéà ãáøéå ìáèìä
1. If so, it is difficult. Why must it say that Beis Hillel's reason is because they hold like R. Shimon [because he did not volunteer the way people volunteer]? It should say that they hold that a person says vain words!
åòåã ÷ùä àèå øáðï ãø''ù ãàîøé éáéà îï äçèéï îé ñáøé ìä ëá''ù ãàîøé îï äâøåâøåú äåé ðæéø
(m) Question #2: Rabanan of (who argue with) R. Shimon, who say that he must bring from wheat, do they hold like Beis Shamai, who say that [if one said "I am a Nazir] from dried figs", he is a Nazir?!
åëé úéîà á''ù úðå ìä ëã÷àîø çæ÷éä á''ù
1. Suggestion: Beis Shamai taught that, (i.e. the Sugya there holds) like Chizkiyah said "it is Beis Shamai."
äéà àëúé ÷ùä îø' éåñé áô' î÷åí ùðäâå (ôñçéí ðâ.) ãàîøé' ìà ñáø ìä ëø''ù îé (÷à) [ö"ì ÷àé - ãôåñ åéðéöéä] øáé éåñé ëá''ù
2. Question: Still, it is difficult from R. Yosi in Pesachim (53a). We say that he does not hold like R. Shimon. Does R. Yosi hold like Beis Shamai?!
åé''ì ãøåöä ìééùá ãáøé á''ä ëëåìé òìîà àôé' ëîàï ãàîø àéï àãí îåöéà ãáøéå ìáèìä
(n) Answer (to Question #1): [The Gemara in Nazir] wants to resolve Beis Hillel according to everyone, even like the opinion that a person does not say vain words.
åäà ã÷àîø ñáøé ìä ëøáé ùîòåï
(o) Implied question: Why does it say that [Beis Hillel] hold like R. Shimon? (This implies that Rabanan hold that Beis Shamai. This is essentially Question #2.)
ìàå îùåí ãôìéâ [ö"ì ãôìéâé - îìàëú é"è] àøáðï ãø' ùîòåï ìòðéï îðçä àìà ëìåîø âáé ðæéø äåé îñ÷é èòîééäå ëø' ùîòåï âáé îðçåú
(p) Answer: It is not because [Beis Hillel] argue with Rabanan of R. Shimon about a Minchah. Rather, for Nazir their reason is like R. Shimon says about Menachos;
åîéäå øáðï âåôééäå îåãå âáé âøåâøåú ãìà äåé ðæéø ããå÷à âáé îðçä éáéà îï äçèéï îùåí ãùòåøéï ùééëé âáé îðçä ëãàùëçï îðçú äòåîø åîðçú ÷ðàåú ãáàåú ùòåøéï åìîðçä îòìéà àéëåéï
1. However, Rabanan themselves agree about ["I am a Nazir from] dried figs" that he is not a Nazir. Only regarding Minchah, he brings from wheat, because barley pertains to a Minchah, like we find regarding Minchas ha'Omer and Minchas Kena'os, which come from barley. He intended for a proper Minchah;
àáì âøåâøåú ìà ùééëé ìðæéøåú åîòé÷øà ëé àîø äøéðé ðæéø ìà äéä áãòúå ìðæéøåú ëìì
2. However, dried figs do not apply to Nezirus. From the beginning, when he said "I am a Nazir", he did not intend for Nezirus at all.
åìçæ÷éä ãîãîé îðçä åðæéøåú àäããé
(q) Implied question: Chizkiyah compares Minchah and Nezirus to each other! (He cannot give this answer. Even though Chizkiyah retracted, Tosfos wants to justify what he initially held.)
ääéà ãî÷åí ùðäâå ãøáé éåñé ìà ñáø ìä ëøáé ùîòåï ìàå àøáé ùîòåï ãôéø÷éï ÷àîø àìà àääåà ãì÷îï áôø÷ äøé òìé òùøåï (ãó ÷è.)
(r) Answer: [The Gemara in] Pesachim (53b, which says) that R. Yosi does not hold like R. Shimon, does not refer to R. Shimon in our Perek. Rather, it refers to R. Shimon below (109a);
ãúðï äøé òìé òåìä ùà÷øéáðä ááéú çåðéå éöà øáé ùîòåï àåîø àéï æå òåìä
1. Citation (109a - Mishnah): If one said "it is Alai Olah [on condition] that I will offer it in Beis Chonyo..." [if he offered it in Beis Chonyo,] he was Yotzei. R. Shimon says, this is not an Olah.
ãèòîà îùåí ãìà äúðãá ëãøê äîúðãáéí åääéà ãúåãåñ àéù øåîé ãôø÷ î÷åí ùðäâå (ùí ãó ðâ:) ãîéà ìä.
i. The reason is because he did not volunteer the way people volunteer. The case of Tudus Ish Romi in Pesachim (53b) resembles it. (He accustomed people in Rome to eat on Pesach night kids roasted like Pesach. We say that he holds like R. Shimon, and unlike R. Yosi. He was not concerned lest people call it a Pesach after Shechitah, for this is unlike people are Makdish, so it would not take effect.)
àáì âáé îðçä îï äùòåøéí îåãä ãôèåø ëøáé ùîòåï
2. Distinction: However, regarding a Minchah from barley, [R. Yosi] agrees that he is exempt, like R. Shimon.
ãäééðå èòîà îùåí ãâáé òåìä ëé àîø äøé òìé òåìä ùééê á÷ãåùúä åëé àîø àçø ëê ìä÷øéá ááéú çåðéå îëì î÷åí ÷ãåùä äéà åëéåï ãçì òìéä ä÷ãù úå ìà ô÷ò
3. Explanation: This is because regarding Olah, when he said "it is Alai an Olah", it gets Kedushas [Olah]. When he said afterwards "to offer it in Beis Chonyo", in any case it is Kadosh. Since Hekdesh took effect on it, it is not uprooted;
àáì îðçä îï äùòåøéí ìà ÷éáì òìéå îðçä îï äçèéï åîåãä øáé éåñé ãôèåø
i. However, a Minchah from barley, he did not accept on himself a Minchah from wheat, and R. Yosi agrees that he is exempt.
2) TOSFOS DH Hareini Nazir Min ha'Grogeros
úåñôåú ã"ä äøéðé ðæéø îï äâøåâøåú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions a Tosefta, and resolves it.)
áúåñôúà (øô''á ãðæéøåú) úðéà [ëéðåéé] ëéðåééí áéú ùîàé àåîøéí ðæéø åáéú äìì àåîøéí àéðå ðæéø åàéæå ëéðåéé ëéðåééí äàåîø äøéðé ðæéø îï äâøåâøåú åîï äãáéìä
(a) Citation: The Tosefta (Nezirus 2:1) teaches that Kinuyei (substitute names) of Kinuyim, Beis Shamai say, he is a Nazir. Beis Hillel say, he is not a Nazir. What are Kinuyei Kinuyim? "I am a Nazir from dried figs and fig cakes."
åúéîä îä ùééëà äëà
(b) Question: What is the relevance of here (a Nazir from dried figs and fig cakes, to Kinuyei Kinuyim)?
åøáéðå úí ôéøù ãáéøåùìîé îôøù ã÷øå àéðùé ìâøåâøåú úéøåù ôé' ëùùåàìéï àåúå àåîø ëê äéä áìáé ìùåï øáéðå úí:
(c) Answer (R. Tam): The Yerushalmi explains that people call dried figs Tirosh (wine). I.e. when they ask him, he says "so was in my heart (my intent)." These are R. Tam's words.
103b----------------------------------------103b
3) TOSFOS DH Lo Shanu Ela d'Amar Minchah Aval Lo Amar Minchah Lo
úåñôåú ã"ä ìà ùðå àìà ãàîø îðçä àáì ìà àîø îðçä ìà
(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings and explains another text.)
åàéú ãâøñé àáì àîø îðçú ôéøåù îùåí ãîðçú ãáå÷ ìùòåøéï åìà ùééê ëìì âáé áìà ùîï åìáåðä
(a) Alternative text: Some texts say "but if he said Minchas", because "Minchas" (is a construct form, i.e. part of a compound noun;) it is connected to "barley." This does not apply at all to "without oil and Levonah." (In any case he says "Minchah".)
4) TOSFOS DH Mai Lav d'Lo Amar Minchah
úåñôåú ã"ä îàé ìàå ãìà àîø îðçä
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains this Havah Amina like R. Yochanan.)
åëâåï ãàîø àéìå äééúé éåãò ùàéï ðåãøéï ëê ëå'
(a) Explanation: The case is, he said "had I know that one does not vow like this..."
5) TOSFOS DH Iy Hachi Eima Seifa Isaron u'Mechetzah v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä àé äëé àéîà ñéôà òùøåï åîçöä ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Seifa is difficult if he said "Minchah".)
áùìîà àé ìà àîø îðçä îééúé úøé áàåîø àéìå äééúé éåãò
(a) Explanation: Granted, if he did not say "Minchah", he brings two when he says "had I known [that one cannot bring one and a half, I would have vowed two]";
àìà ëéåï ãàîø îðçú òùøåï åîçöä àîàé îáéà úøé äà àîøú ãäéëà ãìà àîø îðçä àéï ëìåí åàí ëï îùåí àåúå çöé òùøåï ìà ìééúé ëìåí
1. However, since he said "Minchas Isaron u'Mechetzah", why does he bring two? You said that when he did not say Minchah, he does not bring anything. If so, due to the half-Isaron he does not bring anything! (Yad Binyamin - the entire vow is unlike the way people volunteer, so he does not bring anything. Seemingly, one could explain Tosfos to mean that Minchas Isaron obligates one Isaron, and since "Minchas" is not read with "u'Mechetzah", u'Mechetzah does not obligate a second Isaron - PF.)
6) TOSFOS DH Iy Hachi R. Shimon Poter v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä àé äëé øáé ùîòåï ôåèø ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the question.)
ëéåï ãúôåñ ìùåï øàùåï åàéäå àîø îðçä äøé äúðãá ëãøê äîúðãáéí ëê ôéøù á÷åðèøñ
(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): Since we follow the initial words, and he said "Minchah", he volunteered the way people volunteer.
å÷ùä äà àå÷éîðà ìòéì øáðï ëáéú ùîàé ãúôåñ ìùåï øàùåï àí ëï ø' ùîòåï ã÷àé ëáéú äìì ìéú ìéä úôåñ ìùåï øàùåï
(b) Question: Above (103a), we established Rabanan like Beis Shamai, who hold that we follow the initial words. If so, R. Shimon, who holds like Beis Hillel, does not hold that we follow the initial words!
åé''ì äà àñé÷ðà ìòéì ãçæ÷éä äãø áéä
(c) Answer: (Chizkiyah said so.) We concluded above that Chizkiyah retracted. (Yashar v'Tov - R. Yochanan establishes our Mishnah even like Beis Hillel; he says "had I known..." The Makshan thought that even R. Yosi obligates, due to resolving in his heart alone, but not due to his initial words. Here, when he said "Alai Minchah", his mouth did not contradict his heart. He is already obligated; saying afterwards "from barley" does not exempt him. Rava answered that it is all considered one Dibur, so R. Yosi exempts, for it contradicts his heart.)
åòåã éù ìôøù ã÷àé àäà ãàîøï ìà öøéëà ãàîø äøé òìé îðçä çöé òùøåï åòùøåï
(d) Explanation #2: [Iy Hachi...] refers to what we said that the case is, he said "Alai Minchah Chetzi Isaron v'Isaron";
ãáùìîà àé àîø òùøåï åçöé òùøåï àéï æä ëãøê äîúðãáéï àáì çöé òùøåï åòùøåï îùîò úøé îéìé åìëì äôçåú òùøåï ã÷àîø áñåó ìééúé
1. Granted, if he said Isaron v'Chetzi Isaron, this is unlike the way people volunteer. However, Chetzi Isaron v'Isaron connotes two matters. At least the Isaron that he mentioned at the end he should bring!
åîùðé ãñáø ëø' éåñé ãàîø [àó] áâîø ãáøéå àãí ðúôñ áúîåøú òåìä úîåøú ùìîéí ãîùåéðï ìä çãà ãéáåøà àò''â ãîùîò úøé ãéáåøé îã÷àîø úîåøú òåìä úîåøú ùìîéí åìà ÷àîø úîåøú òåìä åùìîéí åìà çùáéðï ìéä ëðîìê
2. [The Gemara] answers that he holds like R. Yosi, who says that we follow even his final words regarding [one who said] Temuras Olah Temuras Shelamim. We consider it one Dibur, even though it connotes that it is two Diburim, for he said Temuras Olah Temuras Shelamim, and did not say Temuras Olah v'Shelamim. We do not consider him like one who retracted;
ä''ð àò''â ãîùîò úøé ãéáåøé îùåí ãàîø çöé òùøåï áøéùà îëì î÷åí çùáéðï ìéä çã ãéáåøà
i. Also here, even though it connotes that it is two Diburim, for he said v'Chetzi Isaron first, in any case we consider it one Dibur.
7) TOSFOS DH v'Ha Tanan Lo Balal Kosher
úåñôåú ã"ä åäà úðï ìà áìì ëùø
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explained the question above.)
ôéøùúé áä÷åîõ øáä (ìòéì éç: ã''ä ëé)
(a) Reference: I explained this above (18b DH Ki. Since he intended for a big Korban, if Bilah were not Me'akev, he should bring in one Kli, for if one vowed to bring in one Kli, and he brought in two, it is Pasul.)
8) TOSFOS DH Ma'aseh bi'Freidah Achas Shel Beis Rebbi
úåñôåú ã"ä îòùä áôøãä àçú ùì áéú øáé
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this is brought here.)
àééãé ãàééøé áø' éäåãä øàù äîãáøéí òì éãé ÷éñø ëãàéúà áô' áîä îãìé÷éï (ùáú ãó ìâ:) îééúé äàé òåáãà ãøáé éäåãä îåøééðà ãáé ðùéàä ãùîà îéðäå ÷éñø øàù òì áéú ðùéà
(a) Explanation #1: Since it discussed R. Yehudah, the first to speak, based on the Kaiser's decree, like it says in Shabbos (33b), it brings this episode of R. Yehudah, the one who ruled for the Nasi's house. Perhaps the Kaiser appointed him to be the head of the Nasi's house.
åá÷åðè' ôéøù îùåí ãàééøé áùéòåøéï:
(b) Explanation #2 (Rashi): It is brought because we discuss Shi'urim.