QUESTION: The Mishnah (32b) discusses the case of six people who were traveling together on the road and who saw a person approaching them from a distance. One of the travelers said, "I will be a Nazir if that person is Reuven." A second traveler said, "I will be a Nazir if that person is not Reuven." The other four travelers made similar conditional oaths of Nezirus. Beis Shamai rules that all six people are Nezirim (whether or not the person approaching turns out to be Reuven). Beis Hillel rules that the only one who is a Nazir is "the one whose words were not fulfilled."

The Gemara asks that since Beis Hillel maintains that a Nazir Ta'us is not a Nazir, he should have said that the only one who is a Nazir is "the one whose words were fulfilled."

Rav Yehudah answers by emending the wording of the Mishnah. He says that the correct wording of the Mishnah is, "The one whose words were fulfilled" is a Nazir.

Abaye answers that in the case of the Mishnah, the person adds, "If he is not Reuven, then I want to be a Nazir." When the Mishnah says that "the one whose words were not fulfilled" is a Nazir, it refers to his original words ("I will be a Nazir if that person is Reuven") which were not fulfilled. His additional words ("If he is not Reuven, then I want to be a Nazir") were fulfilled, since it turned out that the person was not Reuven. TOSFOS and the ROSH explain that according to Beis Hillel the person becomes a Nazir because his second statement is the one that is binding since he changed his mind "Toch Kedei Dibur."

It is clear from the words of Tosfos and the Rosh that their text of the Gemara does not include the words "Iy Nami" -- "even if [he is not Reuven...]." Rather, their Girsa reads, "Iy Lav Ploni" -- "if he is not [Reuven]." The person is retracting his original statement and wants to be a Nazir only if the person is not Reuven (MISHNEH L'MELECH, Hilchos Nezirus 2:8). Even if Tosfos had the Girsa of "d'Amar Iy Nami," he interprets it to mean, "d'Amar Nami Iy" -- "He also said" (that is, "Nami" is not part of the person's statement).

According to Abaye, why does the Mishnah need to teach that "Toch Kedei Dibur k'Dibur Dami"? Why should the Mishnah teach this principle specifically in the context of this case of Nezirus? (ME'IRI; see also CHIDUSHIM U'VI'URIM.)

(a) According to the way Tosfos and the Rosh explain Abaye's answer, Beis Hillel teaches that when the person adds, "If he is not Reuven, I want to be a Nazir," his statement is interpreted as a retraction of his original statement and not as an addition to his original statement. One might have interpreted his statement to mean that he wants to become a Nazir whether or not the other person turns out to be Reuven, especially since Beis Shamai interprets even the first statement in this manner ("I will be a Nazir if that person is Reuven"; see Insights to 31:1). Beis Hillel teaches that the simple meaning of the person's statement is that he is changing his mind and not that he is adding something to his first statement.

(b) The ME'IRI explains the Gemara differently because of his question on Tosfos. He explains that Abaye means that the person originally said, "I will be a Nazir if that person is Reuven," and then he said, "and if he is not Shimon." Beis Hillel rules that if the person does not turn out to be Reuven or Shimon but rather Levi, the traveler becomes a Nazir even though his first statement (that the person approaching is Reuven) was not fulfilled, since his second statement (that the person is not Shimon) was fulfilled. Beis Hillel teaches that when the traveler said, "And if he is not Shimon, then I will be a Nazir," he did not intend to become a Nazir merely if the person turns out to be Reuven, but he intended to become a Nazir if the person was anyone other than Shimon.

(c) The RAMBAM explains the words of Abaye in a third way. The Rambam (Hilchos Nezirus 2:8; see also Perush ha'Mishnayos) explains that when the six travelers saw the other person approaching, the first traveler thought that the person approaching was Shimon, and his friend disagreed and insisted that it was Reuven. The first traveler declared, "I will be a Nazir if that person is Reuven," because he was so certain that it was not Reuven. (This is the opposite of the understanding of the other Rishonim who explain that the person made himself a Nazir on condition that the person approaching is the person he thinks it is. The Rambam says that he made himself a Nazir on condition that the person approaching is not the person he thinks it is.) The Rambam rules that if the person turns out to be Reuven, the first traveler is a Nazir.

The MISHNEH L'MELECH explains that according to the Rambam, Abaye is emphasizing that the traveler who said, "I will be a Nazir if that person is Reuven," genuinely believed that it was Shimon approaching and not Reuven. He originally insisted that the person approaching is Shimon and then he added, "And if he is not Shimon, I will be a Nazir." (The Mishneh l'Melech points out that the Rambam must have had a slightly different Girsa in the words of Abaye. Perhaps his Girsa was "d'Amar Lav Ploni Hu, v'Iy Nami Ploni Hu Ehevei Nazir.") Beis Hillel says that the traveler becomes a Nazir if the person turns out to be Reuven, because his original condition -- that the person approaching is Shimon -- was not fulfilled, and his second condition -- that he will be a Nazir if it is Reuven approaching -- was fulfilled.

According to the Mishneh l'Melech, why does Beis Shamai maintain that all of the travelers become Nezirim because of his rule that a Nazir Ta'us is a Nazir? If it turns out that the first traveler was correct and the person approaching was Shimon, why does he become a Nazir? He specifically stated that he will be a Nazir only if he is wrong and the person approaching is Reuven! He should not become a Nazir due to his acceptance of Nezirus in error (Nazir Ta'us), because one becomes a Nazir in the case of error only when the words he said reflect his error. In this case, however, nothing in his words indicates that he will be a Nazir if the person approaching turns out to be Shimon! (Words which he did not actually say cannot be inserted into his statement, as the Gemara asks on 31a.) None of the answers the Gemara gives (31a) to explain the Mishnah earlier apply here, because even if the traveler says later that he intended to become a Nazir regardless of the identity of the person approaching, his original statement contradicts his later clarification; in his original statement, he made his Nezirus specifically contingent upon the person being Reuven.

According to Tosfos and the other Rishonim, the traveler said, "I will be a Nazir if that person is Reuven," because he genuinely thought that it was Reuven. According to Tosfos, the person wants and expects to become a Nazir, and therefore later he may add that he intended to become a Nazir unconditionally, and he did not really intend to make his Nezirus dependent on the identity of the person approaching. He said that he will be a Nazir if it is Reuven approaching merely because he wanted to become a Nazir anyway and he was confident that it was Reuven approaching. According to the Rambam, however, he did not think it was Reuven, and he said that he will become a Nazir if it is Reuven only to emphasize how strongly he believed that it was not Reuven. Since he did not want to be a Nazir, his later explanation (that he wanted to be a Nazir regardless of who was approaching) is not acceptable.

The Rambam in Perush ha'Mishnayos implies that Abaye refers only to the second traveler in the case of the Mishnah and not to the first. The first traveler indeed said, "I will be a Nazir if that person is Reuven," because he thinks that it is Reuven. The second traveler, who said, "I will be a Nazir if that person is not Reuven," agreed that it was Reuven and he was so certain that it was Reuven that he accepted to become a Nazir if it is not Reuven. He genuinely thought that he would not become a Nazir. Therefore, when the person approaching turns out to be Shimon, Beis Hillel rules that the only one who is a Nazir is the second traveler, whose original statement (that the person approaching is Reuven) was not fulfilled.

In contrast, the first traveler, who said that he would become a Nazir if the person approaching is Reuven, does not become a Nazir because the person approaching turned out to be someone other than Reuven.

Why, however, does the Mishnah say that the only one who is a Nazir is "the one whose words were not fulfilled"? This traveler's words were not fulfilled (since the person approaching turned out not to be Reuven) and yet he is not a Nazir! The Rambam in Perush ha'Mishnayos explains that the Mishnah's statement that the only one who is a Nazir is "the one whose words were not fulfilled" refers to words (which he said or which are implicit in what he said) which have the ability to exempt him from Nezirus. Therefore, the words which would exempt the first traveler from Nezirus (i.e. if the person approaching is not Reuven, he will not be a Nazir) were fulfilled, and that is why he is not a Nazir. The second traveler's words that would exempt him from Nezirus (i.e. if the person approaching is Reuven) were not fulfilled, and therefore he is a Nazir.

Beis Shamai argues with Beis Hillel (in the case in which the person approaching turned out to be Shimon) only with regard to whether the first person is also a Nazir, since he wanted to be a Nazir whether or not the person approaching turned out to be Reuven.