1)

(a)If someone declares over the glass of wine that was poured out for him 'Hareini Nazir Mimenu' - he is a full-fledged Nazir.

(b)The Chachamim ruled that, when another glass of wine was poured out for that drunken woman who declared 'Hareini Nazir Mimenu', only that glass was forbidden to her - because it is obvious that, under the circumstances, that is what her Neder implies (and not to become a full-fledged Nazir).

(c)A story in a Mishnah inevitably comes to illustrate the Halachah contained in the Mishnah. We therefore amend the story of the drunken woman in our Mishnah (which currently clashes with the Halachah that precedes it) - by adding 've'Im Shikor Hu ... Eino Nazir'.

2)

(a)The Tana of our Mishnah rules that someone who declares Nezirus provided he may continue to drink wine and become Tamei Meis - must observe all the Dinim of Nezirus.

(b)According to the Tana Kama, if a Nazir claims that although he knew about Nezirus, he was not aware that a Nazir is forbidden to drink wine, he is nevertheless a full-fledged Nazir. Rebbi Shimon says - that he is not a Nazir at all.

(c)The basis of their Machlokes is - whether a Nazir needs to accept all the aspects of Nezirus (Rebbi Shimon), or whether even just one will suffice to render him a full-fledged Nazir (the Tana Kama).

(d)In a case where the Noder claims that he thought that either the Chachamim would permit him to drink wine, because he was an alcoholic, or that they would permit him to bury the dead, since he was an undertaker, according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Shimon - he is a Nazir

2. ... the Rabbanan - he is not.

3)

(a)When we ask why Rebbi Shimon (who requires a Nazir to undertake all the aspects of Nezirus) does not also argue with the Tana Kama in the Reisha, where he said 'Hareini Nazir al-Menas she'Ehei Shoseh Yayin u'Metamei le'Meisim' - Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi replies that in fact he does argue with him there too (because his statement refers to the Reisha as well as to the Seifa).

(b)However, we have learned a Beraisa in support of Ravina who disagrees with Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi and says - that Rebbi Shimon concedes in the Reisha that the Noder is a Nazir, because he is 'Masneh al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah' (has issued a stipulation that contravenes Torah law) in which case we simply disregard it.

(c)Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi argues with Ravina. He does not consider 'al-Menas she'Ehei Shoseh Yayin ... ' to be 'Masneh al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah' - because every 'al-Menas' is like 'Chutz', which is not considered a condition, but a preclusion.

(d)By Kidushin however, if the man said 'al-Menas she'Ein Lach Alai She'er K'sus ve'Onah', the Kidushin is not effective - because even if he had said 'Chutz mi'She'er K'sus ve'Onah', the Kidushin would have taken effect unconditionally, due to the fact that there is no such thing as part Kidushin. Whenever Kidushin takes effect, it takes effect in its entirety.

4)

(a)We just learned that, according to Ravina, ' ... al-Menas she'Ehei Shoseh Yayin' is considered 'Masneh al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah', even according to Rebbi Shimon, whereas in the opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, Rebbi Shimon considers 'al-Menas' like Chutz (which is valid). The technical difference between the two is - that whereas in the former case, the Noder's original statement incorporates all contingencies, and his condition comes later to preclude certain aspects from taking effect, 'Chutz' means that from the inception of the Neder he precludes the specified aspects from taking effect, and there is no reason why they should not do so.

(b)Any condition by Nezirus is not ineffective anyway, despite the fact that Nezirus cannot be performed by a Sheli'ach (in which case it is not similar to the condition of the B'nei Gad and B'nei Reuven, from which all Dinim of T'nai are derived) - because although Nezirus itself cannot be performed by a Sheli'ach, the Nazir's Korbanos can be brought on his behalf, rendering Nezirus a Mitzvah that can be performed through a Sheli'ach.

5)

(a)We also learned in the Seifa (in the case where the Noder claims that he thought that either the Chachamim would permit him to drink wine, because he was an alcoholic, or that they would permit him to bury the dead, since he was an undertaker) that the Rabbanan say 'Harei Zeh Mutar', whereas Rebbi Shimon holds 'Asur' (seemingly having switched their opinions from the Reisha). Some switch the opinions in the Seifa to conform with the Reisha. Others retain the opinions as they stand. To justify this however - they establish the Seifa, not in connection with the declaration of the Neder, but in connection with its annulment, in which case, the reverse logic will apply.

(b)The reverse logic applies like this - according to Rebbi Shimon, who requires the Nazir to accept all aspects of Nezirus in order to become a Nazir, also require him to annul all aspects of his Nezirus before his annulment is effective; whereas the Rabbanan, who do not require the one, do not require the other, either.

(c)We might even prove this answer from the Lashon of the Seifa - 'Aval Savur Hayisi she'Chachamim Matirin Li', which clearly indicates that the Seifa is speaking about someone who wishes to annul the Neder, and not someone who wishes to declare it.

6)

(a)We learned in Nedarim about four specific types of Nedarim: 'Nidrei Ziruzin, Nidrei Hava'i, Nidrei Shegagos and Nidrei Onsin'. When Rav Yehudah quoted Rav Asi as saying that these four Nedarim require Hatarah, Shmuel's response was - that seeing as the Tana says about them 'Hitiru Chachamim', how can anyone say that they require Hatarah?

(b)'Nidrei Onsin' - are Nedarim which the Noder is unable to keep due an O'nes. In our Mishnah too, the Noder is an O'nes - either because he cannot live without wine or because he cannot avoid having contact with the dead, for the sake of his livelihood.

(c)We finally establish the Machlokes between Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan in the Seifa of our Mishnah like that of Rav Asi and Shmuel - the Rabbanan like Shmuel (who holds that Nidrei Onsin are permitted even without Hatarah), and Rebbi Shimon like Rav Asi (who requires Hatarah).

7)

(a)If our Mishnah was speaking when the O'nes was already known, we would not be able to compare the O'nes in our Mishnah to the Mishnah of Nidrei Onsin - where the O'nes occurred only after the Neder had been declared, and consequently, at the time when the Neder was declared, the Noder meant the Neder to be effective (explaining why some require the Neder to be annulled); whereas in our Mishnah, where the O'nes was already known, everyone will agree that the Noder did not really mean the Neder to take effect, and no Hatarah is necessary.

(b)Rabeinu Tam nevertheless reconciles our Mishnah with the Mishnah of Nidrei Onsin - by establishing our Mishnah too, when the Noder did not know about the O'nes until later (i.e. at the time of the Neder, he was healthy and wealthy and could manage without wine or without having to bury the dead, but after the Neder, his fortunes changed).

8)

(a)If someone declared 'Hareini Nazir va'Alai Legale'ach Nazir' and his friend overheard and said 'va'Ani, ve'Alai Legale'ach' - if they were smart, they would shave each other (thereby absolving themselves from any further obligations).

(b)Failing that, they will have to shave themselves, bring their Korbanos and then each shave another Nazir and bring his Korbanos, on is behalf.

9)

(a)We ask what the Din will be if someone declared 'Hareini Nazir va'Alai Legale'ach Nazir' and his friend overheard and said 'va'Ani'. Either he accepted the entire Neder, or only the first part or only the second part.

(b)From our Mishnah, where the second man said 'va'Ani, ve'Alai Legale'ach' - it is evident that 'va'Ani' on its own only pertains to the first half of the first man's Neder.

(c)Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua tries to reject this proof from the Seifa 'Harei Alai Legale'ach Chatzi Nazir, ve'Shama Chaveiro, ve'Amar va'Ani, Alai Legale'ach Chatzi Nazir' - where there is no second part to the Neder, yet the second man made a double-statement (from which it seems that this is simply a manner of speech, in order to stress a point, and we cannot infer anything from it).

(d)Rava reinstates the proof from the Reisha however - because if we do make the inference from the Reisha, then the Tana would at least teaching something with the double Lashon (and as for the Seifa, he inserts the double-Lashon because of the Reisha); whereas according to Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua, since the Tana is not teaching us anything at all, why does he insert the double Lashon either time?