1)

(a)We question the authorship of our Mishnah, which speaks when the Noder contravened his Nezirus before attempting to have it revoked. According to the Tana Kama of a Beraisa, the Nazir must first count the days that he transgressed before counting his term of Nezirus. Rebbi Yosi says 'Dayo bi'Sheloshim Yom'.

(b)According to the Tana Kama, even a short-term Nezirus is problematic. The problem according to Rebbi Yosi is - regarding a long-term Nezirus, which our Mishnah requires the Noder to complete, even if there are more than thirty days left; whereas according to Rebbi Yosi, thirty days will suffice.

(c)To reconcile the Mishnah with the Beraisa according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Yosi, we establish the Beraisa - by a short-term Nezirus, and what he is saying to the Rabanan is - that the thirty days that he is obligated to keep include the days that he contravened.

2. ... the Tana Kama, we amend the Mishnah ('mi'Sha'ah she'Nadar') to read - 'Moneh k'mi'Sha'ah she'Nadar' (meaning that he must count all the days that he undertook all over again, irrespective of whether the Nezirus is short-term or long-term).

(d)According to the first answer, the Mishnah is speaking about a long-term Nezirus (where Rebbi Yosi holds that he must complete the hundred days). The second Lashon (see Rivan) however, inverts the answer, in which case ...

1. ... the Mishnah is speaking about - a short-term Nezirus, where Rebbi Yosi holds 'Sosrin ha'Kol' (and the Nazir must begin his Nezirus all over again.

2. ... whilst the Beraisa is speaking about - a long-term Nezirus, and it is there that Rebbi Yosi requires than a final thirty days.

2)

(a)Beis Shamai holds on the one hand, that 'Hekdesh Ta'us, Hekdesh', and on the other, that if a Chacham annulled it, the animal grazes (because it is not really Hekdesh). Rebbi Yirmeyahu extrapolates from this - that Beis Hillel too, who hold that 'Temurah b'Ta'us Temurah', will hold that, if a Chacham should annul it, it has to graze.

3)

(a)When Rav Nachman says (regarding the Ta'us of Ma'asar Behemah) 'Ta'uso v'Lo Kavanaso' - he means that the Ta'us is only effective if the owner genuinely erred, but not if he deliberately misnamed the animal.

(b)Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna say that, on the contrary - it applies when he erred and all the more so when he misnamed it deliberately.

(c)Rava asked Rav Nachman why, according to him, when Beis Shamai tried to prove that 'Hekdesh Ta'us, Hekdesh' from Ma'asar Behemah, Beis Hillel did not answer that Ma'asar Behemah is different - inasmuch as it cannot become Kadosh intentionally, whereas Hekdesh can?

4)

(a)Rav Shimi bar Ashi reconciles Rav Nachman with the Beraisa - by pointing out that had Beis Shamai refuted Beis Shamai's Kashya with that argument, Beis Shamai would have retorted that, quite the opposite, if Ma'aser, which is not Kadosh intentionally, is Kadosh b'Ta'us, Hekdesh, which is, should certainly be Kadosh b'Ta'us.

(b)He goes on however, to refute his own 'Kal va'Chomer' on the grounds - that Hekdesh requires Da'as. Consequently, even though Ma'aser can take effect unintentionally (through a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv'), Hekdesh cannot.

(c)Beis Hillel did not present this argument to refute Beis Shamai's Kashya (not because it is not a good answer, but) - because they gave an equally good answer ('Chad mi'Trei Nakat').

5)

(a)Our Mishnah teaches that if someone declares a Neder Nezirus, and then discovers that his designated Korban has been stolen, a Chacham may not annul the Nezirus on the basis of the theft - due to the principle 'Ein Poschin b'Nolad').

(b)This stringency will not apply however - if he declared his Nezirus only after it had been stolen (because then it is not 'Nolad').

(c)Beis Shamai (who hold 'Hekdesh Ta'us, Hekdesh') could nevertheless be the author of this Mishnah - because a Nezirus that has been annulled is weaker than Hekdesh Ta'us.

6)

(a)The Nezirim returned from Galus in the days of Nachum ha'Madi - in order to bring their Korbanos and terminate their Nezirus.

(b)When they arrived however, they discovered - that this was not possible, because the Beis ha'Mikdash had been destroyed.

(c)Nachum ha'Madi committed an error by annulling their Nezirus on the basis of the Charatah which in turn, was based on the Churban (which was Nolad). The basis of his error - was the fact that he failed to differentiate between a foreseeable Nolad (which can be annulled) and one which is not (which cannot).

7)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer held - 'Poschin b'Nolad'.

(b)When Rava said 'Shatfuhu Rabanan l'Rebbi Eliezer', he meant - that the Rabanan succeeded in persuading him to retract.

(c)Rava rules that although in spite of the ruling 'Ein Poschin b'Nolad', we nevertheless hold 'Poschin bi'Tenai Nolad', meaning that - a Chacham may annul the Neder on the basis of the question 'If you had known at the time of the Neder, that someone may inform you (when you declared your Nezirus) that the Beis ha'Mikdash has been destroyed, would you have still declared it', should the Noder reply in the negative.

8)

(a)Had Rav Yosef been there, he would have agreed with Nachum ha'Madi, on the basis of the Pasuk in Yirmeyahu "Heichal Hash-m, Heichal Hash-m, Heichal Hash-m" - a clear indication that the second Beis ha'Mikdash was destined to be destroyed (moving it into the category of a foreseeable Nolad). Note, that according to Tosfos, he would not have annulled their Neder, but merely scolded them for not taking into account the strong possibility that they would be unable to terminate their Nezirus. It is unclear though, why they explain Rav Yosef in this way.

(b)Abaye learns from the Pasuk in Daniel "Shevu'ayim Shiv'im Nechtach al Amcha v'Al Arei Kodshecha" - that the Churban Bayis Sheni would take place four hundred and ninety years after the first Churban (the seventy years of Galus Bavel plus the four hundred and twenty years that it stood), making even the year that it would occur, predictable.

(c)Nachum ha'Madi was nevertheless wrong - seeing as the exact date was unpredictable (in which case, the Nezirim might have been able to terminate their Nezirus and bring their Korbanos before it took place). Consequently, the Churban was considered an unforeseeable Nolad

9)

(a)We have already explained the Mishnah of six Nezirim, in which Beis Hillel say 'Ein Nazir Ela Mi she'Lo Niskaymu Devarav'. What is obviously difficult with this text is - that surely it ought to be the one whose words did materialize who is a Nazir, not the one whose words did not.

(b)Rav Yehudah therefore amends the Mishnah to read 'Ein Nazir Ela Mi she'Niskaymu Devarav'. Abaye prefers to retain the original text. In order to do that, we need to add to the Noder's wording 'I Nami Lav Peloni Hu, Ehevei Nazir' ...

(c)... and when the Tana says 'Mi she'Lo Niskaymu Devarav' - he means that his original words did not materialize, though his second statement did ('Lo Niskaymu Devarav ha'Rishonim Ela ha'Acharonim').

(d)The Mishnah is speaking when he retracted within the time of 'Toch Kedei Dibur', and the Tana is coming to teach us incidentally that 'Toch Kedei Dibur, k'Dibur Dami'.

10)

(a)According to Rebbi Tarfon, not one of them is a Nazir - because when they undertook the Nezirus, none of them knew for sure who was right, and (based on the Pasuk "Ish Ki Yafli") Nezirus must be certain at the time that it is declared.

(b)The fourth friend who said 'Hareini Nazir, she'Ein Echad Mikem Nazir', is not a Nazir (despite the fact that neither of the first two is a Nazir) - because this implies that one of them is not a Nazir, but the other one is.

(c)In order to be a Nazir, according to Rebbi Tarfon - he would have to say 'Hareini Nazir, she'Ein Shum Echad Mikem Nazir'.

(d)And that explains why the Tana omits the last case, where a tenth friend said 'Hareini Nazir, Im Ein Echad Mikem Nazir' - because even Rebbi Tarfon would agree there that he is a Nazir.

11)

(a)In the event that the man coming towards them turned back, this Mishnah holds that not one of them is a Nazir (despite the fact that one of the first two was definitely right) - because even if the Nezirus does not need to be certain at the time that it is declared, it must become clarified before it can come into effect.

(b)The author of our Mishnah must therefore be Rebbi Yehudah, who holds - that a person does not let himself into a doubt(ful Neder).

(c)Rebbi Shimon disagrees with Rebbi Yehudah, and he is a Safek Nazir, the immediate ramifications of which are - that the Nazir must fulfill all the obligations of a Nazir regarding the prohibitions of shaving, drinking wine and becoming Tamei.

(d)Nevertheless, he needs to declare that, in case he is not a Nazir, he undertakes Nezirus Nedavah - to enable himself to terminate his Nezirus (by shaving and bringing his Korbanos).

12)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon are arguing - according to Beis Hillel, who say that the one whose words were (not) fulfilled is a Nazir.