NAZIR 2 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs. Estanne Abraham Fawer to honor the Yahrzeit of her father, Rav Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Rabbi Morton Weiner) Z'L, who passed away on 18 Teves 5760. May the merit of supporting and advancing Dafyomi study -- which was so important to him -- during the weeks of his Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.

1)

TOSFOS DH Kol Kinuyei Nezirus ki'Nezirus

úåñôåú ã"ä ëì ëéðåéé ðæéøåú ëðæéøåú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that these are secondary names that work to accept Nezirus.)

ëì ãáø ùàéðå òé÷ø ùîå ëï ð÷øà ëéðåé ìçåì òìéå ðæéøåú ìëì ãáø ëàéìå àîø áùí äòé÷ø ãäééðå àäà ðæéø

(a)

Definition: Anything that is not the primary name is called a Kinuy, for Nezirus to take effect on him, as if he said the primary name, i.e. "Ehei Nazir";

åîäðé ìîéäåé ðæéø ëé àîø äëðåééï àäà ðæé÷ àå ðæéç àå ôæéç ëîå áùí äòé÷ø åäí ð÷øàéï ëðåééï.

1.

It helps to become a Nazir when he said a Kinuy, [i.e.] "Ehei Nazik" or "Nazi'ach" or "Pazi'ach", just like the primary name. These are called Kinuyim.

2)

TOSFOS DH ha'Omer Ehei Harei Zeh Nazir

úåñôåú ã"ä äàåîø àäà äøé æä ðæéø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how Yados work.)

åáâîøà îôøù ãàéëà äåëçä ëîå ùðæéø òåáø ìôðéå åæä ð÷øà éãåú ðæéøåú ùìà âîø ãáåøå

(a)

Explanation: The Gemara explains that there is a proof [that he intended for this], e.g. a Nazir passed in front of him. This is called Yados Nezirus, for he did not finish his utterance;

1.

Note: Tam Derech says that in most places in Nazir, Tosfos uses "Kemo" in place of "Kegon" (e.g.).

åîäðé ìçåì òìéå ëì ãéðé ðæéøåú ëàéìå âîø ãéáåøå

2.

It helps for all laws of Nezirus to take effect on him, as if he finished his utterance;

ëàãí äàåçæ ááéú éã ùì ëìé åîâáéäå áëê ëàéìå àåçæ áëìé.

3.

This is like a man who holds the handle of a Kli and picks it up through the handle, as if he holds the Kli.

3)

TOSFOS DH Oh Ehei Na'eh

úåñôåú ã"ä àå àäà ðàä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that also this is a Yad.)

âí æä ð÷øà éãåú ðæéøåú åáâîøà àôøù (äâäú øò"à) àîàé ìà òøáéðäå ìîéúðéðäå ìááà àçú åìéúðé äëé äàåîø àäà àå àäà ðàä äøé æä ðæéø.

(a)

Explanation: Also this is called Yados Nezirus. In the Gemara (2b DH Amar), I will explain why we did not teach together in one clause, and teach "one who says "Ehei" or "Ehei Na'eh", he is a Nazir.

4)

TOSFOS DH Nazir Nazik Nazi'ach Pazi'ach Harei Zeh Nazir

úåñôåú ã"ä ðæéø ðæé÷ ðæéç ôæéç äøé æä ðæéø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings the two explanations of Kinuyim.)

ìôé ùøöä ìôøù ëì äëðåééï ôúç åàåîø ðæéø åëå'

(a)

Explanation: Because [the Tana] wanted to explain all the Kinuyim, he began and said Nazir...

1.

Note: Seemingly, "Nazir" is from the previous clause "Ehei Nazir"! Perhaps in Tosfos' text it says "Nazir" twice, and so it seems was the text of Meleches Shlomo (Arzei ha'Levanon).

ëìåîø ðæéø äåà òé÷ø äùí äëúåá áúåøä ùòì éãé ìùåï æä çì òìéå ùí ðæéøåú

2.

I.e. Nazir is the primary name written in the Torah. Through this word, Nezirus takes effect on him.

åä"ä àí àîø áìùåï äëðåééï ëîå ðæé÷ ðæéç ôæéç åøéùà ãîúðéúéï àúà ìôøåùé ã÷úðé ëì ëéðåéé ðæéøåú ëðæéøåú

3.

The same applies if he said a Kinuy, e.g. Nazik Nazi'ach or Pazi'ach. The Reisha of our Mishnah comes to explain what was taught "all Kinuyim of Nezirus are like Nezirus.

åáëéðåééï ðçì÷å àîåøàéí áô"÷ ãðãøéí (ãó é.) ø' éåçðï àåîø ìùåï àåîåú äí ôéøåù ùìù ìùåðåú àìå îùáòéí ìùåðåú äí

(b)

Reference: Amora'im argue about Kinuyim in Nedarim (10a). R. Yochanan says that they are from other languages. I.e. these three expressions are from the 70 languages.

åàí úàîø åìøáé éåçðï îàé àéøéà äðê â' ìùåðåú áëì ò' ìùåðåú ðîé àí ÷áì òìéå ðæéøåú áàçã îäðê äìùåðåú çééì òìéä äðæéøåú

(c)

Question: According to R. Yochanan, what is special about these three expressions? Also for all 70 languages, if one accepted Nezirus in one of the other languages, Nezirus takes effect on him!

åé"ì ãàä"ð ãâí áùàø ìùåðåú àí îëéøí åîáéðí åîúëåéï ì÷áì òìéå ðæéøåú äåé ðæéø

(d)

Answer: Indeed, also in the other languages, if one recognized and understands them, and intends to accept Nezirus, he is a Nazir;

àáì îäðé ìéùðé ãîúðéúéï ëé àîø ðæøå áàçã îï ùìù ìùåðåú äììå çééì òìéä ðæéøåú ðîé ëé àéï îúëåéï îùåí ããîé èôé ììùåï úåøä îìùåðåú àçøéí

1.

However, for these are expressions in our Mishnah, when he said his acceptance of Nezirus in one of these three expressions, Nezirus takes effect on him even if he does not intend, for it resembles the Torah's expression more than other languages.

åø"ì ôìéâ äúí åàîø ìùåï ùáãå çëîéí îìáí

(e)

Explanation: Reish Lakish disagrees there, and says that they are words that Chachamim invented;

åäúí ôøéê àîàé áãéðäå åú÷éðäå øáðï ìùåï ëðåééï åäùéá ãæéîðéï ãáòé ìîéîø ìä' ÷øáï åàîø ìä' âøéãà åîôé÷ ùí ùîéí ìáèìä

1.

There [the Gemara] asks why they Chachamim made up and enacted Kinuyim [for Nedarim], and answers that sometimes one wants to say "la'Shem Korban", and he says only la'Shem, and he said Hash-m's name l'Vatalah (in vain);

åìëê ú÷ðå ëðåééï ùìà äåøâì äìùåï ìåîø ìä' ÷åðí

2.

Therefore, they enacted Kinuyim [for Korban, such as Konam], for there was no custom to say "la'Shem Konam." (We can say similarly about Nezirus.)

åà"ú åìø"ì àéê éáéà ÷øáï òì éãé ìùåï ùáãå çëîéí äà ÷îééúé çåìéï áòæøä

(f)

Question: According to Reish Lakish, how can one bring a Korban based on words that Chachamim invented? (Mid'Oraisa, he is not a Nazir. He has no Mitzvah to bring a Chatas.) He brings Chulin b'Azarah!

åéù ìåîø ëéåï ãîúëåéï ìðãåø áðæéø åéåãò ùìùåï æä áãå çëîéí ìðãåø áäí áðæéø ÷áìä âîåøä äéà ëàéìå àîø áìùåï äëúåá áúåøä

(g)

Answer #1: Since he intends to vow to be a Nazir, and he knows that Chachamim invented this word to vow to be a Nazir through it, this is a full acceptance, as if he said the expression written in the Torah.

åäø"ø éçéàì ôéøù ãø"ì ìàå ìòðéï ÷øáï ÷àîø àìà ìòðéï îì÷åú ãì÷é àí òáø òì ðæéøåúå ù÷áì áìùåï ùáãå çëîéí.

(h)

Answer #2 (R. Yechi'el): Reish Lakish did not say that [Kinuyim work] regarding Korban, rather, regarding lashes. He is lashed if he transgressed Nezirus that he accepted in an expression that Chachamim made up.

5)

TOSFOS DH ha'Omer Hareini ka'Zeh

úåñôåú ã"ä äàåîø äøéðé ëæä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is needed only for the inference.)

áâîøà îå÷é ìä ãðæéø òåáø ìôðéå åìâåôéä ìà àéöèøéê ãäà îøéùà ùîòéðï àôéìå ëé ìà àîø àìà àäà åðæéø òåáø ìôðéå ãäåé ðæéø

(a)

Explanation: The Gemara establishes this when a Nazir passes in front of him. We do not need it for the law itself, for we learn this from the Reisha, that even if he said only "Ehei", and a Nazir passed in front of him, he is a Nazir;

àìà ìãéå÷à àéöèøéê èòîà ãàîø ëæä äà äàåîø äøéðé àôéìå ðæéø òåáø ìôðéå ìà îäðé

1.

Rather, it is needed for the inference. The reason is because he said ka'Zeh. Had he said only Hareini, even if a Nazir passed in front of him, it does not help.

ãèôé îùîò àäà ëæä îï äøéðé ëé ìà ñééí ëæä.

2.

"Ehei" connotes ka'Zeh (like this one) more than "Hareini" does when he did not conclude "ka'Zeh".

6)

TOSFOS DH Hareini Mesalsel Hareini Mekalkel

úåñôåú ã"ä äøéðé îñìñì äøéðé îëìëì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that these are not Yados.)

äðé ìàå éãåú ðæéøåú ðéðäå ãàí ëï ìéúðéðäå ìòéì áäãé éãåú

(a)

Explanation: These are not Yados Nezirus. If they were, they should have been taught above, with the Yados!

àìà ëéåï ãâîø ãáåøå àìà ùìà ôéøù ìäãéà àðæéøåú åàðï äåà ãîôøùéðï ãéáåøéä îùîò ãðæéøåú áà ìåîø ëé àîø äðé ìùåðåú åúôéñ áùòøéä ëãîôøù áâîøà.

1.

Rather, since he completed his utterance, but he did not explicitly explain that it is Nezirus, and we explain his utterance, it connotes that he comes to say Nezirus, when he said one of these expressions and held his hair, like the Gemara explains.

7)

TOSFOS DH Mai Taima Tani Nazir

úåñôåú ã"ä îàé èòîà úðé ðæéø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why Nazir was taught in Seder Nashim.)

ôéøåù áñãø ðùéí áñãø ÷ãùéí äåä ìéä ìîéúðééä ùäåà äìëåú ÷øáðåú

(a)

Explanation #1: We ask why it was taught in Seder Nashim. It should have been taught in Seder Kodshim, which is [primarily] laws of Korbanos!

åîùðé úðà à÷øà ÷àé åäéä àí åâå' îé âøí ìä ìòáéøä ééï

1.

We answer that the Tana refers to the verse "v'Hayah Im..." (one who divorces his wife due to immorality). What caused her to transgress? Wine.

ëìåîø îé âøí ìä ùæéðúä ééï äìëê úðé àåúä îñëúà áñãø ðùéí

2.

I.e. what caused her to be Mezanah? Wine. Therefore, he taught the Masechta in Seder Nashim.

å÷àîø ëì äøåàä ñåèä á÷ì÷åìä éæéø òöîå îï äééï ñéåí äãø ùàîø úçìä îé âøí ìòáéøä ééï

(b)

Explanation #1 (cont.): It says that anyone who sees a Sotah in her disgrace should separate himself from wine. This concludes what it said above, what caused the Aveirah? Wine.

ëìåîø åðëåï äåà ùúùîø òöîä îï äééï àáì ìà áðãø åùåá îåñéó ìåîø ùëì äøåàä ñåèä á÷ì÷åìä éæéø òöîå îï äééï ëðæéø

1.

I.e. [one might have thought that] it is proper that she guard herself from wine, but not through a Neder. Then he adds to say that anyone who sees a Sotah in her disgrace should separate himself from wine like a Nazir. (Birkas Rosh - women are not steadfast, so they should not accept Nezirus. However, a man who sees... should become a Nazir.)

ùâí äåà äáåòì ðáã÷ ëãàéúà áñåèä (ãó ëæ:) ùäáåòì ðáã÷ ëîå äðáòìú åìëê ùðä ðæéø áðùéí (äâäú ÷äéìú éò÷á)

i.

This is because also he, the adulterer, is checked (he dies just like she does), like it says in Sotah (27b) that the man who had Bi'ah is checked just like she is. Therefore, he taught Nazir in Seder Nashim. (Birkas Rosh - therefore, he taught Maseches Nazir (as opposed to "Nezirah", even though it is) in [Seder] Nashim.)

åáðãøéí ìà áòé î"è úðà áðùéí

(c)

Implied question: Why didn't the Gemara [in Nedarim] ask why [Nedarim] was taught in Seder Nashim?

îùåí ãòé÷ø ôøùú ðãøéí áôøùú àùä ëúéá

(d)

Answer: This is because the primary Parshah of Nedarim is written in the Parshah [of annulling vows] of a woman.

åìà äåä îö"ì èòîà ëã÷àîø áøéù ñåèä (ãó á.) ëãôøéê îëãé úðà îðæéø ÷ñìé÷ îàé ùðà ã÷úðé ñåèä

(e)

Implied question: Why couldn't the Gemara give the reason like it says in Sotah (2a), like it asks "the Tana concluded with Nazir. Why did he teach Sotah [afterwards]?"

1.

Note: Really, we do not know which Masechtos were taught earlier or later. The Gemara really asks about the order in which Rebbi arranged them after he codified the Mishnah (Tosfos Bava Metzi'a 2a DH Shenayim).

åîùðé äúí àééãé ãúðà áëúåáåú ôø÷ äîãéø àú àùúå (ãó ò.) úðà ðîé ðãøéí åàééãé ãúðà ðãøéí úðà ðîé ðæéø ããîé ìéä

2.

It answers there "since the Tana taught in Kesuvos the Perek of one who forbids his wife through a vow (70a), he taught also Nedarim. Since he taught Nedarim, he taught Nazir, which resembles it;

à"ë ä"ð ìéùðé äëà ãìëê ùðàï áñãø ðùéí

3.

Summation of question: If so, also here we should answer that this is why he taught [Nedarim and Nazir] in Seder Nashim!

åé"ì îùåí ãìà îéñúáø ìéä ãàâá ðãøéí ìéùá÷ ìñãø ÷ãùéí ùëåìå ÷øáðåú åøàåé ðæéø ìùðåú äúí èôé

(f)

Answer: It is unreasonable to him that in order [to teach it] along with Nedarim, he would abandon Seder Kodshim, which totally discusses Korbanos, and Nazir is more appropriate to teach it there;

åàãøáä àâáéä ä"ì ìîéúðé ðãøéí äúí ìëê ö"ì èòîà ãúðà à÷øà ÷àé

1.

Just the contrary, along with [Nazir] he should have taught Nedarim there [in Seder Kodshim]! Therefore, he needed to give the reason that the Tana was dealing with the verse.

å÷ùä ãìîä ìå ìäàøéê ìùåðå åìåîø ëì äøåàä ñåèä ëå' åîä òðéï æä ìæä

(g)

Question: Why does he elaborate to say "anyone who sees a Sotah...?" What is the connection of one to the other?

1.

Note: Birkas Rosh says that the rest of this Dibur is a marginal note added to the Tosfos. It disagrees with Explanation #1.

ìëï ð"ì ãîàé ã÷àîø úðà à÷øà ÷àé àéðå ø"ì à÷øà ãëúéá áôøùä àìà ø"ì à÷øà ÷àé ãäáéàå (äâäú áøëú øàù) áñåó äîâøù áîñëú âéèéï (ãó ö.) ãëúéá åäéä àí åâå'

(h)

Answer (and Explanation #2): When we say that the Tana was dealing with the verse, this does not refer to the verse written in the Parshah [of Nazir]. Rather, it refers to the verse brought in Gitin (90a) "v'Hayah Im..."

åòúä ðéçà ùôéø îàé ãëúá ðæéø áñãø ðùéí ãîé âøí ìòáéøä ééï åëå'

(i)

Support: Now, it is fine. Nazir was [taught] in Seder Nashim, for what caused the Aveirah? Wine...

àáì î"î ÷ùä àîàé úðà ðæéøåú àöì ñåèä äéä ìå ìëåúáå àçø âéèéï

1.

However, in any case it is difficult why he taught Nezirus next to Sotah. He should have taught it after Gitin!

åîùåí äëé ÷àîø ãëì äøåàä ñåèä á÷ì÷åìä éæéø åëå' åâøí (äâäú áøëú øàù) æä òáéøä

2.

Therefore, he says that anyone who sees a Sotah in her disgrace should separate... Wine caused this Aveirah.

åáèòîà ãäëà ìçåã ìà ñâé ãà"ë ìéúðé ñåèä áøéùà åäãø ðæéø ëñãø äôøùä

3.

The reason given here does not suffice. If so, he should have taught Sotah first, and then Nazir, like the order of the Parshah (in Nasa)!

ìëê öøéê èòîà ãäúí ãàâá äîãéø úðà ðãøéí åàâá ðãøéí úðà ðæéø åäãø çåæø ìñåèä ùäåà òé÷ø îñãø ðùéí.

i.

Therefore, he needs the reason that along with [Perek] ha'Madir, he taught Nedarim, and along with Nedarim, he taught Nazir, and then he returns to Sotah, which primarily belongs to Seder Nashim.

8)

TOSFOS DH Ela l'Olam Tani Hachi v'Hachi

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà ìòåìí úðé äëé åäëé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives a reason for what is explained first.)

åáëåìäå àéëà èòîà

(a)

Explanation: In all of them, there is a reason [for what is explained first];

äúí ãàéñåøà ãðôùéä ôé' äúìåéä áàãí òöîå ëâåï äãì÷ä åäèîðä åáîä àùä éåöàä îôøù àéñåøå áøéùà

1.

There, regarding his own Isur, i.e. it depends on the person himself, e.g. lighting, wrapping, and with what a woman may go out, it explains the Isur first;

åâáé áäîä ãàéñåø ãáäîä îôøù äéúø áøéùà.

2.

There, regarding an animal, the Isur pertains to an animal. It explains the Heter first.

9)

TOSFOS DH Ela Hacha Lifrosh Kinuyei b'Reisha (pertains to Amud B)

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà [äëà] ìôøåù ëðåéé áøéùà (ùééê ìòîåã á)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the question.)

ëìåîø áîúðéúéï áîàé ãôúç áéï äëðåééï åáéï äéãåú àéñåøà ãðôùéä äåà.

(a)

Explanation: [We ask that] in our Mishnah, it should explain first what it began with. Both Kinuyim and Yados are his own Isur!

10)

TOSFOS DH Yados Ho'il v'Asiyan mi'Drasha Chaviva Lei (pertains to Amud B)

úåñôåú ã"ä éãåú äåàéì åàúééï îãøùà çáéáà ìéä (ùééê ìòîåã á)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives the Drashah we learn from.)

ããøùéðï áôø÷ ÷îà ãðãøéí (ãó â.) ðæéø ìäæéø ìä' ìòùåú éãåú ðæéøåú ëðæéøåú.

(a)

Explanation: We expound in Nedarim (3a) from "Nazir Lehazir la'Shem" that Yados Nezirus are like [full acceptances of] Nezirus.

11)

TOSFOS DH b'Ikar Korban (pertains to Amud B)

úåñôåú ã"ä áòé÷ø ÷øáï (ùééê ìòîåã á)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Kinuyim are considered a more primary source to obligate a Korban.)

ãäééðå äëðåééï ùàéðï öøéëéï ìãøùä ã÷áìú ðæéøåú âîåø äåà àìà ùàîø áìùåï ëðåé.

(a)

Explanation: This refers to Kinuyim, which do not require a Drashah, for they are total [acceptances of] Nezirus, just he said it with a nickname.

2b----------------------------------------2b

12)

TOSFOS DH Leima ka'Savar Shmuel Yadayim she'Einan Mochichos Lo Haviyan Yadayim

úåñôåú ã"ä ìéîà ÷ñáø ùîåàì éãéí ùàéðï îåëéçåú ìà äåééï éãéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies this inference.)

ôé' ãàé ñáéøà ìéä ãäåééï éãéí ìîä ìé' ìùîåàì ìàå÷îé îúðé' áðæéø òåáø ìôðéå

(a)

Explanation: If Shmuel held that they were considered Yadayim, why would he need to establish our Mishnah when a Nazir passes in front of him?

àôé' àéï ðæéø òåáø ìôðéå ðîé ãëùàîø àäà éã îéäà äåé

1.

Even if a Nazir does not pass in front of him, when he said Ehei Nazir, this is a Yad;

ãèôé îùîòå à÷áìú ðæéøåú ãøàåé ìçåì ìàìúø àôé' àëì åùúä áééï ëì äéåí îçöé äéåí åàéìê éëåì ìäéåú ðæéø î÷áìú úòðéú ãàí àëì ëáø ìà éåëì ìäúòðåú òã ìîçø

2.

It connotes Nezirus, which can take effect immediately, even if he ate [grapes] and drank wine the entire day, from half the day and onwards he can be a Nazir, more than it connotes accepting a fast, which if he already ate, he cannot begin to fast until tomorrow.

åìéùðà ãàäà îùîò ãàäà (äâäú äøù"ù) ìàìúø äìëê éã äåé

3.

The word "Ehei" connotes I will be immediately. Therefore, [since it connotes Nezirus more than anything else,] it is a Yad;

åàé ìà áòé ùîåàì éãéí îåëéçåú àôéìå àéï ðæéø òåáø ìôðéå ðîé.

i.

If Shmuel did not require Yadayim Mochichos, even if a Nazir does not pass in front of him, also (it would be a valid Yad)!

13)

TOSFOS DH Hachi Garsinan Amrei Iyn bi'Zman sheha'Nazir v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä ä"â àîøé àéï áæîï ùäðæéø åëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes like this text, that the suggestion is sustained.)

ëìåîø àéï åãàé ùîåàì ñáéøà ìéä éãéí ùàéðï îåëéçåú ìà äåééï éãéí åáðæéø òåáø ìôðéå ìéëà ìñôå÷é ãäåééï éãéí îåëéçåú

(a)

Explanation: Indeed, surely Shmuel holds that Yadayim she'Einan Mochichos are not Yadayim. When a Nazir passes in front of him, there is no doubt that they are Yadayim Mochichos;

àáì àéï ðæéø òåáø ìôðéå ãìîà àäà áúòðéú ÷àîø ëìåîø åìà äåééï éãéí îåëéçåú,

1.

However, when a Nazir does not pass in front of him, perhaps he means Ehei (I will be) in a fast. I.e., therefore they are not Yadayim Mochichos.

åéù ñôøéí ãâøñé àîøé ìà áæîï ùàéï äðæéø òåáø ìôðéå åäëé ôéøåùå

(b)

Alternate text: Some texts say "no. When a Nazir does not pass in front of him." It means as follows;

ìòåìí ùîåàì ìà áòé éãéí îåëéçåú åáæîï ùðæéø òåáø ìôðéå ìéëà ìñôå÷é ãéã îéäà äåé

1.

Really, Shmuel does not require Yadayim Mochichos. When a Nazir passes in front of him, there is no doubt that it is a Yad;

àéï ðæéø òåáø ìôðéå ãìîà àäà áúòðéú ÷àîø ôéøåù åàôéìå éã ìà äåé

2.

When a Nazir does not pass in front of him, perhaps he means Ehei in a fast. I.e., it is not even a Yad.

åìâéøñà æå îñé÷ äëà ãùîåàì ìà áòé éãéí îåëéçåú

(c)

Consequence: According to this text, we conclude here that Shmuel does not require Yadayim Mochichos.

å÷ùä îô"÷ ã÷éãåùéï ãäúí ÷àîø ùîåàì (äâäú äá"ç) äøé àú î÷åãùú àò"â ãìà àîø ìé äøé äéà î÷åãùú ìå

(d)

Question: In Kidushin (5b), Shmuel taught that when a man said "you are Mekudeshes", even though he did not say "to me", she is Mekudeshes to him;

åôøéê ìîéîøà ãñáø ùîåàì éãéí ùàéï îåëéçåú äåééï éãéí åäà úðï äàåîø àäà äøé æä ðæéø åîå÷é ìä ùîåàì áùðæéø òåáø ìôðéå

1.

Citation (5b) Question: This implies that Shmuel holds that Yadayim she'Einan Mochichos are Yadayim. (Perhaps he is a Shali'ach to be Mekadesh her to someone else!) However, a Mishnah teaches that if one said Ehei Nazir, he is a Nazir, and Shmuel established it when a Nazir passes in front of him;

äà àéï ðæéø òåáø ìôðéå ìà àìîà ÷ñáø ùîåàì éãéí ùàéï îåëéçåú ìà äåééï éãéí

2.

Citation (cont.) Inference: When a Nazir does not pass in front of him, no (he is not a Nazir). Shmuel must hold that Yadayim she'Einan Mochichos are not Yadayim!

åîùðé äúí àìà áàåîø î÷åãùú ìé àìîà îñé÷ äúí ìùîåàì îäëà ãéãéí ùàéðï îåëéçåú ìà äåééï éãéí

i.

The Gemara answers there "the case is, he said "to me." This shows that there, we conclude from Shmuel's words here (about Nazir) that Yadayim she'Einan Mochichos are not Yadayim!

ìäëé âøñéðï àîøé àéï åäùúà äàé ìéîà àéðå ëùàø ìéîà ùáâîøà ùëï äåà òåîã

(e)

Conclusion: Therefore, the text says "yes!" (Indeed, Shmuel holds that Yadayim she'Einan Mochichos are not Yadayim.) Here, "Leima (let us say)" is unlike other places in the Gemara where it says Leima, for here the suggestion is upheld.

åãëååúä àéëà ì÷îï (ãó ëè:) ìéîà äðé úðàé ëé äðé úðàé åòåîã ëï åëãàôøù (äâäú áøëú øàù) .

(f)

Support: We find like this below (29b) "Leima that these Tana'im argue like these Tana'im", and this is upheld, like I will explain.

14)

TOSFOS DH v'Dilma Lepotro mi'Korbanosav

úåñôåú ã"ä åãìîà ìôåèøå î÷øáðåúéå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Havah Amina.)

äîåèìéï òìéå ìäáéà ëùéùìéí ðæéøåúå åìà ðúëååï ëìì ì÷áì òìéå òì òöîå ðæéøåú.

(a)

Explanation: This refers to what is obligatory for him (the Nazir) to bring when he finishes his Nezirus. [Perhaps this man who said Ehei] did not intend at all to accept Nezirus on himself!

15)

TOSFOS DH deka'Amar b'Libo

úåñôåú ã"ä ã÷àîø áìáå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains when intent in his heart helps.)

ìäéåú ðæéø åî"î áòéðà ðîé ãðæéø òåáø ìôðéå ã÷áìä ùáìá àéðå ëìåí

(a)

Explanation: [He said in his heart that he intends] to be a Nazir. Even so, we require also that a Nazir passes in front of him, for acceptance in the heart has no effect;

ãâáé ðæéø ëúéá ëé éôìéà ùéôøù áôéå

1.

This is because regarding Nazir, it says "Ki Yafli" - he must explicitly say with his mouth.

àáì ëé ðæéø òåáø ìôðéå åôéøù áùôúéå àäà åáìáå çùá ìäéåú ðæéø îçùáú äìá îäðéà ëàéìå àîø áôéå àäà ðæéø ëæä ùòåáø ìôðéå.

2.

However, when a Nazir passes in front of him, and he clarified with his mouth "Ehei", and in his heart he thought that to be a Nazir, the intent of his heart helps as if he said with his mouth "Ehei Nazir", like this one passing in front of him.

16)

TOSFOS DH Mahu d'Seima Ba'ina Piv v'Libo Shavin Ka Mashma Lan

úåñôåú ã"ä îäå ãúéîà áòéðà ôéå åìáå ùåéï ÷î"ì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that we do require his mouth and his heart to be the same.)

äëé âøñé' åìà âøñéðï ãìà áòéðà ãäåé îùîò ãìà áòéðï ôéå åìáå ùåéï åæä àéðå

(a)

The text: This is the text. It does not say "we do not require", for this connotes that we do not require his mouth and his heart to be the same (he said what he intended to say), but this is not true!

ãëì ðãø áèòåú ìàå ðãø äåà ãàí ðúëååï ìåîø îòùø åàîø úøåîä àå àéôëà òì ôéøåú ùìôðéå ìà àîø ëìåí

1.

Any mistaken Neder is not a Neder. If he intended to say "Ma'aser", and said "Terumah", or vice-versa, regarding Peros in front of him, his words have no effect.

åòåã ÷ùä ìîä ìé òåáø ìôðéå äà äåé ðæéø ëéåï ãçùá áìáå åìà áòéðï ôéå åìáå ùåéï

2.

Also, [the latter text cannot be, for if so,] why do we need [a Nazir] passing in front of him? He is a Nazir because he intended in his heart, and we do not require his mouth and heart to be the same!

àìà ä"ô îäå ãúéîà áòéðï ôéå åìáå ùåéï åäëà ëé ìà äåöéà áôéå àäà ðæéø áôéøåù àò"â ãðæéø òåáø ìôðéå åàîø áìáå ðæéø ãàéï æä ôéå åìáå ùåéï

(b)

Explanation: Rather, it means "one might have thought that we require his mouth and heart to be the same", and here, when he did not explicitly say "Ehei Nazir", even though a Nazir passed in front of him, and he said in his heart "Nazir", this is not [considered that] his mouth and heart are the same;

÷î"ì ãîçùáú äìá îâìéà àãéáåøå ãàäà ëé ðæéø òåáø ìôðéå ãàäà ðæéø ÷àîø åëäàé âååðà äåé ùôéø ôéå åìáå ùåéï.

1.

The Mishnah teaches that this is not so. Intent of the heart reveals about his utterance of "Ehei". When a Nazir passes in front of him, he means Ehei Nazir. This is properly considered that his mouth and heart are the same.

17)

TOSFOS DH v'Dilma Ehei Na'eh Lefanav b'Mitzvos

úåñôåú ã"ä åãìîà àäà ðàä ìôðéå áîöåú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the question.)

áùàø îöåú ëãúðé' ëå' åîðìï ìîéîø ã÷éáì òìéå ðæéøåú.

(a)

Explanation: This refers to other Mitzvos, like the Beraisa teaches. What is the source to say that he accepted Nezirus?

18)

TOSFOS DH Amar Shmuel she'Tafas b'Sa'aro

úåñôåú ã"ä àîø ùîåàì ùúôåñ áùòøå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we needed to establish this differently than above.)

ëìåîø àäà ðàä áîöåä äúìåéä áùéòø ëâåï ðæéøåú

(a)

Explanation: I will be beautiful in Mitzvos that depend on hair, e.g. Nezirus.

åäëà ìéëà ìùðåéé áìà úôñ áùòøå åáðæéø òåáø ìôðéå

(b)

Implied question: Why couldn't we answer here without holding his hair, and a Nazir passed in front of him?

ãäëà ãáåø ùìí ÷àîø àäà ðàä åàé ìà úôñ áùòøå àôé' ëé ðæéø òåáø ìôðéå îùúîò ùôéø àäà ðàä áùàø îöåú ëîå àðæéøåú

(c)

Answer: Here, he said a full matter, Ehei Na'eh. If he was not holding his hair, even if a Nazir passed in front of him, this properly connotes "I will be beautiful in other Mitzvos", just as much as [it connotes that] Nezirus.

åìòéì ðîé ãôøéê åãéìîà àäà áúòðéú ìéëà ìùðåéé áùúôñ áùòøå áìà ðæéø òåáø ìôðéå

(d)

Implied question: Above, when we asked "perhaps he means "I will be in a fast", why couldn't we answer that he was holding his hair, and without a Nazir passing in front of him?

ãìòåìí îùúîò ùôéø àäà áúòðéú ëé àéï ðæéø òåáø ìôðéå àò"â ãúôéñ áùòøå

(e)

Answer: Really, Ehei properly connotes "I will be in a fast" when a Nazir does not pass in front of him, even if he is holding his hair.

åäùúà àúé ùôéø ãîúðéúéï ôìâéðäå áúøé ááé äàåîø àäà äøé æä ðæéø àå àäà ðàä

(f)

Support: Now it is fine that our Mishnah divided into two clauses - if one says Ehei, he is a Nazir, and Ehei Na'eh;

àò"â ãúøåééäå éãåú ðéðäå îùåí ãîôøùé áúøé èòîé.

1.

Even though both of these are Yados, [they are separate clauses] because there are different reasons for them.

19)

TOSFOS DH v'Amai Na'eh Ha Milsa d'Aveirah Hi v'Amrinan Lei Na'eh

úåñôåú ã"ä åàîàé ðàä äà îéìúà ãòáéøä äéà åàîøé' ìéä ðàä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Nezirus entails a Mitzvah and a slight Aveirah.)

ôéøåù äðåãø áðæéø òåùä òáéøä å÷øéðï ìéä ðàä

(a)

Explanation: One who vows to be a Nazir transgresses. Do we call him beautiful?!

åé"â îìúà òáéãà åëé îòùä äâåï åëùø ìòùåú ëï äà òáéøä äéà

(b)

Alternate text: Some texts say "Avida". [I.e.] is this a proper, Kosher thing to do? It is an Aveirah!

åîùðé àôéìå ìø' àìòæø ä÷ôø ëå' ãéìîà àúé ìîéòáø òì ðæéøåúå ìùúåú áééï ëé àøëå ìå äéîéí àáì èäåø ìà çåèà ÷øé ìéä

1.

The Gemara answers that even according to R. Elazar ha'Kapar [only a Nazir Tamei is called a sinner], lest he come to transgress his Nezirus, when the days become long for him. A Tahor [Nazir] is not called a sinner.

å÷ùä ãáòìîà àééúé ìø' àìòæø àôéìå àðæéø èäåø òì ùí ùöéòø òöîå îï äééï ÷øé ìéä çåèà

(c)

Question: Elsewhere, we bring that R. Elazar holds that even a Tahor Nazir is called a sinner, for he pained himself [through abstaining] from wine!

åé"ì ãèäåø ðîé ÷öú ÷øé ìéä çåèà åîëì î÷åí äîöåä øáä òì äçèà åìëê ÷øé ìéä ðàä îéãé ãäåä îúòðä úòðéú çìåí áùáú

(d)

Answer: Also a Tahor Nazir is slightly called a sinner. In any case, the Mitzvah is greater than the Aveirah. Therefore, he is called beautiful, just like one who fasts on Shabbos due to an ominous dream;

ãéù ìå îöåä ìáèì äçìåí å÷öú òáéøä òùä ùäúòðä áùáú ùäøé öøéê ìéùá áúòðéú ìîçøú äùáú ìëôø òì ùäúòðä áùáú

1.

He has a Mitzvah to be Mevatel [harsh decrees alluded to in] the dream, and a small Aveirah that he fasted on Shabbos. He must fast the day after Shabbos, to atone for fasting on Shabbos!

àáì ðæéø èîà øçîðà ÷øééä çåèà ìôé ùäåà ñåúø àú ðæøå åöøéê ìçæåø ìðæéøúå åëáã áòéðéå äîòùä åúåää òì äøàùåðåú.

(e)

Distinction: However, a Nazir Tamei, the Torah called him a sinner, for he cancels his [count of] Nezirus and he must return to [start from the beginning] his Nezirus, and this is difficult in his eyes, and he regrets what he did.

20)

TOSFOS DH Hareini ka'Zeh Nehi Nami d'Tafis b'Sa'aro Mi Havi Nazir (pertains to the coming Daf)

úåñôåú ã"ä äøéðé ëæä ðäé ðîé ãúôéñ áùòøå îé äåé (äâäú îìàëú éå"è) ðæéø (ùééê ìãó â.)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos rejects an alternate text.)

éù ñôøéí ãëúéá áäï äøéðé ëæä ìà àîø

(a)

Alternate text: Some texts say "he did not say 'I am like him.'"

àëï èòåú äåà ùäøé áîúðé' úðé áäãéà àîø äøéðé ëæä

(b)

Rebuttal: This is a mistake. Our Mishnah explicitly teaches Hareini ka'Zeh!

åùîà äñåôø èòä áîàé ãëúá áúø äëé

(c)

Suggestion: Perhaps the scribe erred about what is written after this. (Orach Mishur - the text said "Hareini ka'Zeh Lo (I am like him does not connote Nezirus). Amar Shmuel... The scribe added an extra "Amar", i.e. "Hareini ka'Zeh Lo Amar. Amar Shmuel....")

21)

TOSFOS DH Hareini ka'Zeh (part 2) (pertains to the coming Daf)

úåñôåú ã"ä äøéðé ëæä (çì÷ á) (ùééê ìãó â.)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Chidush of Shmuel.)

àîø ùîåàì áùðæéø ëå'

(a)

Citation of Gemara: Shmuel said, this is when a Nazir...

ôé' ãñ"ã ãàéï ðæéø òåáø ìôðéå àìà ãúôéñ áùòøéä ãåîéà ãîúðé' ãìòéì àäà ðàä ãàå÷îéðï áúôéñ áùòøéä ìçåã

(b)

Explanation: I.e. one might have thought that a Nazir does not pass in front of him, rather, he is holding his hair, like the above [clause of the] Mishnah, Ehei Na'eh. We establish it when he was merely holding his hair [even though a Nazir does not pass in front of him].

åìëê ôøéê äøéðé ëæä ìà îùîò îéãé ãðæéøåú àó òì âá ãúôéñ áùòøéä

1.

Therefore, we ask that 'I am like him' does not connote a matter of Nezirus, even if he is holding his hair!

åîùðé ùîåàì äëà ðîé ëùðæéø òåáø ìôðéå åäùúà àéï öøéê ìåîø ãúôéñ áùòøéä.

2.

Shmuel answered that also here, a Nazir passes in front of him. Now, we need not say that he is holding his hair.