1)

TOSFOS DH Hareini Nazir Min ha'Gerogeros u'Min ha'Deveilah...

úåñôåú ã"ä äøéðé ðæéø îï äâøåâøåú åîï äãáéìä...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why he is a Nazir.)

ëì ãéï ðæéøåú òìéå

(a)

Explanation: All laws of Nezirus apply to him.

åðäé ãðçéú ìôøåùé åìà ôéøù îéåöà îâôï äééï åáâî' îôøù èòîà

1.

Even though he came to explain [what he will refrain from], and he did not specify what comes from grapevines (so we should say that he is not a Nazir), the Gemara explains the reason. (Beis Shamai hold that one does not say vain words. Once he said 'I am a Nazir', he became a Nazir. Saying 'from dried figs..." is like trying to permit Nezirus through regret. They hold that one cannot permit Nezirus.)

áúåñôúà (øéù ô"á) ëéðåéé ëéðåééï áù"à ðæéø åáä"à àéðå ðæéø

(b)

Citation (Tosefta 2:1): [If one said] Kinuyim of Kinuyim, Beis Shamai say, he is a Nazir. Beis Hillel say, he is not a Nazir.

àéæä ëéðåéé ëéðåééï äàåîø äøéðé ðæéø îï äãáéìä

(c)

Citation (cont.): What are Kinuyim of Kinuyim? One who says 'I am a Nazir from pressed dates.'

åìîä ÷øé ìéä ëðåéé îä ùééê ãáéìä áðæéøåú

(d)

Question: Why is this called Kinuyim? Pressed dates have no connection to Nezirus!

åé"ì ãáéøåù' ÷øé ìãáéìä úéøåù.

(e)

Answer: In Yerushalayim, they call pressed dates "Tirosh" (wine).

2)

TOSFOS DH Amar R. Yehudah Af keshe'Amru Beis Shamai...

úåñôåú ã"ä àîø ø' éäåãä àó ëùàîøå á"ù...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that dried figs and pressed dates become forbidden to him.)

øáé éäåãä ôìéâ àúðà ãîúðéúéï àìéáà ãá"ù å÷àîø ãìà äåé ðæéø ìãéï ðæéøåú ëéåï ãìà ðãø îàùø éåöà îâôï äééï

(a)

Explanation: R. Yehudah argues with the Tana of our Mishnah according to Beis Shamai. [R. Yehudah] says that he is not a Nazir for the law of Nezirus, since he did not vow from what comes from grapevines;

àìà ðãåø äåé îï äâøåâøåú åîï äãáéìä ëàéìå àîø äøé äï òìé ë÷øáï

1.

Rather, dried figs and pressed dates are forbidden to him, as if he said "they are a Korban to me."

åà"ú åäà àéäå ðæéø ÷àîø åàéê éäéä ðæéø

(b)

Question: He said "I am a Nazir." (If dried figs and pressed dates are forbidden to him), in what way is he a Nazir?!

åé"ì ãðæéø ìùåï äôøùä åëàéìå àîø äøéðé ôøåù îï äâøåâøåú

(c)

Answer: "Nazir" is an expression of separation. It is as if he said "I am separated from dried figs..."

åà"ú åäà áðãøéí (ãó éâ.) îåëç ìøáé [éäåãä] àîø ÷øáï ìà äåé ðãø á÷øáï òã ùéàîø ë÷øáï áë"ó

(d)

Question: In Nedarim (13a), it is proven that according to R. Yehudah, [if one] said 'Korban', he did not vow [to forbid something] with [the Isur of] a Korban, unless he said k'Korban, with the letter "Chaf"!

åé"ì ãä"î ëùìà àîø òìé àìà ëëø æä ÷øáï àáì ëé àîø ëëø æä òìé ÷øáï à"ö ìåîø ë"ó.

(e)

Answer: That is when he did not say "Alai", rather, "this loaf is Korban." However, when he said "this loaf is Alai Korban", he need not say [with a] "Chaf".

3)

TOSFOS DH Ein Adam Motzi Devarav l'Vatalah

úåñôåú ã"ä àéï àãí îåöéà ãáøéå ìáèìä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how the two arguments relate to each other.)

ðçì÷å áòøëéï (ãó ë. ò"ù) áäàåîø òøê ëìé òìé ãàéï òøëéï ìëìé øáðï ôèøé ìéä îëìåí

(a)

Reference: They argue in Erchin (20a) about one who says "the Erech of this Kli is Alai." Rabanan totally exempt him;

åø"î ôìéâ åàîø àãí éåãò ùàéï òøê ìëìé åâîø åàîø ìùí ãîéí åðåúï ãîé äëìé ìä÷ãù ìôé ùàéï àãí îåöéà ãáøéå ìáèìä

1.

R. Meir argues and says that a person knows that a Kli has no Erech. He resolved for the sake of its value, and he gives the Kli's value to Hekdesh, for a person does not say vain words.

åä"ð àãí éåãò ùàéï ðæéøåú áâøåâøåú åâîø åàîø ìùí ðæéøåú ééï

2.

Also here, a person knows that there is no Nezirus regarding dried figs, and he resolved and said [that he is a Nazir from them] for the sake of Nezirus from wine.

åá"ä ñáøé ìä ëø' éåñé ãàîø áâîø ãáøéå àãí ðúôñ åäàé ðãø åôúçå òîå äåà

(b)

Explanation (cont.): Beis Hillel hold like R. Yosi, who says that we follow a person's final words. This Neder has its Pesach [reason for regret to permit it] with it.

ãø' éåñé áäàåîø äøé æå úîåøú òåìä úîåøú ùìîéí úøòä òã ùúñúàá åúîëø åçöé ãîéä ìòåìä åçöé ãîéä ìùìîéí

1.

R. Yosi said that if one said "this is Temuras Olah Temuras Shelamim", it grazes until it gets a Mum. It is sold, and half the money is used to buy an Olah, and half the money is for Shelamim;

ä"ð áâîø ãáøéå ùàîø âøåâøåú ðúôñ åëéåï ùàéï ðæéøåú áâøåâøåú ìà äåé ðæéø

2.

Also here, we follow his final words, which were dried figs. Since there is no Nezirus from dried figs, he is not a Nazir.

åàò"â ãáúçìä àîø äøéðé ðæéø

(c)

Implied question: Initially, he said "I am a Nazir"!

çæø áúåê ëãé ãáåø åàîø îâøåâøåú åáâîø ãáøéå àãí ðúôñ ëàéìå ðãø åáúåê ëãé ãáåø îöà ôúç ìå åçøèä

(d)

Answer: He retracted Toch Kedei Dibur and said "from dried figs." We follow his final words, as if he vowed, and Toch Kedei Dibur he found a Pesach for it and regret;

ãëéåï ùðãøå åôúçå òîå ìà çì ëìì

1.

Since his Neder has its Pesach with it, it does not take effect at all.

åà"ú åäàîø ø' éåñé áâîø ãáøéå àãí ðúôñ äåé ôé' àó áâîø ãáøéå àãí ðúôñ åäåé úîåøú òåìä åúîåøú ùìîéí

(e)

Question: R. Yosi says that we follow a person's final words, i.e. even his final words. [The animal] is a Temurah of an Olah and Temurah of a Shelamim;

åä"ð ðúôåñ ìùåï øàùåï ðîé ã÷àîø ðæéø åéäéä ðæéø îééï åðæéø îï äâøåâøåú

1.

Also here, we should follow also his initial words. He said that he is a Nazir. He should be a Nazir from wine, and a Nazir (separated) from dried figs!

åé"ì ãäðé îéìé áúîåøä (äâäú áøëú øàù) ããáøéå ñåúøéï æä àú æä åìéëà ìîéîø ãñéôà ìôøåùé úçìú ãáøéå ÷àúé äìëê çééìé á' äìùåðåú ìø' éåñé åäåé úîåøú òåìä åúîåøú ùìîéí

(f)

Answer: This is only regarding Temurah, that his words contradict each other, and we cannot say that his final words come to explain his initial words. Therefore, both expressions take effect according to R. Yosi, and it is Temurah of an Olah and Temurah of a Shelamim;

àáì áîúðé' àéëà ìîéîø ãñéôà ìôøåùé øéùà ëìåîø (ëéåï) äàé ã÷àîø ðæéø ìàå îééï ÷àîø àìà îâøåâøåú åäìëê âîø ãáøéå òé÷ø äï ìéúôñ áäï åìà áúçéìú ãáøéå

1.

However, in our Mishnah we can say that his final words come to explain his initial words, i.e. this that he said "Nazir" is not from wine, rather, from dried figs. Therefore, his final words are primary to take effect, and not his initial words.

åäëé îúééùá ìé ãìà ú÷ùä îãø' éäåãä àãø' éäåãä ãø' éäåãä àéú ìéä áîúðé' ãðæéø äåé îâøåâøåú åìà ðæéø îééï àôé' ìá"ù

(g)

Support: According to this, there is no contradiction in R. Yehudah. R. Yehudah holds in the Mishnah that he is a Nazir from dried figs, and not a Nazir from wine, even according to Beis Shamai;

åàîàé åäà ùîòéðï ìéä ìøáé éäåãä ãôìéâ àãøáé éåñé áääéà ãúîåøä (â"æ ùí) å÷àîø úôåñ ìùåï øàùåï ä"ð ðúôåñ ìùåï øàùåï åìéäåé ðæéø îééï

1.

Question: What is the reason? We know that R. Yehudah argues with R. Yosi regarding Temurah, and says that we follow his initial words!

àìà åãàé ãå÷à áúîåøä ôìéâé ãäãáøéí ñåúøéï æä àú æä åìéëà ìîéîø ããéáåø äàçøåï îôøù

2.

Answer: Rather, surely they argue only about Temurah. The words contradict each other, and we cannot say that the latter utterance explains [the first].

àáì äëà åãàé ãàéëà ìîéîø ãìôøåùé ÷àúé é"ì ãîåãä (äâäú áøëú øàù) ãìôøù áà åìåîø ìàå àééï ðãøúé

3.

However, here, surely we can say that he comes to explain, we can say that [R. Yehudah] agrees that he comes to explain, and say "I did not vow about wine."

åðéçà ðîé ãìà ÷àîø ãá"ù ñáøé ëø' éäåãä ãàîø úôåñ ìùåï øàùåï òé÷ø ìäëé äåé ðæéø îééï

4.

Implied question: Also, why didn't we say that Beis Shamai hold like R. Yehudah, who says that we make his initial words primary, and therefore, he is a Nazir from wine?

àìà åãàé ìà ùééëà ääåà ôìåâúà ìäëà

5.

Answer: Rather, surely that argument does not apply here.

åà"ú åàîàé ÷àîø á"ä ëø' éåñé ìéîà ãñáøé á"ä ëøáðï ãø"î áòøëéï (ãó ë.) ãàîøé àãí îåöéà ãáøéå ìáèìä

(h)

Question: Why does it say that Beis Hillel hold like R. Yosi? We should say that Beis Hillel hold like Rabanan of R. Meir in Erchin (20a), who say that a person says vain words!

åé"ì ãìà ðçà ìéä ìàå÷îé ääéà ôìåâúà ãø"î åøáðï áôìåâúà ãá"ù åá"ä ãà"ë ø"î ëá"ù ìäëé ÷àîø á"ä ëø' éåñé

(i)

Answer: He does not want to establish that argument of R. Meir like the argument of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel, for if so, R. Meir holds like Beis Shamai. Therefore, we said that Beis Hillel hold like R. Yosi

åîòúä àôéìå ø' îàéø ãòøëéï éëåì ìñáåø ëá"ä (äâäú áøëú øàù) ãîúðé' îèòîà ã÷àîø ãáâîø ãáøéå àãí ðúôñ

1.

Now, even R. Meir in Erchin can hold like Beis Hillel in our Mishnah. Our Mishnah is due to the reason said, that we follow a person's final words.

åà"ú åìø"î î"ù ãáòøê ëìé îúçééá ãîéí îèòí ãàéï àãí îåöéà ãáøéå ìáèìä

(j)

Question: According to R. Meir, what is different about [one who accepted to give] the Erech of a Kli? He is obligated to give its value, because a person does not say vain words!

ìòåìí åé"ì ãìà ãîé ãäúí ðäé ãàéï ùééê òøê ìëìé ãîéí îéäà ùééëà áéä åàãí æä ðúëååï ìéúï ìä÷ãù îä ùéåëì äìëê ðåúï ãîéå

(k)

Answer: Really, this is different. There, granted, there is no Erech of a Kli, but its value applies, and this person intended to give to Hekdesh what he can. Therefore, he gives its value;

å÷øé ìäå òøê ìãîé äëìé îùåí ãòøê äàãí ðîé äåé ãîéí ìäëé ÷øé ãîé ëìé òøê

1.

He calls its value "Erech", because also Erech of a person is money. Therefore, he calls the value of a Kli "Erech".

àáì âøåâøåú ìà ùééê áäï ìùåï ðæéøåú ëìì åò"ë äåöéà ãáøéå ìáèìä

2.

However, the expression of Nezirus does not apply at all to dried figs. You are forced to say that he said vain words;

åä"÷ äøéðé ðæéø åìà îééï àìà îâøåâøåú åñéôà ìôøåùé úçéìú ãáøéå ÷àúé äìëê ìàå ëìåí ÷àîø.

i.

He meant as follows. "I am a Nazir, but not from wine, rather, from dried figs." His final words come to explain his initial words, therefore his words have no effect.

4)

TOSFOS DH Le'itshulei ka'Asi

úåñôåú ã"ä ìàéúùåìé ÷àúé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is not precise.)

ìàå ãå÷à ìàéúùåìé ãäà ìà áà ìùàìä àìà îúçøè åçåæø áå ëàãí ùáà ìùàåì ìçë' òì ðãøå îçîú çøèä

(a)

Explanation: This is not precise "to ask", for he did not come to ask to permit it. Rather, he regrets and retracts, like one who comes to ask a Chacham about his Neder due to regret;

ùäçëí îåöà ìå ôúç åçøèä åäåé ðãø èòåú åáèì.

1.

The Chacham finds for him a Pesach and regret, and it is a mistaken Neder, and it is Batel.

5)

TOSFOS DH Ein She'elah li'Nezirus

úåñôåú ã"ä àéï ùàìä ìðæéøåú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how this helps together with holding like R. Meir.)

ãðæéøåú ëä÷ãù ãëúéá ÷ãåù éäéä âãì ôøò

(a)

Explanation: Nezirus is like Hekdesh, for it says "Kadosh Yihyeh Gadel Pera."

åà"ú úéôå÷ ìéä ãàéï ôåúçéï áçøèä (äâäú îäø"á øðùáåøâ)

(b)

Question: It should suffice [to explain why She'elah does not help] because we are not Pose'ach (to permit Nedarim) with [mere] regret [until there is a reason why it was a mistake]!

åé"ì ãàéëà î"ã ãôåúçéï åúéøõ ìùðéäí (äâäú îäø"á øðùáåøâ)

(c)

Answer #1: There is an opinion that we are Pose'ach [with mere regret]. He answers according to both opinions.

åòåã é"ì ãùàðé äëà ãúåê ëãé ãéáåø äåà åàéï öøéê ø÷ (äâäú îäø"á øðùáåøâ) çøèä

(d)

Answer #2: Here is different, for it is Toch Kedei Dibur, and only regret is needed.

åá"ù ìèòîééäå (äâäú àåøç îéùåø) ãä÷ãù èòåú äåé ä÷ãù åìäëé ìá"ù ìà îäðé áéä ùàìä

(e)

Explanation (cont.): Beis Shamai hold like their opinion [elsewhere], that mistaken Hekdesh is Hekdesh. Therefore, according to Beis Shamai, She'elah does not help;

åä"ð ìà îäðé ùàìä áðæéø ãà÷øé ÷ãåùä ãëúéá ÷ãåù éäéä

1.

Also here, She'elah does not help for Nazir, for it is called Kedushah, for it says "Kadosh Yihyeh."

åà"ú åîä ìå ìäàøéê ëì ëê åìçæåø åìåîø á"ù ëø"î ñáéøà ìäå

(f)

Question: Why must we elaborate so much, and return to say "Beis Shamai hold like R. Meir"?

ëé ôøéê ìéä îòé÷øà åìá"ù ðãø åôúçå òîå äåà ìéùðé ìéä ìàìúø á"ù ìèòîééäå ãàéï ùàìä ëå'

1.

When he asked initially "according to Beis Shamai, the Neder has its Pesach with it!", he should answer immediately "this is like Beis Shamai hold [elsewhere], that there is no She'elah..."!

åé"ì ãñã"à ãìà àîøéðï á"ù ëø"î ñ"ì åçæø áå îùåí äàé ÷åùéà ùä÷ùä äù"ñ

(g)

Answer: One might have thought that we do not say that Beis Shamai hold like R. Meir, and we retracted due to this question that the Gemara asked;

åà"ë ùåá àéï éëåì ìúøõ åìåîø ã÷ñáø ãàéï ùàìä ãìà àîøéðï àéï ùàìä àìà äéëà ãçì ä÷ãù øâò àçã ùåá àéï îåòéì áå ùàìä

1.

If so, now we cannot answer that he holds that there is no She'elah, for we say "there is no She'elah" only when the Hekdesh took effect for one moment. Then, She'elah does not help;

àáì äëà ðãøå åôúçå òîå äåà åìà çì òìéä ðæéøåú àôéìå øâò àçã

2.

However, here his Neder has its Pesach with it. Nezirus did not take effect on him even for one moment!

ìäëé çåæø åàåîø áéú ùîàé ëøáé îàéø ãàîø àéï àãí îåöéà ãáøéå ìáèìä åäøé çì äðãø øâò àçã

3.

Therefore, we return to say "Beis Shamai hold like R. Meir, who says that one does not say vain words. The Neder took effect for one moment;

åëé àîø îâøåâøåú äåä ìéä ëáà ìàéúùåìé åá"ù ñ"ì (äâäú àåøç îéùåø) ãàéï ùàìä ìä÷ãù.

i.

When he said "from dried figs", it is as if he comes to permit through She'elah, and Beis Shamai hold that there is no She'elah regarding Hekdesh.

6)

TOSFOS DH u'Beis Hillel k'R. Shimon d'Poter...

úåñôåú ã"ä åáéú äìì ëøáé ùîòåï ãôåèø...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains what forced us to say so.)

ì÷îï îééúé ôìåâúà äøé òìé îðçä îï äùòåøéï éáéà îï äçéèéï åø"ù (îëàï îòîåã á) ôåèø

(a)

Reference: Below we bring the argument [about one who said] "it is Alai to bring a Minchah from barley." He brings from wheat, and R. Shimon exempts.

9b----------------------------------------9b

åà"ú ìîä äåöøê ìåîø á"ä ëø"ù ìéîà á"ä ìèòîééäå ãàîøé éù ùàìä ìä÷ãù

(b)

Question: Why do we need to say that Beis Hillel hold like R. Shimon? We should say that Beis Hillel hold like they hold elsewhere, that there is She'elah regarding Hekdesh!

åé"ì îùåí ãàëúé ìá"ä ðäé ãðæéø îééï ìà äåé ðãåø îéäà ìéäåé îï äâøåâøåú

(c)

Answer: Still, according to Beis Hillel, granted, he is not a Nazir from wine. However, he should be a Nazir (separated) from dried figs!

ìäëé ÷àîø ëø"ù ãôåèø ìâîøé ùìà äúðãá ëãøê äîúðãáéí

1.

Therefore, we say that [they hold like] R. Shimon, who totally exempts, because he did not volunteer the way people volunteer;

ùàí áà ìäéåú ðãåø îï äâøåâøåú äì"ì áìùåï ÷åðí ëãøê äðåãøéí.

i.

If he wanted to be a Nazir from dried figs, he should have used an expression of Konam, like the way people vow.

7)

TOSFOS DH Beis Shamai Savrei k'R. Meir

úåñôåú ã"ä á"ù ñáøé ëø"î

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the first version of R. Noson.)

ãàîø àéï àãí îåöéà ãáøéå ìáèìä ìäëé äåé [ðæéø åëøáé éäåãä] ãîúðé' ãàîø ðãåø äåé

(a)

Explanation: [They hold like R. Meir,] who said that a person does not say vain words. Therefore, he is a Nazir. They [also] hold like R. Yehudah in our Mishnah, who says that he is forbidden [to eat dried figs] through a vow;

åá"ä ñáøé ëø' éäåãä ãîúðé' ãðãåø îéäà äåé åãìà ëø"ù ãôèø ìâîøé.

1.

Beis Hillel hold like R. Yehudah in our Mishnah, who says that he is forbidden through a vow, and unlike R. Shimon, who totally exempts.

8)

TOSFOS DH Beis Shamai k'R. Yehudah

úåñôåú ã"ä á"ù ëø' éäåãä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the second version of R. Noson.)

åðãåø îéäà äåé åá"ä ëø"ù åàôéìå ðãåø ìà äåé.

(a)

Explanation: [They hold like R. Yehudah], that he is forbidden through a vow. Beis Hillel hold like R. Shimon, who totally exempts.

9)

TOSFOS DH Yavi Min ha'Chitin

úåñôåú ã"ä éáéà îï äçéèéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why he cannot bring from barley.)

ùàéï îðçä áàä ùòåøéï àìà ãòåîø (äâäú àåøç îéùåø) åîðçú ÷ðàåú.

(a)

Explanation: The only Menachos that come from barley are the Omer and Minchas Kena'os (of a Sotah. Here we discuss a voluntary Minchah!)

10)

TOSFOS DH Yavi Isaron Shalem

úåñôåú ã"ä éáéà òùøåï ùìí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that there is one reason for all of these laws.)

ùàéï îðçä ôçåúä îòùøåï åäåé èòîà ãëåìäå.

(a)

Explanation: No Minchah comes less than an Isaron. This is the reason for all of them (he must bring like the Torah specifies Minchas Nedavah).

11)

TOSFOS DH Lav Amrei Beis Shamai Min ha'Gerogeros u'Min ha'Deveilah Havi Nazir

úåñôåú ã"ä ìàå àîøé á"ù îï äâøåâøåú åîï äãáéìä äåé ðæéø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that he is obligated because one does not say vain words.)

àò"â ãâøåâøåú ìà ùééëé ìðæéøåú ëìì

(a)

Implied question: Dried figs do not apply to Nezirus at all!

îèòîà ãôøéùéú ìòéì îùåí ãàéï àãí îåöéà ãáøéå ìáèìä

(b)

Answer: [He is a Nazir] due to the reason I explained above (9a DH Hareini, because one does not say vain words);

ä"ð îï äùòåøéï àò"â ãìà ùééëé ùòåøéï ìîðçä éáéà çéèéï ãàéï àãí îåöéà ãáøéå ìáèìä.

1.

Also here, when he said "from barley", even though barley does not apply to a [voluntary] Minchah, he brings from wheat, because one does not say vain words.

12)

TOSFOS DH b'Omer Ilu Hayisi Yode'a v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä áàåîø àéìå äééúé éåãò ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that he actually said this.)

ááé"ú âøñé' áàåîø ëìå' áàåîø áôéøåù àéìå äééúé éåãò ùàéï ðåãøéí ùòåøéï ëå'

(a)

The text: The text says [b'Omer,] with a Beis, i.e. he explicitly said "had I known that one may not vow [a Minchah of] barley..."

àáì èòéúé ìåîø ãðåãøéï ùòåøéï ëîðçú òåîø (äâäú àåøç îéùåø) å÷ðàåú åìåìé æä äééúé ðåãø çèéí ìäëé îééúé çèéï

1.

"However, I erred to think that we may volunteer barley, like the Omer and Minchas Kena'os. If not for this, I would have vowed wheat." Therefore, he brings wheat.

åëï á÷îç èòä áîðçú ÷ðàåú åáùîï åáìáåðä

2.

The same applies to [regular] flour. He erred about [thinking that we may volunteer regular flour, just like] Minchas Kena'os, and also regarding oil and frankincense;

åëï áçöé òùøåï ìà éãò ùöøéê ìäáéà òùøåï ùìí.

3.

Similarly regarding half an Isaron, he did not know that one must bring a full Isaron.

13)

TOSFOS DH Lo Shanu Ela Min ha'Se'orim

úåñôåú ã"ä ìà ùðå àìà îï äùòåøéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is because one could err about this.)

ãîöé ìîéúìé áèòåú ëéåï ãàéëà àåçøé ãäåééï îùòåøéí

(a)

Explanation: This we can attribute to error, since there is another Minchah of barley;

àáì îï òãùéí ìà îééúé ëìåí ãìéëà ìîéúìé áèòåúà ãìéëà ùì [òãùéí].

1.

However, if he vowed from lentils, he does not bring anything, for we cannot attribute this to error, since there is no Minchah of lentils.

14)

TOSFOS DH Michdi Chizkiyah k'Man Muki Lah Masnisin

úåñôåú ã"ä îëãé çæ÷éä ëîàï îå÷é ìä îúðé'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the question.)

ãîðçåú ëá"ù ëå' åàåîøéí á"ù ãäåé ðæéø îèòí ãàîøé' àéï àãí îåöéà ãáøéå ìáèìä

(a)

Explanation: (Like whom does he establish the Mishnah of Menachos?) Like Beis Shamai. Beis Shamai say that he is a Nazir due to the reason we said, that one does not say vain words;

à"ë àôé' òãùéí ðééúå çéèéï.

1.

If so, even if he said lentils, he should bring [a Minchah of] wheat!

15)

TOSFOS DH Hadar Bei Chizkiyah meha'Hi

úåñôåú ã"ä äãø áéä çæ÷éä îääéà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that he retracted from how he established the Mishnah.)

ôé' îîàé ãàå÷é ìä îúðé' ãîðçåú ëá"ù åîå÷é ìä ëøáé éåçðï åáàåîø.

(a)

Explanation: He retracted from establishing the Mishnah of Menachos like Beis Shamai, and he establishes it like R. Yochanan, when he says ["had I known..."]

16)

TOSFOS DH Masnisin Kashisei v'Chulei Lisni Min ha'Adashim

úåñôåú ã"ä îúðéúéï ÷ùéúéä ëå' ìéúðé îï äòãùéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it should have taught from lentils.)

ëìåîø àé îúðéúéï ëáéú ùîàé åîèòí ãàéï àãí îåöéà ãáøéå ìáèìä ìéúðé òãùéí ãäåé øáåúà èôé.

(a)

Explanation: If our Mishnah is like Beis Shamai, and the reason is because one does not say vain words, it should teach lentils, which is a bigger Chidush.

17)

TOSFOS DH Hasam Mishum Ta'usa Hu uv'Omer Ilu Hayisi Yode'a

úåñôåú ã"ä äúí îùåí èòåúà äåà åáàåîø àéìå äééúé éåãò

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why he errs only about barley.)

äìëê ëé àîø ùòåøéí àéëà ìîéîø ãèòä ãéù îðçä áàä ùòåøéí àáì áòãùéí ìéëà ìîéèòé ãàéï îðçä áàä îäí ëìì

(a)

Explanation: Therefore, when he said barley, we can say that he erred, for there is a Minchah that comes from barley. However, [when he said] lentils, one cannot err about this, for there is no Minchah from them at all.

åìà âøñ äëà áñôø ÷ñáø çæ÷éä áéú ùîàé ëø' éäåãä åáîðçåú ô' äîðçåú åäðñëéí (ãó ÷â.) ìà âøñéðï ìéä

1.

The text here does not say "Chizkiyah holds that Beis Shamai hold like R. Yehudah", and [also] in Menachos (103a) the text does not say so;

åäúí âøéñ àìà ù"î îùåí ãäåà áùòåøéí èòé áòãùéí ìà èòé (äâäú áøëú øàù)

2.

There, the text says "this teaches that because it is barley, he erred. Lentils, one does not err [about them]."

18)

TOSFOS DH Hasam (part 2)

úåñôåú ã"ä äúí (çì÷ á)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why he errs only about barley.)

ãàéëà ìîéîø îéäãø äåà ã÷îéäãø áéä ããéáåø äàçøåï ñåúø äøàùåï

(a)

Explanation: We can say that he retracted, for the latter utterance contradicts the first;

ãëùàîø îðçä îùîò îðçä ëùøä îñåìú åëé äãø àîø îòãùéí äãø îãéáåø øàùåï åúôåñ ìùåï øàùåï.

1.

When he said "Minchah", this connotes a Kosher Minchah of fine [wheat] flour. When he later said lentils, he retracted from his initial words. We follow his initial words.

19)

TOSFOS DH Ela Ki ka'Amar Min ha'Se'orin

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà ëé ÷àîø îï äùòåøéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Havah Amina that he came to explain his vow.)

ä"÷ ìà áà ìñúåø ãáøéå øàùåðéí ãàîø äøé òìé îðçä [àìà] ìôøù åìåîø îä (äâäú áøëú øàù) ùàîø îï äùòåøéï

(a)

Explanation: He does not come to contradict his initial words, that he said "Harei Alai Minchah", rather to explain, and say that what he said was [a Minchah] from barley;

àí àôùø (äâää áâìéåï) ìé÷ãåù ëîðçú äòåîø åëîðçú (äâää áâìéåï) ñåèä úé÷ãåù åàé ìà àôùø ìä ìé÷ãåù áîðçä ìà éúçééá áîðçä àçøú

1.

If it is possible to get Kedushah, like Minchas ha'Omer and like Minchas Sotah, it should be Kadosh. If it cannot be Kadosh, he should not be obligated another Minchah.

÷îùîò ìï ãîééúé çéèéï åìòåìí ëáéú ùîàé åîùåí ãàéï àãí îåöéà ãáøéå ìáèìä.

2.

The Mishnah teaches that this is not so. He brings wheat. Really, it is like Beis Shamai, and because one does not say vain words.