Explanation: The case is, a cow was crouching in front of him. It connotes that it was crouching, since it taught "if I will stand."

Explanation #1: According to Rami bar Chama's answer, we can explain our Mishnah as follows. "Amar", i.e. a person who saw the cow crouching [said] "this cow said", i.e. this cow thinks in its heart...

Because it is crouched so much, [it thinks that] it cannot stand by itself.

Clarification: [He does] not [mean] that the cow itself thinks so, for it has no understanding to reason and think. Rather, people who pass by and see it crouched so much, they think in their hearts to say so;

Because one who sees the cow thinks so in his heart about the cow, therefore he attributes the thought to the cow itself.

This is like "the boat thought to be broken." The boat did not think so, rather, a person who sees the boat thinks that it will break. The verse attributes the thought to the boat;

Also here, he attributes the thought to the cow.

Explanation #1 (cont.): "Hareini [I am] a Nezirah if it stands." "Hareini" refers to the person who accepts Nezirus on himself;

The reason he said Hareini Nezirah [with a] Mapik Hei (the Hei at the end has a dot in it to show feminine possessive, i.e.) I am a Nazir (I will refrain) from its meat if it stands.

Rami bar Chama adds to the text of the Mishnah "if it stands by itself." "By itself" is not from the text of the Mishnah.

With difficulty, we must explain that "Ani (I)" refers to the person accepting Nezirus. He says "if it stands by itself, I am a Nazir from its meat.

Implied question: He already said "Hareini Nezirah"! (It is clear from "Hareini" that he refers to himself. There is no need to say "Ani".)

Answer: This is a superfluous word, i.e. another reference to the person accepting Nezirus.

Explanation #2 (R. Peretz): The simple reading of our Mishnah connotes that the cow itself said "I am a Nezirah if I will stand."

If so, the word "Ani" would fit well. Therefore, it says "Ani" in the Mishnah.

However, according to Rami bar Chama's answer, there was no need to teach "Ani", for he already said "Hareini Nezirah." "Ani" is superfluous. Rather, the Mishnah was taught as if the cow speaks;

Just like the wording of the Mishnah applies to the cow, we can explain similarly regarding the door.

Explanation #3 (R. Yosef, Ish Yerushalayim): The Mishnah means as follows. "Amar", i.e. the person said when he saw the cow crouching "it seems to me that this cow said 'I am a Nezirah if I will stand'";

It craves to stand, but it cannot. It would willingly vow Nezirus if it will stand. I will complete its words. I am a Nazir from its meat if it will stand.

Our entire Mishnah is the cow's words. The Gemara adds the words that the person said.

Question: If the person explicitly said "I am a Nazir from its meat if it will stand", there was no need to teach what the cow said. Its words do not help at all!

Explanation #4: The person does not say anything, just he says the cow's words. Nezirus does not apply to it, just it is separated for Isur, that he will not benefit from its meat;

Therefore, when a person says so in front of us, he intends to accept on himself that he will be a Nazir from its meat.

Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue as if the person explicitly said "I am a Nazir from its meat if it will stand."

Question: What was the question "Beis Shamai already taught this!"? We need to teach this even though he did not mention Nezirus at all [regarding himself]!

Citation of Gemara: Beis Shamai are consistent with what they taught [elsewhere].

Explanation: Just like [they taught that] dried figs do not apply to Nezirus, and even so he is a Nazir (9a), also here, meat does not apply to a Nazir.

Explanation: [They taught this] in two and three places, regarding dried figs, a cow and a door. All of these are needed, like the Gemara proceeds to explain;

If only dried figs were taught, [one might have thought that] this is because they can be confused with grapes, for both of them are fruits. Perhaps he intended to say grapes, and "dried figs" came out of his mouth;

Meat and wine are the primary part of a meal. The way people talk, they are confused with each other;

Question: They should argue about meat alone, without the cow standing, and they will hold like they taught elsewhere!

Answer: Indeed, [they could]. However, in passing [the Tana] teaches that he intends that it stand, i.e. by itself;

Below (DH Mi, 10b DH v'Amar) I will explain that this is included in the Gemara's question against Rami bar Chama's answer.

Explanation: It taught "if it stands." Surely, if the Mishnah explicitly said "by itself", I would agree to your (Rami bar Chama's) words;

However, since it does not say "by itself", this shows that we cannot explain like your [Perush], for if like yours, it should teach "I am a Nazir from its meat", and not attribute Nezirus to standing!

Therefore, [Rava] challenged him for adding the word "by itself" to the Mishnah.

Implied question: It is also difficult that Rami bar Chama added "and it stood by itself"!'

Answer: [This is not difficult, for] he need not add this to the text of the Mishnah. However, the fact that he attributes his vow [to standing], the Tana must teach this;

What the cow did afterwards he need not teach. Rather, orally he says how the episode happened afterwards;

Surely, he attributed his vow to the cow standing by itself. He is not a Nazir if it did not stand by itself. Therefore, he needed to explain that it stood.

Suggestion: Perhaps [the Noder] means [whether it stands] by itself, or through others!

Rejection: It is not normal for people to attribute to a matter that he knows that it will happen. If he wants to be a Nazir, why does he attribute it to anything?

Question: What was difficult "the Mishnah does not say 'by itself'"? Many Mishnayos, we say that they are abbreviated, and we add words to them!

Answer: That is when it is clearly deficient. Then, we may add to the text of the Mishnah;

However, according to Rami bar Chama's Perush, it is not clear that the Mishnah lacks "by itself", since he does not attribute the Tana'im's argument at all to the cow standing;

Rather, the entire argument is about one who vows from meat, whether or not Nezirus totally takes effect on him. Therefore, we ask "does it say 'by itself'"? We should not add to the text of the Mishnah, since it is not clear from the argument of the Tana'im that anything is missing.

Explanation: [He says that] the cow [will be a Korban]. "If it stands" means if it will not stand, like we conclude below, just [the Makshan] did not let [Rava] finish before he challenged him.

Explanation: "If it will not stand" means "if I will not stand it up." He did not stand it up, so he must bring a Korban;

Beis Hillel hold that [he means] "if it will not stand up at all", for it was crouching, and it stood, so he need not bring a Korban.

Question: The text of our Mishnah says "Hareini Nezirah." How does this connote a Korban?

Answer: He means "I will bring it for Korban Nazir if it will not stand."

Implied question: Korbanos Nazir do not come from large (i.e. work) animals (i.e. cattle)!

Answer: This refers to obligatory [Korbanos] of Nazir, but people normally brought Nedarim and Nedavos with Korbanos Nazir, and those may come from cattle or Tzon (sheep and goats), according to his vow or Nedavah (designation of an animal to be a Korban).

Explanation: Our Mishnah, which teaches "Hareini Nezirah", i.e. "I am a Nazir from wine for its sake."

Citation of Gemara: It stood by itself.

Explanation: [Rava] adds to the text of our Mishnah only the word "not". The text of the Mishnah says "if it will stand", and he added the word "not";

However, by himself [Rava] says that so it occurred, that it stood by itself. (He does not say that this is in the text of the Mishnah.)

Explanation: "Torfei" is the revelation of his intent. I.e. Beis Shamai hold that when a person says such an expression, he intends to say so [as follows]:

Everyone thinks that the cow is crouching so firmly that no one can stand it up. I am a Nazir...

I.e. even though I do not want to be a Nazir, for it is a burden to me, I am a Nazir if it does not stand;

Explanation: [I am a Nazir] if I do not have the strength to force it to stand up. "If it will not stand" connotes to Beis Shamai "if he will not stand it up."

In the end, it occurred that he did not toil or exert to stand it up, and it stood up by itself. Beis Shamai hold that he meant "if I will not stand it up", and he did not stand it up. Therefore, Nezirus takes effect,

Beis Hillel hold that [he meant] "if it will not stand up", because it was crouching firmly. I.e. I will be a Nazir if it does not stand, and it stood. Therefore, Nezirus does not take effect on him.

Question: Also now, we may ask "the Mishnah does not say 'if it will not stand up'!"

Answer: There are several Mishnayos with mistakes, and we answer that they are missing words;

Rava establishes the Tana'im's argument about standing up the cow. It is impossible to establish the Tana'im's argument about standing up the cow without adding the word "not" to the text of the Mishnah;

It is proven that "not" is missing here, for he cannot establish the argument in another way.

Distinction: However, according to Rami bar Chama, the Tana'im's argument does not depend at all on standing it up, rather, on vowing from meat, whether or not Nezirus takes effect on him;

According to him, surely it is difficult that the Mishnah does not say "by itself'", for it is not proven from the Tana'im's argument that "by itself" is missing. Therefore, he cannot add to the text of the Mishnah.

Question: He should explicitly ask, why does [the Mishnah discuss] a crouching cow and this stipulation if it will stand by itself?

They should explicitly argue about one who vows from meat, whether or not Nezirus takes effect on him. Beis Shamai hold like their opinion, and Beis Hillel hold like their opinion!

Answer: Indeed, this is the question "the Mishnah does not say 'by itself'!" This question itself was not difficult to him;

It was only to lead to the next attack, and say that since the Tana'im do not argue at all about standing up the cow, you cannot add "by itself" to the text of the Mishnah.

Since the Tana'im do not argue about standing up the cow, if so this is more difficult for you. Why did the Tana mention at all standing up the cow? They should argue about one who vows from meat, and each school will follow their opinion!

He mentioned the question from "'by itself'" only to arouse that the argument of the Tana'im does not depend at all on standing up the cow;

Now, there is a stronger question against you. They should explicitly argue about meat, and each will follow their opinion!

Explanation: Why does R. Yehudah argue with the first Tana, [to say that Beis Shamai hold] that the cow is like a regular Korban?

He was not Matfis in an expression of Konam, to say "this cow is Konam or Korban", rather, he accepted Nezirus from wine if it will not stand!

Citation of Gemara: The text should say 'rather, the case is, he said "I am a Nazir from its meat if it will not stand", and it stood by itself...'

Now, they argue about his expression, like I explained above. They argue also about one who vowed from meat, whether he is a Nazir for everything.

Question: Now, since Rava establishes the Tana'im's argument about standing up the cow, why must he alter the text and add the word "not" to the text of the Mishnah?

He could explain without altering the text, e.g. he said "I am a Nazir from its meat if it will stand", and he stood it up. To Beis Shamai, "if it will stand" connotes that he will force it to stand up;

And so it happened. He toiled and exerted to force it to stand up. Therefore, he is a Nazir from its meat. Since Nezirus takes effect on its meat, it takes effect also on everything. This is like Beis Shamai hold elsewhere;

Beis Hillel hold that "if it will stand" connotes by itself. He stood it up, and it did not stand by itself. Nezirus does not take effect even on its meat.

Answer #1: If so, surely Beis Hillel would not argue to say that he is not a Nazir, since he said that he will be a Nazir if it stands, which connotes any way it will stand, whether by itself or through others, he is a Nazir.

Answer #2: It is not normal for people who vow to say like this, according to Beis Shamai, that he attributed his Nezirus "if it will stand", i.e. he will toil to stand it up b'Al Korcho (against its will), so that Nezirus will take effect on him;

Since he wants to be a Nazir, he should explicitly say "I am a Nazir"! Why did he attribute his vow to standing up the cow?

Distinction: However, it is normal to vow "I will be a Nazir if it does not stand", i.e. if I will not stand it up;

I.e. even though I do not want to be a Nazir, I accept on myself Nezirus if I will not have strength to stand it up. If I have strength to stand it up, I will not be a Nazir, for I do not desire Nezirus.

This is why [Rava] adds to the text of the Mishnah "not", to explain the expression that it is normal to vow.

Question: Why did the Gemara make a Tzerichusa above from two and three cases (show why they needed to argue in all of these)? Here they argue about a new argument, if it does not stand by itself!

Answer #1: Some say that all the answers the Gemara gave in the name of Rava he never answered. He does not hold that there are two and three cases. (This is a new argument.)

Rava gave only the last answer, [I am a Nazir] from its meat if it will not stand. Rava did not give the first answers. Rather, because he challenged Rami bar Chama, his name is mentioned in the Gemara.

Support #1: We find like this in Yevamos (35b. R. Yochanan is Machshir Chalitzah when a Yevamah is pregnant, and Reish Lakish disqualifies. The Gemara said that they argue similarly about Yibum. R. Yochanan) challenged [Reish Lakish] from a case of Yibum, and [really, R. Yochanan] does not argue with him about Yibum! (We must say that really, the Gemara itself asked the question);

[There, Abaye] said afterwards that all agree about Yibum [that it is Pasul].

Support #2: Similarly, below (16b, Reish Lakish says that accepting Nezirus in a cemetery has no effect. R. Yochanan challenged him, and below Mar bar Rav Ashi said that all agree that it takes effect. We must say that the Gemara asked the question.)

Note: One could dispel Support #2 and say that R. Yochanan himself asked, based on his mistaken understanding of Reish Lakish's opinion.

Question: In the version that Beis Shamai hold that his intent was [to stand it up by force], we do not learn this from the argument about dried figs!

Answer: You are forced to say that they argue also about one who vowed from meat. If not, they should argue about explicit [Nezirus from] wine dependent on standing up the cow!

From R. Yehudah it is proven that they do not argue about one who vowed from wine. R. Yehudah would not argue about this!

Rather, you are forced to say that they argue about one who vowed from its meat, and they hold like their opinions elsewhere. Regarding this we gave a Tzerichusa above;

In any case, they argue also about the cow standing. If not, they should argue only about [Nezirus from] meat. Why did [the Tana] mention in the Mishnah if the cow stands?

Conclusion: You are forced to say that they argue also about the cow standing.

Question: What forced [Rava] to say that Beis Hillel hold that hold that his intent was [that it stand], and Beis Hillel speak according to Beis Shamai' reason?

He should say that Beis Hillel hold that he is not a Nazir through his acceptance of Nezirus from the meat!

Answer: You are forced to say that Beis Hillel come to argue also about the cow standing. If they argued [only] about one who vowed from the meat, and they hold like their opinions elsewhere, they should argue only about meat!

Suggestion: Perhaps the Mishnah teaches about the cow standing to teach the reason of Beis Shamai, that he is a Nazir from the meat when he made his vow dependent on the cow standing.

Rejection: Does he come to teach only the reason for Beis Shamai?!

Conclusion: You are forced to say that he comes to teach the reason for Beis Hillel when he made his vow dependent on the cow standing. His vow does not take effect even on the meat.

Question: In the end, what difference does it make according to Beis Hillel? Even if his vow would take effect, when he vowed from the meat, matters of Nezirus do not take effect at all, like it connotes that they hold regarding dried figs!

Answer: It makes a difference when he explicitly vowed from wine, and made his vow dependent on the cow standing. Nezirus does not take effect on him;

This is because Beis Hillel understand that [he vowed because he was upset] that it is crouching, and [now] it stood.