Explanation (cont.): The reason why all three are Kadosh is like we expound in Bechoros (60b) from "v'Chol Masar Bakar va'Tzon" - whatever is 10th, or was called 10th.

Distinction: However, the eighth or 12th is not [Kadosh, even if it was called 10th], for Ma'aser (the 10th) is Mekadesh only what is adjacent to it.

Observation: This is not the primary reason of Beis Shamai. This proof is rejected!

Rather, the reason of Beis Shamai is like the Gemara explains. We can say that they learn from Temurah.

Explanation: [He went to bring his animal] for his Korbanos, and found that his animal was stolen, and came to a Chacham to ask to permit his Nezirus due to this regret;

He says "had I known that the animal will be stolen, I would not have vowed, for I lack means to buy other Korbanos."

If he vowed to be a Nazir before the animal was stolen, even though in the end it was stolen, the Chacham does not permit him through this regret, to say to him "had you known that the animal will be stolen, would you have vowed?"

Source: This is Nolad (an unexpected turn of events). It was stolen after he accepted the vow. A Mishnah in Nedarim (64a) says that we are not Pose'ach with Nolad. (This is not a sufficient reason for regret.)

Similarly, the case of Churban Beis ha'Mikdash below, is Nolad.

Question: Everywhere we consider it to be a Pesach "with what intent did you vow?" What is the reason? This is Nolad, for this Pesach was not at the time he vowed, e.g. when it was stolen!

Answer: Regarding matters that normally come afterwards, one properly thinks about them at the time of the vow. When he vowed, he intended that if one of these things comes, his vow will be Batel;

This is like we say in Nedarim (23a. Chachamim could not find a Pesach for R. Yishmael bar R. Yosi's vow. A launderer hit him, for this was paining Chachamim. R. Yishmael permitted his own vow, for he did not vow with intent to be hit. This is not Nolad, for) "Apikorsim commonly pain Chachamim."

Distinction: However, [an animal that was] stolen, and the Churban, are Nolad that is not common. He did not need to think about these at the time of the vow, lest the Mikdash be destroyed;

Therefore, he resolved in his heart to be a Nazir even if his animal was stolen, for he thinks in his heart that it will not be stolen. Therefore, we are not Pose'ach with this Nolad.

Explanation: He thought that we are Pose'ach with Nolad, even if it is not common;

When Nezirim came from Galus to bring their Korbanos, and found the Mikdash destroyed, he said to them "had you known that the Mikdash will be destroyed, would you have vowed...?"

This is Nolad, for it is not common, for at the time of the vow the Mikdash was still intact. Nachum permitted them with a Nolad like this, which is not common.

When Chachamim found out about the matter, they said "anyone who vowed before the Mikdash was destroyed, it is a vow." I.e. we do not permit him through this regret, for it is Nolad;

However, one who vowed after the Mikdash was destroyed, and they did not know that it was destroyed, it is mistaken Nezirus;

Had they known that it was already destroyed, they would not have vowed. The vow did not take effect from the beginning.

Explanation: [Six were walking on the road,] and a man was approaching, and they are unsure who it is. One of the six said "I am a Nazir [if] the man approaching is Ploni";

I.e. "I recognized him from afar that it is Reuven", and he vowed to be a Nazir if his words are correct.

The second one said "I am a Nazir [if] it is not him", for it seems to him that it is not Reuven. He vowed to be a Nazir if his words are correct, that it is not Reuven, like it seems to him.

The third said to the first two "I am a Nazir [if] one of you is a Nazir." I hold that one of you is a Nazir, but not the other, i.e. the one who is correct [is a Nazir].

The fourth said [to the first two] "I am a Nazir [if] one of you is not a Nazir." I.e. I hold that one of you is not a Nazir ", i.e. the one who erred. Rather, the other, who is correct, it is proper that he is a Nazir;

This is like the third said. He holds that one of them is a Nazir, and one is not a Nazir, just they reversed their words. (The third overtly said that one is a Nazir, and we infer that the other is not. The fourth overtly said that one is not a Nazir, and we infer that the other is.)

The fifth said to the first two "I am a Nazir [if] both of you are Nezirim";

I.e. since each of you accepted Nezirus according to what seems in his eyes, that each of you intends to say the truth, and for this he entered Nezirus, therefore I hold that Nezirus takes effect on both of you.

The sixth said "I am a Nazir [if] all of you are Nezirim." I.e. I hold that all of you are Nezirim.

Beis Shamai say, all of them are Nezirim. Beis Shamai hold that mistaken Nezirus is a Nazir, for each of them intended for Nezirus, and resolved to be [a Nazir] in any case [even if he errs].

He said "that (if) this is Ploni", because he thought that it is like his words (it is really Ploni).

Conclusion: From this Mishnah the Gemara proves that mistaken Hekdesh is Hekdesh [according to Beis Shamai], like it says in the Gemara.

Explanation: Nezirus is only through Hafla'ah (a clear acceptance), for regarding Nazir it is written "Ish... Ki Yafli", for it requires Hafla'ah;

Due to this, acceptance of Nezirus, even for the one of the two whose words were found to be correct, is not clear to him at the time he vowed that he is a Nazir, until [the one approaching] comes to them and they recognize him;

Since it was not clear to them at that time, they did not resolve to be Nezirim.

The third said "one of you is a Nazir." This implies that one of you is not a Nazir. Also the fourth said "one of you is not a Nazir", which implies that one of them is not a Nazir", but his colleague is a Nazir.

This is wrong, for there is no Nazir among the first two, since Nezirus requires Hafla'ah.

Distinction: However, if the fourth would have said to the first two "I am a Nazir [if] not any of you is a Nazir", the fourth would be a Nazir;

This is because the first two are not Nezirim according to R. Tarfon. This (if the fourth would say so) is properly considered Hafla'ah.

Support: This explains why he did not teach [about another person, who said "if] both of you are not Nezirim" or "all of you are not Nezirim";

If he said so, surely he is a Nazir according to R. Tarfon, for according to the truth, both, and all, are not Nezirim, even the fourth, who said "if none of you is a Nazir."

Explanation: R. Shimon teaches like he taught elsewhere, that we are stringent about Safek Nezirus;

Each one is a Safek Nazir. Wine, Tum'ah and shaving are forbidden to him. Also, he cannot shave for Safek Nezirus without bringing a Korban;

He cannot bring a Korban, for perhaps he is not a Nazir, and he brings Chulin b'Azarah.

Therefore, [R. Shimon holds that] Chachamim enacted that every one of them says "if I was correct, I am an obligatory Nazir. If not, I am a voluntary Nazir from now";

He accepts Nezirus and brings a Korban, and fulfills his obligation in any case. He will be permitted wine and shaving.

Observation: These Tana'im, i.e. R. Yehudah and R. Shimon, argued according to Beis Hillel;

R. Yehudah holds that even though Beis Hillel hold that his one whose words were fulfilled, he is a Nazir, like the Gemara explains, this is only when he finds out at the end who was correct;

However, here that [the approaching man] went away, and we do not know whose words were fulfilled, amidst Safek he does not enter Nezirus.