1)

TOSFOS DH Amru Beis Shamai... (cont.)

úåñôåú ã"ä àîøå á"ù... (äîùê)

åäà ãùìùúï î÷åãùéï äééðå èòîà ëããøùé' áô' áúøà ãáëåøåú (ãó ñ:) îåëì îòùø á÷ø åöàï ëì ùäåà òùéøé àå ù÷øà ùí òùéøé

(a)

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.

àáì ùîéðé àå é"á ìà ãàéï äîòùø î÷ãù àìà äñîåê ìå

(b)

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.

åîéäå àéï æä èòí äòé÷ø ùì á"ù ùäøé ãçåéä øàéä æå

(c)

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

àìà èòîà ãá"ù ëãîôøù áâîøà ãéù ìåîø ãéìôéðï îúîåøä.

1.

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

2)

TOSFOS DH Mi sheNadar b'Nazir v'Halach Lehavi Behemto

úåñôåú ã"ä îé ùðãø áðæéø åäìê ìäáéà áäîúå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we are not Pose'ach with Nolad.)

ôéøåù ì÷øáðåúéå åîöà ùðâðáä áäîúå åáà ìçëí ìùàåì òì ðæéøåúå òì éãé çøèä æå

(a)

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;

ùàîø àéìå äééúé éåãò ùáäîä òúéãä ìéâðá ìà äééúé ðåãø ùàéï ìé áîä ì÷ðåú ÷øáðåú àçøéí

1.

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

àí òã ùìà ðâðáä äáäîä ðãø áðæéø àó òì ôé ùìñåó ðâðáä ìà éúéøðå äçëí ò"é çøèä æå ìåîø ìå àéìå äééú éåãò ùñåó áäîúê ìéâðá îé äééú ðåãø

2.

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?"

ùæäå ðåìã ùðâðáä àçø ÷áìú äðãø åúðï áðãøéí (ãó ñã.) àéï ôåúçéï áðåìã (äâäú ø' áöìàì àùëðæé)

3.

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.)

åëï ääåà ãçåøáï áäî"÷ áñîåê ãäåé ðåìã

4.

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

åàí úàîø åäà îãçùáéðï áëì ãåëúé ôúç ëé àîø ìéä àãòú îä ùðãø åàîàé åäà ðåìã äåà ùäøé ìà äéä áùòú ðãø àåúå ôúç ëîå âáé ðâðáä

(b)

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!

åéù ìåîø áòðéðéí ùøâéìéï ìáà àç"ë ùôéø îñé÷ ìéä àãòúéä áùòú äðãø åëé ðãø ãòúå äéä ùàí éáà òìéå àçã îàìå äãáøéí ùéúáèì ðãøå

(c)

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;

åëãàîøéðï áðãøéí (ãó ëâ.) øâéìéï àôé÷åøñéí ìöòø øáðï

1.

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."

àáì áðâðáä åëï çåøáï ðåìã ãìà ùëéç åìà àéáòé ìàñå÷é àãòúéä áùòú ðãøå ôï éçøá äáéú

(d)

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;

åìëê âîø åðãø áìáå áëì òðéï ùéäéä ðæéø åàôéìå úâðá áäîúå ìôé ùñáåø áìáå ùìà úâðá åìëê àéï ôåúçéï ìå áðåìã æä.

1.

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.

32b----------------------------------------32b

3)

TOSFOS DH v'Zeh Ta'us Ta'ah Nachum ha'Madi...

úåñôåú ã"ä åæå èòåú èòä ðçåí äîãé...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses his mistake.)

ùäéä ñáåø ùôåúçéï áðåìã åàôéìå ìà ùëéç

(a)

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

ëùòìå ðæéøéí îï äâåìä ìäáéà ÷øáðåúéäï åîöàå äî÷ãù çøá àîø ìäí ðçåí àéìå äééúí éåãòéï ùáéú äî÷ãù òúéã ìéçøá ëìåí äééúí ðåãøéí ëå'

1.

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...?"

åæäå ðåìã ãìà ùëéç ùáùòú äðãø òãééï äéä ÷ééí åäúéøï ðçåí åèòä [ùôúç] ìäí áðåìã ëæä ãìà ùëéç

2.

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.

[åëùáà] äãáø àöì çëîéí [àîøå] ëì ùðãø òã ùìà çøá äáéú äåé ðãø ëìåîø àéï îúéøéï ìå áçøèä æå ãäåé ðåìã

3.

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;

àáì ðæø îùçøá áäî"÷ åäí ìà éãòå ùçøá åðãøå àéðå ðæéø ãðæéøåú áèòåú äåä

4.

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

ùàìîìé éãòå ùëáø çøá ìà äéå ðåãøéí åìà çì îòé÷øà ðãø æä.

i.

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

4)

TOSFOS DH Shishah she'Hayu Mehalchin b'Derech

úåñôåú ã"ä ùùä ùäéå îäìëéï áãøê

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the intents of the Noderim.)

åà' áà ëðâãï åàéï éåãòéï îé äåà åàîø àçã îï äùùä äøéðé ðæéø ùæä äáà ëðâãðå àéù ôìåðé äåà

(a)

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";

ëìåîø ùàëéøäå îøçå÷ ùäåà øàåáï åðãø áðæéø àí ëãáøéå äåà

1.

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

åäá' àåîø äøéðé ðæéø ùàéðå äåà ìôé ùðøàä ìå ùàéðå øàåáï åðåãø áðæéø àí ëãáøéå ùàéðå äåà ëàùø ðøàä áòéðéå

2.

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.

åäâ' àåîø ìùðéí äøàùåðéí äøéðé ðæéø ùà' îëí ðæéø ùñáåø àðé ùà' îëí ðæéø åìà äùðé ãäééðå àåúå ùéîöà ëãáøéå

3.

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].

åäã' àåîø äøéðé ðæéø ùàéï à' îëí ðæéø ôéøåù ùñáåø àðé ùà' îùðéëí àéðå ðæéø ãäééðå àåúå ùìà éîöà ëãáøéå àìà äàçã ùéîöà ëãáøéå äåà øàåé ìäéåú ðæéø

4.

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;

åäééðå ëãáøé ùìéùé ùñáø ùàçã îäí ðæéø åàçã îäí àéðå ðæéø àìà ùäôëå ãáøéäí

i.

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.)

åäçîéùé àîø ìùðéí äøàùåðéí äøéðé ðæéø ùùðéëí ðæéøéí

5.

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

ëìåîø ìôé ùëì àçã ÷éáì òìéå ðæéøåú ìôé îä ùäåà ãåîä áòéðéå [ùëì] àçã ñáåø ìåîø àîú åìëê ðçú ìðæéøåú åòì ëï àðé ñáåø ùòì ùðéëí çì ðæéøåú

i.

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.

åäùùé àîø äøéðé ðæéø ùëåìëí ðæéøéí ëìåîø ùñáåø àðé ùëåìëí ðæéøéí

6.

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

áù"à ëåìï ðæéøéí åñáøé á"ù ãðæéøåú áèòåú äåé ðæéø îùåí ãëåìï ìðæéøåú ðúëååðå åâîøå áãòúï ìäéåú áëì òðéï

7.

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].

åîä ùàîø ùæä (äâäú ø' áöìàì àùëðæé) àéù ôìåðé ìôé ùäåà ñáåø ëãáøéå

i.

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

åîäê îùðä îåëçà áâîøà ãä÷ãù áèòåú äåé ä÷ãù åëå' ëãàîø áâîøà.

(b)

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

5)

TOSFOS DH v'R. Tarfon Omer Ein Echad Mehen Nazir

úåñôåú ã"ä åøáé èøôåï àåîø àéï àçã îäï ðæéø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why none of them are Nezirim.)

ãìà ðéúðä ðæéøåú àìà ìäôìàä ãâáé ðæéø ëúéá àéù ëé éôìéà ùöøéê ìäôìéà

(a)

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

åìëê ÷áìú ðæéøåú àôé' ìàçã îï äùðéí ùðîöà ëãáøéå àéï [áøåø] ìå áùòú ðãøå ùéäà [ðæéø] òã ùéáà àöìí åéëéøåäå

1.

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;

åëéåï ùìà äéä [áøåø] ìäï áàåúä ùòä ìà âîøå ìäéåú ðæéøéï

i.

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

åäùìéùé ùàåîø àçã îëí ðæéø äøé àéï àçã îäí ðæéø åäøáéòé ðîé ùàåîø àéï àçã îëí ðæéø îùîò ðîé ùàéï àçã îäí ðæéø åçáéøå îéäà äåé ðæéø

2.

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.

åìà äéà (äâäú àåøç îéùåø) ùàéï [áùðéí] äøàùåðéí ùåí ðæéø ùäøé ìà ðéúðä ðæéøåú àìà ìäôìàä

i.

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

àáì (äâää áâìéåï) àé äåé àîø äøáéòé ìùðéí äøàùåðéí äøéðé ðæéø ùàéï ùåí àçã îëí ðæéø äøáéòé éäéä ðæéø

(b)

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;

ùùðéí äøàùåðéí àéðí ðæéøéí ìøáé èøôåï åùôéø äåä çùåá äôìàä

1.

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.

åîäàé èòîà ðéçà àîàé ìà úðà úå ùàéï ùðéäí ðæéøéï ùàéï ëåìëí ðæéøéí

(c)

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";

ãàé àîø äëé äéä åãàé ðæéø ìøáé èøôåï ìôé ùäàîú äåà ùàéï ùðéäí åìà ëåìí ðæéøéï àôé'(äâäú îäø"á øðùáåøâ) äøáéòé ùàîø ùàéï àçã îäí ðæéø.

1.

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."

6)

TOSFOS DH R. Shimon Omer

úåñôåú ã"ä øáé ùîòåï àåîø...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the argument of R. Yehudah and R. Shimon.)

ø"ù ìèòîéä ãñô÷ ðæéøåú ìäçîéø

(a)

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

åäåé ëì àçã ðæéø îñô÷ åàñåø [áééï åáèåîàä åáúâìçú (äâäú îäø"á øðùáåøâ) åâí àé àôùø ìå ìâìç áùáéì ñô÷ ðæéøåú áìà äáàú ÷øáï

1.

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;

åàéðå éëåì ìäáéà ÷øáï ãùîà ìà ðæéø äåà åîééúé çåìéï áòæøä

2.

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

ìëê äú÷éðå (äâäú áøëú øàù) ùéàîø ëì àçã åàçã àí ëãáøé äøéðé ðæéø çåáä åàí ìàå ðæéø ðãáä îòúä

3.

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";

åî÷áì ðæéøåú åéáéà ÷øáï åéöà éãé çåáä îîä ðôùê åéäéä îåúø (äâäú ø' áöìàì àùëðæé åáøëú øàù) áééï åáúâìçú

4.

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

åäðé úðàé øáé éäåãä åøáé [ùîòåï] ðçì÷å àìéáà ãáéú äìì

(b)

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

øáé éäåãä ñáø àó òì âá ãáéú äìì ñáøé ãîé ùðú÷ééîå ãáøéå äåé ðæéø ëãîôøù åàæéì áâîøà äðé îéìé ëùðåãò ìáñåó ãáøé îé ðú÷ééîå

1.

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;

àáì äëà ùäøúéò (îëàï îãó äáà) ìàçåøéå åìà ðåãò ãáøé îé ðú÷ééîå îñô÷ ìà ðçéú ìðæéøåú

2.

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