R. Shimon holds according to Beis Hillel that amidst Safek, he enters Nezirus, since it is clear that one of them was correct. Therefore, he obligates a Tenai.

Explanation: It is a Safek Chayah, Safek Behemah. One said "I am a Nazir [if] it is a Chayah";

The second said "I am a Nazir [if] it is not a Chayah." His words connote that rather, it is a Behemah.

The third said "I am a Nazir [if] it is a Behemah, and not a Chayah." The fourth said "I am a Nazir [if] it is not a Behemah, rather, a Chayah."

They (the third and fourth) are like the first two, just they reversed their words.

The fifth said "I am a Nazir [if] it is a Chayah and a Behemah." Its law is like a Chayah regarding Kisuy ha'Dam (one who slaughters it must cover its blood), and it is like a Behemah to forbid its Chelev.

The sixth said "I am a Nazir [if] it is not a Chayah and not a Behemah." This connotes that it is a separate creation, and one may not mate it with a Chayah or Behemah.

The seventh said "I am a Nazir [if] one of you is a Nazir." I.e. one of you said correctly.

The eighth said "I am a Nazir [if] not one of you is a Nazir." I.e. there is one of you who did not say correctly.

The ninth said "I am a Nazir [if] all of you are Nezirim." I.e. all of you are Safek Nezirim;

The text does not say "both of you [are Nezirim, and another said... if all of you are Nezirim]", for it is proven from the Gemara that there are only nine regarding a Koy. All of them are Nezirim.

Question: Did the Tana elaborate to teach the opinion of Beis Shamai, and unlike Beis Hillel, who say that one whose words were not fulfilled is not a Nazir?!

Answer: Also according to Beis Hillel, granted, they are not Vadai Nezirim, but they are Safek Nezirim;

The entire [Mishnah] is R. Shimon, according to Beis Hillel, who says regarding the [approaching] man who went away, that Beis Hillel hold that he is a Nazir due to Safek, even though the Safek is not destined to be clarified;

Also here regarding a Koy, even though the Safek is not destined to be clarified, according to R. Shimon, according to Beis Hillel, they are Nezirim due to Safek;

The first six are surely Nezirim due to Safek, for a person enters himself into a Safek;

Even though a Koy is a Safek Chayah, the one who says "this is a Chayah" is a Safek Nazir. The same applies to all of them (the first six), and [also] the last three. They enter themselves into a Safek.

Opinion #1: The last three are Vadai Nezirim. One (the seventh) said "[I am a Nazir if] one of you is a Nazir." He is a Vadai Nazir according to R. Shimon, for the truth is, one of them has Nezirus on him, i.e. the one who said correctly.

Also the second (of the last three, i.e. the eighth), who said "[if] not one of you [is a Nazir]", also he is a Vadai Nazir, for his words connote "there is one of you who is not a Vadai Nazir. This is true, e.g. the one who did not say correctly [is not a Vadai Nazir. We must say that the man refers to the first six, for Tosfos said that the seventh is a Vadai Nazir.]

The third (i.e. the ninth), who said "all of you are Nezirim", for all of them have Safek Nezirus. Also he said correctly. Therefore, the last three are Vadai Nezirim according to R. Shimon. They do not need a Tenai (if "I am not a Nazir, I now accept...")

Opinion #2: Also the last three are only Safek Nezirim, for there is a Safek in their words;

The one (the first of the last three,) who said "one of you is a Nazir", there is a Safek about this. There are two ways to explain his words;

Perhaps he means "there is one of you who has Nezirus." This is true, that one of them is a Vadai Nazir;

Also, it is possible that he means "if there is one of you who knows about himself that he is a Vadai Nazir." None of them knows. Therefore, he is a Nazir due to Safek.

Similarly, the [second] one, who said "not one of you is a Nazir", this [can] connote "if there is one of you who is not a Nazir";

Or, it [can] connote "if there is one of you who knows about himself that he is not a Vadai Nazir." Not one of them knows that he is not a Vadai Nazir.'

Similarly, the third, who said "all of you [are Nezirim]." We can explain his words that all of them are Vadai Nezirim. [If so,] his words have no effect;

Or, we can explain his words that he discusses Safek Nezirus. Therefore, all of them are Safek Nezirim, and they must stipulate.

Question: Why didn't [the Tana] teach further, [another who said] "not all of you are Nezirim"?

Granted, above we could not teach it, due to the argument of R. Tarfon. If so, R. Tarfon could not say "not one of them is a Nazir", like I explained above (32b, Sof DH v'R. Tarfon). However, here he could have taught this!

Explanation: Temurah is called "final Hekdesh." Just like Temurah takes effect even mistakenly, like we expound in Temurah (17a)...

R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says that "Yihyeh" includes Shogeg like Mezid. He refers to the verse "v'Hayah Hu u'Semuraso Yihyeh Kodesh."

R. Yochanan explains there in Temurah that he thought to say "Temurah of an Olah" and he said "Shelamim";

E.g. an Olah and a Shelamim were in front of him, and he wanted to say about a Chulin animal in front of him "this is Temurah of an Olah", and he said "Shelamim";

Or he thought to say "the black animal will be a Temurah", and he said white. Temurah takes effect on the white one.

Explanation (cont.): Now, Beis Shamai learn "just like Temurah [takes effect] mistakenly, also Hekdesh takes effect mistakenly."

Also in our Mishnah, when he said "the black ox that will leave from my house first will be Kodesh", and a white ox left first, the white one is Kodesh;

He means to say "the first ox that will leave from my house will be Kodesh, whether it is black, white or red;"

He said black, because he thought that a black ox will leave first.

Explanation: It is due to the power of Hekdesh that [Temurah] takes effect mistakenly.

Distinction: Hekdesh does not take effect initially mistakenly. We do not learn initial Hekdesh from final Hekdesh.

Explanation (cont.): We challenge Beis Shamai's reason. Would Beis Shamai say that if one said "this is Temurah in place of this at midday", it is Temurah right away?!

Rather, when midday comes, it is Temurah. Also here, from when it is revealed [we should do just like he said]!

Explanation: How do Beis Shamai learn initial Hekdesh from final Hekdesh? They are different!

There, when he intended to say "a black ox will be Hekdesh", and he said white, Temurah takes effect on the white [ox]. We fulfill what he said with his mouth;

However, here, when he said with his mouth "the black ox that will leave from my house will be Kodesh", what is the source to change what he said with his mouth?

Just the contrary! We should say that he intended to be Makdish only black. His mouth and heart are equal!

How can we say that his words connote that he wanted to Makdish the first, even if it is white?

Also regarding Temurah, we cannot change his words. If in the morning one said "this is Temurah in place of this at midday", i.e. when the second half of the day comes, then Hekdesh takes effect through Temurah, is it Temurah from the time he vowed in the morning, for Me'ilah to take effect?

Rather, [it does not take effect] until midday. Then, it is revealed that it is Temurah, for in Temurah itself we cannot change his words;

Also here, it is revealed. I.e. similarly in our Mishnah, we do not change his words. Rather, when the matter is revealed, according to what he said with his mouth, that one is Kodesh;

He said with his mouth "black ox." How can we change his words to offer the white?!

Explanation: Rav Papa holds that Beis Shamai do not learn Hekdesh from Temurah to say that mistaken Hekdesh is Hekdesh, and the white [ox] is Kadosh;

Surely, it is unlike Temurah. In Temurah, we fulfill his words. Here, we contradict his words if we make the white [ox] Kadosh!

Rather, our Mishnah says that it is Kadosh, i.e. the black ox. The reason he said "first", when it leaves first, i.e. even though it did not leave first from the house, rather, the white left first...

Even so, we properly fulfill his words, for he said the black ox that leaves first. The case is, he has many black oxen, like it says below;

Here he wants to say "the black ox that will leave first, before the other black [oxen], will be Hekdesh." The black one is Hekdesh. Now, we do not contradict his words. Rather, we explain that "first" that he said means the first of the black [oxen].

Explanation: Not only if a black ox left the house first, for now his words are totally fulfilled, it is Hekdesh. Rather, even if a white [ox] left first, still we explain his words that the black ox that will leave first of the black will be Hekdesh.

There is no mistaken Hekdesh, for Rav Papa holds that mistaken Hekdesh is not Hekdesh.

The explanation of our Mishnah is unlike we thought initially, that the white ox is Hekdesh, rather, the black ox.

Implied question: Why doesn't it say "Ela (rather), Rav Papa said...", since he retracts from the Gemara's reasoning? ("Ela" always denotes retraction.)

Answer: It is because no Amora was mentioned before him. (Only then the Gemara says "Ela".)

Implied question: It says above (9a) that according to Beis Shamai, there is no She'elah regarding Hekdesh, i.e. because mistaken Hekdesh is Hekdesh!

Answer: This is not according to Rav Papa. Rather, it is according to Abaye below (31b).

Explanation: We challenge Rav Papa from the Mishnah "one who vowed to be a Nazir." This is a Mishnah in our Perek (32a). I will explain it in [my Perush on] the Mishnah.

Citation of Gemara: It goes to graze with the herd.

Reference: I will explain this there.

Explanation: The Seifa of our Mishnah teaches that Beis Hillel said to Beis Shamai "don't you agree that this is mistaken Hekdesh, and it goes to graze with the herd?!"

Explanation: Just like you admit to us about this, admit to us also in this case of a black ox that it is not Hekdesh!

Inference: Beis Hillel heard that Beis Shamai's reason about a black ox is because mistaken Hekdesh is Hekdesh. This is difficult for Rav Papa!

Explanation: We answer that Beis Hillel erred, and thought that Beis Shamai's reason is because mistaken Hekdesh is Hekdesh. Therefore, they asked from this case (the Mishnah 32a).

Question: Beis Shamai answered Beis Hillel from Ma'aser Behemah. They prove that mistaken Hekdesh is Hekdesh!

Answer: Beis Shamai said to Beis Hillel "based on your error, that you thought that our reason is due to mistaken Hekdesh... [even so, it was not a proper challenge]';l"

Support: We find like this in Nidah (3b) "according to your mistake, that you challenged from a box..."

Explanation: This is a Mishnah in our Perek (32b). I already explained it in our Mishnah.

This is mistaken Hekdesh, i.e. mistaken Nezirus, for one of the first [two], it was not found to be like his words, and even so, he is a Nazir;

This is because he thought that it is Ploni, and he erred about him. Nezirus takes effect on him, even mistakenly;

Also here, [Rav Papa] should say that Beis Shamai hold that Hekdesh through a total mistake is Hekdesh in our Mishnah of a black ox, i.e. the white ox is Kadosh.

We should explain his words, that initially he intended for Hekdesh, whether the black or white ox leaves the opening first;

He said black, because he erred. He thought that a black ox will leave first.

Implied question: Regarding Temurah, it is not [Kadosh] until midday, but not earlier!

Answer: This is only regarding Temurah, for he explicitly said one said "this is Temurah in place of this at midday", and we cannot explain the matter another way at all. We cannot contradict his words;

However, here regarding Hekdesh, we can explain the matter explicitly like his words. He does not come to exclude the white [ox], that it should not be Hekdesh [if it leaves first].

Explanation: The animals already left the house to graze in the pasture, and he said "the black ox that already left my house first of all the oxen, be they black or white, should be Hekdesh";

They told him that a white ox left first. He said "had I known that a white ox left [first], I would not have said black, rather, white."

Now, we can say that he intended for whichever left first. Therefore, it is Hekdesh, even the white one, offer we learn from Temurah that it is Hekdesh even mistakenly.

Distinction: Abaye holds that if in the morning he said "the black ox that will leave first", and [later] they told him that a white ox left first, and he said "had I known that a white ox left [first], I would have said "white"...

In this case even Beis Shamai agree that it is not Hekdesh, for he did not know that a black ox will leave first. Why did he mention black, if he intended to be Makdish whatever will leave first?!

[It is so certain that] we can testify that from the beginning, when he said black ox, he intended specifically for a black ox. Even if he thought that a black ox will leave first, he is not a prophet to know the future!

In such a case we do not learn from Temurah.

Implied question: Why is this different than [the Mishnah 32b of] six who were walking on the road [and saw a man approaching, and accepted Nezirus contingent on whether or not he is Ploni, or whether the earlier ones who accepted Nezirus became Nezirim]?

Answer: There, even one whose words were not fulfilled is a Nazir, for he accepted Nezirus on himself in any case;

He said "[I am a Nazir if the man approaching] is Ploni" because he erred when he saw him from afar;

However, here, what can he err about to say that a black ox will leave first?! Therefore, we say that he specifically said a black ox.

Distinction: However, if he said in the afternoon, when the animals already left, we should say that he intended for whatever left first;

He said black, because he heard the ox's footsteps. He is an expert to recognize the footsteps of his oxen.

Support: This is properly like the case of people walking on the road. Also he erred about what he saw, to say that it is Ploni. He intends to be a Nazir even if it is not him.

Similarly here, he intends to be Makdish even if it is not black, rather, white. In such a case, we learn from Temurah;

Beis Hillel hold that even in such a case we do not learn from Temurah; it is not Hekdesh.

Explanation: A black ox among white oxen is a defect. It detracts from them, and they are sold for less because the black ox is with them. White oxen are better than black;

"White among black is a defect" means that a white patch on a black ox is a defect. It is known that in the place of the patch was Tzara'as in the animal.

Support - Citation (Gitin 68a): He tasted whiteness in the meat. They checked in the place, and found a white patch, and knew that there was Tzara'as in the place of the patch.

Inference: The white one is Kadosh, like Abaye answered. We are thinking that a person is Makdish stingily. This is difficult for Rav Chisda;

Since [Rav Chisda holds that] white is better than black, it is known that he did not intend to be Makdish the white, since a person is Makdish stingily.

Suggestion: [This is not difficult. The white is Kadosh, for] we establish that he said "had I known that white left [first], I would have said 'the white should be Kadosh'"!

Rejection: (It is not due to this.) Since white is better, surely he lies!

Conclusion: Rather, surely white is worse than black. When he said "the black will be Hekdesh", all the more so, white, which is worse than it! This is difficult for Rav Chisda!

We answer that a person is Makdish generously. Therefore, when a white ox came out, and he said "had I known...", he is believed, because a person is Makdish generously.

Explanation: Wine is worse than oil. If so (a person is Makdish stingily), we should say that he was Makdish only wine!

Citation of Gemara: This is not difficult. This was taught in Galil.

Explanation: Really, a person is Makdish stingily. Our Mishnah was taught in Galil, where they had much oil, and wine was more expensive than oil. Therefore, when he was Makdish wine, all the more so oil! Really, the Reisha is difficult for Rav Chisda.

[We say that] Rav Chisda can answer "I discuss Karmenai oxen", of the kingdom Karmona.

Observation: Now we can make a Tzerichusa for (reason why we needed) these three clauses:

We need the case of a gold Dinar to teach that a person is Makdish stingily;

We can say that the Reisha comes to teach unlike Rav Chisda. (Rather, white is worse than black.)

We establish the clause about a barrel of wine in Galil. It teaches that the law does not depend on the majority of places. This requires investigation.

Note: Perhaps Tosfos asks that the Mishnah need not teach this. Surely, one is Makdish [stingily or generously] based on the values in his region! Orach Mishur's text says above that the Reisha teaches like Rav Chisda (i.e. that for Stam oxen, white is worse), and here it says "u'Tzerichim Od l'Meimera d'Rav Chisda" (unlike our texts, in which [v'Amar] Rav Chisda begins a new Dibur). I.e. Tosfos proceeds to explain why we need also Rav Chisda's teaching.

Explanation: The value of the white oxen decreases [several] Sela'im due to the black ox among them.

Since the hide of a black ox is worth more than that of a white ox, the Makshan holds that a white ox' meat is not so much better than black ox', that it would override the advantage of a black ox' hide over of a white ox' [hide].

[We answer that] Rav Chisda taught regarding Karmenai oxen that white is better than black in every way;

Rav Chisda's other teaching refers to the rest of the world. Then, surely a black ox is better for its hide. Therefore, also in our Mishnah a black ox is better.

Implied question: A white ox is better for plowing!

Answer: The advantage of the hide [of a black ox] is so great, that it is easier to be Makdish a white ox. When one is Makdish a black ox, a white ox is included.

Explanation: E.g. he vowed Nezirus 100 days, and drank wine 60 days, and came to bring Korbanos, we do not accede to him to bring Korbanos of his Nezirus unless he counts their Isur, i.e. 60 days, like the days he conducted Isur, i.e. drank wine;

R. Yosi says, 30 days suffice.

Explanation (Ri): It suffices to fine him 30 days. If he vowed 100 days, and 60 days passed, we do not fine him to cancel all of them, rather, only 30 days;

Thirty days count towards Nezirus, even though he drank wine in those days.

Assertion: The same applies to a small Nezirus according to R. Yosi. E.g. he vowed 30 days and drank wine in all of them, he cancels everything;

If he drank wine two days, he must count two other days without drinking wine.

Citation of Gemara: The text says "if it is like Rabanan, a long Nezirus is difficult."

Explanation: Even a long Nezirus [is difficult]. Whether [he accepted] a long Nezirus, e.g. 100 days, and he drank 60 days, he cancels everything;

Or whether [he accepted] a small Nezirus, e.g. 30 days, and he drank two days, he must count two other days.

Our Mishnah connotes that he counts from the time he vowed.

Implied question: Perhaps [the Mishnah means that he cancels] some of the days that he vowed, but he does not cancel everything, only 30 days, and the last 30 days count for him, and this is like R. Yosi!

Answer: However, a small Nezirus is difficult. Even according to R. Yosi, he cancels everything. Our Mishnah connotes that it counts towards his count.

Explanation: He counts days of Isur, i.e. 100 days. This is if he drank wine on all of them. The same applies to a small Nezirus.

Support: The words of our Mishnah connote like this. He counts from the time he vowed. He returns to count this amount of days that there were from the time he vowed and transgressed them;

Now he counts another time, from when he came in front of Chachamim, and he conducts Isur of drinking wine.

Distinction: However, surely if before he drank wine he counted some days of Nezirus, he does not cancel those days even according to Rabanan, for [Stirah due to] drinking wine is merely mid'Rabanan.

Explanation: Beis Shamai say that mistaken Hekdesh is Hekdesh. Since the matter is revealed that he did not vow properly, [the animal that he separated for his Nezirus] goes to graze with the herd, like our Mishnah explicitly teaches;

Beis Hillel said to Beis Shamai "don't you agree about this that it is mistaken Hekdesh, and it goes to graze with the herd?" Because he asked Chachamim and they permitted, it was not an acceptance;

Therefore, the Korbanos he separated for his Nezirus are Chulin, like a person who says "this is a Chatas", and he is not obligated a Chatas;

Also here, according to Beis Hillel, even though we say that mistaken Temurah is Temurah, here Beis Hillel agree, for regarding this like we expound "Yihyeh", to include Shogeg like Mezid. (Temurah takes effect, but not if the initial Hekdesh was retroactively nullified through She'elah.)

Implied question: Beis Hillel were not silent. They answered that it is a Gezeras ha'Kasuv!

Answer: Rather, they were silent, i.e. they did not counter an [opposing] reason from the case itself, rather, they brought from the 12th and eighth;

They should have countered that [the ninth and 11th] do not become Kodesh with intent (if he called them '10th', aware that they are not the 10th), like other Kodshim do. If so, surely it is a Gezeras ha'Kasuv! (Rather, we must say that the ninth and 11th become Kodesh even with intent.)

Explanation: They defeated him. He retracted due to their words, and they established him in their opinion, that we are not Pose'ach with Nolad that is not common, like Churban Beis ha'Mikdash;

R. Eliezer was alive at the time of the Churban, like it says in Gitin (56a) "R. Eliezer entered on one side, and R. Yehoshua on one side, to carry the coffin of R. Yochanan ben Zakai in Yerushalayim [to leave the city, just before the Churban];

[R. Eliezer] did not say anything or argue with them (the Chachamim who refuted Nachum), to say that it is proper regret, like a Mishnah teaches, that R. Eliezer says that we are Pose'ach with Nolad!

Inference: He retracted from his opinion. [We know this,] for he did not argue with Chachamim of his generation.

Explanation: [We ask why is he a Nazir?] Beis Hillel hold that mistaken Nezirus is not Nezirus!