1)

TOSFOS DH R. Shimon Omer... (cont.)

úåñôåú ã"ä øáé ùîòåï àåîø... (äîùê)

åø"ù ñáø àìéáà ãá"ä ãîñôé÷à (ìà) ðçéú ìðæéøåú ëéåï ùáøåø ùëãáøé äà' äåà åìëê áòé úðàé.

(a)

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.

2)

TOSFOS DH Ra'ah Es ha'Koy (pertains to Daf 34a)

úåñôåú ã"ä øàä àú äëåé (ùééê ìãó ìã.)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether they are Vadai or Safek Nezirim.)

ùäåà ñô÷ çéä ñô÷ áäîä åàîø äàçã äøéðé ðæéø ùæä çéä

(a)

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

åäùðé àîø äøéðé ðæéø ùàéï æä çéä àìà áäîä îùîò îãáøéå

1.

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

åùìéùé àåîø äøéðé ðæéø ùæä áäîä åìà çéä åäøáéòé àîø äøéðé ðæéø ùàéï æä áäîä àìà çéä

2.

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."

åäåå ëùðéí äøàùåðéí àìà ùäôëå ãáøéäï

i.

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

åäçîéùé àåîø äøéðé ðæéø ùæä çéä åáäîä åãéðå ëçéä ìëñåé åãéðå ëáäîä ìàñåø çìáå

3.

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.

åäùùé àîø äøéðé ðæéø ùàéï æä ìà çéä åìà áäîä ãîùîò áøéä [áô"ò] åàéðå éëåì ìäøáéòå ìà òí çéä åìà òí áäîä

4.

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.

åäùáéòé àîø äøéðé ðæéø ùàçã îëí ðæéø ëìåîø ùëååï ìåîø àîú

5.

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

åäùîéðé àåîø äøéðé ðæéø ùàéï àçã îëí ðæéø ëìåîø ùéù àçã îëí ùìà ëååï ìåîø àîú

6.

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.

åäúùéòé àåîø äøéðé ðæéø ùëåìëí ðæéøéí ëìåîø ùëåìëí ñô÷ ðæéøéí

7.

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

åìà âøñé' ùùðéëí ðæéøéí ãîåëçà áâîøà ãìéëà àìà úùò áëåé äøé ëåìí ðæéøéï

i.

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.

åà"ú àéëôì úðà ìàùîåòéðï ëá"ù åìà ëá"ä ãàîøé ãîé [ùìà ðú÷ééîå] ãáøéå àéðå ðæéø

(b)

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?!

åéù ìåîø ãìá"ä ðîé ðäé ãðæéøåú åãàé ìà äåå ðæéøåú îñô÷ äåå

(c)

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

åëåìä ø' ùîòåï àìéáà ãá"ä îñé÷ ìä ãàîø âáé äøúéò ìàçåøéå ãäåé ðæéø îñô÷ ìá"ä àó òì âá ãàéï ñô÷å òåîã ìäúáøø

1.

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;

äëé ðîé âáé ëåé àó òì âá ãàéï ñôé÷å òåîã ìäúáøø ìø"ù àìéáà ãá"ä äåå ðæéøéï îñô÷

2.

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;

åäùùä äøàùåðéí åãàé ðæéøéï îñô÷ ãîçéú àéðéù ìñôé÷à

3.

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

ãàò"â ãëåé ñô÷ çéä àåúå ùàåîø ùæä (äâäú äøù"ù) çéä äåé ñô÷ ðæéø åëï ëåìï åàéðê úìúà áúøàé îçúé ðôùééäå ìñôé÷à

i.

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.

åéù îôøùéí ãùìùä äàçøåðéí ðæéøéí åãàé ùäàçã ùàîø ùàçã îëí ðæéø äåé ðæéø åãàé ìø"ù ùàîú äåà ùàçã îäï éù òìéå ðæéøåú ãäééðå àåúå ùëååï ìàîú

(d)

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.

åâí äùðé ùàîø ùàéï àçã îëí âí æä ðæéø åãàé ùëï îùîò ãéáåøå éù áëí àçã ùàéðå åãàé ðæéø åäàîú äåà ëâåï àåúå ùìà ëååï (äâäú îäø"á øðùáåøâ) ìàîú

1.

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.]

åäùìéùé ùàåîø ëåìëí ðæéøéï ùòì ëåìëí ñô÷ ðæéøåú âí æä àåîø àîú ìëê (äâäú áøëú øàù) ùìùä äàçøåðéí åãàé ðæéøéí ìø"ù ãàéï öøéëéï úðàé

2.

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...")

åé"î ùâí [ùìùä] äàçøåðéí àéðí ðæéøéí àìà îñô÷ ùäøé éù ìäñúô÷ áãáøéäï

(e)

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

ùàåúå ùàîø ùàçã îëí ðæéø àéëà ìñôå÷é îéìúà ùéù ìôøù ãáøéå áùðé ôðéí

1.

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;

åùîà ø"ì àí éù ìëí àçã îëí ùéù òìéå ðæéøåú åæäå àîú ùàçã îäï åãàé ðæéø

i.

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

åâí éù ìñôå÷é ãùîà ø"ì àí éù àçã îëí ùéåãò áòöîå ùäåà åãàé ðæéø åäøé àéï îäï éåãò îù"ä ðæéø îñô÷

ii.

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.

åëï äàçø ùàåîø ùàéï àçã îëí ðæéø îùîò àí éù (äâäú äøù"ù) àçã îëí ùàéðå ðæéø

2.

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";

åîùîò (äâäú äøù"ù) ùéãò áòöîå ùàéðå åãàé ðæéø åäøé àéï àçã îäí ùéåãò ááøåø ùàéðå åãàé ðæéø

i.

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.'

åëï äùìéùé ùàîø ùëåìëí éù ìôøù ãáøéå ùëåìëí ðæéøéï åãàéï ìà àîø ëìåí

3.

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;

åâí éù ìôøù ãáøéå ùàîø áñô÷ ðæéøåú ìëê ëåìï ðæéøéï îñô÷ åöøéëéï ìäúðåú

i.

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

åö"ò àîàé ìà [úðé úå ùàéï ëåìëí ðæéøéï]

(f)

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

áùìîà ìòéì ìà îöé ìîúðé áòáåø ôìåâúà ãøáé èøôåï ãà"ë ìà äåä à"ø èøôåï àéï àçã îäï ðæéø ëãôé' ìòéì àáì äëà îöé ìîúðé.

1.

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!

3)

TOSFOS DH Mai Taima d'Beis Shamai Yalfei Techilas Hekdesh mi'Sof Hekdesh (pertains to Daf 31a)

úåñôåú ã"ä îàé èòîà ãá"ù éìôé úçìú ä÷ãù îñåó ä÷ãù (ùééê ìãó ìà.)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings the source to say that mistaken Hekdesh takes effect.)

ñåó ä÷ãù ÷øåé úîåøä îä úîåøä àôé' áèòåú ëããøùé' áô' ùðé ãúîåøä (ãó éæ.)

(a)

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

ø' éåñé áø' éäåãä éäéä ìøáåú ùåââ ëîæéã å÷àé à÷øà åäéä äåà åúîåøúå éäéä ÷ãù

1.

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

åîôøù ø' éåçðï äúí áúîåøä ëñáåø ìåîø ùúîåøúå òåìä åàîø ùìîéí

2.

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

ëâåï (äâäú áøëú øàù) òåìä åùìîéí òåîãéí ìôðéå åøöä ìåîø òì áäîú çåìéï ùìôðéå äøé æå úîåøú òåìä åàîø ùìîéí

3.

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";

àå (ëùàîø) ëñáåø ìåîø ùçåø éäéä úîåøä åàîø ìáï ãçì úîåøä òì äìáï

4.

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

åäùúà éìôé á"ù îä úîåøä áèòåú àó ä÷ãù ðîé éçåì áèòåú

(b)

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

åáîúðé' ðîé ëé àîø ùåø ùçåø ùéöà îáéúé øàùåï éäéä ÷ãåù åéöà äìáï øàùåï äìáï ÷ãåù

1.

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;

ãäëé áòé ìîéîø ùåø ùéöà îáéúé øàùåï éäéä ÷ãåù ìà ùðà ùçåø åìà ùðà ìáï àå àãåí

2.

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

åäà ã÷àîø ùçåø ëñáåø ùùåø ùçåø éöà úçìä.

3.

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

4)

TOSFOS DH u'Beis Hillel Hani Mili Temurah (pertains to Daf 31a)

úåñôåú ã"ä åá"ä äðé îéìé úîåøä (ùééê ìãó ìà.)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the challenge to Beis Shamai.)

ãîëç ä÷ãù ÷àúé äåà ãçééìà áèòåú

(a)

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

àáì àçåúé ä÷ãù îòé÷øà ìà àçúéðï áèòåú ãìà âîøéðï úçìú ä÷ãù îñåó ä÷ãù

(b)

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

åôøéê ìèòîà ãá"ù åá"ù îä àéìå àîø äøé æå úçú æå úîåøä ìçöé äéåí îé äåéà úîåøä îääéà ùòúà

(c)

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?!

àìà ãîèé çöé äéåí äåà ãäåä úîåøä äëé ðîé ìëé îâìéà îìúà

1.

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

åä"ô äéëé éìôé á"ù úçìú ä÷ãù îúîåøä åäà ìà ãîé ìä

(d)

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

[ãäúí] ëùäéä ñáåø ìåîø ùåø ùçåø éäéä úîåøä åàîø ìáï ãçì úîåøä òì äìáï (äâäú áøëú øàù) î÷ééîéï îä ùäåöéà áôéå

1.

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;

àáì äëà ëùàîø áôéå ùåø ùçåø ùéöà îáéúé éäéä ÷ãù îðéï ìðå ìùðåú îä ùäåöéà îôéå

i.

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?

àãøáä ðàîø ãàéï ãòú äàéù ìä÷ãéù ë"à ùçåø åôéå åìáå ùåéï

ii.

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

åàéê ðàîø ùéù áîùîòåú ìùåðå ùøöä ìä÷ãéù äøàùåï åàôé' äåà ìáï

iii.

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

ãäà áúîåøä ðîé ìà ðåëì ìùðåú áãáøéå ãàéìå ÷àé áöôøà åàåîø äøé æå úîåøú æå ìçöé äéåí ëìåîø ëùéâéò (äâäú áøëú øàù) çöé äéåí äùðé àæ éçåì ä÷ãù áúîåøä îé äåé úîåøä îääéà ùòúà ùðãø îï äáå÷ø ìîòåì áä

2.

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?

àìà òã çöé äéåí àæ àéâìéà îéìúà (äâäú áøëú øàù) ãäåé úîåøä ãáúîåøä òöîä ìà ðåëì ìùðåú áãáøéå

i.

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;

äëé ðîé àéâìéà îéìúà ëìåîø áîùðúéðå ëîå ëï ìà ðùðä ãéáåøå àìà ìëé îâìéà îéìúà ëîå ùäåöéà áôéå àåúå éäéä ÷åãù

ii.

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;

åäåà äåöéà îôéå ùåø ùçåø åàéê ðùðä ãéáåøå ìä÷øéá äìáï.

iii.

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

5)

TOSFOS DH (pertains to Daf 31a)

úåñôåú ã"ä àîø [øá ôôà] ìëê ðàîø øàùåï ìëùéöà øàùåï (ùééê ìãó ìà.)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how Rav Papa explains Beis Shamai.)

ôé' [ãøá ôôà] ñ"ì ãá"ù ìà âîøé ä÷ãù îúîåøä ìåîø ãä÷ãù áèòåú äåé ä÷ãù åäìáï ÷ãåù

(a)

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;

ãäà åãàé ìà ãîé ìúîåøä ãáúîåøä àðå î÷ééîéï ãáøéå åëàï àðå ñåúøéï ãáøéå àí àðå î÷ãéùéï äìáï

1.

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

àìà ã÷úðé îúðé' ä÷ãù àùçåø ÷àé åìëê àîø øàùåï ìëùéöà øàùåï ëìåîø àó òì ôé ùìà éöà øàùåï îï äáéú àìà äìáï

2.

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...

àô"ä ùôéø îú÷ééîéï ãáøéå ùàîø ùçåø ùéöà øàùåï åîééøé ëâåï ùäéå ìå ùååøéí ùçåøéí äøáä ëãàîø áñîåê

i.

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;

åäëé áòé ìîéîø ùåø ùçåø ùéöà øàùåï ìùàø ùçåøéí éäéä ä÷ãù ãäåé äùçåø ä÷ãù ãäùúà ìà ðñúø ãáøéå àìà ðôøù (äâäú ø' áöìàì àùëðæé) øàùåï ã÷àîø øàùåï ìùçåøéí

ii.

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].

ãìà îéáòéà àé ðôé÷ ùçåø øàùåï îï äáéú ãäùúà ìâîøé ðú÷ééîå ãáøéå ãäåé ä÷ãù àìà àôéìå ðôé÷ ìáï áøéùà àëúé ðôøù ãáøéå ùäùçåø ùéöà øàùåï ìùçåøéí éäéä ä÷ãù

(b)

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.

åàéï ä÷ãù áèòåú ãñ"ì [ìøá ôôà] ãä÷ãù áèòåú ìà äåé ä÷ãù

1.

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

åôé' ãîúðé' ìà ëãñ"ã îòé÷øà ãäìáï ÷ãåù àìà äùçåø

2.

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

åäà ãìà ÷àîø àìà àîø [øá ôôà] ëéåï ùçåæø áå îñáøú äâîøà

(c)

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

îùåí ùìà äåæëø ùåí àîåøà ìôðéå

(d)

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

åäà ãàîø øéù ôø÷ á' (ìòéì è.) ìá"ù àéï ùàìä áä÷ãù ôé' îùåí ãä÷ãù áèòåú äåé ä÷ãù

(e)

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!

ìà äåé ëèòîà ãøá ôôà àìà ëèòîà ãàáéé ãáñîåê.

(f)

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

6)

TOSFOS DH v'Savrei Beis Shamai Hekdesh b'Ta'os Lo Havi Hekdesh (pertains to Daf 31a)

úåñôåú ã"ä åñáøé á"ù ä÷ãù áèòåú ìà äåé ä÷ãù (ùééê ìãó ìà.)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that we challenge Rav Papa from a Mishnah.)

ìøá ôôà ôøéê åäúðï îé ùðãø áðæéø îúðé' äéà áôø÷éï åàôøù áîúðé' (äâäú áøëú øàù)

(a)

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.

7)

TOSFOS DH v'Savrei (part 2) (pertains to Daf 31a)

úåñôåú ã"ä åñáøé (çì÷ á) (ùééê ìãó ìà.)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the question and the answer.)

úöà åúøòä áòãø

(a)

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

àôøù ùí (äâäú úôàøú öéåï)

(b)

Reference: I will explain this there.

åáñéôà (ëï äåà áãôåñ åðöéä) ãîúðé' ÷úðé àîøå ìäï á"ä ìá"ù àé àúí îåãéí áæä ùä÷ãù áèòåú äåà åúöà åúøòä áòãø

(c)

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?!"

ëìåîø åëé äéëé ãîåãéú ìï áäà àåãéú ìï (äâäú áøëú øàù) ðîé áääéà ãùåø ùçåø ùìà éäéä ä÷ãù

1.

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!

àìîà ùîòé á"ä ìá"ù ãèòîà ãéãäå áùåø ùçåø îùåí ãä÷ãù áèòåú äåà ãäåé ä÷ãù å÷ùä ìø"ô

2.

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!

åîùðé á"ä äåà ãèòå [ãñáøé] ãèòîéä ãá"ù îùåí ãä÷ãù áèòåú äåé ä÷ãù åìäëé àåúáé ìäå îäà

(d)

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).

åà"ú åäà á"ù îäãøé ìäå ìá"ä îîòùø áäîä åîåëçé ãä÷ãù áèòåú äåé ä÷ãù

(e)

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

åéù ìåîø áéú ùîàé ÷àîøé ìá"ä ìîàé ãèòéúå åñáøéúå ãèòîà [ãéãï] îùåí ä÷ãù áèòåú

(f)

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"

åäëé ðîé àéúà áøéù îñëú ðãä (ãó â:) ìîàé ãèòéúå ðîé åàåúáéúå ÷åôä.

(g)

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

8)

TOSFOS DH Ta Shma Shishah she'Hayu Mehalchin b'Derech (pertains to Daf 31a)

úåñôåú ã"ä ú"ù ùùä ùäéå îäìëéï áãøê (ùééê ìãó ìà.)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the question against Rav Papa.)

îúðé' äéà áôéø÷éï åëáø ôéøùúé áîúðé'

(a)

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

åäà äëà ãä÷ãù áèòåú äåà åäåé ä÷ãù ëìåîø (äâäú áøëú øàù) ðæéøåú ãèòåú äåà ùäøé àçã îï äøàùåðéí ìà ðîöà ëãáøéå åàôéìå äëé äåé ðæéø

1.

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;

ìôé ùäéä ñáåø ùäéä ôìåðé åèòä áå (äâäú áøëú øàù) åçééì òìéä ðæéøåú àôé' áèòåú

2.

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

äëé ðîé àéú ìéä ìîéîø ãñáéøà ìäå ìáéú [ùîàé] ãä÷ãù áèòåú âîåø äåé ä÷ãù ãîúðé' ãùåø ùçåø ôé' åäìáï ÷ãåù

i.

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.

ãéù ìðå ìôøù ãáøéå ãîúçéìä ðúëååï ìä÷ãù ìà ùðà ùçåø åìà ùðà ìáï ùéöà îôúç øàùåï

ii.

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

åäà ã÷àîø ùçåø ìôé ùèòä ùæä éöà øàùåðä àáì ìòåìí äìáï ÷ãåù

iii.

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

àó òì âá ãáúîåøä ìà äåé òã ãîèé çöé äéåí åìà ÷åãí ìëï

(b)

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

äðé îéìé áúîåøä ã÷àîø áôéøåù æå úîåøú æå ìçöé éåí åìéëà ìôøåùé îéìúà áòðéï àçø ëìì àéï ìðå ëç ìñúåø ãáøéå

(c)

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;

àáì äëà âáé ä÷ãù àéëà ìôøåùé ìîéìúà áäãéà ëãáøéå ãìà àúà ìàôå÷é ìáï îä÷ãù.

1.

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].

9)

TOSFOS DH Abaye Amar... (pertains to Daf 31b)

úåñôåú ã"ä àáéé àîø. (ùééê ìãó ìà:)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the difference whether he said so before or after they left.)

ùëáø éöàå äáäîåú îï äáéú ìøòåú áîøòä åàîø ùåø ùçåø (äâäú ø' áöìàì àùëðæé åáøëú øàù) ùéöà ëáø îáéúé øàùåï ìëì äùååøéí äï ùçåøéí äï ìáðéí (îëàï îòîåã á) ìéäåé ä÷ãù

(a)

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";

33b----------------------------------------33b

åàîøå ìå ìáï éöà úçìä [åàîø àé äåé éãòðà ãìáï ðô÷] ìà äåä àîøé ùçåø àìà ìáï

1.

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."

ãäùúà éù ìï ìîéîø ùäéä ãòúå ìëì îé ùéöà øàùåï åîù"ä äåé ä÷ãù àôé' äìáï ãéìôéðï îúîåøä ãäåé ä÷ãù àôé' áèòåú

2.

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.

åàáéé ñ"ì ãàé ÷àé áöôøà åàîø ùåø ùçåø ùéöà øàùåï åà"ì ìáï ðô÷ åàîø àé äåé éãòðà ãìáï ðô÷ ä"à ìáï (äâäú ø' áöìàì àùëðæé)

(b)

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"...

ãáäà àôéìå á"ù îåãå ãìà äåé ä÷ãù ùäøé [ìà] äéä éåãò ùéöà äùçåø úçìä ìëåìï åìîä äæëéø ùçåø àé ãòúå äéä ìä÷ãéù ëì îé ùéöà øàùåï

1.

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?!

åàðï ñäãé ìëúçìä ëé àîø ùåø ùçåø ãå÷à ìùåø ùçåø ÷îëåéï ùàôéìå àí ãòúå ùéöà äùçåø úçìä àèå ðáéà äåà ìéãò äòúéãåú

2.

[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!

åáëä"â åãàé ìà ðéìó îúîåøä

i.

In such a case we do not learn from Temurah.

åìà ãîé ìùùä ùäéå îäìëéï áãøê

(c)

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]?

ãäúí äåé ðæéø àôé' àåúå ùìà ðîöà ëãáøéå ìôé ùáëì òðéï ÷áéì òìéä ðæéøåú

(d)

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

åîä ùàîø àéù ôìåðé äåà èòä áå ëùøàäå îøçå÷

1.

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

àáì äëà áîä éù ìå ìèòåú åìåîø ãùçåø òúéã ìöàú äìëê éù ìåîø ãùçåø ãå÷à ÷àîø

2.

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.

àáì ëé àîø áèéäøà ùáäîåú éöàå ëáø (äâäú îàåøé àåø) éù ìðå ìîéîø ùäéä ãòúå ìëì ùéöà øàùåï

(e)

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

åîä ùäæëéø ùçåø ìôé ùùîò ôñéòåú øâìé äùåø ùäåà á÷é ìäëéø ôñéòåú øâìé ùååøéå

1.

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

åäùúà æä ãåîä ùôéø ìääéà ùäéå îäìëéï áãøê ãèòä ðîé áøàééú òéðéå ìåîø àéù ôìåðé äåà åãòúå ìäéåú ðæéø àôé' àéðå äåà

(f)

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.

åëï äëà ãòúå äéä ìä÷ãéù àôé' àéðå ùçåø àìà äìáï åëä"â éìôéðï îúîåøä

1.

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

åá"ä ñáøé ãàôé' ëé äàé ìà éìôéðï îúîåøä ãìà äåé ä÷ãù.

2.

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

10)

TOSFOS DH Amar Rav Chisda Uchma b'Chivra Lakya (pertains to Daf 31b)

úåñôåú ã"ä àîø øá çñãà àåëîà áçéååøà ì÷éà (ùééê ìãó ìà:)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains in what way black and white detract.)

ùåø ùçåø ùáéï ùååøéí ìáðéí ì÷éà [îâøò] àåúí åðîëøéí áôçåú ò"é ùäùçåø òîäï åìáðéí îòåìéï îï äùçåøéí

(a)

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;

çéåøà áàåëîà ì÷åúà ëúí ìáï áùåø ùçåø ì÷åúà áéãåò ùëðâã àåúå ëúí äéä ðâò öøòú ááäîä

1.

"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.

åäëé àéúà áøéù îé ùàçæå (âéèéï ñç.) èòí çéåøà ááùøà áã÷å áãåëúéä åàùëçå îöàå ëúí ìáï åéãòå ëé öøòú äéä áî÷åí ëúí.

(b)

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.

11)

TOSFOS DH Tanan Shor Shachor v'Chulei (pertains to Daf 31b)

úåñôåú ã"ä úðï ùåø ùçåø ëå' (ùééê ìãó ìà:)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the question against Rav Chisda, and the answer.)

åîùîò ãäìáï ÷ãåù [ëãúøéõ] àáéé å÷ñ"ã î÷ãéù àéðéù áòéï øòä î÷ãéù å÷ùä ìøá çñãà

(a)

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

ãëéåï ãäìáï òãéó îùçåø áéãåò ùìà äéä ãòúå ìä÷ãéù äìáï ëéåï ãáòéï øòä ä÷ãéù

1.

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.

åðäé ãàå÷îéðï ã÷àîø àéìå äåä éãòðà ãìáï ðô÷ ä"à [äìáï ìéäåé ÷ãåù]

2.

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'"!

ëéåï ãìáï òãéó äà åãàé îù÷ø äåà

3.

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

àìà åãàé ìáï âøåò îùçåø åëé àîø ùçåø éäéä ä÷ãù ëì ùëï (äâäú áøëú øàù) ìáï ãâøåò [îîðå] å÷ùä ìøá çñãà

(b)

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!

åîùðé ìéä áòéï éôä î÷ãéù åîù"ä ëé ðôé÷ ìáï åàîø àé éãòé ëå' îäéîï ìéä îùåí ãáòéï éôä äåà î÷ãéù.

1.

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.

12)

TOSFOS DH Ela Mai...(pertains to Daf 31b)

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà îàé...(ùééê ìãó ìà:)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the basis for the question.)

åäà ééï ãâøåò îùîï à"ë ðéîà ãå÷à ééï äåà î÷ãéù,

(a)

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

13)

TOSFOS DH Ela... (part 2) (pertains to Daf 31b)

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà.. (çì÷ á) (ùééê ìãó ìà:)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses what we learn from each clause of the Mishnah.)

àé îùåí äà ìà ÷ùä áâìéìà ùðå,

(a)

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

ôéøåù ãìòåìí áòéï øòä äåà î÷ãéù åîúðé' áâìéìà ùðå ùäéä ìäí øåá ùîï åäééï é÷ø ìäå îùîï åäìëê ëé ä÷ãéù ééï ë"ù ùîï åìòåìí øéùà ÷ùä ìøá çñãà,

(b)

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.

àîø ìê øá çñãà ëé àîø ìê àðà áúåøà ÷øîðàé, áàåúä îìëåú ëê ùí ÷øîåðà

1.

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

åäùúà ðøàä ùéù ìòùåú öøéëåúåú áäðê úìúà ááé (äâää áâìéåï)

(c)

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

ããéðø ùì æäá àéöèøéê ìàùîåòéðï ãáòéï øòä äåà î÷ãéù

1.

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

øéùà ãùåø àéëà ìîéîø ãàúé ìàùîåòéðï ãìà ëøá çñãà

2.

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

çáéú ùì ééï ãàå÷éîðà áâìéìà ùðå àùîåòéðï ãìà àæéì áúø øåá î÷åîåú åö"ò.

3.

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.

i.

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.

14)

TOSFOS DH veha'Amar Rav Chisda Uchma b'Chivra Laki (pertains to Daf 31b)

úåñôåú ã"ä åäàîø øá çñãà àåëîà áçéåøà ì÷é (ùééê ìãó ìà:)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the answer for Rav Chisda.)

ùðôçúå [çéååøé] ñìòéí îï äùçåø ùáéðéäï

(a)

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

åëéåï ãàåëîà òåøå çùåá éåúø îùì ìáï ñ"ì ìî÷ùä ãàéðå îòåìä áùø äìáï îï äùçåø ëåìé äàé ãéäà òãéó îîòìú òåø ùçåø òì ùì ìáï,

1.

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].

ëé àîø øá çñãà ìîéìúà ÷îééúà áúåøà ÷øîåðàä ùäìáï çùåá òì äùçåø ìëì ãáø

2.

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

åàéãê îéìúà ãøá çñãà áùàø òìîà ãàæ åãàé àåëîà òãéó ìîùëéä åìëê ðîé áîúðéúéï ùçåø òãéó

i.

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.

ãðäé ãìáï çùåá ìøãéà

(b)

Implied question: A white ox is better for plowing!

î"î îòìú äòåø âãåìä ë"ë ãî÷ãéù äìáï á÷ì éåúø åëùä÷ãéù äùçåø áëìì (äâäú ø' áöìàì àùëðæé, áøëú øàù) æä äìáï. îúðé' îé ùðãø áðæéø - ôé' äîùðä ìòéì.

(c)

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.

15)

TOSFOS DH d'Tanya Mi she'Avar Al Neziruso v'Chulei (pertains to Daf 32a)

úåñôåú ã"ä ãúðéà îé ùòáø òì ðæéøåúå ëå' (ùééê ìãó ìá.)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the fine for one who transgressed Nezirus.)

ëâåï ÷éáì òìéå ðæéøåú îàä éåí åùúä áééï [ñ'] éîéí åáà ìäáéà ÷øáðåúéå àéï ðæ÷÷éï ìå ìäáéà ÷øáðåú ðæéøåúå àìà à"ë îåðä àéñåøï ëìåîø [ñ'] éåí ëéîéí ùðäâ áäï äéúø ùùúä ééï

(a)

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;

øáé éåñé àåîø ãéå áùìùéí éåí

1.

R. Yosi says, 30 days suffice.

ôø"é ãäà ããéå [àí ÷ðñé ìéä] ùìùéí éåí ùàí ðãø ÷' éåí åòáø [ñ'] éîéí ìà ÷ðñéðï ìéä ìñúåø äëì ø÷ ì' éåí

2.

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;

åùìùéí éîéí éòìä ìîðéï ðæéøåú àó òì ôé ùùúä áäï ééï

3.

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

åä"ä áðæéøåú îåòèú ìøáé éåñé ëâåï àí ðãø ì' åùúä áëåìï ééï éñúåø äëì

(b)

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;

åàí ùåúä ùðé éîéí ééï öøéê ùéîðä ùðé (äâäú áøëú øàù) éîéí àçøéí áìà ùúééú ééï

1.

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

16)

TOSFOS DH d'Tanya (pertains to Daf 32a)

úåñôåú ã"ä ãúðéà (çì÷ á) (ùééê ìãó ìá.)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that a small Nezirus is difficult for both Tana'im.)

åä"â àé øáðï ÷ùéà ðæéøåú îøåáä

(a)

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

ôéøåù àôé' îøåáä [ãáéï] ðæéøåú îøåáä ëîå ÷' éîéí åùúä ùùéí (äâäú îäø"á øðùáåøâ) ééï ñåúø äëì

(b)

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;

[åáéï] ðæéøåú îåòèú ëâåï ì' éåí åùúä á' éîéí öøéê ìîðåú á' éîéí

1.

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

åîúðé' îùîò ãîåðä [îùòä] ùðãø

2.

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

åàôéìå úàîø (äâäú áøëú øàù) î÷öú éîéí ùðãø ùàéðå ñåúø äëì àìà ø÷ ì' éåí åì' éåí äàçøéí éòìå ìå åäééðå ðîé ëø' éåñé

(c)

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!

àáì áðæéøåú îåòèú ÷ùéà ùàôé' ìø' éåñé ñåúø ëåìå åáîúðé' îùîò ùòåìä ìå ìîðéï.

(d)

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

17)

TOSFOS DH v'Iy Bo'is Eima (pertains to Daf 32a)

úåñôåú ã"ä åàé áòéú àéîà...(ùééê ìãó ìá.)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that he cancels only as many days as he transgressed.)

ä"ô îåðä éîéí ùì àéñåø ãäééðå îàä éîéí åäåà ùúä áëåìï ééï [åëï] áðæéøåú îåòèú

(a)

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.

åäëé îùîò ìéùðà ãîúðé' îåðä îùòä ùðãø çåæø åîåðä ëê åëê éîéí ùäéå îùòä ùðãø åòáø òìéäï

(b)

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;

òúä [îåðä] ôòí àçøú îùáà ìôðé çëîéí åéðäåâ áäï àéñåø ùúééú ééï

1.

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

àáì åãàé àí ÷åãí ùùúä ééï îðä î÷öú ðæéøåú àåúí éîéí àéðå ñåúø àôé' ìøáðï ãùúééú ééï îãøáðï áòìîà.

(c)

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.

18)

TOSFOS DH Amar R. Yirmeyah...(pertains to Daf 32a)

úåñôåú ã"ä à"ø éøîéä...(ùééê ìãó ìá.)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how we learn from Beis Shamai to Beis Hillel.)

ã÷àîøé á"ù ä÷ãù [èòåú ä÷ãù åëéåï] ãîâìéà îìúà ãìàå ùôéø ðãø úöà åúøòä áòãø ëãúðï áîúðéúéï áäãéà

(a)

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;

à"ì á"ä ìá"ù àé àúí îåãéí áæä ùäåà ä÷ãù áèòåú åúöà åúøòä áòãø ìôé ùðùàì ìçëîéí åäúéøå ãìà äåé ÷áìä

1.

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;

äìëê ä÷øáðåú ùäôøéù ìðæéøåú çåìéï äï ëàãí ùàåîø æå ìçèàú åäåà àéðå áø çèàú

2.

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;

äëé ðîé ìá"ä àó òì ôé ãàîøé ãúîåøä áèòåú äåé úîåøä ãáäà (äâäú áøëú øàù) îåãå á"ä ëããøùéðï îéäéä ìøáåú ùåââ ëîæéã.

i.

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.)

19)

TOSFOS DH v'Ishtiku Lehu Beis Hillel (pertains to Daf 32a)

úåñôåú ã"ä åàùúé÷å ìäå á"ä (ùééê ìãó ìá.)

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

ìàå ãå÷à àùúé÷å ãäà äùéáå ìäí âæéøú äëúåá äåà

(a)

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

àìà ëìåîø àùúé÷å ùìà äùéáå ìäå ñáøà îéðéä åáéä àìà äáéàå îùðéí òùø åùîéðé

(b)

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;

ìéîà ìäå îäëà ùàéðå ÷ãåù áëååðä ëùàø ä÷ãùåú åìëê òì ëøçéä âæéøú äëúåá äéà.

1.

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.)

20)

TOSFOS DH Amar Rava Shatfu Rabanan l'R. Eliezer...(pertains to Daf 32b)

úåñôåú ã"ä àîø øáà ùèôå øáðï ìø"à...(ùééê ìãó ìá:)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how we infer that R. Eliezer retracted.)

ëìåîø ðöçåäå ùçæø ìãáøéäí åàå÷îé' áùèúééäå ãàîøé àéï ôåúçéï áðåìã ãìà ùëéç ëîå çåøáï äáéú

(a)

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;

ãàéìå ø"à äéä áùòú çåøáï ëãàîø áäðéæ÷éï (âéèéï ðå.) ðëðñ ø"à îöã à' åø' éäåùò îöã àçã ìéùà îèúå ùì øéá"æ áéøåùìéí

1.

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];

åìà ãáø ëìåí åìà çì÷ òìéäï ìåîø ãùôéø äåé çøèä ëãúðï ø"à àåîø ôåúçéï áðåìã

2.

[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!

àìîà (äâäú ø' áöìàì àùëðæé) äãø áéä îîéìúéä ëéåï ùìà çì÷ òì çëîé ãåøå.

3.

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

21)

TOSFOS DH Mi she'Lo Niskaimu Devarav (pertains to Daf 32b)

úåñôåú ã"ä îé ùìà ðú÷ééîå ãáøéå...(ùééê ìãó ìá:)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the two resolutions of Beis Hillel's words.)

äà (îëàï îãó äáà) ìáéú äìì ìà äåé ðæéøåú áèòåú

(a)

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