(Mishnah): If they mixed a cup of wine for a man and he said 'I am a Nazir from it', he is a Nazir.

A case occurred in which a woman was drunk. They mixed a cup of wine for her. She said 'I am a Nazir from it', Chachamim said that she intended only `that cup is [forbidden] to me like a Korban.'

(Gemara): [The Reisha of] our Mishnah discusses when he cannot [drink wine at all. Therefore, we say that he accepted Nezirus], but if he can [d[, the law is like the Seifa] taught 'a case occurred in which a woman was drunk. They mixed a cup of wine for her. She said 'I am a Nazir from it', Chachamim said that she intended only `that cup is Alai a Korban.' (If she wanted to be a Nazir, she would not mention the cup! We explained this like RIDVAZ.)

(R. Yirmeyah citing R. Ze'ira): It is not even an expression of Korban (she may drink the cup). What is the reason? One cannot impose on himself Nezirus in an expression of Korban, nor Korban in an expression of Nezirus.

(Mishnah): If one said 'I am a Nazir on condition that I can drink wine and become Tamei', he is a Nazir, with all the Isurim;

If he said 'I knew that there are Nezirim, but I did not know that a Nazir is forbidden to [drink] wine', he is forbidden to wine;

R. Shimon permits.

If one said 'I knew that a Nazir may not drink wine, but I thought that Chachamim will permit me because I cannot live without wine', or 'because I bury the dead', he is permitted;

R. Shimon forbids.

(Gemara): Our Mishnah is like R. Meir, for R. Meir says, he must double [a Tenai. If not, the Tenai is Batel].

Retraction: It is like everyone. There (i.e. here), one says to him 'observe and accept [to fulfill like Torah law' - MESHECH CHACHMAH Devarim 12:28].

Our Mishnah is like R. Yehudah ben Teima (we explained this like MEICHAL HA'MAYIM);

(Beraisa): 'This is your Get on condition that you not fly in the air', or 'that you not cross the great sea with your legs', it is a Get. 'On condition that you fly in the air', or 'that you cross the great sea with your legs', it is not a Get. R. Yehudah ben Teima says, it is a Get.

(R. Ze'ira): [The first Tana] holds that he seeks a pretext [to disqualify] the divorce. He made [the Get] contingent on matters that she cannot fulfill.

Question: What is the reason of R. Yehudah ben Teima?

Answer: Since he made it contingent on matters that she cannot fulfill (he merely teases her; it is not truly contingent on these matters, so) it is as if the Tenai in the Get was fulfilled. (PNEI MOSHE)

Our Mishnah is unlike R. Shimon, for [if one accepted to bring Minchas Nedavah from barley], R. Shimon [totally] exempts him, for he did not volunteer the way people volunteer.

Rebuttal (R. Yehoshua ben Levi): Here is different, for he left [the Isur of] shaving. (For this, he volunteered the way people volunteer, therefore R. Shimon agrees that he is a Nazir.)

Question (R. Yirmeyah): If [here is different, for] he left shaving, [what will you] say in the next clause? [He erred only about wine. It says that] he is forbidden, and R. Shimon permits;

He left shaving and Tum'ah, and R. Shimon exempts!

Answer: That is different, [due to] a Pesach for the vow (a reason to consider it a mistake; he did not know that wine is forbidden).

Question: If it is different, due to a Pesach for the vow, [what will you] say in the next clause? (He thought that Chachamim will permit him.) He is permitted, and R. Shimon forbids!

Answer: R. Shimon holds that it is not a Pesach for the vow, and Chachamim hold that it is a Pesach for the vow.

What is the reason [of Chachamim]? He is like one who attributes his vow to his life (surely if he will die if he does not drink, Chachamim will permit him)!

Question: Granted, [you can say so about] drinking wine. Becoming Tamei Mes [cannot be essential to life]!

Answer: His profession is burying the dead. (Without income, he could starve.)

(Mishnah): Reuven said 'I am a Nazir, and it is Alai to be Megale'ach (bring Korbanos for) a Nazir.' Shimon heard this, and said 'and (also) I, and it is Alai to be Megale'ach a Nazir.' If they are clever, each is Megale'ach the other. If not, they are Megale'ach other Nezirim (each is Megale'ach another one).

(Gemara) Question #1: This 'and I' - how do you explain it? 'And I' for everything that he said, or for half his words?

Question #2A: If you explain 'and I' for all his words, if he said 'and I am a Nazir' (what is the law? Perhaps he added 'I am a Nazir' to show that he accepts only this!)

Question #2B: If you explain 'and I' for half his words, if he said '[and I], I am a Nazir' (what is the law? Perhaps he added 'I am a Nazir' to show that he accepts everything!)

Answer: Beis Rebbi taught that 'and I am a Nazir' is for all his words.

Inference (R. Yosi): [Rebbi holds that 'and I' alone is only for half his words. Therefore,] if one said 'I am a Nazir for 100 days', and his friend heard and said 'and I', [the first] is a Nazir for 100 days, and [the latter] is a Nazir for 30 days, unless he says 'I am like him' or 'I am similar to him.' (We explained this like MEICHAL HA'MAYIM.)

(R. Chiyah - Beraisa): If one said 'it is Alai to be Megale'ach a Nazir', and then said 'I am a Nazir', if he was Megale'ach himself, he was Yotzei.

Support (R. Yosi - Mishnah): If one said 'I am a Nazir and Alai to be Megale'ach a Nazir, and his friend heard, and said 'I also, and it is Alai to be Megale'ach a Nazir.' If they are clever, each is Megale'ach the other;

Inference: It does not suffice for each to be Megale'ach himself, because he said 'I am a Nazir' and [only after] 'Alai to be Megale'ach a Nazir', but if he said 'Alai to be Megale'ach a Nazir', and then 'I am a Nazir', if he was Megale'ach himself, he was Yotzei.

Question: (Our Mishnah says that if they are clever, each is Megale'ach the other.) Granted, the latter can be Megale'ach the first. Why can the first be Megale'ach the latter? (When the first vowed, the latter was not a Nazir!)

Answer (R. Yosi citing R. Ze'ira): This teaches that one can obligate himself [to bring] Korban Nazir for one who will later accept Nezirus.

Inference (R. Chinena citing R. Ze'ira): We learn three things from this;

[If one said 'it is Alai to be Megale'ach a Nazir', and then accepted Nezirus,] if he was Megale'ach himself, he was Yotzei.

One can obligate himself [to bring] Korban Nazir for one who will later accept Nezirus.

One can obligate himself [to bring] Korban Nazir for his friend, without the latter's Da'as (consent), but he can separate the Korban for him only with his Da'as.

Question (R. Mana, to R. Yudan): [If one said 'it is Alai to bring Korban Nazir for one who will accept Nezirus in the future' [what is the law]?

When he vowed Stam (did not specify 'for one who will accept in the future'), he can be Megale'ach either one who was already a Nazir (at the time), or one who later accepted Nezirus. If he specified [what is the law]?

Answer - Question: This is like R. Levi bar Chayasah asked. If one wrote to his wife 'I have no claims in your property that will later fall to you [for an inheritance]' - what is the law?

Answer: Can someone stipulate about Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam (something not in the world now?! He cannot, so his words have no effect. The same applies here. We explained this based on SEFER NIR. R. MEIR SIMCHAH left this difficult, for vows takes effect on Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam!)