Conclusion: Rather, he said "I will not leave the world without being a Nazir." Therefore, he is like one who said "it is Alai to bring a Korban immediately." Bal Te'acher applies to him immediately.

Implied question: Really, Rava could have established it to discuss when he said "I will be a Nazir before three Regalim pass";

In such a case, this is like Bal Te'acher of Korbanos. He does not transgress until three Regalim pass!

Answer: Since he cannot establish it to discuss one who said "it is Alai" like the case of Korbanos, like I explained, and he needed to teach a new stipulation, he discussed this case, to teach that in such a case, Bal Te'acher applies to him immediately.

With this, I fulfilled my obligation [to clarify] everything that the Rishonim obscured in this Halachah.

Gemara: E.g. he accepted Nezirus in a cemetery.

Explanation: He must leave immediately and accept Nezirus. When he does not leave, Bal Te'acher applies to him.

Explanation: R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about this in Nazir (16b). According to R. Yochanan, if he eats [grapes] and drinks wine in the cemetery, he is lashed, because the Nezirus takes effect on him immediately;

According to Reish Lakish, it does not take effect immediately. When he leaves the cemetery, he must accept again.

Gemara: However, according to the opinion that Nezirus takes effect immediately, what can we say?

Explanation: Since Nezirus takes effect immediately, Bal Te'acher never applies.

Gemara: Nezirus takes effect on him immediately.

Explanation: He need not accept when he leaves;

They argue about lashes, whether or not he is lashed for eating while he is still in the cemetery.

Since Nezirus took effect on him, and he need not accept again, how can Bal Te'acher apply?!

Gemara: He delays Nezirus Taharah.

Explanation: Therefore, Bal Te'acher applies to him.

Explanation: Since you say that even though Nezirus takes effect on him, since it did not take effect on him in Taharah, there is Bal Te'acher, even a Tahor Nazir who was Metamei himself b'Mezid transgresses Bal Te'acher, and he is lashed.

Implied question: The Torah already warned with two Lavim - Lo Yitama and Al Kol Nafshos Mes Lo Yavo, and it says also "veha'Yamim ha'Rishonim Yiplu"!

Answer: This does not mean that there is no other punishment. Rather, he is lashed also for Bal Te'acher.

Gemara: Shaving holds back [his Heter].

Explanation: R. Eliezer and Rabanan argue about this. According to R. Eliezer, "v'Achar Yishteh ha'Nazir Yayin" is after all the actions - shaving and acceptance (Zerikah) of blood [of his Korbanos];

According to Rabanan, once he brought his Korbanos, he is permitted [to drink] wine.

Gemara: Bal Te'acher of Korbanos.

Consequence: According to this way of establishing it, he transgresses Bal Te'acher only after three Regalim.

Gemara: These are Chata'os and Ashamos.

Explanation: [Therefore, all] Korbanos Nazir are included.

Gemara: What might one have thought?

Explanation: If not for the Hekesh to Nedarim.

Gemara: One cannot be Matfis Chatas Nazir in a Neder.

Explanation: This is a leniency, that one cannot be Matfis it in a Neder. If one said 'Chatas Nazir is Alai', and he is not a Nazir, it has no effect;

Since it is lenient, one might have thought that Bal Te'acher does not apply to it.

Gemara: And we ask, behold Chatas Chelev!

Explanation: I.e. all Chata'os; they are all called Chatas Chelev;

They have this leniency, and even so Bal Te'acher applies. Why do I need the Hekesh?

Gemara: Even [if he vowed only to be a Nazir, i.e. abstain] from grape skins, he is a Nazir for all.

Explanation: For all law of Nezirus.

Gemara: Also, this Chidush is a stringency!

Explanation: How can you learn from it a leniency, that Bal Te'acher does not apply?!

Gemara: Since if he shaved on (after bringing) one of the three [he was Yotzei].

Explanation: The Chatas, Olah and Shelamim that a Nazir brings. Since they are not stringent, if not for the Hekesh, one might have thought that Bal Te'acher does not apply to them.

Explanation: This is why even though it (Chatas Chelev) has a leniency, that one cannot be Matfis (Makdish) it through a vow [unless he is obligated to offer it], since it is a Mitzvah to bring it to atone for him, it is proper that [if he delays,] he transgress Bal Te'acher;

However, Chatas Nazir has a leniency, that one cannot be Matfis it through a vow, and nothing is forbidden [before bringing it] to cause Bal Te'acher to apply!

Rhetorical question: For what is it offered? If it is to permit wine to him, this is not a Mitzvah. It is Reshus!

Even according to the opinion that a Nazir is a sinner, he is not a total sinner. The Korban is not primarily for atonement.

Question: Still, we should learn [that Bal Te'acher applies to] Korban Nazir through a Tzad ha'Shavah from Chatas Chelev (one cannot be Matfis it b'Neder) and Shelamim (it is not for Kaparah)!

Answer: Indeed [we could]; however, since we do not learn it from the verse itself, rather, from a Tzad ha'Shavah, it is better to learn from a Hekesh, for we ask any (even a weak) question against a Tzad ha'Shavah.

Implied question: R. Shimon says in Nidah (31b) that a Yoledes sins! When she crouches to give birth, she swears not to have relations with her husband [again. This is a vain oath, for she is obligated to him!]

Answer: The Korban is not primarily for sin. Even if she knows that she did not think about this at all, she brings a Korban.

Gemara: It permits her to eat Kodshim.

Explanation: This is like it says "v'Chiper Aleha ha'Kohen v'Taherah." Eating Kodshim is a Mitzvah, e.g. eating Pesachim, which also a woman is obligated.

Implied question: Why did we ask here regarding Hafarah, and we did not ask this question (why do we need a Hekesh) above regarding Yados?

Answer: It is because one can be lashed for [a vow made through] Yados, and we do not punish due to a Kal va'Chomer [or Mah Matzinu. Therefore, we need the Hekesh];

However, regarding Hafarah, it is proper to ask, we could learn from a Mah Matzinu!

Explanation: Therefore, it is proper that he annul, lest she be pained in his house forever.

Question: Since Nezirus has a limit, we should equate Nedarim to Nezirus, and say that Stam Nedarim are for 30 days! (Also Isurei Nezirus are permanent, until he shaves and brings a Korban. The Ran says right after this that Nidrei Hekdesh are permanent, even though some of them get a Heter - one may benefit from a Shelamim after it is offered! - PF)

Answer: This is wrong. The word "Neder" includes vows of Hekdesh and of Isur. Since there is no limit to vows of Hekdesh, for one who is Makdish an animal for the Mizbe'ach, it is permanently Kodesh...

Also vows of Isur are similar. We properly equate Nedarim to each other. (Shi'urei R. David - if so, even if one limits a Neder Isur to one day, it should be permanent, just like Nidrei Hekdesh! PF - do not answer that a Neder Hekdesh itself does not forbid permanently, just it is a law of Kodshim that Kedushah spreads (Kidushin 7a). If so, the question returns. Stam Nidrei Isur should be only for 30 days!)

Explanation: In all of them, i.e. "I am Mudar", "separated" and "distanced" in our Mishnah, it is only if he said ["that I eat or taste from you"];

I.e. the Mishnah teaches one case. "That I eat" refers to "I am Mudar or separated."

Proof: If not, it does not connote Isur at all. It is not even Yad she'Eino Mochi'ach!

Explanation: Granted, the Mishnah is not difficult for Shmuel. Since it taught "he is forbidden" only once, we can say that the Seifa explains the Reisha (it is when he said "that I eat");

However, the Beraisa taught "he is forbidden" twice. This implies that it discusses separate cases;

If not, it should not have said "he is forbidden" until the end!

Explanation (cont.): [The Gemara] answers, [the Beraisa] says "what is the case?..." Therefore it is proper to teach "he is forbidden" in the middle of his words.

Implied question: Below, we ask, why does it say "he is forbidden" in the Seifa? (Note: the text asks why it says 'Asur' twice; the Ran (below, DH v'Od) explains that the question is from 'Asur' in the Seifa.)

Answer: Letter of the law, we could have asked immediately. However, he prefers to ask according to the Makshan's reasoning.

Gemara: A Beraisa teaches oppositely!

Explanation: This Beraisa is not the Seifa of the previous Beraisa. If so, it should have said 'but the Seifa taught!'

Implied question: Why couldn't we say that the Seifa explains the Reisha? It teaches "what is the case?..." similar to the other (i.e. "that I eat or taste from you" forbids only if he said "I am Mudar, separated or distanced from you")?

Answer: In a case of "what I eat from you" [without anything else], no one argues; [all agree that] he is forbidden.

Gemara: Teach thusly - and he already said.

Explanation: The Chidush is that even though he already said Mudrani Mimecha, he must say 'that I will eat from you.' If not, he is not forbidden.

Explanation: This does not truly refer to the Reisha. Rather, since we brought the first Beraisa before this, we call it the Reisha, i.e. the first;

The Gemara means, granted, if you will say that "I am Mudar" alone forbids, therefore this Tana changed and taught Mudrani in the Seifa, lest we err to say that he teaches one case, i.e. what is the case?...

Implied question: The other Tana was not concerned lest we err about this!

Answer: This Tana wanted to be clearer.

Explanation (cont.): However, if you will say that he taught one case, also this Tana should have taught like the other Tana. It is more appropriate to teach "what is the case?" than to teach "and he already said."

Gemara: Also, why does it say 'Asur' twice?

Explanation: I.e. 'Asur' in the Seifa is difficult for him.

Explanation: Surely, Shmuel himself agrees that these Beraisos teach separate cases. In each case by itself (he said only "Mudrani from you", or only "what I eat from you"), he is forbidden;

However, he teaches that our Mishnah teaches one case. If it taught each case by itself, how could it say once "he is forbidden"? The cases are not the same!

When he said "Mudrani from you", both of them are forbidden. When he said "what I eat from you", he is forbidden and his friend is permitted.

Granted, the Beraisa said twice "he is forbidden". This properly connotes each one according to its law;

However, if our Mishnah teaches separate cases, it should have taught "he is forbidden" twice!

Conclusion: Rather, surely it teaches one case. He is forbidden and his friend is permitted;

Therefore, he teaches that this law applies only when he said also "that I eat from you", but if he said Mudrani Mimcha alone, both of them are forbidden.

Question: According to the Makshan's reasoning, that our Mishnah teaches separate cases, how can it say "that I eat from you", he is forbidden? In any case [this is difficult]!

If he explicitly said "Konam [is] what I eat from you", this is a total Neder. It is not a Yad. Our Mishnah taught this regarding Yados!

If he did not say "Konam" perhaps he means "I will eat from you", and he is not forbidden at all!

Answer: Really, he did not say "Konam." Do not say that he means "I will eat from you." If so, why did he say "that I eat from you"? He should have said "I will eat from you"!

Rather, surely since he said "that I [eat]", he means what I will eat of yours should be something. What is this [something]? It is Konam.

Implied question: Why do we say that it is a Yad for a Neder, and not a Yad for a Shevu'ah?

Answer: "That I [eat]" connotes that he mentions the object, i.e. what he will eat. Such a case applies to a Neder (which forbids objects), and not to a Shevu'ah (in which he forbids himself).

Question: This is fine for the one whose text in the Mishnah is she'Ani, without a Yud. However, this is difficult for the one whose text is she'Eini, with a Yud!

If he did not mention "Konam", we should say that it is a Yad for Shevu'ah, and not for a Neder, since this is the expression of a Shevu'ah. He forbids himself to the object;

If he mentioned "Konam", this is a Neder, and not a Yad. Why was it taught among Yados?!

Answer: Really, he mentioned Konam. Even so, since he said it an expression of a Shevu'ah, i.e. she'Eini, in which he forbids himself to the object, it is a Yad for a Neder, and not an absolute Neder.

A Neder said in an expression of a Shevu'ah is like this (a Yad for a Neder), like I wrote above (2b).