1)

WHEN WE ARE CONCERNED FOR SCHEMING (Yerushalmi Perek 5 Halachah 1 Daf 21b)

úîï úðéðï ùåí äéúåîéï ì' éåí ùåí ä÷ãù ñ' éåí åîëøéæéï áá÷ø åáòøá

(a)

(Mishnah): [When Beis Din needs to sell property] of orphans, the auction (we announce, to see who will pay the most for it) is for 30 days. The auction of Hekdesh is 60 days. We announce in the morning and in the evening. (If there was a lien for a Kesuvah against property made Hekdesh, and he comes to divorce her, R. Eliezer says that he must vow not to benefit from her, lest they scheme to enable her to take it from Hekdesh, and he will remarry her. R. Yehoshua says that he need not vow.)

àîø øáé îðà øáé ìéòæø çùù òì äòøîä øáé éäåùò ìà çùù òì äòøîä

(b)

(R. Mana): R. Eliezer is concerned for scheming. R. Yehoshua is not concerned for scheming.

àîø øáé éåñé áé øáé áåï àúéà ãøáé àìéòæø ëáéú ùîàé åãøáé éäåùò ëáéú äìì

(c)

(R. Yosi bei R. Bun): (No. All are concerned for scheming.) R. Eliezer holds like Beis Shamai, and R. Yehoshua holds like Beis Hillel;

ãøáé àìéòæø ëáéú ùîàé ãáéú ùîàé àåîøéí àéï àãí ðùàì òì ä÷ãéùå åäåà ãäåä àîø öøéê ìäãéø äðééä

1.

R. Eliezer holds like Beis Shamai, who says that one cannot ask to permit his Hekdesh. (His only way to 'retract' from his Hekdesh is to scheme to enable his wife to collect it, and remarry her. Therefore,) he says that he must vow not to benefit;

åãøáé éäåùò ëáéú äìì ãáéú äìì àåîøéí àãí ðùàì òì ä÷ãéùå åäåà ãäåä àîø àéðå öøéê ìäãéø äðééä îä ðôùê úäà áå äàéù äåä ùéùàì òì äðééúå

2.

R. Yehoshua holds like Beis Hillel, who says that one can ask to permit his Hekdesh. He says that he need not vow from benefit. No matter what you will say, [in this case there is no concern for scheming]. If he regrets [his Hekdesh, he would not divorce his wife]. He would ask to permit his Hekdesh!

i.

Note: Perhaps the Chacham would not permit his Hekdesh! Surely, one who would scheme to take from Hekdesh, he would lie in order to permit it, e.g. say 'I was Makdish because I thought that I had other money, but now I see that I miscalculated.'

îåãä øáé éäåùò áòøá ùäåà öøéê ìäãéø äðééä

(d)

R. Yehoshua agrees about an Arev (guarantor, for her Kesuvah. Her husband) must vow from benefit [when divorcing her. Perhaps they scheme to collect from the Arev, and he will remarry her!]

îä àîø øáé éäåùò áîúðä

(e)

Question: What would R. Yehoshua say about a gift (there was a lien for her Kesuvah against it, and he comes to divorce her. Must he swear, lest this is a scheme to retract the gift?)

îëéåï ùäåà ðåúï îúðä áòéï éôä àéðå öøéê ìäãéø äðééä àå îàçø ùäåøò ëåçå åäåà çåæø áå öøéê ìäãéø äðééä

1.

Since [presumably] he gives a gift generously [and does not scheme, so] he need not vow. Or, since [the recipient] has little power (if the divorcee collects it, he has no claim for compensation) and [it is as if] the giver retracts, he must vow!

[ö"ì áòì çåá îàé - ùééøé ÷øáï]

(f)

Question: What [would R. Yehoshua say if she will collect her Kesuvah from property that] a creditor [took]?

[ãó ëá òîåã à] ðéùîòéðä îï äãà ÷øéáúéä ãøáé çâéé äåä áòì çééá ÷øèñ àúà îøé çåáà åèøó àúà òåáãà ÷åîé ãøáé àçà àîø öøéê ìäãéø äðééä øáé éåñé àîø àéï öøéê ìäãéø äðééä

(g)

Answer: We learn from the following. R. Chagai's relative, her husband owed money through a document. The creditor took [property Meshubad to her Kesuvah, and her husband wanted to divorce her]. The case came in front of R. Acha. He said, he must vow not to benefit. R. Yosi said, he need not vow not to benefit.

àîøéï çáøéà ÷åîé øáé (àçà åøáé - ðøàä ùöøéê ìîç÷å) éåñé éàåú àîø ø' àçà

1.

Talmidim (in front of R. Yosi): R. Acha said properly!

[ðøàä ùö"ì àîø ìåï] ãàéï çåæø äåà òìéä ìà àúé îøé çåáä åèøó

2.

R. Yosi: [There is no concern for scheming, for if he remarries her], will the creditor not take [back what she collected for her Kesuvah]?!

(àîø ìåï øáé éåñé) [ðøàä ùö"ì àîøå ìå] òáãä ìåï úëùéèéï òáãä ìåï ôøä ôøðåï

3.

Rebuttal (Talmidim): She can convert (sell the property and buy) ornaments, or her husband can make it a gift (waive rights to it when he remarries her. There is concern for scheming!)

àîø øáé çâéé îùä éàåú àîø øáé (éåñé) [ö"ì àçà - òìé úîø]

4.

R. Chagai: Moshe (Gedol ha'Dor)! R. Acha said properly.

åðô÷ òåáãà ëøáé àçà

(h)

A case occurred, and [they ruled] like R. Acha. (We explained this based on PANIM ME'IROS Bava Basra 10:9; there, a different version of the episode is brought.)

úîï àú àîø úöà åúøòä áòãø åëà àú àîø àëéï

(i)

Question: There, we say that [if one asked a Chacham and permitted his Nezirus, the animal he designated] goes (to Chulin) and grazes with the flock, and here you say so (that one cannot permit Hekdesh)?!

àîø øáé éåñé áé øáé áåï úîï ìðæéøåúå ðùàì îëç ðæéøåú éöàå ÷øáðåúéå ìçåìéï

(j)

Answer (R. Yosi bei R. Bun): There, he asked to permit Nezirus. Due to [Bitul of] Nezirus, the Korbanos become Chulin.

øáé éøîéä áùí øáé çåðä øáé çæ÷éä åøáé àçà áùí øáé éåçðï ëì òîà îåãéé ùàéï ðùàì òì úîåøúå îä ôìéâéï áä÷ãéùå ùáéú ùîàé àåîøéí ëùí ùàéï àãí ðùàì òì úîåøúå ëê àéï ðùàì òì ä÷ãéùå

(k)

(R. Yirmeyah citing R. Chunah, and R. Chizkiyah and R. Acha citing R. Yochanan): All agree that one cannot ask to permit his Temurah. About what do they argue? His Hekdesh. Beis Shamai say, just like one cannot ask to permit his Temurah, one cannot ask to permit his Hekdesh;

áéú äìì àåîøéí àãí ðùàì òì ä÷ãéùå åàéï ðùàì òì úîåøúå

1.

Beis Hillel say, one can ask to permit his Hekdesh, but he cannot ask to permit his Temurah.

øáé ùîòåï áï ì÷éù áùí áø ÷ôøà àú úåôùå îùí (ùåø) [ö"ì ùçåø - ñôø ðéø] îùí øàùåï

(l)

(Reish Lakish citing Bar Kapara): [In our Mishnah, Beis Shamai] say that we obligate him due to 'black', and due to 'first' (if it is possible to fulfill both of these);

ùåø ùçåø ùéöà îáéú øàùåï åéöà ìáï åéöàå ùçåøéï àçøéå àú úåôùå îùåí øàù ìùçåøéí

1.

[If he said] 'the black ox that will leave my house first [will be Hekdesh]', and a white ox left, and black ones left after it, you obligate him due to the first of the black oxen (it is Kadosh);

ùåø ìáï ùéöà îáéúé øàùåï åéöà ùçåø åéöàå ìáðéí àçøéå àú úåôùå îùåí øàù ììáðéí

2.

[If he said] 'the white ox that will leave my house first', and a black ox left, and white ones left after it - you obligate him due to the first of the white oxen. (We explained this like OHR YAKOV.)

ùåø ùòîã òì äàáåñ åðîöà øáåõ øáåõ åðîöà òåîã

(m)

Question: [If one was Makdish] 'the ox standing by the trough', and it was found to be crouching, [or he said] 'crouching', and it was found to be standing [what is the law]?

éäà áä ëäãà ãîø øáé àáäå áùí øáé éåçðï ðúëååï ìúøåí ëøé çéèéï åúøí ùòåøéí áìéìä ìà òùä ëìåí áéåí îä ùòùä òùåé

(n)

Answer: It is like R. Avahu said in the name of R. Yochanan - if one intended to be Torem (separate Terumah from) a stack of wheat, and he was Torem barley - at night, it has no effect (he erred). During the day, what he did, he did (he saw what it is, and decided to be Torem barley, therefore it took effect. Also here, if he could see whether it was crouching or standing, it takes effect; if not, it does not);

ùçîúéú åðîöàú àâøåï àôéìå áéåí ìà òùä ëìåí

1.

[If he intended to be Torem] red, and it was found to be white - even during the day (they are not easily distinguishable, so) it has no effect.

[ãó ëá òîåã á] àéì ìà ëìåí òâì àéï ãëúéá [åé÷øà è á] åòâì áï á÷ø ìçèàú

(o)

[If he said] 'the ox that will leave my house first [will be Hekdesh]', and a ram left, it has no effect. If a calf left, yes (it is Kadosh) - "v'Egel Ben Bakar l'Chatas." (Perhaps the proof is because this was Aharon's Chatas at the Milu'im; a Kohen Gadol brings a Par for a Chatas. (PF) Here it was a calf, to show that Hash-m forgave Aharon for the Egel (Rashi Vayikra 9:2).)

ëáù ìà ëìåí ñìòéí ìà ëìåí ôøåèøåè ìà ëìåí ãéðø æäá ÷ãù:

(p)

If a lamb left, it has no effect. [If he said 'the Dinar that will come out of my wallet first will be Hekdesh]', and Sela'im came out, it has no effect. If Perutos (worth a Dinar in all) came out, it has no effect. If a gold Dinar came out, it is Kadosh.

2)

DO WE PERMIT NEZIRUS FOR ONE WHO TRANSGRESSED IT? (Yerushalmi Perek 5 Halachah 2 Daf 22b)

îúðé' îé ùðãø áðæéø åðùàì ìçëîéí åàñøå îåðä îùòä ùðæø

(a)

(Mishnah): If one accepted Nezirus, and he asked Chachamim to permit it, and they forbade, he counts his Nezirus from the time that he accepted Nezirus (even if he was not observing the laws of Nezirus).

ðùàì ìçëîéí åäúéøå åäéúä ìå áäîä îåôøùú úöà åúøòä áòãø

(b)

If he asked Chachamim, and they permitted, if he had designated an animal [for Korban Nazir], it goes out [to Chulin] and grazes with the flock (it has no Kedushah).

àîøå áéú äìì ìáéú ùîàé àéï àúí îåãéï áæä ùäåà ä÷ãù èòåú ùúöà åúøòä áòãø

(c)

Beis Hillel (to Beis Shamai): Don't you agree about this, that it is mistaken Hekdesh, it goes out and grazes with the flock?!

àîøå ìäï áéú ùîàé àé àúí îåãéï áîé ùèòä å÷øà ìúùéòé òùéøé åìòùéøé úùéòé åìàçã òùø òùéøé ùäåà î÷åãù

(d)

Beis Shamai: Don't you agree that if one (was counting his flock to declare the 10th Ma'aser and) erred, and called the ninth '10th', called the 10th 'ninth', and called the 11th '10th', that it is (all are) Kadosh?!

àîøå ìäï áéú äìì ìà äùáè ÷éãùå åîä àéìå èòä åäðéç àú äùáè òì äùîéðé àå òì ùðéí òùø ùîà òùä ëìåí

(e)

Beis Hillel: The staff was not Mekadesh them. Had he erred and put his staff on the eighth or 12th, would this have any effect?!

àìà ëúåá ù÷éãù àú äòùéøé åäåà ÷éãù àú äúùéòé åàú àçã òùø:

1.

Rather, the verse that teaches that the 10th is Hekdesh, also is Mekadesh (through a Derashah) the ninth and 11th.

âî' úðé áéú ùîàé àåîøéí îùòä ùðùàì åá"ä àåîøéí îùòä ùðæø

(f)

(Gemara - Beraisa - Beis Shamai): [If he asked and Chachamim forbade, he counts his Nezirus] from the time he asked. Beis Hillel say, from the time he vowed.

îä ðï ÷ééîéï àí (áùâéìâì) [ö"ì áù÷ì÷ì - ðçîã ìîøàä, ñôø îùáéç] áðæøå ëì òîà îåãéé îùòä ùðùàì

1.

If he ruined his Nezirus (transgressed), all agree that it is from the time he asked! (All changes of the text to 'Kilkel' are from NICHMAD L'MAR'EH and HA'MASHBI'ACH.)

àí áùìà (âéìâì) [ö"ì ÷ì÷ì] áðæøå ëì òîà îåãéé îùòä ùðæø

2.

If he did not transgress his Nezirus, all agree that it is from the time he accepted Nezirus!

àìà ëé ðï ÷ééîéï áùòúéã ìéùàì áéú ùîàé àåîøéí îëéåï ùòúéã ìéùàì (îâìâì) [ö"ì î÷ì÷ì] äåà åáéú äìì àåîøéí àéìå (âéìâì) [ö"ì ÷ì÷ì] ìà äéä ðùàì

(g)

Answer: The case is, [we know that] he intended to ask. Beis Shamai say, since he intended to ask, [presumably] he transgressed. Beis Hillel say, had he transgressed (for he was not concerned for it), he would not have asked!

äøé ùðæø åäéä (îâìâì) [ö"ì î÷ì÷ì] áðæøå àéï ðùàìéï ìå àìà àí ëï ðäâ áäï áàéñåø ëéîéí ùðäâ áäï áäéúø ãáøé øáé éåãà àîø øáé éñà

(h)

If one accepted Nezirus and transgressed his Nezirus, we do not let him ask to permit it unless he conducts Isur like the number of days he conducted Heter. R. Yehudah says so;

áîä ãáøéí àîåøéí áðæøå (îøåáä àáì áðæøå îîåòè) [ö"ì îîåòè àáì áðæøå îøåáä - ÷äéìú éò÷á] ãéå ùìùéí éåí

1.

When is this? It is for a short Nezirus, but for a long Nezirus, 30 days suffices.

åîä áéï ðæøå îøåáä ìðæøå îîåòè

2.

Question: What is the difference between a long Nezirus and a short Nezirus?

àìà àëï äåà áîä ãáøéí àîåøéí áæîï (ùâéìâì áðæøå æîï îøåáä àáì âéìâì áðæøå æîï îîåòè) [ö"ì ù÷ì÷ì áðæøå æîï îîåòè àáì ö"ì ÷ì÷ì áðæøå æîï îøåáä - ò"ô ÷äéìú éò÷á, ðçîã ìîøàä, îùáéç] ãéå ùìùéí

3.

Correction: Rather, when is this? It is when he transgressed his Nezirus for a short time, but if he transgressed his Nezirus for a long time, 30 days suffices. (We explained this like KEHILAS YAKOV Nazir 18/19.)

îä ðï ÷ééîéï

(i)

Question: What is the case?

(áùâéìâì) [ö"ì áù÷ì÷ì] áèåîàä ëì òîà îåãéé ùñúø äëì

1.

If he transgressed Tum'ah, all agree that he canceled everything!

àí áùìà (âéìâì) [ö"ì î÷ì÷ì] àìà áúâìçú ëì òîà îåãéé ùìà ñúø àìà ùìùéí éåí

2.

If he transgressed only shaving, all agree that he cancels only 30 days!

àìà ëï àðï ÷ééîéï (áùâéìâì) [ö"ì áù÷ì÷ì] áééï

(j)

Answer: Rather, the case is, he transgressed [drinking] wine. (Mid'Oraisa, this does not cancel anything. Chachamim are stringent not to let him ask to permit it unless he conducts Isur like the time he transgressed.)

áòåîã áúåê ðæéøåúå àáì áòåîã ìàçø ðæéøåúå (àëì) [ö"ì àéðå - ÷øáï äòãä] ñúø

(k)

Limitation: This is when he stands amidst Nezirus, but if he [transgressed] after [his time of] Nezirus (before bringing Korbanos), he does not cancel.

3)

MISTAKEN HEKDESH OF MA'ASER (Yerushalmi Perek 5 Halachah 2 Daf 23a)

[ãó ëâ òîåã à] úîï úðéðï ÷øà ìúùéòé òùéøé åìòùéøé úùéòé åìàçã òùø òùéøé ùìùúï î÷åãùéï äúùéòé ðàëì áîåîå åäòùéøé îòùø åàçã òùø ÷øá ùìîéí

(a)

(Mishnah): If one called the ninth '10th', called the 10th 'ninth', and called the 11th '10th', all three are Hekdesh. The ninth is eaten when it gets a Mum (like the law of a blemished Ma'aser), the 10th is [offered for] Ma'aser, and the 11th is offered for Shelamim;

[åé÷øà â à] éäéä ÷åãù îìîã ùä÷ãåùä çìä òì äúùéòé åòì àçã òùø

1.

Source: "Yihyeh Kadosh" teaches that Kedushah takes effect [even] on the ninth and 11th.

éëåì é÷øáå ùðéäï

2.

Suggestion: Perhaps both of them are offered!

ú"ì [åé÷øà â à] (á÷ø á÷ø) [ö"ì îï äá÷ø äá÷ø - ÷øáï äòãä] ìøáåú àçã òùø îï äá÷ø ìäåöéà àú äúùéòé

3.

Rejection: "Min ha'Bakar"- ha'Bakar includes the 11th. Min ha'Bakar excludes the ninth.

îä øàéú ìøáåú àçã òùø åìäåöéà úùéòé

4.

Question: Why do you see proper to include the 11th and exclude the ninth? (We could expound oppositely!)

àçø ùøéáä äëúåá îéòè ùúéîöà àåîø àéîúé ä÷åãù òåùä úîåøä ìôðéå àå ìàçøéå äåé àåîø ìàçøéå îøáä àðé àçã òùø ùäåà àçø ä÷ãåùä åîåöéà àðé àú äúùéòé ùäåà ìôðé ä÷ãåùä

5.

Answer: After the Torah included, it excluded. (It authorized Chachamim to expound what to include and exclude. - PNEI MOSHE) It is proper to say, when does Kodesh (the 10th) make Temurah - before it or after it? I say, after it (is Kadosh. Therefore,) I include the 11th, which is after Kedushah [of the 10th], and exclude the ninth, which is before the Kedushah.

òã ëãåï ëñáåø áå ùäåà òùéøé å÷øåé òùéøé äéä éåãò áå ùäåà úùéòé å÷øééå òùéøé

(b)

Question: Until now, we discussed when he thought that [the ninth] is 10th, and he called it 10th. If he knew that it is ninth, and he called it 10th [what is the law]?

çáøééà àîøéï ÷ãù

(c)

Answer #1 (Talmidim): It is Kadosh.

øáé éåãï àîø ìà ÷ãù

(d)

Answer #2 (R. Yudan): It is not Kadosh.

îúðéúà îñééò ìçáøééà àîøå áéú äìì ìáéú ùîàé àéï àúí îåãéï ùúöà åúøòä áòãø

(e)

Support: (for Talmidim - Mishnah): Beis Hillel said to Beis Shamai - don't you agree that [it is mistaken Hekdesh, so] it goes out and grazes with the flock?!

àîøå ìäï áéú ùîàé àé àúí îåãéï áîé ùèòä å÷øà ìúùéòé òùéøé åìòùéøé úùéòé åìàçã òùø òùéøé ùäåà î÷åãù

1.

Beis Shamai: Don't you agree that if one erred, and called the ninth '10th', called the 10th 'ninth', and called the 11th '10th', that they are all Hekdesh!

(åàéðï) [ö"ì åàéðåï - ÷øáï äòãä] î÷áìéï îðäåï ãìà ëï éúéáåðåï îä àúí îùéáéï àåúðå îï ãáø ùäéä ÷ãåù àìà áèòåú òì ãáø ùäåà ÷ãåù áéï áèòåú áéï ùìà áèòåú

2.

Summation of support: Beis Hillel accepted from them. If not, they should have answered them 'how do you challenge us from something (the ninth and 11th) that takes effect only mistakenly, [to learn from it] something (regular Hekdesh) that takes effect mistakenly or not mistakenly?! (Regular Hekdesh is only knowingly, and the ninth and 11th are only unknowingly! Beis Hillel did not say so, for they agree that the ninth and 11th take effect even knowingly.)

(ëéé ãîø øáé àîé òùéøé äåå áúùåáä àå ééáà ëéé ãîø øáé ðñà) [ö"ì ééáà ëäãà ãàîø øáé àîé àîø øáé ðñà òùéøé äåå áúùåáä - ò"ô äâø"à áëìàéí á:â] ëàéðù ãàéú ìéä úøéï èòîéï åîúéá çã îðäåï:

(f)

Rebuttal: This is like R. Ami said in the name of R. Nasa said - [Beis Hillel] had many rejoinders - this is like a man who has two reasons, and he answered one of them. (They could have answered also that the ninth and 11th take effect only mistakenly. We explained this like the GRA.)

4)

ONE WHO ACCEPTED NEZIRUS BECAUSE HE THOUGHT THAT HE HAD AN ANIMAL (Yerushalmi Perek 5 Halachah 3 Daf 23a)

îúðé' îé ùðæø áðæéø åäìê ìäáéà àú áäîúå åîöàä ùðâðáä

(a)

(Mishnah): If one accepted Nezirus, and went to bring the animal [that he intended to bring for Korban Nazir], and found that it was stolen:

àí òã ùìà ðâðáä áäîä ðæø äøé æä ðæéø

1.

If it was stolen after his vow, he is a Nazir;

àí îùðâðáä áäîä ðæø àéðå ðæéø

2.

If it was stolen before he vowed, he is not a Nazir.

æå èòåú èòä ðçåí àéù äîãé ëùòìå ðæéøéí îï äâåìä åîöàå áéú äî÷ãù çøá

(b)

Nachum the Mede erred in this law when Nezirim ascended from Bavel and heard that the second Mikdash had been destroyed.

àîø ìäï ðçåí àéù äîãé àéìå äééúí éåãòéí ùáéú äî÷ãù òúéã ìéçøá ðåæøéí äééúí

1.

Nachum the Mede: Had you known that the Mikdash will be destroyed, would you have vowed?

àîøå ìå ìàå åäúéøï ðçåí àéù äîãé

2.

They said 'no', and Nachum the Mede permitted them.

åëùáà ãáø àöì çëîéí àîøå ëì ùðæø òã ùìà çøá áéú äî÷ãù ðæéø åîùçøá áéú äî÷ãù àéðå ðæéø:

3.

When the matter came to Chachamim, they said 'anyone who vowed before the Churban is a Nazir. One who vowed after the Churban is not a Nazir.'

âî' îä àðï ÷ééîéï

(c)

(Gemara) Question: What is the case?

àí áùøàä áäîä òåáøú áùå÷ åàîø äøéðé ðæéø òì áäîä æàú ùòáøä àôéìå îùðâðáä áäîä ðæéø

1.

If when he saw an animal passing in the market, he said 'I am a Nazir [in order to shave] on this animal that passed', even [if he accepted Nezirus] after the animal was stolen, he is a Nazir!

àí ëñáåø ùéù ìå åðîöà ùàéï ìå ëê àðå àåîøéí äéä òùéø åäòðé úéô÷ò îîðå ðæéøåúå

2.

If he thought that he has [an animal], and it is found that he does not have, so we say - if he was rich and became poor, is his Nezirus uprooted from him?! (Surely it is not!)

àìà àëï àðï ÷ééîéï áàåîø äøéðé ðæéø òì äáäîä ùéù ìé áúåê äáéú åäìê åîöàä ùðâðáä àí òã ùìà ðâðáä äáäîä ðæø äøé æä ðæéø àí îùðâðáä äáäîä ðæø àéï æä ðæéø

(d)

Answer: The case is, he said 'I am a Nazir [in order to shave] on the animal that I have in the house', and it is found that it was stolen. If before it was stolen, he accepted Nezirus, he is a Nazir. If after it was stolen, he accepted Nezirus, he is not a Nazir.

úìîéãåäé ãø' çééä áø ìåìééðà àîøéï øáé éäåãä ùàì äçæéøåä äâðáéí áìéìä ìîôøò çæø òìéå ðæéøåúå àå îéëï åìáà

(e)

Question (Talmidim of R. Chiyah bar Lulaina, citing R. Yehudah): If the thieves returned it at night (before he knew that it was stolen), does Nezirus return to him retroactively, or from now and onwards? (If he knew that it was stolen before it was returned, the Nezirus is Batel, and does not return - OHR SOMAYACH Hilchos Nedarim 8:2. According to this, we can say that it mentioned 'at night', for during the day, normally he would realize that it was stolen before it was returned to him. - PF)

1.

Note: OHR SOMAYACH says that it was returned the same day that he vowed, for if not, surely he never accepted to be a Nazir for 30 days from when it was returned. What is the difference whether it is from when he vowed, or later that day? If he transgressed Nezirus with warning, it is relevant for lashes. Or, if he was Mekadesh an animal in between, it is Kadosh only if he was a Nazir then. (PF) I suggest that it can be relevant even if it was returned the next day, e.g. if the first day that he could have shaved was on Shabbos, in any case he must conduct Nezirus until bringing Korban(os) the following day. Indeed, if his Nezirus begins the next day, he has the severity of being a full Nazir for one additional day (and not a mere Isur Aseh "Az Yishteh ha'Nazir Yayin"), but perhaps this is not a reason to say that he never intended to accept Nezirus

æå èòåú èòä ðçåí àéù äîãé îä èòä ùôúç ìäí [ãó ëâ òîåã á] áðåìã

(f)

Nachum the Mede erred about this. What was his mistake? He permitted them through Nolad (something that occurred later, that the Noder could not have anticipated).

àîø ìäí ðçåí àéù äîãé àéìå äééúí éåãòéï ùáéú äî÷ãù òúéã ìéçøá ðåãøéï äééúí

(g)

(Mishnah - Nachum the Mede): Had you known that the Mikdash would be destroyed, would you have vowed?

àîø øáé æòéøà äåä öøéê îéîø ìåï ìà äééúí éåãòéï ùëáø ðúðáàå äðáéàéí ìëí ùáéú äî÷ãù òúéã ìéçøá ìà äååú ëðåìã

(h)

(R. Ze'ira): He should have told them 'did you not know that prophets already prophesized that the Beis ha'Mikdash will be destroyed?' Then, it would not be like Nolad.

àîø ìåï øáé äéìà òåã äåà ëðåìã éëìéï äååï îéîø éãòéï äåéðï àìà äåéðï ñáøéï ãîéìééà øçé÷éï [éçæ÷àì éá ëæ] äçæåï àùø äåà çåæä ìéîéí øáéí

(i)

Rebuttal (R. Heila): It would still be like Nolad. They could say, we knew, but we thought that it will be much later - "he'Chazon Asher Hu Chozeh l'Yamim Rabim."