NEZIRUS FROM ONE CUP
(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 to forbid that cup with a vow.
(Gemara) Question: The case contradicts the law taught!
The Reisha says that he is a Nazir. In the episode, she may not drink that cup, but she may drink others!
Answer: The Mishnah is abbreviated. It means, if 'they mixed a cup of wine for a man and he said 'I am a Nazir from it', he is a Nazir. If he was drunk, he is not a Nazir;
The reason is, it is as if he forbade that cup like a Korban.
Suggestion: If so, he should have said so!
Answer: He reasoned, if I forbid just that cup, they will bring to me another and annoy me. Rather, I will say something that will cause them to desist.
A case occurred in which a woman...
ONE WHO DOES NOT WANT TO OBSERVE ALL ISURIM OF A NAZIR
(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 about Nezirus, but I did not know that a Nazir is forbidden to drink wine', he is forbidden;
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 says, he is forbidden.
(Gemara) Question: R. Shimon should argue also in the Reisha!
Answer #1 (R. Yehoshua ben Levi): Indeed, he also argues in the Reisha.
Answer #2 (Ravina): He does not argue, because the man stipulates contrary to Torah, and such a stipulation is void.
R. Yehoshua ben Levi holds that when he said 'on condition', he delimits what he accepts (as opposed to accepting Nezirus and stipulating that he will have a leniency).
Support (for Ravina - Beraisa): 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, because he stipulated contrary to Torah, and such a stipulation is void.
(Mishnah): If one said 'I knew that a Nazir is forbidden to drink wine...'
Question: In the Reisha, Chachamim forbid, and R. Shimon permits!
Answer #1: The opinions should be switched. Chachamim forbid, and R. Shimon permits.
Answer #2: We need not switch the opinions:
In the Reisha, he did not accept all Isurei Nazir. Chachamim say that acceptance of one Isur suffices to make him a full Nazir. R. Shimon permits, unless he accepts all Isurim.
In the Seifa, he accepted all the Isurim, and seeks to permit one of them.
According to Chachamim, just like acceptance of one Isur makes him a full Nazir, annulment of one Isur permits him.
According to R. Shimon, just like he is not a full Nazir unless he accepts all Isurim, he is forbidden unless he permits all the Isurim.
Answer #3: The Tana'im argue about Nidrei Ones (he did not vow with this intent) like Rav Asi and Shmuel argue:
(Mishnah): Chachamim permitted four categories of vows: vows of urging, of exaggeration, b'Shogeg; and b'Ones.
(Rav Asi): One who took one of these vows must ask a Chacham to annul it.
Objection (Shmuel): It says that Chachamim permitted these vows. You cannot say that one must ask a Chacham!
Chachamim hold like Shmuel (he is permitted immediately), and R. Shimon holds like Rav Asi (he is forbidden until he asks a Chacham).
ONE WHO ACCEPTS NEZIRUS AND TO BRING A NAZIR'S KORBANOS
(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 'I also, and it is Alai to be Megale'ach a Nazir.' If they are clever, each is Megale'ach the other. If not, each must be Megale'ach another Nazir.
(Gemara) Question: If Shimon heard and said 'I also', does this refer to both things Reuven said, or on just one?
Question: If it only refers to one, does it refer to the first, or to the second?
Answer #1 (Mishnah): If one said 'I also, and it is Alai to be Megale'ach a Nazir.'
Inference: He needed to say 'and it is Alai...' in addition to 'I also.' This shows that 'I also' refers only to one.
Question: Does it refer to the first or the second?
Answer: Since he needed to repeat the second matter, 'I also' refers to the first.
Rejection (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): Perhaps it refers to both. 'And it is Alai' merely clarifies what he accepted!
Support (for rejection - Seifa (12b)): If one said 'it is Alai to be Megale'ach a half-Nazir', and Shimon heard this, and said 'I also, it is Alai to be Megale'ach a half-Nazir,..'
Shimon only heard one matter. Clearly, 'it is Alai' merely clarifies what he accepted!
Answer (Rava): If 'I also' always refers only to one matter, we understand the Mishnayos.
Our Mishnah must teach 'and it is Alai' (without this, Shimon accepted only Nezirus). The next Mishnah repeats 'and it is Alai' for parallel structure.
But if 'I also' refers to both, there was no need to teach 'and it is Alai', in either Mishnah!