1)

TOSFOS DH Asur b'Kol ha'Nashim sheb'Olam

úåñôåú ã"ä àñåø áëì äðùéí ùáòåìí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why other men need not be stringent.)

åà"ú åë"ò éàñøå ìéùà ðùéí ãùîà æàú äéà ùðú÷ãùä ò"é ùìéç

(a)

Question: Everyone should be forbidden to marry women. Perhaps this [woman that he wants to marry] is the one whom the Shali'ach was Mekadesh!

åìø"ú ãäðùéí ðàîðåú ìåîø ìà ðú÷ãùúé úéðç âãåìåú

(b)

Partial Answer #1: R. Tam says that women are believed to say "I did not become Mekudeshes." This answers for women who were adults (Bogros, when the Shali'ach was sent).

÷èðåú ùàéðï éåãòåú àí àáéäí ÷áì òáåøï ÷ãåùéï îàé àéëà ìîéîø åëáø îú àáéä

(c)

Objection: How can we answer for [women who were Na'aros or] minors, if their father already died [before she wants to marry? Perhaps he was Mekadesh her through the Shali'ach!]

åé"ì ãîãàåøééúà àôéìå äåà ùøé ìéùà ãàæìéðï áúø øåáà ëìåîø (ëï äåà áãôåñ åðöéä) ãìàå (äâäú ø' áöìàì àùëðæé) î÷øåáåú äî÷åãùú äéà

(d)

Answer #2: Mid'Oraisa, even he (the Meshale'ach) may marry, for we follow the majority, i.e. [the woman whom he wants to marry now is] not a relative of the one Mekudeshes [through the Shali'ach];

åàéðå àìà ÷ðñà áòìîà ùòùä ùìéç ñúí åìà ôéøù ìå ÷ãù ìôìåðéú åìãéãéä ÷ðñå åìàçøéðé ìà ÷ðñå

1.

It is a mere fine because he made a Shali'ach Stam and did not specify to him "be Mekadesh Plonis [to me]." [Chachamim] fined him. They did not fine others.

[åà"ú] åìéäåé àéñåøà ãàåøééúà ãäåéà ìéä ÷áåò åëì ÷áåò ëîçöä òì îçöä ãîé

(e)

Question: It should be a Torah Isur, for [the Isur is] Kavu'a (it did not separate from the majority). Every [Safek Isur] Kavu'a is like an even Safek! (We do not follow the majority.)

åé"ì ãìà àîøéðï ÷áåò ëîçöä ãîé àìà ëùäàéñåø ðéëø ìòöîå åääéúø ðéëø ìòöîå

(f)

Answer: We say that Kavu'a is like an even Safek only when the Isur is recognized by itself (at the time the Safek began), and the Heter is recognized by itself;

àáì ëùàéï äàéñåø ðéëø ìòöîå ìà àîøéðï ÷áåò.

1.

When the Isur is not recognized by itself, we do not apply the law of Kavu'a. (Others consider this Kavu'a. See the discussion in Arzei ha'Levanon.)

2)

TOSFOS DH Ken Stumah

úåñôåú ã"ä ÷ï ñúåîä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains what is Stumah.)

ãæá åæáä åéåìãú ùîáéàéï çèàú äòåó åòåìú äòåó åñúåîä ôéøåù (äâäú áøëú øàù) ùäáòìéí ìà ôéøùå áùòú ì÷éçú áòìéí àéæäå ìòåìä

(a)

Explanation: This is of a Zav, Zavah or Yoledes. Each brings Chatas ha'Of and Olas ha'Of. "Stumah" means that the owner did not specify at the time of purchase which will be [for the Chatas, and which for the Olah].

åîù"ä ð÷è ñúåîä ãàé îôåøùú äéä öøéê ìäàøéê åìôøù àéæäå ôøç äòåìä [àå] äçèàú åìäëé ÷éöø áìùåðå åàîø ãôøç àçã îäí.

1.

Therefore, it mentions Stumah, for if he specified, [the Tana] would have to elaborate to say which flew away, the Olah or the Chatas. Therefore, he was concise, and said that one of them flew away. (Tosfos Yom Tov Kinim 2:1 - it seems that Tosfos' text of the Gemara did not say that there is no solution for a specified Ken.)

3)

TOSFOS DH v'Ilu She'ar Kinim b'Alma Metaknan...

úåñôåú ã"ä åàéìå ùàø ÷éðéï áòìîà îú÷ðï...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the question.)

ãìîà äàé äåà (äâäú úôàøú öéåï) àåúå ùôøç ëìåîø åäå÷áò ëáø ìøàåáï åàéê éöà ùîòåï áå éãé çåáúå

(a)

Explanation: (Why are other Kinim fine?) Perhaps this (that Shimon wants to use) is the one that flew, i.e. and it was fixed to be for Reuven. How can Shimon fulfill his obligation with it?!

åà"ú åäà ëáø ôéøùðå ãìòìîà ìà ÷ðñå

(b)

Question: We already explained that we did not fine others [who did not send a Shali'ach for Kidushin. Why is this Mishnah difficult for R. Yochanan?!]

åéù ìåîø ãîùîò ìéä ãùàø ÷éðéï ãòìîà àôé' ìøàåáï îéú÷ï àí éöèøê ì÷ï àçã ì÷øáï àçø (äâäú áøëú øàù)

(c)

Answer: [Reish Lakish] understands that other Kinim, even of Reuven, are fine, if he needs one [bird] for another Korban. (Birkas Rosh - it would be Kosher for another Zivah, but not for a different obligation to bring birds);

àîàé äà ÷ðñå ìãéãéä ä"ð é÷ðñåäå ùìà ùîø ÷éðéä åìåîø ùæä ôøç î÷ï øàùåï åäå÷áò ìæéáåú øàùåï.

1.

[We ask] what is the reason? [R. Yochanan says that regarding Kidushin,] they fined him. Also here, they should fine him, for he did not guard his Ken, and say that this [bird he found now], it flew from the first Ken, and was fixed to be for his first Zivah!

4)

TOSFOS DH Ishah Lo Naida

úåñôåú ã"ä àùä ãìà ðééãà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that she is slightly Kavu'a.)

åðäé ãìà ÷áåò ìâîøé ëãô"ì

(a)

Implied question: A woman is not totally Kavu'a, like I explained above (DH Asur)!

î"î ãîéà ÷öú ì÷áåò åéù ìäçîéø.

(b)

Answer: In any case, she slightly resembles Kavu'a, and it is proper to be stringent.

5)

TOSFOS DH b'Shuka Ashkach v'Kadish

úåñôåú ã"ä áùå÷à àùëç å÷ãéù

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the suggestion why we should be lenient.)

ëìåîø äéëà ãîöà àåúä áùå÷à äéä ìðå ìåîø ùéåëì ì÷ãùä ãìà ÷áéòä äåéà åà"ë ìà ãîé (äâäú áøëú øàù) ì÷áåò.

(a)

Explanation: When [the Shali'ach] found her (the woman he was Mekadesh) in the market, we should say that [the Meshale'ach] can be Mekadesh [any woman now], for she is unlike [an Isur] Kavu'a.

6)

TOSFOS DH Hasam Hadra l'Nichusa

úåñôåú ã"ä äúí äãøà ìðéçåúà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this makes it like an Isur Kavu'a.)

åãîé ì÷áåò.

(a)

Explanation: [Because she returns to her fixed place,] this is like Kavu'a.

7)

TOSFOS DH b'Ishah she'Ein Lah Bas v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä áàùä ùàéï ìä áú ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that she did not have an unmarried relative when the Shali'ach was appointed.)

ôé' ëâåï ùîðä ùìéç áø"ç ðéñï åëì (äâäú áøëú øàù) ÷øåáåúéä ùøàåéä øçì æå ìàñåø î÷ãåùéä äåå ðùåàåú áø"ç ðéñï ëùòùäå ùìéç

(a)

Explanation: E.g. he appointed the Shali'ach on Rosh Chodesh Nisan, and all her relatives that Rachel could become forbidden through their Kidushin (i.e. her mother, grandmothers, daughters, granddaughters and sisters), they were married when the Shali'ach was appointed, on Rosh Chodesh Nisan;

åàò"ô ùðúâøùå ÷åãí éåí ä÷ãåùéï îåúøú øçì æå ìîùìç ëãîôøù èòîà ãîùòä ã÷àîø äåééï ðñéáï.

1.

Even if [some of these relatives] were divorced [or widowed] before the day [that the Meshale'ach wants to be Mekadesh Rachel], Rachel is permitted to the Meshale'ach, like the Gemara explains, that from the time he said (made a Shali'ach), they were married.

8)

TOSFOS DH Ki Meshavei Inish Shali'ach b'Milsei d'Kaima Kamei

úåñôåú ã"ä ëé îùåé àéðéù ùìéç áîéìúéä ã÷ééîà ÷îéä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the question from our Mishnah.)

ëìåîø [àéï] ãòúå ùé÷ãù ìå àùä ùðúâøùä àçøé ëï

(a)

Explanation: He does not intend that [the Shali'ach] be Mekadesh to him a woman divorced afterwards;

äìëê àôéìå àí ÷éãù àçú î÷øåáåúéä ùì øçì ìà ðàñøä øçì á÷éãåùéï ùäåà ìà (äâäú îäø"á øðùáåøâ) òùàå ùìéç ìëê ìà çìå ÷ãåùé ÷øåáé øçì

1.

Therefore, even if [the Shali'ach] was Mekadesh one of Rachel's relatives [in such a case], Rachel is not forbidden through the Kidushin, for he did not make him a Shali'ach for this, so the Kidushin of Rachel's relative does not take effect.

åäùúà ÷ñ"ã ãàéï ãòú äàãí àìà áîéãé ã÷àé ÷îéä ìëê ôøéê îîúðé' (äâäú áøëú øàù)

(b)

Explanation (cont.): Now we are thinking that a person's intent is only for what is in front of him. Therefore, we ask from the Mishnah;

áùìîà áúøàä àéëà ÷ãîàä ÷îéä ùðãø ëáø åàéëà ìîéîø ããòúéä òìéä åìëê ôåèø òöîå á÷øáðåú ìøàùåï (äâäú áøëú øàù)

1.

Granted, the latter [man to vow], the earlier man, who already vowed, is in front of him. We can say that he intended [to bring Korbanos] for him. Therefore, he exempts himself through Korbanos [that he gives] to the first;

àìà ÷ãîàä îé àéëà áúøàä ëùðãø äøàùåï åà"ë ìà äéä áãòúå òìéå ìäáéà ÷øáðåú åàéê éôèø îðãøå áäáàú ÷øáðåúéå ùì ùðé.

2.

However, the first, is the latter [already a Nazir] when the first vowed?! If so, he did not intend to bring Korbanos for him. How can he be exempt from his vow through bringing Korbanos for the second?

9)

TOSFOS DH Mai Taima

úåñôåú ã"ä î"è

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we did not ask "Heichi Dami?")

ëìåîø äéëé ãîé ùìà äéä ìä àçåú åòúä éù ìä

(a)

Explanation: What is the case? She did not have a sister [at the time], and now she has.

åîï äãéï äåä ìéä ìåîø äéëé ãîé

(b)

Implied question: The Gemara should have asked "what is the case?" (Why does it say "what is the reason?")

àìà îùåí ãìùåï ðæéø îùåðä

(c)

Answer #1: The wording in Maseches Nazir is different [than other Masechtos]

åéù ìééùá äìùåï ãîàé èòîà ãìòåìí äåä éãò ùôéø ãîééøé ëâåï ãðñéáï ìâáøé îëì î÷åí òúä ùðúâøùå éù ìðå ìñô÷ åìàñåø îñô÷

(d)

Answer #2: It says "Mai Taima" because really, he knew that we discuss when they were married. In any case, now that they were divorced, we have a Safek, and we should forbid due to Safek;

åîùðé ëé îùåé àéðéù ùìéç áîéìúéä ãàéäå îöé òáéã åëå' ôé' åãàé ãòú äàãí àôéìå áîéãé ãìà ÷àé ÷îéä åäìëê äøàùåï ðôèø áâéìåç äùðé

1.

We answer that one makes a Shali'ach regarding something he can do. I.e. surely, a person intends for something not in front of him. Therefore, the first is exempted through shaving the second;

àáì ùìéçåúà ùàðé (äâäú áøëú øàù) ãìà îöé àéðéù îùåé ùìéç àìà áîéìúéä ãîöé òáéã ðôùéä áùòä ùòåùä ùìéç

2.

However, Shelichus is different. One can make a Shali'ach only for something he could do himself at the time he makes the Shali'ach.

åäëà ëéåï ãðñéáï (äâäú úåøú ðæéø) ìà îöé ìùååéä ùìéç ì÷ãù ìå àó ëùúúâøù åàó ÷ãùä äùìéç àéðä î÷åãùú

3.

Here, since they were married [when he made the Shali'ach], he cannot make a Shali'ach to be Mekadesh [one of them] to him, even after she is divorced. Even if he was Mekadesh her, she is not Mekudeshes.

åàí úàîø ãäà îòùéí áëì éåí ùäàùä àåîøú ìçáéøúä ìåùé ìé ÷îç åäôøéùé çìä áòáåøé åâí úìîéãéí ùì áéú øáï àåîøéí ëï

(e)

Question: Constantly, a woman tells her friend "knead dough for me, and separate Chalah for me." Also Talmidim learning from their Rebbi say so;

åàéê ðòùä ùìéç áãáø äæä äà áùòä ùòåùä àåúä ùìéçåú ìà äéúä éëåìä áòöîä ìäôøéù çìä î÷îç æä ùàéðå áø çéåáà ùàéï îôøéùéï çìä î÷îç

1.

How does one become a Shali'ach for this? At the time she makes the Shelichus, she could not separate Chalah herself from this flour, which is not obligated. We do not separate Chalah from flour!

åàåîø øáéðå úí ãéù áéãä ìäáéà òéñä îâåìâìú åìåîø òéñä æå úäà çìä òì ÷îç ìëùéäéä ðéìåù

(f)

Answer (R. Tam): She can bring a kneaded dough, and say "this dough will be Chalah on (to exempt) this flour, when it is will be kneaded;

åãáøéí ùáéãä ÷ééîéí ãàéï æä ãáø ùìà áà ìòåìí ëéåï ùáéãä ììåù åìâìâì äòéñä ÷øåé ùôéø áà ìòåìí ëéåï ùáéãä ìòùåú

1.

Things that are b'Yadah (within her power), this is not considered Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam. Since she can mix and knead the dough, this is called Ba l'Olam, since it is b'Yadah to do it;

ëãàîø ôø÷ äàåîø ìçáéøå (÷ãåùéï ãó ñá:) ôéøåú òøåâä æå úìåùä éäà úøåîä òì ôéøåú òøåâä æå îçåáøú ìëùéúìùå åðúìùå ãáøéå ÷ééîéï

2.

It says in Kidushin (62b) "detached Peros of this patch will be Terumah on attached Peros of this patch when they will be detached", and they were detached, his words are fulfilled;

ãëì ùáéãå ìòùåú ìàå ëîçåñø îòùä ãîé åáéãå ìúåìùí

i.

This is because anything b'Yado to do, it is not considered Mechusar Ma'aseh (an action needs to be done), and it is b'Yado to detach them.

åîëì î÷åí áäàé èòîà ìçåãà ìà ñâé ìï ìîéîø ãîöé ìîéòáã ùìéç ëàï ëéåï ãáéãå ììåù åìâìâì

(g)

Assertion: This reason alone does not suffice to say that he can make a Shali'ach here, since it is b'Yado to knead.

îãàîø ôø÷ øáï âîìéàì (éáîåú ãó ðá.) äàåîø ìçáéøå ëúåá âè ìàøåñúé ìëùàëðéñðä àâøùðä äøé æä âè îôðé ùáéãå ìâøùä îäùúà (äâäú ø' áöìàì àùëðæé) àí éøöä

(h)

Source: It says in Yevamos (52a) one who tells his friend "write a Get to my Arusah. After I make Nisu'in, I will divorce her", this is a Get, because he could divorce her from now if he wanted;

åáòé äúí ìéáîúå îäå

1.

We ask there "what is the law regarding [writing a Get] for his Yevamah?

åîàé ÷à îéáòéà ìéä åäà áéãå ìáà òìéä åìâøùä

2.

Question: What was the question? It is b'Yado to have Bi'ah with her (Yibum works b'Al Korchah) and divorce her!

àìà åãàé ëéåï ãäùúà ìà îöé ìâøùä ìà îöé îùåé ùìéç ëéåï ãîçåñø îòùä ìáà òìéä

3.

Answer: Rather, surely since now he cannot divorce her, he cannot make a Shali'ach, since it is Mechusar Ma'aseh to have Bi'ah with her;

äëà ðîé ëéåï ãäùúà àéäå ìà îöé ìäôøéù àéðå ÷øåé áéãå îä ùáéãå ììåù åìâìâì ìòðéï æä ùéëåì ìòùåú ùìéç ëéåï ãîçåñø ìéùä åâéìâåì.

i.

Also here, since now he cannot separate, it is not called b'Yado just because he could knead and mix, so that he could make a Shali'ach, since it is Mechusar kneading and mixing.

12b----------------------------------------12b

10)

TOSFOS DH Taima d'Chasav Rachmana Ishah Yeferenu

úåñôåú ã"ä èòîà ãëúá øçîðà àéùä éôéøðå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that he prefers to challenge from both Tana'im.)

ðéçà ìéä ìàåúåáé âí ìø' éàùéä ãîãø' éåðúï îöé ìàåúåáé [áäãéà],

(a)

Explanation: He prefers to challenge him also from R. Yoshiyah. He can challenge him explicitly from R. Yonason.

11)

TOSFOS DH Taima (part 2)

úåñôåú ã"ä èòîà (çì÷ á)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Hakamah has no effect.)

äøé äï ÷ééîéï ìà àîø ëìåí,

(a)

Citation of Gemara: [If he said] "they are Kayamin", his words have no effect.

ãä÷îä áèòåú äåà ãùîà [úãåø] áãáø ùà"à ìéä ìä÷éí.

(b)

Explanation: This is because it is a mistaken Hakamah. Perhaps she will vow about a matter that he cannot (i.e. surely does not want to) be Mekayem!

12)

TOSFOS DH Leifer Lah Hu

úåñôåú ã"ä ìéôø ìä äåà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that we ask that he should do so when he leaves.)

ôéøåù ëùéöà îáéúå.

(a)

Explanation: [He should annul for her] when he leaves his house.

13)

TOSFOS DH Dilma Mishtelina

úåñôåú ã"ä ãìîà îéùúìéðà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why he himself does not annul her vows.)

ìùåï ùââä àå îéèøéãðà îï äãøê åìëê øåöä ìîðåú àôåèøåôåñ åàåúå àôåèøåôåñ éäéä îéåùá áãòúå

(a)

Explanation: This is an expression of forgetting. Or, I will be distracted with the journey. Therefore, he wants to appoint an overseer. The overseer's mind will be settled.

åà"ú åàëúé ìéôø ìä àéäå îòëùéå ùäøé äåà æåëø òúä åîéåùá áãòúå

(b)

Question: Still, he should be able to annul for her from now, for now he remembers and his mind is be settled!

åé"ì ãàéðå øåöä ìåîø ùéäà îåôø àìà ðãøéí ùúãåø îëé éñò åàéìê àáì ìà ðãøéí ùìôðé ðñéòúå ùæä ÷öú ÷ùä ìå (äâäú áøëú øàù)

(c)

Answer #1: He wants to annul only vows she will take after he leaves, but not vows before he leaves, for this is slightly difficult for him (perhaps he would want to be Mekayem some of them).

àáì ÷ùä ãìéîà ìä äùúà ëì ðãøéí ùúãåøé îëùàñò òã ùàùåá éäå îåôøéï

(d)

Question: He should tell her now "all vows you will take from when I leave until I return, are annulled"!

åé"ì ãîúåê ëê úôåì ÷èèä áéðéäí ùæä ÷ùä ìä ìòåìí

(e)

Answer (and Answer #2 to Question (b)): Amidst this there will be quarrels between them. This is always difficult for her. (Leket ha'Kotzrim - she resents that he is Mevatel all her words. If he is about to travel, she is not adamant.)

1.

Note: Birkas Rosh says that from here to the end of this Dibur is a Hagahah (comment).

åáðãøéí îéáòéà ìï àé áòìä îöé îéôø áìà ùîéòú ÷åì åâí äôøä ãùìéç [àéðä] îåòìú òã ãùîò äáòì äðãø ãäëé îå÷é ìä äúí (ãó òá:)

(f)

Reference: In Nedarim we asked whether or not her husband can annul without hearing [her] voice, and also Hafarah of a Shali'ach does not help until the husband hears the vow, for so we establish it there (72b).

åìôé' æä ðôøù ìéôø ìä àéäå ôéøåù ëùéñò éôø ìä áòìä åúåòéì ääôøä ìëùéáà äáòì åéùîò äðãø

(g)

Consequence: According to this, we can explain "he should annul for her", i.e. when he travels, her husband should annul for her, and the Hafarah will help when the husband comes and hears the vow;

åàí éîúéï ìäôø òã ùéùåá åéùîò ùîà éäéä èøåã ìëùéùîò åéùúå÷ îìäôø åìëê ôøéê ìéôø ìä îäùúà åúåòéì ääôøä ëùéùîò

1.

If he will delay to annul until he returns and hears, perhaps he will be distracted when he hears, and refrain from annulling. Therefore, we ask that he should annul for her from now, and the Hafarah will help when he hears;

åáùìîà àé ñáø ëøáðï ðéçà [ãìà] îöé îéôø

2.

Granted, if he holds like Rabanan, this is fine that he cannot annul.

åîùðé ãìîà èøéãðà ëùéøöä ìéñò ëãôøéùéú ò"ë äâä"ä.

(h)

Conclusion: We answer that perhaps he will be distracted when he wants to travel, like I explained. Until here is a comment.

14)

TOSFOS DH v'Shama Chavero v'Amar va'Ani

úåñôåú ã"ä åùîò çáéøå åàîø åàðé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that they argue similarly when only one vowed.)

áëãé ð÷è ãäà áøàùåï ðîé ôìéâé.

(a)

Observation: There was no need to discuss [that a second person vowed like the first. The Tana'im] argue also about the first [to vow].

15)

TOSFOS DH Amar Rava ha'Kol Modim.... Chetzi Korban Maisi

úåñôåú ã"ä àîø øáà äëì îåãéí... çöé ÷øáï îééúé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why all agree about this.)

ëéåï ùúìä äçöé á÷øáï ùàîø çöé ÷øáðåú åãàé ôìâà ã÷øáï ëéåï ùäøçé÷ úéáú çöé îúéáú ðæéø (äâäú áøëú øàù)

(a)

Explanation: Since he attributed [the word] "Chetzi" to "Korban", i.e. he said Chetzi Korbanos, surely he intended for half the Korban, for he distanced the word "half" from the word "Nazir";

÷øáðåú çöé ðæéø òìé ÷øáï ùìí áòé ìéä ìàúåéé.

1.

[If he said] Korbanos Chetzi Nazir Alai, he must bring a full Korban.

16)

TOSFOS DH Mai Taima d'Lo Ashkechan Nezirus l'Palga

úåñôåú ã"ä îàé èòîà ãìà àùëçï ðæéøåú ìôìâà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this is different.)

ãëéåï ãñîê úéáú çöé àöì ðæéø (îúéáú) îùîò îãéáåøå ãçöé àðæéøåú ÷àé åàéï çéåá (äâäú äøù"ù) ùåí çöé ðæéø áòåìí.

(a)

Explanation: Since he said the word "Chetzi" adjacent to "Nazir", his utterance connotes that "half" refers to Nezirus, and there is no obligation of any half-Nazir in the world.

17)

TOSFOS DH Ki Pligi b'Lishna d'Masnisin

úåñôåú ã"ä ëé ôìéâé áìéùðà ãîúðé'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the argument.)

[áàåîø] äøé òìé ãëéåï (äâäú áøëú øàù) ãàîø äøé òìé ìâìç åîéçééá áëåìéä ÷øáï ìø"î ãúôåñ ìùåï øàùåï

(a)

Explanation: [They argue about] when he said "Harei Alai." Since he said "Harei Alai Legale'ach", he is obligated the entire Korban according to R. Meir, who says that we follow his initial words;

åëé àîø çöé ðæéø ìà ëì ëîéðéä åäåé ëàåîø ÷øáðåú çöé ðæéø òìé ãîééúé ÷øáï ùìí

1.

When he said "half a Nazir", he cannot [retract]. He is like one who said "Korbanos Chetzi Nazir Alai." He brings a full Korban.

å÷ùä àîàé ÷àîø äàé ìéùðà ëéåï ãàîø òìé àéçééá [áëåìéä] ìéîà ìäãéà ããîé [ëàåîø] ÷øáðåú çöé ðæéøåú

(b)

Question: Why does it say this expression "since he said Alai, he is obligated the entire [Korban]"? It should say explicitly, [that R. Meir holds that] he is like one who said "Korbanos Chetzi Nezirus";

øáðï ñáøé ðãøå åôúçå ãäåé ëàåîø çöé ÷øáðåú ðæéø òìé

1.

Rabanan hold that this is a Neder with its Pesach (reason to consider it a mistake, and permit it), like one who says "Chetzi Korbanos Nazir Alai"!

åé"ì ãäà ãàîø øáà ÷øáðåú çöé ðæéø òìé ãëåìä áòé àéúåéé îùåí ãçöé ÷àé àðæéø

(c)

Answer: Rava said [that if one said] "Korbanos Chetzi Nazir Alai", he must bring a full Korban, because "half" refers to "Nazir";

àáì áîúðé' îùîò ìéä (äâäú áøëú øàù) ãìéùðà ãçöé ÷àé àòìé åëîé ùàîø çöé ÷øáðåú ðæéø òìé.

1.

However, in our Mishnah, it connotes to him (Rava) that the word "half" refers to "Alai". He is like one who said "Chetzi Korbanos Nazir Alai." (Therefore, he needed to say that R. Meir holds that "Harei Alai Legale'ach obligates the entire Korban, and then he tried to retract.)

18)

TOSFOS DH Hareini Nazir keshe'Yihyeh Li Ben

úåñôåú ã"ä äøéðé ðæéø ëùéäéä ìé áï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why he accepted Nezirus.)

ôéøåù äåãàä åùáç ìä÷á"ä ùçððé åæéëðé åðåìã ìå (ëï äåà áãôåñ åðöéä) áï äøé æä (äâää áâìéåï) ðæéø áâîøà ôøéê ôùéèà.

(a)

Explanation: [He accepted Nezirus for] "thanks and praise of ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu who graced me and merited me." When a son is born, he is a Nazir. The Gemara asks that this is obvious!

19)

TOSFOS DH Bas Tumtum v'Androginus Eino Nazir

úåñôåú ã"ä áú èåîèåí åàðãøåâéðåñ àéðå ðæéø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains when he becomes a Nazir due to birth of a Tumtum or Androginus.)

ãæä ìà îçùá åàäà (äâäú áøëú øàù) ðîé ôøéê áâî' ôùéèà

(a)

Explanation: This is not an esteemed [baby. He did not accept Nezirus with intent for such a child.] Also regarding this, the Gemara asks that this is obvious!

àáì àîø áìùåï æä ëùàøàä ìé åìã àôé' áú (äâäú äøù"ù) èåîèåí åàðãøåâéðåñ äøé æä ðæéø àäà ðîé ôøéê áâîøà ôùéèà.

1.

However, if he said "when I will see a child for me", even [if he the fathered] a daughter, Tumtum or Androginus, he is a Nazir. Also regarding this, the Gemara asks that this is obvious!

20)

TOSFOS DH Hipilah Ishto (pertains to the coming Daf)

úåñôåú ã"ä äôéìä àùúå (ùééê ìãó äáà)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains R. Shimon's opinion.)

åìà éãòéðï àé ðôì äåà àå áï ÷ééîà äåà åëìå ìå çãùéå àå ùîú áîòé àîå àéðå ðæéø

(a)

Explanation: [The baby died after birth, but] we do not know whether he was a Nefel or a viable baby, and his [nine] months [in the womb] were completed. Or, [even if we know that his months were completed, if] he died in his mother's womb, he is not a Nazir. (So explains Likutei Halachos on our Mishnah, Zevach Todah DH Hipilah.)

åáâî' îå÷é ìä ëø' éäåãä ãñáø ìà îçéú àéðéù ðôùéä ìñôé÷à

1.

The Gemara establishes this like R. Yehudah, who holds that one does not enter himself into a Safek;

åø"ù çééù ìñôé÷à (äâäú îäø"á øðùáåøâ) åñô÷ ðæéø äåé ãìîà áï ÷ééîà îä ùäôéìä

2.

R. Shimon is concerned for the Safek, and he is a Safek Nazir. Perhaps the miscarriage was a viable baby.

äìëê èåá ìäúðåú åìåîø àí áï ÷ééîà äøéðé ðæéø çåáä îãáåøé äøàùåï

3.

Therefore, it is good to stipulate and say "if he was viable, I am an obligatory Nazir due to my first utterance;

åàí àéðå áø ÷ééîà ëâåï ãìà ëìå ìå çãùéå åìà äéä áãéáåøé äøàùåï ëìåí äøéðé ðæéø ðãáä ëìåîø îòúä äøéðé î÷áì òìé ðæéøåú

i.

If it was not viable, e.g. its months were not completed, or he died in his mother's womb, and my first utterance had no effect [to make me a Nazir now], I am a Nazir Nedavah." I.e. from now I accept on myself Nezirus.

[åîåðä] ðæéøåú åîáéà ÷øáðåúéå åîåúø áééï åîâìç ùàí ìà äúðä ëï ëì éîéå äéä î÷åì÷ì ìø"ù ãîñôé÷à ìà îöé ìâìç åéàñø ëì éîéå áééï åáúâìçú åáèåîàä

(b)

Explanation (cont.): He counts Nezirus and brings Korbanos, and he may drink wine and shave. Had he not stipulated, he would be messed up according to R. Shimon, for he cannot shave due to Safek. All his days he would be forbidden wine, shaving and Tum'ah.

1.

Note: "All his days" means until he has a viable son. Then, after 30 more days, surely he may bring Korbanos and shave! R. Shimon (46a) holds that after Zerikah of any of the three Korbanos Nazir, he may drink wine and become Tamei. He may shave even on Shalmei Nedavah (46b)! Perhaps Tosfos means that according to R. Shimon's opinion about entering a Safek, all his days he would be forbidden. However, perhaps R. Shimon holds that one enters Safek Nezirus only because he holds that he is permitted through any Korban!

åø"ù ìà ôìéâ àäà ãðåìã ìå áú (äâäú áøëú øàù) èåîèåí åëå' ãìéëà ìñôå÷é ãëùàîø ëùéäéä ìé áï åãàé ìà äéä ãòúå àìà ìáï åãàé åìà ìèåîèåí

2.

R. Shimon does not argue in a case when a daughter, Tumtum [or Androginus] was born. There is no Safek that when he said "when I will have a son", surely he meant a Vadai son, and not a Tumtum;

åìà ôìéâ ø"ù àìà äéëà ãäôéìä áï æëø ãîñô÷à ìéä ãùîà äåä áï ÷ééîà åäåé áï âîåø

3.

R. Shimon argues [then] only when she miscarried a male son. He is unsure whether it was viable, and it was a full son;

åäåà äãéï ãîéìúéä ãø"ù ÷àé àøéùà äéëà ãàîø äøéðé ðæéø ëùéäéä ìé áï åäôéìä ëå'.

4.

R. Shimon's words apply also to the Reisha, when he said "I will be a Nazir when I will have a son", and his wife miscarried... [and not only in the Seifa, when he stipulated about having a child].