1)

TOSFOS DH Ketzad Amar Shor Shachor...

úåñôåú ã"ä ëéöã àîø ùåø ùçåø..

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives two explanations of the Mishnah.)

àéú ãîôøùé áâîøà ãîéìúà ãá"ù ã÷àîøé ä÷ãù àìáï ÷àé (âéøñú îìàëú ùìîä) ãéù ìåîø ããòúå äåé ìä÷ãéù [îä] ùéöà îáéúå øàùåï

(a)

Explanation #1: Some say in the Gemara that Beis Shamai's teaching, that it is Hekdesh, refers to the white one. We can say that he intended to be Makdish what will leave his house first;

åîä ùàîø ùçåø ìôé ùèòä åäéä ñáåø ùäùçåø éöà øàùåï

1.

He said black, because he erred. He thought that a black ox will leave first.

äìëê èòåúå ìà éîðò àú ää÷ãù îìçåì òì äùåø ùéöà îáéúå øàùåï åàôéìå òì äìáï çì ää÷ãù

2.

Therefore, his mistake does not prevent Hekdesh from taking effect on the first ox that will leave his house. Hekdesh takes effect even on the white one.

åàéú ãîôøùé ãùåø ùçåø ùéöà àçø äìáï ÷ãåù åàó òì âá ãìà ðô÷ øàùåï îï äáéú

(b)

Explanation #2: Some say that the first black ox that will leave after a white one is Kadosh, even though it did not leave first from the house;

åîééøé ùéöà øàùåï îï äáéú ìùàø ùååøéí ùçåøéí åáâîøà àôøù

1.

The case is, it left the house first among the other black oxen. I will explain this in the Gemara.

åëï ãéðø åçáéú éù ìôøùå áùðé ôðéí åëé äéëé ãîôøùé øéùà éù ìôøù äðê áëé ä"â

(c)

Observation: Similarly, we can explain the cases of a Dinar and a barrel in two ways. Just like we explain the Reisha, we can explain these similarly.

åáâîøà îôøù ìîä ìï äðê ááé ãéðø æäá åçáéú ùì ééï (äâää áâìéåï) [äúåñôåú äùééëéí ëàï òåîãéí áãó ì"â ò"à îã"ä îàé èòîà].

1.

The Gemara will explain why we need these clauses of a Dinar and a barrel of wine. (The Tosfosim that pertain to here are on Daf 33a, beginning with DH Mai Taima.)

2)

TOSFOS DH Mi she'Nadar... (pertains to Amud B)

úåñôåú ã"ä îé ùðãø... (ùééê ìòîåã á)

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that he asked about his expression of acceptance.)

ôéøåù îé ùðãø áðæéø åòáø åùúä ééï áðæéøåúå åðùàì ìçëîéí ìäúéø ìå ðãøå àôéìå ìá"ù ãàîøé àéï ùàìä áä÷ãù åàéï (äâäú ÷äéìú éò÷á) ùàìä áðæéøåú ëãàîø áôø÷ äøéðé ðæéø îï äâøåâøåú (ìòéì è.)

(a)

Explanation: If one vowed to be a Nazir, and transgressed and drank wine during his Nezirus, and he asked Chachamim to permit his vow, even according to Beis Shamai, who say that She'elah does not apply to Hekdesh, and She'elah does not apply to Nezirus, like it says above (9a)...

àôéìå äëé ìá"ù öøéê ùé÷áì äðæéøåú áìùåï èåá åçùåá ùøàåé ì÷áì áå ðæéøåú

1.

Even so, according to Beis Shamai, he must accept Nezirus in a good, esteemed expression proper for acceptance of Nezirus;

àáì éù ìùåðåú äøáä àå ëéðåééï ãìà äåé ÷áìä åàôéìå á"ù îåãéí ùàí ÷áì áìùåï âøåò ãìà äåé ðãø

2.

However, there are many expressions or Kinuyim that are not acceptance. Even Beis Shamai agree that if one accepted in an inferior expression, it is not a vow.

åäùúà ðùàì ìçëí àí äìùåï ù÷áì òìéå äåé ìùåï ðæéøåú (äâäú ø' áöìàì àùëðæé) àå ìà åàñøå çëîéí ìåîø ìùåï ÷áìä

3.

Now, he asked a Chacham if the expression he accepted on himself is an expression of Nezirus, or not. Chachamim forbade him, to say that it is an expression of acceptance.

åäåà òáø úçìä òì ðæéøúå ùùúä áééï îåðä îùòä ùðãø åëì äéîéí ùòáø áäí òåìéï ìå ìéîé ðæéøåúå

4.

He transgressed his Nezirus initially. He drank wine. He counts from the time he vowed, and all the days he transgressed count towards his days of Nezirus;

åìà ÷ðñéðï ìéä ìçæåø åìîðåú ëéîéí ùîðä áòåã ùäéä òåáø òì ðæéøåúå

i.

We do not fine him to return to count like the days he counted while he was transgressing his Nezirus.

åò"ë îééøé áùòáø ãàì"ë ôùéèà äåà ãîåðä îùòä ùðãø

(b)

Inference: You are forced to say that we discuss when he transgressed. If not, obviously he counts from when he vowed!

àìà ò"ë (äâäú îäø"á øðùáåøâ) ôùèéä ãîúðé' îùîò ã÷úðé îåðä [îùòä] ùðãø òì äéîéí ùòáø áäï ãòìå (äâäú áøëú øàù) ìéîé ðæéøåúå

1.

Rather, you are forced to say that the simple meaning of our Mishnah, which teaches that he counts from the time he vowed, [teaches that] the days in which he transgressed count towards the days of his Nezirus;

åîùåí ñéôà ã÷úðé åäúéøå úðé øéùà åàñøå àó òì ôé ùäí ìà àñøå ëìåí àìà ùàîøå ìå ùáìùåï èåá ÷éáì òìéå ðæéøåú.

2.

Due to the Seifa, which teaches "and they permitted him", the Reisha teaches "they forbade", even though they did not forbid anything. Rather, they told him that he accepted Nezirus in a good expression.

31b----------------------------------------31b

3)

TOSFOS DH Nish'al l'Chacham v'Hitiro

úåñôåú ã"ä ðùàì ìçëí åäúéøå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why even Beis Shamai agree in such a case.)

ëìåîø ùàîø ìå ùàåúä ÷áìä ìàå ëìåí äéà ùìà ðãø áìùåï èåá ì÷áì ðæéøåú åðîöà ùìà çì òìéå ðæéøåú àôéìå øâò àçã

(a)

Explanation: [The Chacham] told him that his acceptance had no effect. He did not vow in a good expression to accept Nezirus. It turns out that Nezirus did not take effect on him even for a moment.

äéúä ìå áäîä îåôøùú ùäôøéù ìðæéøåúå ÷åãí ùðùàì ìçëîéí úöà åúøòä áòãø òí áäîåúéå ùäï çåìéï âîåøéï

1.

If he had an animal separated, that he separated for his Nezirus before he asked Chachamim, it goes to graze in the herd with his animals, which are totally Chulin;

ãëéåï ãðæéøåú ìà çì òìéä àéï ëàï ä÷ãù èòåú ëìì åàôé' á"ù îåãå

2.

Since Nezirus did not take effect on him, there is no mistaken Hekdesh at all. Even Beis Shamai agree;

ããå÷à ëùàîø ùåø ùçåø ùéöà øàùåï éäà ä÷ãù åéöà ìáï äúí äìáï ä÷ãù ìî"ã áâîøà îùåí ùàéï çåùù åøåöä ùéçåì ä÷ãù âí òì äìáï

3.

Only when he said "the black ox that will leave first will be Hekdesh", and a white ox left first, the white one is Kodesh, according to the opinion that it is because he does not care [about the color], and wants Hekdesh to take effect even on the white [ox];

åîä ùäæëéø ùçåø èòä ùäéä ñáåø ùäùçåø éöà øàùåï

i.

He said black, because he erred. He thought that a black ox will leave first.

àáì äëà ùðæéøåú ìà çì òìéå îòé÷øà ëìì åäáäîä ìà äåôøùä àìà ìöåøê äðæéøåú åëàï äðæéøåú ìéúà ä÷ãù ðîé ìéúà

4.

However, here that Nezirus did not take effect on him initially at all, and the animal was separated only for the need of Nezirus, and there is no Nezirus here, also there is no Hekdesh;

åâøò æä îä÷ãù èòåú åìëê àôé' á"ù îåãå ãúöà åúøòä áòãø ëéåï ãðò÷ø äðãø ìâîøé

5.

This is worse than mistaken Hekdesh. Therefore, even Beis Shamai agree that it goes to graze in the herd, since the vow was totally uprooted;

ëéåï ãàîø ì÷øáðåú ðæéøåúå åàéðå ðæéø (äâäú îäø"á øðùáåøâ) ìà àîø ëìåí åäåé ëàãí ùàéðå îçåééá åäéä ñáåø ùäåà îçåééá çèàú åàîø áäîä æå ìçèàú ëå' ìà àîø ëìåí àôé' ìá"ù.

i.

Since he said "for the Korbanos of my Nezirus", and he is not a Nazir, his words have no effect. He is like one who is not obligated, and he thinks that he is obligated Chatas, and he said "this animal is a Chatas...." His words have no effect, even according to Beis Shamai.

4)

TOSFOS DH Amru Lahem...

úåñôåú ã"ä àîøå ìäí...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how Beis Shamai distinguish.)

àìîà ãä÷ãù áèòåú ìà äåé ä÷ãù åëé äéëé ãàúí îåãéí äëà àåãå ìï ðîé áùåø ùçåø ãôìâéúå òìï åàîøéúå ãäåé ä÷ãù

(a)

Inference: [Since you agree that it goes to graze in the herd,] this shows that mistaken Hekdesh is not Hekdesh. Just like you agree here, agree to us also about a black ox, about which you argue with us. You say that it is Hekdesh!

åá"ù äéå éëåìéï ìäùéá ãäëà âøò îä÷ãù èòåú ëãôøéùéú

(b)

Implied question: Beis Shamai could have answered that here is worse than mistaken Hekdesh, like I explained!

åìà çùå ìäùéáí àîéúåú äçéìå÷ åäùéáå ìôé ãáøéäí ùäí îãîéí ôìåâúééäå åäùéáå ìäí îîòùø áäîä ãçì áèòåú åäåé ä÷ãù

(c)

Answer: They were not concerned to answer the real distinction. They answered them according to their (Beis Hillel's) words, how they understand their argument, and answered them from Ma'aser Behemah, which takes effect mistakenly, and it is Hekdesh.

å÷"÷ îàé ùðà îàùä ùäôø ìä áòìä ãàîø ìòéì ôø÷ îé ùàîø (ãó ëã.) àí ùìä äéúä áäîä çèàú úîåú åäëà éåöàä áòãø

(d)

Question: Why is a woman different than a woman whose husband annulled her? It says above (24a) that if the animal [that she separated for her Korban] was hers, a Chatas must die. Here, it goes to graze in the herd!

é"ì ãáòì îéâæ âééæ

(e)

Answer #1: A husband cuts off.

åàé ðîé ãîò÷ø ÷à ò÷ø î"î äà àå÷îä (ìòéì ãó ëá.) ëøáé àìòæø ä÷ôø àáì ìøáðï ðô÷é ìçåìéï

(f)

Answer #2: Even if [a husband] uproots, in any case we established [the Mishnah] above to be like R. Elazar Hakapar. However, according to Rabanan it becomes Chulin;

åàôéìå ìøáé àìòæø ðøàä ãìà ãîé ãäúí äðãø çì øâò à' ãîéôø [áìà] çøèä åôúç (äâäú áøëú øàù) àáì äëà ìà çì äðãø àôéìå ùòä àçú ëãôøéùéú.

(g)

Answer #3: Even according to R. Elazar, it seems that these are different. There, the vow took effect for a moment, for he annuls without regret or a Pesach [reason to consider it a mistake. Even though it is annulled retroactively, it was not a total mistake from the beginning]. Here, the vow did not take effect even for a moment, like I explained.

5)

TOSFOS DH Amru Beis Shamai...

úåñôåú ã"ä àîøå á"ù...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Beis Shamai do not truly learn from Ma'aser Behemah.)

ãçì áèòåú (îëàï îãó äáà) åîéðä ðéìó ãä÷ãù áèòåú çì

(a)

Explanation: It takes effect [to make the ninth and 11th Kadosh]. We should learn from it that mistaken Hekdesh takes effect!