The Mishnah cannot be R. Tarfon. Since when he vowed, he did not know whether or not it was Ploni, he would not be a Nazir!

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah citing R. Tarfon): None of them are Nezirim, because Nezirus must be accepted with certainty.

Answer: Rather, the Mishnah is like R. Yehudah's own opinion in the Beraisa of the stack (that one accepts Nezirus only if his words will be verified):

(Beraisa - R. Shimon): If one said 'I am a Nazir on condition that this stack contains 100 Kor (a measure)', and he found that it was stolen and he could not measure it, he is forbidden (all Isurei Nezirus);

R. Yehudah permits.

R. Shimon holds that had it not been stolen, perhaps it would have been found to hold 100 Kor, and he would be a Nazir. Even now that it was stolen, he is a Nazir (due to the doubt);

Also in our Mishnah, R. Shimon would say that since if we would have verified that this is Ploni, Reuven would be a Nazir, now that we are in doubt, he is also a Nazir!

(Mishnah): Nine men saw a Koy. (Chachamim were unsure if it is a Chayah or Beheimah (wild or domestic animal). Reuven (the first) said 'I am a Nazir if this is a Chayah;

Shimon: I am a Nazir if it is not a Chayah;

Levi: I am a Nazir if it is a Beheimah;

Yehudah: I am a Nazir if it is not a Beheimah;

Yisachar: I am a Nazir if this is a Chayah and a Beheimah;

Zevulun: I am a Nazir if this is not a Chayah nor a Beheimah;

Gad: I am a Nazir if one of (the six of) you is a Nazir;

Asher: I am a Nazir if one of you is not a Nazir;

Dan: I am a Nazir if all of you are Nezirim.

All of them are Nezirim.

(Gemara - Beraisa #1): Nine men are Nezirim.

(Beraisa #2): One man must fulfill nine Neziruyos!

Question: Granted, in Beraisa #1, nine men accepted Nezirus, like in the Mishnah.

How can one man accept nine Neziruyos (through these nine acceptances)?

Granted, he accepts six like the first six men in the Mishnah. But how does he accept the last three?

Answer (Rav Sheshes): Nine men accepted Nezirus like in the Mishnah. A 10th man accepted all their Neziruyos on himself.

(Mishnah): There are three categories of Isurim of a Nazir: Tum'ah, shaving, and eating what grows on grapevines.

All that comes from vines joins. One is liable only for eating a k'Zayis (the volume of an olive) of grapes.

The initial version of the Mishnah said that one is liable only if he drinks a quarter Log of wine;

R. Akiva says, even if he soaked his bread in wine and he ate a k'Zayis, he is liable. (We shall see that the bread can join to comprise the Shi'ur, as long as it is the minority.)

One is liable for each of the following by itself - wine, grapes, Chartzanim and Zag (grape pits and peels);

R. Eliezer ben Azaryah says, one is liable only for eating two pits and a peel.

R. Yehudah says, "Chartzanim" refers to grape peels. "Zag" is the pits;

R. Yosi says, (they are the opposite;) a way to remember them is a bell. "Zag" is the outer part, and Inbal is the clapper.

(Gemara - Mishnah) Version #1: There are three categories of Isurim of a Nazir: Tum'ah...

Inference: What comes from the vine is forbidden, but the vine itself is permitted! The Mishnah is unlike R. Eliezer:

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer): Even the leaves and Lulavim (thin branches, i.e. edible young sprouts) of the grapevine are forbidden.

Version #2 (Mishnah): One is liable only for eating a k'Zayis of grapes.

Inference: One is liable for grapes, but not for the vine itself! The Mishnah is unlike R. Eliezer:

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer): Even the leaves and Lulavim are forbidden.

Question: Why do R. Eliezer and Chachamim argue?

Answer: R. Eliezer expounds the Torah via the method of Ribuy and Mi'ut (inclusions and exclusions). Chachamim expound via Klal and Prat (general terms and specific terms).

R. Eliezer expounds Ribuy and Mi'ut. "From wine and strong drink he will refrain" is a Mi'ut. "From all that is made from the grapevine" is a Ribuy;

A Mi'ut v'Ribuy includes everything, and excludes one thing. Here, we exclude branches.

Chachamim expound Klal and Prat. "From wine and strong drink he will refrain" is a Prat. "From all that is made from the grapevine" is a Klal. "Me'Chartzanim v'Ad Zag" is another Klal;

A Klal u'Frat u'Chlal includes only what resembles the Klalim. The Peratim are fruit and Pesoles (waste by-products) of fruit. All fruit and Pesoles of fruit are included.

Suggestion: The Peratim are finished fruits. Perhaps we should include only finished fruit!

Rejection: If so, the Derashah would not teach anything not explicit in the Torah!

Moist and dry grapes are written. Wine and vinegar are written!

Conclusion: We must say like above (fruits and Pesoles of fruits).

Question: Since we will include everything, why did the Torah write "me'Chartzanim v'Ad Zag" (after the Klal? It could have written it with the other Peratim!)

Answer: This teaches that we expound a Prat u'Chlal to include only what resembles the Prat only if it is followed by another Prat. If not, the Klal adds onto the Prat (and we include everything).

Question: We said that the Peratim are fruit and Pesoles of fruit, so we include all fruit and Pesoles of fruit. Fruits are grapes. What is Pesoles of fruit?

Answer: It is vinegar.

Question: What other fruit is included?

Answer: We include unripe grapes (Tosfos; Rashi - small grapes).

Question: What Pesoles of fruit is included?

Answer: We include wormy grapes (Tosfos; Aruch - grapes stricken on the vine).

(Ravina): "V'Ad Zag" includes the inside of the grape (Rashi; R. Tam - grapes that do not ripen properly because they are shadowed by other grapes).

Above, we learned from "me'Chartzanim v'Ad Zag" that we expound a Prat u'Chlal to include only what resembles the Prat only if it is followed by another Prat.