Explanation: All laws of Nezirus apply to him.

Even though he came to explain [what he will refrain from], and he did not specify what comes from grapevines (so we should say that he is not a Nazir), the Gemara explains the reason. (Beis Shamai hold that one does not say vain words. Once he said 'I am a Nazir', he became a Nazir. Saying 'from dried figs..." is like trying to permit Nezirus through regret. They hold that one cannot permit Nezirus.)

Citation (Tosefta 2:1): [If one said] Kinuyim of Kinuyim, Beis Shamai say, he is a Nazir. Beis Hillel say, he is not a Nazir.

Citation (cont.): What are Kinuyim of Kinuyim? One who says 'I am a Nazir from pressed dates.'

Question: Why is this called Kinuyim? Pressed dates have no connection to Nezirus!

Answer: In Yerushalayim, they call pressed dates "Tirosh" (wine).

Explanation: R. Yehudah argues with the Tana of our Mishnah according to Beis Shamai. [R. Yehudah] says that he is not a Nazir for the law of Nezirus, since he did not vow from what comes from grapevines;

Rather, dried figs and pressed dates are forbidden to him, as if he said "they are a Korban to me."

Question: He said "I am a Nazir." (If dried figs and pressed dates are forbidden to him), in what way is he a Nazir?!

Answer: "Nazir" is an expression of separation. It is as if he said "I am separated from dried figs..."

Question: In Nedarim (13a), it is proven that according to R. Yehudah, [if one] said 'Korban', he did not vow [to forbid something] with [the Isur of] a Korban, unless he said k'Korban, with the letter "Chaf"!

Answer: That is when he did not say "Alai", rather, "this loaf is Korban." However, when he said "this loaf is Alai Korban", he need not say [with a] "Chaf".

Reference: They argue in Erchin (20a) about one who says "the Erech of this Kli is Alai." Rabanan totally exempt him;

R. Meir argues and says that a person knows that a Kli has no Erech. He resolved for the sake of its value, and he gives the Kli's value to Hekdesh, for a person does not say vain words.

Also here, a person knows that there is no Nezirus regarding dried figs, and he resolved and said [that he is a Nazir from them] for the sake of Nezirus from wine.

Explanation (cont.): Beis Hillel hold like R. Yosi, who says that we follow a person's final words. This Neder has its Pesach [reason for regret to permit it] with it.

R. Yosi said that if one said "this is Temuras Olah Temuras Shelamim", it grazes until it gets a Mum. It is sold, and half the money is used to buy an Olah, and half the money is for Shelamim;

Also here, we follow his final words, which were dried figs. Since there is no Nezirus from dried figs, he is not a Nazir.

Implied question: Initially, he said "I am a Nazir"!

Answer: He retracted Toch Kedei Dibur and said "from dried figs." We follow his final words, as if he vowed, and Toch Kedei Dibur he found a Pesach for it and regret;

Since his Neder has its Pesach with it, it does not take effect at all.

Question: R. Yosi says that we follow a person's final words, i.e. even his final words. [The animal] is a Temurah of an Olah and Temurah of a Shelamim;

Also here, we should follow also his initial words. He said that he is a Nazir. He should be a Nazir from wine, and a Nazir (separated) from dried figs!

Answer: This is only regarding Temurah, that his words contradict each other, and we cannot say that his final words come to explain his initial words. Therefore, both expressions take effect according to R. Yosi, and it is Temurah of an Olah and Temurah of a Shelamim;

However, in our Mishnah we can say that his final words come to explain his initial words, i.e. this that he said "Nazir" is not from wine, rather, from dried figs. Therefore, his final words are primary to take effect, and not his initial words.

Support: According to this, there is no contradiction in R. Yehudah. R. Yehudah holds in the Mishnah that he is a Nazir from dried figs, and not a Nazir from wine, even according to Beis Shamai;

Question: What is the reason? We know that R. Yehudah argues with R. Yosi regarding Temurah, and says that we follow his initial words!

Answer: Rather, surely they argue only about Temurah. The words contradict each other, and we cannot say that the latter utterance explains [the first].

However, here, surely we can say that he comes to explain, we can say that [R. Yehudah] agrees that he comes to explain, and say "I did not vow about wine."

Implied question: Also, why didn't we say that Beis Shamai hold like R. Yehudah, who says that we make his initial words primary, and therefore, he is a Nazir from wine?

Answer: Rather, surely that argument does not apply here.

Question: Why does it say that Beis Hillel hold like R. Yosi? We should say that Beis Hillel hold like Rabanan of R. Meir in Erchin (20a), who say that a person says vain words!

Answer: He does not want to establish that argument of R. Meir like the argument of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel, for if so, R. Meir holds like Beis Shamai. Therefore, we said that Beis Hillel hold like R. Yosi

Now, even R. Meir in Erchin can hold like Beis Hillel in our Mishnah. Our Mishnah is due to the reason said, that we follow a person's final words.

Question: According to R. Meir, what is different about [one who accepted to give] the Erech of a Kli? He is obligated to give its value, because a person does not say vain words!

Answer: Really, this is different. There, granted, there is no Erech of a Kli, but its value applies, and this person intended to give to Hekdesh what he can. Therefore, he gives its value;

He calls its value "Erech", because also Erech of a person is money. Therefore, he calls the value of a Kli "Erech".

However, the expression of Nezirus does not apply at all to dried figs. You are forced to say that he said vain words;

He meant as follows. "I am a Nazir, but not from wine, rather, from dried figs." His final words come to explain his initial words, therefore his words have no effect.

Explanation: This is not precise "to ask", for he did not come to ask to permit it. Rather, he regrets and retracts, like one who comes to ask a Chacham about his Neder due to regret;

The Chacham finds for him a Pesach and regret, and it is a mistaken Neder, and it is Batel.

Explanation: Nezirus is like Hekdesh, for it says "Kadosh Yihyeh Gadel Pera."

Question: It should suffice [to explain why She'elah does not help] because we are not Pose'ach (to permit Nedarim) with [mere] regret [until there is a reason why it was a mistake]!

Answer #1: There is an opinion that we are Pose'ach [with mere regret]. He answers according to both opinions.

Answer #2: Here is different, for it is Toch Kedei Dibur, and only regret is needed.

Explanation (cont.): Beis Shamai hold like their opinion [elsewhere], that mistaken Hekdesh is Hekdesh. Therefore, according to Beis Shamai, She'elah does not help;

Also here, She'elah does not help for Nazir, for it is called Kedushah, for it says "Kadosh Yihyeh."

Question: Why must we elaborate so much, and return to say "Beis Shamai hold like R. Meir"?

When he asked initially "according to Beis Shamai, the Neder has its Pesach with it!", he should answer immediately "this is like Beis Shamai hold [elsewhere], that there is no She'elah..."!

Answer: One might have thought that we do not say that Beis Shamai hold like R. Meir, and we retracted due to this question that the Gemara asked;

If so, now we cannot answer that he holds that there is no She'elah, for we say "there is no She'elah" only when the Hekdesh took effect for one moment. Then, She'elah does not help;

However, here his Neder has its Pesach with it. Nezirus did not take effect on him even for one moment!

Therefore, we return to say "Beis Shamai hold like R. Meir, who says that one does not say vain words. The Neder took effect for one moment;

When he said "from dried figs", it is as if he comes to permit through She'elah, and Beis Shamai hold that there is no She'elah regarding Hekdesh.

Reference: Below we bring the argument [about one who said] "it is Alai to bring a Minchah from barley." He brings from wheat, and R. Shimon exempts.

Question: Why do we need to say that Beis Hillel hold like R. Shimon? We should say that Beis Hillel hold like they hold elsewhere, that there is She'elah regarding Hekdesh!

Answer: Still, according to Beis Hillel, granted, he is not a Nazir from wine. However, he should be a Nazir (separated) from dried figs!

Therefore, we say that [they hold like] R. Shimon, who totally exempts, because he did not volunteer the way people volunteer;

If he wanted to be a Nazir from dried figs, he should have used an expression of Konam, like the way people vow.

Explanation: [They hold like R. Meir,] who said that a person does not say vain words. Therefore, he is a Nazir. They [also] hold like R. Yehudah in our Mishnah, who says that he is forbidden [to eat dried figs] through a vow;

Beis Hillel hold like R. Yehudah in our Mishnah, who says that he is forbidden through a vow, and unlike R. Shimon, who totally exempts.

Explanation: [They hold like R. Yehudah], that he is forbidden through a vow. Beis Hillel hold like R. Shimon, who totally exempts.

Explanation: The only Menachos that come from barley are the Omer and Minchas Kena'os (of a Sotah. Here we discuss a voluntary Minchah!)

Explanation: No Minchah comes less than an Isaron. This is the reason for all of them (he must bring like the Torah specifies Minchas Nedavah).

Implied question: Dried figs do not apply to Nezirus at all!

Answer: [He is a Nazir] due to the reason I explained above (9a DH Hareini, because one does not say vain words);

Also here, when he said "from barley", even though barley does not apply to a [voluntary] Minchah, he brings from wheat, because one does not say vain words.

The text: The text says [b'Omer,] with a Beis, i.e. he explicitly said "had I known that one may not vow [a Minchah of] barley..."

"However, I erred to think that we may volunteer barley, like the Omer and Minchas Kena'os. If not for this, I would have vowed wheat." Therefore, he brings wheat.

The same applies to [regular] flour. He erred about [thinking that we may volunteer regular flour, just like] Minchas Kena'os, and also regarding oil and frankincense;

Similarly regarding half an Isaron, he did not know that one must bring a full Isaron.

Explanation: This we can attribute to error, since there is another Minchah of barley;

However, if he vowed from lentils, he does not bring anything, for we cannot attribute this to error, since there is no Minchah of lentils.

Explanation: (Like whom does he establish the Mishnah of Menachos?) Like Beis Shamai. Beis Shamai say that he is a Nazir due to the reason we said, that one does not say vain words;

If so, even if he said lentils, he should bring [a Minchah of] wheat!

Explanation: He retracted from establishing the Mishnah of Menachos like Beis Shamai, and he establishes it like R. Yochanan, when he says ["had I known..."]

Explanation: If our Mishnah is like Beis Shamai, and the reason is because one does not say vain words, it should teach lentils, which is a bigger Chidush.

Explanation: Therefore, when he said barley, we can say that he erred, for there is a Minchah that comes from barley. However, [when he said] lentils, one cannot err about this, for there is no Minchah from them at all.

The text here does not say "Chizkiyah holds that Beis Shamai hold like R. Yehudah", and [also] in Menachos (103a) the text does not say so;

There, the text says "this teaches that because it is barley, he erred. Lentils, one does not err [about them]."

Explanation: We can say that he retracted, for the latter utterance contradicts the first;

When he said "Minchah", this connotes a Kosher Minchah of fine [wheat] flour. When he later said lentils, he retracted from his initial words. We follow his initial words.

Explanation: He does not come to contradict his initial words, that he said "Harei Alai Minchah", rather to explain, and say that what he said was [a Minchah] from barley;

If it is possible to get Kedushah, like Minchas ha'Omer and like Minchas Sotah, it should be Kadosh. If it cannot be Kadosh, he should not be obligated another Minchah.

The Mishnah teaches that this is not so. He brings wheat. Really, it is like Beis Shamai, and because one does not say vain words.