Explanation: He accepted to be a Nazir from the cup. He is a Nazir, i.e. all laws of Nezirus apply to him.

Explanation: Only that cup was forbidden to her. The Gemara asks that the episode contradicts [what was taught before it].

Explanation: It is normal for people to pressure one who is drunk to drink [more], and now he does not want to drink. He says "I am a Nazir" to dispel them from him;

If he will not say that he is a Nazir, he fears lest they bring to him another cup. Therefore, he says [that he is also Nazir to totally dispel them from him.

However, when he is not drunk, it is not normal to pressure him. Therefore, he says that he is a Nazir from all [wine]. Also, an episode with one woman... [supports this].

Explanation: There is one opinion in the Gemara that it is because he stipulates against what is written in the Torah;

When he said "I am a Nazir", he is a Nazir for all matters. When he puts a stipulation in this, it has no effect;

Even R. Shimon agrees in the Reisha according to that version, and a Beraisa supports it.

Explanation: I accepted on myself the other Halachos, except for the Isur of wine, which I did not accept, because I did not know that a Nazir is forbidden wine;

According to Rabanan he is a Nazir. This is like they hold above, that even if he vowed from one of them he is a Nazir;

R. Shimon permits. He holds like he taught elsewhere (3b, that he is not a Nazir) until he vows to refrain from all of them.

Explanation: I.e. I need to become Tamei to [Mesim] and deal with them for wages, due to my poverty. Therefore, I did not intend to accept the Isur of wine or Tum'as Mes;

And so he says that he did not accept the Isur of wine or Tum'as Mes. (This is repetitive. Birkas Rosh says that Tosfos teaches that he did not intend [like the Gemara says below] that afterwards, Chachamim will permit him. Rather, he never accepted the Isur.)

Citation of Gemara: He is permitted, and R. Shimon forbids.

Observation: The Gemara asks that it should have taught oppositely.

Explanation: The Mishnah says "R. Shimon permits." This refers to both clauses.

Explanation: When he said "I am a Nazir", Nezirus takes effect on him for all matters. When he said "on condition that", he stipulated against the Torah, and his Tenai is Batel.

Question: [Even if the stipulation were not against the Torah,] it should suffice that Nezirus cannot be done through a Shali'ach (so one cannot make a Tenai about it)!

It says in Kesuvos (74a) that a Tenai must be like the Tenai of Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven. The action (giving to them Eretz Gilad) was done through Yehoshua, who was the Shali'ach of Moshe;

There a Tenai helps to be Mevatel an action (if the Tenai is not fulfilled), but not elsewhere (where a Shali'ach cannot do the action)!

Answer: Since others can bring Korbanos in place of him, it is considered that the entire action is possible through a Shali'ach.

Question: We say in Menachos (109a) that if one said "I am a Nazir on condition that I will shave [and bring Korbanos] in Beis Chonyo (a place in Mitzrayim where people offered Korbanos to Hash-m, even though this is forbidden), he shaves in the Beis ha'Mikdash. If he shaved in Beis Chonyo, he was Yotzei;

Why was he Yotzei? He stipulated against the Torah, We should say that if he shaved in Chonyo, he was not Yotzei!

Answer: His words have both [possible] connotations. They connote proper Nezirus [and shaving in the] Mikdash. Then, if he shaved in Chonyo, he was not Yotzei;

They connote also one who intended only to pain himself. Then, if he shaved in Chonyo, he was Yotzei. If he shaved in the Mikdash, [the Korbanos] are Chulin b'Azarah.

His Nezirus is tentative. If he shaves in the Mikdash, he revealed that he intended for proper Nezirus, and [his Tenai] "Al Menas" has no effect;

If he shaved in Chonyo, he revealed that he intended to pain himself.

Explanation: It is as if he said "I am a Nazir for every matter, except for wine." He is not a Nazir according to R. Shimon, who requires vowing from all of them.

Question: One who is Mekadesh a woman on condition that she has no claim against him for She'er, Kesus v'Onah (food, clothing and the regular frequency of marital relations), she is Mekudeshes, and his Tenai is Batel. We do not say that it is as if he said "except for"!

Answer: Kidushin is different, for even if he said explicitly "except for She'er", his words do not help, for there is no half-Kidushin;

When he said "you are Mekudeshes", she is Mekudeshes. When he said "except for She'er", his words have no effect. Therefore, he has all the obligations to his wife;

However, regarding a Nazir, we learn above (3b) from verses that he must vow to refrain from all of them. If he vowed from one of them, he is not a Nazir.

Explanation: When he said "Al Menas", we consider this to be a Tenai, and not like one who says "except for."

Explanation: This is what was taught "but I thought that Chachamim will permit to me wine or to become Tamei Mes" and they permitted him wine or Tum'as Mes, for he cannot live without wine, or without dealing with Mesim for wages, for this is his income.

Explanation: Since we permit to him one, therefore we permit to him all of them, for its Isur is like its Heter;

Just like at the beginning of Nezirus he was forbidden [all the Isurim through accepting] one matter of Nezirus, when we permit one at the end of Nezirus, all of them are permitted.

Just like they argue there (Nedarim 25b) about one who found people eating his figs, and he said "the Peros are Konam to you", and it was found that his father was one of them, and he permitted his vow [regarding her father]...

They argue there whether or not all of them are permitted. Also here, Rabanan hold [that all are permitted];

And even according to the opinion [there] that not all are permitted, this is because it was a Neder or Shevu'ah;

However, here, since the beginning of Nezirus took effect through one [Isur], also at the end of Nezirus (it is permitted through one).

R. Shimon holds that even according to the opinion [there] that all of them are permitted, in any case here, that Nezirus comes only if he specifies all of the [Isurim], similarly he must permit all of them through She'elah;

Granted, he permitted one. A second is not permitted.

Explanation: Just like at the beginning of Nezirus he must vow to refrain from all of them, also at the end of Nezirus he must ask to permit all of them.

Explanation: This is considered Ones, that he cannot live without wine.

Example: The seller says "this loaf is Konam to me if I will sell this item to you for less than four Dinarim." This is Nidrei Zeruzin;

Alternatively, [the buyer says] "this loaf is Alai if I will pay to you more than two Dinarim." This is Nidrei Zeruzin;

Both of them want that he will buy for three. This is Nidrei Zeruzin. They require She'elah, according to that opinion, mid'Rabanan.

Example: He said "this loaf is Konam if I ate today", and he forgot that he ate.

Explanation: In Nedarim (27a), it gives an example of one who imposed a Neder on his friend to eat with him on a certain day, and an Ones occurred that prevents him from coming to him;

There, Amora'im argue about whether or not one must ask to permit that Neder, mid'Rabanan.

Reference: The Gemara explains this there (Nedarim 24b. These are vows of exaggeration, e.g. "... if I did not see a crowd as numerous as Yotzei Mitzrayim." Even though there were not 600,000 people, it is normal to say so about a humongous crowd.)

Question: These are different! There, at the time of the vow, he does not know about the Ones, for he thought to go and eat. He resolved and vowed. Therefore, he must ask to permit it, mid'Rabanan, according to that opinion;

However, here, at the time of the vow, he knows the Ones. Presumably, he did not resolve to vow. We can say that according to everyone, She'elah is not needed!

Answer #1 (R. Tam): Also our Mishnah discusses when the Ones came afterwards, e.g. at the time of the Neder he was healthy and strong, and he could live without wine, and later he became weak;

Or, initially he was rich, and he did not need to deal with Mesim, and at the end he became poor.

Answer #2: We bring this law here regarding when his mouth and heart are not equal (Nidrei Shegagos);

Amora'im there argue about whether or not he must ask to permit it, mid'Rabanan. Also here [the Tana'im] argue about this.

Comment: Similarly, in our Mishnah, his mouth said to be a Nazir from wine, but his heart did not [intend to forbid wine], for he said "but I thought...", i.e. in my heart when I vowed.

Explanation: When he said "I am a Nazir", he obligated himself in Nezirus, and to bring his Korbanos. "v'Alai Legale'ach" another Nazir, and bring his Korbanos;

Now, Nezirus takes effect on him, and also he must shave another Nazir and bring his Korbanos.

Explanation (cont.): His friend heard, and said "and I." I.e. I am a Nazir, and it is Alai to be Megale'ach another Nazir. Nezirus takes effect on him, and also [the Korbanos of] shaving another Nazir.

Explanation: Each one of them fulfills his Nezirus for 30 days, and brings the Korban for his friend, and they are exempt;

This is just like [bringing for] someone else (a regular Nazir who did not accept to shave another Nazir). If [Ploni, in our Mishnah] would bring the Korban for him, (Ploni) is exempted [from his vow to shave another Nazir];

Also when he brings for his friend [who vowed like him], he is exempted from his vow to shave another, for he shaved another!

Conclusion: Each brings only one Korban, and even so, he fulfilled his vow, for he observed Nezirus 30 days, and he shaved his friend.

Explanation: They are not so clever. Rather, each brought a Korban for himself. He must shave another Nazir and bring Korbanos for him.

Explanation: And he did not say "also". What is the law?

Does "va'Ani" refer to everything that the first one said, and the second must be a Nazir and shave [another] Nazir?

Or, perhaps it refers to half his utterance, and the second accepted only either Nezirus, or shaving another [Nazir].

Explanation: [Since he needed to say both, we infer that] had he not said both, "va'Ani" would refer to half the utterance.

Explanation: Also this you can resolve from our Mishnah! Since it says "and it is Alai to shave", this shows that "va'Ani" refers to his initial words ["I am a Nazir"].

Explanation: [V'Alai means] and what I already accepted, i.e. Nezirus and shaving another, for it is the way of people to double their words;

Also if he did not say "v'Alai", he is obligated in Nezirus and shaving [another] due to his first word (va'Ani).

Explanation: Are there two matters?! The first accepted on himself only one matter!

Explanation: The Reisha needed to teach v'Alai, to teach that va'Ani refers only to the first half of his utterance;

The Seifa taught v'Alai, even though it is not needed, for parallel structure with the Reisha.