Explanation: [He was not Mo'el] if he was Shogeg. I.e. if b'Shogeg he offered for [eating] blood a Korban [that he had separated] for Chelev, for it retains its Kedushah, since the animal has Kedushas ha'Guf and it does not become Chulin through this;

He did not transgress Me'ilah, since he did not benefit from it.

He did not atone if he was Mezid, for he did not do anything, for he cannot atone at all for [eating] blood through a Korban [separated] for Chelev.

Explanation (cont.): He was not Mo'el if he did so b'Shogeg, since he does not remove it from Hekdesh's Reshus. Rather, [he changes it] from one Hekdesh to another Hekdesh;

Since he was not Mo'el, he did not atone.

Support: We explain it like this in Kerisus (27b). Since we find that b'Shogeg he did not atone, it is proper that when he intended to uproot a Chatas for Chelev and make it a Chatas Dam, he did not atone.

Note: The end of this Tosfos is mistakenly printed in the Gemara at the end of Tosfos DH she'Harei on Daf 27b (Maharav Ransborg).

Contradiction (Maharam): It says in Zevachim (9b) that if a Chatas Chelev was slaughtered for the sake of Chatas Dam, it is Kosher. Here we say that it did not atone!

Answer #1 (Maharam): There we discuss when he was not obligated in both of them. He was liable only Chatas Chelev. Therefore, it is better (there is more reason to say that he atoned);

However, here he was obligated both of them. He uproots more [from its Kedushah. Therefore, he did not atone.]

Answer #2: Surely, regarding to get atonement for [his obligation to bring] Chatas Chelev, which it was destined for, there is an opinion that it is Kosher;

However, here we discuss to get atonement for [his obligation to bring] Chatas Dam. He wants to uproot it from what it was initially for. Therefore, he did not atone.

Explanation: It says regarding the female lamb that an individual may bring [for a Chatas] "v'Chiper ha'Kohen Al Chataso." This implies that b'Mezid, he cannot change even coins.

Support - Citation (Tosefta Kerisus 4:12): If one separated coins for Chatas Chelev, and brought it for Chatas Dam, or for Chatas Dam, and brought it for Chatas Chelev:

If he was Shogeg, he was Mo'el. Therefore, he atoned. If he was Mezid, he was not Mo'el. Therefore, he did not atone.

Inference: B'Mezid, even regarding coins, he did not atone, and all the more so regarding an animal, he cannot change it.

Observation: This Tosefta connotes that we bring a different verse "Al Chataso", and not the first verse that we already expounded. (In our Gemara, for the first Drashah we cite "Korbano Al Chataso", and for the second "Al Chataso.")

Comment: He was Mo'el, and he atoned. The coins have no Kedushas ha'Guf, and they leave their Kedushah easily;

When he changes them to another Korban, the coins become Chulin, and they are Chulin in the hand of the one who sold the animal. If they would not become Chulin, he was not Mo'el. Therefore, b'Shogeg he [was Mo'el,] and also atoned.

Suggestion: Therefore, we should say that also b'Mezid he atoned, since changing [Kedushah] applies to them (the coins)!

Rejection: B'Shogeg [the Tana] said that he was Mo'el, and atoned, but not b'Mezid.

However, if we did not learn from the verse, one might have thought that b'Mezid he atoned.

Implied question: We expounded "v'Chiper [ha'Kohen] Al Chataso" to teach that the Korban must be for the sake of his Aveirah!

Answer: We learn both of these from the verse.

Source: We say elsewhere (Gitin 52a) "Atem" (you may take Terumah), but not partners [on the other's share], Atem and not overseers, Atem and not one who tithes what is not his. We learn all of these from one "Atem".

Explanation: Above, we taught that he does not shave on his father's animal. Doesn't this apply even if it is a Ba'al Mum?!

Inference: It is like Mefurashim. If it were like Stumim, one should be able to shave, just like on Ma'os Stumim!

We compare traditions. For the same Halachah that was received, that Ma'os Stumim go to Nedavah, we should say that it is only for coins, but not for an animal, even a Ba'al Mum!

Suggestion: We can reject this. Above it taught that he does not shave with his father's animal, i.e. Mefurashim.

Rejection: If so, how do we conclude "perhaps he is Yotzei with his father's coins [that he separated for his Chatas], for one may shave with his father's coins? (I.e. in the same case of coins, Mefurashim, one may shave.)

One may shave only with Ma'os Stumim of his father, like our Mishnah explicitly teaches (30a)!

Explanation: E.g. she finished Nezirus in Taharah, and brought Korbanos Nezirus Taharah, which are three animals - a female lamb for the Chatas, a male lamb for the Olah, and a ram for the Shelamim, and Zerikah was done with the blood of one of them, the Chatas, Olah, or Shelamim;

He cannot annul her vow so that she will not need to shave and bring the rest of the Korbanos, since there is no more Inuy Nefesh, for she is permitted wine.

Implied question: He should be able to annul because she must shave, and a woman who shaves [all her hair] is repulsive to him!

Answer: She can wear a wig. The Gemara explains like this.

Distinction: However, if the blood was not thrown, she is still forbidden wine. [He can annul, for] this is properly called Inuy Nefesh, even though she is forbidden only a short time [until Zerikah].

Explanation: [Even if it was slaughtered,] but Zerikah was not done, he cannot annul.

The Gemara explains that this is due to a loss of Kodshim. The Gemara concludes that this is when the Chatas was slaughtered, for if he annuls her, it turns out that this animal will be burned, for she does not need a Chatas,

Also, we cannot do Zerikah for the sake of Shelamim, for a Chatas Lo Lishmah is Pasul.

Question: It is not clear if he annulled, whether it is annulled. Or, perhaps Chachamim have the power to uproot Torah law passively. (Seemingly, this is not passive. Through uprooting his Hafarah, they permit offering a Chatas that the Torah did not require! Tzafnas Pane'ach answers that Chachamim enact that Hafarah does not permit her, and now he cannot annul, for Hafarah does not alleviate her Inuy Nefesh!)

Explanation: [When do we say] that he cannot annul after Zerikah of the blood of one of them? This is regarding Tiglachas Taharah, like I explained. She finished Nezirus in Taharah;

However, regarding Tiglachas Tum'ah, e.g. she became Tamei in her Nezirus and brought Korbanos Tum'ah, even though Zerikah was done, he can annul;

He can say "I do not want a repulsive wife", i.e. she must count from now Nezirus Taharah and be forbidden wine, and there is Inuy Nefesh.

We find in the Gemara that it says "Nivul" (repulsiveness), and it refers to Inuy.

Question: Why does it say "I do not want [a Menuveles wife]"? It should say [that he can annul] due to Inuy!

Answer #1: We must say that this refers to R. Akiva, who says that once one of the animals was slaughtered, he cannot annul, due to wasting Kodshim;

Even though she is forbidden wine until the blood is thrown, and there is a small Inuy. He cannot annul for that small Inuy, due to wasting Kodshim.

However, in Tiglachas Tum'ah there is great Inuy Nefesh. She cancels [her count], and must count another Nezirus. [R. Akiva] agrees that [he can annul, for] he can say "I do not want [that she will have] great Inuy."

Answer #2: Because R. Meir said the expression "I do not want", also the first Tana said "I do not want."

The text [in R. Meir] says "I do not want a wife who shaves." She must shave at the end of Nezirus Taharah, like the Torah writes explicitly;

The first Tana holds that [this is no reason to annul, for] she can wear a wig. The Gemara explains like this.

Explanation: [They were slaughtered] Lo Lishmah, or before Shavuos on Erev Shavuos, or after Shavuos.

Citation of Gemara: The blood is thrown.

Explanation: [It is thrown] on Yom Tov itself. This refers also to the Reisha, [when they were slaughtered] Lo Lishmah, rather, l'Shem Shalmei Nedavah, and through this (Zerikah), it is permitted to eat the meat.

If [the Tana] holds that Nedarim and Nedavos may not be offered on Yom Tov, if so, he may not burn the Eimurim until night, and the meat may not be eaten until night, for as long as the Eimurim were not burned, the meat is not permitted.

In any case, even if Nedarim and Nedavos may not be offered on Yom Tov, Zerikah is permitted.

Citation of Gemara: If it was Shabbos, one may not throw [the blood].

Explanation: [Zerikah] is like fixing. It is forbidden mid'Rabanan.

Inference: One may do Zerikah Lo Lishmah [not on Shabbos].

Question: Why don't we bring the Mishnah (24a) "the Olah is offered for an Olah. The Shelamim is offered for a Shelamim"? (This is like Lo Lishmah. They were Hukdash for Nezirus, and now they are offered for Nedavos!)

Answer: These are different. There, he annulled her before the time of Shechitah. Both Zerikah and Shechitah had the status of Lo Lishmah;

Here, at the time of Shechitah it had the status of Lishmah, and now, at the time of Zerikah, its status is Lo Lishmah. It does not become Kosher [through Zerikah] Lo Lishmah.

Question: Also Kivsei Atzeres are unlike [our Mishnah here]. There, they were not slaughtered Lishmah. Here, since they were slaughtered Lishmah, perhaps they do not become Kosher [through Zerikah] Lo Lishmah!

In Menachos (47b), the Gemara asked about lambs (Kivsei Atzeres) that were slaughtered Lishmah, and the bread (Shtei ha'Lechem) was lost. May one do Zerikas ha'Dam of the lambs Lo Lishmah to permit eating the meat?

Inference: If so, this that we say [here] "he throws" is because we discuss when they were slaughtered Lo Lishmah. (Therefore, we could not resolve the question from our Beraisa.)

Answer: We must say that these are different. There, regarding lambs, from the beginning, through Shechitah of the Korban, the bread become Kosher (the bread and lambs are Me'akev each other). Therefore, if the bread is lost, the Korban is Pasul, just like if the meat was lost;

However, here, Stam is Kosher, like Lishmah, like it says in Zevachim (2b). Also now that he slaughtered Lishmah, [R. Zeira suggests that] we should enact to make it as if it was slaughtered Stam, to permit Zerikas ha'Dam!

Citation of Gemara: If he slaughtered an Olah or Shelamim, indeed, according to R. Akiva, there is no loss.

Explanation: However, here we discuss when he slaughtered the Chatas first. There is no Takanah to do Zerikah Lo Lishmah, for Chatas is disqualified Lo Lishmah, for the sake of Shalmei Nedavah. Chatas may not be brought for Nedavah.

Explanation: Therefore, the first Tana said that when Zerikah of one of the bloods was done, even the Chatas, which R. Akiva discusses, he cannot annul, for immediately he (in this case, she) is permitted immediately to drink wine;

This is because one may shave on (i.e. after Shechitah of) one of them - Chatas, Olah, or Shelamim, and there is no repulsiveness;

Therefore, he needed to bring a proof for this, that one should not say that only regarding the Shelamim, our Mishnah taught that if Zerikah of one of the bloods was done...

[Do not say that] only if he shaved on the Shelamim, he was Yotzei, for it says "v'Gilach ha'Nazir Pesach Ohel Mo'ed." (The end of the verse says that he puts his hair under the pot in which the Shelamim is cooked. Also, "Pesach Ohel Mo'ed" is said regarding Shelamim.) Therefore it says that if he shaved on [any] one of the three, he was Yotzei.

In Zevachim (55a), it explains that we equate Chatas and Olah to Shelamim.

Explanation: This is like the Gemara explains. The text does not say "how is this?"

Citation of Gemara: If he shaved, or they (his relatives) shaved him.

Explanation: This is the ultimate protest.

This is not only if he shaved or they shaved him. Rather, even if he protested or they protested verbally that he does not want to be a Nazir, the Nezirus is Batel. The Gemara explains the reasons.

Limitation: This is only when they protested immediately. If they did not protest immediately, and days later they protested, this has no effect, since he already began Nezirus.

Observation: The Tosefta (3:17) teaches with these [ways of annulling a minor's Nezirus] "or he brought two hairs."

Implied question: Why didn't our Mishnah teach this?

Answer #1: Two hairs annul Nezirus even after he already began counting several days of Nezirus;

However, these [listed] here, that he shaved or protested, are at the beginning of hearing about the Nezirus.

Answer #2: Even if we will say that shaving and protesting are Mevatel [even a while] after hearing, even so it is fine that it (two hairs) was not taught, for the Tana does not teach matters about which there is an argument. In the Gemara, Rebbi and R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah argue about it (bringing two hairs).

Answer #3: He taught only matters in a person's power to annul Nezirus.

Explanation: So is the tradition from Moshe from Sinai.

Explanation: This is a tradition from Moshe from Sinai. His son, to whom Mitzvos apply when he matures, it is incumbent on his father to train him, but not his daughter.

Note: Perhaps Tosfos means that all positive Mitzvos apply to his son. Below, Tosfos says that Chinuch applies only to positive Mitzvos.

Question: We say elsewhere (Yevamos 114a) that if a minor eats Nevelos, Beis Din need not stop him;

Here, R. Yosi b'Ribi Chanina says that even Chinuch (training him) to do Mitzvos is incumbent on the father!

Answer #1: Chinuch applies only to admonish him to do and fulfill Mitzvos. Warning him not to transgress, this is not Chinuch.

Implied question: In Yoma (82a, we train children to fast on Yom Kipur)!

Answer: This is [Chinuch] to fulfill the Mitzvas [Aseh] of Inuy.

Answer #2 (Ri): Chinuch applies only to the father. It does not apply to others.

Contradiction: Here we say that it does not apply to his daughter. There we say that both boys and girls, we train them to fast on Yom Kipur!

Resolution: We must distinguish in this matter.