Explanation: [Ravina answers that the text should say] "the one whose words were fulfilled [is a Nazir]";

Abaye answers that the case is, he said "even if it is not Ploni, I will be a Nazir." "The one whose words were not fulfilled" means "his initial [words were not fulfilled, but his latter words were fulfilled]."

We discuss when he retracted Toch Kedei Dibur. In passing, the Mishnah teaches that [anything said] Toch Kedei Dibur is part of his utterance, and his latter words are primary.

Question: We should ask from our Mishnah, "not one of them is a Nazir"!

Answer: Perhaps he prefers to ask from the Beraisa, which explains the reason for the verse (Nezirus requires Hafla'ah).

Explanation: He says that a person does not enter a Safek. However, if he will find out who it was, he is a Nazir.

Question: Here it connotes that according to R. Yehudah, when it becomes known who he was, he is a Nazir, even though [at the time] he did not vow with clarity;

In Nedarim (19a), Rav Ashi said that R. Yehudah of [the Beraisa of] the stack is R. Yehudah in the name of R. Tarfon, who says that none of them is a Nazir...

Really, even if it was not stolen, according to R. Yehudah he is not a Nazir, for there is no Hafla'ah (clear acceptance). The Beraisa discusses when it was stolen to teach a Chidush according to R. Shimon!

Answer: We must say that according to Rav Ashi, our Mishnah here was not taught according to R. Yehudah, rather, like the Tana above (13a) who says that if his wife miscarried, he is not a Nazir;

Therefore, our Mishnah here is like him. However, if he had a son, he is a Nazir, even though at the time he vowed there was no Hafla'ah.

Explanation: The primary Chidush of the first Tana is to teach that he is liable for Zagim by themselves, if he ate only Zagim;

R. Elazar ben Azaryah comes to argue with this. He says that one is liable only for two Chartzanim and a Zag, since the Torah wrote Chartzanim in the plural, and Zag in the singular, like the Gemara explains;

R. Elazar holds like R. Yosi, who says that Chartzanim are the pits.

Implied question: We expounded this (mi'Yayin) above (4a) to forbid wine of a Mitzvah like optional wine, and "v'Shechar" teaches about the Mikdash! (The Isur to enter the Mikdash when drunk applies only to one who drank wine.)

Answer: Even so, there are several exclusions. It says "mi'Yayin v'Shechar Yazir Chometz Yayin v'Chometz Shechar Lo Yishteh", "va'Anavim Lachim vi'Yveshim Lo Yochel."

Citation of Gemara: "Mi'Kol Asher Ye'aseh mi'Gefen ha'Yayin" is an inclusion.

Explanation: However, he does not expound "me'Chartzanim v'Ad Zag" to exclude, like Rabanan. He needs it like R. Elazar ben Azaryah above, who obligates only for two Chartzanim and a Zag.

Explanation: The Gemara explains this below to include Boser (unripe grapes) Pesoles Pri are wormy grapes. We exclude leaves and sprigs, which are not similar to the Prat;

Citation of Gemara: Just like the Peratim are Pri Gamur (proper, finished fruits), we should include only Pri Gamur!

Explanation #1: Some explain that this means that we should exclude also Boser, and also wormy grapes.

Rejection #1: The Torah wrote "Chometz" (vinegar), which is Pesoles Pri. Why are wormy grapes unlike vinegar? (Both spoiled.)

Rejection #2: If we exclude both of them, what do we learn from the Klal u'Frat that was not written explicitly?

Rejection #3: "Pri Gamur" connotes that it excludes a fruit that is not finished, such as Boser.

Explanation #2 (Tosfos' Rebbi): [We suggested that we include only] every Pri Gamur, and exclude Boser. However, we would include wormy grapes, for they are similar to the Prat;

The Gemara answers that if so, what was not written? Wet and dry grapes are written. Wine and vinegar are written. Therefore, we do not learn like the latter suggestion, rather, like the first way.

Explanation: If so, that we exclude Boser, it turns out that the rest is explicit. What do we gain through expounding the Prat u'Chlal u'Frat?

Suggestion: We learn wormy grapes, which were not written.

Rejection: Two Peratim are written, i.e. Pri, i.e. grapes, and Pesoles Pri, i.e. vinegar, and you cannot include from each Prat like the Prat;

Therefore, you should expound to include also Boser from the Prat "Anavim", and also wormy grapes from the Prat "Chometz", and exclude leaves and sprigs, which are not similar to the Prat.

Question: We need ["me'Chartzanim v'Ad Zag"] to be the latter Prat!

Answer: The Gemara asks that it could have written it before the Klal;

It answers that whenever you find a Prat u'Chlal, i.e. elsewhere, and also here regarding Nazir, had it not written a final Prat, you would not be allowed to expound [and include everything] similar to the Prat;

Rather, it would be a Klal that adds to the Prat, and we would include also leaves and sprigs.

[You may expound it to include only everything similar to the Prat] only if the Torah writes another Prat after the Klal, like it did regarding Nazir.

Question #1: We need this, to teach that the Torah forbids even grape peels and pits, even though they are not proper to eat!

Question #2: Also, we need this to teach about lashes, like it says below (38b) that if one ate a Chartzan, he is lashed twice. If he ate a Zag, he is lashed twice.

Answer #1: We ask why the Torah wrote [the Klal] before [me'Chartzanim v'Ad Zag].