ONE WHO ACCEPTED NEZIRUS FROM OTHER MATTERS (Yerushalmi Perek 2 Halachah 1 Daf 5a)
îúðé' äøéðé ðæéø îï äâøåâøåú åîï äãáéìä áéú ùîàé àåîøéí ðæéø
(Mishnah - Beis Shamai): If one said 'I am a Nazir from dried figs or fig cakes', he is a Nazir;
åáéú äìì àåîøéí àéðå ðæéø
Beis Hillel say, he is not a Nazir;
àîø ø' éäåãä àó ëùàîøå áéú ùîàé ìà àîøå àìà áàåîø äøé äåà òìé ÷øáï:
R. Yehudah says, even when Beis Shamai said [that he is a Nazir] this is only when he says '[I intended] that [figs] are Alai (forbidden to me) like a Korban.'
[ãó ä òîåã á] âî' à"ø éåçðï èòîà ãá"ù îùåí ùäåöéà ðæéøåú îôéå
(Gemara - R. Yochanan): Beis Shamai's reason is because he said 'Nezirus' with his mouth. (He intended for Nezirus; he later retracted, and said figs. One cannot retract, for even mistaken Hekdesh takes effect.)
ø"ù áï ì÷éù àîø îùåí ëéðåéé ëéðåééï
(Reish Lakish): It is due to Kinuyei Kinuyim.
à"ø éåãä áï ôæé ÷øééà îñééò ìøáé ùîòåï áï ì÷éù [éùòé' ñä ç] ëä àîø ä' ëàùø éîöà äúéøåù áàùëåì åâåîø
Support (R. Yudah bar Pazi, for Reish Lakish): "Ko Amar Hash-m Ka'asher Yimatzei ha'Tirosh ba'Eshkol...";
úåøä ÷øàú ìàùëåì úéøåù åáðé àãí ÷åøéï ìâøåâøåú úéøåù îùåí ëéðåéé ëéðåééï
The Torah called an Eshkol (grape cluster) Tirosh, and people call figs Tirosh. Therefore, this is Kinuyei Kinuyim.
îä ðô÷ îáéðéäåï
Question: What is the difference between [R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish]?
àîø äøéðé ðæéø îï äâøåâøåú åîï äãáéìä òì ãòúéä ãøáé éåçðï ðæéø òì ãòúéä ãø"ì àéðå ðæéø
Answer #1: If one said 'I am a Nazir from figs and fig cakes', according to R. Yochanan, he is a Nazir. According to Reish Lakish, he is not a Nazir. (If he intended to become a Nazir via Kinuyei Kinuyim, there was no need to mention also fig cakes! Our Mishnah discusses one who said dried figs or fig cakes. - R. MEIR SIMCHAH)
äøéðé ðæéø îï äëëø òì ãòúéä ãøáé éåçðï ðæéø òì ãòúéä ãøáé ùîòåï àéðå ðæéø îï äëëø ìà àîø ëìåí
Answer #2: If one said 'I am a Nazir from the loaf' - according to R. Yochanan, he is a Nazir. According to Reish Lakish, he is not a Nazir. 'From the loaf' is not anything (it is not even Kinuyei Kinuyim).
ø' òå÷áà áòà ÷åîé ø' îðà îçìôä ùéèúéä ãøáé ùîòåï áï ì÷éù
Question (R. Ukva, to R. Mana): Reish Lakish contradicts himself!
ãúðéðï úîï äøé òìé îðçä îï äùòåøéï éáéà îï äçéèéí
(Mishnah): If one said 'it is Alai to bring a Minchah from barley,' he brings from wheat.
åîø øáé àáäå áùí øáé ùîòåï áï ì÷éù ùäåöéà îðçä îúåê ôéå
(R. Avahu citing Reish Lakish): This is because he said 'Minchah' with his mouth. (This obligated him to bring a proper Minchah of wheat. He later retracted, and said from barley. He cannot retract.)
åëà äåà àîø àëï
And here he says so [he is a Nazir only due to Kinuyei Kinuyim]?!
àéú ìéä äëéï åàéú ìéä äëéï àéú ìéä îùåí ùäåöéà ðæéøåú îôéå åàéú ìéä îùåí ëéðåéé ëéðåééï
Answer: He holds like this [reason] and like this (either suffices to obligate him) - because he said 'Nezirus' with his mouth, and due to Kinuyei Kinuyim. (MAR'EH HA'PANIM - this is unlike we said above, that they argue about one who said 'I am a Nazir from figs and fig cakes.')
úãò ìê ùäåà ëï ãúðéðï àîø àîøä ôøä æå ëìåí àîøä àîøú ìà îùåí ùäåöéà ðæéøåú îúåê ôéå åëà îùåí ùäåöéà (ðæéøåú) [ö"ì îðçä - ÷øáï äòãä] îúåê ôéå
Proof: You know that this is so, for a Mishnah says, if one said 'this cow said ['I will be a Nazir...']' - did the cow say anything?! [Rather,] you must say that it is because he said 'Nezirus' with his mouth. And [also] here, it is because he said 'Minchah' with his mouth!
EXPRESSIONS WITH TWO CONSEQUENCES (Yerushalmi Perek 2 Halachah 1 Daf 5b)
ëì äìùåðåú îùîùéï ìùåï ðæéøåú çåõ îìùåï ÷øáï ëì äìùåðåú îùîùéï ìùåï ÷øáï çåõ îìùåï ðæéøåú
All expressions serve for an expression of Nezirus, unless [he concluded with] an expression of Korban. All expressions serve for an expression of Korban, unless [he concluded with] an expression of Nezirus;
àîø ìàùëåì ëìåé àðé îîê ôøåù àðé îîê îðåò àðé îîðå äøéðé ðæéø îîðå äøé æä ðæéø
If one said to a cluster [of grapes] 'I am Kaluy (eradicated) from you', 'I am separated from you', [or] 'I am Manu'a (withheld) from it', [and he concluded] 'I am a Nazir from it', he is a Nazir.
äøé òìé ÷øáï ìà àñøå òìéå àìà ìùí ÷øáï
[If he concluded] 'it is a Korban upon me', he forbade it to himself only for (i.e. like) a Korban.
àîø ìëëø ëìåé àðé îîðå ôøåù àðé îîðå îðåò àðé îîðå äøé äåà òìé ÷øáï ìà àñøå òìéå àìà ìùí ÷øáï
If one said to a loaf 'I am Kaluy from it', 'I am separated from it', [or] 'I am Manu'a from it', [and he concluded] 'it is a Korban upon me', he forbade it to himself only like a Korban.
äøéðé ðæéø îîðå äøé äåà ðæéø
[If he concluded] 'I am a Nazir from it', he is a Nazir.
àäï îðåò îùîù ìùåï ðæéøåú åìùåï ÷øáï àäï àùëåì àéú áéä ðæéøåú åàéú ÷øáï
This expression 'Manu'a' can serve for an expression of Nezirus, and an expression of Korban (and likewise 'Kaluy' and 'separated'; this is when he did not conclude with Korban or Nazir. If he said so about) a cluster, there is Nezirus, and [an Isur like] a Korban;
àîø ìàùëåì ëìåé àðé îîðå áà ìàåëìå àåîø ìå ìãîéí ÷ãåù
If one said about a cluster 'I am Kaluy from it - if he comes to eat it, we tell him, it is Kadosh for its value;
ôãéå åáà ìàåëìå àåîø ìå ìà ðæéø àúä
If he redeemed it and comes to eat it, we tell him, are you not a Nazir?! (We explained this and the coming Sugyos like MEICHAL HA'MAYIM. SEFER NIR asks that we find redemption [according to one opinion] regarding a Konam Klali (when he forbids it to everyone), but not when he forbade only to himself!
ëì äìùåðåú îùîùéï ìùåï çéìåì çåõ îìùåï úîåøä ëì äìùåðåú îùîùéï ìùåï úîåøä çåõ îìùåï çéìåì
All expressions serve for an expression of redemption, unless [he concluded with] an expression Temurah. All expressions serve for an expression of Temurah, unless [he concluded with] an expression of redemption;
àîø ì÷ãùé îæáç äøé æä úçú æä úîåøú æå çìéôé æå äøé æå úîåøä æå îçåììú òì æå àéðä úîåøä
If one said about [a Chulin animal that he wants it to take the Kedushah of] Kodshei Mizbe'ach 'this is Tachas (in place of) this', [and concluded] 'this is Temurah of this', or 'this is in exchange for this', it is Temurah of it. [If he concluded] 'this is profaned on this', it is not Temurah;
àîø ì÷ãùé áã÷ äáéú äøé æå úçú æå çìéôé æå ðúôùä áãîéí úîåøä æå ìà ðúôñä áãîéí
If one said about [Chulin and] Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis 'this is Tachas this', [and concluded] 'this is in exchange for this', [the Chulin] gets [Kedushas] Damim [of the Hekdesh, and the Hekdesh becomes Chulin If he concluded] 'this is Temurah of this', it did not get [Kedushas] Damim.
Note: Even though 'in exchange for' is an expression of Temurah ("Lo Yachalifenu v'Lo Yamir Oso" - Vayikra 27:10), this opinion holds that for Bedek ha'Bayis, it does not inhibit redemption. (PF)
úðé øáé äåùòéä çìéôé æå úîåøú æå ìà àîø ëìåí
(R. Hoshayah - Beraisa): [Whether he concluded] 'in exchange for this', or 'Temurah of this', it has no effect.
àäï [ö"ì úçú - ÷øáï äòãä] îùîù ìùåï çéìåì åìùåï úîåøä
This 'Tachas' can serve for an expression of redemption, and as an expression of Temurah.
[ãó å òîåã à] àéìéï ÷ãùé îæáç àéú áäå çéìåì åàéú áäå úîåøä ÷ãùé (áã÷ äáéú) äîæáç ù÷ãí ä÷ãéùï àú îåîï
The following Kodshei Mizbe'ach, redemption and Temurah apply to them - Kodshei Mizbe'ach that were made Hekdesh before they became blemished. (If they were blemished beforehand, they have only monetary Kedushah and do not make Temurah. If they are Tam, they cannot be redeemed.)
äøé æå úçú æå áà ìä÷øéá úîéîä àåîø ìå ìãîéí ÷ãùä
If he said 'this [Tam animal] is Tachas this [blemished Korban]' - if he comes to offer the Tam, we tell him 'it received Kedushas Damim (you may not offer it.' This is difficult, for even if this was Pidyon, we offer the Tam!) Rather, he designated a female Tachas a blemished Pesach. If it is Temurah, it is offered for Shelamim. However, if it is Pidyon, it is like a female Hukdash for Pesach. It is a Kedushah Dechuyah (it cannot be offered for what it was Hukdash), which is only Kedushas Damim. After the female is blemished, we bring its redemption for Shelamim.)
áà ìåëì áòì îåí àåîø ìå ìúîåøä ÷ãùä [åé÷øà ëæ é] åäéä äåà åúîåøúå éäéä ÷åãù
If he comes to eat the Ba'al Mum, we tell him '[the female] became Kodesh through Temurah - "v'Hayah Hu u'Semuraso Yihyeh Kodesh" (the Ba'al Mum is still Kadosh).'
àîø øáé éöç÷ áø ìòæø îëéåï ùäåà éåãò ùëì äîéîø ìå÷ä àó äåà ìà òìú òì ãòúå ìäîéø
Rebuttal (R. Yitzchak bar Lazar): Since he knows that anyone who makes Temurah is lashed, it never crossed his mind to make Temurah! (Even though it is not a proper redemption, surely he intended for this, and not for the Aveirah of Temurah for which one is lashed! We explained this like OHR SOMAYACH, Hilchos Temurah 2:2.)
ëì äìùåðåú îùîùéï ìùåï òøëéï çåõ îìùåï ãîéí ëì äìùåðåú îùîùéï ìùåï ãîéí çåõ îìùåï òøëéï
All expressions serve for an expression of Erchin [an obligation to give to Hekdesh a fixed amount based on the age and gender of the one whose Erech he pledges], unless [he concluded with] an expression of Damim (monetary value, i.e. if he would be sold to be a slave). All expressions serve for an expression of Damim, unless [he concluded with] an expression of Erchin;
àîø ìàãí òéìåééï òìé ñéãåøå òìé ùåîå òìé òøëå òìé ðåúï àú òøëå ãîéå òìé ðåúï àú ãîéå
If one said about a person 'his Iluy is Alai (I must give it to Hekdesh)', 'his Sidur is Alai' or 'his appraisal is Alai', [and he concluded] 'his Erech is Alai', he gives his Erech. [If he concluded] 'his Damim is Alai', he gives his Damim;
àäï ùåí îùîù ìùåï òøëéí åìùåï ãîéí àäï àãí àéú áéä òøëéí åàéú áéä ãîéí
This 'appraisal' serves for an expression of Erchin and for an expression of Damim (and likewise for Iluy and Sidur). A person has Erchin, and he has Damim;
àîø ìàãí ùåîå òìé àí äéä ðàä ðåúï àú ãîéå àí äéä ëàåø ðåúï àú òøëå
If one said about a person 'his appraisal is Alai' - if he was nice (his slave value exceeds his Erech), he gives his Damim. If he was repulsive (his Erech exceeds his slave value), he gives his Erech.
áéú ùîàé àåîøéí ðãåø åðæåø åáéú äìì àåîøéí àéðå ðãåø åàéðå ðéæåø:
(In our Mishnah, he said 'I am a Nazir from dried figs and fig cakes.') Beis Shamai say, he is Nadur [a vow forbids him to eat them] and a Nazir. Beis Hillel say, he is not Nadur (for he did not vow the way people vow) and not a Nazir.