(Mishnah): If he said "like Nedarim of Kesherim" it has no effect.

Question: This implies that: Kesherim vow. Since he vowed, he is not Kosher!

Answer: Our Mishnah is like R. Yehudah, for it was taught in the name of R. Yehudah, early Chasidim yearned to be able to bring a Chatas, and Hash-m did not enable them to sin b'Shogeg and fulfill this. They would vow to be a Nazir, in order to bring a Korban Chatas (at the end of Nezirus);

Note: This shows that there is a case in which Kesherim vow. However, here his vow has no effect, for Stam Kesherim do not vow, only early Chasidim, who were sure that they will not stumble. (We explained this like MEICHAL HA'MAYIM.)

R. Shimon says, they sinned, for they vowed to be a Nazir - it says "v'Chiper Alav me'Asher Chata Al ha'Nefesh." This one sinned against himself, for he denied himself wine.

Shimon ha'Tzadik holds like R. Shimon;

(Beraisa): Shimon ha'Tzadik said, in all my life I never ate from the Asham of a Nazir [Tamei], with only one exception. Once, one came to me from the south, and I saw him red with beautiful eyes, attractive with hair in locks. I asked him - my son, why did you see proper to [become a Nazir, and] destroy (cut off) this beautiful hair?

He told me 'Rebbi - I was a shepherd in my city, and I went to fill the Kli used to draw water, and I saw my reflection in the water. My Yetzer Ra agitated me, and sought to make me perish from the world! I told it Rasha - why do you agitate me about something that is not yours?! It is Alai to be Makdish you (my hair) to Shamayim!'

I lowered my head and kissed him, and told him 'my son - there should be more like you in Yisrael who do Hash-m's will! About you it says "Ish Oh Ishah Ki Yafli Lindor Neder Nazir Lehazir la'Shem"!

Question (R. Mana): How does [saying that he holds like R. Shimon] explain Shimon ha'Tzadik? Even if he holds like R. Shimon, did Shimon ha'Tzadik never eat [anything due to sin, e.g.] Chatas [due to eating] Chelev in his entire life?! Did Shimon ha'Tzadik never eat Chatas Dam in his entire life?! (If so, why did he say that he never ate another Asham Nazir? If so, he never ate any individual's Chatas or Asham! - MEICHAL HA'MAYIM)

Answer: (Shimon ha'Tzadik's opinion does not depend on R. Shimon.) Shimon [ha'Tzadik] holds that people vowed [Nezirus] amidst adamancy, and since they vowed amidst adamancy, in the end he regrets. Since he regrets, his Korbanos are like Chulin slaughtered b'Azarah. This [particular] Nazir vowed amidst a settled mind - his mouth and heart were equal (therefore, Shimon ate from his Asham).

(Mishnah): The following are Kinuyim (substitute words) for Korban - Konam, Konach, and Konas;

Cherek, Cherech, Cheref are Kinuyim for Cherem.

Nazik, Nazi'ach, and Pazi'ach are Kinuyim for Nezirus.

Shevusah, Shekukah, or vowing 'b'Mohi' are Kinuyim for Shevu'ah.

(Gemara) Question: [These Kinuyim suffice to forbid] to himself. Can one be Makdish to Shamayim with the expression 'Konam'?

Answer: We learn from the following. 'Lend to me your axe', and he responded 'Konam is my axe if I have one; Konam is my property to me [if have one]', and he has an axe, his property is forbidden. (He forbade the property only to itself, therefore it is forbidden. He said about the axe Konam Stam, i.e. to be Makdish it, therefore it is not forbidden, for Konam cannot be Makdish.)

If it is known that he does not have an axe, his property is permitted.

Rebuttal (R. Tachlifa Kisariya): Here is different, for in the same expression that he forbade the axe, he forbade the property (i.e. there was no need to teach about the axe, for obviously it is the same as the property);

No matter what you will say, [they are the same]! If the axe became Kadosh, the property became Kadosh. If the axe did not become Kadosh, even the property did not become Kadosh!

Had he said 'Konam is my axe if I have one', and returned and said 'Konam is my property to you', and he has an axe, his property is forbidden, this would be a proper proof. (Since he forbade one after the other, if Konam is Makdish, the axe became Hekdesh, so his property would be permitted, for when he vowed about it, the axe was not his!)

(R. Yehoshua ben Chananyah): Had [the Beraisa] said that [always] the property is permitted, this would be a proper proof. (Surely it is because the axe became Hekdesh, so it was not his);

[However, the Beraisa permits the property only when] he does not have an axe [at all], but if he has an axe, his property is forbidden. [We can say that really,] the axe became Hekdesh, [and even so] his property is Kadosh (forbidden), for he has an axe (even though it is forbidden. If so,) this shows that one can be Makdish to Shamayim with an expression of 'Konam'! (We explained this like PANIM ME'IROS.)

Question (R. Yirmeyah): [An expression] that can he used for Chulin and for Korban, can one forbid to himself [through it]?

Answer #1: Our Mishnah says that Kones (is a Kinuy; it forbids, even though it can mean a fine)!

Rejection: [A fine] is called Konsah. (Kones is used only for Korban.)

Answer #2: The Mishnah says 'Shevusah' (even though this can be an expression of resting)!

Rejection: [Resting is] called Shefusah. (Shevusah is used only for Shevu'ah.)

Note: I do not understand this. Perhaps the text should say 'Shevisah' in place of Shefusah, but I did not see Meforshim make this Hagahah.

Answer #3: Bar Kapara taught 'Cheres' [is a Kinuy for Cherem]. Does this not mean Chaspa (earthenware)?!

Rejection (R. Ze'ira): It is an expression that refers to Hash-m - "ha'Omer la'Cheres v'Lo Yizrach..." (therefore, surely he did not intend for the Chulin meaning. BEIS YECHEZKEL Nedarim 1:3 - R. Ze'ira says that it is a Kinuy for Shevu'ah, which is based on Hash-m's name. Nedarim do not require Hash-m's name.)

Note: I prefer to say that R. Ze'ira's words were improperly copied from Nazir 1:1. There, the Gemara wanted to prove from Bar Kapara that one may add Kinuyim to those of the Mishnah, and R. Zeira rejected this. Here, Bar Kapara's answer is accepted! (PF)

(Reish Lakish): [Kinuyim] are [translations of Nezirus in] Nochri languages. People of Nivasa call Chaspa 'Kaspa' (an allusion to half-Shekalim of Hekdesh. Chaspa is a Kinuy for Hekdesh.)

(R. Yosi): (Our Mishnah taught that Nazik is a Kinuy for Nazir.) It seems that this is in other places (where they intentionally call a Nazir 'Nazik'), but in places where they call a Nazir 'Nazik' (because they cannot articulate properly), I say that what garblers call 'Nazir' is not a Nazir.

Our Mishnah taught Shevusah and Shekukah (to be Kinuyim for Shevu'ah). R. Chiyah taught also Shevukah, Sheku'ah and Shekudah.

(Our Mishnah taught 'Nadar b'Mohi'.) 'Nadar' means that he vowed, and b'Mohi is (a Kinuy for Moshe; this means) b'Mumi (the Shevu'ah) that Moshe vowed (swore) - "va'Yo'el Moshe."

Question (R. Yonah): Why don't we say that the Mumi that Sha'ul vowed (is also a Kinuy) - "va'Yo'el Sha'ul"? (The Gemara did not answer this. SHIREI KORBAN - it is not a Kinuy, for Sha'ul permitted it, so it was Batel retroactively. Moshe did not permit his Shevu'ah; he swore not to leave without Yisro's consent. He 'permitted' it through getting his consent.

'Yamina' is a Shevu'ah (it alludes to Hash-m's right hand). 'Smola' is a Shevu'ah.

Source (R. Matanyah): It says "va'Yarem Yemino u'Smolo El ha'Shamayim va'Yishava b'Chei ha'Olam."