(a) RAV YAKOV EMDEN (in HAGAHOS YA'AVETZ) points out that there are no other
statements recorded in the Mishnah in the name of Rebbi Nehora'i. Therefore,
the Gemara finds this Mishnah as an appropriate opportunity to record the
Beraisa in which a statement of Rebbi Nehora'i appears.
(There is another Beraisa cited in Nazir (5a) in which Rebbi Nehora'i and
Rebbi Yosi argue, regarding whether a Nazir Olam may shave once every thirty
days (Rebbi Nehora'i) or once every seven days (Rebbi Yosi). This Machlokes
would have been even more appropriate to cite here, because the Machlokes in
the Mishnah here also deals with the topic of Nazir Olam. In fact, their
Machlokes regarding the Nazir Olam there might be the source for their
Machlokes in our Mishnah here. Rebbi Yosi, who holds that a Nazir Olam may
shave every seven days, maintains that the words "u'Morah Lo Ya'aleh Al
Rosho" (Shmuel I 1:11) could not be referring to a razor and saying that
Shmuel was a Nazir Olam (see Rambam, who explains that the Machlokes is
whether Shmuel was a Nazir Olam, and not whether he was a Nazir Shimshon),
because he holds that a Nazir Olam *may* shave once every seven days!)
(b) The MAHARSHA explains that the Gemara simply wants to conclude the
Masechta with a discussion of the concept of Berachah because the effect of
a Berachah is similar to the effect of Nezirus. Through a Berachah, a person
overcomes the prosecuting angels in order to receive a Divine flow of
blessing. (This is why the Gemara compares a Berachah to a war -- it is a
war against the prosecuting angels.) Similarly, Nezirus is a way of bonding
oneself to Hashem in order to overcome the prosecuting angels and receive a
Divine flow of blessing. This is why Shimshon's Nezirus caused him to be
Divinely blessed with strength. REBBI TZADOK (LIKUTEI MA'AMARIM, p. 224)
adds that the war in which the Berachah is victorious is alluded to in the
Gemara in Berachos (35a) that says that before a person makes a Berachah,
everything is under the ownership of Hashem, and that the Berachah
"conquers" it and makes it the property of people.
(c) Another common point between a Berachah and Nezirus is that both involve
the temporary suppression of desires. When a person recites a Berachah, he
temporarily suppresses his desire to eat the food in order to first thank
Hashem. When a person becomes a Nazir, he abstains from grapes and wine in
order to become closer to Hashem and to bring Korbanos to Him. (See the
incident involving the Nazir who came to Shimon ha'Tzadik, Nazir 4b.)
The reason why a person who says "Amen" to a Berachah might be greater than
the person who makes the Berachah is because he is arousing himself to
acknowledge Hashem even before he has a Ta'avah, a lust, requiring that he
first acknowledge Hashem. In contrast, the person who is making the Berachah
first has a Ta'avah that prompts him to eat which then requires him to make
the Berachah in order to acknowledge Hashem. For the same reason, if a
person hears or sees someone else making himself a Nazir, and then he
accepts upon himself to be a Nazir like the first person, he might be
considered to be on a higher level (like the one who answers "Amen"),
because he did not need to become a Nazir in order to conquer a Ta'avah, but
rather he saw someone else becoming a Nazir to become closer to Hashem and
he decided that he, too, wanted to become closer to Hashem. Accordingly, the
Gemara here might be alluding to the first Nazir mentioned in the Masechta
(2a). In the first Mishnah, a person sees a Nazir and says, "Ehei" ("I will
be"), in order to become a Nazir. The Gemara here is saying that he is on a
higher level than the first person who became a Nazir, just like the one
whose says "Amen" is greater than the one who says the Berachah.
This is also related to the reason why Maseches Nazir precedes Maseches
Sotah. The Gemara (Nazir 2a, Sotah 2a) says that if a person sees a Sotah
being punished, he should become a Nazir and refrain from wine. This means
that he should not wait until he is overcome by Ta'avah to become a Nazir.
Rather, he should learn from others, and when he sees a Sotah being punished
he should immediately became a Nazir and refrain from wine as a preventative
measure in order to become closer to Hashem without having the Ta'avah in
the first place. In that way, he will be greater than the person who became
a Nazir in response to a Ta'avah that he had.
(d) RAV YISRAEL AZOR, Shlit'a, points out that the Gemara might be answering
a question that the RADAK asks (Shmuel I 1:11). According to Rebbi Nehora'i,
who says that Shmuel was a Nazir because his mother made an oath that the
child will be a Nazir when she said, "Morah Lo Ya'aleh Al Rosho," how could
the child be a Nazir? The Mishnah (Nazir 28b) says that the *father* can
make his child a Nazir, but the mother cannot make her child a Nazir! (See
GILYON HA'SHAS there.) If, on the other hand, Chanah told her husband,
Elkanah, that she wanted Shmuel to be a Nazir and she asked him to make the
child a Nazir after he was born, then why does the verse mention only the
oath of Nezirus that she made, which was not the one that was binding, and
it makes no mention of her husband's oath of Nezirus for the child? In
addition, the Radak wonders why Chazal themselves do not ask this question.
Rav Yisrael Azor explains that our Gemara is attempting to answer this
question. The Mishnah (20b) says that if a woman says to her husband, "I am
a Nezirah and you are," and her husband says "Amen," he becomes a Nazir by
consenting to the Nezirus that his wife accepted on his behalf. The Gemara
is suggesting that Chanah told Elkanah that the child will be a Nazir and
Elkanah answered "Amen" to her Neder. Since he said "Amen," her Neder took
effect. Why, though, does the Navi not mention Elkanah's role in the
Nezirus? The Navi mentions only Chanah's role, and not Elkanah's role, in
the Nezirus of their child for the same reason that the Torah tells us that
Tziporah did the Bris of her son and does not mention Moshe Rabeinu (Shemos
4:25). The Gemara in Avodah Zarah (27a) asks whether proof can be adduced
from the verse that says that Tziporah did the Milah that a woman may
perform Milah. The Gemara says that this verse is not proof, because perhaps
Tziporah started the Milah and Moshe Rabeinu finished it, but since she
started it the verse attributes the act to her (even though the fulfillment
of the Mitzvah is attributed to the one who completed it). In the same way,
since Chanah was the one who initiated the oath of Nezirus for her son, the
verse attributes it to her, even though it was her husband who made it
binding!
This answers the Radak's perplexity as to why Chazal do not question how
Chanah could make her son a Nazir. The Gemara *does* relate to this question
and hints to the answer by discussing, after the Mishnah that says that
Shmuel was a Nazir, the topic of responding "Amen" to a Berachah. The Gemara
says that it is better to say a Berachah than to say "Amen," for this can be
inferred from the fact that the Navi only mentions the oath that Chanah made
and does not mention that Elkanah answered "Amen" afterward, showing that
the one who initiates (i.e. who recites the Berachah) is greater!