Please note that unless otherwise indicated, we follow the explanation of Tosfos instead of that of Rashi, since the latter is purported to have written by someone other than Rashi. Also, our notes and comments do not necessarily have a bearing on the practical Halachah.

1)

(a) 'Kol Kinuyei N'zirus ki'N'zirus'. The Tana continues with cases of Yados li'N'zirus - which are uncompleted declarations of N'zirus; whereas Kinuyin are complete declarations, but not using the term 'Nazir' that the Torah uses.

(b) The Tana lists the Kinuyin: 'Nazir, Nazik, Nezi'ach, Pezi'ach'. 'Nazir' is included in the list - because it is the source Lashon, from which all other Leshanos stem.

(c) According to Rebbi Yochanan in Nedarim, Kinuyin are expressions used by Nochrim that mean Nazir. According to Tosfos, other words that mean Nazir in other languages are also considered Kinuyin. They draw a distinction however, between these three Leshonos - which do not require specific Kavanah, and other words, which do (see Tosfos Yom-Tov).

(a) According to Resh Lakish, these Leshonos are expressions introduced by the Chachamim - to avoid people having the intention of declaring 'la'Hashem Korban' (which is a normal way of making a Neder to bring a Korban), and retracting after saying 'la'Hashem', leaving them having said Hashem's Name in vain. It is highly unusual however, to say Hashem's Name before one of the Kinuyin (such as 'la'Hashem Konem').

(b) According to Tosfos, Yadei N'zirus are fully effective, in spite of the fact that the Lashon is only mi'de'Rabbanan, because the Noder accepts N'zirus with his full heart. According to Rebbi Yechiel however - someone who accepted N'zirus through a Kinuy, would not be Chayav to bring a Korban (because it would be bringing Chulin to the Azarah).

(a) 'ha'Omer Ehei, Harei Zeh Nazir' - falls under the category of a Yad li'N'zirus.

(b) If someone says 'Hareini ka'Zeh', he is a Nazir provided a Nazir is passing in front of him. Seeing as we already know this from the earlier cases in the Mishnah - the Chidush of this Mishnah lies in the inference (that if he said 'Hareini' alone, he would not be a Nazir, even if a Nazir was passing in front of him at that moment.

(c) 'Hareini Mesalsel, Hareini Mechalkel, Harei Alai Leshalei'ach Pera' - is neither a Kinuy or a Yad. It is considered a direct N'zirus, which is effective provided he is holding his hair.

(a) The reason that Nazir is in Seder Nashim rather than in Kodshim is - because it stems from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei (with regard to Gitin) "Ki Matza Bah Ervas Davar"; the root of adultery is wine and Chazal have said 'Kol ha'Ro'eh Sotah be'Kilkulah, Yazir Atzmo min ha'Yayin'.

(b) We did not ask the same Kashya with regard to Nedarim - because it is obvious that the Parshah of Nedarim belongs in Nashim, due to the fact that it is written in connection with women (in Parshas Matos).

(c) We do not just accept the explanation given in Sotah (that Nedarim follows Kesuvos, because it follows Perek Hamadir in Kesuvos, and Nazir follows Nedarim because it is a branch of Nedarim - because that would not be sufficient reason to take Nazir out of Kodshim, where it belongs (if anything, the Tana should rather have placed Nedarim next to Nazir, in Kodshim).

(d) We nevertheless need the answer in Sotah (not making do with the answer in our Sugya) - because then, the Tana should have placed Nazir after Gitin (where it is hinted in the Torah).

(a) The Tana begins the Mishnah with Kinuyin, but first explains Yados. Rava, basing himself on various Mishnahs (such as 'Bameh Madlikin, u'va'Meh Ein Madlikin' and 'Bameh Ishah Yotz'ah u'Vameh Einah Yotz'ah', where the Tana also does likewise) initially resolves this problem - by suggesting that the Tana always explains the last-mentioned case first (as a matter of policy).

(b) We have a problem with Rava's answer however, from the Mishnahs 'Bameh Beheimah Yotz'ah, u'Vameh Einah Yotz'ah', and from 'Yesh Nochlin u'Manchilin, Nochlin ve'Lo Manchilin ... ' - where the Tana explains the *first-mentioned* cases first.

(c) We answer that the Tana sometimes explains the first statement first, and sometimes, the last. In the above cases, he explains the last case first with regard to 'Bameh Ishah Yotz'ah u'Vameh Einah Yotz'ah' - because when it comes to personal Isurim, he prefers to mention the Chumra first; whereas ...

1. ... regarding 'Bameh Beheimah Yotz'ah, u'Vameh Einah Yotz'ah', he explains the first case first, because he prefers to mention the lenient case first when it comes to Isurim concerning his animal (whose Din is altogether more lenient).
2. ... regarding 'Yesh Nochlin u'Manchilin, Nochlin ve'Lo Manchilin ... ' he prefers to do likewise - in order to first mention the Ikar Din of Nachalah (someone who has all the Dinim of an heir), and then of someone who is only a partial heir.

(d) And if the Tana explains Yados first because it is learned from a D'rashah ("Nazir Lehazir la'Hashem"), which is dear to him, he nevertheless prefers to open the Mishnah with Kinuyin - which are the Ikar Neder of which the Torah speaks.

6)

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah knows that 'Ehei' means 'Ehei Nazir' and not 'Ehei be'Ta'anis' - because he is speaking when a Nazir is passing in front of the Noder at that moment.

(b) We try to prove from here that Shmuel holds 'Yadayim she'Einan Mochichos Lo Havyan Yadayim'. We take for granted that it is a Yad, and that 'Ehei' implies more N'zirus than a Ta'anis - on the grounds that N'zirus can always take effect immediately, whereas a Ta'anis cannot if the Noder has already eaten that day (as is usually the case).

(c) We answer that Shmuel does indeed hold that 'Yadayim she'Einan Mochichos Lo Havyan Yadayim' - in which case, the fact that a Nazir is passing in front of him transforms the Yadayim she'Einan Mochichos into Yadayim Mochichos.

(d) Other texts reject the proof that Shmuel holds 'Yadayim she'Einan Mochichos Lo Havyan Yadayim' (a more conventional way of explaining a Sugya that begins with the word 'Leima ... '. Tosfos prefer the first explanation however - based on the Sugya in Kidushin, where he specifically concurs with this Lashon.

(a) And we know that the Noder does not simply intend to bring the Korbanos on behalf of the Nazir who is passing in front of him (as if he had said 'Ehei bi'Mekomo') - because we are also speaking when he specifically had in mind to be a Nazir like him.

(b) Had the Tana not taught us that his Neder is effective - we would have thought that it is not, because a Neder requires 'Piv ve'Libo Shavin (that the Noder's mouth and heart are of one accord), and in this case, it seems that what he thought is not in keeping with what he said. The Tana's Chidush is that since his thoughts clarify what he said (rather than clash with it), it is considered 'Piv ve'Libo Shavin'.

(c) There is another text that assumes that we do not require 'Piv ve'Libo Shavin', which we reject on the basis of the accepted Halachah, that a Neder that is declared unintentionally, is not considered a Neder. We can prove this from our very Sugya - because if it was, now that we have established that in his heart, he intended to become a Nazir, why would we also require a Nazir to pass in front of him?

(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Zeh Keili ve'Anveihu" - that one should perform Mitzvos beautifully (such as a beautiful Succah, a beautiful Lulav, beautiful Tzitzis and a beautiful Sefer-Torah wrapped with a beautiful cloth).

(b) The Tana of our Mishnah nevertheless knows that 'Na'eh Nazir' refers to N'zirus, and not to performing Mitzvos beautifully - because it speaks hen he is holding his hair (indicating that what he is undertaking is to beautify himself with regard to a Mitzvah connected with his hair).

(c) Even though Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar has taught us that N'zirus itself is an Aveirah - that is only a Nazir Tamei, but not a Nazir Tahor (and 'Ehei Na'eh' pertains to N'zirus of Taharah).

(a) Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar, who considers a Nazir a sinner, confines his opinion to a Nazir Tamei - who (due to the extended period of N'zirus) will most likely regret having declared N'zirus in the first place.

(b) Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar does not consider a Nazir Tahor a sinner, despite the fact that in a number of places, he specifically refers to a Nazir who abstained from wine, a sinner, - because there, although he is guilty of sinning slightly, the Mitzvah aspect of N'zirus outweighs the Aveirah; whereas in the case of a Nazir Tamei, the Aveirah outweighs (or even cancels) the Mitzvah.

1. ... in the case of 'Ehei Na'eh' when a Nazir was walking past - because 'Ehei Na'eh' is a complete Lashon, and if he had not been holding his hair, even a Nazir walking past would not change its meaning from 'Na'eh be'Mitzvos.
2. ... in the case of 'Ehei' that it speaks when he was holding his hair - because, unless a Nazir was walking past, it would imply 'Ehei be'Ta'anis', even if he was holding his hair.