Gemara (Mishnah): A firstborn for inheritance.

Explanation: To receive a double portion.

Gemara (Mishnah): And not a Bechor for a Kohen.

Explanation: That he should need to be redeemed. The Mishnah in Bechoros (46a) explains that this is one who was born after a Nefel, or one who had no children, and married a woman who already gave birth.

Gemara (Mishnah): A Bechor for a Kohen, but not a Bechor for inheritance.

Explanation: E.g. he had children, and married a woman did not have children.

Gemara: Because there are many, it first discusses the first one.

Explanation: Because their laws are many, like it says in Rosh Hashanah (35a) 'it has many Brachos.' Therefore, if he would explain them in reverse order, one could err.

And really, if not for this reason, [the Tana] is adamant about the order, to explain [first] the last one mentioned.

And we challenge this from 'with what may animals go out with on Shabbos, and what is forbidden?

Gemara: Rather, [the order] is not exact (uniform). Sometimes he explains...

Explanation: This is why he changes the order, to teach that there is no adamancy about it.

It is fine that every Tana who teaches like he wants. V'Tivchar Leshon Arumim" (choose a shrewd expression) does not apply.

Gemara: Alternatively, he explains Yados first because they are learned from a Drashah.

Explanation: Surely, there is no adamancy about the matter (the order), like you said. one cannot argue about this, for it is proven properly from the Mishnayos;

Distinction: However, in our Mishnah, do not say that [there is no adamancy, and the Tana] chose one way. Rather, he specifically put Yados first, for they are learned from a Drashah.

Gemara: He taught Kinuyim first, because they are mid'Oraisa.

Explanation: The Tana's style is to begin with matters that are known and simple.

Gemara: However, according to the opinion that [Kinuyim] are words that Chachamim made up, to vow with them.

Explanation: They concocted them from their hearts. This is like "Asher Bada mi'Libo."

Gemara: To vow in it.

Explanation: The Gemara explains below (10a) that if one will say 'Korban', we are concerned lest he mention Hash-m's name, for it is next to Korban - "Korban la'Shem";

Perhaps he will mention Hash-m's name, and not mention Korban, and it turns out that he mentioned Hash-m's name in vain. Therefore, they made up these expressions.

Implied question: Also [according to him, Kinuyim work] mid'Oraisa, like I proved above in our Mishnah (2a DH Kol. If so, what is difficult?)

Answer: Even so, they are not more obvious than Yados, so this is not a reason to begin with them. (Above (DH v'Iy), the Ran explained that now we hold that surely there is a reason why the Tana explained Yados first.)

Just the contrary, it is more obvious that Yados work, for we learn them from a Drashah!

Explanation #1: Now, due to our difficulty, we retract from what was clear in our entire Sugya that if [a teaching] is abbreviated, the beginning is not missing. (The Ran said so above, 2b DH Pasach.)

[Now] we say that according to the opinion that [Kinuyim are] words that Chachamim made up, the beginning is missing, and we say that the Tana explains [first] what he taught first.

Explanation #2: Or, we can say as follows. The Tana of our Mishnah taught specifically in this order, to explain Yados first;

According to one opinion (that Kinuyim are Nochri words, he explains first) what he taught last, because they (Yados) come from a Drashah, and he need not explain Kinuyim;

According to the other opinion, [he explains first] what he taught first, because Yados come from a Drashah, and it is proper to put them before Kinuyim, which are merely words that Chachamim made up.

The text: The text says "to make Yados of Nezirus like [proper expressions of acceptance of] Nezirus." It does not say "Kinuyim of Nezirus like Nezirus";

Either way you say, we do not learn them from verses! If they are Nochri words, they do not need a verse (for one may accept Nezirus in any language);

If they are words that Chachamim made up, how could we learn them from verses?!

Gemara: Just like Nedarim, one can transgress 'Bal Yachel' and 'Bal Te'acher.'

Explanation: If he said 'this loaf is Alai', 'Bal Yachel' applies. If he vowed to bring a Korban, 'Bal Te'acher' applies.

Gemara: A husband can annul his wife's Nedarim. (Note: some change the text to say 'a father annuls his daughter's vows.' The Ran holds that also a father annuls only vows of Inuy Nefesh, or matters between him and her. The latter is not limited to intimacy. Also earnings are called 'she'Beino l'Veinah' (Ran 79b DH veha'Tanan). - PF)

Explanation: These are Nedarim of Inuy Nefesh (affliction) or matters [that affect the relationship] between him and her, like is brought in Sifri.

Gemara: He can annul the Nedarim of his daughter.

Explanation: Like it says "v'Im Heni Aviha Osah."

Gemara: A husband can annul his wife's Nedarim.

Explanation: It says "v'Im Hafer Yafer Osam Ishah b'Yom Sham'o."

Gemara: For it says "Nazir Lehazir."

Explanation: This is not the usual style of verses. Always, the Makor (infinitive) precedes the noun of the action, e.g. "Le'esor Isar", "Lekayem Kol Davar."

Gemara: This is fine for the opinion that the Torah speaks as people do.

Explanation: And even though we could expound it, we do not, like is proven in Bava Metzi'a (31b).

Explanation: [We ask because] we already know this from the Hekesh to Nezirus.

Implied question: Why do we ask here "what do we learn from Lindor Neder?", and above, we asked why we need the Hekesh?

Answer: Just like we say in Kidushin (4a), that something that we could learn from a Kal va'Chomer, the Torah toiled to write it, also here, something that we could learn from a Hekesh, it is possible that the Torah toiled to write it!

In Bava Metzi'a (beginning of Perek 5), we say that something that we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah, the Torah toiled to write it. (Chak Nasan (Zevachim 57a, b'Sof Devarav) says that since the Torah wrote at least one extra word for a Gezeirah Shavah, it would not also toil to write the law. The Ran must refer to Bava Metzi'a 61a. There it says that if not for the verse, we would learn from a Gezeirah Shavah. Since there is a verse, the Gezeirah Shavah must teach something else! Tosfos there says that really, there the verse is not extra. The Ran disagrees.)

Therefore, at first we did not ask what we learn from Lindor Neder, for we could have answered that even though there is a Hekesh, the Torah toiled to write in each (Nedarim and Nezirus) an inclusion for Yados.

Therefore, we asked a better question. Since the Torah wrote in each an inclusion for Yados, why did the Tana rely on the Hekesh?

However, after the Gemara explained that according to the opinion that the Torah speaks like people speak, we need the Hekesh, it asks according to the opinion that the Torah does not speak [like people speak], what do we learn from Lindor Neder?

According to him, we cannot ask why we need the Hekesh. According to him, we do not know that he learns Yados from the Hekesh. The Beraisa is like the opinion that the Torah speaks like people]!

However, we ask according to him, since you are forced to say that the Torah equated them, what does he learn from Lindor Neder?

Implied question: It is possible that the Torah toiled to write an inclusion in each one, and did not rely on the Hekesh!

Answer: Even so, when it is possible to expound, we expound, like we say there in Kidushin (4a) about something learned from a Kal va'Chomer.

Gemara: That Nezirus takes effect on Nezirus.

Explanation: E.g. if he said 'behold I am a Nazir today, 'behold I am a Nazir today', we do not say that 30 days suffice for him. Rather, he must count two Neziros, i.e. 60 [days];

He learns from "Nazir Lehazir." I.e. when he accepted to be a Nazir, he can accept Nezirus again, like I explained.

Implied question: Below (18a) we conclude that all hold that when he said "two Neziros are Alai", he counts 60 days (and then shaves and brings Korbanos). We learn from Nazir Lehazir!

Answer: That is according to the opinion that the Torah does not speak like people speak. For him, Nazir Lehazir is extra, and we establish it for this;

However, according to the opinion that the Torah speaks like people speak, he holds that such a case ("two Neziros are Alai") does not require a verse.

Gemara: The verse should say 'Lizor'. Why does it say "Lehazir"?

Implied question: There is no difference between 'Lizor' and "Lehazir", for the Hei is omitted in several places, like we find Lanud and Lehanid, Lashmid and Lehashmid!

Answer: Rather, it should have written similar to Nedarim, about which it says Lindor. So it seems to me.

Explanation: They hold that we do not expound two matters from Lehazir;

Rather, the opinion that the Torah does not speak like people speak, it learns Yados from Lindor Neder. It uses Nazir Lehazir to teach that Nezirus takes effect on Nezirus;

This Tana establishes Kol ha'Yotzei mi'Piv Ya'aseh to teach that a Neder that was partially permitted is totally permitted;

He expounds "if it takes effect, Kol ha'Yotzei mi'Piv Ya'aseh." It does not take effect half-way.

Explanation: This is according to the opinion that the Torah speaks like people speak. According to him, we learn both from it - that Yados Nedarim are like Nedarim, and that a Neder that was partially Batel is totally Batel.

Support: This is how the Yerushalmi explains this argument.

Implied question: In Eretz Yisrael, they did not want to expound two laws from "Lizor"!

Answer: From "Kol ha'Yotzei mi'Piv" we expound both, from the connotation of the verse.

Explanation: [The Gemara asks] how do we find that Bal Yachel alone applies?

Explanation #1: We are thinking that just like there is only one Lav in Nedarim, the same applies to Nezirus. If not, they are not the same!

Explanation #2: Further, it seems to me that since we say in Pesachim (24b) that whenever it is possible to expound, we expound, and we do not establish the verse to teach extra Lavim;

Also here, we can establish it for other matters, and not establish the verse to teach extra Lavim!

The answer: I.e. when we say so in Pesachim, this refers to a Drashah of verses. Here you are forced to say that the verse equated them as much as it is possible to equate them.

Question: Just like we establish Bal Yachel of Nedarim to apply to Nezirus, we should also establish Bal Yochal of Nezirus to apply to Nedarim!

Answer: Granted, Bal Yachel applies to Nezirus just like it applies to Nedarim. However, we cannot establish Bal Yochal to Nedarim, since regarding Nezirus it is written only regarding grapes;

Nedarim include eating and Hana'ah of everything. Therefore it (Bal Yochal) does not apply to them.

Explanation: I explain the Sugya is as follows. The Makshan asked "how do we find this?"

Implied suggestion: We find that like we find regarding all Korbanos. The case is, he said "it is Alai to be a Nazir."

Rejection: This is different. One who says "it is Alai to bring a Korban", he is Mechusar Ma'aseh, i.e. the act of bringing it. We cannot say that it takes effect immediately;

Here, nothing is lacking. Nezirus takes effect immediately. He is a Nazir, and there is no Bal Te'acher.

Implied suggestion: The case is, he said "when I want [I will be a Nazir]."

Rejection: Also here there is no Bal Te'acher, for he stipulated "when I want", and he does not want!

Explanation (cont.): Rava answered, the case is, he said "I will not leave the world until I am a Nazir." In such a case, from that time Bal Te'acher applies to him;

This is just like we are concerned for a Kohen who [gave a Get and] said to his wife ['this is your Get just before I die]'. She is immediately forbidden to eat Terumah, due to concern for death. Here also, Bal Te'acher applies to him, due to concern for death.

Observation: Here is not totally like there. There, if she ate and her husband did not die, she did not transgress an Isur;

Here, Bal Te'acher applies immediately. Since he stipulated and said "I will not leave the world", this implies that he says "it is upon me to count Nezirus in a way that there will be no concern for [not fulfilling] the matter, and I will complete my Nezirus before I leave the world." (Rashash - even if he accepts immediately, there is concern lest he die before he finishes! Shalmei Nedarim - he must do as much as possible to ensure that he complete Nezirus. Ayeles ha'Shachar - because he must complete 30 days, we are concerned for death. We are not concerned for death in a short time.)

Therefore, even though his words do not imply "I will be a Nazir from now", Bal Te'acher applies immediately.

Implied question: We learn from Nedarim. There, Bal Te'acher is only after three Regalim, like it says in Rosh Hashanah (4a). Also here, it should be only after three Regalim!

Answer: No. There, he said Stam "it is upon me." Here, he did not say so, for if so, he would be a Nazir immediately, like I explained.