Answer: Rather, Chanina said 'I am a Nazir due to my father, or due to myself' (and stipulated based on whether or not he was an adult).

If he brought two hairs from the beginning (before his father made him a Nazir), he is a Nazir due to his own acceptance;

If he brought two hairs at the end (after finishing Nezirus), he was a Nazir because of his father.

Question: We should be concerned lest he brought two hairs in the middle (of Nezirus. How can he bring Korbanos?)

Such a question is not difficult according to R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah. He holds that the Halachah applies until Onas ha'Nedarim. If the father's Nezirus began, it continues after the son reaches Onas ha'Nedarim.

But Rebbi holds that the Halachah applies until he brings two hairs. At this time, the father's Nezirus ceases!

Answer: Indeed, Rebbi holds that he cannot bring Korbanos until he observes another 30 days for his own (Safek) Nezirus (due to the concern that his father's Nezirus did not finish).

(Mishnah - R. Yosi): A son can be Megale'ach with his father's money (that was designated for the Korbanos he brings when he shaves), but a daughter cannot';

Question: What is the case?

If Yakov was a Nazir and designated Stam money for his Korbanos, and died, and his son Levi said 'I accept Nezirus on condition to be Megale'ach with my father's money, he cannot! Rather, the money goes to Nedavah (for Olos Tzibur).

Answer: Rather, he may be Megale'ach with Yakov's money when they were both Nezirim, and Yakov designated money and died. (Many texts are reversed, and permit Gilu'ach with Yakov's money only when Levi vowed after Yakov died. The Gemara below (j) supports them. Rashi switches the text below to conform to our text here.)

(Gemara): What is the source that only a son may shave on his father's money?

Answer (R. Yochanan): It is a tradition from Sinai.

Objection: Why is a tradition needed? This is obvious! The son inherits his father, not the daughter!

Answer: The tradition is needed for a girl with no brothers;

One might have thought that the Halachah applies to any heir. The tradition teaches that it does not.

Question #1: Do other Tana'im disagree with R. Yosi?

Question #2: If others argue, do they disagree with the first law (when Levi accepted Nezirus posthumously), or with the second (they were Nezirim together)?

Answer (to both questions - Beraisa - R. Yosi): The case of Gilu'ach with the father's money is one who accepted Nezirus after his father died;

If he and his father were Nezirim, and his father designated money and died, it goes to Nedavah;

R. Eliezer, R. Meir and R. Yehudah say that this (latter) is the case of one who shaves on his father's money.

Question (Rabah): If two sons are Nezirim, what is the law?

Does the Halachah allow the first one to be Megale'ach with all the money?

Or, do we learn from inheritance, and each may be Megale'ach with half?

Question #1 (Rava): If one of the brothers is a firstborn (who inherits a double portion), what is the law?

Does the tradition say that each is Megale'ach with half?

Or, is each Megale'ach with the amount he inherits?

Version #1 (Rosh): The question is, does the double portion of a firstborn apply only to Chulin (regular property)? Or, does it apply to even to Hekdesh (for Gilu'ach)?

Version #2 (R. Tam) Question #2 (Rava): If each is Megale'ach with what he inherits, is this even from Hekdesh (when he said 'this money is for Korbanos Nezirus'), or only from Chulin (when he said 'this money is for Nezirus', without mentioning Korbanos)?

Version #3 (Rashi) Question #2 (Rava): If each is Megale'ach with what he inherits, is this only from Chulin (i.e. to buy Korbanos), but not from Hekdesh (after the Shelamim is offered, the meat is split equally)?

Or, does the Bechor gets a double share even from Hekdesh? (end of Version #3)

Question #1: If his father is a Nazir Olam, and he is a standard Nazir, or vice-versa, may he be Megale'ach with his father's money?

Does the tradition only apply to standard Nezirus?

Or, is there no distinction?

Question #2 (Rav Ashi): If there is no distinction, if his father was a Nazir and became Tamei and designated money for Korbanos Nazir Tamei, and the son is Tahor, or vice-versa, may he be Megale'ach with the money?

This is not resolved.