1)

(a)Rav Acha b'rei d'Rav Ika extrapolates from the Beraisa that we quoted earlier ' ... O she'Shayru Shtei Sa'aros, Lo Asah Klum - that in all areas of Halachah other than that of Nazir, 'Rubo k'Kulo' is d'Oraisa.

(b)Bearing in mind that the Torah has already written "v'Gilach" - we learn this from the Pasuk "ba'Yom ha'Shevi'i Yegalchenu", which is now redundant, to teach us he must shave off all his hair (implying that generally, we hold 'Rubo k'Kulo').

(c)When Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina queried this on the grounds that the Pasuk refers to a Nazir Tamei, whereas the Beraisa refers to a Nazir Tahor, they laughed at him - because, seeing as we learn the Din of shaving with a razor by a Nazir Tamei from that of a Nazir Tahor, it is obvious that we will now use the same Limud to learn that a Nazir Tahor needs to shave all his hair from a Nazir Tamei.

(d)One might one call this episode poetic justice - because the object of the laughter was Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina, the very Amora who bore the title 'Mechku Alav b'Ma'arva', because he used to laugh when others made silly mistakes.

2)

(a)Abaye asked a She'eilah (which remains unresolved) about a Nazir who left two hairs unshaven - and then, after his hair grew, he cut off those two hairs. On the one hand, he did cut off all his hair, but on the other, at no stage was he without all his hair (which seems to have been the Torah's objective).

(b)Rava too, asked a She'eilah, about a Nazir who left two hairs unshaven and then shaved one of them before the remaining hair fell out. Rav Acha mi'Difti however, objected to the She'eilah - on the grounds that seeing as eventually, he did shave off all his hair except for one hair, why should he not have fulfilled the Mitzvah? What does it matter that he cut the second last hair a little later than the rest (the Torah does not require him to cut it all off in one sitting)?

(c)We therefore amend the She'eilah by inverting the order, to read 've'Nashrah Achas, v'Gilchah Achas'.

(d)And we amend Ravina's reply 'Gilu'ach Ein Ka'an, Se'ar Ein Ka'an' (even though one hair is not a sufficient Shi'ur for the Mitzvah of shaving, seeing as now there is only one hair left, he is Patur) - to read 'Af-al-Pi she'Se'ar Ein Ka'an, Mitzvas Gilu'ach Ein Ka'an' (because he failed to complete the Mitzvah initially, nor did he do so subsequently).

3)

(a)Despite the fact that both of these are likely to remove hair our Mishnah states 'Nazir ...

1. ... Chofef (be'Sa'aro) - (wash his hair with soap).

2. ... u'Mefaspes b'Sa'aro' - (separate the strands of hair).

(b)The author of the Mishnah must then be - Rebbi Shimon (who holds 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven, Mutar').

(c)This does not mean that the author of the Seifa, which forbids the Nazir to comb his hair, is the Rabanan (Rebbi Yehudah), who hold 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven, Asur' - because the Tana assumes that someone who combs his hair has the specific intention of removing hairs that have already begun to come loose, in which case it is a 'Davar ha'Miskaven' which even Rebbi Shimon concedes is forbidden.

4)

(a)When Rebbi Yishmael in our Mishnah forbids a Nazir to wash his hair with earth 'Mipnei she'Masheres es ha'Se'ar', he might mean 'Mipnei she'Hi Masheres ... ' (because this particular kind of earth, removes hair), or he might mean - 'Mipnei ha'Maseres', meaning that he decrees all kinds of earth on account of that kind of earth.

(b)This She'eilah remains unresolved.

5)

(a)A Nazir who drinks wine all day ...

1. ... after having been warned once - will receive one set of Malkus.

2. ... after being warned prior to each time he drinks - will receive as many sets of Malkus as there were warnings.

(b)The same distinction will apply to the two other areas of Nezirus, Tum'ah and shaving.

6)

(a)From the fact that, after writing "Lo Yitama" (with regard to a Nazir), the Torah writes "Lo Yavo"Rabah Amar Rav Huna extrapolates - that once a Nazir becomes Tamei, he will not contravene the Din of Nazir by becoming Tamei again. In fact, he will only receive two sets of Malkus if he enters an Ohel where a Mes is lying and they warn him not to contravene both "Lo Yavo" and "Lo Yitama" simultaneously (which will be explained later).

(b)Rav Yosef disagrees. According to him - Rav Huna specifically said that if a Nazir is standing in a cemetery and they hand him a Mes which he touches, he will receive Malkus, even though he is Tamei already.

(c)It makes no difference whether the Mes was his relative or a stranger - because a Nazir, like a Kohen Gadol, is forbidden to render himself Tamei even for his seven relatives.

7)

(a)Abaye queries Rav Yosef from a Beraisa, which learns from "v'Lo Yechalel" - that if a Nazir is carrying a corpse, and they hand him his dead relative or another Mes, he is Patur.

(b)If, as some texts read, we quote the Pasuk "Leheichalo" (in Emor [since "v'Lo Yechalel" is not talking about Tum'ah]), we will account for the fact that this Pasuk is written in connection with Kohanim, and not with a Nazir - by recalling that we learn Nazir from Kohen (as we will see in Perek Kohen Gadol).

(c)We reconcile this with our Mishnah, which specifically sentences a Nazir who becomes Tamei twice to two sets of Malkus - by establishing the Mishnah when the Nazir has already separated from the Tum'ah (in which case he is not 'Mechulal v'Omed'), and the Beraisa when he is still touching it ('Tum'ah b'Chiburin', in which case he is).

(d)If he is still connected to the Tum'ah when he touches the second Mes, he does not transgress because, as we explained, he is 'Mechulal v'Omed'. 'Mechulal v'Omed' also manifests itself - when someone touches him whilst he is still touching the Mes, inasmuch as he will become Tamei for seven days (as if he had actually touched the Mes itself (whereas if he were to touch him after he had separated from the Mes, he would only become Tamei for one day.

8)

(a)Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef Amar Rebbi Yanai makes a distinction between Terumah and Kodshim on the one hand, where 'Tum'ah b'Chiburin' does apply (to render them Tamei, requiring them to be burned) - and a Nazir and someone bringing his Korban Pesach on the other (where it does not [to demolish the former's Nezirus and obligate him to bring a Korban Tum'ah, and to prevent the latter from bringing his Korban Pesach]).

(b)The problem that this poses on Abaye's conclusion (that 'Tum'ah b'Chiburin' is d'Oraisa) is - that Rebbi Yanai's distinction is only possible if Tum'ah b'Chiburin is d'Rabanan.

(c)To answer this, we differentiate between Chiburei Adam b'Adam (a third person who is touching the second person who is touching the person touching the Mes), which is only d'Rabanan - and Chiburei Adam b'Mes (the person who is touching the person who is touching the Mes), which is d'Oraisa.

(d)In light of this explanation, the Sugya in Avodah-Zarah, which states that the Rabanan decreed a seven-day Tum'ah by she'Lo b'Chiburin, and Yosi ben Yo'ezer revoked it, is referring to the person who is touching the person touching the Mes. Rashi interprets it literally, to refer to someone who touched the person who touched the Mes after he separated from it.

9)

(a)Seeing as Abaye has just concluded that Rabah is speaking in a case of Tum'ah b'Chiburin (which is when the Nazir will not be Chayav the second time he becomes Tamei, because he is 'Mechulal v'Omed'), Rebbi Yochanan initially establishes ...

1. ... 'Tum'ah u'Bi'ah' for which he will be Chayav two sets of Malkus simultaneously - where (mentioning both the Lav of "Lo Yitama" and of "Lo Yavo") they warned him not to enter a house in which a dead person lay, as we explained earlier.

2. ... 'Tum'ah v'Tum'ah', for which he will not - where he is Metamei himself in a field (either by touching two Meisim simultaneously, or by touching a Mes whilst already carrying one).

(b)In the latter case, he will not be Chayav two sets of Malkus for touching ...

1. ... two Meisim simultaneously - because they are both included in the same Lav.

2. ... a Mes whilst already carrying another one - because he is already 'Mechulal v'Omeid on account of the first one.

(c)Initially, we explain the former case - where he is Chayav for Tum'ah for placing his arm inside the house, and for Bi'ah when he enters with his entire body.

(d)The problem with this explanation is - that having become Tamei by placing his arm inside the house, when he enters with his body he is Mechulal v'Omed.