Explanation: [What is the source that] this word applies to handling hair, that we should say that he accepted Nezirus on himself? I can say that he will delve in Torah!

Explanation: This properly connotes "I will engage in Mitzvos that depend on hair."

Explanation: This refers to growth, like "Shelachayich Pardes Rimonim";

[We ask that] I can say that it is removal, that he accepted on himself to shave and remove the hair when it will grow!

Explanation: This does not refer to the Tana of our Mishnah. Rather, it is the Tana of Sanhedrin (22b), who says that a Kohen Hedyot must shave once every 30 days;

He learns "Pera Lo Yeshalechu" from Nazir, about which it says Gadel Pera. Just like there it is 30 days, like the Gematriya of Yihyeh, also here regarding a Kohen Hedyot it is 30 days, and [the verse] says that they may not be Shole'ach.

Our Gemara means as follows. Elsewhere, the Tana learns from a Gezeirah Shavah Pera Pera. This shows that Shilu'ach is an expression of growth.

Question: We should learn from the verse written explicitly about a Nazir, "Kadosh Yihyeh Gadel Pera." Why do we need the Gezeirah Shavah at all?

Answer: There is different, for it explicitly wrote Gadel (growing). However, when it says Shilu'ach alone, this is no [proof].

Question: We should learn from the verse about a Kohen Hedyot u'Fera Lo Yeshalechu? Still, why do we need the Gezeirah Shavah?

Answer: The verse about a Kohen Hedyot does not connote that Lo Yeshalechu is growth even of two days;

Note: Surely, the Torah permits a Kohen to serve with one day's growth of hair. When Yom Tov falls before Shabbos, how may he serve on Shabbos? Must he ask a Cheresh, lunatic, child or Nochri to cut his hair?!

Since he did not say explicitly "I am a Nazir for two days", rather, Shilu'ach Pera, there is no acceptance of Nezirus;

However, when we learn a Kohen Hedyot from a Nazir, that Shilu'ach is from (i.e. past) 30, through a Gezeirah Shavah, and he said Harei Alai Leshale'ach, it is as if he said Harei Alai Leshale'ach 30 days;

This properly connotes that he accepted Nezirus on himself. Therefore, we bring the Gezeirah Shavah.

Distinction: This is only if he said "Alai Leshale'ach Pera." However, if he said "Alai Pera", without Shilu'ach, this does not connote anything;

"Pera" is an expression of exposure, e.g. "u'Fara Rosh ha'Ishah."

Explanation: The fruit grows.

Question: We find many places in which Shilu'ach does not connote growth, rather, removal, e.g. "Shale'ach Teshalach" and "va'Yishlach Yakov Mal'achim"!

Answer #1: If we would ask from these verses, he would answer like above, that the Tana learns from a Gezeirah Shavah Pera-Pera;

He comes to explain only the verse we asked from, "v'Shole'ach Mayim."

Question: This is difficult, for he totally abandoned the Gezeirah Shavah, and now he does not need it at all!

Answer #2: Rather, initially he was concerned only to find one verse that connotes that an expression of increase, and he brought this from the verse "Shelachayich";

The Gemara rejected this. Perhaps this itself is an expression of removal, like v'Shole'ach Mayim, and there is not even one verse that connotes increase!

To this we answer that alternatively, v'Shole'ach Mayim is an expression of increase, and we can learn from it, or from the verse "Shelachayich Pardes."

Implied question: There are many verses in which it is an expression of removal!

Answer: We properly learn from one verse that it is an expression of increase, for presumably he intends for Nezirus.

Explanation: [This refers to birds] mentioned in the verse near hair, even though he said "birds" Stam.

Source: Our Mishnah says Stam, and even so, Reish Lakish holds that a person intends for birds [written] close to hair;

It connotes to him as follows. One who says "Harei Alai birds", he is a Nazir;

Since birds are close to hair in a verse, presumably he means "is Alai a Mitzvah to which birds apply, that depends on a Mitzvah of hair";

This is Nazir, for if he became Tamei, he needs [to bring] birds. This is the Perush [of his words] - a Mitzvah dependent on birds.

Suggestion: Perhaps it is merely due to the Semichus alone, like [the simple reading of] the Gemara explains!

Rejection: If so, if he said "Harei Alai Nishrin", he should be a Nazir, for this is closer to hair!

Explanation: This is a verse in Daniel, regarding Nevuchadnetzar.

Explanation: This is the Mitzvah of Nezirus, to which Tziporei Nazir Tamei apply, if he will become Tamei.

Explanation: As long as we can explain his words that he did not accept Nezirus on himself, rather, a different Neder, this is better;

This is because it is not comfortable for a person to accept on himself Nezirus , for it is severe on him and a burden.

Explanation: It is the way of those who volunteer to bring Olas ha'Of to use the word "Ken".

Explanation: I.e. [he said] to become obligated in the Korban of a Metzora, and to bring for him the birds needed for his Taharah;

This is even if no Metzora passes in front of him. Surely there is at least one Metzora who needs birds. [We do] not [say that he intended for birds of] Nezirus.

Also, "Tziporei" properly applies to a Metzora. (The Torah says that a Metzora needs "Tziporim", i.e. any Tahor birds. A Nazir brings only Turim or Benei Yonah.)

Explanation: He thought that this is even if a Nazir Tamei is in front of him. Therefore, he asks that perhaps he means birds to exempt the Nazir Tamei in front of him.

We answer that the case is, a Nazir Tahor passes in front of him, and the one who vows knows that he is Tahor, and he said Harei Alai Tziporim."

Question: Still, we should say that he said birds, i.e. if this Nazir passing in front of him will become Tamei, he will bring birds in place of him!

Answer #1: We must answer and say that the case is, he said in his heart that should apply to him the Mitzvah of Nezirus, to which applies birds if he will become Tamei.

Implied question: Above, when we asked "perhaps he refers to birds of a Metzora", why didn't we answer that he said in his heart [that he intends for Nezirus]?

Answer #1: His words connote Tziporei Metzora more than Nezirus, because Nezirus is a burden to him and severe on him to accept.

Answer #2: The word "Tziporim" is written regarding Metzora, like I explained (at the end of the previous Dibur), but not regarding Nazir; [for which the Torah says] only Turim [or Benei Yonah].

Even if he said in his heart [that he intends for Nezirus], this cannot resolve that his utterance is [acceptance of] Nezirus, for his mouth and his heart are not the same;

However, here, even though Nezirus is severe on him and a burden to him, since a Tahor Nazir passes in front of him, it is unreasonable that he accepts on himself birds of a Tamei Nazir, since this is not yet in the world;

The matter is equal (what he intends), therefore intent of his heart helps to say that he accepted Nezirus on himself. It is considered that his mouth and his heart are the same.

Support: Also above, when he said "Ehei", this connotes more than Nezirus, and to say [I will be] like him immediately, even though it is a burden to him and severe on him, than to say "I will be in place of him [to supply] his Korbanos later, when he finishes;

The matter is equal. Therefore, intent of his heart helps resolves that his utterance was for Nezirus. His mouth and his heart are the same.

Objection: The Gemara did not mention at all that he said in his heart!

Answer #2 (R. Peretz): It is unreasonable to say that he means that it is unreasonable that if he (the Nazir) will become Tamei, he accepts on himself birds of a Tamei Nazir, since now he is Tahor. This is not in the world at all;

If so, it is reasonable to say that he accepted Nezirus on himself, for this is clear in front of us, and he can accept immediately, even though it is severe and a burden to him;

Above, when we asked from a Metzora, also there it was clear in front of us, that surely there is a Metzora in the world who needs birds.

Explanation: We ask what is the difference between them regarding the Perush of our Mishnah, between Reish Lakish and R. Yochanan, according to R. Meir.

Question #1: We should answer that they differ about one who said birds Stam! According to Reish Lakish according to R. Meir, from this alone he is not a Nazir, unless he mentioned also "next to hair";

According to R. Yochanan, who did not mention in his words birds next to hair, when he accepts on himself birds Stam, without "next to hair", he is a Nazir.

Question #2: This itself we can ask against Reish Lakish! Why do we need next to hair? Birds Stam suffices according to R. Meir to become a Nazir!

Source: In our Mishnah, R. Meir mentioned only birds!

Answer: Therefore, it seems that according to Reish Lakish according to R. Meir, [when he said] Stam birds he is a Nazir, only if a Nazir was passing in front of him.

Implied question: Why did Reish Lakish mention in his words "next to hair"?

Answer: This is to teach that when he said birds he is a Nazir, also without a Nazir passing in front of him he is a Nazir through this.

Question: Since according to Reish Lakish, when he accepted birds Stam, he is not a Nazir unless a Nazir was passing in front of him, according to R. Meir, the Gemara should have mentioned that a Nazir passes in front of him in the teaching of Reish Lakish, just like it [it mentions this] in the teaching of R. Yochanan!

Answer: It mentions this more in the teaching of R. Yochanan than in the teaching of Reish Lakish, for it is uniform according to R. Yochanan;

Even when he said "birds next to hair Alai", he is [a Nazir] only if a Nazir was passing in front of him;

According to Reish Lakish, he is a Nazir when he said "birds next to hair", even if no Nazir was passing in front of him.

Support #1: Now it is fine that we ask what is the difference between them, for according to all of them, even when he did not mention "birds next to hair", rather, birds Stam, he is a Nazir if a Nazir was passing in front of him;

If a Nazir was not passing in front of him, if he said birds Stam, he is not a Nazir according to all of them;

Support #2: Also now it is fine that according to Reish Lakish, regarding birds Stam, he is not obligated [to be a Nazir] because they are next to hair in the verse, for if so, he should be obligated also if he said "Nishrin" or "Tufrin", which are closer to hair in the verse than birds are! This is the opinion of R. Peretz.

Explanation: He accepted on himself something next to birds, i.e. growing hair.

Distinction: However, when he said Harei Alai birds, and he did not say birds next to hair, Nezirus takes effect on him because it connotes that he vowed something that can come to an obligation of birds, i.e. Nazir. This is only when a Nazir passes in front of him.

Implied question: Why doesn't it help "Harei Alai Nishrin"?

Answer: The word "Nishrin" does not connote any expression of Nezirus. So it seems to me.

Comment: R. Shabtai wrote this Perush. What is the difference between them, i.e. what is the difference between them regarding the Perush of our Mishnah?

Surely, it seems to him that Reish Lakish did not say according to R. Meir that [through saying] Stam birds he is obligated [to be a] Nazir, for we can ask all the questions we asked above against R. Yochanan. He is forced to explain the Mishnah like R. Yochanan.

He cannot explain the Mishnah to be when he explicitly said "birds next to hair Alai", for the Mishnah says Stam "birds Alai."

Conclusion: He is forced to explain the Mishnah like R. Yochanan, and when a Nazir passes in front of him, and he is Tahor. Therefore, we ask what is the difference between them in the Perush of our Mishnah.

Remark: It seems that [R. Shabtai] understood like I initially explained [above, 3a DH Tziporim].

Example: He said "Yamin, that I will not eat this loaf." The same applies to Smol, like it says below.

Note: Maharav Ransborg says that this Dibur ends here. The next Dibur ha'Maschil is uvi'Zro'a.

Explanation #1: "Uvi'Zro'a" is (Hash-m's) left hand, for "Uzo" means Tefilin (which is worn on the left hand).

Explanation #2: [We know that] "uvi' Zro'a" is the left hand, since it mentioned the right hand first.

Explanation: The Mishnah teaches [that he said] either of these, like is proven in the Gemara.

Explanation: Because a Nazir Shimshon may become Tamei to Mesim, it says here that all laws of Nazir apply to him.