Explanation: Or, he says Stam, which connotes that he accepted on himself all matters of Nezirus;

If he comes to specify Chartzan and Zag, he must specify all [matters of Nezirus], also shaving and Tum'ah.

Inference: This shows that he must vow to abstain from all of them.

Question: Still, we do not learn [from here he must vow to abstain from] shaving and Tum'ah!

Answer: Since the Torah revealed to us about wine, likewise he must accept shaving and Tum'ah. We learn from the wording of the Torah "mi'Kol".

Inference: This connotes that even from one of them, he is a Nazir, for it already "mi'Kol Asher Ye'aseh mi'Gefen." Why must the Torah write mi'Yayin v'Shechar?

Rather, it is to teach that even if he vowed only from one of these, Nezirus takes effect on him;

This is even if he comes to specify, for here it does not say Chartzan and Zag.

Explanation: We learn from the extra verse mi'Yayin v'Shechar Yazir.

Explanation #1: Kidush ha'Yom (at the beginning of Shabbos) is mid'Oraisa. [We ask] how can Nezirus take effect on it [to forbid it]?

Question #1: Just the contrary! This is why we need an extra verse to teach that Nezirus takes effect on it!

Question #2: We answer after this "the case is, he swore to drink, and then vowed to be a Nazir. The Nezirus takes effect on the Shevu'ah." (This is not an answer!)

Still, it is difficult. He is Mushba v'Omed mi'Har Sinai! I.e. this is the ultimate case of Mushba v'Omed, for he swore to drink!

Question #3: Kidush ha'Yom is not mid'Oraisa!

Even though it says "Zachor", and we expound "mention [Shabbos] over wine", this is a mere Asmachta.

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): The text asks in astonishment "is he Mushba v'Omed mi'Har Sinai?!" I.e. why do we need an extra verse to forbid wine of a Mitzvah?

Granted, Kidush ha'Yom is mid'Oraisa! [To say it] over wine is not mid'Oraisa. "Mention it over wine" is an Asmachta.

Now, we answer that "the case is, he swore to drink [and vowed to be a Nazir]." The extra verse teaches that [Nezirus] takes effect on it, even though he swore to drink.

Explanation: [We learn] from here, and he is liable for [entering] the Mikdash only for wine and strong drink, and to teach unlike R. Yehudah [who obligates for other intoxicants].

Explanation: In general [he holds that Ein Isur Chal Al Isur], like the Beraisa...

If not for the verse here, one might have thought that when he swore not to drink, and then vowed to be a Nazir, and drank wine, he is not liable for Nezirus. The extra verse mi'Yayin v'Shechar teaches that this is not so.

If he swore not to drink this cup, and vowed to be a Nazir, and transgressed and drank the cup, he is lashed twice, for the Shevu'ah, and for Nezirus.

Do not say [only] like Rava above "Shevu'ah that I will drink." Rather, you can answer even "Shevu'ah that I will not drink", like I explained.

Explanation: He does not need an extra verse, for even regarding other Isurim such as Chelev and blood, he obligates [lashes] for any amount. [He holds that the Shi'ur of] a k'Zayis is only for [liability to bring] a Korban;

Here, joining for a Korban does not apply, for Korban Nazir does not come for drinking wine. He is only lashed;

The Korban comes when he finishes his vow [or for Tum'ah].

Question: They differ regarding She'elah (permitting through regret)! She'elah does not apply to Nazir Shimshon, but it applies to Nazir Olam, like it says in Makos (22a) regarding one who plows one furrow [and gets eight sets of lashes]!

Answer: [The Mishnah] does not teach about something that does not apply to Nezirus. If he asks to permit his Nezirus, then he is not a Nazir;

It means as follows. What is the difference between Nazir Shimshon... when both of them are Nezirim.

Explanation: Saying only "k'Shimshon" or only "k'Ben Mano'ach" does not help, until he says all three, like is proven in the Gemara.

From here and onwards, R. Tam says that the text says and like the one who uprooted the doors of Azah with a Vov, and like the one whom Plishtim gouged out his eyes, for the Mishnah means or;

I.e. Either he says like the one who uprooted, or like the one whom they gouged out..., for if he said "like Delilah's husband" alone, or "like the one who uprooted the doors of Azah" alone, or "like the one whom Plishtim gouged out his eyes" alone he is a Nazir Shimshon, for one cannot err about this.

Explanation: He does not totally shave [his hair], like Avshalom, who did not totally shave, for [his hair became caught in a tree, and] he was hung through his hair. (Merumei Sadeh says that Tosfos' proof is from the opinion (below, 5a) that he shaved every Erev Shabbos. Surely, his hair could not grow so much in one week! However, he questions the proof, for Avshalom's hair had a Divine semblance (Sotah 10a).)

Explanation: [He bring three animals] when he trims his hair. This is a tradition from Moshe from Sinai with an Asmachta from Avshalom, who said "Ashalem Nidri."

He brings a Chatas, Olah and Shelamim, like a Nazir Tahor. Korban Tum'ah (if he became Tamei) is two Turim (or Benei Yonah; one is a Chatas, and one is an Olah) and an Asham.

Explanation: A Nazir Shimshon [does not bring Korban Tum'ah], but Nezirus takes effect on him, i.e. to forbid becoming Tamei Mes l'Chatchilah.

Explanation: He did not vow to be a Nazir. From his birth he was vowed to be a Nazir automatically;

We require that one vow with Davar ha'Nadur, like Hareini ka'Zeh (like this one) who vowed to be a Nazir;

This is like we expound (Nedarim 14a) "Ki Yidor Neder" - he must vow with Davar ha'Nadur.

Example: He said this loaf is like a Bechor.

Explanation: All hold that if he said "k'Olah" or "ki'Shelamim", this is Davar ha'Nadur. However, Bechor is Kodesh [automatically] from birth.

R. Yehudah holds like Yakov, who does not require Davar ha'Nadur. If one said 'I am like Shimshon', he is a Nazir, even though Nazir Shimshon is not Davar ha'Nadur, rather, he was Kodesh from birth, like a Bechor.

Explanation: "Ki Yidor Neder la'Shem" includes a Bechor. I.e. it is automatically of Hash-m, and even so it is [considered Davar ha']Nadur.

Note: The words in the Dibur ha'Maschil "Legabei Nezirus" are not in our Gemara. Perhaps They were added to explain that "b'Alma" includes Nezirus.

Explanation: One might have thought that Olah and Shelamim, which can be brought for Nedavah (voluntarily), are Davar ha'Nadur, but Chatas and Asham, which come [only] for an obligation, are not called Davar ha'Nadur,

"La'Shem" teaches that this is not so. It includes everything that is to Hash-m.

Explanation: [It is a Mitzvah to be Mekadesh, i.e.] to say "it should get Kedushas Bechorah", even though it is Kodesh from birth.

Explanation: Therefore, it is not Davar ha'Nadur, since it is a mere Mitzvah [to call it Kodesh, but this does not make it Kadosh].

Explanation: Just like R. Yakov includes Bechor from the word "la'Shem", also here we should include Nazir Shimshon from the word "la'Shem" written regarding Nazir.

Explanation: He ate other Ashamos, but he did not want to eat Asham Nazir, for only a Nazir who became Tamei brings it;

Since he became Tamei, [Shimon ha'Tzadik] worried lest he regret his vow, for the first days are cancelled and [he must count Nezirus again from the beginning. If he will ask a Chacham and permit his Nezirus, the Asham] he brings [now retroactively becomes] Chulin b'Azarah.

Explanation: From the beginning of his vow he was totally l'Shem Shamayim. [Shimon ha'Tzadik] was not worried lest he regret [his vow], even though he became Tamei.

However, others who vow Stam, vow at times of hardship, or due to an Aveirah they did, in order to be pained and atone for their sin;

When they days become numerous upon them, more than they resolved [to abstain], they are likely to regret their initial [acceptance].

Explanation: [We ask] was he not a Nazir through a vow? It says "Ki Nazir Elokim Yihyeh...";

We are thinking that the angel told [Shimshon's] father to vow that he be a Nazir when he will be born, like we say below (28b) that a man can vow to make his son a Nazir.

Explanation: [He told him] through prophecy. [Acceptance of] Nezirus did not come from Shimshon's father's mouth, and not from Shimshon's mouth.

Explanation: This is an expression of arrows, i.e. he threw [the jawbone] at them from afar, and killed them.

Explanation: He did not truly make them Gosesim, for a Nazir may not touch a Goses [because he is prone to die. Presumably, we hold like R. Yochanan (43a), who permits a Kohen to touch a Goses (PF). However, Shimon removed their clothes. This is more than prone to kill a Goses than mere touching (b6r). The Rosh distinguishes between a Goses b'Yedei Shamayim and b'Yedei Adam; see Maharatz Chayos). Rather, they were close to being Goses.

Explanation: We have a tradition that he truly killed them, and then removed their clothes.

Even according to the opinion (Yevamos 61a) that Nochri graves do not have Tum'as Ohel, [dead Nochrim] have Tum'ah through touching [just like Yisre'elim].

Explanation: [We ask where it is written] that he may trim his hair;

We bring a source from Avshalom, who trimmed his hair, each [Tana] according to his opinion [of how often he may do so].

Explanation #1: [The Tana holds that] Stam "Neder" refers to Nezirus.

Explanation #2: Since he used to shave only from time to time because his hair became heavy on him, we infer that he vowed Nezirus.