Explanation: [This is for the Gezeirah Shavah] to a Nazir. It says regarding Nazir "Lo Yitama Lahem b'Mosam." This is extra, for the beginning of the verse says "Al Kol Nafshos Mes";

Why do we need b'Mosam? This teaches that he is not Mitamei for them in their death, but he is Mitamei for their Tzara'as and Zivah.

Assertion: It seems that the verse is needed primarily for Nega'im. One might have thought that a Metzora is considered like a Mes [so a Kohen may not be Mitamei for him]. It mentions Zivah Agav (along with) Nega'im.

Explanation: [I would know only that a Nazir] is Mitamei for their Tzara'as and Zivah. What is the source for a Kohen Gadol? We answer that the Torah did not need to mention Imo regarding a Kohen Gadol;

In a place where a Kohen Hedyot is Mitamei for his brother, i.e. a paternal brother, for it says "l'Achiv", and [the Tana] holds that we learn a Gezeirah Shavah "Achvah-Achvah" from Yakov's sons, just like we learn regarding Yibum in Yevamos (17b, that it depends on paternal brotherhood);

The father's family is more important than the mother's family regarding a Kohen Hedyot. [Even so,] a Kohen Gadol may not be Mitamei for his father;

In a place where a Kohen Hedyot may not be Mitamei for his brother, i.e. a maternal brother, all the more so a Kohen Gadol may not be Mitamei for his mother!

Conclusion: Since we learn from a Kal va'Chomer, why did the Torah write Imo regarding a Kohen Gadol? (Rather, it is extra for the Gezeirah Shavah.)

Question: Why do we need the Kal va'Chomer? We already said above that "Al Kol Nafshos Mes" warns about relatives. You are forced to say like I explained, that also his mother is included in all his relatives;

If so, why was Imo written explicitly? You are forced to say that it is extra for the Gezeirah Shavah!

Answer: If not for the Kal va'Chomer, one might have thought that even though relatives are forbidden due to "Al Kol Nafshos Mes", and it says also "l'Aviv", this is not to exclude a Mes Mitzvah [from the Isur, and permit it]. Rather, it excludes his mother, that he is Mitamei for her;

One might have thought that only paternal relatives [are forbidden] for they are weaker, for they are not Vadai relatives. It is only a Chazakah [that a woman's children are from her husband];

However, his mother, who Vadai gave birth to him, he would be Mitamei for her, like we say this reasoning below;

Therefore, we need the Kal va'Chomer to teach that this is not proper reasoning, for regarding a Kohen Hedyot, we consider paternal kinship more than maternal.

Answer (cont.): Now, Aviv and Imo are extra regarding Kohen Gadol. Aviv teaches that he is Mitamei for a Mes Mitzvah, and Imo [is extra] for the Gezeirah Shavah.

Question: Still, what is the source that Aviv comes to teach about a Mes Mitzvah? We need it for itself, lest we say that l'Imo excludes l'Aviv, and he is Mitamei for his father, for paternal kinship is better [than maternal], for his lineage follows his father, like it says below!

Answer: The Tana made a Kal va'Chomer merely l'Ravcha d'Milsa, like the Kal va'Chomer above;

This Beraisa is like R. Yishmael below. He does not hold like the Tzerichusa (explanation why the Torah needed to teach both) below, because his mother Vadai gave birth to him;

Below, we say so according to R. Akiva. However, according to R. Yishmael, even without the Kal va'Chomer, "l'Imo" is extra, for she is included in other relatives;

Even if the Torah wrote [only] "l'Aviv", one would not have thought that this excludes his mother [and he is Mitamei for her] because she Vadai gave birth to him. He does not hold like these reasons below;

Therefore, when it says "Al Kol Nafshos Mes", this connotes all relatives. Aviv is extra [to permit] a Mes Mitzvah, and Imo [is extra] for the Gezeirah Shavah. The Kal va'Chomer is l'Ravcha d'Milsa.

Question: We should know this from the Gezeirah Shavah "Imo-Imo", just like we learn a Kohen Gadol from a Nazir regarding [Heter to be Mitamei through] their Nega'im and Zivah;

Similarly, we should return to learn a Nazir from a Kohen Gadol regarding a Mes Mitzvah, for a Gezeirah Shavah is not half-way (we learn in both directions)!

Answer (R. Peretz): If we did not learn a Mes Mitzvah for a Nazir from another verse, one might have thought that the entire Gezeirah Shavah "Imo-Imo" comes for a Mes Mitzvah;

However, we would not learn to exclude their Nega'im and Zivah, both for a Kohen Hedyot and a Kohen Gadol, since a Metzora is equated to a Mes. This is like uprooting the verse from its connotation through a Gezeirah Shavah;

Therefore, we need to learn a Mes Mitzvah regarding a Nazir from another verse.

Explanation: Had it not written "Mes", only "Nefesh" [one might have thought that this refers to animals], for it says "u'Makeh Nefesh Behemah Yeshalmenah";

Therefore, it says "Nefesh Mes" - the verse discusses people, for animals are not called Mes.

Implied question: It says [regarding an animal] "veha'Mes Yihyeh Lo"!

Answer: Animals are called Stam "Mes", but they are not called "Nefesh Mes."

Explanation #1: Regarding Nazir, four Peratim are written - "l'Aviv ul'Imo l'Achiv ul'Achoso Lo Yitama Lahem b'Mosam" - he is not Mitamei for his father and mother, but he is Mitamei for a Mes Mitzvah;

This is the conclusion of the Beraisa. "L'Aviv" comes to reveal that "Al Nefesh Mes" discusses relatives, and "ul'Imo" is [extra] for the Gezeirah Shavah, like Rebbi taught;

"Ul'Achiv" teaches about a Mes Mitzvah. We learn from this reasoning, like the Beraisa deliberates, until we learn from Achiv.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, the Tana knew that we learn a Mes Mitzvah only from Achiv. This that he said "l'Aviv ul'Imo" is as if he said v'Gomer (i.e. he learns from the end of the verse).

Explanation: Rather, it is written "l'Aviv ul'Imo" to teach that he may become Tamei for other Mesim, i.e. strangers;

We can give a reason. Perhaps the Torah warned [against becoming Tamei] for relatives, for he is pained over them, and this is a disgrace to a Nazir, who is called Kadosh. However, strangers, whom he is not pained over them [so it is not a disgrace], the Torah did not warn about them.

A Kal va'Chomer from a Kohen Hedyot teaches unlike this. You are forced to say that the reason is not true, for the law is opposite for a Kohen Hedyot (he may become Tamei for relatives, but not for strangers).

Explanation: [There are Kelalos regarding a Kohen Gadol, i.e.] "Al Kol Nafshos Mes Lo Yavo", and Kelalos regarding a Nazir "Al Nefesh Mes Lo Yavo." Just like the Kelalos regarding a Kohen Gadol (he is Mitamei for a Mes Mitzvah...)

Question: How do we seek to learn a Nazir from a Kohen Gadol regarding a Mes Mitzvah? We can ask that a Kohen Gadol does not bring a Korban for Tum'ah, like we asked above! (Therefore, we cannot learn to a Nazir, who brings a Korban for Tum'ah.)

Answer (Maharam): We do not seek to learn about a Mes Mitzvah. Rather, it comes to say that "l'Aviv ul'Imo" regarding a Nazir are extra, for we do not need them for them themselves;

The Torah could have written just Kelalos "Al Nefesh Mes Lo Yavo", and automatically we would know that also relatives [he is not Mitamei for them], for we learn from the Kelalos of a Kohen Gadol. (Birkas Rosh explains that the next words printed in our Tosfos, "Oh Klach..." belong at the end of this Dibur.)

Implied question: Why does it say "also the Kelalos regarding a Nazir, he is Mitamei for a Mes Mitzvah"?

Answer: This means from Aviv, which is extra. We do not need it for the law itself. It is proven like this afterwards.

Or, we could say oppositely. There is a Klal regarding a Kohen Hedyot, i.e. "l'Nefesh Lo Yitama b'Amav." We properly need ["l'Aviv ul'Imo" regarding a Nazir] for them themselves;

Explanation: [We ask that] we need ["l'Aviv ul'Imo"] to teach about his parents, that he is not Mitamei for his father

We answer that indeed, we need it for his father. Since the Torah removed [a Nazir] from the law of a Kohen Hedyot, who is Mitamei for his father, we establish him with the law of a Kohen Gadol, who is not Mitamei for relatives;

"L'Imo ul'Achiv ul'Achoso" are extra. L'Imo is used for the Gezeirah Shavah.

Question: Since Imo written regarding Kohen Gadol is extra, like we said above, why must Imo written regarding Nazir be extra?

Answer: We are holding like R. Yishmael, who holds in Nidah (22b) that if a Gezeirah Shavah is free from [only] one side, we learn from it, but we can challenge it;

Here, [if it was free from only one side,] we could challenge that a Nazir's Kedushah is not permanent, and he can permit it through She'elah.

Explanation: We could not expound [l'Achiv] for the Gezeirah Shavah, for l'Achiv is not written regarding Kohen Gadol.

Question: Why didn't the Gemara say the Drashos in the order that they are written, and say [first] that l'Imo is for the Gezeirah Shavah, for it is earlier in the verse?

[Afterwards, it should say that] l'Achiv [teaches that] he is not Mitamei for his brother, but he is Mitamei for a Mes Mitzvah!

Answer: Based on what I explained above (48a, DH Hachi Garsinan), that if we did not know a Mes Mitzvah from another verse, we would not establish the Gezeirah Shavah of Imo like Rebbi, to teach about Nega'im and Zivah. Rather, we would exclude from Imo a Mes Mitzvah...

Therefore, it says that we know a Mes Mitzvah from l'Achiv written regarding Nazir, so l'Imo is extra, and you are forced to say that it is for the Gezeirah Shavah.

Explanation: Even one who was doing Pesach or Milah alone, and he was not a Nazir, or Kohen Gadol (one would have thought that he she is not become Tamei), because the Aseh of Tum'ah, which does not have Kares, does not override the Aseh of Pesach or Milah, which has Kares;

So Rashi explained in Zevachim (100a) and Sanhedrin (35a), and in Berachos (20a) it is explained at length.

Explanation: It is logical to establish the first verse to discuss strangers, and what is written afterwards is extra to forbid even relatives;

R. Akiva holds that even had it not written "Mes", one could not err about "Nefesh" to establish it to mean an animal;

Reason #1: This is due to the Drashah of "Lo Yavo", which connotes that there is Tum'as Ohel...

Reason #2: Or, it is even though animals are called "Nefesh Behemah", they are not called Stam "Nefesh";

Reason #3: Also, regarding Tum'ah, the Torah mentions animals only with the expression "Neveilah".

Explanation: Below, we make a Tzerichusa (show why the Torah needed to write) both his father and his mother, and it needed to write both of them to exclude a Mes Mitzvah.

[We need] "l'Achiv" for if he was a Kohen Gadol and Nazir, that he is Mitamei for a Mes Mitzvah. According to R. Akiva, all of the Peratim are extra, therefore he must expound all of them.

Implied question: Why doesn't he need a verse for a Kohen Hedyot Nazir (that he is Mitamei for a Mes Mitzvah)?

Answer: Since a Kohen Hedyot is Mitamei for relatives, it is proper that the additional attribute of [the Nazir] being a Kohen Hedyot, whose Kedushah is permanent, does not affect a Mes Mitzvah;

He needs a verse only for a Kohen Gadol Nazir.

Explanation: [We ask his source for Rebbi's Gezeirah Shavah,] because nothing is extra at all. He expounds every Prat written regarding Nazir;

Also "l'Aviv ul'Imo" written regarding Kohen Gadol, he needs both of them to teach about a Mes Mitzvah, just like he needs both of them regarding Nazir to teach about a Mes Mitzvah.

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara answers that since the master, i.e. R. Akiva, taught that "l'Achiv" teaches that if he was a Kohen Gadol and Nazir, he is not Mitamei for his brother, but he is Mitamei for a Mes Mitzvah...

This shows that a Kohen Gadol, even if he is a Nazir, is Mitamei for a Mes Mitzvah, and all the more so a Kohen Gadol alone (not a Nazir)!

Now, Aviv and Imo are extra regarding a Kohen Gadol for the Gezeirah Shavah.

Implied question: Why did the Torah need to write both Aviv and Imo regarding Kohen Gadol?

Answer: Just like below we make a Tzerichusa for R. Akiva for his father and mother written regarding Nazir, similarly we must make a Tzerichusa for his father and mother written regarding Kohen Gadol.

Question: Still it is free only from the side of Kohen Gadol. We need them regarding Nazir, to teach about a Mes Mitzvah! (If so, we can challenge that a Nazir's Kedushah is not permanent, and he can permit it through She'elah. We cannot learn to a Kohen Gadol!)

Answer: R. Akiva holds that a Gezeirah Shavah that is free from one side, we learn from it and we do not challenge it;

However, according to R. Yishmael above, surely we must make it free from both sides, for he holds like he taught elsewhere (Nidah 22b) that we learn from it and we can challenge it, like I explained above (DH Hai).

Explanation: [We ask] according to R. Yishmael;

Granted, according to R. Akiva, since he needs a verse for when there is Kedushas Kohen Gadol and he is a Nazir, and we do not say "there is no difference between one Lav and two Lavim"...

Note: A Kohen also has an Isur Aseh of Tum'ah (Bava Metzi'a 30a), i.e. "Kedoshim Yihyu", and a Nazir has an Aseh "Kodesh Yihyeh"! Perhaps in this Sugya, when it says "Lav", it means a Lav and an Aseh. This would explain why we did not require a source to override a Stam Aseh, unless it has Kares. However, Achiezer (3:65) says that since the Aseh is merely to fulfill the Lav, since the Lav is Hutrah (totally permitted), there is no Aseh.

Also here, we need the extra word Achoso to teach that a Mes Mitzvah overrides the Aseh of Pesach or Milah, even though it has Kares.

However, according to R. Yishmael, there is no difference between one Lav and two Lavim. He would hold also that there is no difference whether or not there is Kares!

We answer that surely, R. Yishmael agrees that one might have thought that the Torah permitted Mes Mitzvah for a Nazir and Kohen, for it is an Isur Lav, i.e. there is no Kares;

However, Pesach or Milah, which have Kares, he is not Mitamei for a Mes Mitzvah. "Achoso" teaches that this is not so.