Explanation: [Even if he is a Kohen Gadol Nazir, we learn from "l'Achiv" written regarding] Nazir, even though he has two Kedushos. Why do we need Aviv and Imo of Nazir?

Question: We need them for a Mes Mitzvah!

Answer: The Gemara asks why we need both of them. The Torah should write one for a Mes Mitzvah.

Observation: Likewise, we could ask about Aviv and Imo of Kohen Gadol. The Torah should write just Imo for the Gezeirah Shavah;

We do not need Aviv for itself regarding Kohen Gadol for relatives, for below R. Akiva expounds "Al Kol Nafshos" [to teach about] strangers; Mes [teaches about] relatives.

The Tzerichusa we make for both words applies both to Nazir and to Kohen Gadol.

Explanation: Had the Torah written Aviv and not Imo, one might have thought that only for his father he is not Mitamei, because his father's kinship is based on a mere Chazakah, that most times a woman has Bi'ah, it is with her husband;

However, we would say that his mother, who Vadai gave birth to him, he is Mitamei for her.

Therefore, had the Torah written only Aviv, one might have thought that the extra Aviv comes to exclude his mother, for this reason.

Explanation (cont.): Had the Torah written Imo without Aviv, one might have thought that only for his mother he is not Mitamei, for her children do not follow her [lineage], like it says "l'Mishpechoseihem l'Veis Avosam";

Therefore, had the Torah written l'Imo and not l'Aviv, one might have thought that Imo is extra to exclude Aviv.

Implied question: We establish "Al Nefesh Mes Lo Yavo" [to forbid being Mitamei] for relatives, because [Mes] is extra. This is written Stam (it should include both parents!)

Answer: [Even so,] had it not written also Aviv explicitly, we would have established it to discuss maternal relatives, for the reason said, that her children do not follow her [lineage];

And had it written Aviv, but not Imo explicitly, even though we include relatives from "Mes", which is extra, we would establish it only for paternal relatives, for the reason that the Gemara said, that it is a mere Chazakah [that he is really his father].

Question: Even had it written Aviv and not Imo, how could we think that he is Mitamei for his mother? We cannot learn from a Kal va'Chomer from his father, from the Kal va'Chomer brought above (48a)!

In a case that a Kohen Hedyot is Mitamei, for his paternal brother (he is not Mitamei for his maternal brother. All the more so, a Kohen Gadol [or Nazir], who may not be Mitamei for his paternal brother, is not Mitamei for his mother!), like we said above about his mother herself, for we are allowed to expound a Kal va'Chomer!

Answer #1 (R. Peretz): According to R. Akiva, who expounds from "Nefesh Mes" of Nazir, and from "Al Kol Nafshos Mes Lo Yavo" of Kohen Gadol, that we discuss relatives, this is a Klal for all relatives;

Therefore, if one Prat (particular relative) was specified afterwards, i.e. Aviv or Imo, one might have thought that the Klal is limited to the Prat;

[I.e.] his father yes, but not his mother, or vice-versa, since there is a reason to distinguish them, and since it is based on Klal u'Ferat, the Klal is limited to the Prat.

If so, even through a Kal va'Chomer also, we cannot learn his mother from his father, just like any Klal u'Ferat. We do not include more than the Prat, not through a Kal va'Chomer, and not through any other Drashah, like I explained above (35a).

Question #1: Since it is due to Klal u'Ferat, why do we need the reason that [the Gemara] gives for Aviv, due to [it is a mere] Chazakah, and similarly for his mother, because her children do not follow her [lineage]?

This reason should suffice, because the Klal is limited to the Prat, like elsewhere!

Question #2: Here it connotes that since it says Aviv v'Imo, we would know all relatives, e.g. his brother and sister. Why don't we say that the Klal is limited to the Prat?

Answer: The Isur of Tum'ah is different, for the verse revealed that a Kohen Hedyot is Mitamei for relatives, but not for strangers;

If so, it depends on the reason of kinship. Therefore, we must he give a reason for Aviv and Imo, how [each] one has more kinship than the other.

Support: It is fine that from Aviv and Imo we know his brother and sister, for there are no other reasons to distinguish among relatives, only the two reasons, from the father and from the mother, like the Tzerichusa explains;

Therefore, since it revealed Aviv and Imo, the same applies to his brother and sister, and now we do not say that the Klal is limited to the Prat.

Proof: Above, in R. Yishmael's teaching, it said initially "or perhaps it says l'Aviv only to exclude others, i.e. strangers, and Tosfos explained above due to Klal u'Ferat;

This was refuted, because the Torah revealed about a Kohen Hedyot, that it is logical to be Mitamei for relatives more than for strangers;

Inference: Regarding the Isur Tum'ah, even when we expound through Klal u'Ferat, we need a reason and logic for the matter.

Support (and Answer #2 to Question (e)): Now it is fine according to R. Akiva, why the Torah needed to write both Aviv and Imo, and we do not learn from Imo from Aviv from a Kal va'Chomer, like I explained;

This is unlike R. Yishmael, who learns Imo from Aviv from a Kal va'Chomer;

According to R. Yishmael, the Klal of Nazir "Al Nefesh Mes Lo Yavo" is not written regarding relatives;

Since it is written regarding strangers, you cannot [expound] Klal u'Ferat, unless you would say that [the Peratim] come to exclude strangers, and this you cannot say so, like is brought above a Kal va'Chomer from a Kohen Hedyot [who may not be Mitamei for strangers].

Therefore, you cannot expound it like a Klal u'Ferat to exclude other relatives such as Imo, like R. Akiva does, because [according to R. Yishmael] the Klal does not discuss relatives, like it does according to R. Akiva.

Therefore, we properly learn Imo from a Kal va'Chomer from Aviv. [Even though he cannot expound Klal u'Ferat], he needs the Kal va'Chomer, due to the reason of the Tzerichusa, like I explained above.

Question: This is fine regarding Nazir. However, regarding Kohen Gadol, the Klal discusses relatives also according to R. Yishmael!

He said above "Al Kol Nafshos Mes Lo Yavo" discusses relatives. Or perhaps it discusses strangers! A Kal va'Chomer from a Kohen Hedyot [proves that it does not].

If so, we should expound a Klal u'Ferat!

Answer #1: Since regarding Nazir, we cannot expound a Klal u'Ferat, and we learn Imo from a Kal va'Chomer from Aviv, like I explained, if so also regarding Kohen Gadol it is like this, for we learn them from each other from a Gezeirah Shavah of Imo.

Answer #2: Perhaps it is not considered a Klal, since this that we establish the Klal of Kohen Gadol to discuss relatives is not due to the verse itself of Kohen Gadol. Rather, it is from [a Kal va'Chomer from] Kohen Hedyot, like I explained above;

This is unlike R. Akiva. R. Akiva establishes the verse [to discuss relatives] due to his own reason, from the verse itself. Therefore, it is considered an absolute Klal.

Question: R. Akiva expounds Ribah v'Mi'et in Shevuos (26a)!

Answer: Also through Ribah v'Mi'et, we exclude one matter, and a Kal va'Chomer or another Midah [of expounding] does not help to include;

Therefore, if [only] Aviv were written, we would have excluded Imo. We would not learn [Imo] from a Kal va'Chomer. This resolves everything. All these are the words of R. Peretz.

Question: Since we need Aviv and Imo to teach about themselves, what is the source for a Nazir [to be Mitamei] for a Mes Mitzvah?

Also, [Aviv and Imo] written regarding Kohen Gadol are not free for the Gezeirah Shavah, since we need both of them!

Answer: You are forced to say that they are extra for Mes Mitzvah regarding Nazir, and those of Kohen Gadol [are free] for the Gezeirah Shavah;

If not, the Torah should have omitted both of them, for R. Akiva expounds from the superfluous "Mes" [to forbid Tum'ah for] relatives, both regarding Nazir and regarding Kohen Gadol;

You are forced to say that the verse discusses every case. All relatives are forbidden, and we do not distinguish between his father and mother through any reason.

Question: Why were both of them written at all?

Answer: They were written regarding Nazir to include a Mes Mitzvah, and regarding Kohen Gadol for the Gezeirah Shavah.

However, had the Torah written only one, i.e. "l'Aviv" or "l'Imo", one might have thought that even though the verse discusses every case, still I would say that the reason the Torah wrote one was to exclude the other, so we will not say that the verse discusses every case, like I explained.

Question: What forces us to say all the Tzerichusos for Aviv and Imo, according to R. Akiva? Just the contrary, we should say that there is no reason to distinguish them, and both are extra, "l'Aviv" and "l'Imo", both regarding Nazir and regarding Kohen Gadol;

We will expound Aviv for a Mes Mitzvah, and Imo for a Gezeirah Shavah, in both of them (Nazir and Kohen Gadol)!

Implied question: The Beraisa mentions both of them in R. Akiva's words, l'Aviv and l'Imo, for a Mes Mitzvah!

Answer: This is not a problem. In any case, we can say that this is not precise. Rather, we learn only from Aviv;

Source: Also above, we say according to R. Yishmael that even though the Beraisa mentioned "l'Aviv ul'Imo" regarding a Mes Mitzvah, even so we conclude that Aviv and Imo do not come at all for Mes Mitzvah;

Rather, Aviv comes for itself, Imo for the Gezeirah Shavah, and a Mes Mitzvah we learn from l'Achiv, like we said above;

Inference: [The Beraisa] is not precise. Also here, we can say that it is not precise to mention Imo. Rather, we learn from Aviv alone.

Answer: These are different. Surely, according to R. Yishmael, the Drashah of Mes Mitzvah mentioned only Imo, for we need Aviv for itself, for relatives, like we said above;

Therefore, even though in the conclusion, we learn Mes Mitzvah from l'Achiv, and not from Imo, in any case the Beraisa properly mentioned Imo regarding Mes Mitzvah, for had it not written l'Achiv, we would have expounded and established Imo for a Mes Mitzvah, and not for the Gezeirah Shavah;

This is because we should first establish [a word] for a Mes Mitzvah, which is like the matter itself, rather than for a Gezeirah Shavah to teach to elsewhere.

Therefore, Imo, which is written earlier, we would have established it for the Drashah of Mes Mitzvah, had l'Achiv not been written afterwards.

However, according to the conclusion, that we can expound Mes Mitzvah from l'Achiv, we establish l'Imo for the Gezeirah Shavah;

However, here in R. Akiva's words, we learn relatives from "Nefesh Mes", like we said above, and l'Aviv and l'Imo we do not need them at all for themselves;

Therefore, you are forced to say that the Beraisa mentioned Aviv and Imo regarding Mes Mitzvah, for both of them are extra, like I explained, you must say that it mentioned both due to Mes Mitzvah;

If Aviv was for Mes Mitzvah and Imo for the Gezeirah Shavah, why did it mention Imo at all regarding Mes Mitzvah?

Since Aviv is written earlier in the verse, and the first verse we should establish for Mes Mitzvah, if so, here we cannot say like according to R. Yishmael!

Conclusion: Rather, both of them were specifically mentioned for Mes Mitzvah, and both of them are needed, like the Gemara concludes. All these are the words of R. Peretz.

Question #1: In our Sugya, R. Akiva expounds "l'Aviv ul'Imo" of Nazir, both of them for a Mes Mitzvah;

In Zevachim (100a), R. Akiva expounds "l'Aviv" alone for a Mes Mitzvah, and Imo for a Kohen Hedyot Nazir, that also he is Mitamei for a Mes Mitzvah;

"L'Achiv" teaches that a Kohen Gadol Nazir is Mitamei for a Mes Mitzvah! Why is this different [than our Sugya]?

Question #2: How can we expound Stam two Drashos from Aviv and Imo? We need [both] Aviv and Imo, like it says here!

If so, we may expound only one Drashah, like I explained above.

Answer #1: Tosfos explained that the Sugya in Zevachim argues with the Sugya here. It disagrees with the Tzerichusa here. Therefore, we can expound two Drashos from Aviv and Imo.

Question: Why doesn't our Sugya require also a verse for a Kohen Hedyot Nazir, like there?

Answer: It holds that since a Kohen Hedyot is Mitamei for relatives, the addition that his Kedushah is permanent, together with a Nazir, does not obligate a verse, since [a Kohen's] own [Isur] Tum'ah is lighter than a Nazir's.

However, a Kohen Gadol, also he is not Mitamei for relatives. Surely one might have thought that the addition of his Kedushah, which is permanent, helps that he may not be Mitamei for a Mes Mitzvah;

Therefore, we need the verse regarding Nazir "l'Achiv" for a Kohen Gadol Nazir.

The Sugya there holds that even the additional Kedushah of a Kohen Hedyot Nazir requires an extra verse.

Question: Since there in Zevachim, [the Sugya] disagrees with the Tzerichusa of Aviv and Imo, if so, why do we need Aviv and Imo of Kohen Gadol?

Granted, regarding Nazir, we can expound all of them like I explained. However, regarding Kohen Gadol, this is difficult. One should suffice for the Gezeirah Shavah!

Suggestion: The Sugya there expounds also regarding Kohen Gadol, "l'Aviv" for a Mes Mitzvah, and l'Imo for the Gezeirah Shavah.

Rejection: We know a Mes Mitzvah regarding a Kohen Gadol from l'Achiv written regarding Nazir, like the Gemara says "what is the difference if he is a Kohen Gadol alone, or a Kohen Gadol Nazir?"

Answer #2 (to Questions #1,2): Also in Zevachim, he agrees with the Tzerichusa regarding Kohen Gadol;

However, he holds that since [the Torah] revealed to us both of them regarding Kohen Gadol, and there is no difference between Aviv and Imo them, if so it is a mere Giluy Milsa (revealing a matter, i.e. that they are the same), and we learn Nazir from it.

Therefore, he expounds both of them regarding Nazir there.

However, we must say that the Sugya here disagrees. It requires both of them also regarding Nazir.

Answer #3: We can resolve also [the Sugya] here like the reasoning in Zevachim. It is difficult to say that our Sugya argues with the Sugya in Zevachim!

Both are R. Akiva. It is unreasonable to say that two Tana'im argue about R. Akiva's opinion, since the Gemara did not say so explicitly!

Implied question: Our Sugya makes a Tzerichusa between Aviv and Imo, and there we expound from both of them, from Aviv and from Imo!

Answer: We can say that we make a Tzerichusa from the verse of Kohen Gadol. It is a mere Giluy Milsa to Nazir;

Now, also regarding Nazir they are the same, and both of them regarding Nazir are extra for a Drashah, like we expound there.

Question: If so, why do we expound here from l'Aviv and l'Imo of Nazir, both of them for Mes Mitzvah according to R. Akiva? Surely, one of them suffices!

Answer: Indeed, also here, we can say that Aviv alone teaches about a Mes Mitzvah, and Imo teaches about a Kohen Hedyot Nazir, like we expound there;

However, he was not concerned to explain all the Drashos here, because he relied on the Sugya there in Zevachim. The Gemara is wont to do so. It is concise in one place, and elaborates elsewhere.

Question: If so, why did R. Akiva mention here the Drashah of Kohen Gadol Nazir, like we expound? We should rely on the Sugya there, just like we rely on the Drashah of Kohen Hedyot Nazir that we learn from Imo. We did not bring that Drashah here!

Answer: He needed to bring the Drashah of Kohen Gadol Nazir from l'Achiv, and to say that there is no difference whether the Kohen Gadol is a Nazir [or not], in order to make l'Aviv and l'Imo of Kohen Gadol free for the Gezeirah Shavah.

Implied question: Why does it mention both Aviv and Imo? (The Gezeirah Shavah is only from Imo!)

Answer #1: This is due to the Tzerichusa to require both of them.

Answer #2: From this, we ask "according to R. Yishmael, what is his source for a Kohen Gadol Nazir?"

Implied question: Why do we explain here how R. Akiva expounds l'Achoso, which is written after l'Achiv? (We should rely on the Sugya there!)

Answer #1: Since he began to expound l'Achiv, like I explained, he needs to finish the verse.

Answer #2: It is because R. Akiva needs l'Achoso more than R. Yishmael does, because R. Akiva does not hold "there is no difference between one Lav and two Lavim."

Explanation: These uses of the word "Le'afukei" means "he derives from this verse", i.e. their Drashah comes from this verse.

Inference: He expounds strangers from "Al Kol" alone, since he expounds "Nafshos" below for a Revi'is of blood from two Mesim.

Question: This is difficult, for also regarding a Nazir, it says "Al Kol Nefesh", and even so we do not expound strangers from it, rather, from "Nefesh"!

Note: Several Acharonim point out that regarding Nazir, it says "Al Nefesh Mes"! Tosfos cites 'Al Kol Nefesh Mes" in several places, and so do other Rishonim (e.g. Rashi Shabbos 132a, Rosh Nazir 48b, Ritva Megilah 3b). If this was not the text in Tosfos' Sifrei Torah, we must say that these were scribal errors, and make other changes in the text of our Tosfos. Birkas Rosh suggests that Tosfos asks why we do not expound "Al" regarding Nazir, just like we expound "Al Kol" regarding Kohanim. Surely the Drashah is not from "Kol", for if so, we would include even relatives!

Answer: Also here (regarding Kohen), we expound strangers from "Al Kol Nafshos." In any case, we expound also a Revi'is of blood from two Mesim, because it wrote "Nafshos" in the plural, and not Nefesh.

Question: According to R. Akiva, regarding a Kohen Gadol, why does a verse teach about strangers? We should learn from a Kal va'Chomer from a Kohen Hedyot, like the Tana above (47b)!

Or, [we already know that he is forbidden] due to "the Isur he had when he was a Hedyot, to where did it go?!" (I.e. surely it still applies to him), like I explained above (47b DH Iy)! This is the primary reason.

Answer (Tosfos): [A verse teaches about strangers] so he will transgress another Lav.

Question: This is slightly astounding. The Gemara did not mention this at all! This requires investigation. This is from R. Peretz.

Explanation: We discuss when the bones come from the majority of the number of bones or the majority of his stature;

E.g. there is the majority of bones (125) that were broken, and this half-Kav is from them, a little from each bone. This is from the majority of the number. (If they were not broken, he is Megale'ach for them even if they are less than a half-Kav.)

Below, the Gemara explains that the majority of his stature is two shin bones and a thigh bone, or vice-versa.

Question: A quarter Kav has Tum'as Ohel, like it says explicitly in a Mishnah in Ohalos (2:1) "the following have Tum'as Ohel...", and it lists a quarter [Kav] of bones from the majority of the number or the majority of his stature!

Answer: Even so, there is a tradition [from Moshe from Sinai] that a Nazir is Megale'ach only for a half-Kav.

Suggestion: Perhaps we discuss a half-Kav of other bones, that are not from the majority of the number or the majority of his stature!

Rejection: These do not even have Tum'as Ohel, since this is not taught in Perek 2 of Ohalos, with other matters that have Tum'as Ohel.