Question (R. Acha citing R. Imi): R. Yosi ben Chaninah asked, [if a man made his son a Nazir, and he became Tamei (so he brings Asham, Chatas ha'Of and Olas ha'Of), is Melikah of his [Chatas ha']Of eaten? (Is this like Torah Nezirus?)

Question: Why does he ask about Melikas Of? He can ask even about Shechitas Of! (I.e. even if it required Shechitah, it would be a question of Chulin b'Azarah!)

Answer: There, it is one Safek. (If it is not Chulin b'Azarah, it is permitted.) Here, there are two Sefekos. (If it is not proper Kodshim, Melikah is Neveilah!)

Rebuttal (R. Mani): Also here it is one Safek! This is like it was taught, Nocher (killing through the Simanim without Shechitah) or uprooting (the Simanim from their place), Shechitas Chulin b'Azarah does not apply to them.

(Rabanan of Kisarin citing R. Yosi ben Chaninah): There is not even one Safek according to the opinion that Shechitah of birds is not clear from the Torah (there is a mere Asmachta);

"Va'Yishtechu Lahem Shato'ach" [we rearrange the letters of the last word, and read this] like 'va'Yishchatu Lahem Shachot.'

Question: [A son can be Megale'ach with his father's money] when they are equal - he and his son were [both] a Nazir twice. If he was a Nazir once and his son was a Nazir twice, he was a Tahor Nazir and his son is a Tamei Nazir, he was a Tamei Nazir and his son is a Tahor Nazir, [what is the law]?

Question: What is R. Yosi's source [to require that he was a Nazir in his father's lifetime]?

Answer: "Korbano la'Shem Al Nizro" - his Nezirus must precede his Korban, and not that his Korban preceded his Nezirus.

Assumption: They wanted to say that R. Yehudah (the first Tana) agrees with R. Yosi (that he can be Megale'ach in this case, just R. Yehudah argues and holds that he can be Megale'ach with his father's money even if he accepted Nezirus after his father died).

Rejection: A Beraisa was found, which says that this one does not agree to this one, and this one does not agree to this one.