(Mishnah): He is Mevashel or Sholek (cooks or overcooks) the Shelamim. The Kohen takes the cooked foreleg of the ram, a Matzah loaf from the basket, and a wafer, and puts them on the hand of the Nazir and waves them. Afterwards, the Nazir may drink wine and become Tamei Mes;

R. Shimon says, after Zerikah (throwing the blood on the Mizbe'ach) of one of the Korbanos, he may drink wine and become Tamei Mes.

(Gemara): Our Mishnah teaches that Shaluk is called Mevushal, for it says 'he is Mevashel or Sholek the Shelamim' (and the Torah said "ha'Zero'a Beshelah").

Question: A verse teaches that roasted is called Mevushal - "va'Yvashlu ha'Pesach ba'Esh" (and Pesach must be roasted)...

Note: The Gemara interrupts before the question is finished.

Interjection - Suggestion: Perhaps they [truly cooked it in water], improperly!

Rejection (R. Yonah Botzriyah): [The verse concludes] "ka'Mishpat" (like the Halachah).

Summation of question: And our Mishnah teaches that Shaluk is called Mevushal, and a Mishnah says that one who vows [not to eat] Mevushal is permitted Tzeli (roasted food) and Shaluk!

Answer (R. Yochanan): Vows depends on the way people speak.

(R. Yoshiyah): Vows depends on the language of the Torah.

Question: (They argue about one who vows from Mevushal. R. Yoshiyah forbids him to eat Tzeli. - OHR YAKOV) What [other] difference is between them?

Answer: If one said Konam (is forbidden like a Korban) wine that I will taste during the Chag (Sukos)' - according to R. Yochanan, he is forbidden on the last day of Yom Tov (the way people speak, also it is called Chag). According to R. Yoshiyah, he is permitted (the Torah does not call Shemini Atzeres part of Chag ha'Sukos).

Rejection: Even R. Yoshiyah agrees that he is forbidden. R. Yoshiyah said [that vows depends on the language of the Torah] only to be stringent.

(R. Chiya bar Bari): R. Yochanan ate Peros Ginosar, and said 'I did not taste Mazon today.'

Question (Mishnah): One who vows [not to eat] Mazon is permitted [only] water and salt. (Even though R. Yochanan did not vow, surely he spoke like normal people, and he himself said that vows depends on the way people speak. - PF)

Answer: [The Mishnah] is like R. Yoshiyah, who says that vows depend on the language of the Torah.

Question: What is the source that all [foods] are called Mazon?

Answer (R. Acha bar Ula) Question: "V'Eser Asonos Nos'os Bar va'Lechem u'Mazon..." - why does it say u'Mazon?

Answer: This teaches that all [foods] are called Mazon. (YEFE MAR'EH - among foods that are not grain, there is no reason to call one 'Mazon' more than another.)

Suggestion: It says "v'Lakach ha'Kohen Es ha'Zero'a Beshelah Min ha'Ayil" - perhaps "Beshelah" means that it is [cooked] by itself!

Rejection: It says "Min ha'Ayil."

How does he do? He cuts the Zero'a (before salting it) until he leaves about the size of a barley seed connected [to the ram]. The Kodesh (Zero'a, which is permitted only to Kohanim) does not absorb from the Chol (the rest of the ram; even though it is Kodshim, compared to the Zero'a it is Chulin), and the Chol does not absorb from the Kodesh. (It does not absorb during cooking, for there is a Shi'ur for Bitul - OHR SOMAYACH Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 6:11).

Question (Chilfai, to R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish): Do seasonings forbid [the food] more than 200 times [their own volume? Even though 'Tevel' is spelled with a Tes, it is as if it is with a Tov.]

Answer (R. Yochanan): Seasonings do not [forbid] more than 200.

Note: It seems that he asked R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish together, and only one of them answered. Presumably, it was R. Yochanan, who was greater. Alternatively, the text should say 'Amru Lei.'

Question (Mishnah): Anything that ferments or seasons, is Medame'a [regarding Terumah, and regarding Orlah or Kil'ai ha'Kerem, it forbids].

Note: 'Medame'a' connotes a mixture of Terumah and Chulin. Our text 'veha'Medame'a' is difficult, for the Gemara will prove that the Mishnah discusses any amount. Medame'a forbids only up to 100! Below, the text says 'Medame'a' (without 'veha'), like the Rambam's text of the Mishnah (Orlah 2:4). The Mishnah means 'anything that ferments or seasons - it is Medame'a regarding Terumah (forbids to Zarim, if the fermenting agent or seasoning is Terumah), and regarding [a fermenting agent or seasoning of] Orlah or Kil'ai ha'Kerem, it forbids.

Suggestion: [It means that] it forbids up to 100 (regarding Terumah) and 200 (regarding Orlah and Kil'ai ha'Kerem).

Rejection: Even if it did not ferment, and even if it did not season, it forbids up to 100 and 200!

Answer: Rather, [Chilfai's question and the answer] discusses grapes (which do not have such a potent taste. The Mishnah teaches that potent seasonings forbid more than 200.)

Limitation (R. Yosi citing R. Yochanan): This is when [the grapes] did not become raisins, but if they became raisins, their seasoning is [potent, and forbids] more than 200.

Limitation (R. Chiyah citing R. Yochanan): This is when [the grapes] did not ripen, but if they ripened, their seasoning is [potent, and forbids] more than 200.

(R. Yosah and R. Yehoshua ben Levi citing Bar Padyei): All Nosenei Ta'am (matters that give taste, forbid only if they are at least) one part in 100 [of the mixture].

(R. Chiyah [bar Aba] citing R. Yehoshua ben Levi citing Bar Padyei): All Nosenei Ta'am [forbid only if they are at least] one part in 60.

Question (R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak, to R. Chiya bar Aba): R. Yosah argues with you, and a Mishnah argues with both of you! Anything that ferments or seasons, it is Medame'a regarding Terumah, and regarding Orlah or Kil'ai ha'Kerem, it forbids;

If you will say that it forbids up to 100 and 200, even if it did not ferment, and even if it did not season, [it forbids 100 and 200]! Rather, it forbids even more!

Answer (R. Yirmeyah): [Bar Padyei] discusses [a mixture of forbidden] meat with meat. (However, seasonings can forbid more than 60 or 100.)

(R. Yosi): Meat with meat and all other Isurim are the same. (If they are not made to give taste, they forbid until 60 or 100.)

(R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): All Isurim [that fell into Heter Min b'Mino, we are stringent, and] we estimate as if an onion or leek [the size of the Isur fell into the Heter. If it would give taste, the mixture is forbidden.]

Question: Why [do they argue] - some say that Nosenei Ta'am [forbid only up to] one part in 100, and some say that Nosenei Ta'am [forbid only up to] one part in 60?

Answer: Both of them learn from Eil Nazir. The one who says that Nosenei Ta'am [forbid up to] one part in 100, you consider the Zero'a one part in 100 of the ram. (This is the source. Yisraelim may eat the ram, for the Zero'a was too small to give taste to it.) The one who says that Nosenei Ta'am [forbid up to] one part in 60, you consider the Zero'a one part in 60 of the ram;

The one who says that Nosenei Ta'am one part in 100, you remove the bones from the Zero'a (for they do not give taste; the meat of the Zero'a is one part in 100 of the ram). The one who says that Nosenei Ta'am [forbid up to] one part in 60, you do not remove the bones from the Zero'a.

Question: [According to the first opinion,] just like you remove the bones from the Zero'a (for they do not give taste, for the same reason) you should remove the bones from the ram [and calculate based on only the meat]!

Answer: You cannot say so, for the waste of Terumah (e.g. bran) does not join to with Terumah to forbid Chulin, but the waste of Chulin joins with Chulin to be Mevatel Terumah.

Question (Rav Bivi): Does waste of Terumah join with Chulin to be Mevatel Terumah?

Answer: Since Rav Huna said that peels of Isur join to permit, this shows that the waste of Terumah joins with Chulin to be Mevatel Terumah.

(R. Chizkiyah - Beraisa): All that I forbade to you elsewhere, I permitted to you here;

Everywhere [else], 100 [times as much mixture as Isur] is forbidden, and more than 100 is permitted. Here, even 100 is permitted.

(Rav): Tenufah is Me'akev a Nazir [from drinking wine].

Question (Beraisa): "Toras ha'Nazir" - whether he has palms or does not have palms.

Answer: Rav discusses a Nazir with [palms, but if he has no palms, Tenufah is not Me'akev].

Support (Beraisa): If one is proper to do Tenufah, Tenufah is Me'akev. If one is not proper to do Tenufah, Tenufah is not Me'akev.

(Shmuel): Hair is Me'akev [Korbanos] Nazir like Tenufos and Behonos (the right thumb and toe) of a Metzora (are Me'akev his Taharah. This is even according to Rabanan, who say that Tiglachas is not Me'akev.)

Question (Beraisa): "Toras ha'Metzora" - whether he has Behonos or has no Behonos (he can become Tahor).

Answer: [Shmuel] explains that like R. Eliezer, who says that he puts [Dam ha'Asham] on the place [where the thumb and toe would connect to the hand and foot. There is no substitute for the hair of a Nazir. We explained this like RIDVAZ.]

Note: I understand the source to say that hair is Me'akev the Shelamim, for he must be proper to put his hair under the pot. The RIDVAZ (he elaborated below in TOSFOS HA'RID 6:11) connotes that it is Me'akev all the Korbanos. Perhaps a Hekesh equates them for this. Shmuel did not give a Shi'ur of how much hair is needed. Why was this not brought above (Halachah 5), in the discussion of whether shaving cancels? This requires investigation. (PF)

(Mishnah): If a Nazir shaved on a Korban (i.e. after its Shechitah), and it was found to be Pasul, his shaving is invalid, and he was not Yotzei with his other Korbanos (he must bring them again);

If he shaved on the Chatas [that was slaughtered] Lo Lishmah (with improper intent, which disqualifies it) and later he brought the other Korbanos Lishmah, his shaving is invalid and he was not Yotzei the other Korbanos;

If he shaved on the Olah or Shelamim Lo Lishmah, and he later brought the other Korbanos Lishmah, his shaving is invalid and he was not Yotzei the other Korbanos;

R. Shimon says, he was not Yotzei that Korban [offered Lo Lishmah], but he was Yotzei the other Korbanos.

If he shaved on all the Korbanos, and one was found to be valid, his shaving is valid, and he must bring [replacements for] the other Korbanos [that were Pasul].

(Gemara): [R. Shimon holds that] he was Yotzei [the other Korbanos] and his shaving. If you will say that his shaving was invalid, also his [other] Korbanos would not count for him.

Question (R. Yochanan): May he shave on a Shelamim of Chagigah (i.e. Nedavah, not for Nezirus), according to R. Shimon?

Answer: Do we not learn from our Mishnah? R. Shimon says, he was not Yotzei that Korban [offered Lo Lishmah], but he was Yotzei the other Korbanos, and even though he slaughtered [the Olah or Shelamim on which he shaved Lo Lishmah - regarding a Shelamim,] is it not like a Nedavah of Shelamim?!

This shows that one may shave on a Nedavah of Shelamim according to R. Shimon.

(R. Yakov bar Avun): Rav Ada bar Ahavah and R. Yochanan [differed about this] - according to Rav Ada bar Ahavah, surely [R. Shimon permits shaving on a Nedavah of Shelamim, like we proved]. R. Yochanan was unsure.