1)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk "Nazir Lehazir" - that 'Nezirus Chal al ha'Nezirus'.

(b)If not for the Pasuk - we would have thought that if by Shevu'ah, which is more stringent than Nedarim, we say 'Ein Shevu'ah Chal al Shevu'ah', then we should certainly say it by Nedarim.

(c)Rav Hamnuna tries to prove Rav Huna wrong from this Beraisa - by virtue of the fact that the Tana must be speaking when the Noder said 'Hareini Nazir ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir ha'Yom' (because in the case of 'Hareini Nazir ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir l'Machar', it is obvious that the second Nezirus will take effect, and the Pasuk would be superfluous).

(d)We reconcile Rav Huna with the Beraisa - by establishing the Beraisa when the Noder undertook the two sets of Nezirus simultaneously.

2)

(a)If not for "Nazir Lahazir", we would have thought that, if someone accepts two terms of Nezirus simultaneously - he keeps one set of Nezirus lasting sixty days, and he will need to bring only one set of Korbanos at the end.

(b)The Pasuk is coming to teach us - that he keeps two sets of Nezirus lasting thirty days each, each with its own set of Korbanos.

(c)The Mishnah (of 'Yesh Neder b'Soch Neder') does not lend itself to the explanation of some commentaries, who establish it even by 'Konam Alai Kikar Zeh, Konam Alai Kikar Zeh' - because then, the Tana ought to have presented a case of Nezirus rather than one of Konam.

3)

(a)We know that a Neder forbidding something on himself, overrides a Shevu'ah that he will eat it - because a Shevu'ah to eat something turns it into a Mitzvah, and we have already learned that a Neder takes effect on a Mitzvah.

(b)A Neder to forbid something - will take effect on something that is already forbidden through a Shevu'ah, because it creates a new Isur Cheftza (on the object) that was not there before.

(c)The reverse is not true. A Shevu'ah ...

1. ... permitting something - will not override a Neder forbidding it.

2. ... forbidding something - will not take effect on something that is already forbidden through a Neder.

(d)Even though Nedarim take effect on Shevu'os (due to the fact that they add an Isur Cheftza, as we explained), Shevu'os do not take effect on Nedarim (seeing as, by the same token, they add an Isur Gavra [on the person]) - because, besides creating an Isur Cheftza, a Neder also creates the Lav of "Lo Yachel Devaro", which is an Isur Gavra, in which case the Shevu'ah does not add anything.

4)

(a)We reject the suggestion that the Chumra of Shevu'os over Nedarim (referred to by the Beraisa) is the fact that they take effect even on abstract things - because in that case, Nedarim also have a Chumra over Shevu'os, inasmuch as they take effect on a Mitzvah.

(b)The Chumra of Shevu'os - is the unique expression that the Torah uses in Yisro (in the Ten Commandments) "Lo Yenakeh" (which actually indicates that Shevu'os are the most stringent of all regular Lavin).

5)

(a)Rava extrapolates from the Tana's Lashon 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal, Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal, Eino Chayav Ela Achas' - that although the second Shevu'ah does not actually take effect, the Shevu'ah is nevertheless valid (inasmuch as it will take effect should the first one become annulled).

(b)The Tana might otherwise have said - 'Chayav Achas' or 'Einah Chayav Ela Achas'.

6)

(a)According to the second Lashon, we extrapolate from the Tana 'Chiyuva Hu d'Leka, Ha Shevu'ah Ika' - implying Rava's Chidush (that the second Shevu'ah is valid, even though it cannot take effect).

(b)We try to bring a support for Rava from the Beraisa that we learned above (that if someone undertook two Nezirus, and, after keeping the first one and separating his Korban, he had the first Nezirus annulled, he has fulfilled the second Nezirus with the first one). The proof from there presumes that he undertook the two sets of Nezirus to run concurrently - because, if the Tana was speaking when he said 'Hareini Nazir ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir l'Machar', then he would not be able to fulfill the second Nezirus with the first one (seeing as the second Nezirus extends for one extra day).

(c)We refute the proof for Rava from there however - by establishing the Beraisa when the Noder undertook two periods of Nezirus simultaneously ...

(d)... if he were to make two Shevu'os simultaneously and nullify one of them - perhaps the second one will not come into effect.

(e)Those who attempt to prove Rava from the Beraisa must hold like Rav Huna - because according to Shmuel, if someone says 'Hareini Nazir ha'Yom, Hareini Nazir ha'Yom', the second Nezirus is valid anyway (and one would not need to come on to Rava's Chidush).

7)

(a)'Harei Alai k'Basar Mali'ach' implies the salted meat of Kodshim - because of the Pasuk in Vayikra "Al Kol Korbancha Takriv Melach".

(b)Besides the salted meat of Kodshim and the wine of drink-offerings, 'k'Basar Mali'ach' and 'k'Yayin Nesech' respectively - also imply the meat and wine of idolatry.

(c)If the Noder ...

1. ... subsequently explains that he had referred to the meat or the wine of Avodas Kochavim - then his Neder will be void.

2. ... says nothing - then it is valid, because of the principle 'Stam Nedarim Lehachmir'.

(d)The two implications of ...

1. ... 'Harei Alai k'Cherem' are - either Chermei Gavohah (of Hash-m, in which case it goes to the Beis ha'Mikdash) or Chermei Kohanim.

2. ... 'Harei Alai k'Ma'aser' are - either Ma'asar Behemah or Ma'aser Dagan (in which case it is not a Davar ha'Nadur).

3. ... 'Harei Alai ki'Terumah' (according to Rebbi Meir) are - either Terumas ha'Lishkah (in which case it is a Davar ha'Nadur) or Terumah Gedolah.

8)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Stam Terumah b'Galil Muteres' - because he maintains, the men of Galil, who lived far from Yerushalayim, were not familiar with the Terumas ha'Lishkah (since most of the Terumah that they dealt with was Terumas ha'Goren). They would not therefore refer to it as 'Terumah', but as 'Terumas ha'Lishkah'.

(b)The Tana of the Seifa, whom we shall later establish as Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok, holds 'Stam Charamim bi'Yehudah Mutarin' - because he maintains that 'Stam Nedarim Lehakel'.

(c)He nevertheless goes on to say 'b'Galil Asurin' - because the residents of Galil in his opinion, were not familiar with Chermei Kohanim (since there were not so many Kohanim among them). Consequently, they would not refer to Chermei Kohanim as 'Charamim' Stam, but as 'Chermei Kohanim'.

9)

(a)Rebbi Zeira reconciles our Mishnah (which holds 'Stam Nedarim Lehachmir' with the Mishnah in Taharos, which rules 'Safek Nezirus Lehakel' - by establishing the former like the Rabanan, and the latter like Rebbi Eliezer (who argue in a Beraisa).

(b)According to Rebbi Eliezer, someone who declares Hekdesh a Behemah or a Chayah means to include a Coy (a Safek Behemah, Safek Chayah). According to the Rabanan - he does not.

(c)Rebbi Zeira connects the Machlokes in the Beraisa to the Machlokes between our Mishnah and the Mishnah in Taharos, despite the fact that they are inherently different - inasmuch as the Machlokes in the Beraisa concerns the Noder's property, whereas the Machlokes between the two Mishnahs is personal (and the Noder is therefore less likely to incorporate cases of Safek in his Neder).

(d)According to Rebbi Zeira, in a case of Safek Nedarim or Nezirus ...

1. ... the Rabanan will say - that just as lets himself in for a Safek when it only concerns only his money, so too does he let himself in for a Safek when it concerns himself.

2. ... Rebbi Eliezer will say - that if he does let himself in for a Safek when it only concerns his property, how much more so when it concerns himself.