1)

(a)'Kol Kinuyei Nezirus ki'Nezirus'. The Tana continues with cases of Yados li'Nezirus - which are uncompleted declarations of Nezirus; whereas Kinuyin are complete declarations, but not using the term 'Nazir' that the Torah uses.

(b)The Tana lists the Kinuyin: 'Nazir, Nazik, Nezi'ach, Pezi'ach'. 'Nazir' is included in the list - because it is the source Lashon, from which all other Leshanos stem.

(c)According to Rebbi Yochanan in Nedarim, Kinuyin are expressions used by Nochrim that mean Nazir. Assuming that other words that mean Nazir in other languages are also considered Kinuyin - we will draw a distinction between them and the three Leshonos mentioned by the Tana in that - whereas the latter do not require specific Kavanah, the former do (see Tosfos Yom Tov).

2)

(a)According to Resh Lakish in Nedarim, these Leshonos are expressions introduced by the Chachamim - to avoid people having the intention of declaring 'la'Hashem Korban' (which is a normal way of making a Neder to bring a Korban), and retracting after saying 'la'Hashem', leaving them having said Hash-m's Name in vain. It is highly unusual however, to say Hash-m's Name before one of the Kinuyin (e.g. 'la'Hashem Konam').

(b)According to Tosfos, Yadei Nezirus are fully effective, in spite of the fact that the Lashon is only mid'Rabanan, because the Noder accepts Nezirus with his full heart.

(c)According to Rebbi Yechiel however - someone who accepted Nezirus through a Kinuy, is subject to Malkus, but not a Korban (since that would entail bringing Chulin to the Azarah).

3)

(a)The case in our Mishnah 'ha'Omer Ehei, Harei Zeh Nazir' - falls under the category of a Yad li'Nezirus.

(b)Later in the Mishnah, the Tana rules that if someone says 'Hareini ka'Zeh', he is a Nazir, provided a Nazir is passing in front of him. In spite of the fact that we already know this from the previous case ('Ehei') - the Tana is coming to teach us the inference (that if he said 'Hareini' alone, he would not be a Nazir, even if a Nazir was passing in front of him at that moment.

(c)The Mishnah continues 'Hareini Mesalsel, Hareini Mechalkel, Harei Alai Leshale'ach Pera', which is - neither a Kinuy or a Yad. It is considered a direct Nezirus ...

(d)... which is effective provided he is holding his hair.

4)

(a)We answer the Kashya what Nazir is in Seder Nashim rather than in Kodshim - by citing the Pasuk in Ki Setzei (in connection with Gitin) "Ki Matza Bah Ervas Davar". Now the root of adultery is wine and Chazal have said that 'Whoever saw a Sotah in her disgrace, should make a Neder to abstain from wine' (i.e. to become a Nazir).

(b)We did not ask the same Kashya with regard to Nedarim - because it is obvious that the Parshah of Nedarim belongs in Nashim, due to the fact that it is written in connection with women (in Parshas Matos).

(c)We do not just accept the explanation given in Sotah (that Nedarim follows Kesuvos, because it follows Perek Hamadir in Kesuvos, and Nazir follows Nedarim because it is a branch of Nedarim - because that would not be sufficient reason to take Nazir out of Kodshim, where it belongs (if anything, the Tana should rather have placed Nedarim next to Nazir, in Kodshim).

(d)We nevertheless need the answer in Sotah (not making do with the answer in our Sugya) - because then, the Tana should have placed Nazir after Gitin (where it is hinted in the Torah).

5)

(a)The Tana begins the Mishnah with Kinuyin, but first explains Yados. Rava, basing himself on various Mishnahs (such as 'Bameh Madlikin, u'va'Meh Ein Madlikin' and 'Bameh Ishah Yotz'ah u'Vameh Einah Yotz'ah', where the Tana also does likewise) initially resolves this problem - by suggesting that the Tana always explains the last-mentioned case first (as a matter of policy).

(b)The problem with Rava's answer from the Mishnahs 'Bameh Behemah Yotz'ah, u'Vameh Einah Yotz'ah', and from 'Yesh Nochlin u'Manchilin, Nochlin v'Lo Manchilin ... ' is that - there, the Tana explains the first-mentioned cases first.

(c)We answer that the Tana sometimes explains the first statement first, and sometimes, the last. In the above cases, he explains the last case first with regard to 'Bameh Ishah Yotz'ah u'Vameh Einah Yotz'ah' - because when it comes to personal Isurim, he prefers to mention the Chumra first; whereas ...

1. ... regarding 'Bameh Behemah Yotz'ah, u'Vameh Einah Yotz'ah', he explains the first case first, because he prefers to mention the lenient case first when it comes to Isurim concerning an animal (whose Din is altogether more lenient).

2. ... regarding 'Yesh Nochlin u'Manchilin, Nochlin v'Lo Manchilin ... ' he prefers to do likewise - in order to first mention the Ikar Din of Nachalah (someone who has all the Dinim of an heir), and then of someone who is only a partial heir.

(d)And if the Tana explains Yados first because it is learned from a Derashah ("Nazir Lehazir la'Hashem"), which is dear to him, he nevertheless prefers to open the Mishnah with Kinuyin - which are the Ikar Neder of which the Torah speaks.

6)

(a)The Tana of our Mishnah knows that 'Ehei' means 'Ehei Nazir' and not 'Ehei b'Ta'anis' - because he is speaking when a Nazir is passing in front of the Noder at that moment.

(b)We suggest that Shmuel holds 'Yadayim she'Einan Mochichos' are not considered Yadayim - because his statement implies that if a Nazir was not walking in front of him, he would not be a Nazir, because then perhaps he meant 'Ehei b'Ta'anis, and not to become a Nazir (making it Yadayim she'Einan Mochichos).

(c)We conclude that Shmuel does indeed hold ''Yadayim she'Einan Mochichos Lo Havyan Yadayim'.

(d)According to those who conclude that Shmuel holds 'Yadayim ... Havyan Yadayim', we will have to explain - that a Nazir passing in front of the Noder makes it Yadayim she'Einan Mochichos, whereas if he is not, then it is not Yadayim at all (seeing as he may have meant 'Ehei b'Ta'anis').

7)

(a)The advantage the latter explanation has over the former - is that 'Leima' is generally not the final outcome of the Gemara.

(b)We nevertheless reject it in favor of the first explanation - because it conforms with the Sugya in Nedarim (where Shmuel holds 'Yadayim she'Einan Mochichos, Lo Havyan Yadayim'.

(c)And we reconcile this with the fact that the suggestion 'Leima' remains - by citing a number of other places in Shas where there is so.

8)

(a)And we know that the Noder does not simply intend to bring the Korbanos on behalf of the Nazir who is passing in front of him (as if he had said 'Ehei bi'Mekomo') - because we admits that he specifically had in mind to be a Nazir like him.

(b)nevertheless, had the Tana not taught us that his Neder is effective - we would have thought that it is not, because a Neder requires 'Piv v'Libo Shavin (that the Noder's mouth and heart are of one accord), and in this case, it seems that what he thought is not in keeping with what he said. The Tana is now coming to teach us that since his thoughts clarify what he said (rather than clash with it), it is considered 'Piv v'Libo Shavin'.

(c)There is another text that assumes that we do not require 'Piv v'Libo Shavin', which we reject on the basis of the accepted Halachah, that a Neder that is declared unintentionally, is not considered a Neder. We can prove this from our very Sugya - because if it was, now that we have established that in his heart, he intended to become a Nazir, why would we also require a Nazir to pass in front of him?

9)

(a)The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Zeh Keli v'Anvehu" - that one should perform Mitzvos beautifully (such as a beautiful Sukah, a beautiful Lulav, beautiful Tzitzis and a beautiful Sefer-Torah wrapped with a beautiful cloth).

(b)Our Mishnah nevertheless knows that 'Ehei Na'eh' refers to Nezirus, and not to performing Mitzvos beautifully - because it speaks when he is holding his hair (indicating that what he is undertaking is to beautify himself with regard to a Mitzvah connected with his hair).

(c)Even though Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar has taught us that Nezirus itself is an Aveirah - that is only a Nazir Tamei, whereas 'Ehei Na'eh' pertains to Nezirus of Taharah.

10)

(a)Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar, who considers a Nazir a sinner, confines his opinion to a Nazir Tamei - who (due to the extended period of Nezirus) will most likely regret having declared Nezirus in the first place.

(b)Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar does not consider a Nazir Tahor a sinner, despite the fact that in a number of places, he specifically refers to a Nazir who abstained from wine, a sinner - because even though a Nazir Tahor is guilty of having sinned slightly, the Mitzvah aspect of Nezirus outweighs the Aveirah; whereas in the case of a Nazir Tamei, the Aveirah outweighs (or even cancels) the Mitzvah.

11)

(a)We just explained that the case of 'Ehei' speaks when a Nazir was passing in front of him, and that of 'Ehei Na'eh' when he was holding his hair. It is not possible to switch the answers, and say ...

1. ... in the case of 'Ehei Na'eh' when a Nazir was walking past - because 'Ehei Na'eh' is a complete Lashon, and if he had not been holding his hair, even a Nazir walking past would not change its meaning from 'Na'eh b'Mitzvos.

2. ... in the case of 'Ehei' that it speaks when he was holding his hair - because, unless a Nazir was walking past, it would imply 'Ehei b'Ta'anis', even if he was holding his hair.