Explanation: We explain that also this [Beraisa] equates one who has [hair] to one who does not have, to teach that shaving is not Me'akev. (The previous Beraisa equated one who has hands to one who does not have, to teach that Tenufah is not Me'akev.) Rabanan learn from the Gezeirah Shavah "Acher-Acher";

R. Eliezer said that shaving is Me'akev. You are forced to say that [if the Beraisa is like him], it equates one who does not have [hair] to one who has, to teach that just like one who has hair must pass a razor over his head, likewise a Murat (one whose hair fell out) must pass a razor over his head;

Similarly regarding Tenufah, it comes to equate one who has no [hands] to one who has, to teach that he must wave on his arms when he has no hands;

Since [the Makshan] knew the Beraisa that explicitly teaches about a Murat, he deemed it proper to bring it.

Citation of Gemara - (Beraisa): Beis Shamai say, a Nazir Memurat need not pass a razor over his head. Beis Hillel say that he must pass a razor over his head.

The text: The text says, what do Beis Shamai mean when they say "he need not"? [They mean that] he has no solution. I.e. if a Memurat passed a razor over his head, it does not help at all;

According to R. Eliezer, who says that shaving is Me'akev, he will permanently be forbidden wine. According to Rabanan, who say that shaving is not Me'akev, he did not do the Mitzvah.

Inference: According to Beis Hillel, there is a solution for a Memurat to pass a razor in the place of Tiglachas. According to R. Eliezer, this permits him wine, and according to Rabanan, he fulfills the Mitzvah!

Observation: One cannot explain [in the Beraisa] '"Toras Nazir" - whether he has hair or does not have hair"', to equate one who has does not have to one who has, not according to R. Eliezer or Rabanan, according to Beis Shamai or Beis Hillel;

According to Beis Shamai, when he has hair he has a solution, and when he has no hair he has no solution!

According to Beis Hillel, for what do we equate one who has hair to one who has no hair? You are forced to say that when he has hair, it is explicitly written to pass a razor!

Conclusion: You are forced to say that it comes to equate one who has no hair to one who has hair. It teaches us that just like one who has hair, it is explicitly written to pass a razor [over it], likewise one who has no hair, also he must pass a razor. [The Beraisa] is Beis Hillel.

Also here, we can say that it comes to equate one who has no [hand] to one who has, and to obligate Tenufah on his arm, just like one who has.

Citation of Gemara: This is like R. Pedas' teaching.

Explanation: Ravina's teaching, that according to Beis Shamai he has no solution, is just like R. Pedas, who said that Beis Shamai and R. Eliezer said the same matter.

Explanation: [We ask, it is not Me'akev] according to Rabanan?! A Beraisa teaches "Zos Toras Nazir" - whether he has hands, or has no hands!

This version holds that the Beraisa means as follows. Just like when he has no hands, it is proper that [Tenufah] is Me'akev, for Kol she'Eino Ra'uy l'Bilah Bilah Me'akeves Bo (if a Minchah is too big to be mixed with the oil, it is Pasul because it was not mixed. Also here, since Tenufah could not be done, it is Me'akev.)

Also when he has hands, Tenufah is Me'akev.

And if [the Beraisa] were R. Eliezer, it should know [that Tenufah is Me'akev] from [the fact that he is permitted only] after all the actions!

Explanation (cont.): Rather, [surely] it is like Rabanan, who say [that he is permitted] after a lone action, i.e. after the blood of one of the Korbanos. [The Beraisa] says that however, Tenufah is Me'akev, for "Zos Toras" reveals this.

Implied question: The Beraisa says "whether he has hair, or has no hair." Is [shaving] really Me'akev?!

(Beraisa): Beis Shamai say, a Nazir Memurat need not [pass a razor...] Beis Hillel say that he must, and Ravina taught that Beis Hillel say that he must, i.e. he has no solution, for Kol she'Eino Ra'uy l'Bilah Bilah Me'akeves;

Inference: According to Beis Shamai, he has a solution!

Explanation: This version holds that Beis Shamai equate one who lacks to one who has, and "Zos Toras Nazir" applies whether he has hair or does not;

According to Beis Shamai, it equates one who has lacks to one who has. A Memurat passes a razor over his head. It similarly comes to equate one who has does not have [hands] to one who has, to teach that he has a solution to wave on his arm.

Question: [Perhaps] really, it comes to equate one who has to one who does not have, and it is like Beis Hillel!

Do not ask from the Beraisa of a Nazir Memurat, for even without [establishing the Beraisa like Beis Hillel] we could ask that according to Rabanan, Tiglachas is not Me'akev, and according to R. Eliezer, we learn from "after all the actions."

Explanation: Ravina said that according to Beis Shamai, a Nazir Memurat has a solution. He argues with R. Pedas, who said that Beis Shamai and R. Eliezer hold like each other;

The text: The text says "R. Avina said." This is an answer.

Explanation: [We asked that] a Beraisa says "whether he has hair..." and a Beraisa teaches "a Nazir Memurat... Beis Hillel says, he must";

We are thinking that he must, and he has a solution. The Beraisa means as follows. Just like when he has hair, he must pass [a razor], either for a Mitzvah according to Rabanan, or this is Me'akev [his Heter] according to R. Eliezer...

[Also] when he has no hair, he must pass, and he has a solution through this for a Mitzvah, or it is Me'akev.

Also in the other Beraisa, just like when he has hands, he waves for a Mitzvah, also when he has no hands, he waves on his arm.

Explanation (cont.): Ravina rejects this. You cannot prove from here that it is not Me'akev, for surely he needs [to shave], and he has no solution according to Beis Hillel. It means "just like when he has no hair, it is Me'akev [also when he has hair, it is Me'akev]"!

Question #1: If so, this is like R. Eliezer. We should know this from "after all the actions"!

Suggestion: The Gemara was not concerned for this question.

Rejection: If so, also [the Beraisa of] Tenufah, we can say that it is Me'akev, and it is like R. Eliezer!

Question #2 - Citation (Menachos 19a): Whenever the Torah said "Torah" and "Chukah", it is Me'akev. We are thinking that both are required [to teach that it is Me'akev].

Citation (cont.) Question: Regarding Nazir, it says [only] "Toras Nazir", and Rav taught that Tenufah is Me'akev a Nazir!

We answer that since it says "Ken Ya'aseh", it is as if it says Chukah. In our Sugya, we establish [Rav's teaching] like R. Eliezer, because it says "Acher" - after all the actions!

Question #3: A Mishnah in Menachos (27a) says that the two kinds [of bread] that a Nazir brings are Me'akev each other. The Gemara learns from "Ken Ya'aseh." Is this unlike Rabanan who argue with R. Eliezer?!

Answer #1 (to Question #3): Some say that that [Mishnah] is [even] like Rabanan. Surely, the two kinds [of bread] are Me'akev each other, but in any case they are not Me'akev [him] from drinking wine.

However, still it is difficult from what it says there (19a, that we learn from Ken Ya'aseh that Tenufah is) Me'akev.

Answer (or Answer #2) to all questions: The Sugya there is like the latter version [here]. It means as follows. Rav said that Tenufah of a Nazir is Me'akev. It seems that this means that it is Me'akev him from drinking wine;

We ask that if this is like R. Eliezer, this is obvious! If it is like Rabanan, they say that Tiglachas is not Me'akev. Need they teach Tenufah [that it is not Me'akev]?!

[The Gemara] asks is it not Me'akev? I.e. even if it is not Me'akev the Nazir from drinking wine from a Kal va'Chomer from Tiglachas, in any case it is Me'akev the Shelamim according to Rabanan!

This is like the Mishnah in Menachos (27a) says, that the two kinds [of bread] are Me'akev each other. That is even like Rabanan;

We ask from the Beraisa "Zos Toras" - whether [or not] he has hands, i.e. "Zos Toras" is Me'akev, like it says in Menachos (19a) that "Torah" connotes that it is Me'akev, or like we answer there since it says "Ken Ya'aseh";

Granted, it is not Me'akev from drinking wine. In any case it is Me'akev the Shelamim, and he must offer another Shelamim!

We ask from the Beraisa "whether he has hair, or does not." Also here, do you want to say that the word "Torah" is Me'akev?

A Beraisa teaches that Beis Hillel say that a Nazir Memurat must pass a razor [over his head]. Now we are thinking that he must, and he has a solution. This shows that Beis Hillel hold that Memurat is not Me'akev!

We answer that he must, and he has no solution. If so, according to this latter version, we establish Rav's teaching that it is Me'akev the Korban, like Rabanan, due to "v'Chen Ya'aseh", like the Sugya in Menachos.

Explanation: His other Zevachim that he offered after a Pasul shaving do not count for him;

Since he needed to wait until his hair grows, and when he offered the other Zevachim, he was not proper to shave, we consider the Korbanos as if he offered them before or Toch Melos (before finishing Nezirus).

Explanation: Since the Torah changed its wording [and wrote Shelamav in place of Shelamim], we expound in Menachos (78a) to include Shalmei Nazir, to equate it [to a Todah] regarding Lishmah and several matters;

Likewise, we equate [Shalmei Nazir] to a Todah, which is a Shelamim, to teach that if he shaved on it (i.e. after offering a Todah), he was Yotzei.