Explanation #1: Some explain that we infer from the fact that [the Tana] includes [all four shavings] together. If so, they resemble each other, and all are with a razor, even the third, which is due to Safek Nazir Tamei. (This seems unlike Tosfos 60b DH Hani, which said that we ask only about a Vadai Nazir Tamei.)

Note: Surely, they are different. In the first two shavings, which are even for Safek Metzora, he must shave the entire body. In the last two, which are only for Safek Nezirus, he shaves only the head! Perhaps Tosfos holds that since they are called four Tiglachiyos (shavings), regarding the method of shaving they are the same.

Alternate text: In some Seforim the text says "if you think that it is due to removing Tamei [hair], also with three [shavings] suffices!"

Question: What proof is this? In all the shavings, we have a Safek that he is a Metzora or Nazir Tahor, even in the third! (Even if a Nazir Tamei need not shave, he must shave lest he is a Nazir Tahor.)

Answer: Perhaps we can say that even though in the third shaving it is possible that he is a Nazir Tahor, who requires a razor...

Even so, if Tiglachas Tum'ah did not require a razor, due to Safek Nazir Tahor he would not need to shave, for he is still not permitted to drink wine.

Explanation: What is the source that Nochrim do not have Nezirus? Regarding other Nedarim, their law is like Yisrael, like it says "Ish Ish" to include Nochrim, that they vow Nedarim and Nedavos like Yisrael. Also this is a Neder!

Explanation: If they accepted Nezirus, it has no effect. They may drink wine, and we do not bring (i.e. offer) Korban Nezirus for them.

Citation of Gemara: Why do we need this clause? We hold that any Mitzvah that a woman is obligated in, an Eved [Kena'ani] is obligated in it!

Explanation: The Gemara means that we hold like this. We learn this in Kidushin (23a).

Implied question: This verse is written regarding Nedarim!

Answer: Even so, in Nedarim (3a) we equate Nezirus to Nedarim from "Lindor Neder Nazir Lehazir."

Explanation: [Bnei Yisrael can say] "my Erech (an amount based on his age and gender) is Alai [to give to Hekdesh, and it takes effect]", or "Erech Ploni is Alai", but Nochrim cannot be Ma'arich, even though they can make vows and Nedavos (be Makdish Korbanos) like Yisrael.

Suggestion: Perhaps they cannot be Ne'erach, i.e. if a Yisrael said "the Erech of this Nochri is Alai" [it does not take effect]!

Rejection: It says "Ish" [to include that Nochrim can be Ne'erachim].

Explanation: [The Gemara asks] also regarding Nazir, we should say that the exclusion "Bnei Yisrael" teaches that Yisre'elim accept Nezirus and bring a Korban, but Nochrim do not accept Nezirus and bring a Korban...

Suggestion: Perhaps they cannot accept Nezirus at all, to make wine and Tum'ah forbidden to them!

Rejection: [We should say that] it says "Ish" [to include Nochrim for this]. This is what the Gemara means below (Rava's answer on 61b).

Implied question: Above, when we said [that he is called his father] regarding inheritance, we did not ask like this!

Answer: This is because Stam, he is called "Aviv" regarding inheritance.

Question: Why do we need a verse? What would be the source to say that a Nochri gets Kares?!

Note: Birkas Rosh says that the last three words of this Tosfos are part of the coming Dibur ha'Maschil, "Aval Itmuyei Mitamo Amar Kra..."

Explanation #1: The verse "v'Hizah ha'Tahor Al ha'Tamei" is not extra. In Yoma (14a), we establish it for other matters, for one who intended to sprinkle on a man, and sprinkled on an animal.

We answer that it says "Asher Yitma v'Lo Yischata" is extra, for it should have written 'Asher Lo Yischata.'

Explanation #2: [The word "Tahor" in] "v'Hizah ha'Tahor" does not discuss Chituy (becoming Tahor from Tum'as Mes). Rather, it discusses one who is totally Tahor [sprinkling on a Tamei] according to the simple meaning, or a Tevul Yom [who sprinkles], like it says in Yevamos (73a);

The verse from which we exclude Nochrim from Taharah, this refers to Taharah through Haza'ah, like it says "li'Vnei Yisrael l'Mishmeres l'Mei Nidah Chatas Hi." Therefore, we bring the verse "Asher Yitma v'Lo Yischata", which discusses Chituy. This requires investigation.

Implied question: A Nochri has no Taharah, even through Tevilah!

Answer: Even so, [the Tartzan] prefers to bring from Chituy itself, similar to "l'Mishmeres l'Mei Nidah Chatas Hi", from which we exclude Nochrim, which discusses Chituy.

He holds that this that a Nochri has no Taharah, even through Tevilah, i.e. because Tevilah is equated to Haza'ah, for it says "v'Chit'o va'Yom ha'Shevi'i v'Chibes Begadav v'Rachatz ba'Mayim v'Taher."

Explanation: This refers to slaves. Rav Acha comes to resolve the Drashah of "Aviv" above, that [Nezirus applies only to] one who has a father regarding every inheritance explicit in the Torah;

Inheritance of slaves is explicit in the verse "v'Hisnachaltem", and a Nochri does not bequeath his slave to his sons;

This is because a Nochri has no Kinyan (acquisition) in the slave himself (he can own a slave only for his labor), like we expound in Gitin (38a) "you can acquire from them (Nochrim, to own the slave himself), but they cannot acquire from you, and they cannot acquire each other.

If so, one who has inheritance of slaves is called a father, and "l'Aviv ul'Imo Lo Yitama" applies to him. One who has no inheritance of slaves is not in the category of Tum'ah. I.e. "l'Aviv ul'Imo Lo Yitama" does not apply to him.

Explanation: [If so, also slaves] we should exclude from Nezirus from this Drashah, for similarly [to Nochrim, a slave] does not bequeath [to his son] another slave who was given to him on condition that his master has no authority over him, like we expound "they cannot acquire one from another."

Question: Slaves should be included from "[v'Amarta] Aleihem"!

Answer: [If so], also Nochrim we should include from "Ish"!

Observation: We ask also against the first answer, that [only] one who has Taharah, he has Tum'ah.

Note: Many Acharonim questioned this, for Tum'ah and Taharah apply to slaves! R. E. M. Horovitz explains that Tosfos means that since a slave has no Halachic father, "l'Aviv" does not apply, so we should exclude slaves from Nezirus.

Citation of Gemara: Rather, Rava answered that granted, regarding Erchin...

Explanation: We can establish the exclusion "Bnei Yisrael" to exclude Nochrim, who cannot be Ma'arich, and the inclusion "Bnei Yisrael" to exclude Nochrim, who can be Ne'erachim;

However, here, if "Ish" includes Nochrim for Nezirus, if so, what do we exclude from "Bnei Yisrael", which connotes "but not Nochrim"?

We suggest that "Bnei Yisrael" accept Nezirus and bring a Korban, but Nochrim do not. One might have thought that [Nochrim] cannot accept Nezirus at all, to receive Isurei Nazir! "Ish" teaches unlike this. However, they do not bring a Korban.

Citation of Gemara: [We reject that] we do not learn from here that they do not bring a Korban [Nezirus], rather, from there - "l'Olah", to exclude Nezirus.

Explanation: In the verse "Ish Ish" in Parshas Emor, we include that Nochrim can be Makdish Nedarim and Nedavos, like Yisrael;

The end of the verse says "l'Olah", to exclude Nezirus, to teach that a Nochri does not bring Korban Nezirus.

Question: Since Nochrim are totally excluded from Nezirus, why do we need "l'Olah", to exclude Korbanos Nezirus?

Answer: This teaches that a Nochri cannot bring Korbanos Nezirus to exempt a Yisrael Nazir from his Korbanos. This requires investigation. (Birkas Rosh - this requires investigation because the verse connotes that it discusses his own Korban.)

Explanation: [We ask why we need "Ish Ki Yafli"] to include Nochrim, that they can be Ne'erachim;

Since we hold that Nochrim can be Makdish Nedarim and Nedavos, like Yisrael, automatically, even if the Torah did not write "Ish", we would establish the exclusion "Bnei Yisrael" to exclude that Nochrim cannot be Ma'arich, and not to exclude that they cannot be Ne'erachim!

It is reasonable to equate Erchin to Nedarim as much as possible. (Therefore, we establish the exclusion for what is most logical to include from reasoning.)

Explanation: [This is fine for the opinion] in Nidah (46b, that Mufla Samuch l'Ish, i.e. if a minor close to adulthood understands vows, his vows take effect) is mid'Oraisa. However, according to the opinion that it is mid'Rabanan, how can we answer?

Citation of Gemara: ["Ish Ki Yafli"] comes to include a Nochri Mufla Samuch l'Ish.

Question: This is astounding. Regarding Yisrael, it is only mid'Rabanan. Regarding Nochrim, [a verse] includes it?!

Answer (Ri): Surely, "Lo Yachel Devaro" does not apply to a Yisrael until he is an adult. When he is an adult, "Lo Yachel Devaro" applies;

Therefore, we expound that whoever does not have "Lo Yachel Devaro", does not have Hafla'ah [vows], like it says in Nidah (46b);

We exclude Mufla Samuch l'Ish of a Yisrael. However, a Nochri will not come to "Lo Yachel Devaro", so we cannot exclude him.