Refuted Explanation: One cannot explain that it does not require Nesachim because it is not brought as a Neder or a Nedavah.

Refutation: Because one can explain the Gemara like this: Really, seeing as he is a sinner, he ought to bring a large Korban, whereas B'chor and Ma'aser, there is no reason why one should.

Clarification: It is implied here that, according to Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar, even a Nazir Tahor is considered a sinner, since a Nazir Tamei would have brought a Chatas ha'Of, and birds do not require Nesachim, as we learned in Perek Sh'tei Midos (Menachos, Daf 90b).

Support: And so the Gemara says explicitly, in the first Perek of Nedarim (Daf 10a) and in the third Perek of Nazir (Daf 19a), that although the Pasuk is written in connection with a Nazir Tamei, we say that, according to Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar, even a Nazir Tahor is a sinner.

Implied Question: And the reason the Pasuk says it by a Nazir Tamei ...

Answer: Is because the Nazir sinned twice.

Question: This is difficult however, from the opening Sugya in Nazir (Daf 2b) where the Mishnah declares someone who says 'I will be a Nazir' a Nazir. And in answer to the Gemara's question that perhaps he means that he will beautify himself before Hash-m with Mitzvos, Shmuel establishes the case where the person is holding his hair and announces that he will beautify himself with Nezirus.

Question (cont.): And in answer to the question that seeing as he is performing a sin, how can we call this beautifying himself?, the Gemara replies that even Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar, who describes a Nazir as a sinner, that is only a Nazir Tamei, because, since he needs to terminate the Nezirus, perhaps he will transgress it; But a Tahor Nazir is not considered a sinner ...

Refuted Answer: And even if one answers that Shmuel holds there that, according to Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar, a Tahor Nazir is not a sinner, whereas the S'tam Gemara here and in the third Perek of Nazir (Daf 19a) does not concur with Shmuel ...

Refuted Answer (cont.): And holds that the S'tam Mishnah which calls him 'beautiful' goes according to the Rabbanan, who maintain that he is not a sinner.

Refutation: Then we can still ask from Shmuel on to Shmuel, who says in the first Perek of Ta'anis (Daf 11a) that 'Whoever fasts is called a sinner' - because he holds like Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar.

Refutation (cont.): And Ta'anis is like a Tahor Nazir, as we say in the first Perek of Nedarim (Daf 10a), citing Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar 'From here we see that whoever fasts is called a sinner', and the Gemara there is referring to a Tahor Nazir as Tosfos explained, to which it now compares someone who fasts.

Answer: In that case we will have to say that also the S'tam Gemara in Nedarim which compares a Ta'anis to a Tahor Nazir does not go according to Shmuel, who compares him specifically to a Tamei Nazir, since he causes himself suffering by desisting from all food and retracts, like a Nazir Tamei, who retracts because he suffers from the fact that he now has to terminate his Nezirus.

Answer (cont.): Whereas a Nazir Tahor does not suffer.

Question #1: However the contradiction in Shmuel remains, since he says in the first Perek (above, Daf 11a) that Someone who fasts is called a sinner, whereas in Perek ha'Chovel (Bava Kama, Daf 91b) when the Gemara queries the Gemara there that a person is not permitted to inflict a wound on himself from a Beraisa which compares harming oneself (which is permitted) to doing good to oneself, which is permitted ...

Question #1 (cont.): Shmuel replies by establishing the Beraisa by someone who undertakes to fast?

Question #2: Furthermore it is difficult from the last Perek in K'risus (Daf 26a) which rules that Yom Kipur atones for any sin that only Hash-m knows about. And in answer to the Gemara's Kashya that, in that case, a Safek Nazir should not need to bring a Korban once Yom Kipur has passed, seeing as Yom Kipur has atoned for him?

Question #2 (cont.): It answers "le'Chol Chat'osam", 'and not 'le'Chol Tum'osam'.

Question #2 (cont.): And to answer the question according to Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar, the Gemara answers that a Nazir brings his Korban, not to atone, but in order to start his Nezirus Taharah afresh, or in order to resume drinking wine.

Question (concl.): So we see that the Korban of a Nazir, according to Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar does not come to atone, whereas in our Sugya it implies that, because it comes to atone for a sin, it does not require Nesachim?

Support: And so the Gemara says in the third Perek of Nazir (Daf 19a) that according to Rebbi Yishmael, a Chatas ha'Of (of a Nezirah) comes to atone for a sin, which is why, even if the husband uproots his wife's Neder, she still brings it.

Conclusive Remarks: The Gemara could have asked there on Rebbi Shimon here and on Rebbi Yishmael from Safek Nazir Tamei, and on Rebbi Shimon even from Safek Nazir Tahor.

Conclusive Remarks (cont.): And in the first Perek of Shevu'os (Daf 8a) too, the Gemara does not answer like it does in K'risus - that the Korban does not come to atone.

Question: Why does he (Rebbi Shimon) base his ruling on Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar. seeing as he himself also (like Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar) says in the first Perek of Nedarim (10a) that they (the early Chasidim) did not donate Nezirus in order not to be called 'sinners', as the Torah says "And he shall atone for him for having sinned (by defiling himself) over a dead person"?

Answer: The Gemara simply uses here same expression that it uses in other places.

Explanation #1: Rebbi Hillel explains - that it is a pearl.

Explanation #2: Another translation is 'spices', as in 'Chumr'sa de'Pilon' in Shabbos (Daf 62a) - which means mixed spices (as the Targum of "belulah" is 'Pila').

Explanation #3: Yet a third translation of Rebbi Sa'adya Ga'on is 'a sort of story', since, in Arama'ic vernacular, one person says to another 'Mah Chamrach"? (How are you doing?)

Clarification: This Sugya follows the opinion of Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava, who says in Perek ha'Mapeles (Nidah, Daf 23a), that, according to Rebbi Yishmael, even if neither side of a Gezeirah-Shavah is superfluous, one can nevertheless learn it, though one can query it.

Conclusion: However, according to the Maskana, that one learns it from "bi'Cheli", one can not even query Rav Yehudah, who says that one cannot learn from such a Gezeirah-Shavah at all.

Question: Since the water from the Kiyor, it is surely speaking where Kohanim have already washed from it?

Answer: Even if they did so without using the taps it would not be considered a Melachah regarding washing ...

Source: As we learned in the first Perek in Yadayim (Mishnah 3) 'If one did Melachah with the water or soaked one's bread in it, it is Pasul ...

Source (cont.): Yet the Mishnah says there (Mishnah 5) 'Water in which the baker dips in his loaves, is Pasul; but water in which he washes his hands, is Kasher.

Conclusion: So we see that only washing vessels and the water of the baker (for dipping in his loaves) is considered a Melachah, but not washing one's hands, as the Mishnah there explains.

Question #1: Since the water is from the Kiyor, which may comprise water from a Mikvah, which in turn, remains Kasher, even if its appearance has changed ...

Source: As we learned in the Mishnah in Mikva'os (Perek 7, Mishnah 3) - 'Colored water does not invalidate a Mikvah via changed appearance?

Question #2: And furthermore Tosfos Rebbe asked Why here, does the Gemara say 'Just as water has not changed ... ', whereas in the second Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 37b) does not conclude in this way (in connection with the cooking of Nochrim)?

Answer: We must therefore say that here as well, it is merely an Asmachta, and it is only Pasul mi'De'Rabbanan.

Question #1: Why does the Gemara ask what the Din will be regarding where it was fit and becomes fit again, when in Perek Lula ha'Gazul (Succah, Daf 33b) the Gemara already asked the same She'eilah and did not resolve it?

Question #2: Furthermore, in what way is this different than the Gemara in Zevachim, Perek Sheini (Daf 18b) 'If a Kohen did the Avodah wearing Bigdei Kehunah which tore or which became dirty, the Avodah is Pasul' ...

Question #2 (cont.): Yet if he washed the off dirt, they become permitted once more ...

Support: Like the Beraisa cited there in Perek ha'Mizbe'ach Mekadesh (Daf 88a) 'The Bigdei Kehunah are woven, and sewn. And should they become dirty, they may not be washed with washing soda or with 'Ohel' (a detergent)'.

Support (cont.): And on the Gemara's Kashya whether this means that that one may wash them with water, Abaye answers that if they can be washed clean with water, then one can even wash them with washing soda. So we see that one may wash them, and we do not say that once they are rejected, they remain rejected? Tosfos' Rebbe.

Clarification: Rashi explains that, since the Tana does not mention the fact that work was performed with it, this implies that he is particular about changing the object, but not about work.

Question: Tosfos Rebbe queries this from the Tosefta in Nega'im, in Perek Ein Metzora, where Rebbi Eliezer (the author of the current Mishnah is also Rebbi Eliezer) says that 'the piece of cedar-wood, the hyssop and the crimson thread of which the Torah speaks, must not have been worked with.

Question (cont.): From which we see that, in the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer himself, Melachah invalidates them?