Definition: Anything that is not the primary name is called a Kinuy, for Nezirus to take effect on him, as if he said the primary name, i.e. "Ehei Nazir";

It helps to become a Nazir when he said a Kinuy, [i.e.] "Ehei Nazik" or "Nazi'ach" or "Pazi'ach", just like the primary name. These are called Kinuyim.

Explanation: The Gemara explains that there is a proof [that he intended for this], e.g. a Nazir passed in front of him. This is called Yados Nezirus, for he did not finish his utterance;

Note: Tam Derech says that in most places in Nazir, Tosfos uses "Kemo" in place of "Kegon" (e.g.).

It helps for all laws of Nezirus to take effect on him, as if he finished his utterance;

This is like a man who holds the handle of a Kli and picks it up through the handle, as if he holds the Kli.

Explanation: Also this is called Yados Nezirus. In the Gemara (2b DH Amar), I will explain why we did not teach together in one clause, and teach "one who says "Ehei" or "Ehei Na'eh", he is a Nazir.

Explanation: Because [the Tana] wanted to explain all the Kinuyim, he began and said Nazir...

Note: Seemingly, "Nazir" is from the previous clause "Ehei Nazir"! Perhaps in Tosfos' text it says "Nazir" twice, and so it seems was the text of Meleches Shlomo (Arzei ha'Levanon).

I.e. Nazir is the primary name written in the Torah. Through this word, Nezirus takes effect on him.

The same applies if he said a Kinuy, e.g. Nazik Nazi'ach or Pazi'ach. The Reisha of our Mishnah comes to explain what was taught "all Kinuyim of Nezirus are like Nezirus.

Reference: Amora'im argue about Kinuyim in Nedarim (10a). R. Yochanan says that they are from other languages. I.e. these three expressions are from the 70 languages.

Question: According to R. Yochanan, what is special about these three expressions? Also for all 70 languages, if one accepted Nezirus in one of the other languages, Nezirus takes effect on him!

Answer: Indeed, also in the other languages, if one recognized and understands them, and intends to accept Nezirus, he is a Nazir;

However, for these are expressions in our Mishnah, when he said his acceptance of Nezirus in one of these three expressions, Nezirus takes effect on him even if he does not intend, for it resembles the Torah's expression more than other languages.

Explanation: Reish Lakish disagrees there, and says that they are words that Chachamim invented;

There [the Gemara] asks why they Chachamim made up and enacted Kinuyim [for Nedarim], and answers that sometimes one wants to say "la'Shem Korban", and he says only la'Shem, and he said Hash-m's name l'Vatalah (in vain);

Therefore, they enacted Kinuyim [for Korban, such as Konam], for there was no custom to say "la'Shem Konam." (We can say similarly about Nezirus.)

Question: According to Reish Lakish, how can one bring a Korban based on words that Chachamim invented? (Mid'Oraisa, he is not a Nazir. He has no Mitzvah to bring a Chatas.) He brings Chulin b'Azarah!

Answer #1: Since he intends to vow to be a Nazir, and he knows that Chachamim invented this word to vow to be a Nazir through it, this is a full acceptance, as if he said the expression written in the Torah.

Answer #2 (R. Yechi'el): Reish Lakish did not say that [Kinuyim work] regarding Korban, rather, regarding lashes. He is lashed if he transgressed Nezirus that he accepted in an expression that Chachamim made up.

Explanation: The Gemara establishes this when a Nazir passes in front of him. We do not need it for the law itself, for we learn this from the Reisha, that even if he said only "Ehei", and a Nazir passed in front of him, he is a Nazir;

Rather, it is needed for the inference. The reason is because he said ka'Zeh. Had he said only Hareini, even if a Nazir passed in front of him, it does not help.

"Ehei" connotes ka'Zeh (like this one) more than "Hareini" does when he did not conclude "ka'Zeh".

Explanation: These are not Yados Nezirus. If they were, they should have been taught above, with the Yados!

Rather, since he completed his utterance, but he did not explicitly explain that it is Nezirus, and we explain his utterance, it connotes that he comes to say Nezirus, when he said one of these expressions and held his hair, like the Gemara explains.

Explanation #1: We ask why it was taught in Seder Nashim. It should have been taught in Seder Kodshim, which is [primarily] laws of Korbanos!

We answer that the Tana refers to the verse "v'Hayah Im..." (one who divorces his wife due to immorality). What caused her to transgress? Wine.

I.e. what caused her to be Mezanah? Wine. Therefore, he taught the Masechta in Seder Nashim.

Explanation #1 (cont.): It says that anyone who sees a Sotah in her disgrace should separate himself from wine. This concludes what it said above, what caused the Aveirah? Wine.

I.e. [one might have thought that] it is proper that she guard herself from wine, but not through a Neder. Then he adds to say that anyone who sees a Sotah in her disgrace should separate himself from wine like a Nazir. (Birkas Rosh - women are not steadfast, so they should not accept Nezirus. However, a man who sees... should become a Nazir.)

This is because also he, the adulterer, is checked (he dies just like she does), like it says in Sotah (27b) that the man who had Bi'ah is checked just like she is. Therefore, he taught Nazir in Seder Nashim. (Birkas Rosh - therefore, he taught Maseches Nazir (as opposed to "Nezirah", even though it is) in [Seder] Nashim.)

Implied question: Why didn't the Gemara [in Nedarim] ask why [Nedarim] was taught in Seder Nashim?

Answer: This is because the primary Parshah of Nedarim is written in the Parshah [of annulling vows] of a woman.

Implied question: Why couldn't the Gemara give the reason like it says in Sotah (2a), like it asks "the Tana concluded with Nazir. Why did he teach Sotah [afterwards]?"

Note: Really, we do not know which Masechtos were taught earlier or later. The Gemara really asks about the order in which Rebbi arranged them after he codified the Mishnah (Tosfos Bava Metzi'a 2a DH Shenayim).

It answers there "since the Tana taught in Kesuvos the Perek of one who forbids his wife through a vow (70a), he taught also Nedarim. Since he taught Nedarim, he taught Nazir, which resembles it;

Summation of question: If so, also here we should answer that this is why he taught [Nedarim and Nazir] in Seder Nashim!

Answer: It is unreasonable to him that in order [to teach it] along with Nedarim, he would abandon Seder Kodshim, which totally discusses Korbanos, and Nazir is more appropriate to teach it there;

Just the contrary, along with [Nazir] he should have taught Nedarim there [in Seder Kodshim]! Therefore, he needed to give the reason that the Tana was dealing with the verse.

Question: Why does he elaborate to say "anyone who sees a Sotah...?" What is the connection of one to the other?

Note: Birkas Rosh says that the rest of this Dibur is a marginal note added to the Tosfos. It disagrees with Explanation #1.

Answer (and Explanation #2): When we say that the Tana was dealing with the verse, this does not refer to the verse written in the Parshah [of Nazir]. Rather, it refers to the verse brought in Gitin (90a) "v'Hayah Im..."

Support: Now, it is fine. Nazir was [taught] in Seder Nashim, for what caused the Aveirah? Wine...

However, in any case it is difficult why he taught Nezirus next to Sotah. He should have taught it after Gitin!

Therefore, he says that anyone who sees a Sotah in her disgrace should separate... Wine caused this Aveirah.

The reason given here does not suffice. If so, he should have taught Sotah first, and then Nazir, like the order of the Parshah (in Nasa)!

Therefore, he needs the reason that along with [Perek] ha'Madir, he taught Nedarim, and along with Nedarim, he taught Nazir, and then he returns to Sotah, which primarily belongs to Seder Nashim.

Explanation: In all of them, there is a reason [for what is explained first];

There, regarding his own Isur, i.e. it depends on the person himself, e.g. lighting, wrapping, and with what a woman may go out, it explains the Isur first;

There, regarding an animal, the Isur pertains to an animal. It explains the Heter first.

Explanation: [We ask that] in our Mishnah, it should explain first what it began with. Both Kinuyim and Yados are his own Isur!

Explanation: We expound in Nedarim (3a) from "Nazir Lehazir la'Shem" that Yados Nezirus are like [full acceptances of] Nezirus.

Explanation: This refers to Kinuyim, which do not require a Drashah, for they are total [acceptances of] Nezirus, just he said it with a nickname.

Explanation: If Shmuel held that they were considered Yadayim, why would he need to establish our Mishnah when a Nazir passes in front of him?

Even if a Nazir does not pass in front of him, when he said Ehei Nazir, this is a Yad;

It connotes Nezirus, which can take effect immediately, even if he ate [grapes] and drank wine the entire day, from half the day and onwards he can be a Nazir, more than it connotes accepting a fast, which if he already ate, he cannot begin to fast until tomorrow.

The word "Ehei" connotes I will be immediately. Therefore, [since it connotes Nezirus more than anything else,] it is a Yad;

If Shmuel did not require Yadayim Mochichos, even if a Nazir does not pass in front of him, also (it would be a valid Yad)!

Explanation: Indeed, surely Shmuel holds that Yadayim she'Einan Mochichos are not Yadayim. When a Nazir passes in front of him, there is no doubt that they are Yadayim Mochichos;

However, when a Nazir does not pass in front of him, perhaps he means Ehei (I will be) in a fast. I.e., therefore they are not Yadayim Mochichos.

Alternate text: Some texts say "no. When a Nazir does not pass in front of him." It means as follows;

Really, Shmuel does not require Yadayim Mochichos. When a Nazir passes in front of him, there is no doubt that it is a Yad;

When a Nazir does not pass in front of him, perhaps he means Ehei in a fast. I.e., it is not even a Yad.

Consequence: According to this text, we conclude here that Shmuel does not require Yadayim Mochichos.

Question: In Kidushin (5b), Shmuel taught that when a man said "you are Mekudeshes", even though he did not say "to me", she is Mekudeshes to him;

Citation (5b) Question: This implies that Shmuel holds that Yadayim she'Einan Mochichos are Yadayim. (Perhaps he is a Shali'ach to be Mekadesh her to someone else!) However, a Mishnah teaches that if one said Ehei Nazir, he is a Nazir, and Shmuel established it when a Nazir passes in front of him;

Citation (cont.) Inference: When a Nazir does not pass in front of him, no (he is not a Nazir). Shmuel must hold that Yadayim she'Einan Mochichos are not Yadayim!

The Gemara answers there "the case is, he said "to me." This shows that there, we conclude from Shmuel's words here (about Nazir) that Yadayim she'Einan Mochichos are not Yadayim!

Conclusion: Therefore, the text says "yes!" (Indeed, Shmuel holds that Yadayim she'Einan Mochichos are not Yadayim.) Here, "Leima (let us say)" is unlike other places in the Gemara where it says Leima, for here the suggestion is upheld.

Support: We find like this below (29b) "Leima that these Tana'im argue like these Tana'im", and this is upheld, like I will explain.

Explanation: This refers to what is obligatory for him (the Nazir) to bring when he finishes his Nezirus. [Perhaps this man who said Ehei] did not intend at all to accept Nezirus on himself!

Explanation: [He said in his heart that he intends] to be a Nazir. Even so, we require also that a Nazir passes in front of him, for acceptance in the heart has no effect;

This is because regarding Nazir, it says "Ki Yafli" - he must explicitly say with his mouth.

However, when a Nazir passes in front of him, and he clarified with his mouth "Ehei", and in his heart he thought that to be a Nazir, the intent of his heart helps as if he said with his mouth "Ehei Nazir", like this one passing in front of him.

The text: This is the text. It does not say "we do not require", for this connotes that we do not require his mouth and his heart to be the same (he said what he intended to say), but this is not true!

Any mistaken Neder is not a Neder. If he intended to say "Ma'aser", and said "Terumah", or vice-versa, regarding Peros in front of him, his words have no effect.

Also, [the latter text cannot be, for if so,] why do we need [a Nazir] passing in front of him? He is a Nazir because he intended in his heart, and we do not require his mouth and heart to be the same!

Explanation: Rather, it means "one might have thought that we require his mouth and heart to be the same", and here, when he did not explicitly say "Ehei Nazir", even though a Nazir passed in front of him, and he said in his heart "Nazir", this is not [considered that] his mouth and heart are the same;

The Mishnah teaches that this is not so. Intent of the heart reveals about his utterance of "Ehei". When a Nazir passes in front of him, he means Ehei Nazir. This is properly considered that his mouth and heart are the same.

Explanation: This refers to other Mitzvos, like the Beraisa teaches. What is the source to say that he accepted Nezirus?

Explanation: I will be beautiful in Mitzvos that depend on hair, e.g. Nezirus.

Implied question: Why couldn't we answer here without holding his hair, and a Nazir passed in front of him?

Answer: Here, he said a full matter, Ehei Na'eh. If he was not holding his hair, even if a Nazir passed in front of him, this properly connotes "I will be beautiful in other Mitzvos", just as much as [it connotes that] Nezirus.

Implied question: Above, when we asked "perhaps he means "I will be in a fast", why couldn't we answer that he was holding his hair, and without a Nazir passing in front of him?

Answer: Really, Ehei properly connotes "I will be in a fast" when a Nazir does not pass in front of him, even if he is holding his hair.

Support: Now it is fine that our Mishnah divided into two clauses - if one says Ehei, he is a Nazir, and Ehei Na'eh;

Even though both of these are Yados, [they are separate clauses] because there are different reasons for them.

Explanation: One who vows to be a Nazir transgresses. Do we call him beautiful?!

Alternate text: Some texts say "Avida". [I.e.] is this a proper, Kosher thing to do? It is an Aveirah!

The Gemara answers that even according to R. Elazar ha'Kapar [only a Nazir Tamei is called a sinner], lest he come to transgress his Nezirus, when the days become long for him. A Tahor [Nazir] is not called a sinner.

Question: Elsewhere, we bring that R. Elazar holds that even a Tahor Nazir is called a sinner, for he pained himself [through abstaining] from wine!

Answer: Also a Tahor Nazir is slightly called a sinner. In any case, the Mitzvah is greater than the Aveirah. Therefore, he is called beautiful, just like one who fasts on Shabbos due to an ominous dream;

He has a Mitzvah to be Mevatel [harsh decrees alluded to in] the dream, and a small Aveirah that he fasted on Shabbos. He must fast the day after Shabbos, to atone for fasting on Shabbos!

Distinction: However, a Nazir Tamei, the Torah called him a sinner, for he cancels his [count of] Nezirus and he must return to [start from the beginning] his Nezirus, and this is difficult in his eyes, and he regrets what he did.

Alternate text: Some texts say "he did not say 'I am like him.'"

Rebuttal: This is a mistake. Our Mishnah explicitly teaches Hareini ka'Zeh!

Suggestion: Perhaps the scribe erred about what is written after this. (Orach Mishur - the text said "Hareini ka'Zeh Lo (I am like him does not connote Nezirus). Amar Shmuel... The scribe added an extra "Amar", i.e. "Hareini ka'Zeh Lo Amar. Amar Shmuel....")

Citation of Gemara: Shmuel said, this is when a Nazir...

Explanation: I.e. one might have thought that a Nazir does not pass in front of him, rather, he is holding his hair, like the above [clause of the] Mishnah, Ehei Na'eh. We establish it when he was merely holding his hair [even though a Nazir does not pass in front of him].

Therefore, we ask that 'I am like him' does not connote a matter of Nezirus, even if he is holding his hair!

Shmuel answered that also here, a Nazir passes in front of him. Now, we need not say that he is holding his hair.