Daf: Nazir 18a-22b

We're getting into some relatively dry discussions here, but there is quite a bit to note along the way - from a methodological standpoint, a linguistic standpoint, and an interesting-tangent standpoint.

18a
Tosafos ולפטור notes that the Nazir would also be exempt from an Asham.

The gemara further on 18b will discuss what happens if the nazir does not bring his korban on Day 8.

18b
The אם אינו ענין approach to parsing a pasuk has always seemed very strange to me, and proof that the whole system of hermeneutics was based on received tradition rather than ab initio analysis.

The idea of a korban olah as a simple דורון בעלמא, a gift, is interesting. Look at Zevachim 7a-b, where the olah is viewed as an atonement for missed mitzvah opportunities.

19a
R’ Elazar haKappar is here given the title of “berebbi.” This does not mean “son of Rebbe.” Rather, it is explained in Rashi elsewhere as an Aramaic title indicating leadership status.

שנה בחטא – He repeated his sin. How did he “repeat” it? See Tosafos והיינו.

19b
Hilni haMalkah, also known as Helene of Adiabene, comes up here as a woman who vowed to be a nezirah. See also her exploits in the beginning of Succah (her piety) and in Yoma 37a (her generosity to the Beit haMikdash).

The Rosh here notes that the language used in Nazir is different from that used in the gemara in general.

20b
The Rosh at the end of the perek uses “Rami bar Chama” in place of “Rav Chama,” likely a copyist’s error, much like the omission of “Rav” in “Rav Simi” later on 27a.

21a
The use of “acharon אחרון” to mean “later” rather than “last” is very interesting. See also the Rashba’s response to a challenge re: Chaggai 2:9, which says “The honor of this house, the אחרון, will be greater than that of the first.” The Rashba was asked whether this meant the second Beit haMikdash would also be the last! The Rashba explained that the word אחרון can mean “later” rather than “last.”
We see examples of this usage in Bereishit 33:2 and Shemot 4:8.

21b
Regarding Rav Yehudah’s comment at the top of the page, the Rosh has two views as to whether this was implied or stated explicitly.