That whoever observes a sotah. Rashi is answering the question: Why was this not been placed next to the passage of Nedarim (vows), which is its fitting place? Re’m explains that there is no association whatsoever to the passage of the sotah, for she transgressed [one of] the Ten Commandments while the Nazirite sanctified himself, abstaining from that which was permitted to him. Therefore Rashi asks why this passage was placed here, even though such a question is not normal for Rashi.

In her decadence. Meaning how they degraded her, as it writes, “and expose her hair” (5:18).

Wine intoxicates. Meaning why is new wine called יין (wine) while old wine is called שכר (lit. intoxicating)? The answer is because it is [more] intoxicating.

Denotes adding color. Meaning [the adding of color by] the soaking of something in water or any other liquid. Because for the term כיבוס (lit. washing) which refers to immersion [in a mikveh] the Targum translates with the word ויצבע (related to the word for coloring), as Rashi explains at the end of Parshas Tazriah (Vayikra 13:58).

Like the tongue of a bell. Meaning that according to Rashi זג (skin) is from the same derivation as זוג (bell).

[His] hair. Meaning that the word “sacred” does not refer to his body, rather to his hair. Rashi’s proof is that the phrase preceding “he shall be sacred” refers to the hair as it writes “he shall not pass a razor over his head” and then the Torah writes “he shall be sacred.” Similarly the verse writes “he shall let the hair of his head grow long” which refers to the hair, and the word “sacred” is written in between, meaning that it apparently also refers to the hair.

For growing the growth. Rashi needed to add the lamed to the word לגדל (for growing) because once he had explained that “he shall be sacred” refers to the hair of his head, he explained how it would be sacred — that one should not cut it, rather grow it. The word פרע (growth) is also juxtaposed to the words “hair of his head” as if the verse were saying “for growing the growth of the hairs of the hair on his head.”

A small patach. Meaning a segol which is referred to as a small patach. Furthermore there is also a real patach vowelized below the reish.

Less than thirty days. Meaning that [we may infer this law] because the Torah writes “He (his hair) shall be sacred [for] growing the growth of hair,” and the word יהיה (shall be) has the numerical value of 30 [which teaches us the number of] days.

From defilement. Meaning that this is not like the words “he shall be sacred” above, where it was a description of his hair.

A sudden incident. Meaning that both words refer to the swiftness of the matter, that he did not realize that he would die and it was totally unavoidable. For if this was not so there would have been a partial transgression, or it would be possible that he had transgressed the prohibition (v. 6) “he shall have no contact with the dead.” The Nazirite saw that the person was ill and he should have been careful not to come into his tent in case he died, thus it would be a case of the unintentional bordering on the intentional. Therefore Rashi said another explanation that the words בפתע (suddenly) and פתאם (unexpectedly) are a single statement. Re’m may also have alluded to this explanation. Now it is understandable why Rashi reverses the order of his commentary, initially explaining the words suddenly and unexpectedly and afterwards adding “if someone died in the tent.” Meaning that now it is understandable why the verse says עליו (near him) — meaning that it was sudden and unexpected, as if this had happened upon him without him being able to avoid it, so too this person died suddenly meaning that he had not been ill. When Rashi says “a sudden incident,” this is not to teach the meaning of the words פתע פתאם only that something sudden and unexpected is termed a מקרה (a [chance] incident).

In the tent. Because if this were not so what difference would there be if someone died near him (given that there is no transfer of impurity in an open space), rather it must be explained as being “in the tent.” The word עליו (lit. upon him) is understood like [the meaning of] ועליו מטה מנשה (near him is the camp of Menashe). (Kitzur Mizrachi) The reason why Rashi did not comment according to the order of the verse, which says “if someone died near him” before “suddenly [or] unexpectedly” is because now that he had explained the alternative understanding that פתע פתאם (suddenly [or] unexpectedly) refers to a sudden incident there is a difficulty regarding the word עליו. This was understandable according to the first explanation that פתע refers to the unavoidable [chance event], there was no difficulty because since it was unavoidable it could be considered like the case in the verse “near him is the camp of Menashe”.

When he is sprinkled. It is called his purification even though he is not completely purified until he brings his atonement offering. This is because the day of his sprinkling is his partial purification.

Designated a time for the offerings. Meaning for the sacrificing of the offerings, as is written in Parshas Emor (Vayikra 22:27), “from the eighth day and onward it may be accepted as an offering.”

He inflicted suffering on himself. This implies that there was a transgression in abstaining from wine. You might ask: [How can we reconcile this with] Rashi’s explanation above that whoever sees a sotah in her decadence should take the nazirite vow against wine, [because wine can] lead to promiscuity. One answer is that it is certainly a mitzvah to take the nazirite vow against wine, but nonetheless it involves a minor transgression in causing oneself suffering by abstaining from wine. This is similar to one who fasts on Shabbos following a disturbing dream, this affliction of fasting likened to the great mitzvah of rejoicing on Shabbos, but nonetheless one has to fast again afterwards for one day to make up for fasting on Shabbos. Tosafos explain that the same is true here (Bava Kamma 91). Another answer is that it is certainly a mitzvah to abstain from wine, which intoxicates and leads to promiscuity. However new wine does not intoxicate, and [similarly] grapes, seeds and skins [so] this is the transgression of suffering by abstaining from them. You might ask: Since the Torah juxtaposed the chapter of the nazir to the chapter of the sotah it is implied that there is a mitzvah to take a nazirite vow against all types of wine and grapes in the manner of a nazir. The answer is that because one may not be able to restrain oneself and will be drawn after wine — which carries one even further — thus the Torah commanded one to take a nazirite vow against everything. As we say to the nazir “turn away, do not come close to the vineyard”. If nothing bad could come of it there would certainly have been a mitzvah to occasionally drink a little, because “wine and aromatic spices make one wise”. (R. Y. Triosh)

Of the burnt-offering and the peace- offering. To the exclusion of the sin-offering, for the Torah writes shortly (v.17) “He shall make the ram a peace-offering … and his meal-offering and libation” which refer to the ram as Rashi explains. But why did the Torah have to write this? Are they not included in the group of rams that require libations? Why were they mentioned separately? Rather it was to compare to them, just as peace-offerings can be brought as vowed-offerings or freewill-offerings and require meal-offerings and libations, so too all [all offerings that come] … This comes to exclude the sin-offerings that cannot be brought as vowed-offerings and freewill-offerings and do not require meal-offerings and libations (Perek Shtei Middos).

Ten of each kind. We learn a gezeirah shavah (a masoretic link between two similar words) with the word ‘matzos’ from ‘matzos’ in the case of the thanksgiving-offering. There one requires ten loaves of each type as it writes in Parshas Tzav regarding the thanksgiving-offering “and offer from it one of each as ‘terumah’ offering” (Vayikra 7:14) meaning like one takes terumah from ma'aser in the ratio of 1 from 10.

He shall slaughter. Meaning that the word יעשה (“he shall make”) means “he shall slaughter.” This is because the entire matter is dependent upon the time of slaughter — if one has an intention at that time to eat it after the allotted time or outside its designated place then it becomes invalid. Rashi also explains “along with the basket of matzos” to mean with the intent to sanctify the bread, because without this one would understand that he slaughtered with the intent to sanctify the basket but not the bread inside.

The Ram’s. So that one not say that it refers to each one of offerings mentioned above. This comes to exclude the sin-offering which does not. As above (v. 15)

But this would be grossly disrespectful. Because he would have to stand bareheaded, therefore it is forbidden to shave in the courtyard.

After the slaughter. As if it had said “the nazir shall shave” after the slaughter of the offering at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. This refers to the peace-offering.

The pot. Rashi is answering the question: “Put it in the fire” implies that he should place it directly to the fire, while afterwards it writes “which is under the peace-offering sacrifice” implying that it is under the flesh of the peace-offering. The flesh was cooked in a pot thus this would imply that one would also have to place the hair in the pot that was beneath the peace-offering. Therefore he explains that it was underneath the pot … meaning that the word “underneath” does not refer to under the flesh inside the pot, rather to the fire that was underneath the pot.

Were cooked in the courtyard. The peace-offerings of a nazir may be eaten anywhere, and are like unconsecrated meat. Nonetheless one must cook them in the courtyard because one must remove the foreleg, which is sacred, after it has been cooked and give it to the kohein. Because of this foreleg that is given to the kohein one must cook it in the courtyard.

After it was cooked. Meaning that one gives it to the kohein once it is cooked. One might ask: Why doesn’t the foreleg, which is consecrated, prohibit the meat of the ram that was cooked along with it? The answer is that since the foreleg comprises one sixtieth of the ram it is considered annulled in sixty times its volume.

The loaf. The word הוא (it) which normally refers to a single item, refers to what was waved, as dictated by the context. Thus it refers to the three items and הוא is in place of הם (they).

Besides the breast. Meaning that the word על (lit. upon) substitutes for the word מלבד (“besides”), rather than its literal meaning of “upon”. Rashi mentions what is “due to him” meaning those items mentioned previously in Parshas Tzav (Vayikra 7:34), and the peace-offerings of the nazir are included among them. They were only written here for the foreleg that is added in the nazirite peace-offerings but is not part of the other peace-offerings.

Because the [nazirite] peace-offerings were. You might ask: If so, since the nazirite peace-offerings were included in the group of normal peace-offerings, where the Torah writes “for the breast of the wave offering …” (Vayikra 7:34) why did the Torah have to write “besides the breast of the wave-offering…” here? Rashi answers that it is “because the [nazirite] peace-offerings…”

Relative to a hundred burnt-offerings. But not relative to a hundred sin-offerings. When the Torah writes “what he can afford to bring” it only refers to offerings that come as vowed-offerings or freewill-offerings that are dependent on what one can afford.

Increase but not reduce. Meaning that because the verse explains “according to his vow that he vow, so shall he fulfill” this implies whether one increased or reduced from what was prescribed. Therefore it writes “על (in addition to) the laws of his nazirite [vows]” where על literally means “upon” – such as when one vows more than the law of the nazirite vow. However if it was less than the law of the nazirite vow, such as where one said “I am hereby a nazirite five times …” [this is not effective].

Like זכור (remembering). Meaning that it is in the present tense. This is how Rashi explains the word זכור (Shemos 20:8) — that one should pay attention to continuously remember, denoting an ongoing action.

They all hear. According to this the word אמור (“saying”) refers to Aharon and his sons while the word להם (“to them”) means to the Bnei Yisroel. It is as if it had said “each one of you shall say the subsequent blessings יברכך, יאר, ישא to Yisroel. (Gur Aryeh) explains that when the Torah states “saying to them” while it should have said “bless them”. It only spoke in the terminology of “saying” to teach that the blessing should be like a statement — that they hear the blessing.

I will concur. But one should not explain that He would bless them Himself, because what would be the purpose of the blessing of the kohanim if Hashem were to bless them.

[And I] will bless them—the kohanim. According to the first explanation the words “And I will bless them” means that I will concur with them, but this appears forced therefore Rashi says another interpretation. According to the last explanation there is also a difficulty: The implication of the verse is that it refers to Yisroel and not to the kohanim, therefore the first explanation was also required.