json/Mishnah/Seder Nashim/Mishnah Nazir/English/William Davidson Edition - English.json

{
    "language": "en",
    "title": "Mishnah Nazir",
    "versionSource": "https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1",
    "versionTitle": "William Davidson Edition - English",
    "status": "locked",
    "priority": 2.0,
    "license": "CC-BY-NC",
    "versionNotes": "English from The William Davidson digital edition of the <a href='https://www.korenpub.com/koren_en_usd/koren/talmud/koren-talmud-bavli-no.html'>Koren Noé Talmud</a>, with commentary by <a href='/adin-even-israel-steinsaltz'>Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz</a>",
    "shortVersionTitle": "Koren - Steinsaltz",
    "actualLanguage": "en",
    "languageFamilyName": "english",
    "isBaseText": false,
    "isSource": false,
    "direction": "ltr",
    "heTitle": "משנה נזיר",
    "categories": [
        "Mishnah",
        "Seder Nashim"
    ],
    "text": [
        [
            "One becomes a nazirite by taking a nazirite vow, in which he simply declares himself a nazirite, as detailed in the Torah (Numbers 6:1–21). Additionally, <b>all substitutes</b> for the language <b>of nazirite vows are like nazirite vows</b> and are binding. Furthermore, intimations of nazirite vows, i.e., incomplete statements that are understood from context to be meant as nazirite vows, are considered binding nazirite vows. Consequently, <b>one who says: I will be,</b> without further clarification, <b>is a nazirite,</b> as this is his implied intention. <b>Or,</b> if he said: <b>I will be beautiful,</b> he is <b>a nazirite.</b> The substitutes for the language of nazirite vows are as follows: If one says: I will be <b>a <i>nazik</i>,</b> a <b><i>nazi’aḥ</i>,</b> or <b>a <i>pazi’aḥ</i>, he is a nazirite.</b> If one says: <b>I am hereby like this, I am hereby</b> a hair <b>curler, I am hereby growing</b> my <b>hair;</b> or: <b>It is</b> incumbent <b>upon me to grow long hair, he is a nazirite.</b> If one says: An obligation <b>is hereby</b> incumbent <b>upon me</b> with regard to <b>birds, Rabbi Meir says: He is a nazirite.</b> A nazirite brings two bird-offerings if he inadvertently becomes ritually impure from a corpse (Numbers 6:10), and it is understood that the individual used this indirect phrase to take a vow of naziriteship. <b>And the Sages say: He is not a nazirite.</b>",
            "If one said: <b>I am hereby a nazirite</b> and therefore will refrain <b>from</b> grape <b>seeds, or:</b> I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain <b>from</b> grape <b>skins, or: From shaving, or: From impurity, he is a nazirite. And all details of naziriteship</b> are incumbent <b>upon him.</b> Not only does the prohibition he mentioned take effect, he is bound by all of the strictures of naziriteship. If one said: <b>I am hereby like Samson, like the son of Manoah, like the husband of Delilah, like the one who tore off the doors of Gaza, like the one whose eyes were gouged out by the Philistines, he is a nazirite</b> like <b>Samson,</b> whose <i>halakhot</i> are explained in the next mishna (see Judges, chapters 13–16). <b>What is</b> the difference <b>between a permanent nazirite and a nazirite</b> like <b>Samson,</b> both of whom remain nazirites forever? In the case of <b>a permanent nazirite,</b> if <b>his hair grows</b> too <b>heavy</b> for him, <b>he lightens</b> it by cutting some hair <b>with a razor, and he</b> then <b>brings three animals</b> as a sin-offering, a burnt-offering, and a peace-offering, like one who completes his term of naziriteship. <b>And if he becomes ritually impure, he brings</b> the <b>offering</b> for <b>impurity</b> brought by a regular nazirite who became impure. By contrast, in the case of <b>a nazirite</b> like <b>Samson,</b> if <b>his hair grows heavy he may not lighten</b> it, since he is entirely prohibited from cutting his hair. <b>And if he becomes impure, he does not bring an offering</b> for <b>impurity.</b>",
            "In the case of <b>unspecified naziriteship</b>, where one does not state how long he wishes to be a nazirite, the term lasts for <b>thirty days</b>. If <b>one said: I am hereby a nazirite</b> for <b>one long</b> term, or: <b>I am hereby a nazirite</b> for <b>one short</b> term, or <b>even</b> if one said: I am hereby a nazirite <b>from now until the end of the world,</b> in all these cases he is <b>a nazirite</b> for <b>thirty days.</b> If one said: <b>I am hereby a nazirite and one day,</b> or: <b>I am hereby a nazirite and one hour,</b> or: <b>I am hereby a nazirite</b> for <b>one and a half, he</b> becomes <b>a nazirite</b> for <b>two</b> consecutive terms of naziriteship. When he says: I am hereby a nazirite, he accepts upon himself one thirty-day term of naziriteship. When he subsequently adds an additional amount of time, e.g., an extra day, he thereby accepts upon himself an additional term of naziriteship, and the minimal term of naziriteship is thirty days. One who says: <b>I am hereby a nazirite</b> for <b>thirty days and one hour,</b> becomes <b>a nazirite</b> for <b>thirty-one days, as there is no naziriteship for hours</b> but only for full days.",
            "If one says: <b>I am hereby a nazirite like the hair of my head, or: Like the dust of the earth, or: Like the sand of the sea, he is a nazirite forever.</b> He has accepted a separate term of naziriteship for every hair or particle of dust or sand, which in practice means that he will be a nazirite forever. <b>And</b> he <b>shaves</b> his hair <b>once</b> every <b>thirty days.</b> <b>Rabbi</b> Yehuda HaNasi <b>says: This</b> nazirite <b>does not shave</b> his hair <b>once</b> every <b>thirty days,</b> as he has accepted upon himself one long term of naziriteship lasting for as many days as there are hairs or particles of dust or sand. <b>And who is</b> the nazirite who <b>shaves</b> his hair <b>once</b> every <b>thirty</b> days? One <b>who says: It is hereby</b> incumbent <b>upon me</b> to observe <b>naziriteships like the hair of my head, or: Like the dust of the earth, or: Like the sand of the sea.</b> Since he used the plural term naziriteships, it is clear that he is accepting distinct terms of naziriteship.",
            "If one says: <b>I am hereby a nazirite</b> in accordance with <b>the capacity of the house, or: The capacity of the basket, one checks</b> with <b>him</b> what he had in mind. <b>If he said:</b> My intention was to <b>take a nazirite vow</b> for <b>one long</b> term of naziriteship, he is <b>a nazirite</b> for only <b>thirty days,</b> in accordance with the ruling of the mishna that the words long or short are of no account when used in a nazirite vow (7a). <b>And if he said: I took a nazirite vow without specification,</b> it is assumed that he meant to accept upon himself terms of naziriteship corresponding to the number of items that fit into the basket, and the smallest items normally placed in baskets are used for this evaluation. Consequently, one <b>views the basket as though</b> it were <b>full of mustard</b> seeds, which are extremely small, <b>and he is a nazirite</b> for <b>his entire life.</b>",
            "If one says: <b>I am hereby a nazirite from here until such and such a place, one estimates how many days</b> it takes to walk <b>from here until such and such a place. If</b> it is <b>less than thirty days,</b> he is <b>a nazirite</b> for <b>thirty days,</b> since this is the minimum term of naziriteship. <b>And if not,</b> i.e., if it takes more than thirty days to walk that distance, he is <b>a nazirite in accordance with the number of days</b> it takes to walk to that place.",
            "If one says: <b>I am hereby a nazirite in accordance with the number of days</b> in <b>a solar</b> year, he <b>counts</b> 365 consecutive <b>naziriteships, in accordance with the number of days</b> in <b>a solar</b> year. <b>Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident</b> where someone took this vow and observed 365 consecutive terms of naziriteship. <b>Once he completed</b> all these terms of naziriteship, <b>he died.</b>"
        ],
        [
            "If one says: <b>I am hereby a nazirite</b> and therefore will refrain <b>from dried figs and from cakes of dried figs, Beit Shammai say:</b> His statement renders him a full-fledged <b>nazirite,</b> and his addition: From dried figs, is insignificant, as this fruit is not included in the prohibitions of a nazirite, which include only products of the grapevine. <b>And Beit Hillel say: He is not a nazirite,</b> since he did not accept naziriteship upon himself. <b>Rabbi Yehuda said: Even when Beit Shammai said</b> that this vow takes effect, <b>they said</b> that <b>only in</b> a case <b>where</b> one <b>said</b> that he meant: <b>They are hereby</b> forbidden <b>to me</b> as <b>an offering.</b> In that case it is as though he took a vow rendering the figs forbidden to him. However, Beit Shammai concede that although the vow takes effect, it is not a vow of naziriteship.",
            "If one <b>said: This cow said: I am hereby a nazirite if I stand up;</b> or if he said: <b>This door says: I am hereby a nazirite if I am opened, Beit Shammai say</b> he is <b>a nazirite, and Beit Hillel say</b> he is <b>not a nazirite. Rabbi Yehuda said: Even when Beit Shammai say</b> that the vow is effective, <b>they say</b> so <b>only</b> with regard to <b>one who said: This cow is hereby</b> forbidden <b>to me</b> as <b>an offering if it stands up.</b> In that case it is as if he took a vow that the cow is forbidden. However, Beit Shammai concede that although the vow takes effect, it is not a vow of naziriteship.",
            "If <b>they poured one a cup</b> of wine <b>and he said: I am hereby a nazirite</b> and therefore will refrain <b>from it, he is a</b> full-fledged <b>nazirite</b> who must observe all the <i>halakhot</i> of naziriteship. <b>An incident</b> occurred <b>with regard to a certain woman who was intoxicated</b> from wine, <b>and they poured a cup for her and she said: I am hereby a nazirite</b> and therefore will refrain <b>from it. The Sages said: This</b> woman <b>did not intend</b> to accept naziriteship <b>but</b> rather, meant <b>to say: It is hereby</b> forbidden <b>to me</b> as <b>an offering.</b> She vowed against deriving benefit from that cup alone, since she did not want to drink any more.",
            "If one says: <b>I am hereby a nazirite on the condition that I will</b> be allowed to <b>drink wine and may become</b> ritually <b>impure from corpses,</b> i.e., he wishes to be a nazirite only with respect to the growth of his hair, <b>he is a</b> full-fledged <b>nazirite and is prohibited from</b> engaging in <b>all of the</b> behaviors forbidden to a nazirite, including consuming products of the vine and contracting impurity from a corpse. If one stated a vow of naziriteship and then said: <b>I know that there is naziriteship, but I do not know that a nazirite is prohibited from wine, he is prohibited</b> in all the prohibitions of naziriteship. <b>But Rabbi Shimon permits</b> him, since he holds that naziriteship takes effect only if the person accepts all the relevant prohibitions. If one said: <b>I know that a nazirite is prohibited from wine, but I thought that the Sages</b> would <b>permit me</b> to drink wine <b>because I cannot live without wine, or:</b> I thought that the Sages would allow me to contract impurity from corpses <b>because I bury the dead, he is permitted</b> and the vow of naziriteship does not take effect, <b>but Rabbi Shimon prohibits</b> him.",
            "If one says: <b>I am hereby a nazirite and it is</b> incumbent <b>upon me to shave a nazirite,</b> meaning he will also pay for the offerings that a nazirite brings when he cuts his hair; <b>and another heard and said: And I</b> too am a nazirite <b>and it is</b> incumbent <b>upon me to shave a nazirite,</b> the other is also a nazirite and is obligated to pay for the offerings of a nazirite. <b>If they were perspicacious</b> and wish to limit their expenses, <b>they shave each other.</b> They may each pay for the other’s offerings, so that their additional vows will not cost them anything. <b>And if not,</b> if this arrangement did not occur to them and each brought his own offerings, <b>they shave other nazirites,</b> i.e., they must pay for the offerings of other nazirites.",
            "If one says: <b>It is</b> incumbent <b>upon me to shave half a nazirite,</b> i.e., he is vowing to pay half the costs of a nazirite’s offerings, <b>and another heard and said: And I, it is</b> incumbent <b>upon me to shave half a nazirite, this</b> one <b>shaves a whole nazirite and that</b> one <b>shaves a whole nazirite,</b> i.e., each pays the full cost of a nazirite’s offerings; this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Meir,</b> since there is no such entity as half a nazirite. <b>And the Rabbis say: This</b> one <b>shaves half a nazirite and that</b> one <b>shaves half a nazirite;</b> they may join together to pay for the offerings of one nazirite.",
            "If one said: <b>I am hereby a nazirite when I will have a son, and a son was born to him, he is a nazirite.</b> If <b>a daughter, a <i>tumtum</i>, or a hermaphrodite [<i>androginos</i>] is born to him, he is not a nazirite,</b> since a son was not born to him. However, <b>if he says:</b> I am hereby a nazirite <b>when I will have a child,</b> then <b>even if a daughter, a <i>tumtum</i>, or a hermaphrodite is born to him, he is a nazirite.</b>",
            "However, if <b>his wife miscarried he is not a nazirite,</b> since his wife did not give birth to a live child. <b>Rabbi Shimon says:</b> Since it is possible that the fetus was viable, in which case his vow of naziriteship takes effect, <b>he should say</b> the following: <b>If</b> this fetus <b>was viable</b> in terms of its development but died due to other causes, <b>I am hereby an obligatory nazirite</b> in fulfillment of my vow; <b>and if</b> it was <b>not</b> viable, <b>I am hereby a voluntary nazirite.</b> He then proceeds to observe naziriteship. If, subsequent to this, his wife <b>gave birth again, he is a nazirite,</b> since the unattributed opinion in the mishna holds that the condition of his vow has now been fulfilled. <b>Rabbi Shimon says,</b> following his earlier ruling: He must now accept upon himself an additional naziriteship and <b>he should say: If the first</b> fetus was <b>viable</b> then my naziriteship for <b>the first</b> child was <b>obligatory, and this</b> naziriteship is <b>voluntary; and if</b> the first child was <b>not</b> viable, then the naziriteship for <b>the first</b> one was <b>voluntary and this</b> naziriteship is <b>obligatory.</b>",
            "In a case where one said: <b>I am hereby a nazirite</b> now, <b>and</b> I will be <b>a nazirite when I will have a son,</b> and <b>he began counting his</b> own term of naziriteship, i.e., his first vow, <b>and afterward</b> in the middle of this naziriteship period <b>a son was born to him,</b> he first <b>completes his</b> own initial term of naziriteship <b>and afterward he counts</b> the term of naziriteship he vowed on the condition <b>of</b> the birth of <b>his son.</b> However, if he reversed the order and said: <b>I am hereby a nazirite when I will have a son, and</b> I am hereby <b>a nazirite,</b> and he <b>began counting his</b> own term of naziriteship <b>and afterward,</b> during this period, <b>a son was born to him,</b> he <b>sets aside his</b> own term of naziriteship <b>and counts that</b> which he vowed on condition of the birth <b>of his son, and afterward</b> he <b>completes his</b> own term of naziriteship.",
            "In the case of one who said: <b>I am hereby a nazirite when I will have a son, and</b> he added: I am hereby <b>a nazirite</b> from now for <b>one hundred days,</b> and he then began observing the one hundred days of his naziriteship, if <b>a son is born to him up to seventy</b> days from the start of his naziriteship <b>he has not lost anything.</b> He pauses from the observance of the naziriteship of one hundred days and observes the thirty-day term for his son. He then completes the thirty or more days left of his initial naziriteship. However, if his son is born <b>after seventy</b> days, this <b>negates</b> the first <b>seventy</b> days, and he must observe a full hundred days after he completes the naziriteship for his son. The reason is that here, he is unable to merely complete the remaining days of his initial naziriteship after shaving at the completion of the naziriteship for his son, <b>since shaving cannot</b> be performed after a period of <b>less than thirty days.</b>"
        ],
        [
            "<b>One who said: I am hereby a nazirite,</b> without specifying how long his term of naziriteship would last, <b>shaves</b> his hair on the <b>thirty-first day</b> after the start of his naziriteship, as an unspecified term of naziriteship lasts thirty days. <b>And if he shaved on the thirtieth day, he has fulfilled</b> his obligation. If he explicitly said: <b>I am hereby a nazirite</b> for <b>thirty days,</b> then, <b>if he shaved on the thirtieth day, he has not fulfilled</b> his obligation. Since the naziriteship would have been for thirty days even without him stating: For thirty days, this addition is understood to indicate that he will observe naziriteship for a full thirty days.",
            "<b>One who accepted two</b> terms of <b>naziriteship shaves</b> at the close of <b>the first</b> naziriteship on the <b>thirty-first day, and</b> at the close of <b>the second</b> term on the <b>sixty-first day.</b> Since his second term of naziriteship begins after shaving on the thirty-first day, the sixty-first day of the first term is the thirty-first day of his second term. <b>And if he shaved</b> for <b>the first</b> term on the <b>thirtieth day, he shaves</b> for <b>the second</b> term on the <b>sixtieth day,</b> which is the thirty-first day after the start of his second term of naziriteship. <b>And if he shaved</b> for the second term on <b>day sixty less one, he has fulfilled</b> his obligation, as this is the thirtieth day of his second term. <b>And this testimony was attested to</b> by <b>Rabbi Pappeyas,</b> who heard from his teachers <b>with regard to one who vowed</b> to observe <b>two</b> terms of <b>naziriteship, that if he shaved</b> for <b>the first</b> term on the <b>thirtieth day, he shaves</b> for <b>the second</b> term <b>on the sixtieth day. And if he shaved</b> for the second term <b>on</b> the <b>day sixty less one, he has fulfilled</b> his obligation, <b>because the thirtieth day</b> of the first term of naziriteship <b>counts</b> as part <b>of his tally</b> of the second term.",
            "<b>One who said: I am hereby a nazirite,</b> without further specification, if <b>he became ritually impure</b> through contact with a corpse on the <b>thirtieth day</b> of his term of naziriteship, <b>it negates the entire</b> tally, and he must start his naziriteship afresh. <b>Rabbi Eliezer says: It negates only seven</b> days, which he must observe until his purification, after which he brings his offerings. If he said: <b>I am hereby a nazirite</b> for <b>thirty days,</b> and <b>he became impure</b> on the <b>thirtieth day,</b> everyone agrees that <b>it negates the entire</b> tally. ",
            "If he said: <b>I am hereby a nazirite</b> for <b>one hundred days,</b> if <b>he became impure</b> on the <b>one hundredth day, it negates the entire</b> tally. <b>Rabbi Eliezer says: It negates only thirty</b> days, and he observes the final thirty days again. If <b>he became impure</b> on the <b>one hundred and first day</b> before bringing his offerings, <b>it negates</b> only <b>thirty days,</b> but does not negate all of the observed days. <b>Rabbi Eliezer says: It negates only seven</b> days.",
            "<b>One who took a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery, even if he was there</b> for a full <b>thirty days</b> without leaving, those days he spent in the cemetery <b>do not count</b> as part <b>of his tally,</b> since his naziriteship has not yet gone into effect. <b>And he</b> therefore <b>does not bring</b> the three <b>offerings of impurity,</b> brought by a nazirite when rendered ritually impure by contact with a corpse, despite having been in a cemetery. If <b>he left</b> the cemetery <b>and entered</b> it again, those days <b>do count</b> as part <b>of his tally,</b> meaning the naziriteship takes effect, <b>and he does bring the offerings of impurity</b> for reentering the cemetery. <b>Rabbi Eliezer says:</b> This <i>halakha</i> does <b>not</b> apply to one who entered the cemetery <b>on the very day</b> that he left it, <b>as it is stated</b> with regard to the <i>halakhot</i> of a ritually impure nazirite: <b>“But the first days shall be void”</b> (Numbers 6:12), which indicates that he does not bring the offerings <b>until he will have “first days”</b> of purity, during which he observed his naziriteship.",
            "<b>One who vowed many</b> days of <b>naziriteship</b> while outside Eretz Yisrael, <b>and completed his naziriteship, and afterward came to Eretz</b> Yisrael, in order to bring the offerings at the end of his naziriteship, <b>Beit Shammai say:</b> He must be <b>a nazirite</b> for <b>thirty days,</b> so that he has observed a term of naziriteship in ritual purity in Eretz Yisrael, <b>and Beit Hillel say:</b> He is <b>a nazirite from the beginning,</b> that is, he must observe his entire naziriteship again. The mishna cites a related story: <b>An incident</b> occurred <b>with regard to Queen Helene, whose son had gone to war, and she said: If my son will return from war safely, I will be a nazirite</b> for <b>seven years. And her son returned</b> safely <b>from the war, and she was a nazirite</b> for <b>seven years. And at the end of seven years, she ascended to Eretz</b> Yisrael, <b>and Beit Hillel instructed her,</b> in accordance with their opinion, <b>that she should be a nazirite for an additional seven years. And at the end of</b> those <b>seven years she became ritually impure,</b> and was therefore required to observe yet another seven years of naziriteship, as ritual impurity negates the tally of a nazirite. <b>And she was found to be a nazirite</b> for <b>twenty-one years. Rabbi Yehuda said: She was a nazirite</b> for <b>only fourteen years</b> and not twenty-one.",
            "In a case of <b>one who had two sets of witnesses testifying about him</b> that he had taken a vow of naziriteship for a certain period, and <b>these</b> witnesses <b>testify that he took a vow of naziriteship</b> for <b>two</b> terms, <b>and these</b> witnesses <b>testify that he took a vow of naziriteship</b> for <b>five</b> terms. <b>Beit Shammai say: The testimony is divided,</b> i.e., the testimonies contradict each other, and since the testimonies are in conflict they are both rejected entirely <b>and there is no naziriteship here</b> at all. <b>And Beit Hillel say:</b> The testimonies are not completely in conflict with each other, as <b>two</b> terms <b>are included in five</b> terms, and the unanimous testimony, <b>that he is a nazirite</b> for <b>two</b> terms, is accepted."
        ],
        [
            "With regard to <b>one who said: I am hereby a nazirite, and another heard</b> this vow <b>and said: And I,</b> and a third person added: <b>And I, they are all nazirites.</b> If the vow of <b>the first was dissolved</b> by a halakhic authority, <b>they are all dissolved.</b> However, if the vow of <b>the last</b> individual <b>was dissolved</b> by a halakhic authority, the vow of <b>the last</b> individual alone <b>is dissolved, and all</b> the others remain <b>bound</b> by their nazirite vows. If someone <b>said: I am hereby a nazirite, and another heard and said: My mouth is like his mouth and my hair is like his hair, he is a nazirite.</b> If one said: <b>I am hereby a nazirite, and his wife heard</b> him <b>and said: And I,</b> he can <b>nullify her</b> vow of naziriteship if he so chooses (see Numbers 30:7–16). <b>But his</b> vow remains <b>intact,</b> as his naziriteship is not dependent on hers. However, if the wife said: <b>I am hereby a nazirite, and her husband heard and said: And I, he cannot nullify</b> her vow of naziriteship, as he would thereby be nullifying his own vow, which he made dependent on hers, and he does not have the ability to nullify his own vow. ",
            "If he said to his wife: <b>I am hereby a nazirite, and you,</b> i.e., you shall be a nazirite as well, <b>and she said: Amen,</b> in acceptance of this vow, <b>he can nullify her</b> vow, <b>and his</b> vow remains <b>intact.</b> However, if the wife said: <b>I am hereby a nazirite, and you, and he said: Amen, he cannot nullify</b> her vow. ",
            "With regard to <b>a woman who vowed to be a nazirite, and</b> she transgressed her vow since <b>she was drinking wine and rendering herself ritually impure by</b> contact with <b>the dead, she incurs the forty</b> lashes for each of the Torah prohibitions she transgressed. If <b>her husband nullified her</b> vow, <b>and she did not know that her husband had nullified her</b> vow, <b>and she was drinking wine and rendering herself impure by</b> contact with <b>the dead, she does not incur the forty</b> lashes, as she is no longer a nazirite. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> Even <b>if she does not incur the forty</b> lashes by Torah law, <b>she should incur lashes for rebelliousness [<i>makat mardut</i>],</b> an extrajudicial punishment imposed by the Sages, for her intention to commit a transgression, since she believed that it was prohibited to her.",
            "With regard to <b>a woman who vowed to be a nazirite and separated her animals</b> for her offerings of purity at the end of her term, <b>and afterward her husband nullified her vow,</b> which means that she is not in fact a nazirite, what becomes of these animals? <b>If the animal was his, it shall go out and graze among</b> the <b>flock</b> until it becomes blemished, like regular non-consecrated animals. <b>And if the animal was hers,</b> different <i>halakhot</i> apply to the various offerings: <b>The</b> animal she set aside as <b>a sin-offering must</b> be left to <b>die</b> by being shut in an enclosed area and deprived of food and water, as will be explained in the Gemara. <b>And</b> the animal separated for <b>a burnt-offering is sacrificed</b> on the altar as <b>a burnt-offering,</b> as in any case one may bring a voluntary burnt-offering. As for the one designated for <b>a peace-offering,</b> it is <b>sacrificed</b> as a voluntary <b>peace-offering. And</b> this peace-offering <b>is eaten for</b> only <b>one day,</b> in accordance with the <i>halakha</i> of the nazirite’s peace-offering, despite the fact that regular peace-offerings may be eaten for two days. <b>But</b> the offering <b>does not require bread,</b> i.e., loaves and wafers, unlike that of a nazirite. If <b>she had unallocated funds,</b> i.e., she had separated money for her offerings but had not stated which coins were designated for which offering, all the money <b>will be earmarked for</b> communal <b>gift</b> offerings. If she had <b>allocated funds,</b> i.e., she had decided which coins were for the payment of each offering, even if she had not yet purchased the animals, <b>the money for the sin-offering</b> is <b>taken</b> and cast <b>into the Dead Sea,</b> i.e., it must be destroyed, either by being thrown into the sea or by some other means. One may <b>not benefit</b> from it, as it possesses a measure of sanctity, <b>but</b> one also does <b>not misuse</b> property consecrated to the Temple <b>with it.</b> In other words, if one did derive benefit from this money he is not liable to bring an offering for misusing consecrated property. As for <b>the money for the burnt-offering, a burnt-offering is brought</b> with those coins, <b>and</b> one who benefits <b>from it</b> is liable for <b>misuse</b> of consecrated property, as it is sacred since it can be used toward the purchase of a gift offering. Similarly, with regard to <b>the money for a peace-offering, a peace-offering is brought</b> with those coins, <b>and</b> it <b>is eaten for one day and does not require bread.</b>",
            "The previous mishna discussed the case of a husband who nullified his wife’s vow after she separated her offerings of naziriteship. This mishna deals with a husband who nullified his wife’s naziriteship after she had completed her term and brought her offerings to the Temple. If <b>the blood</b> from <b>one of</b> her naziriteship offerings <b>was sprinkled</b> on the altar <b>on her behalf,</b> the husband <b>cannot nullify</b> her vow at this point. <b>Rabbi Akiva says: Even</b> before the sprinkling of the blood, <b>he cannot nullify</b> the vow as soon as <b>any one of the animals</b> for her offerings <b>has been slaughtered on her behalf.</b> The mishna continues: <b>In what</b> case <b>is this statement,</b> that he can no longer nullify the vow, <b>said?</b> It is when she is bringing the offerings <b>for</b> her <b>shaving of ritual purity,</b> when she has completed her term of naziriteship without becoming ritually impure (see Numbers 6:18). <b>However,</b> if she is sacrificing the offerings <b>for</b> her <b>shaving of impurity,</b> when she became ritually impure during her term of naziriteship, after which she restarts her naziriteship (see Numbers 6:9), her husband <b>can nullify</b> her vow. The reason is <b>that he can say: I do not want a downcast [<i>menuvvelet</i>] wife,</b> who does not drink wine. She would have to refrain from wine for a lengthy period if she were to begin her naziriteship anew. <b>Rabbi Meir says: He can nullify</b> her vow <b>even</b> at the stage <b>of</b> her <b>shaving of purity,</b> after she has begun sacrificing her offerings, <b>as he can say: I do not want a shaven wife,</b> and a nazirite is obligated to shave after bringing his or her offerings. ",
            "<b>A man can vow</b> that <b>his</b> minor <b>son should be a nazirite,</b> i.e., a father can declare his son a nazirite, <b>but a woman cannot vow</b> that <b>her son should be a nazirite. How so;</b> what are the details of this naziriteship? If the son <b>shaved</b> his hair, thereby demonstrating his rejection of the vow imposed by his father; <b>or</b> if <b>his relatives shaved him;</b> or if the son <b>objected</b> by saying that he has no desire for this naziriteship; <b>or if his relatives objected</b> on his behalf, the naziriteship is canceled. If this son who canceled the naziriteship <b>had animals separated</b> for his offerings, the one set aside for <b>the sin-offering must die, and the burnt-offering is sacrificed as a burnt-offering, and</b> the <b>peace-offering is sacrificed as a peace-offering. And</b> the peace-offering <b>is eaten for one day,</b> like the peace-offering of a nazirite, rather than the two days of a regular peace-offering, <b>and it does not require bread,</b> i.e., the loaves that accompany a nazirite’s peace-offering. If <b>he had unallocated funds,</b> they <b>will be allocated for</b> communal <b>gift</b> offerings. If he had <b>allocated funds</b> for his offerings, <b>the money for the sin-offering is taken</b> and cast <b>into the Dead Sea,</b> as one may <b>not benefit</b> from it <i>ab initio</i>, <b>but</b> if he benefits <b>from it,</b> he is <b>not</b> liable to bring an offering for <b>misuse</b> of consecrated property. With <b>the money for</b> the <b>burnt-offering they bring a burnt-offering;</b> it is prohibited to derive benefit from those coins <b>and</b> if he benefits <b>from it,</b> he is liable to bring an offering for <b>misuse</b> of consecrated property. With <b>the money for</b> the <b>peace-offering they bring a peace-offering, and</b> it <b>is eaten for one day and does not require bread.</b> ",
            "<b>A man can shave,</b> i.e., bring the offerings at the close of his term of naziriteship, <b>by</b> using offerings originally designated for <b>his father’s naziriteship, but a woman cannot shave by</b> means of the offerings for <b>her father’s naziriteship. How so;</b> how is this <i>halakha</i> applied? It applies to <b>one whose father was a nazirite and separated unallocated money for his naziriteship,</b> i.e., he did not state which coins were for which of his offerings, <b>and he died</b> before buying the animals, <b>and</b> the son <b>said</b> after his father’s death: <b>I am hereby a nazirite on the condition that I will shave by</b> means of <b>the money</b> that my <b>father</b> set aside. <b>Rabbi Yosei said:</b> In that case <b>these</b> coins are <b>allocated for</b> communal <b>gift</b> offerings, and the son may not use them, as <b>this is not</b> the case of the <i>halakha</i> that a son <b>can shave by</b> using <b>his father’s naziriteship.</b> Rather, <b>who is</b> the son <b>who can shave by</b> using <b>his father’s naziriteship?</b> This is referring to a son <b>and his father who were</b> both <b>nazirites</b> during his father’s lifetime, <b>and his father separated unallocated money for his naziriteship and died; this is the one who may shave by</b> using <b>his father’s naziriteship.</b>"
        ],
        [
            "<b>Beit Shammai say: Consecration</b> that one performs in <b>error</b> nevertheless renders property <b>consecrated,</b> <b>and Beit Hillel say</b> it is <b>not consecrated. How so;</b> what is considered an act of erroneous consecration? If one <b>said: A black bull that will emerge from my house first is consecrated, and a white</b> bull <b>emerged</b> first, <b>Beit Shammai say</b> it is <b>consecrated and Beit Hillel say</b> it is <b>not consecrated.</b>  ",
            "Similarly, if one said: <b>A gold dinar that will come up first in my hand is consecrated, and</b> when he reached into his pocket a dinar <b>of silver came up, Beit Shammai say</b> it is <b>consecrated and Beit Hillel say</b> it is <b>not consecrated.</b> Likewise, if one said: <b>A barrel of wine that will come up first in my hand</b> when I enter the cellar <b>is consecrated, and</b> a barrel <b>of oil came up</b> in his hand instead, <b>Beit Shammai say</b> it is <b>consecrated and Beit Hillel say</b> it is <b>not consecrated.</b>",
            "With regard to <b>one who took a vow of naziriteship,</b> who then regretted his vow and stopped observing the prohibition against drinking wine, <b>and</b> later <b>requested of a halakhic authority</b> to dissolve his vow, <b>and</b> the authority <b>ruled</b> that <b>he is bound</b> by his vow, finding no reason to dissolve it, he <b>counts</b> the term of naziriteship <b>from the time that he vowed,</b> including the days when he acted as though the vow were dissolved. In a case where <b>he requested of a halakhic authority</b> to dissolve his vow <b>and</b> the authority <b>dissolved it,</b> if <b>he had an animal separated</b> as a nazirite offering <b>it shall go out and graze among</b> the <b>flock.</b> On the basis of this <i>halakha</i>, and continuing their discussion in the previous mishna, <b>Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Don’t you concede with regard to this</b> case <b>that it is an erroneous</b> act of <b>consecration, and</b> yet the <i>halakha</i> is <b>that it shall go out and graze among</b> the <b>flock?</b> This shows that you too accept the principle that an erroneous act of consecration does not take effect. <b>Beit Shammai said to</b> Beit Hillel: <b>Don’t you concede with regard to one</b> who was separating the animal tithe from his herd, i.e., passing his animals before him single file and consecrating every tenth one as a tithe, <b>that</b> if he <b>erred and called the ninth</b> animal: <b>Tenth; and the tenth: Ninth; and the eleventh: Tenth, that</b> each of them <b>is consecrated?</b> This proves that an erroneous act of consecration does take effect. <b>Beit Hillel said to them:</b> It is <b>not the rod</b> that <b>consecrates it.</b> The touch of the rod does not consecrate the animal, nor does the fact that he said: Tenth, by mistake. Not all errors cause the tithe to be consecrated, and the proof is as follows: <b>And what</b> would be the <i>halakha</i> <b>if he had erred and placed the rod on the eighth or on the twelfth,</b> and labeled them: Tenth? Can it be suggested that <b>perhaps he performed anything</b> of consequence? The <i>halakha</i> is that the eighth or twelfth animal cannot be consecrated as tithe. <b>Rather,</b> why is the ninth or eleventh animal consecrated? There is a specific reason for this <i>halakha</i>, as the same <b>verse that consecrated the tenth</b> also <b>consecrated the ninth</b> <b>and the eleventh.</b> It is a Torah edict that the consecration takes effect with regard to those two animals. Therefore, one cannot infer from this case that an erroneous act of consecration takes effect.",
            "With regard to <b>one who took a vow of naziriteship and went to bring his animal</b> which he set aside for his nazirite offering <b>and discovered that it was stolen,</b> and due to the need to separate an additional animal now regrets having taken his vow, <b>if he took a vow of naziriteship before his animal was stolen, he is a nazirite,</b> as a vow cannot be dissolved as the result of a later event. <b>But if he took a vow of naziriteship after his animal was stolen, he is not a nazirite,</b> as it is retroactively established that his vow was taken in error from the outset, as he relied on an animal he did not possess. <b>And this</b> was the <b>error</b> that <b>Naḥum the Mede erred</b> when he failed to distinguish between an event that occurred before the vow was taken and an event that occurred afterward. The incident in question was as follows: <b>When nazirites were ascending from the exile</b> to sacrifice their offerings, <b>and they found the Temple destroyed, Naḥum the Mede said to them: If you had known that the Temple</b> would be <b>destroyed, would you have taken a vow of naziriteship? They said to him:</b> Certainly <b>not,</b> as there is no remedy for a naziriteship in this case. <b>And Naḥum the Mede dissolved</b> the vow <b>for them.</b> <b>And when the matter came before the Rabbis, they said:</b> His ruling is incorrect. Rather, <b>whoever took a vow of naziriteship before the Temple was destroyed,</b> like these nazirites from the exile, he is <b>a nazirite,</b> as he committed no error at the time of his vow, and one cannot dissolve vows based a new situation. However, one who stated his vow <b>after the Temple was destroyed is not a nazirite,</b> as he vowed based on an erroneous assumption.",
            "If there <b>were</b> people <b>walking along the way, and one</b> other person was <b>approaching them,</b> and <b>one</b> of those walking <b>said: I am hereby a nazirite if this</b> person approaching us <b>is so-and-so. And</b> another <b>one</b> of them <b>said: I am hereby a nazirite if this is not so-and-so,</b> while a third member of the group said: <b>I am hereby a nazirite if one of you</b> two <b>is a nazirite,</b> and a fourth said: I am hereby a nazirite <b>if neither of you is a nazirite,</b> and another added: I am hereby a nazirite <b>if both of you are nazirites.</b> Finally, the last person said: I am hereby a nazirite <b>if all you</b> who spoke before me <b>are nazirites.</b> <b>Beit Shammai say</b> that <b>they are all nazirites,</b> as by saying: I am hereby a nazirite, they have accepted naziriteship upon themselves even if their statements turn out to be incorrect. Beit Shammai maintain that a vow of naziriteship taken in error is considered a valid vow of naziriteship. <b>And Beit Hillel say: Only he whose statement was not fulfilled is a nazirite. And Rabbi Tarfon says: Not</b> a single <b>one of them is a nazirite,</b> including those whose statements were correct. Rabbi Tarfon maintains that a vow of naziriteship must be pronounced in an explicit manner, without any hint of uncertainty. In this case, none of them knew for sure the identity of the person coming toward them, and therefore they could not be certain they were nazirites at the time of their vows.",
            "If the person approaching them <b>turned back</b> so that his identity was never discovered, <b>not</b> one of them is <b>a nazirite.</b> The matter was never clarified, and the <i>halakha</i> is lenient in cases of uncertain naziriteship. <b>Rabbi Shimon says</b> that the <i>halakha</i> is stringent with regard to an uncertainty of this kind, and therefore they should proceed as follows in order to avoid any uncertainty: Each of those who took a vow <b>should say: If it was in accordance with my statement, I am hereby an obligatory nazirite,</b> as my condition was fulfilled, <b>and if not, I am hereby a voluntary nazirite,</b> and in this manner they are all nazirites either way.",
            "Someone <b>saw a kosher animal with characteristics of both a domesticated animal and a non-domesticated animal [<i>koy</i>], and said: I am hereby a nazirite if this is a non-domesticated animal;</b> and another individual said: <b>I am hereby a nazirite if this is not a non-domesticated animal;</b> and a third person said: <b>I am hereby a nazirite if this is a domesticated animal;</b> and a fourth said: <b>I am hereby a nazirite if this not a domesticated animal.</b> The mishna continues: A fifth person added: <b>I am hereby a nazirite if this is a non-domesticated animal and a domesticated animal,</b> and a sixth person said: <b>I am hereby a nazirite if this is neither a non-domesticated animal nor a domesticated animal.</b> Someone who heard all the above statements said: <b>I am hereby a nazirite if one of you is a nazirite,</b> and another one stated: <b>I am hereby a nazirite if not one of you is a nazirite,</b> and a final person said: <b>I am hereby a nazirite if all of you are nazirites.</b> In this case, <b>they are all nazirites.</b>"
        ],
        [
            "<b>Three types</b> of actions <b>are prohibited for a nazirite: The</b> contraction of <b>ritual impurity</b> from a corpse, <b>and the shaving</b> of one’s hair, <b>and</b> eating or drinking any substances <b>that emerge from the vine.</b> The mishna adds: <b>And all</b> products <b>that emerge from the vine combine with one another</b> to the amount that renders a nazirite liable to receive lashes. <b>And he is liable only if he eats an olive-bulk of the grapes.</b> <b>An initial</b> version of the <b>mishna says</b> that a nazirite is liable to receive lashes <b>only if he drinks a quarter</b>-<i>log</i> of <b>wine. Rabbi Akiva says: Even</b> if he <b>soaked his bread in wine and</b> the two together <b>contain enough to combine</b> to the amount of <b>an olive-bulk,</b> he is <b>liable.</b>",
            "And furthermore, a nazirite is <b>liable</b> to receive lashes <b>for</b> consuming <b>wine by itself, and for grapes by themselves, and for <i>ḥartzannim</i> by themselves, and for <i>zaggim</i> by themselves,</b> as each of these is forbidden separately by the Torah. <b>Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: He is liable only if he eats</b> an olive-bulk that includes at least <b>two <i>ḥartzannim</i> and</b> one <b><i>zag</i>,</b> in accordance with the verse “From <i>ḥartzannim</i> to <i>zag</i>” (Numbers 6:4), where the first term is in the plural and the second in the singular. The mishna discusses the meaning of these terms: <b>Which</b> parts <b>are <i>ḥartzannim</i> and which are <i>zaggim</i>? The <i>ḥartzannim</i> are the outside</b> parts, the skin of the grape, while <b>the <i>zaggim</i> are the inner</b> parts, the seeds. This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says:</b> The opposite is the case and this is the mnemonic so <b>that you should not err:</b> It is <b>like a bell [<i>zog</i>]</b> worn <b>by an animal,</b> in which <b>the outer</b> part, which corresponds to the skin of a grape, is called <b><i>zog</i>, and the inner</b> portion of the bell, the clapper, which corresponds to the seeds in a grape, is called <b><i>inbal</i>.</b> ",
            "<b>A naziriteship</b> of <b>unspecified</b> length lasts for <b>thirty days.</b> If a nazirite <b>shaved</b> his hair during that period, <b>or if he was shaved by bandits [<i>listim</i>]</b> against his will, this <b>negates thirty days</b> of his naziriteship, which he must count afresh. With regard to <b>a nazirite who shaved</b> his hair, <b>whether</b> he did so <b>with scissors or with a razor, or</b> if he <b>pulled out [<i>sifsef</i> ] any amount,</b> he <b>is liable.</b> <b>A nazirite may shampoo [<i>ḥofef</i> ]</b> his head <b>and separate [<i>mefaspes</i>]</b> his hairs manually, without concern that hairs might fall out. <b>However, he may not comb</b> his hair. <b>Rabbi Yishmael says:</b> A nazirite <b>may not shampoo</b> his hair <b>with earth because</b> this <b>causes the hair to fall out.</b> ",
            "<b>A nazirite who was drinking wine all day is liable</b> to receive <b>only one</b> set of lashes. If people <b>said to him</b> during the course of the day: <b>Do not drink, do not drink, and</b> nevertheless <b>he</b> continues to <b>drink, he is liable for each and every</b> time he was warned. If a nazirite <b>kept shaving all day, he is liable</b> to receive <b>only one</b> set of lashes. If <b>they said to him: Do not shave, do not shave, and he shaves, he is liable for each and every</b> time he was warned. If he <b>became ritually impure from a corpse</b> many times <b>all day, he is liable</b> to receive <b>only one</b> set of lashes. If <b>they said to him: Do not become impure, do not become impure, and he</b> continues to <b>become impure, he is liable for each and every</b> time he was warned.",
            "<b>Three types</b> of actions <b>are prohibited for a nazirite:</b> Contracting <b>ritual impurity</b> imparted by a corpse, <b>and shaving</b> his hair, <b>and</b> eating or drinking any substances <b>that emerge from the vine.</b> There is a greater <b>stricture with regard to</b> the prohibitions of <b>impurity and shaving than</b> that of substances <b>that emerge from the vine, as impurity and shaving negate</b> his naziriteship, i.e., he must add thirty days to his term of naziriteship or start it afresh. <b>But</b> if he eats or drinks <b>that</b> which <b>emerges from the vine,</b> this <b>does not negate</b> his naziriteship. Conversely, there is a greater <b>stricture with regard to</b> substances <b>that emerge from the vine than</b> with regard to <b>impurity and shaving, as</b> in the case of products <b>that emerge from the vine nothing is exempted from its general prohibition</b> in certain circumstances, i.e., there are no exceptions. <b>But</b> with regard to <b>impurity and shaving</b> certain cases <b>are exempted from their general prohibition.</b> For example, there are the cases <b>of obligatory shaving,</b> e.g., a leper who was purified during his naziriteship, <b>and of a corpse with no one to bury it [<i>met mitzva</i>].</b> A nazirite may tend to the burial of a <i>met mitzva</i>, despite the fact that he will thereby contract ritual impurity from a corpse. The mishna adds: <b>And</b> there is a greater <b>stricture with regard to impurity than</b> with regard to <b>shaving, as</b> a nazirite’s <b>impurity negates all</b> his days of naziriteship and begins his term afresh, <b>and he is liable to</b> bring <b>an offering for it,</b> before starting his new term of naziriteship. <b>But shaving negates only thirty</b> days at most, <b>and he is not liable to</b> bring <b>an offering for it.</b>",
            "With regard to the <b>shaving of ritual impurity</b> performed by a nazirite who became impure during his naziriteship, <b>how</b> is it performed? The priest <b>would sprinkle</b> the waters of purification on him <b>on the third and the seventh</b> days after he contracted his impurity, as performed for all those who contracted impurity imparted by a corpse. <b>And he shaves</b> his hair <b>on the seventh</b> day <b>and brings his offerings on the eighth</b> day. <b>And if he shaved on the eighth</b> day <b>he brings his offerings on that day,</b> this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Tarfon said to him: What is</b> the difference <b>between this</b> ritual <b>and</b> that of <b>a leper?</b> A leper also shaves on the seventh day and sacrifices his offerings on the eighth. However, if a leper shaves on the eighth day he brings his offerings on the ninth day, not on the day of his shaving. Rabbi Akiva <b>said to him: The purification of this</b> impure nazirite <b>depends on his days,</b> as he immerses on the seventh day like all those who contract impurity imparted by a corpse, which means he is already ritually pure on the eighth day. <b>But</b> with regard to <b>a leper, his purification depends on his shaving.</b> Any immersion performed earlier is of no account, and must be repeated. <b>And</b> a leper <b>brings</b> his <b>offering only if the sun has set</b> following his immersion. Since offerings are not sacrificed at night, the bringing of his offering is postponed until the following day.",
            "With regard to a nazirite’s <b>shaving of purity</b> after the completion of his term of naziriteship, <b>how</b> is it performed? <b>He would bring three animals:</b> One for <b>a sin-offering,</b> one for <b>a burnt-offering, and</b> one for <b>a peace-offering. And he slaughters the peace-offering and shaves</b> his hair <b>after</b> he slaughters <b>them.</b> This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Elazar says: He would shave only after</b> he slaughtered <b>the sin-offering, as the sin-offering precedes</b> the other offerings <b>in all places,</b> and therefore he sacrifices the sin-offering first. He shaves his hair after he slaughters this offering. <b>And if he shaved after</b> the sacrifice of any <b>one of the three of them, he has fulfilled</b> his obligation after the fact.",
            "<b>Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:</b> If a nazirite <b>brought three animals without specifying</b> which of them was for which offering, the one <b>that is fit for a sin-offering,</b> i.e., a female sheep in its first year, <b>is sacrificed as a sin-offering;</b> that which is fit <b>for a burnt-offering,</b> a male sheep in its first year, <b>is sacrificed as a burnt-offering;</b> and that which is fit <b>for a peace-offering,</b> a ram, i.e., a male sheep over the age of one year, <b>is sacrificed as a peace-offering.</b> After the nazirite shaved off his hair, <b>he would take the hair of his consecrated head and throw</b> it <b>under the pot</b> in which the peace-offering was cooked, where it would burn. <b>And if</b> the nazirite <b>shaved in</b> the rest of <b>the country,</b> i.e., outside the Temple, <b>he would not throw</b> the hair <b>under the pot. In what</b> case <b>is this statement said?</b> It is said <b>with regard to the shaving of purity. However, with regard to the shaving of impurity,</b> i.e., shaving that accompanied his guilt-offering and sin-offering of birds after his term of naziriteship was interrupted by impurity, <b>he would not throw</b> his hair <b>under the pot</b> in which his offerings were cooked, as the Torah stated this requirement only for a pure nazirite. <b>Rabbi Meir says: Everyone throws</b> his hair <b>under the pot,</b> including a pure nazirite who shaved outside the Temple and an impure nazirite, <b>except for an impure</b> nazirite <b>who shaved in the</b> rest of <b>the country.</b> In that case <b>alone</b> he refrains from throwing his hair to be burned beneath his offering.",
            "The nazirite <b>would cook the peace-offering or overcook it,</b> i.e., cook it thoroughly. <b>The priest takes the cooked foreleg from the ram, and one unleavened loaf from the basket, and one unleavened wafer, and places</b> them <b>on the palms of the nazirite and waves them,</b> as described in the Torah (Numbers 6:19–20). <b>And afterward the nazirite is permitted to drink wine and to contract ritual impurity</b> imparted <b>by a corpse.</b> <b>Rabbi Shimon says: Once the blood</b> of <b>one</b> of the offerings <b>has been sprinkled on</b> the nazirite’s <b>behalf, the nazirite is permitted to drink wine and to contract ritual impurity</b> imparted <b>by a corpse.</b> The rest of the ritual is not indispensable for his purification.",
            "As taught earlier (45a) the nazirite shaves after having brought one, or all, of his offerings. This mishna discusses what the <i>halakha</i> is if the offering was found to be invalid after the nazirite had shaved. If a nazirite <b>shaved</b> based <b>upon the</b> requisite <b>offering, and</b> afterward the offering <b>was found</b> to be <b>invalid</b> for any reason, <b>his shaving is invalid and his offerings do not count</b> toward the fulfillment of <b>his</b> obligation. If he <b>shaved</b> based <b>upon the sin-offering, that</b> was found to have been sacrificed <b>not for its own sake,</b> which invalidates the offering, <b>and afterward he brought his</b> other <b>offerings for their own sake, his shaving is invalid and his</b> other <b>offerings do not count</b> toward the fulfillment of <b>his</b> obligation. If he <b>shaved</b> based <b>upon the</b> requisite <b>burnt-offering or</b> having <b>brought the</b> requisite <b>peace-offering,</b> and <b>these</b> were offered <b>not for their own sake, and afterward he brought his</b> remaining <b>offerings for their own sake, his shaving is invalid and his offerings do not count</b> toward the fulfillment of <b>his</b> obligation. <b>Rabbi Shimon says:</b> In the case of one who shaved based upon a burnt-offering or a peace-offering that was sacrificed not for its own sake, <b>that offering,</b> which was performed incorrectly, <b>does not count</b> toward the fulfillment of <b>his</b> obligation; <b>however,</b> his <b>other offerings do count. And</b> everyone agrees that <b>if he shaved</b> based <b>upon all three of them,</b> i.e., he brought all three offerings, without specifying which offering he is basing his shaving upon, <b>and</b> even <b>one of them was found valid, his shaving is valid, but he must bring</b> the <b>other offerings</b> in order to fulfill his obligation.",
            "With regard to <b>one on whose behalf the blood of one</b> of his nazirite offerings <b>was sprinkled</b> on the altar, <b>and he became ritually impure</b> before bringing the rest of his offerings, <b>Rabbi Eliezer says:</b> His impurity <b>negates the entire</b> tally, and he remains a nazirite. <b>And the Rabbis say: Let him bring the rest of his offerings and be purified.</b> The Rabbis <b>said to</b> Rabbi Eliezer: <b>An incident</b> occurred <b>involving Miriam of Tarmod</b> who was a nazirite, <b>that the blood of one</b> of her offerings <b>was sprinkled on her behalf, and they came and told her that her daughter was mortally ill. And she went and found</b> that her daughter <b>was dead,</b> and thereby contracted impurity. <b>And the Rabbis said: Let her bring the rest of her offerings and be purified.</b>"
        ],
        [
            "<b>A High Priest and a nazirite may not become ritually impure</b> even <b>to</b> bury <b>their</b> deceased <b>relatives. However, they become impure to</b> bury <b>a corpse with no one to bury it [<i>met mitzva</i>].</b> If one of them comes across the corpse of a Jew, and there is nobody else available to bury it, he must bury the body. If a High Priest and a nazirite <b>were walking along the way and they found a <i>met mitzva</i>,</b> and one of them can tend to the burial by himself, <b>Rabbi Eliezer says: Let</b> the <b>High Priest become impure, and</b> do <b>not let</b> the <b>nazirite become impure. And the Rabbis say: Let</b> the <b>nazirite become impure, and</b> do <b>not let</b> even <b>a common priest become impure.</b> <b>Rabbi Eliezer said to</b> the Rabbis: It is preferable to <b>let</b> the <b>priest become impure, as he does not bring an offering for his impurity, and</b> do <b>not let</b> the <b>nazirite become impure, as he brings an offering for his impurity.</b> The Rabbis <b>said to him:</b> On the contrary, <b>let</b> the <b>nazirite become impure, as his sanctity is not permanent, and</b> do <b>not let a priest become impure, as his sanctity is permanent.</b>",
            "<b>A nazirite shaves for</b> having become impure from <b>these</b> following sources of <b>ritual impurity: For</b> having become impure with impurity imparted by <b>a corpse; and for</b> impurity imparted by <b>an olive-bulk of a corpse; and for</b> impurity imparted by <b>an olive-bulk of fluid [<i>netzel</i>]</b> from a corpse; <b>and for</b> impurity imparted by <b>a full ladle [<i>tarvad</i>] of dust</b> from a corpse; and <b>for</b> impurity imparted by <b>the spine; and for</b> impurity imparted by <b>the skull; and for</b> impurity imparted by <b>a limb from a corpse or for</b> impurity imparted by <b>a limb</b> severed <b>from a living</b> person, <b>upon</b> either of <b>which there is a fitting</b> quantity of <b>flesh; and for</b> impurity imparted by <b>a half-<i>kav</i> of bones</b> from a corpse; <b>and for</b> impurity imparted by <b>a half-<i>log</i></b> of <b>blood.</b> <b>And</b> a nazirite shaves in each of these cases for becoming impure <b>by coming into contact with them; and for</b> becoming impure by <b>carrying them; and for</b> becoming impure by <b>their tent,</b> i.e., if he was positioned like a tent over them, or if he entered a tent that contains them, or if they served as a tent over him. <b>And</b> as <b>for a bone that is a barley-grain-bulk,</b> he shaves <b>for</b> becoming impure by <b>coming into contact with it and by carrying it.</b> However, he is not rendered impure with the impurity imparted in a tent, i.e., by being under the same roof as the bone. <b>For</b> all of <b>these</b> occurrences, <b>a nazirite shaves, and</b> a priest <b>sprinkles</b> the ashes of the red heifer on him <b>on the third and on the seventh</b> days to purify him from the impurity imparted by a corpse. <b>And he negates</b> all <b>the previous</b> days he counted toward his naziriteship, <b>and he begins counting</b> his term of naziriteship again <b>only after he becomes pure and brings his offerings.</b>",
            "The previous mishna listed the sources of ritual impurity for which a nazirite must shave. This mishna adds: <b>However,</b> the nazirite does not shave for these: <b>The hanging</b> branches over a corpse, i.e., a tree overhanging a body that a nazirite passes, but it is uncertain which branches are over a corpse; <b>and the projecting</b> stones from fences when the place of the impurity is unknown; <b>and a <i>beit haperas</i>,</b> a place that contained a grave and was plowed. In the latter case, the entire area around the grave is impure from a corpse due to an uncertainty, as it might contain human bones. The mishna continues its list: <b>And the land of the nations,</b> i.e., a nazirite left Eretz Yisrael for another land. The Sages decreed that all land outside of Eretz Yisrael is ritually impure. <b>And the grave cover; and the grave walls</b> upon which the cover rests; <b>and a quarter-</b><i>log</i> <b>of blood</b> from a corpse; <b>and a tent; and a quarter-</b><i>kav</i> <b>of bones</b> of a corpse; <b>and vessels that are touching a corpse. And</b> if the nazirite is <b>in the days of his counting,</b> i.e., the seven days a leper must count after purification from his leprosy; <b>or in his days of full</b> leprosy, when he is a full-fledged leper, <b>for these the nazirite does not shave.</b> This is the case even if he is rendered impure by one of the sources listed in the previous mishna. <b>And</b> in those cases listed that involve ritual impurity from a corpse, <b>one sprinkles</b> the purification water upon him <b>on the third and on the seventh</b> days of his purification, <b>and he does not negate the earlier</b> days of his naziriteship, but they are considered part of his naziriteship term. <b>And he starts counting</b> the rest of his naziriteship to complete his term <b>immediately</b> after his purification, <b>and he has no</b> obligation to sacrifice <b>an offering</b> of impurity for these sources of ritual impurity. <b>Actually they said</b> an ancient tradition that these <b>days of</b> the impurity of <b>the <i>zav</i></b> (Leviticus 15:1–15) <b>and the <i>zava</i></b> (Leviticus 15:25–30) <b>and the days of the confinement of a leper</b> before he is confirmed as a full-fledged leper (Leviticus 13:4–5) <b>count for him</b> toward the period of his naziriteship.",
            "<b>Rabbi Eliezer said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua:</b> With regard to <b>any ritual impurity from a corpse for which a nazirite must shave, one is liable due to</b> the prohibition of <b>entering the Temple</b> after contracting that impurity. If someone who became impure from one of those sources of impurity enters the Temple, he violates the prohibition against an impure individual entering the sacred space. <b>And</b> with regard to <b>any impurity from a corpse for which a nazirite does not shave, one is</b> likewise <b>not liable due to</b> the prohibition of <b>entering the Temple</b> after contracting it. <b>Rabbi Meir said: This</b> impurity from a corpse that does not obligate a nazirite to shave <b>should not be more lenient than</b> the impurity of <b>a creeping animal.</b> The Torah clearly states that one rendered impure from a creeping animal is prohibited from entering the Temple (see Leviticus 5:2–3). The mishna continues to address the sources of ritual impurity for which a nazirite must shave. <b>Rabbi Akiva said: I discussed</b> this matter <b>before Rabbi Eliezer</b> and suggested the following <i>a fortiori</i> inference: <b>If,</b> with regard to <b>a bone that is a barley-grain</b>-<b>bulk, which does not render a person impure in a tent, a nazirite must</b> nevertheless <b>shave for touching it or carrying it,</b> then in the case of <b>a quarter-</b><i>log</i> <b>of blood, which is</b> more stringent in that it <b>renders a person impure in a tent, is it not logical that a nazirite should shave for touching it or carrying it?</b> Rabbi Eliezer <b>said to me: What is this, Akiva? One cannot argue by means of an <i>a fortiori</i> inference here,</b> in this particular case. However, Rabbi Eliezer did not provide a reason for this response. Rabbi Akiva continued: <b>And when I came and presented</b> these <b>matters before Rabbi Yehoshua, he said to me: You spoke well,</b> i.e., your logic is flawless, <b>but they indeed said</b> that this is a <b><i>halakha</i></b> transmitted to Moses from Sinai, which cannot be refuted by means of an <i>a fortiori</i> inference."
        ],
        [
            "With regard to <b>two nazirites, where one</b> other person <b>said to them: I saw one of you become impure, but I do not know which</b> one <b>of you</b> it was, they must each complete their naziriteship terms, <b>shave</b> their hair, <b>and</b> both together <b>bring an offering of ritual impurity and an offering of purity,</b> due to the uncertainty. <b>And</b> one of them <b>says</b> to the other: <b>If I am</b> the <b>impure</b> one, <b>the offering of impurity is mine and the offering of purity is yours; and if I am</b> the <b>pure</b> one, <b>the offering of purity is mine and the offering of impurity is yours.</b> <b>And</b> because of the uncertainty <b>they</b> each <b>count</b> a further <b>thirty days</b> of naziriteship <b>and</b> both together <b>bring an offering of purity. And</b> one of them <b>says: If I am the</b> previously <b>impure one,</b> that <b>offering of impurity</b> sacrificed earlier was <b>mine, and the offering of purity</b> was <b>yours; and this</b> offering sacrificed now <b>is my offering of purity. And if I am the</b> previously <b>pure one, the offering of purity</b> brought earlier was <b>mine, and the offering of impurity</b> was <b>yours; and this</b> current offering <b>is your offering of purity.</b> The previous mishna described how two nazirites sacrifice offerings of impurity and purity, in a situation in which one of them has become impure but they do not know which one. This mishna discusses what must be done if <b>one of them dies</b> before bringing his offerings. <b>Rabbi Yehoshua said:</b> The surviving nazirite <b>asks someone in the marketplace,</b> a non-nazirite, <b>to vow to be a nazirite corresponding to him,</b> i.e., under the same conditions as his own naziriteship, so that he can bring offerings together with him. <b>And he says</b> to him as follows: <b>If I was impure, you are hereby a nazirite immediately; and if I was pure, you are hereby a nazirite after thirty days. And they</b> both proceed to <b>count thirty days and bring an offering of impurity and an offering of purity. And</b> the nazirite who was defined as having uncertain impurity <b>says: If I am the impure</b> one, <b>the offering of impurity is mine and the offering of purity is yours; and if I am the pure one, the offering of purity is mine and the offering of impurity</b> we brought shall be <b>of uncertain</b> status. <b>And they</b> subsequently <b>count</b> another <b>thirty days and bring an offering of purity, and</b> the first nazirite <b>says: If I</b> was <b>the impure</b> one, <b>the offering of impurity</b> that we sacrificed at the end of the first thirty days was <b>mine, and the offering of purity</b> we brought then was <b>yours; and this</b> offering I am bringing now is <b>my offering of purity. And if I</b> was <b>the pure</b> one, and the deceased nazirite was impure, <b>the offering of purity</b> we brought thirty days ago was <b>mine, and the offering of impurity</b> we brought earlier was <b>of uncertain</b> status, <b>and this is your offering of purity.</b> <b>Ben Zoma said to</b> Rabbi Yehoshua: <b>And who will listen to him to vow to be a nazirite corresponding to him?</b> How can one design a <i>halakha</i> on the assumption that a non-nazirite will agree to be a nazirite for a lengthy term? <b>Rather,</b> a different procedure is available: After thirty days of naziriteship <b>he brings a bird sin-offering and an animal burnt-offering, and says: If I was impure, the sin-offering is for my obligation</b> as an impure nazirite, <b>and the burnt-offering</b> is a regular <b>gift</b> offering. <b>And if I was pure, the burnt-offering is for my obligation</b> as a pure nazirite, <b>and the sin-offering</b> is <b>of uncertain</b> status. <b>And he counts</b> another <b>thirty days, and brings an offering of purity, and says: If I was impure, the first burnt-offering</b> I brought should be considered <b>a gift</b> offering, <b>and this</b> one I am bringing now is for my <b>obligation. And if I was pure, the first burnt-offering</b> I brought is for my <b>obligation</b> as a pure nazirite, <b>and this</b> one I am bringing now is <b>a gift</b> offering. <b>And these,</b> i.e., the sin-offering and peace-offering I am sacrificing now, comprises <b>the rest of my offerings</b> that I was obligated to bring earlier. <b>Rabbi Yehoshua said:</b> According to your opinion, <b>it turns out</b> that <b>this</b> nazirite <b>brings his offerings in halves,</b> i.e., in stages. If he was pure, he brings his burnt-offering thirty days before the rest of his offerings. <b>However, the Rabbis agreed with ben Zoma,</b> and disregarded the concern about splitting up the offerings.",
            "In the case of <b>a nazirite who,</b> on the first day of his naziriteship, <b>was impure</b> from a corpse as a matter of <b>uncertainty and</b> was also <b>a confirmed leper</b> as a matter of <b>uncertainty,</b> i.e., it was uncertain whether or not he had leprosy, how can he fulfill the shaving obligations of a pure nazirite and an impure leper? The problem facing this nazirite is that a leper must shave both when he begins his purification process and at the close of it, one week later. However, a nazirite is prohibited from shaving. Additionally, a leper may not partake of sacrificial food, but a nazirite may. Therefore, <b>he may partake of sacrificial food sixty days after</b> he may have become impure, when the uncertainty with regard to leprosy will have been clarified. He shaves for the first time for his leprosy after thirty days, and for the second time thirty days later, the shaving of the end of the purification process; at which point he brings the offerings of a purified leper and may partake of sacrificial food. <b>But</b> he <b>may drink wine and become impure from the dead,</b> effectively ending his naziriteship, only <b>after 120 days.</b> This is because he might have been a full-fledged leper, which means that his shavings count toward his leprosy, not his naziriteship. Consequently, after the first sixty days he must observe another thirty days of naziriteship and shave again. Even then he has yet to fulfill all his obligations, as he might have been impure from a corpse, which means his shaving after ninety days was for his impurity. He must therefore remain a nazirite for another thirty days, before shaving one final time at the end of 120 days to fulfill his naziriteship obligation. The mishna notes: The reason that he cannot shave for his leprosy after seven days and perform the second shaving of a leper seven days later is <b>because the shaving of leprosy overrides</b> the prohibition of <b>the shaving of a nazirite</b> only <b>when his</b> status as <b>a leper</b> is <b>definite. However, when his</b> status as <b>a leper</b> is <b>uncertain,</b> the shaving <b>does not override</b> his naziriteship, and therefore he must wait thirty days before each of his shavings for leprosy."
        ],
        [
            "<b>Gentiles do not have naziriteship,</b> i.e., the <i>halakhot</i> of naziriteship do not apply to gentiles. They are not subject to the prohibitions of a nazirite, nor does one accept their offerings at the end of naziriteship. However, <b>women and</b> Canaanite <b>slaves do have naziriteship.</b> The mishna adds: There is a greater <b>stringency in</b> the case of <b>women than in</b> the case of <b>slaves, as</b> a master <b>may force his slave</b> to drink wine, shave his hair, or become ritually impure from a corpse, despite the slave’s vow of naziriteship, <b>but</b> a husband <b>cannot force his wife</b> to transgress her naziriteship. The previous mishna taught that the naziriteship of women includes a stringency that does not apply to slaves. This mishna adds: There is a greater <b>stringency in</b> the case of <b>slaves than in</b> the case of <b>women, as</b> a man <b>can nullify the vows of his wife but he cannot nullify the vows of his slave,</b> despite the fact that he can prevent him from fulfilling them in practice. Similarly, if <b>he nullified</b> the naziriteship <b>of his wife it is permanently nullified,</b> and it remains nullified even if she is later divorced or widowed. Conversely, if <b>he nullified</b> the naziriteship <b>of his slave</b> by forcing him to violate the terms of his vow of naziriteship, when the slave <b>is emancipated he completes his naziriteship.</b> In a case where a slave took a vow of naziriteship but was prevented by his master from fulfilling the terms of his vow, the Sages engaged in a dispute what the <i>halakha</i> would be if he permanently <b>left his</b> master’s <b>presence,</b> i.e., he ran away without being emancipated. <b>Rabbi Meir says: He may not drink</b> wine. Since the slave is free in practice, his vow goes into effect. <b>And Rabbi Yosei says: He may drink</b> wine, as he is not emancipated.",
            "With regard to <b>a nazirite who shaved</b> for the conclusion of his naziriteship, <b>and it</b> later <b>became known to him that</b> during his naziriteship <b>he was ritually impure</b> from a corpse, <b>if</b> it was <b>a known impurity,</b> i.e., people were aware of the impurity when he became impure, <b>he negates</b> his entire naziriteship. <b>And if it was ritual impurity</b> imparted by a grave <b>in the depths,</b> one that was unknown at the time, <b>he does not negate</b> his naziriteship. <b>If</b> he discovered he was impure <b>before he shaved, he negates</b> his naziriteship <b>in either case.</b> The mishna asks: <b>How</b> does one differentiate between a known and an unknown impurity? If a nazirite <b>descended to immerse in a cave, and a corpse was found floating at the mouth of the cave,</b> he is <b>impure,</b> as an openly visible corpse is a known impurity. What, then, is an impurity of the depths? This is referring to a case where the corpse <b>was found sunk into the ground of the cave</b> in such a manner that it was unknown. However, even here the circumstances of the case must be taken into account. If one <b>descended</b> not to immerse himself in the water, as he was ritually pure, but <b>to cool</b> himself, he remains <b>pure.</b> If he was impure and entered the water <b>to purify himself from the impurity from a corpse,</b> he is <b>impure.</b> The reason is that something <b>that</b> has <b>the presumptive status of impurity</b> remains <b>impure, and</b> something that has <b>the presumptive status of purity</b> is <b>pure, as there is a basis for the matter.</b> It is reasonable that items or people retain their presumptive status.",
            "<b>One who finds a corpse for the first</b> time, i.e., he discovers a single corpse in a place that was not previously established as a cemetery, if the corpse is <b>lying in</b> the <b>usual manner</b> of Jewish burial, <b>he removes it</b> from there <b>and</b> also <b>its surrounding</b> earth. It is assumed that this corpse was buried there alone. There is no concern that this area is a cemetery and therefore the corpse may not be moved, nor does one take into account the possibility that another corpse may be buried in the vicinity. Similarly, if he found <b>two</b> corpses, <b>he removes them and their surrounding</b> earth. In a case where he <b>found three</b> corpses, <b>if there is</b> a space <b>between this</b> corpse <b>and that</b> corpse <b>of four to eight cubits,</b> in a standard design, <b>this is a graveyard.</b> There is a concern that this might be an ancient cemetery. One must therefore <b>examine from that</b> spot <b>outward</b> for <b>twenty cubits.</b> If one <b>finds</b> another corpse <b>at the end of twenty cubits,</b> he <b>examines</b> from that spot <b>outward twenty cubits, as there is a basis for</b> anticipating <b>the matter.</b> It is likely that he has stumbled upon an ancient gravesite. He is not permitted to relocate the corpses, despite the fact <b>that if he had found</b> the single corpse by itself <b>at first</b> he could have <b>removed it and its surrounding</b> earth.",
            "<b>Any</b> case of <b>uncertainty</b> with regard to <b>leprous sores</b> is <b>initially</b> deemed <b>pure until it is established that</b> it is a case <b>of ritual impurity. Once</b> it <b>has been determined</b> to be a case <b>of impurity, uncertainty</b> concerning <b>it is</b> deemed <b>impure.</b> This mishna discusses another case that includes the statement: There is a basis to anticipate the matter. <b>One examines a man who experienced a gonorrhea-like discharge [<i>zav</i>] in seven ways, as long as he has not been confirmed as</b> having <b>a gonorrhea-like discharge [<i>ziva</i>.]</b> With regard to an individual’s second such discharge, before he has been established as a greater <i>zav</i>, one examines to see whether there may have been a particular trigger of his discharge. One examines him <b>with regard to food and with regard to drink,</b> in case the discharge might have been the result of overeating or excess drinking; <b>with regard to a burden,</b> as it might have been caused by the weight of a heavy burden; <b>and with regard to jumping,</b> in case he jumped and this led to the discharge; <b>and with regard to sickness; and with regard to</b> an arousing <b>sight; and with regard to</b> the <b>thought</b> of a woman. <b>Once he has been confirmed as</b> having <b>a <i>ziva</i>,</b> after two definite discharges of <i>ziva</i>, <b>one no</b> longer <b>examines him</b> in this way, as any discharge is deemed impure. If one experiences three discharges of <i>ziva</i>, he is obligated to bring an offering following his purification. Accordingly, <b>his</b> discharge that was due to <b>circumstances beyond his control,</b> i.e., for one of the seven reasons listed above, <b>and his</b> discharge about which it is <b>uncertain</b> if it is <i>ziva</i>, <b>and</b> even <b>his semen,</b> which is not usually considered the discharge of a <i>zav</i>, <b>are</b> all <b>impure.</b> Why is this so? It is <b>because there is a basis for</b> anticipating <b>the matter.</b> Once he has the status of a <i>zav</i>, it can be assumed that subsequent discharges are of <i>ziva</i> as well. The Sages similarly taught: With regard to <b>one who strikes another</b> with heavy blows, <b>and</b> doctors <b>assessed</b> that <b>he would die</b> as a result of the beating, <b>but his</b> health <b>improved from what it was,</b> so that they then determined that he would not die from his injuries, and <b>afterward</b> his condition <b>worsened and he died,</b> the one who struck him is <b>liable</b> to receive court-imposed capital punishment, as it is assumed that the victim’s death was caused by the assault. <b>Rabbi Neḥemya says:</b> He is <b>exempt, because there is a basis for</b> anticipating <b>the matter.</b> Since the victim began to recover during his illness, it is reasonable to assume that his death was caused by a factor other than the assault.",
            "The tractate concludes with an aggadic statement about nazirites. <b>Samuel</b> the prophet <b>was a nazirite, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Nehorai, as it was stated</b> that when Hannah, his mother, prayed for a son, she vowed: <b>“And no <i>mora</i> shall come upon his head”</b> (I Samuel 1:11). How is it derived that <i>mora</i> is an expression of naziriteship? <b>It is stated with regard to Samson: “And</b> no <b>razor [<i>mora</i>]</b> shall come upon his head, for the child shall be a nazirite to God” (Judges 13:5), <b>and it is stated: “And</b> no <b><i>mora</i>,” with regard to Samuel. Just as</b> the term <b>“<i>mora</i>” that is stated with regard to Samson</b> means that he was <b>a nazirite, so too</b> the term <b>“<i>mora</i>” that is stated with regard to Samuel</b> indicates that he was <b>a nazirite.</b> <b>Rabbi Yosei said: But doesn’t</b> the word <b>“<i>mora</i>”</b> mean <b>nothing other</b> than the fear <b>of flesh and blood?</b> The word should be read as though it were written with an <i>alef</i>, and not a <i>heh</i>, so that it means fear. <b>Rabbi Nehorai said to him: But isn’t it already stated: “And Samuel said: How can I go; if Saul hears it he will kill me”</b> (I Samuel 16:2). This verse indicates <b>that there was fear of flesh and blood upon</b> Samuel. Consequently, the term <i>mora</i> must be understood in accordance with its plain meaning of a razor. If so, Samuel was indeed a nazirite."
        ]
    ],
    "sectionNames": [
        "Chapter",
        "Mishnah"
    ]
}