Jerusalem Nazir

MISHNAH: All substitute names1Num. 6:2 reads: “A man or a woman who clearly intend to vow the vow of a nazir, to become a nazir for the Eternal.” This makes it clear that making a vow of nazir, like any other vow, is implicitly an invocation of God’s name. The speaking of any vow therefore is an invocation of God’s name and this should be avoided; cf. Nedarim 1:1, Note 1. In this the vow of nazir is not different from any other vow. for nazir vows are like nazir vows. If somebody says “I shall be” he is a nazir2. But only if stated in the presence of a nazir, when it can be interpreted as “I shall be like him”., “I shall be beautiful”, he is a nazir2. But only if stated in the presence of a nazir, when it can be interpreted as “I shall be like him”.; naziq,naziaḥ,paziaḥ3. Names invented to avoid spelling out “nazir”; Mishnah Nedarim 1:2. Some of these words have meaning in Arabic: نزق “to be quick (or irritable)”, نزح “to be far away”., he is a nazir. “I shall be like this one”2. But only if stated in the presence of a nazir, when it can be interpreted as “I shall be like him”., “I shall tend my hair,” “I shall groom my hair”. “I shall be obligated to grow my hair”, he is a nazir. “I have to bring birds”, Rebbi Meїr says, he is a nazir4The required sacrifice for a nazir who became impure, Num. 6:10., but the Sages say, he is not a nazir5It is not reasonable to assume that a person vows to be a nazir with the expectation to break the rules, even if unintentionally.. HALAKHAH: “All substitute names1Num. 6:2 reads: “A man or a woman who clearly intend to vow the vow of a nazir, to become a nazir for the Eternal.” This makes it clear that making a vow of nazir, like any other vow, is implicitly an invocation of God’s name. The speaking of any vow therefore is an invocation of God’s name and this should be avoided; cf. Nedarim 1:1, Note 1. In this the vow of nazir is not different from any other vow. for nazir vows are like nazir vows,” etc. “All substitute names for vows are like vows,” etc. It is written12From the list mentioned in the Mishnah. “Any person who vows,” why does the verse say “a vow”? From here that substitute names for vows are like vows. “Or he swears,” why does the verse say “an oath”? From here that substitute names for oaths are like oaths. One reads that6The text is quoted from Nedarim 1:1, Notes 12–22. at the start of the first Chapter of Nedarim, up to: Rebbi Ismael stated: “any person who vows a vow of nazir”. From there that a person can obligate himself as nazir while he currently is a nazir. It was stated: “All substitute names for nazir vows are like nazir vows, and one whips because of them.” Even though Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip for prohibitions7Nedarim 1:1, Note 36., he agrees in this case that he is whipped8If somebody makes a vow using unapproved language and does not keep it, he cannot be accused of transgressing a biblical prohibition. But if he refers, if only obliquely, to the biblical laws of the nazir, such an infringement is punishable by law.. Even though Rebbi Simeon said, he does not bring a sacrifice9In Mishnah 5:7, R. Simeon holds that for a questionable vow of nazir one cannot bring a sacrifice since the Temple does not accept questionable sacrifices., he agrees in this case that he be whipped10Since the vow is not questionable.. Even though Rebbi Jehudah said, a questionable nazir vow is permitted11In Halakhah 4:6; based on Num. 6:2., he agrees in this case that he be whipped10Since the vow is not questionable.. Where do we hold? If he has the intention of becoming a nazir, even if he only said, I shall be a nazir if I mention bread, he is a nazir. Similarly, if he had no intention of becoming a nazir, even if he mentioned nazir, he is no nazir; for example if he was reading the Torah and mentioned nazir,naziq. But we hold about one who says, I declared my vow of nazir by any of these expressions. If one of them is a valid expression of a vow of nazir12From the list mentioned in the Mishnah., it will fall on him, otherwise, will the vow of nazir not fall on him? One tells him: keep the discipline13Deut. 12:28; if he had the intention of becoming a nazir, even if he did not use exactly the prescribed language. The same expression is used in the Babli, Menaḥot 81b, regarding a person who makes an irregular vow of a sacrifice.. “I shall be”. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When he saw nezirim pass by14There is no vow of nazir without an implicit or explicit reference to the institution of nazir. The reference may be to a nazir passing by.. If he said “beautiful”, what is the rule? Does he ridicule them or [does he mean] “I shall be like them”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel15In the Babli, 2b, Samuel takes the position attributed to R. Yose ben Ḥanina in the next paragraph.: Certainly, I shall be like them. “Or I shall be beautiful”. Where do we hold? If he said “beautiful”, is that not the previous case? When he grabs his hair, is that not what we have stated: “I shall be like this one”, following Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina who holds that “I shall be like this one” refers to the case that he is grabbing his hair16Cf. Note 23.. But we must hold that he says, “there is nothing more beautiful than this”17. In that case, we assume that he himself wants to be as beautiful and let his hair grow.. “Naziq,naziaḥ,paziq”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are expressions chosen by earlier generations and nobody has the right to add to them. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: raziaḥ,haziaḥ? Rebbi Shila said, also to expressions chosen by earlier secondary ones nobody has the right to add. 18From here to the end of the paragraph the text is from Nedarim 1:2, Notes 115–120 (נ). But did not Bar Qappara state ḥeres? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, that is a name relating to the High One: “If He commands the sun: would it not shine?”. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, these are Gentile words, like those Nabateans who say khaspa for ḥaspa. Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable in other places, but in a place where the nazir is called naziq, do I say that a nazir of people with speech defects should not be a nazir? It was stated: “The House of Shammai say, both substitute names and substitutes of substitutes are forbidden19Tosephta Nazir 1:1 (cf. also 1:2); Babli Nedarim 10b. The expression “forbidden” refers to “vows of prohibition” rather than to vows of nazir.. But the House of Hillel say, substitute names are forbidden, substitutes of substitutes are permitted.” What are substitutes of substitutes? Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said, menazaqa,menaziqna,mefaḥazna20Pi‘el forms of the accepted roots נזק, פזח.. Rebbi Yose said, these are not substitutes of substitutes, they are really substitute names, for is somebody who said menadarna not a nazir? But one who says menadarna21Since Galilean rabbinic Hebrew mostly replaces qal by pi‘el (such as מְהַלֵּךְ for הוֹלֵך), an unusual pi‘el form for נדר “to make a vow” (and equally, for נזר “to vow to be a nazir”) is valid speech.The form מנזדנא used here makes no sense; most probably one has to read מְנַזַּרְנָא as in the preceding sentence. is like one who said mefaḥazna. Following Rebbi Yose, these are substitutes of substitutes, as we have stated: “I have to bring birds’, Rebbi Meïr says, he is a nazir, but the Sages say, he is not a nazir. “Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of substitutes of substitutes: 22Dan. 4:30. This establishes a proverbial connection between long hair and a mention of birds.“Until his hair became mighty as an eagle’s and his fingernails like those of birds.” “I shall be like this one”; Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, if he grabs [a nazir’s] hair and says, “I shall be like this one.”23In the Babli, Samuel admits the possibility that a nazir was standing nearby and the person making the vow pointed to him. “I shall tend my hair, I shall groom my hair”. If he says, I shall be of those who have to tend or grow their hair24Since in popular speech a nazir is characterized by his long hair, saying that one wants to be “of those who grow their hair” is a clear vow of nazir.. “I shall tend my hair and I shall groom my hair”, if he says I shall neither tend nor grow my hair for less than thirty [days], he means thirty25Mishnah 1:3 states that an unspecified period of nezirut is 30 days. Therefore, mentioning 30 days in a statement regarding hair is a statement of nezirut.. “It shall be my obligation neither to tend nor to grow my hair,” if he says, it shall be my obligation neither to tend nor to grow my hair more than thirty [days], he means thirty. “I shall be obligated to grow my hair”, means “I shall tend my hair, I shall groom my hair”. Or “It shall be my obligation neither to tend nor to groom my hair, but to let it grow wildly26For the standard 30 days..” “ ‘I have to bring birds’, Rebbi Meïr says, he is a nazir, but the Sages say, he is not a nazir.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of substitutes of substitutes: “Until his hair became mighty as an eagle’s and his fingernails like those of birds.22Dan. 4:30. This establishes a proverbial connection between long hair and a mention of birds.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, because an impure nazir brings birds27Num. 6:10. But no pure person would entertain the idea of becoming a nazir if he expects to become impure since that could extend his period of nezirut indefinitely.. Does he bring birds28Many people use צִפּוֹר only for wild birds.? He brings turtledoves or young pigeons. There are some Tannaïm who state that all pure birds are called צפור, and there are some Tannaïm who state that all birds, whether pure or impure, are called צפור. He who says that all pure birds are called צפור, “you may eat any pure bird29Deut. 14:11. In Scripture, צפור is feminine..” He who says that all birds, whether pure or impure, are called צפור, “say to any winged bird30Ez. 39:14.. “What is the rabbi’s reason? He is like somebody offering birds for the upkeep of the Temple31The expression הֲרֵי עָלַי “I have to bring” is a regular form of a vow, which in Temple times implied a gift to the Temple. A single bird can be offered as a voluntary sacrifice (Lev. 1:14–17) but a couple can be given only as an obligatory sacrifice, i. e., a reparation or a purification sacrifice. These can never be given voluntarily, as result of a vow. Since the vow was formulated for birds, not a bird, it is concluded that the birds have to be given to the Temple for its upkeep, to be sold to persons needing them for obligatory sacrifices, with the proceeds given to the Temple treasury.. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? He is like somebody offering a reparation sacrifice for the upkeep of the Temple32This is an impossibility; an obligatory sacrifice cannot be given voluntarily and it has to be offered on the altar, not sold for the Temple’s benefit. Therefore, the vow has to be interpreted as a wish to be in a situation in which one has to bring a reparation sacrifice to the Temple. The only reparation sacrifices which depend on the person’s initiative are either the possible sacrifice of the impure nazir or those required of the person guilty of larceny (Lev. 5:14–16, 21–26). Since it is impossible to think that a person should want to commit larceny for religious purposes, the state of nazir is the only alternative.. What is the difference between them? If somebody says, “I take upon myself to bring a reparation sacrifice.” In the opinion of Rebbi Meïr he is a nazir since one cannot bring a reparation sacrifice for the upkeep of the Temple. In the opinion of the rabbis he is a nazir since an impure nazir brings a reparation sacrifice33Since in this formulation there is no difference between the rabbis and R. Meïr, all commentaries read “he is not a nazir”; since no person would accept nezirut with the prospect of an indefinite duration unless he spells this out clearly at the start, the vow is invalid because it is unrealistic. If one keeps the original wording, the rabbis and R. Meїr agree not only on the result but also on the reasoning behind it..

MISHNAH: “I am off grape kernels34This uses the expression of the verse Num. 6:4: “During the period of his vow, he may eat nothing which can be made from wine-grapes, neither kernels nor skin.” Anybody who prohibits to himself anything characteristically forbidden to a nazir makes a vow of nazir (unless explicitly disawoved in the same breath) and is subject to all its rules.,” or “off grape skin,” or “off hair shaving,” or “off impurity”; he is a nazir and all rules of nezirut apply to him. “I am like Samson ben Manoaḥ, like Dalilah’s husband, like the one who lifted the gates of Gaza, like the one blinded by the Philistines,” he is a Samson-nazir35A Samson-nazir follows the rules not of Num. 6 but of Jud. 13:1,5,14: His vow is life-long; he is forbidden wine and any intoxicating drink, and cannot shear his hair. He does not have to avoid the impurity of the dead.. What is the difference between a nazir in perpetuity36A person who made a vow to follow the rules of Num. 6 for the rest of his life. and a Samson-nazir? If the hair of a nazir in perpetuity becomes heavy, he shaves it off with a knife and brings three animals37He celebrates the end of a nazir period, as prescribed in Num. 6:13–20, except that at the end of the ceremony he cannot drink wine but immediately starts the next period. The frequency of his shaving is a matter of dispute in the Halakhah.; if he becomes impure, he brings a sacrifice of impurity. If the hair of a Samson-nazir becomes heavy, he does not shave; if he becomes impure, he does not bring a sacrifice of impurity. HALAKHAH: “I am a nazir38This is the reading of the Mishnah in the Babli and most Mishnah mss. off grape kernels,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “either off grape kernels,” or “off grape skin,” or “off hair shaving,” or “off impurity”39He is nazir if only one of the expressions mentioned were used. One should not translate: “I am off grape kernels and off grape skin and off hair shaving and off impurity”, implying that he only is a nazir if he recited the entire catalogue. In the Babli, 3b, the latter is the opinion of R. Simeon.. If he mentioned nazir with any one of them, following Rebbi Jehudah only if he mentioned “and”, but following Rebbi Meïr even if he did not mention “and”40The disagreement between them was explained in Giṭṭin 9:7, Notes 85–101, mainly in Notes 93–95. According to R. Jehudah, if he makes a vow to become a nazir and then adds “and forbidden kernels, and forbidden skins, and forbidden haircuts, and forbidden impurity”, each “and” implies a new vow for an additional period of nezirut. According to R. Meïr, just reciting the catalogue adds a new obligation for each item listed, even if the items are not connected by “and”.. “I am a nazir and a nazir;” he is two times a nazir, for he could have said, “ “I am a nazir.” “I am a nazir,nazir,” two. “I am a nazir, once, and repeated,” he is four times a nazir41Since he will be twice a nazir if he said “I am a nazir, once” by the preceding argument, the repetition would apply to all that precedes it.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, “as they”, eight. “Like they,” sixteen42This refers to the preceding statement. If one starts with a 4-fold obligation, any repetition doubles the number.. Following Symmachos43The text כמוכוס is corrupt. One has to read with Tosephta 1:1 (Babli 8b): סימכוס or סומכוס, סמכוס. Tosephta 1:2: If he says, I am a tetragon nazir, he is a nazir four times, דיגין three times, דריגון (sic!) two times.The problem of identifying the numerals is complicated by Babli (8b, Baba batra 164b): Symmachos says, hen is 1, digon 2, trigon 3, tetragon 4, pentagon 5. The rabbis have stated: A circular house, or one digon, trigon, pentagon, is not subject to the laws of leprosy of houses (Lev. 14:33–53); a house built tetragon is subject to those laws. (A text similar to the last sentence is in Tosefta Nega‘im 6:3; Mishnah Nega‘im 12:1 mentions only a round house and a trigon house.) In Baba batra, the word digon is further determined by the note that of the two consuls (Archontes), the one who is not eponymous is called archon digon (in the interpretation of the commentary ascribed to R. Gershom, a person “appointed archon for the second time”.)Under the influence of the Babli, the dictionaries, starting with the 11th Cent. Arukh, have identified the words digon, trigon, tetragon used by Symmachos with the same words used in the Tosephta of Nega‘im. Now it is clear that in the latter Tosephta, trigon corresponds to τρίγωνος “triangular”, tetragon is τετράγωνος “quadrilateral, square”, and pentagon to πεντάγωνος “pentagonal”. In spherical geometry, there exists a notion of digon, but this cannot be traced back earlier than the 17th Cent.; it is a notion foreign to the spirit of Greek mathematics. S. Lieberman (Tosefta kiFshutah Nazir p. 504) has recognized correctly that a word δίγωνον does not exist in classical or Byzantine Greek. Therefore, the talmudic digon cannot be translated “bi-angular”. The word is more likely to be δίγονος “double, twin”, which certainly makes sense in the statements about nazir and archon (archon digon “associate archon”). In parallel, the words trigon and tetragon used for the nazir’s vow have well documented non-geometric meanings τρίγωνος “threefold”, τετράγωνος “fourfold”.There only remains the problem of explaining the word digon used in Tosephta Nega‘im. It cannot mean “biangle” since a house with only two corners automatically must have curved walls and is excluded as a “round house”. Since “house” (at least in the Babli) as a rule means “one-room house”, it could be that the Tosephta excludes multi-room dwellings from the laws of the leprous house, referring here also to δίγονος.: “Tetragon, four; trigon, three; digon, two.” “I am” is a handle44As explained in Nedarim 1:1, Note 67, a handle of a vow is an expression of a vow used in disregard of the formal rules of vows. for nezirut, “I am obligated” is a handle for qorban45Not that he vowed a sacrifice but that it should be forbidden to him as if it were a sacrifice; cf. Introduction to Tractate Nedarim.. 46From here on, a parallel to the text is in Nedarim 1:1, Notes 75–77. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: one catches him because of a handle for qorbān. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, if he said, I shall not eat from you, does one catch him because of a handle of an oath? Rebbi Yose said, 47In Nedarim, the text between people … people is missing. people usually say “an oath that I shall not eat from yours;” do they ever say “that I shall not eat from yours, an oath”? Rebbi Mattaniah said, people usually say “handle of an axe”; do they ever say “axe of a handle”? “I did not vow as a nazir,” he is permitted48If somebody used one of the languages classified as referring to nazir but immediately puts in a disclaimer, he is free from all rules of nazir.. “I already had been a nazir,” he is forbidden49This is not a disclaimer since a person who had been a nazir might want to be a nazir for a second time.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Avina, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If somebody says, I am like ‘orlah juice50Juice from the fruits of a tree less than three full years old. All parts of the fruit, including the juice, are forbidden for any usufruct; cf. Introduction to Tractate ‘Orlah., he did not say anything51Even though הֲרֵינִי was declared “a handle for nezirut,” if somebody declares that ‘orlah juice is forbidden to him he is not a nazir since ‘orlah juice is forbidden to any Jew.. The colleagues say, that follows Rebbi Simeon in a disagreement. As we have stated there52Mishnah Šebuot 3:5.: “If somebody said, an oath that I shall not eat, but he ate carcass or torn meat, abominations or crawling things, he is guilty. But Rebbi Simeon declares him free from prosecution53For transgressing his oath, but naturally he can be prosecuted for eating prohibited food..” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, they disagree if it is an inclusive statement54If somebody makes an oath which prohibits to him both things originally permitted and those prohibited by biblical law, the rabbis hold that an oath partially valid is valid and any infringement can be prosecuted. But R. Simeon holds that the oath exists only as far as things originally permitted are concerned; for the rest it is non-existent since “he already was sworn to it at Mount Sinai”.. But if it is a detailed statement55If the oath only contains a list of items prohibited anyway. In Šebuot (3:3; Babli 22b, 23b) this is a matter of dispute and is asserted only by R. Joḥanan (supported in the Babli by Rav and Samuel) but denied by R. Simeon ben Laqish., everybody agrees that no oath can be applied to prohibitions. And here, we consider an inclusive statement. Rebbi Yudan said, one is about vows, the other about oaths. Vows can be applied to prohibitions but no oaths can be applied to prohibitions56Cf. Nedarim 2:2, Note 30.. “Just as substitute names for nazir vows are like nazir vows, so substitute names for Samson [vows] are like Samson [vows].”57Tosephta 1:5. What are substitute names for Samson [vows]? Rebbi Avina said, Šimšok, Šimšor, Šimšoṣ. From here58Possibly one should read מִן הָדָא “from the following.” One starts the discussion of the nazir in perpetuity., “if his hair became heavy”: Rebbi59The Mishnah, which states that a nazir in perpetuity can bring the required sacrifices in order to shave his hair only if it really is heavy, follows Rebbi.. For Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Immi: The words of Rebbi: A nazir in perpetuity shaves once in twelve months. The words of the Sages: A nazir in perpetuity sometimes shaves every thirty days60As stated in Mishnah 3, this is the minimum period for a vow of nazir and is automatically assumed to be the period intended if nothing else is specified., sometimes once in twelve months. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Assi61This is an intrusion of a Babylonian text added by the corrector. His name in the Yerushalmi usually is: R. Yasa.: It says so62Perhaps one should read: מתניתא אמרה כן “The Mishnah said so.”: 63Mishnah 1:4.“I am a nazir like the hair on my head, like the dust of the earth, or like the sand of the sea. He is a nazir in perpetuity and shaves every thirty days. Rebbi says, this one does not shave every thirty days,” but once in twelve months. “Who is one who shaves every thirty days? If he says, I am obligated for nezirut like the hair on my head, like the dust of the earth, or like the sand of the sea.64Rebbi agrees that an unspecified period of nezirut is 30 days. He requires the vow to state that the person making the vow intends a multitude of vows (each one implying a major expense for three sacrifices). But a reference to the hair on his head is for him a reference to a big tuft of hair, just as a reference to the dust of the earth is to a mound of earth. The Sages hold that the language used implies a reference to a multitude of separate things (hairs, dust particles, sand grains).” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, they differ if it was not made explicit. Where do we hold? If he says, “the fullness of my hair”, everybody agrees that he shaves once every thirty days. If he says, “the number of the hairs on my head,” everybody agrees that he shaves after twelve months65It seems that the text is corrupt and the statements should be interchanged. If he says “the fulness of my head”, he refers to the growth on his head as one entity, implying an indefinite duration of his vow but no obligation for any particular Temple ceremony. He may shave his hair after 12 months, provided he offers the three prescribed sacrifices. But if he refers to the “number of hairs on his head”, he refers to a very great number of separate neziriot, and he can fulfill his obligation only by always offering his sacrifices at the earliest possible moment, after 30 days. He must shave every 30 days.. But we must hold that he says “like hair”. Rebbi says, “the fullness of my hair”. But the rabbis say, he means “the number of the hairs on my head.”66This confirms the correction made in the preceding Note. And here, why? Why did the man not make the vow? He only encourages himself to avoid prohibitions67While it is clear that for the rabbis he may shave after 30 days, it is not clear whether he is obligated for more than one period. Maybe he is not a nazir in perpetuity.. In addition, from the following: 68Babli 8b, Tosephta 1:3. In these sources: כהלקטי קיץ וכשבילי שמיטה “the heaps of figs and the pathways of the Sabbatical” (when everybody is permitted to enter any field at any time.)“Rebbi Jehudah added: If he said, like that which is collected in the fig harvest, or like sheaves in a Sabbatical year, or like stars in the sky, he is a nazir in perpetuity and shaves every thirty days.” Could you say that Rebbi Jehudah follows the rabbis? He holds with Rebbi, as Rebbi Jehudah added: 69In the Babli, 4b, the statement is attributed to Rebbi. In Tosephta Soṭah 3:16: R. Jehudah the Prince (= Rebbi). In Mekhilta deR. Ismael, Širah 2: R. Jehudah; Mekhilta deR.Simeon ben Ioḥai, p. 75: R. Jehudah the Prince. The Yerushalmi rejects the attribution to Rebbi. Since R. Jehudah admits that a nazir in perpetuity shaves only once a year, he must agree with Rebbi.“Absalom was a nazir in perpetuity and shaved every twelve months.” What is the reason? Because of nezirut. But that would mean for the rabbis that he shaved every thirty days; that is what we have stated: 70Mishnah 2:5.“I am a nazir the house full, or a chest full. One checks him out.71One has to ask him what he meant before deciding his status.” It was stated on that: He shaves every thirty days. But here he said, he shaved every twelve months72Since it was stated that for the rabbis of Mishnah 5, he shaves every 30 days even if he vowed nezirut in perpetuity, it follows that R. Ze‘ira could not be correct when he stated that the rabbis agree that “the fullness of my hair” implies even for the rabbis that he only shaves every 12 months since there is no visible difference between “the fullness of my hair” and “a chest full”.. If he had counted six months when he became impure73A regular nazir has to start his nezirut after he underwent the purification ritual (Num. 6:12). But a nazir in perpetuity has nothing to count; the rules of the regular nazir are no help in answering the question., does he count another six months or does he start anew counting twelve months? If he completed his term as nazir but did not manage to shave until two or three days had passed when he became impure74It is obvious that he has to undergo the purification rite and then start his nezirut again, Mishnah 3:4.. Rebbi Mani asked: Since he did not sanctify his hair, but what permits him to shave75It seems that this sentence contains a scribal error and the text should be corrected as in the editio princeps: מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא קִידֵּשׁ שְׂעָרוֹ בְּדָם מִי מַתִּירוֹ לְגַלֵּחַ “Since he did not sanctify his hair by blood (i. e., by the prescribed triple sacrifice) what permits him to shave?? “I am a nazir after two days, already a nazir in perpetuity.” Since he may shave, he is a nazir16Cf. Note 23.. “I am a nazir after [20]77Reading כ֗ “20” instead of ב֗ “2” (as in the parallel in the Babli, 14a) with the standard commentaries. Not only is “20” required by the context but also the reading “2” would require ב֗ ימים as against the collective כ֗ יום. days, already a nazir in perpetuity.” Since he may shave, is he a nazir, or since if he became impure he has no time to cancel, is he no nazir?78In this case, one has to assume that he set a date for the start of his nezirut in perpetuity. The question is whether the introductory nezirut represents a valid vow. If the dates are chosen so that the nezirut in perpetuity starts immediately after the end of the regular nazir period, he would be able to fulfill all conditions of that period, which include shaving his head and burning the hair under the well-being offering. But if he should become impure during that time and has to start again, he would not be able at the end of the period to shave his head, and, therefore, could not fulfill the requirements for the triple sacrifice at that time. This might invalidate the first vow. No answer is given; the problem is to be resolved in the future if sacrifices are renewed in a rebuilt Temple. Similarly, the problem remains open in the Babli, 14a.. “I am a nazir after 30 days, but already a Samson-nazir.” Rebbi Ḥinena said, it is reasonable that the Torah nezirut should preëmpt the Samson-nezirut79He keeps the regular nezirut, including its shaving, as if the Samson-nezirut did not exist.. What is the reason? “Thus he shall proceed, following the Torah of his nazir vow;80Num. 6:21.” if his nazir vow follows the Torah. This excludes Samson-nezirut which is not from the Torah81But from the prophets; it is valid as a common usage, not as a biblical precept.. 82Here starts the discussion of the rules of the Samson-nazir.“If he becomes impure, he does not bring a sacrifice of impurity.” He only said, “he does not bring a sacrifice of impurity.” But is he whipped83For intentionally violating the commandment of purity of a nazir.? The Mishnah follows Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah84Babli 4b, Tosephta 1:5. The Babli explains that the sentence about the Samson-nazir is formulated in parallel to the sentence about the nazir in perpetuity who is forbidden to become impure.: A Samson-nazir makes himself impure for the dead, since Samson himself was making himself impure for the dead. Rebbi Simeon says, if somebody said, “as Samson”, he did not say anything, since the quality of nazir was not brought on by his mouth85In the interpretation of the Babli, 4b, R. Simeon negates the possibility for anybody to validly vow to be a Samson-nazir.. What is the reason? “By the word of his nazir-vow”86Num. 6:21. In the Biblical text: כְּפִי נִדְרוֹ “by the mouth of his vow”.. Any whose quality of nazir was brought on by his mouth; this excludes Samson-nezirut which was not brought on by his mouth but by the Word. What is the reason? “For the lad will be God’s nazir from the womb.87Jud. 13:5.”

MISHNAH: An unspecified nezirut is for thirty days88If no particular time-frame was indicated at the time the vow was made, the vow automatically extends to 30 days, which is the minimum possible for the duration of such a vow... If he said, I shall be a nazir once large, I shall be a nazir once small, even from here to the end of the world89All these expressions relate to surface area, not time measurements; they are irrelevant for a vow of nazir. From Mishnah 6 (cf. Note 106) it is clear that he said “I shall be nazir once from here to the end of the world.”, he is a nazir for 30 days. I shall be a nazir [and]90This is the reading of the Babli and all Mishnah mss.; it is required by the context. one day, I shall be a nazir [and] one hour, I shall be a nazir one and a half times, he is a nazir two times91Since the original vow was not specified in time, it is for 30 days. If then something is added for a specific time (≤ 30 days), the second vow automatically is extended to the full 30 days.. I am a nazir for thirty days and one hour, he is a nazir for 31 days since a nazir vow cannot be made for hours92Since the verse (Num. 6:13) speaks of “fulfilling the days of his nazir vow.” Since he said “30 days and …”, he has to bring the three sacrifices after 30 days, shave, and observe a second period of thirty days. But if he said “30+x days”, he observes 30+x days and only then brings the sacrifices.. HALAKHAH: “An unspecified nezirut is for thirty days,” etc. Bar Qappara said “ιʼεʼιʼεʼ” is thirty93Num. 6:5: “Until the fulfillment of the days he shall be holy”. Since the verse mentions “the fulfillment of the days”, it must refer to a fixed number; but none is indicated. The number is found by interpreting “he shall be” יהיה in the Alexandrian numbering system using letters as numbers. Since י (ι) = 10, ה (ε) = 5, the sum is 2∙10+2∙5 = 30. (In the Babli, 5a and Sanhedrin 22b, this is attributed to Rav Mattanah; in Sifry Deut. 25 it is a gloss.). Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Corresponding to the 29 times that in the Chapter about the nazir in the Torah is written “vow, nazir, to vow as nazir”94In Chapter 6, 6 times in v. 21, 4 times in v. 2, 3 each in vv. 5,12,16, 2 each in vv. 13,19, and once in vv. 3,4,6,8,9,20. In the Babli, 5a, this passage is attributed to bar Pada.. Are they not 3095If one counts the related word נֶזֶר in v. 7.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one has to be removed for its definition96Before rules of the nazir can be explained, the notion of nazir has to be defined.. In the opinion of Bar Qappara, if he shaved on the 30th day, he did not fulfill his obligation. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan97This should read: “R. Jonathan” since it refers to the statement of R. Samuel bar Nahman. (However, in the Babli, Sanhedrin 22b, R. Samuel bar Naḥman reports a similar statement in the name of R. Joḥanan.), if he shaved on the 30th day, he fulfilled his obligation98Since the obligation is 29 days, the 30th day automatically is the day of celebration.. Some want to understand it from here: “To let his head’s hair grow wildly.99Num. 6:5.” How much is a hair growth100The scribe wrote first: “How much is wild hair?” This might be the better reading.? 30 days. Some want to understand it from here: “She shall cry for her father and her mother the days of a month101Deut. 21:13. The argument is based on the doctrine of uniqueness of lexemes, viz., that a word used in the Torah has one and only one meaning: A meaning established in one place can be transferred to any other. Cf. Berakhot 1:1, Note 70..” Since “days” mentioned there are 30, so also “days” mentioned here. Some want to understand it from here: 102Num. 6:12.“The prior days shall fall, for his nezirut is impure.” The days which became permitted, which Moses and his court had permitted103Moses had forbidden Aaron and his sons to let their hair grow in mourning for Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10:6), which otherwise they would have done for the customary period of 30 days (cf. Num. 20:29, Deut. 34:8)., and that is no less than 30 days. Some want to understand it from here: “Until the days are fulfilled99Num. 6:5.”. How much are full days104From one full moon to the next.? 30 days. Then if he shaved on the 30th day, he did not fulfill his obligation! Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, “days” are written defectively יָמִם, with a letter י missing105Therefore, there can be a day missing in the count, as there may be only 29 days from one full moon to the next.. There106Mishnah 1:6. He is a nazir for the greater number of 30 days or the days one needs to get to place X. Why is the person who is a nazir to the end of the world not a nazir in perpetuity? Cf. Note 89. The same explanation is in the Babli, 7a., we have stated: “I am a nazir from here to place X”, and here, he says so? There is a difference, for he said “once”. Rav said: “I am a nazir for 30 days and one day107In contrast to the Mishnah (Note 90), where nazir was not mentioned and, therefore, the addition was something new, here nazir is mentioned and it is not clear whether the addition is a new vow.,” he is a nazir twice since he could have said “31 days”. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “I shall be a nazir [and]90This is the reading of the Babli and all Mishnah mss.; it is required by the context. one day, I shall be a nazir [and] one hour, I shall be a nazir one and a half times, he is a nazir two times.” What could he have said, “30, and an hour”108The argument of Rav is disproved from the second part of the sentence, referring to the man who says that he shall be nazir “and an hour”. Since the Mishnah says that if he said “for 30 days and one hour” he is a nazir for 31 days and the mention of “days” does not finish the sentence; each sentence has to be analyzed to determine as to which expressions are covered by nazir.? A baraita disagrees with the rabbis109It seems that this must read “Rav”, since no rabbis are mentioned in this context.: Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba did not disagree about one who said, “I am a nazir 30 days and one day,” that he is a nazir only once. Where do they disagree? About one who said, “I am a nazir 30 days and in addition one day,” where Rebbi Ismael said, he is a nazir twice110Since “in addition” introduces a second vow., but Rebbi Aqiba said, he is a nazir only once111While in speech, “and in addition” may introduce a new clause, in elementary arithmetic וְעוֹד simply means “+”. Since one deals with numbers, the usage in arithmetic is decisive..

MISHNAH: “I am a nazir like the hair on my head, like the dust of the earth, or like the sand of the sea.” He is a nazir in perpetuity and shaves every thirty days. Rebbi says, this one does not shave every thirty days. Who is one who shaves every thirty days? If he says, “I am obligated for nezirut like the hair on my head, like the dust of the earth, or like the sand of the sea64Rebbi agrees that an unspecified period of nezirut is 30 days. He requires the vow to state that the person making the vow intends a multitude of vows (each one implying a major expense for three sacrifices). But a reference to the hair on his head is for him a reference to a big tuft of hair, just as a reference to the dust of the earth is to a mound of earth. The Sages hold that the language used implies a reference to a multitude of separate things (hairs, dust particles, sand grains)..”“I am a nazir a house full112In Arukh, s. v. פונדק, the reading is מְלֹא חָבית “an amphora full”., or a chest full.” One checks him out. If he said, I made one large vow of nazir, he is a nazir for 30 days. But if he said, I made an unspecified vow of nazir, one considers the chest as filled with mustard seed and he is a nazir all his days113And obligated for a triple sacrifice every 30 days. Cf. Note 64.. HALAKHAH: If somebody says, I am obligated as nazir, etc. Rebbi Manni said, one increases the severity115This belongs to Mishnah 5. In asking the person making the vow, one starts suggesting that he imagined the box (or amphora) full of citrus fruit. If he denies this, one continues with pomegranates, then walnuts, etc., going from larger items such as etrogim to smaller and finally minuscule fruits, such as mustard seeds, to increase the number of pieces contained in the same amphora, as a simile of increasing the number of neziriot, ending with practically limitless number.. At the start one looks at it as if full of etrogim, after that pomegranates, after that walnuts, after that filberts, after that pepper kernels, after that sesame seeds, after that mustard seed. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: If somebody sets a term to his state of nazir, one does not allow him to shave116But he has only one period of nezirut, at the end of which he brings his sacrifices and shaves, and this even if the term he indicated probably exceeds his lifetime.. And it was stated thus117Tosephta 1:4. A similar text (1’000 instead of 200) in the Babli (7a,8b) 7.: “I am a nazir all my days, I am a nazir in perpetuity118By an error of the corrector, “he is a nazir in perpetuity” is missing here; it does appear in the parallels.; 100 years, or 200 years, he is not a nazir in perpetuity119He is a nazir for 100 or 200 years, not obligated for any sacrifices but not allowed to shave in the meantime..”

MISHNAH: “I am a nazir from here to place X.” One estimates how many days it is from here to place X. If less than thirty days, he is a nazir for 30 days, otherwise for the count of the days.“I am a nazir according to the count of the days of the year, he counts nezirut in the count of the days of a year. Rebbi Jehudah said, this happened, and after he had finished, he died. HALAKHAH: “ “I am a nazir from here to place X,” etc. Where do we hold? If in the count of a solar year, 365 neziriot following the count of a solar year. If in the count of a lunar year, 354 neziriot following the count of a lunar year. But “the count of the days of a year” is problematic120Since he could have in mind either an actual Julianic year of 365 or 366 days, or an actual Jewish lunar-solar year which according to the calendar in current use is between 353 and 385 days (with somewhat greater variations in the Mishnaic calendar, described in the appendix to the author’s Seder Olam, Northvale 1998.) In the Babli, 8b, and the Tosephta, 1:3, the cases of solar and lunar years are stated as a baraita. The formulation of the Yerushalmi Mishnah, referring simply to “a year” is not found in any of these parallel sources.At this point, the scribe of the ms. wroteגרש ההלכתא קדמייתא דרישא דנדרים עד מטי סופא דהילכתא“One reads here from the the first Halakhah at the start of Nedarim until the end of the Halakhah.”This was deleted by the corrector who prepared the ms. for the printer and inserted the text (Nedarim 1:1, Notes 93–102). The differences in readings are due to the corrector who probably was influenced by his training in the Babylonian Talmud. The main baraita, the story of Simeon the Just, also appears in the Tosephta, 4:7; Babli, 4b, Nedarim 9b; Sifry Naśo 12; Num.rabba 10(7).. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: This man was destined for death, only his nezirut suspended it. The Mishnah follows Rebbi Jehudah since it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, the ancient pious ones desired to bring a purification offering, but the Omnipresent did not let a sin happen to them; so they made a vow of nazir in order to be able to bring a purification offering. Rebbi Simeon says, they became sinners because they made a vow of nazir, for it was said: “He shall atone for himself for what he sinned about the person,” that one sinned against his own person because he barred himself from [drinking] wine. It turns out that the position of Simeon the Just parallels Rebbi Simeon. As it was stated: Simeon the Just said, I never ate the reparation offering of a nazir except once. Once a man came to me from the South, I saw that he was handsome, with beautiful eyes and good looks, and his hair in waves. I said to him, my son, what induced you to cut off that beautiful hair? He said to me: Rabbi, I was a shepherd in my village and I went to fill the water vessel with water when I saw my mirror image in the water and my instinct rushed over me and tried to remove me from the World98Since the obligation is 29 days, the 30th day automatically is the day of celebration.. I said to it, wicked! You are rushing me to something which is not yours; it is upon me to sanctify you to Heaven! I embraced him, kissed him on his head and said, my son, there should be many more in Israel who fulfill the Omnipresent’s will like you. About you the verse says, “man or woman, if he clearly articulates vowing a vow of nazir, to be a nazir for the Eternal.” Rebbi Mana asked: Why following Simeon the Just, even following Rebbi Simeon? Did Simeon the Just never eat a purification offering for suet? Did Simeon the Just never eat a purification offering for blood? Simeon the Just holds that people make a vow while they are upset. Since they make the vow while they are upset, in the end, they wonder. But if he wonders, his sacrifices become similar to one of those who slaughtered profane animals in the Temple courtyard. But this one made a well thought-out dedication, when his mouth and his thoughts were in unison.

MISHNAH: “I shall be a nazir [abstaining] from dried figs and fig cake1Figs and all their derivatives are permitted to a nazir.,” the House of Shammai say, he is a nazir2If he said “I shall be a nazir”, he became a nazir. The qualification he appended is irrelevant. (In the Babli, 9a, this argument is attributed to R. Meïr, who thinks that “people do not say nonsensical things.”), but the House of Hillel say, he is no nazir3Since a nazir is permitted figs, his statement makes no sense and nobody can become a nazir by a nonsensical statement since Num. 6:2 requires that the vow of nezirut be “clearly stated.”. Rebbi Jehudah said, when the House of Shammai expressed an opinion, it was about one who said, they are qorban for me4He disputes the Mishnah; nobody can become a nazir by vowing to abstain from figs and fig products. But anybody can make a vow to abstain from figs by declaring them qorban for himself (cf. Introduction to Tractate Nedarim.). HALAKHAH: “I shall be a nazir [abstaining] from dried figs and fig cake,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of the House of Shammai: because he mentioned the state of nazir2If he said “I shall be a nazir”, he became a nazir. The qualification he appended is irrelevant. (In the Babli, 9a, this argument is attributed to R. Meïr, who thinks that “people do not say nonsensical things.”). Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, because of substitutes of substitutes5Since the House of Shammai accept very far-fetched comparisons and substitutes for a vow of nezirut; cf. Chapter 1, Note 19. In the Tosephta, 2:1, this is explicitly given as the reason of the House of Shammai. The Tosephta must have been unknown to the editors of the Yerushalmi.. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, a verse supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “So says the Eternal, as cider is found in the grape bunch, etc6Is. 65:8..” The Torah called a grape bunch “cider”. And people call a dried fig cider, because of substitutes of substitutes. What is the difference between them? If he said, “I shall be a nazir[abstaining] from dried figs and fig cake.” In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion he is a nazir, in Rebbi Simeon’s opinion he is not a nazir7This is difficult since the House of Shammai declare in the Mishnah that he is a nazir and the entire discussion only proceeds according to the House of Shammai. One has to assume that the person making the vow was asked what he understood by “dried figs.” If he answered, dried figs, R. Simeon ben Laqish cannot consider this as substitutes of substitutes, but for R. Joḥanan he still pronounced the word nazir. (This interpretation is that of Tosaphot Menaḥot 103a, s.v. הריני in the name of Rabbenu Tam.). “I shall be a nazir[abstaining] from a loaf of bread,” in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion he is a nazir, in Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion he is not a nazir8A loaf of bread is not a grape derivative by any stretch of the imagination.. “From a loaf of bread,” he did not say anything9Since the word nazir was not used. One has to assume that the expression הֲרֵינִי was used, since הֲרֵי עָלַי כִכָּר would be a vow to abstain from bread as qorban (Chapter 1, Notes 44–45).. Rebbi Uqba asked before Rebbi Mana: The opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems to be inverted, as we have stated there10Mishnah Menaḥot 12:3. A voluntary flour offering is prescribed as an offering of fine wheat flour. Barley is prescribed only for some purification offerings which cannot be voluntary.: “ ‘I take upon myself the obligation to bring a flour offering from barley.’ He shall bring from wheat.” And Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, because he mentioned “flour offering.11One would have expected R. Simeon ben Laqish to hold that the vow of the offering was invalid since it was impossible. In the Babli, 9b, his opinion is quoted as generally accepted.” And here, he says so? He accepts one and he accepts the other. He accepts12He does not dispute the reason given by R. Joḥanan but only adds a second reason. because he mentioned the state of nazir, and he accepts because of substitutes of substitutes. You should know that it is so since we have stated13Mishnah 2:3. This discussion now also proceeds according to the House of Hillel.: “If he said, the cow said.” She did not say anything; it is because he mentioned the state of nazir, and here he mentioned the state of nazir. Any expressions can be used for nezirut16If otherwise they are appropriate. except the expression qorban. Any expressions can be used for qorban16If otherwise they are appropriate. except the expression nezirut. If he said about a bunch of grapes, “I am locked away from you, I am separated from you, I am prevented from you, I am nazir from you,” he is a nazir. “It is for me qorban,” he only forbade it for himself as qorban17He cannot use any of the grapes of the bunch but is permitted any other grapes in the world. If he said, “grapes are qorban for me,” he is forbidden all grapes and their derivates but is not a nazir.. If he said about a loaf of bread, “I am locked away from it, I am separated from it, I am prevented from it, it is qorban for me,” he only forbade it for himself as qorban.18Since nothing connected with a loaf of bread has any relation with the rules of nazir, any restriction must be interpretated as a vow of qorban. “I am nazir from it,” he is a nazir19Because he used the word nazir, not because of any connection with the loaf.. “Prevented” implies both nezirut and qorban. If somebody said about a bunch of grapes, “I am prevented from it,” if he wanted to eat it, one tells him, is it not holy for its money’s worth? If he redeemed it, one tells him, are you not a nazir20An ambiguous vow has to be interpreted restrictively in all respects. If the vow could be interpreted as qorban or nazir, it is both (and, in fact, is a triple vow since qorban may mean either a prohibition “as if it were a qorban” or an offering to the Temple.) Therefore, when the bunch of grapes was redeemed and its value given to the Temple, the person making the vow still cannot eat it since he might be a nazir (even though one vow cannot be both qorban and nazir.)? Any expressions can be used for redemption except the expression “exchange”21Animals dedicated for use on the altar acquire what is called קְדֻשַּׁת הַגּוּף “bodily sanctity.” An animal used for the altar must be without blemish. Such an animal cannot be redeemed. It also should not be exchanged for another unblemished animal (Lev. 27:10). While any attempt to redeem the animal while unblemished, i. e., to subtract it to profane status, is simply impossible, the substitution of one unblemished animal for another, while sinful, nevertheless is possible and results in both animals being dedicated to the altar. If an altar animal develops a blemish, its bodily sanctity is reduced to קְדֻשַּׁת דָּמִים “holiness of monetary value.” The animal must be redeemed, i. e., its sanctity transferred to the money paid for it, and the money then used to buy a replacement animal. In this case, a substitution is impossible; there is no shortcut to avoid the redemption process.Anything donated to the Temple treasury has only קְדֻשַּׁת דָּמִים from the start; it can be redeemed but not substituted.. Any expressions can be used for exchange except the expression “redemption.” If he said about dedications to the altar: “this one is for that one, exchange for that one, barter for that one,” it is an exchange22Sinful but valid.. “This is redeemed for that one,” it is no exchange23If an unblemished animal was offered as exchange for an unblemished altar animal but the language of redemption was used, the transaction is void; the animal offered remains profane.. If he said about dedications for the upkeep of the Temple: “this one is for that one, barter for that one,” its money’s worth is engaged24The object originally given to the Temple has been redeemed by the object offered as redemption (provided that the monetary value of the thing given in redemption was stated; Mishnah Temurah 5:5).. “Exchange for that one,” he did not say anything25Since תְּמוּרָה is impossible for anything but unblemished animals dedicated as sacrifices.. The other [expressions] serve for redemption and exchange. Dedications to the altar are subject both to redemption and to exchange. [Animals] dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple26This text is impossible since objects dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple are not subject to exchange but only to redemption. Unblemished animals may not be offered for the upkeep of the Temple; they automatically would be offered to the altar. Therefore, a “dedication for the upkeep of the Temple whose dedication preceded its defect” is an altar animal which developed a blemish and, therefore, has the reduced status of קְדֻשַּׁת דָּמִים and can be redeemed. Blemished animals cannot be dedicated to the altar; any such dedication is invalid. who were dedicated before developing a defect, “this one is for that one,” if he wants to sacrifice a perfect animal, one tells him that its sanctity is for its money’s worth. If he wants to eat it after it developed a blemish, one tells him that it is holy as exchange27If an animal originally destined for the altar but later disqualified was redeemed not by money but by the offering of an unblemished animal and use of a term which can be interpreted to mean either redemption or substitution, the original animal is redeemed but the other animal is both a substitute and a redemption. It cannot be sacrificed since it is a redemption; one cannot wait until it develops a blemish with age because it is a substitution. It must be redeemed to eliminate the “holiness of monetary value” and then be sacrificed on the altar.: “Itself and its exchange shall be holy28Lev. 27:10..” Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, since he knows that anybody who exchanges is whipped, it never occured to him to exchange29He objects to the construction of a case in which an expression was used that might mean both redemption and substitution. Since redemption is required but substitution is sinful, it is obvious that only redemption was intended.. Any expressions can be used for valuation30“Valuation” is the sum fixed for vows in which a person promises to pay his or another person’s valuation to the Temple (Lev. 27:1–8). The valuation depends on age and gender; it is fixed by the Biblical text (assuming a known ratio of the Biblical šeqel to the local currency.) “Money’s worth” of a person is the value he would fetch if sold as a slave. This worth can be promised by a vow, but not by a valuation. except the expression “money’s worth”. Any expressions can be used for money’s worth except the expression “valuation.” If he said about a human, “I shall pay his cost, I shall pay his settlement, I shall pay his estimate, I shall pay his valuation,” he has to pay his valuation31If an expression is ambiguous but “paying the valuation” is one of the meanings, in the absence of a definite indication to the contrary that is the legal meaning.. “I shall pay his money’s worth,” he has to pay his money’s worth. “Estimate” is used as an expression both for valuation and money’s worth. A human has both valuation and money’s worth. If he said about a human, “I shall pay his estimate,” if he was good looking, he pays his money’s worth; if he was ugly, he pays his valuation32In every case, he pays the larger sum.. The House of Shammai say, he is bound by a vow and is a nazir, but the House of Hillel say, he is neither bound by a vow nor is he a nazir33This refers to the Mishnah. The person made an inappropriate vow of nazir, referring to food permitted to a nazir. The House of Shammai hold that he is forbidden all kinds of dried figs because of his vow, and he is a nazir since he used the word nazir. The House of Hillel hold that an inappropriate choice of words invalidates both vow and nezirut. This rejects R. Jehudah’s interpretation.The parallel in the Babli, 9b, shows that this is a baraita. There, it is given in two versions (of which the Yerushalmi text is a combination). In one, the House of Shammai say, he is bound by a vow and is a nazir, but the House of Hillel say, he is bound by a vow but not a nazir. In the other, the House of Shammai say, he is bound by a vow but not a nazir, but the House of Hillel say, he is neither bound by a vow nor is he a nazir..

MISHNAH: If he said: “this cow said, I shall be a nezirah if I be standing up,34The rancher has trouble to make the cow get on her feet; he says, it seems to me that the cow made a vow to be nezirah if she be standing up. For the House of Shammai, he used the word nazir; for the House of Hillel what he said was meaningless.” or “this door said, I shall be a nazir if I be open,” the House of Shammai say, he is a nazir, but the House of Hillel say, he is no nazir. Rebbi Jehudah said, when the House of Shammai expressed an opinion, it was only about one who said, this cow shall be qorban for me if she gets up35Then the cow is forbidden to him as qorban, but he is no nazir.. HALAKHAH: “If he said: ‘this cow said,’ ” etc. If he saw a Gentile passing by and said, “look what this Gentile said.36It is understood that he said: “look what this Gentile said, I shall be a nazir.”” Then he is a nazir. Does this mean that he is a nazir because Gentiles cannot make a vow of nazir37Mishnah 9:1. Therefore, any vow of nazir must be the Jew’s.? He has not said anything! Let us hear from the following: “If he said: ‘this cow said’ ”. You said this only because he spoke the word nezirut. And here, he spoke the word nezirut34The rancher has trouble to make the cow get on her feet; he says, it seems to me that the cow made a vow to be nezirah if she be standing up. For the House of Shammai, he used the word nazir; for the House of Hillel what he said was meaningless.. If he saw a Jew passing by and said, “look what this Jew said.38He attributed to him a vow of nazir.” Then he is a nazir. He39The passer-by. had not said anything. Does this mean that he is a nazir because Jews make a vow of nazir? Should we say that nevertheless he is a nazir or is he studying the case? So I am saying, “for example, if he was reading the Torah and mentioned nazir,naziq.40Chapter 1, after Note 10. Since in that case he is not a nazir, he cannot be a nazir in the present case.” Can a man be taken to nezirut by language appropriate for a woman41Probably one should translate: “a vow formulated in the feminine”; but the explanation given “there” (in Babylonia) then does not quite fit.? There, they say, “a nezirah was passing by42Reading with editio princeps איעבר “passed by” (m.) for אי עבר “did not pass”. This refers to the case discussed in Halakhah 1:1 (Notes 2,23) that a person points to a nazir and indicates that he wants to be like him. It is admitted that he can point to a female.”. Can a man be taken to nezirut by masculine language? Rebbi Yose said, the notion of nezirut is defined in the masculine: “… or a woman if he clearly makes a vow.43Num. 6:2: “A man or a woman, if he clearly makes a vow”. Since a verb referring both to a male and a female is used in the masculine by traditional grammatical rules, he infers that the masculine can be used in all cases.” Unless the cow stood up, unless the door was opened44Under which circumstances will the House of Shammai insist that the maker of the vow is a nazir? If the cow does stand up or if she never stands up?? Let us hear from the following45Mishnah 5:6: “If people dispute facts; A says that he will be nazir if a fact is true, B says that he will be nazir if it is not true, C says that he will be nazir if both A and B are wrong. The House of Shammai say, …”: “The House of Shammai say, they are all nezirim. But the House of Hillel say, only those are nezirim whose words turned out not to be true.” So is the Mishnah46The text is garbled here (and somewhat garbled in Halakhah 6:6): “So is the Mishnah: ‘Whose words turned out to be true;’ it is formulated in the opposite, so as not to bury her son.” The rancher’s statement, that his cow said, “I shall be a nezirah if I be standing up”, for the House of Shammai has to be interpreted as a vow of nazir if the cow never stands up, since the cow standing up is the desired outcome; just as a woman who is afraid her son might die will formulate it saying her son certainly will not die. (It is possible to read a similar interpretation into the text of the Babli, 10b.): “Whose words turned out not to be true;” it is formulated in the opposite, as not to say that she should not bury her son. Even if the cow did not stand up, even if the door was not opened47For the House of Shammai, he is a nazir in any case.. The House of Shammai say, he is bound by a vow and is a nazir, but the House of Hillel say, he is neither bound by a vow nor is he a nazir33This refers to the Mishnah. The person made an inappropriate vow of nazir, referring to food permitted to a nazir. The House of Shammai hold that he is forbidden all kinds of dried figs because of his vow, and he is a nazir since he used the word nazir. The House of Hillel hold that an inappropriate choice of words invalidates both vow and nezirut. This rejects R. Jehudah’s interpretation.The parallel in the Babli, 9b, shows that this is a baraita. There, it is given in two versions (of which the Yerushalmi text is a combination). In one, the House of Shammai say, he is bound by a vow and is a nazir, but the House of Hillel say, he is bound by a vow but not a nazir. In the other, the House of Shammai say, he is bound by a vow but not a nazir, but the House of Hillel say, he is neither bound by a vow nor is he a nazir..

MISHNAH: If a cup of wine was prepared48Mixed with water. for somebody who then said, “I am a nazir [abstaining] from it”, he is a nazir49Since nezirut cannot be partial. Once he mentions nezirut for one cup of wine, he is forbidden all wine, all grapes, all haircuts, and any impurity of the dead.. It happened that a cup of wine was prepared for a woman who already was drunk, when she said, “I am a nazir [abstaining] from it”. The Sages said that she only intended to say, “it shall be qorban for me.50Since she was drunk, she certainly did not want to forbid all wine to herself, but only that particular cup which was too much for her.” HALAKHAH: “If a cup of wine was prepared,” etc. The Mishnah applies if he is not used to it55The first part, in which the person who declares himself nazir for one cup is actually a nazir applies only to people who are not used to getting drunk.; but if he is used to it, that is what we have stated: “It happened that a cup of wine was prepared for a woman who already was drunk when she said, “I am a nazir [abstaining] from it”. The Sages said that she only intended to say, “it shall be qorban for me.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: It is not even an expression of qorban. Why? Because one can neither use an expression of nezirut for qorban nor an expression of qorban for nezirut56As explained in Halakhah 1, Note 16..

MISHNAH: “I am a nazir on condition that I may drink wine or become impure for the dead,” he is a nazir and forbidden everything51Since nezirut is defined in the Torah and any stipulation contradicting a biblical law is void (Ketubot 9:1, Note 5).. “I knew that there are nezirim but I did not know that wine is forbidden to the nazir52A person who declared himself a nazir, and when told that wine was forbidden to him declares that at the moment of the vow he was ignorant of its implications.”; wine is forbidden to him, but Rebbi Simeon permits53Because the vow was made in error and such a vow is excluded by the requirement that the vow be clearly enunciated (Num. 6:2).. “I knew that wine was forbidden to the nazir but I thought that the Sages would permit me because I cannot live without wine, or because I am an undertaker;” he is permitted but Rebbi Simeon forbids54For the majority, the vow is in error; for R. Simeon it is a frivolous vow.. HALAKHAH: The Mishnah follows Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr says, one has to double one’s stipulation57Mishnah Qiddušin 3:3. A legal stipulation must follow the example of the stipulation between Moses and the tribes of Gad and Reuben (Num. 32), which covers both the positive (if they fulfill the stipulation, they will acquire the land in Transjordan), and the negative (if they fail to fulfill the stipulation, they will be given land in Cisjordan). Since in Mishnah 4 the person declaring himself a nazir failed to state that if he could not be a nazir on his terms, he would not be a nazir, his stipulation is invalid and he is a nazir.. It follows everybody’s opinion58The waiving of any stipulation in violation of biblical law (Note 51) does not depend on R. Meïr’s opinion.; one tells him: Watch and keep discipline59Deut. 12:28; a poetic formulation of the principle of Note 51.. The Mishnah follows Rebbi Meïr60As explained in Note 57. or Rebbi Jehudah ben Tema61Who holds that an impossible condition is considered nonexistent. Since a stipulation against biblical law is impossible, the condition mentioned in the first sentence of Mishnah 4 is considered nonexistent., as it was stated62Tosephta Giṭṭin 5:12; Babli Giṭṭin 84a.: “This is your bill of divorce, on condition that you not fly in the air, that you not cross the Sea on your feet, that is a bill of divorce. On condition that you fly in the air, that you cross the Sea on your feet, that is no bill of divorce; Rebbi Jehudah ben Tema said, it is a bill of divorce.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, you should realize that he seeks a subterfuge for the bill of divorce63He thinks that he can doubly hurt his wife, by preventing her to remarry and not paying her ketubah, since he may claim that he is waiting for her to satisfy the stipulation. By declaring the stipulation invalid, the court will permit her to remarry and force him to pay., since he attached conditions that cannot be satisfied. What is Rebbi Jehudah ben Tema’s reason? Since he attached conditions that cannot be satisfied, it is as if the condition attached to the bill of divorce were satisfied64In Tosephta and Babli: R. Jehudah ben Tema states as a principle that any stipulation which cannot be satisfied is only intended as a delaying tactic.. Does the Mishnah follow Rebbi Simeon65Since R. Simeon is quoted as disagreeing in two of the three cases quoted in Mishnah 4, does one have to assume that he agrees in the first case?? For “Rebbi Simeon declares him free, because his offering was not according to the way of offerers.66Mishnah Menaḥot 12:3. If somebody vows an offering of barley flour (which cannot be a voluntary offering), the rabbis require him to bring an offering of wheat flour but “R. Simeon declares him free, because his offering was not according to the way of offerers.” One should assume that R. Simeon declares a person who wants to be nazir on condition that he may drink wine as “offering not according to the way of offerers.” Why does he not disagree in the first case?” And Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, there is a difference because he reserved shaving67Since the person making the vow did not stipulate that he may shave, the vow is valid for the prohibition of shaving and a partially valid vow is valid.. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If it is because he reserved shaving, does not the following state “it is forbidden to him, but Rebbi Simeon permits.” Did he not reserve shaving [and] impurity but Rebbi Simeon frees him68The vow is partially valid; why is it not valid?? There is a difference, because of an opening for the vow69Since he bases his vow on an argument which will automatically grant him a revocation of the vow (cf. Nedarim Chapter 9), the vow is automatically revoked. In the Babli, 11b, this argument is attributed to Rav Assi. In the Tosephta, 2:3, it is explicitly attributed to R. Simeon.. If it was because of an opening for the vow, does not the following state “he is permitted but Rebbi Simeon forbids”? Rebbi Simeon does not recognize it as an opening for the vow but the rabbis recognize it as an opening for the vow. Why? Because he connects his vow with his life70If he needs wine for medical purposes, the use of wine must be permitted to him.. One understands, to drink wine. The defile oneself for the dead? It is his profession to bury the dead71The only person who can have a vow of nazir annulled because he has to defile himself for the dead is the undertaker..

MISHNAH: “I shall be a nazir and obligate myself to shave72“To shave a nazir” means to pay for the three required sacrifices which enable a nazir to shave his head. It seems that most nezirim were poor and depended on charity to pay for their sacrifices; cf. Berakhot 7:3, Notes 78–89. a nazir,” if another heard him and said: “I also shall be and I obligate myself to shave another nazir,” if they are clever, they will shave one another73They will have fulfilled their vows without added expenditure.; otherwise they have to shave other nezirim. HALAKHAH: “I shall be a nazir and obligate myself to shave a nazir,” etc. This “I also”, what do you subsume under it? Does “I also” refer to the entire sentence74In that case, the second person by saying “I also” would accept the obligations of being a nazir and of paying for another person’s sacrifices. If then he adds a vow to pay for another person’s sacrifices, he should be held liable for two sets of sacrifices., or does “I also” only refer to part of the sentence75One has to assume that it refers only to the first obligation pronounced by the first person.? If “I also” refers to the entire sentence, he says “I also am a nazir76And he has to pay for another person’s sacrifices..” If “I also” only refers to part of the sentence, he said “I am a nazir.” It was stated in the House of Rebbi: “ ‘I also’ refers to the entire sentence77The Babli, 11b, proves from the wording of the Mishnah that “I also” only refers to the first obligation pronounced by the first person..” Rebbi Yose said, this implies that if some person said, I am a nazir for 100 days, and another person heard him and said, “I also”; the first one is a nazir for 100 days, the other is a nazir for 30 days78Since without further specification, “I also” only refers to the obligation of nazir, not to the added term. unless he says, “I am like him, I am the same as he is.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “I am obligated to shave half [a nazir]. Then he said, I am a nazir. If he shaved after 30 days he has fulfilled his obligation79Since the obligation to pay for a set of sacrifices precedes his own vow of nazir, he can fulfill his obligation by applying the sacrifices to himself..” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies this: “ ‘I shall be a nazir and obligate myself to shave a nazir,’ if another heard him and said: ‘I also shall be and I obligate myself to shave another nazir,’ if they are clever, they will shave one another.” But not themselves80Since the vow of nazir implies the obligation of the sacrifices, a later vow to pay for sacrifices establishes a separate obligation; it cannot be used retroactively for his own obligation.. Because he said, “I shall be a nazir and obligate myself to shave a nazir”. But if he said, “I obligate myself to shave half a nazir81Cf. Mishnah 6.” and then he said, “I shall be a nazir,” if he shaved himself he has acquitted himself of his obligation79Since the obligation to pay for a set of sacrifices precedes his own vow of nazir, he can fulfill his obligation by applying the sacrifices to himself.. One understands that the second one can shave the first, but can the first shave the second82By the preceding argument, a vow to pay for sacrifices can be used for later vows of nazir, not for earlier ones.? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: This means that a person can take upon himself the sacrifice of a nazir who only in the future will make his vow83It really is used in the inverse direction. If somebody makes a vow to pay for sacrifices, it does not matter whether or not the sacrifices were already due at the moment the vow was made. It is only for one’s own sacrifices that the order in which the vows were made does matter.. Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira inferred three [statements]: It implies that if he shaved himself he acquitted himself. It implies that a person obligates himself for another’s nezirut sacrifices of a future vow. It implies that a person chooses another’s nezirut sacrifices without the other’s knowledge. But he cannot dedicate [the animals] without the other’s knowledge84Since an animal cannot be brought to the Temple without having been dedicated, and the dedication has to be for a specific obligation, the nazir whose sacrifices are paid for must be informed of the dedication for it to be valid. The same statement is in Pesaḥim 8:1(35d 1.13), but is denied in the Babli, Nedarim 36a.. Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yudan: If he said “I am obligated for the sacrifices of a nazir,” might he85The person B whose sacrifices A just has vowed to pay. make the vow of nazir in the future?If he made the vow without explaining86A did not put any condition on his vow; when he comes to pay for it, he simply pays for any needy nazir whose sacrifices are due on that day., he may shave any nazir, whether he already made the vow or whether he would make it in the future. If he explained87May he specify that his vow is valid only for a nazir who was not yet a nazir at the time of his vow?? It can be compared to the following, as Rebbi Levi ben Ḥayyata asked: If he wrote to her88A husband, who normally would have the administration of his wife’s property, writes a disclaimer to his wife in which he renounces all interest in her property. The details of this question are given in Ketubot 9:1, Notes 22–23., “I shall have nothing to do with the properties which you might inherit in the future.” May a person make a condition on things not yet in existence89Since Talmudic law does not admit futures contracts on produce which does not yet exist, there can be no valid vow for obligations that do not yet exist.?

MISHNAH: “I am taking upon myself to shave half a nazir,” and his neighbor heard it and said, “I also am taking upon myself to shave half a nazir,” each one of them shaves an entire nazir, the words of Rebbi Meïr90Since the sacrifice of a nazir must either be brought whole or not at all; the vow for half the sacrifices (which would be 1½ animals) is impossible. Since he made the vow, it has to be interpreted as a vow for a whole set of animals.. But the Sages say, each of them shaves half a nazir91The vow simply was for paying half the expenses of one nazir.. HALAKHAH: “I am taking upon myself to shave half a nazir,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rav Ḥisda both say that they disagree if it was not spelled out. What are we dealing with? If he said, every half head92If he vows half of every animal, he has to give three animals since half an animal is no sacrifice., everybody agrees that he completely shaves a nazir. If he says, half of the obligation, everybody agrees that he shaves half a nazir. But we are dealing with the case that he says: “half”. Rebbi Meïr says, as if he said half a head, but the rabbis said, as if he said, half of the obligation. Rebbi Yudan said, it turns our that leniency is a restriction. In the opinion of Rebbi Meïr who said, as if he had said half a head, he brings one sacrifice since the nazir can shave on one sacrifice93. Mishnah 6:7 states that a nazir can shave even if he brings only one sacrifice. (Note that the vow is interpreted as meaning “half a head”, not “every half head”).. In the opinion of the rabbis who said, half of the obligation, he has to pay for a sacrifice and a half, half of the obligation of a person.

MISHNAH: “I shall be a nazir if I have a son,” when a son is born to him, he is a nazir; if a daughter, a sexless94He has neither penis nor vagina., or a hermaphrodite95He has both penis and vagina. Cf. Mishnah Yebamot 8:6; Notes 224–237; Niddah 1:1, Notes 27,28., he is not a nazir. If he said, “when I see a child of mine,” even if a daughter, a sexless, or a hermaphrodite were born to him he is a nazir. HALAKHAH: “I shall be a nazir if I have a son,” etc. A daughter counts for nothing, a sexless or a hermaphrodite are questionable96This refers to the first part of the Mishnah. If the vow was conditional, a daughter certainly does not count as a son, but sexless or hermaphrodite might be crypto-males. This creates a problem only for R. Simeon who in the Mishnah holds that a vow of nazir whose validity is in doubt must be kept. There is no problem for the majority who hold that a vow of nazir whose validity is in doubt is void. The Babli, 13a, disagrees and accepts the Mishnah as everybody’s opinion..

MISHNAH: If his wife97For whom he made the vow described in Mishnah 7. had a miscarriage, he is not a nazir. Rebbi Simeon says, he should say: If it was a viable child, I am a nazir as an obligation, if not, I am a nazir voluntarily98He holds that a vow of nezirut in doubt must be kept.. If afterwards she had a child, he is a nazir99Since according to the anonymous majority he did not observe nezirut after the stillbirth.. Rebbi Simeon says, he should say: If the earlier one was a viable child, I earlier was a nazir as an obligation, and now I am a nazir voluntarily; otherwise, I earlier was a nazir voluntarily, and now I am a nazir as an obligation. HALAKHAH: “If his wife had a miscarriage,” etc. Should one not be afraid that he might have been viable? Rebbi Joḥanan said, [the Mishnah] is Rebbi Jehudah’s, since Rebbi Jehudah said, any doubt of nezirut is permitted100Tosephta 2:8: “ ‘I shall be a nazir if I have a son,’ and there was a son born to him but it is doubtful whether he is viable or not. R. Jehudah frees him since a doubt of nezirut is permitted. R. Simeon obligates him since a doubt of nezirut is forbidden.”. It was said to him that Rebbi Jehudah said so only for the end; but for the start even Rebbi Jehudah will agree101That a vow of nazir has to be kept.. What is beginning and what is end? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, everybody agrees that “I do not know whether I made a vow of nazir or not,” is at the beginning, “whether it was for 30 or 50 days”, is at the end102Since a vow of nazir had to precede the statement of duration.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbu Abun said: Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac disagreed: Everybody agrees that “I do not know whether I made a vow of nazir or not,” is at the beginning, “whether it was for 30 or 50 days”, is at the end. Where do they disagree? If it was once or twice103Whether he vowed one or two periods of nezirut.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba considered it the end, Rebbi Samuel considered it the beginning. Rebbi Mana: The problem for Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac about one or two times is whether it is the beginning or the end104In his opinion, R. Ḥiyya bar Abba had no problem with this case..

MISHNAH: “I am a nazir and a nazir when a son is born to me.” If he started counting for himself when a son was born to him, he finishes his own105Then he brings his sacrifices and shaves. and then counts for his son. “I am a nazir when a son is born to me, and a nazir.” If he had started counting for himself when a son was born to him he interrupts his own, counts for his son105Then he brings his sacrifices and shaves., and then finishes for himself106Since it is after shaving, he has to complete 30 days.. HALAKHAH: “ “I am a nazir and a nazir when a son is born to me,” etc. Rebbi Yose asked: If he said, “I am a nazir for these 30 days and those 30 days.107Since he vows twice for the same period of time, may he observe his nezirut for 30 days and then bring two sets of sacrifices to fulfill both vows?” Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana: Is that not the Mishnah? “He interrupts his own, counts for his son, and then finishes for himself.” Not even if his wife is in the process of giving birth108If he made any of the vows described in the Mishnah while his wife was in labor, the Mishnah still requires him to first observe nezirut for his son and only then his own even though they might start on the same day.? He said to him, his nezirut is not comparable to his son’s nezirut109In the case of the Mishnah, the two periods cannot start together since it is possible that his wife’s labor be prolonged and there is a 50% chance that the child will be a girl., but to the case that he said, “I am already a nazir and a nazir after twenty days.110Where he has to start the second period of nezirut not after 20 days but after 30 days and after he acquitted himself of his obligatory sacrifices.” Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina both say: If he finished his nezirut, his son’s nezirut cannot start for him before he was shaving with a sacrifice. About a nazir who became impure, the opinions of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina seem contradictory. There, he says, if a person impure by the impurity of the dead made a vow of nazir, his seventh day is counted111If the person was purified by water containing some ashes of the Red Cow on the 3rd and 7th days of his impurity, he immerses himself in water on the 7th day and is pure (Num. 19). There is no reason why he cannot start a period of nezirut on that same day. Quoted in the Babli, 17a, 18a.. If a nazir becomes impure, his seventh day is not counted112It is a biblical decree that he has to bring a sacrifice on the 8th day and start counting anew from that day (Num. 6:10).. In our case113Of the father expecting a baby boy. His vow is a new one, not a continuation of an old one as in the case of the impure nazir., is he not like a person impure by the impurity of the dead, who made a vow of nazir? And is not the seventh day counted for a person impure by the impurity of the dead, who made a vow of nazir? Would this obligate him to bring a sacrifice for his impurity? But if a nazir who becomes impure, his seventh day is not counted; does it not obligate him to bring a sacrifice for his impurity? And here, because he is obligated to bring a sacrifice (of impurity)114The text is corrupt: He is obligated to bring a sacrifice for the end of his first nezirut, but it is not a sacrifice for impurity., the seventh day is [not]115The text is corrupt: The count of the new nezirut cannot start before he has acquitted himself of his prior obligations; therefore the 30th day of his nezirut, which corresponds to the 7th day of impurity, cannot be counted. counted for him. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he polluted himself during his son’s nezirut but was warned because of his own nezirut, he is whipped116Since a nazir is forbidden by biblical law to pollute himself with the impurity of the dead (Num. 6:6–7), if he pollutes himself intentionally and his criminal intent was ascertained because he was warned by two witnesses not to pollute himself and he did it anyway, he is punished in criminal law. In order to lead to prosecution, the warning must correctly state the law which might be broken.. If he dedicated his sacrifices, they are sanctified117In the Babli, 14a, in a different context, R. Joḥanan holds that his two neziriot are only one extended vow. There, it is disputed by R. Simeon ben Laqish.. One does not consider what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “His sacrifice to the Eternal for his nezirut,118Num. 6:21. Tosephta 2:6, Halakhah 3:2 (52c 1. 37), Šebuot 4:4 (35c 1. 58) {Num. rabba 10:42}. In the parallel sources, the statement is accepted as practice.” i. e., his vow of nazir should precede his sacrifice, rather than that his sacrifice precede his vow of nazir. Rebbi Judah asked before Rebbi Yose: Why should his nezirut not precede that of his son119This refers to the second part of the Mishnah. If he had started his own nezirut when his son was born, why should he not finish his own and only then start the nezirut honoring his son’s birth?? Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “This animal shall be dedicated as elevation sacrifice after 30 days.” If he sold it within the thirty days, it is sold; its dedication sanctifies120If the animal dedicated as one kind of sacrifice after 30 days was dedicated and used for another sacrifice within this period, it is perfectly legal since the prior dedication was inactive in the intervening period. (Quoted in Qiddušin 3:1, 63c 1. 42.). He said, is that not, if one said “This”. Perhaps if he said: “I have the obligation121If a person dedicates an animal saying: “this animal is dedicated”, and anything happens to the animal before it is sacrificed, the owner does not have to look for a replacement. But if he says, “it is my obligation to bring”, he has to bring the dedicated animal and, if anything happens to it, the owner must provide a replacement. Therefore, if the animal was dedicated after 30 days but no longer exists, no replacement is due. But a vow of nazir is personal and has to be dealt with under the rules of personal responsibility.”? But the one who says, “I am”, is like one who says, “I have the obligation.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Nazir after twenty days and nazir 100 days from now on.” He counts twenty days, interrupts and counts another 30 days, and counts another 80 to complete his first nezirut122Tosephta 2:10, Babli 14a. A person makes a vow to be a nazir after 30 days and simultaneously makes a vow immediately to be a nazir for 100 days. Then he starts his immediate nezirut for 20 days, continues to count the 30 days of his other nezirut, brings his sacrifices and shaves, and counts the remaining 80 days of his immediate nezirut and brings the second set of sacrifices. Since the continuation of the interrupted nezirut is for more than 30 days, it is a valid nezirut and he does lose the initial 20 days..

MISHNAH: “I shall be a nazir if a son is born123An unspecified term, i. e., 30 days. to me and a nazir for 100 days.124He starts this nezirut immediately.” If a son is born to him in less than 70 [days], he should not lose anything125As explained in Note 122, he starts his nezirut, after his son’s birth he starts counting 30 days, brings his sacrifices and shaves, and then finishes the count of the days missing for the vow of 100 days.. After 70 [days], he reduces to 70 since no shaving is for less than 30 days126If less than 30 days were left in his count of 100, he must observe nezirut for 30 days after his celebration for his son.. HALAKHAH: ““I shall be a nazir if a son is born to me,” etc. It is obvious that the end of a day is counted as a full [day]127If the son was born towards the end of a day, that day counts as day 1 of the son’s nezirut which by Mishnah 9 starts automatically at the moment of birth.. Is the start of a day counted as a full day128If the son was born during daytime and the father started the day as nazir on his own count, does the day also count as a full day for the father?? Is that not the Mishnah: “after 70 [days], he reduces to 70,” not even a part129If part of the day is not counted as a full day then if the son was born on the 71st day, no day would be lost. Since the Mishnah says that even in this case, a day is lost, it implies that without this rule the 71st day would count for both neziriot. Therefore, the 70th day counts for both. In the Babli, 15a, this a statement attributed to Rav.? This implies that the start of a day is counted as a full day. If he was born on the eightieth day, he eliminates ten130Since only the first 70 days of the father’s first nezirut are counted, the last 10 are disregarded. (A gloss in Tosaphot 13b, s.v. לאחר has a different explanation.). If he was born on the ninetieth day, he eliminates twenty. If he finished his nezirut and came to complete his son’s nezirut and became impure within the first ten days, he eliminates everything131If the son was born on the 90th day of his nezirut and he starts counting his son’s days, as long as his 100 days are not completed, any impurity of the dead will invalidate all his nezirut (Mishnah 3:4). If the impurity occurs after he has counted 100 days, his days are immunized; the question is only what happens to the days he counts for his son.. Within the last twenty days? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rab and Rebbi Joḥanan both say, he eliminates thirty132He has to keep 30 days in purity for his son and afterwards another thirty to finish his nezirut as prescribed in the Mishnah.. Rebbi Samuel said, he eliminates seven only133Of his own completed count, only the seven days of impurity of the dead are invalidated, following R. Eliezer (Mishnah 3:3).. Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yose: Does Rebbi Joḥanan think that eliminating by a shaving knife is identical with substantial eliminating134The nazir is forbidden to shave. If he shaves anyway, he loses 30 days of his count (Mishnah 6:5). But impurity of his body, called here “substantial”, invalidates everything from the start.? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if Rebbi Joḥanan thought that eliminating by a shaving knife is identical to substantial eliminating, why would he say that he eliminates thirty135Obviously, if the nazir for 100 days becomes impure (being defiled by a corpse) at any time before he has completed his count, he has to start a new count.? Should he not invalidate everything? Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Explain it if he was born on a day unsuitable to bring a sacrifice136Everybody agrees that a defiled nazir has to start anew if he was defiled before he could have offered his sacrifices. Could one think of a situation where he had finished his count and still could not have offered sacrifices? The answer is negative.. Think of it, if he was born in the night137No sacrifice can be offered in the night. Megillah 3:5,6 (73c 1. 8,10), Babli 20b, Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 18(7), based on Lev. 7:38., is that not unsuitable to bring a sacrifice? It is suitable; the night caused it. Think of it, if he was born on the Sabbath, is that not unsuitable to bring a sacrifice138The only sacrifices possible on the Sabbath are those which are explicitly commanded for that day.? It is suitable; the Sabbath caused it. If he had finished his nezirut but did not manage to shave when [the son] was born on the Sabbath, is that not unsuitable to bring a sacrifice? It is suitable; the Sabbath caused it. If he had finished his nezirut but did not manage to shave before his son was born139And automatically his new nezirut starts on the day of the birth. He now cannot bring the sacrifices for thr prior nezirut since this would involve shaving his hair., he celebrates one shaving for both. If he had dedicated his sacrifices but did not manage to shave before his son was born. There140In Babylonia, they hold that not the dedication but rather the actual Temple ceremony determines the end of his nezirut., they say that he celebrates one shaving for both. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he shaves and then shaves a second time. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: 141Tosephta 5:2, Babli 60b, Sifry Num. 38 (best Sifry text in Yalqut Šim‘ony Num. #709).“They asked142In Sifry, the persons who ask are R. Eleazar ben Šamua‘ and R. Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: Assume that he was both a nazir and a sufferer from scale disease143While suffering from the disease, he is impure. The ritual of purification (Lev. 14) requires the healed patient to shave all his hair after a preliminary ceremony (14:8), undergo a week of quarantine, shave again, including even his eyebrows (14:9), and offer his sacrifices the next day (14:10). The only impurity forbidden to the nazir is the impurity of corpses; therefore, it is quite possible for a sufferer from scale disease to be a nazir (even though such a person could never shave before he is healed since he cannot enter the Temple precinct.), may he shave once and have it counted for his nezirut and his scale disease? He said to them: If he shaved144Probably, the text of Tosephta and Sifry is better: “If each of them shaved …”. In the Babli: “If both of them shaved to grow or both of them to remove.” to remove hair, you would be correct. But the nazir shaves to remove hair whereas the sufferer from scale disease shaves145After the preliminary ceremony, he shaves to have his hair grow to be shorn after a week. to have hair grow. They said to him, if it cannot be counted for the days of his completeness146The impurity of the sufferer from scale disease varies with his status. It is a minor impurity as long as the diagnosis of his sickness is only tentative (Lev. 13, passim), it is severe while his diagnosis is complete (Lev. 13:45,46), and it is minor again during his quarantine in the process of purification. What Yerushalmi, Tosephta, and Sifry call גמרו “his completeness (of diagnosis)”, the Babli calls חֲלוּטוֹ “his absoluteness”., should it not be counted for the days of his count147Of his quarantine, after which he has to shave again. (But then he shaves after 7 days, not at least 30 days as required for a nazir.)? Both of them shave to remove hair. (They said to him148This must read: He said to them (as in Tosephta and Sifry).. If both of them shaved before the sprinkling of the blood, you would be correct. But the nazir shaves before the sprinkling of the blood and the sufferer from scale disease shaves after the sprinkling of the blood! They said to him, if it cannot be counted for the days of his completeness, should it not be counted for the days of his count? Both of them shave before the sprinkling of the blood!)149The passage in parentheses is hopelessly corrupt. It is missing in Tosephta and Sifry. One should read with the Babli: “But the nazir shaves after the sprinkling of the blood and the sufferer from scale disease shaves before the sprinkling of the blood.” The nazir shaves after the sacrifices have been brought (Num. 6:18) while the person healed from scale disease shaves the day before he brings his sacrifices. The problem is that the students declare that both the nazir and the sufferer from scale disease in his preliminary purification shave before the sprinkling of the blood; this seems to presuppose the uncorrected reading in the preceding sentence. The only way to make sense of the statement is also to emend this sentence: “Both of them shave after the sprinkling of the blood,” and to refer to the blood of the bird used in the preliminary ceremony of the sufferer from scale disease (Lev. 14:7). He said to them, if both shaved before they immerse themselves in water, you would be correct. But the nazir shaves before he immerses himself in water and the sufferer from scale disease shaves after he immerses himself in water150One has to read (with the parallel sources): “But the nazir shaves after he immerses himself in water and the sufferer from scale disease shaves before he immerses himself in water.” The nazir shaves in the Temple, therefore he had to immerse himself in water to be able to enter the Temple. The sufferer from scale disease is required to shave before he immerses himself (Lev. 14:9).. They said to him, the matter is settled. It cannot be counted for the days of his completeness, it cannot be counted for the days of his count. It cannot be counted for purification; it cannot be counted for impurity151Probably one should read with Tosephta and Sifry: תַּקִּין הַדָּבָר. לֹא עוֹלֶה בִּימֵי גְמָרוֹ עוֹלֶה בִּימֵי סְפִירוֹ. לֹא עוֹלֶה בְטָהֵר עוֹלֶה בְטָמֵא. “It does not count in the days of his completeness; it counts in the days of his count. It does not count if [the nazir] is pure; it counts if he is impure.” The impure nazir shaves on the seventh day of his purification; this may be before he immerses himself. He has to shave before he brings his sacrifice on the eighth day. Therefore, a healed sufferer from scale disease who also is an impure nazir may combine his first shaving for his healing together with the shaving for his impure nezirut.. That is, if he was a nazir and sufferer from scale disease. But if he was a nazir and nazir, he may shave once for both.152This sentence, which is not in any of the other sources, supports the Babylonians and contradicts R. Joḥanan.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explains that they disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish153Since the baraita is declared to be R. Simeon ben Laqish’s personal opinion, it is a minority opinion which does not represent practice..

MISHNAH: If somebody said, “I am a nazir,” he shaves on the 31st day, but if he shaved on the 30th day, he has fulfilled his obligation1An unspecified nezirut is 30 days (Mishnah 1:3), and part of a day is counted as a full day (Chapter 2, Note 127).. “I am a nazir for 30 days2If he spelled out “30 days”, it has to be interpreted as meaning “30 full days”.,” if he shaved on the 30th day, he did not fulfill his obligation. HALAKHAH: “If somebody said, “I am a nazir,” etc. This supports Bar Qappara3Chapter 1:3, Note 93., that if he shaved on the 30th day, he did not fulfill his obligation. This supports Rebbi Jonathan4Chapter 1:3, Note 94., that if he shaved on the 30th day, he did fulfill his obligation. Both of them5One anonymous Mishnah cannot represent two contradictory opinions.? It is only one opinion, “this testimony6Mishnah 2. R. Pappaias testified that a person who vowed two neziriot and shaved for the first on the thirtieth day may shave the second time on the 60th day (since the 30th day is counted for both; cf. Note 1.) Since the testimony is formulated conditionally, “if he shaved on the 30th day”, not as an absolute statement, “he shaves on the 30th and 60th days”, it follows that shaving on the 30th day is irregular. The Mishnah follows neither Bar Qappara nor R. Jonathan but the practice proclaimed by R. Pappaios.”. They knew that it was forbidden to shave on the 30th; they thought that if he shaved on the 30th day, he did not fulfill his obligation. He came to testify that if he shaved on the 30th day, he fulfilled his obligation. Something happened7A close relative died. By rabbinic convention, the mourner cannot leave his house for the first seven days after burial; he does not shave for thirty days. R. Immi considered the 30 days’ period of the nazir as a paradigm for the 30 day period of the mourner. to Rebbi Immi and he shaved on the 30th day, and something happened to Rebbi Immi and he shaved on the 31st day8He was inconsistent in his actions.. Rebbi Zeriqa said, Rebbi Immi learned this from the Mishnah, as we have stated there9Mishnah 2.: “If somebody vowed two neziriot, he shaves for the first on the 31st day, for the second on the 61st day10The argument is from the part of the Mishnah which is not quoted: “But if he shaved for the first on the 30th day, he shaves for the second on the 60th” (cf. Note 6)..” Rebbi Yose said, there when it happened, here from the start11R. Yose criticizes R. Immi. The Mishnah requires the nazir to shave on his 31st day; it only legitimizes shaving on the 30th after the fact. But R. Immi shaved on the 30th on his own initiative. R. Zeriqa seems to hold that what is acceptable after the fact in biblical rules is permitted from the start in rabbinic usage.. Rebbi Jeremiah instructed Rebbi Isaac Aṭoshia, and some say, Rav Ḥiyya bar Rav Isaac Aṭoshia, to shave on the 30th day, following the Mishnah12Mo‘ed qaṭan 3:5. “If somebody buried his relative three days before a holiday, the seven-day rule is waived for him. Eight days, the 30 day rule is waived for him, as they said: Sabbath is counted but does not interrupt, holidays interrupt but do not count.” If somebody was mourning for three days before the holiday, he does not have to continue the intense mourning period after the holiday; he continues with the remainder of the 30-day period. Similarly, if he was keeping at least one day of mourning after the seven-day period, the holiday cancels the remainder of the 30-day mourning period. (The Babli, Mo‘ed qaṭan 19b, reduces the 8 day period to 7 since “part of a day is like a whole day” and the 30-day period starts on the seventh.): “Eight days, the decree of 30 days is waived for him.” The eighth has the same status as the 30th day13The argument here goes as follows: If the 8th day of mourning was holiday eve, the mourner can shave in the afternoon in preparation for the holiday. The time elapsed from dawn to the afternoon is counted as a full day for him. Therefore, the person who shaves on the 30th day can nevertheless count the entire 30th day as being part of his mourning period.. Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference; there they permitted in order to honor the holiday. You should know this, since Rebbi Ḥelbo bar Ḥuna said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If his eighth day falls on the Sabbath, he shaves Sabbath eve. If you say that they did not permit in order to honor the holiday, then even if his 30th day falls on the Sabbath, he should shave Sabbath eve14Nobody allows the mourner to shave on the 29th day. (Quoted by Tosaphot Mo‘ed qaṭan 19b, s. v. הלכה).. In addition, from what Rebbi Joḥanan had said15Mo‘ed qaṭan 3:5 (82b 1. 10), 3:8 (83d 1. 23); Babli 22b.: “For all deceased16Except for father and mother. The first sign of mourning required is to tear one’s garment. For the seven-day period, the mourner is required to wear the torn garment. He can stitch together the tear after the end of the seven-day period (after 30 days for father or mother) and invisibly mend it after thirty days (never mending invisibly for father or mother.) Why does one not allow stitching or mending on the last day of a period if “part of the day is counted as a whole day”? he stitches together after seven days and mends after 30.” Why should he not stitch on the seventh day and mend on the 30th day? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, this has been transmitted in this way and that has been transmitted in that way16Except for father and mother. The first sign of mourning required is to tear one’s garment. For the seven-day period, the mourner is required to wear the torn garment. He can stitch together the tear after the end of the seven-day period (after 30 days for father or mother) and invisibly mend it after thirty days (never mending invisibly for father or mother.) Why does one not allow stitching or mending on the last day of a period if “part of the day is counted as a whole day”?.

MISHNAH: If somebody vowed two neziriot, he shaves for the first on the 31st day, for the second on the 61st day17In all cases in this Mishnah, “part of a day is counted as an entire day” and the last day of a period is at the same time the first of the next period, whether the period be 30 or 31 days., but if he shaved for the first on the 30th day, he shaves for the second on the 60th, and if he shaved on the day before the 60th18Compare Latin usage to replace 19 by 20-1, etc., he has fulfilled his obligation. The following testimony did Rebbi Pappaias give19Any “testimony” mentioned in the Mishnah was given in Yabneh and accepted by the Synhedrion.: if somebody vowed two neziriot, he shaves for the first on the 31st day, for the second on the 61st day, but if he shaved for the first on the 30th day, he shaves for the second on the 60th, and if he shaved on the day before the 60th, he has fulfilled his obligation since the 30th day is counted for him. HALAKHAH: “If somebody vowed two neziriot,” etc. If he finished his first period of nezirut and started to lean20The expression “to lean on” for “going to start” is found only here. on the second, when they did not find an opening for the first while they found an opening for the second21Since nezirut presupposes a vow, any nezirut can be eliminated by an Elder who finds “an opening” to declare the vow invalid; cf. Nedarim, Introduction, p. 422; Chapter 3:1, Notes 6–9; Chapter 9:1., the second can be used for the first22If he had sacrifices prepared for the second nezirut but none for the first, those of the second may be used for the first.. Where do we hold? If he said, “I am a nazir twice,” a vow which is partially annulled is totally annulled23Mishnah Nedarim 9:6. In this case, no sacrifice is due since there is no nezirut; if he wishes, he can shave without formality.. If he said, “I am a nazir for these 30 days and those 30 days,” in this case the second cannot be used for the first24If he made two separate vows, rather than one vow covering separate periods, the sacrifices are not transferable since they are dedicated for separate vows.. But we must hold that he said, “I am a nazir and nazir.” If he said, “these are for nezirut.25He refers to the vow but not to the particular instance mentioned in the vow. Then the sacrifice can be brought for any obligation implied by the vow.” But if he said, “these are for my nezirut; those are for the other nezirut,” in this case the second cannot be used for the first24If he made two separate vows, rather than one vow covering separate periods, the sacrifices are not transferable since they are dedicated for separate vows.. Rebbi Eleazar said, if he finished the first nezirut, as soon as he brought a sacrifice and shaved, the first is credited for the second26R. Eleazar deals with the opposite case. He made the double vow, finished the first period, brought a sacrifice, and then went to ask an Elder about his vow. If the first nezirut was annulled, he can count the nezirut he kept as second nezirut and be freed from his obligation. This is essentially stated in Tosephta 2:15 (quoted in the Babli, Nedarim 17b, Šebuot 27b): “If somebody vowed two neziriot, finished the first one but did not bring his sacrifices, went to an Elder to ask to annul his first [nezirut], the second nezirut is fulfilled by the first.”. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa commanded the colleagues: If you hear anything formulated by Rebbi Eleazar, you should know that Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees27Since R. Eleazar was R. Joḥanan’s student, if he felt impelled to formulate a statement by himself, not referring to R. Joḥanan, it is safe to assume that R. Joḥanan disagreed.: not unless he brings all his sacrifices, following the rabbis; but following Rebbi Simeon even if he brings only one sacrifice28R. Joḥanan does not disagree with the main thrust of R. Eleazar’s statement, that the nezirut can be counted as the one covered by his vow, but he objects to the formulation referring to “a sacrifice”, which implies that a nazir can shave and drink wine after one sacrifice. This is R. Simeon’s opinion in Mishnah 6:11. R. Joḥanan insists that all three sacrifices be brought in order to be valid; this is the opinion of the anonymous majority which in R. Joḥanan’s opinion always defines practice (cf. Yebamot 4:11, Note 177).. If he dedicated both together, he has only one in his hand29This refers to a different situation, Tosephta 2:15: “If somebody vowed two neziriot, finished both of them, and brought the sacrifices for both of them together, he has only one in his hand.” Since the sacrifices of a nazir presuppose a period of at least 30 days for the growth of his hair, it is impossible for one person to bring sacrifices for multiple periods of nezirut together. He has to be nazir for another 30 days and bring another set of sacrifices.. If he dedicated each of them separately or30This must read “and”; then the text becomes the last sentence in Tosephta 2:15. brought each of them for the other, he did not acquit himself [of his obligation]. This means that as far as holiness goes, they became holy31If one of the neziriot was dissolved by an Elder, why should the sacrifice attached to it be holy? If the vow was in error, the dedication is in error.. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state32Chapter 2:9, Note 118.: “His sacrifice to the Eternal for his nezirut,” i. e., that his vow of nazir should precede his sacrifice, rather than that his sacrifice precede his vow of nazir. It is different, because he still is in nezirut33The argument of R. Ḥiyya is not applicable to our case. It is clear that a person cannot dedicate animals to satisfy a future vow of nazir since that would be “stipulating about non-existence” (Chapter 2:5, Note 89). But in the present case, the vow exists.. One understands the second for the first34The case treated at the start of the Halakhah.. The first for the second35The case discussed by R. Eleazar. Does the argument of R. Ḥiyya not apply in this case, when the dedication of the sacrifice for the first period preceded the start of the second.? Rebbi Jehudah said, this supports Rebbi Eleazar. But did not Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa command the colleagues: If you hear anything formulated by Rebbi Eleazar, you should know that Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees; not unless he brings all his sacrifices. They wanted to say, following the rabbis. But here, we hold with Rebbi Simeon36Since the disagreement between R. Eleazar and R. Joḥanan only refers to the disagreement between R. Simeon and the rabbis, it is clear that R. Eleazar follows R. Simeon and the second period substituted for the first both in time and in sacrifices.. Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Explain it for his nezirut and the nezirut he pledged for his son. In that, the second can be used for the first37He rejects the previous explanation and restricts the possibility of substituting the second period for the first to the case that both are occasioned by the birth of a son, one period for himself and one for his son’s birth. In this case, it was stated in Chapter 2:9 (Note 118) that R. Ḥiyya’s argument is disregarded; both neziriot combined constitute one vow.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, did we not argue about one who said, “I am a nazir”38It had been decided that the substitution of sacrifices was possible only for the person who said, “I am a nazir and nazir.” It would be a reasonable interpretation to say that the second “and nazir” was said for emphasis rather than duplication. Therefore, the second nezirut is a rabbinic obligation, not an original vow, and there should be no discussion of legalistic niceties in this case.? He really should be a nazir only once. You were severe with him and obligated him to be a nazir twice. Is it not enough that you were severe with him and obligated him to be a nazir twice, that now you say, he has nothing in his hands?

MISHNAH: If somebody says, “I am a nazir” and became impure on the 30th day39Before he offered his sacrifices., he invalidated everything40He has to wait 7 days to cleanse himself from the impurity of the dead, shave, bring the sacrifices prescribed for the impure nazir, and be a nazir another 30 days in purity.; Rebbi Eliezer says, he invalidated only seven41Since he could have brought the sacrifices on the 30th day, he has to wait 7 days to cleanse himself from the impurity of the dead, shave, bring the sacrifices prescribed for the impure nazir, wait another 7 days to have some hair to shave, and then brings his 3 sacrifices and shaves in purity.. “I am a nazir for 30 days,” if he became impure on the 30th day, he invalidated everything42R. Eliezer agrees that he has to start anew since he must wait until the 31st day to bring his sacrifices.. HALAKHAH: “If somebody says, ‘I am a nazir’,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Eliezer learned from the sufferer from skin disease, for whom we find seven days between shaving and shaving43Cf. Chapter 2:10, Note 143.. Why does he not learn from the impure nazir? The sufferer from skin disease shaves repeatedly; the impure nazir does not shave repeatedly. The rabbis from Caesarea say, they disagree explicitly: Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Eliezer learned from the sufferer from skin disease; Rebbi Eleazar says, Rebbi Eliezer learned from the impure nazir44Who shaves after 7 days, Num. 6:9.. What difference does it make for Rebbi Eliezer whether the vow for nazir was implicit rather than explicit45Whether he says “I am a nazir” and it is understood that he will be a nazir for 30 days, or he says “I am a nazir for 30 days”?? If the vow for nazir was implicit, he does not invalidate if he tears his hair out46Num. 6:5 spells out first a prohibition, “a shaving knife shall not touch his head”, followed by a positive commandment “he shall let the hair of his head grow wildly.” If the order had been inverted, it would have been clear that only shaving with a knife was forbidden. Now that the commandment of letting the hair grow is separated from the prohibition of using a knife, the majority opinion (Sifry Num. 25; Tosephta 4:3; Halakhah 6:2, Babli 39b) holds that removing any hair is forbidden and the simultaneous removal of any two hairs during the period of nezirut invalidates the nezirut and requires a fresh start. Only on the 30th day, tearing out a hair has no consequences since Num. 6:5 also states: “until the days are completed he shall be holy,” and on the 30th day of the implicit vow they are completed., and his seventh day47If he became impure by the impurity of the dead, he has to shave on the 7th day itself. is counted for him; if the vow for nazir was explicit48Then his days were not yet completed when he became impure., he invalidates if he tears his hair out and his seventh day is not counted for him.

MISHNAH: “I am a nazir for 100 days,” if he became impure on day 100 he invalidated everything but Rebbi Eliezer said, he invalidated only 3049And the implicit vow of a nazir run for 30 days.. If he became impure on day 101, he invalidated 30; Rebbi Eliezer said, he invalidated only seven41Since he could have brought the sacrifices on the 30th day, he has to wait 7 days to cleanse himself from the impurity of the dead, shave, bring the sacrifices prescribed for the impure nazir, wait another 7 days to have some hair to shave, and then brings his 3 sacrifices and shaves in purity.. HALAKHAH: ““I am a nazir for 100 days,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi Eliezer: “This is the teaching for the nazir on the day of his fulfilling;48Then his days were not yet completed when he became impure.” if he becomes impure on the day of his fulfilling, one gives him the teaching for the nazir49And the implicit vow of a nazir run for 30 days.. Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If he becomes impure in those days50If he became impure on the last day of his nezirut; according to R. Eliezer, how many days does he lose if he becomes impure again while keeping the 30 days of nezirut., what is their status, to be given the teaching for the nazir? Rebbi Shammai said, he is obligated by the teaching for the nazir if he becomes impure on the day of his fulfilling, and for one who becomes impure on the day of his fulfilling the seventh day is not counted51The problem arises only if he becomes impure on the 30th day since before it is obvious that he has to start anew. If he is considered to have finished his nezirut, then the 7th day of purification can also be the day he brings his sacrifices since “part of the day is counted as an entire day” (Halakhah 2:10, Note 129). But if he is under the rules of the nazir who shaves on the 7th but brings his sacrifice only on the 8th (Num. 6:9,10), the 7th day obviously cannot be the day on which he can conclude his nezirut.. Rebbi Mana asked: If he becomes impure at fulfilling, why should he invalidate 30, should he not invalidate only seven52Since the entire argument follows R. Eliezer, why does he make a difference between the cases of Mishnaiot 3 and 4?? But if somebody became impure after fulfilling53If he becomes impure on day 101, R. Eliezer will apply his ruling of Mishnah 3., the seventh day is counted for him.

MISHNAH: If somebody made a vow of nazir while he was in a cemetery54Since a nazir may not be in a cemetery, in one opinion the vow cannot be activated until he leaves the cemetery; in the other opinion the vow is activated but the days cannot be counted since the nazir is not pure (Babli 16b)., even if he stayed there for thirty days, they are not counted and he does not bring a sacrifice for impurity55The vow is activated the moment he leaves the cemetery. While the nazir is forbidden to defile himself by the impurity of the dead, it is not forbidden to vow to be a nazir while one is impure. He has to untergo the seven-day purification ritual; these days are counted as regular days of nezirut.. If he left and re-entered, they are counted and he has to bring a sacrifice for impurity56The special sacrifices prescribed for the nazir who became impure, Num. 6:10–11.. Rebbi Eliezer said, not on that day, since it is said: “The earlier days fall away57Num. 6:12. Since a plural indicates at least 2, no sacrifice is due unless the person has been a nazir for at least 2 days.,” until he has earlier days. HALAKHAH: “If somebody made a vow of nazir while he was in a cemetery,” etc. If he made the vow while he was among grave sites58He is not in an open cemetery but in a graveyard consisting of burial caves. A cave forms a “tent”; the impurity of the dead is transmitted by the tent even without any touching (Num. 19:14). But in the open space before the caves, no impurity is transmitted; it is possible there to start a vow of nazir. It is assumed that the person making the vow participated in a burial and is impure at the moment of the vow., Rebbi Joḥanan said, one warns him about wine and shaving59It is impossible to require that he be pure from the moment of the vow, since he is impure. R. Joḥanan holds that in all other respects the vow is valid immediately.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, since one cannot warn him because of impurity, one does not warn him about wine and shaving60For him, the vow is suspended until the nazir has undergone the ritual of purification; once he is pure he can be punished for drinking wine or shaving.. The argument of Rebbi Joḥanan seems inverted. There61Halakhah 6:4. The text there consists simply of a referral to the present Halakhah. A nazir who does not observe the rules of nezirut has to be warned and can be punished for every infringement. There, R. Joḥanan requires that even a nazir who comes to drink wine has to be warned about wine, impurity, and shaving. Then it should be impossible to punish a nazir for infringing the rules of wine and shaving, if he is not punishable for impurity., he says, one warns him about wine, impurity, and shaving. And here, he says so? The rabbis from Caesarea: They disagree about the whole, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, one warns him about wine and shaving62It is understood: because from the start one also warns him about impurity.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, since one cannot warn him because of impurity, one does not warn him either about wine or about shaving. If he is still there63Here starts the discussion of the Mishnah. What is the situation of the person who vowed in the cemetery to be a nazir., Rebbi Joḥanan said, one warns him about everything for every possible leaving,64R. Joḥanan holds that the vow becomes effective the moment it is uttered. Then the nazir is informed that he has to leave the cemetery immediately (and refrain from wine and shaving). If he does not obey, he can be repeatedly warned and the disregard of every warning is a new, punishable offence. and he is whipped. Rebbi Eleazar said, he does not accept [warning] unless he leaves65He holds that the vow becomes effective only when the nazir leaves the cemetery. Then also the warning becomes relevant for him and he can be punished if he returns to the cemetery. and returns. Rebbi Abba said: So did Rebbi Joḥanan answer Rebbi Eleazar: Is it not written, “he shall not come” and “he may not defile himself”66If Num. 6:6, there is a general prohibition, “to any dead person he shall not come.” In v. 7, there is a particular prohibition; for close relatives “he may not be defiled.” R. Joḥanan interprets this to mean: even in a case where he does not defile himself, because he was defiled before he made the vow, he violates the separate prohibition of v. 6.? He said to him, if they warned him because of “he shall not come”, he is whipped; because of “he shall not defile himself” he is not whipped67He reads the verses as they are written. The nazir can be warned, and is whipped, for an active coming to corpses. But nobody can be whipped for a prohibition formulated in the passive voice.. Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned from prostrating, as we have stated there68Mishnah Šebuot 2:3. A person who comes to the Temple precinct and belatedly remembers that he is impure, has to leave immediately. If he tarries long enough for an act of prostration, he is punished.: “If he prostrated himself or stayed there long enough to prostrate himself.” Rebbi Mattaniah said, we thought that was where they do disagree? About lashes, but not about a sacrifice. Since Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned from prostrating69Where the main thrust of the entire Chapter in the Mishnah is the obligation to bring a sacrifice to purify himself from the inadvertent sin., that means that lashes and sacrifices are one and the same. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “A nazir who drank wine the entire day is guilty only once.70Mishnah 6:4. This presupposes that he was warned only once.” He explains it, that his throat was never empty71If the nazir actually never stopped drinking the entire day, he could not have been warned more than once. The Mishnah is irrelevant for the statement that separate warnings imply separate punishments.. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he was defiling himself for the dead the entire day, he is guilty only once70Mishnah 6:4. This presupposes that he was warned only once..” He explains it about one who waits before every leaving, who is whipped72He explains the Mishnah, if there was only one warning. But if he was warned repeatedly, each action represents a new offense. (Whether tarrying plays a role in this case remains an open question in the Babli, Šebuot 17a.). A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: If a Cohen was standing in a cemetery73Legitimately, when burying a close relative. and they were handing another corpse to him, could he accept? The verse says, “the husband shall be defiled for his family74Lev. 21:4. The verse really reads: “The husband shall not be defiled for his family, to be profaned,” meaning that the Cohen cannot defile himself for a wife he was forbidden to marry. This implies that he can be defiled only for the benefit of his legal family..” If he accepted it, I could think that he was guilty. The verse says, “to be profaned”. One who adds impurity to the impurity; that excludes him who does not add impurity to his impurity75If he already is impure, touching another corpse does not change his status. (In the Babli, the Babylonian authorities disagree, 42b.). Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Rebbi Neḥemiah said, “to be profaned”, that excludes him who does not add impurity to his impurity, lest he say, because I became defiled for my father I may go and collect the bones of X. “To be profaned”, at the time of death; Rebbi said, also “in their death.76Num. 6:7 prohibits the nazir from being defiled for his close relatives “in their death”, meaning that he does not have to leave the house when they lie dying, but only after they are dead. The same baraita is quoted in the Babli, 43a.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they disagree77The authorities disagreeing with Rebbi require the nazir to leave the house when they lie dying.. It follows that Rebbi Simeon bar Abba follows Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. When Simeon bar Abba was dying, he said, this should be taken out here, that should be taken out there78To avoid that vessels become impure at his death.. If he left and re-entered79He left the cemetery and then re-entered as nazir., Rebbi Ṭarphon frees him from prosecution, Rebbi Aqiba declares him guilty. Rebbi Ṭarphon said to him, what did this one add to his desecration80Since he already was defiled when he made his vow, how can he be prosecuted for defiling himself?? Rebbi Aqiba said, as long as he was there, he was defiling himself by the impurity of seven days81As long as he was in contact with a corpse or forming a “tent” over it and he touched another person, that person becomes impure and has to undergo the 7 day ritual.. When he left, he was defiling himself by the impurity of evening82If one who is impure by the impurity of the dead touches another person, that person becomes impure in a derivative way. He has to immerse himself in water and becomes pure at sundown.. When he re-entered, defiling himself by the impurity of (evening)83This is clearly a scribal (corrector’s) error and must read: “the impurity of 7 days.” In the cemetery, he at least acquires the capability of transmitting the impurity of 7 days. Therefore, his status of impurity has changed; he can be prosecuted.. Rebbi Ṭarphon told him, Aqiba! Any who leaves you is as if he left his life. Rav said, when he has left, he counts his nezirut in purity84The person who vowed in the cemetery to be a nazir and who will be impure for the next 7 days does nevertheless count his valid days of nezirut from the moment he leaves the cemetery.. If he entered again on his seventh day, he brings a sacrifice of impurity for that day; Rebbi Eliezer said, not for that day85If he entered the cemetery again on the day he regained his purity, he is considered a nazir who became impure on the first day of his nezirut, obligated for a sacrifice according to the rabbis but not R. Eliezer.. Cahana asked before Rav: Does he not need the sprinkling of the third and seventh86The purification rite prescribed in Num. 19: Being sprinkled with water containing some of the ashes of the Red Cow on the 3rd and 7th day, and immersing himself on the 7th. He becomes pure only after immersion.? He answered him, the Torah called “pure” the one who leaves the grave: “After his purity, seven days shall be counted for him.87Ez. 44:26; one would have expected: “Seven days shall be counted until his purity.” Even though this is a verse by a prophet and therefore without legal standing, it can be applied to show usage.” Samuel said, after he left, sprinkled, and repeated, immersed himself, and entered again on that day, he brings a sacrifice of impurity for that day; Rebbi Eliezer said, not for that day88Samuel disagrees with Rav; the rules of purity start only on day seven, after the completion of the purification. In the Babli, 19a, Rav agrees with Samuel.. Ulla bar Ismael said, what is his problem89He refers to the statement of R. Eliezer in the Mishnah. R. Eliezer requires at least two days of nezirut only from a nazir who made his vow in impurity. If the vow was made in purity, he agrees that even if he becomes impure on the first day, he is required to bring a sacrifice.? Of an impure nazir. But for a pure nazir, even Rebbi Eliezer agrees if he has nothing to omit. Samuel bar Abba asked: May one day of his nezirut and one day of nezirut for his son be combined90In the case described in Mishnah 3:9: He started his own nezirut; at the son’s birth his count is interrupted automatically and his son’s begins.? Where do we hold? If his son was born today and tomorrow he enters, he has two days for his91This must read: His son’s. The remainder of the day of birth and the start of the next day are counted as two days; if he becomes impure he has to bring a sacrifice even if we reject the interpretation of Ulla bar Ismael. nezirut. If his son was born the next day and he enters the next day, he has two days for his son’s92This must read: His own. nezirut! Rebbi Mana said, explain it at twilight93Then the entire first day is the father’s only.. Rebbi Abin said, even if you say in the middle of the day, did we not intend to say that the start of the day is counted for him, the end of the day is counted for his son94As explained in Halakhah 3:10, the first part of the day of birth is counted as a full day for the father’s nezirut; the second part, after the birth, is counted as a full day for the nezirut on account of the son. It is not unreasonable to expect that for R. Eliezer the day also is counted as two.? Rebbi Yose said, what is his problem89He refers to the statement of R. Eliezer in the Mishnah. R. Eliezer requires at least two days of nezirut only from a nazir who made his vow in impurity. If the vow was made in purity, he agrees that even if he becomes impure on the first day, he is required to bring a sacrifice.? Of a pure nazir. But for an impure nazir, it is obvious to him that they cannot95From R. Mana’s argument, it seems that one has to read שֶּׁהֵן “they are” instead of שֶׁאֵין “they cannot”. If the Italian scribe wrote from dictation, he would not hear the difference between the two words. be combined. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is that not an argument of “so much more”? Since for days which are counted neither for his nor for his son’s nezirut96The days of impurity., you say that they are combined, days which are counted for his and for his son’s nezirut, it would only be logical that they should be combined! Rebbi Mana97The reading “R. Mana” should be confirmed as lectio difficilior. It is not unique that a person who raises a difficulty should answer it himself. said, there98If he is impure, he cannot be warned not to become impure. It does not matter in which nezirut he is at the moment. he is not in a state to receive a warning, but here99If he is pure, the person who warns him not to become impure must deliver separate warnings depending on him being a nazir for himself or for his son. Therefore it is not automatic that the days may be combined. he is in a state to receive a warning. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Since you say there about Rebbi Eliezer, at the start only if he has something to omit; at the end even if he has nothing to omit100Sifry Num. 30 on Num. 6:12: “The earlier days fall away,” can be said only if there are later days. If he made a vow to be a nazir for 100 days and became impure on day 101, one would expect R. Eliezer to rule that no sacrifice for impurity is due.? Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana, is that not a Mishnah? “If he became impure on day 101, he invalidated 30; Rebbi Eliezer said, he invalidated only seven101Since he has to keep another 7 days even for R. Eliezer, R. Abun bar Ḥiyya’s question should become moot..” He said, we hear that he invalidates; did we hear that he brings a sacrifice?

MISHNAH: If somebody vowed102Somewhere in the diaspora. Then he should have come to the Land immediately since outside he is automatically impure in the impurity of "the land of the Gentiles" which has aspects of the impurity of corpses. a lengthy nezirut, finished his nezirut, and then came to the Land, the House of Shammai say, he is a nazir for 30 days103The minimum needed for nezirut in genuine purity which permits the nazir to offer his sacrifices., but the House of Hillel say, he is a nazir from the start. It happened to Queen Helena104Of Adiabene. that her son went to war and she said, if my son returns from the war, I shall be a nezirah for seven years. Her son returned from war and she was a nezirah for seven years. At the end of seven years, she came to the Land105According to Josephus, she arrived about 43 C.E., and the House of Hillel instructed her to be a nezirah for another seven years. At the end of seven years she became impure and was nezirah for a total of 21 years. Rebbi Jehudah said, she was a nezirah only for fourteen years106Since R. Ilai, R. Jehudah’s father, was a student of R. Eliezer who followed the House of Shammai, R. Jehudah tells us that Helene followed the House of Shammai, became impure at the end of 30 days, and had to restart her original nezirut.. HALAKHAH: “If somebody vowed,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. One said, Rebbi Jehudah follows the House of Shammai. But the other said, Rebbi Jehudah thinks that she never became impure. If you say, Rebbi Jehudah follows the House of Shammai, should he not have stated 30 days and forteen years? One does not state months while reporting years107The Babli disagrees, 20a..

MISHNAH: If two groups of witnesses were testifying against a person, one group say that he vowed nazir two times, the others say that he vowed nazir five times. The House of Shammai say, the testimony is split108Following the rules of criminal procedure by which contradictory testimony has to be disregared. and there is no nezirut here. But the House of Hillel say, five contains two109Following the rules of civil procedure. If one group testifies that A owes 500 while the other group testifies that he owes 200, he has to pay 200. An identical Mishnah is Idiut 4:11.; he should be a nazir twice. HALAKHAH: “If two groups of witnesses,” etc. 110Parallels are in Yebamot 15:5 (י), Notes 115–134, and Sanhedrin 5:2 (ס). Rav said, they differ in the overall testimony. But in detail, everybody agrees that five contains two, and that he has to be a nazir for two periods. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they differ in counting. But in an overall testimony, everybody agrees that the testimonies contradict one another and there is no nezirut. What is overall and what is counting? Overall, this one says two, the other one says five. Counting, this one says one, two, the other one says three, four, five. Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony was contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in some aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent in what he said, since Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony is void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, these say he counted from a wallet and the others say he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; the testimony is void and Rav will agree that the testimony is void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, these say he killed him with a mace and the others say, he killed him with a sword. That contradicts the essence of the testimony; the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. If these say, he ran away to the South and those say, he ran away to the North, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in some aspects that refer [to]111Read: “after”; cf. the variant readings. the facts, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from the following: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can remarry.” He did nor hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Eliezer112Read: “R. Simeon and R. Jehudah”; cf. the variant readings. concedes in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to that of her companion. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and in cross examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is void.” Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain that as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: “Justice, justice you shall pursue”. It was stated113An alternative text of the Mishnah. In Babylonian sources (Babli 20a, Tosephta 3:1): “R. Ismael, son of R. Joḥanan ben Baroqa, says, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel do not disagree about …” The text shows that this is the correct version.: “Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba do not disagree about a person about whom two groups of witnesses testify, that he should be nazir according to the minimal testimony. Where do they disagree? About two witnesses, where the House of Shammai say, the testimony is split108Following the rules of criminal procedure by which contradictory testimony has to be disregared. and there is no nezirut, but the House of Hillel say, five contains two and he shall be a nazir twice.109Following the rules of civil procedure. If one group testifies that A owes 500 while the other group testifies that he owes 200, he has to pay 200. An identical Mishnah is Idiut 4:11.”

MISHNAH: If somebody said “I am a nazir” and another person heard it and said, “and so am I”, “and so am I”, “and so am I”,1A1 declares to be a nazir, A2 hears A1 and says “so am I”, A3 hears A2 and says “so am I”, A4 hears A3 and says “so am I”. all of them are nezirim. If the first one was permitted, all are permitted2If the first went to an Elder who dissolved his vow, the others did refer to a non-existent vow; their vows are non-existent. Cf. Mishnah Nedarim 9:7.; if the last was permitted, the last is permitted and all others forbidden3In general, if Ai had his vow dissolved, automatically all vows of persons Aj, j > i, are dissolved.. “I am a nazir” and another person heard it and said, “my mouth is as his mouth and my hair as his hair,” he is a nazir. “I am a nazir” and his wife heard it and said, “and so am I”, he can dissolve hers4Even though the initiative is his, it does not limit his power to dissolve his wife’s vows (cf. Nedarim Chapter 10). but his vow remains. “I am a nezirah” and her husband heard it and said, “and so am I”, he cannot dissolve5Nobody can dissolve his own vow. If he could dissolve his wife’s vow, his own would be dissolved, as explained in the second sentence of this Mishnah.. HALAKHAH: “If somebody said ‘I am a nazir’ and another person heard it and said, ‘and so am I’,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “and so am I”, “and so am I”6This version has only two people responding, with most of the Babli and some Mishnah mss. The paragraph is discussed in detail by J. N. Epstein, 2מבוא לנוסח המשנה, p. 477–479.. Who is the Tanna of conjunctions? Rebbi Jehudah7He holds that there is a connection between the statements only if they are formulated as conjunctions; cf. Chapter 1:2, Note 40, Giṭṭin 9:7, Notes 85–101.. But following Rebbi Meïr, “I am,” “I am”. Does the Mishnah require that all of them follow immediately after the speaking of the first8If the number of additional nezirim is reduced to 2, is that because both A2 and A3 refer to the original vow, not that A3 refers to that of A2? In that case, there would not be time for three additional people to express their vow if the rule at the end of the paragraph be followed.? It was stated9The same baraita is quoted in the Babli, 21a, for the same conclusion.: If the middle one was permitted, all following him are permitted, all preceding him are forbidden10This is only possible if Ai+1 refers to Ai’s vow, not to A1’s. Therefore, the original text of the Mishnah is correct and essential.. The Mishnah applies even if not all of them follow immediately after the speaking of the first, but each one follows immediately after the speaking of the preceding person11This is explicit in Tosephta 3:2: “If somebody said ‘I am a nazir’ and another said ‘so am I’ but not immediately after him, the first is forbidden but the second is permitted.”. What means “to follow immediately after the speaking”? 12Berakhot 2:1 (Notes 50–52), Moʻed qaṭan 3:7 (83c 1. 37). Babli 20b, Makkot 6a, Baba qama 73b, Šebuot 32a. In the Babli, the longer version has an additional word: “peace upon you, my teacher and master.” Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The time needed for greeting between two people. Abba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The time needed for greeting between teacher and student, that he say to him, “peace upon you, my master.” If one said, “I am a nazir for 100 days, and another heard it and said, “so am I for 100 days”, and repeated13It is not clear who is speaking, whether the second is making an additional vow or the first is repeating after the second. In the first case, if the first had his vow permitted, the second was not permitted; the “main vow”, his hitching on to the first person’s, becomes an accessory to the second vow which needs separate permission. In the second case, the first vow of the first person (the “main”) cannot become permitted unless the Elder also permits the secondary vow (the “accessory”.) and said, “so am I”, the main [statement] becomes an accessory. If one said, “I am a nazir;” somebody said “and I” following immediately the first, another heard it and said, “so am I” following immediately the second. If the first became permitted, so does the second14And the third.. If the second became permitted, the third was not permitted15The Tanna of this baraita disagrees with the argument of the preceding section and holds that, since the vow of the second is predicated on the first, the third also depends on the first but not on the third. Therefore, if the first vow is annulled, all are annulled; if any other vow is annulled, that alone is annulled but nothing else.. If one said, “I am a nazir twice,” and two people heard it and said, “so are we”, are they two nezirim or is each of them a nazir twice?16The question is not answered. The answer is obvious both for R. Jehudah and for R. Simeon (Chapter 2, Note 100; Tosephta 2:8). If he was permitted, they were permitted. 17It seems that a sentence is missing: “If he was permitted, they did not become permitted.” He was not permitted. If two said, “we are nezirim,” another heard it and said, “so am I,” did he make a vow regarding both of them18Then he would have vowed two neziriot. or did he make a vow parallel to each of them?16The question is not answered. The answer is obvious both for R. Jehudah and for R. Simeon (Chapter 2, Note 100; Tosephta 2:8). If they were permitted, [he]19Reading הוּתַּר “he was permitted” for incomprehensible הַיּוֹם “today”. was permitted; if [he]20Reading הוּא “he” for הֵן “they”. was permitted, they were not permitted. “My mouth [shall be nazir] from wine21This refers to the Mishnah, where one person says “my mouth shall be like his mouth.” Somewhere it must have been mentioned that the mouth is the organ to which wine is forbidden. Similarly, if head or foot are mentioned, reference must be to the corresponding taboo imposed on the nazir. Then it is a valid vow of nazir by Mishnah 1:2., my head from shaving, my hand from impurity, my foot from impurity; my head shall be nazir; my liver shall be nezirah,22This is a separate set of rules. If somebody says, my x shall be nazir, he is a nazir as long as x is a body part necessary for survival (Babli 21b, Tosephta 3:3).” he is a nazir. “My walking shall be nazir; my talking shall be nazir”; he did not say anything. Why? Because he referred the vow to something on which life depends. “Vow, vow23One invokes the rule of gezerah šawah, “equal cut” (cf. Berakhot 1:1, Note 70; Nedarim 1:1, Note 18, 1:4, Note 159.) The nazir starts his obligation with a vow, mentioned “here” (Num. 6:2). Another personal obligation accepted by a vow is that of paying “the valuation of living persons”, mentioned “there”, (Lev. 27:2). In a different formulation, the argument is in Sifra Beḥuqqotay Parašah 3(6)..” Just as “vow” mentioned there refers to something on which life depends, so “vow” mentioned here refers to something on which life depends. “ “I am a nazir, and you,” etc. If he was permitted, she is permitted29This must refer to Mishnah 1, the case that the wife says “and so am I”. Then her vow is dependent on his; if his vow is declared non-existent, so is hers. But in Mishnah 2, saying “amen” makes her vow independent of his; if his vow were permitted, hers would still exist.. If she was permitted, he is not permitted. What about, “and so am I30The last case in Mishnah 1, if the husband says “so am I” to his wife’s vow.,” how do you treat this? As “amen, it is confirmed for you,31Then he confirmed his wife’s vow. The confirmation of a wife’s vow by her husband is irrevocable.” or “you did well32This is talk, not confirmation.”? The elder [Rebbi] Ḥiyya and the elder Rebbi Hoshaia. It is stated: If a woman made a vow to be anazir; her husband heard and said to her, “why did you make a vow of nazir? What did you do to make a vow of nazir? I would not like that you made a vow of nazir! There is neither vow nor oath here;” he did not say anything33The only language which the husband is empowered to use is that of dissolution, הפרה. Any other language is invalid; cf. Nedarim 10:10, Note 95 (Babli Nedarim 77b).. But if he said, “you did well that you did make a vow of nazir; I liked that you did make a vow of nazir; if you had not made a vow of nazir I would have told you to make one”, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated on this, in all of these cases he cannot dissolve34In his opinion, confirmation of a vow is not restrictedr to a fixed formula, but dissolution would be.. But Rebbi Hoshaia stated: In all these cases, he can dissolve unless he said “amen” or “it is confirmed for you”, then he can no longer dissolve.

MISHNAH: “I am a nazir, and you24The husband makes a vow and invites his wife to join him. As the Halakhah explains, he makes his vow conditional on her concurrence.?” If she said “amen”, he may dissolve hers25By asking her, he did not waive his privilege of dissolving her vows., and his is void26Since his vow is conditional on hers, his disappears with hers. “Void” is also the reading of Maimonides (in his Mishnah Commentary and his Code, Nedarim 13:14), against the Babli in Mishnah and Gemara which reads “confirmed”. Y. Qafeḥ in his edition of Maimonides’s Commentary notes (in his grandfather’s name) that the disagreement between Rav Jehudah and Abbai in the Babli (22b) may be based on different readings in the Mishnah.. “I am nezirah, and you27The wife makes a vow and invites her husband to join her.?” If he said “amen”28By this act, not only did he become a nazir but he confirmed her vow and, therefore, lost his power of dissolution., he cannot dissolve. HALAKHAH: If she is permitted, he is permitted35This now refers to the first sentence in Mishnah 2 and explains why his vow disappears with hers. The explanation is that given by Abbai in the Babli, 22b.. If he is permitted, she is not permitted36Since her vow was an independent act.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because he makes his vow conditional on hers, if he says, on condition that you [accept]37But if the Mishnah is taken as formulated, that the husband’s vow is absolute and the wife is only invited to participate, if she has her vow revoked by an Elder, his vow is not touched.. 38Text from Nedarim 10:10, Note 95. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The husband who said “there is no vow, there is no oath,” did not say anything. Also the Elder who said “it is dissolved for you, it is voided for you,” did not say anything. But everybody has to follow his own rules. The husband says “it is dissolved for you, it is voided for you,” and the Elder says, “there is no vow, there is no oath”.

MISHNAH: If a woman had made a vow of nazir but drank wine or defiled herself for the dead, she receives forty [lashes]39Since she violates biblical prohibitions, is duly warned by two witnesses, and persists in her action, she is subject to the biblical punishment of at most 39 lashes.. If her husband had dissolved her vow but she did not know that he had dissolved her vow40Since the husband can dissolve his wife’s vows in her absence. when she drank wine or defiled herself for the dead, she does not receive forty [lashes]41While there was criminal intent, there was no crime committed. The husband had legitimized her actions.. Rebbi Jehudah said, if she does not receive forty, let her receive blows of rebelliousness42Rabbinic punishment, usually reserved for transgression of rabbinic rules.. HALAKHAH: “If a woman had made a vow of nazir,” etc. Biblical whippings are 39 lashes43Mishnah Makkot 3:10.. One evaluates him; if he can stand it, one whips him, if not, one does not whip him. Blows of rebelliousness: one strikes him until he accepts44To follow rabbinic rules. or until he dies. It is written: “The Eternal will forgive her45Num. 30:6,9,13. The verses refer to girls or women whose vows are dissolved by father or husband. The verses assume that they felt impelled to make vows for some hidden guilt. In the Babli, 23a, the verse is interpreted to refer only to the case of the woman violating her vow, not knowing that it had been dissolved. The speaker there and in Tosephta 3:14 is R. Aqiba..” This tells that she needs forgiveness. When Rebbi Jacob came to this verse, he used to say: If somebody needs atonement having intended to get pig’s meat but happened to get kosher [animal’s] meat, so much more one who had the intent to get pig’s meat and got pig’s meat. It was stated46Tosephta 3:10; Babl1 22a.: “A woman made a vow as nazir and her friend heard it and said, ‘so am I;’ if the first’s husband heard and told her, ‘it is permitted to you,’ the first one is permitted but the second forbidden47The Babli explains that in contrast to an Elder, who has the power to retroactively annul a vow from the start, the husband can only annul his wife’s vow from the moment he heard about it. Therefore, for the second woman, the reference was to a valid vow and she is a nezirah.. Rebbi Simeon says, if she said, my intention was only to be like her, in her state, the second also is permitted.” There, we have stated48Mishnah Šebuot 5:3: “If 5 people claim a deposit which he holds for them and he swears that he holds nothing of theirs, and this was false, he can be prosecuted for one perjury. But if he said, an oath that I hold nothing of yours, and of yours, etc. (using the singular in each case), he can be prosecuted for 5 perjuries. R. Eleazer says, [he can be prosecuted for 5 perjuries] only if he mentioned ‘oath’ at the end (to make it clear that he meant an oath for each of them singly.) R. Simeon says, only if he mentioned an oath in every case,” i. e., an oath that I hold nothing of yours, and an oath that I hold nothing of yours, etc.The following Mishnah 5:4 deals with the case that one claimant demands from him wheat, barley, and spelt which he holds, and he swears falsely that he holds nothing, he is prosecuted for one perjury. But if he swears that he holds neither wheat, nor barley, nor spelt, he is prosecuted for each item separately; R. Meïr says, even if he swore that he did not have wheat, barley, spelt. For this part of the Mishnah, cf. Ketubot 13:4, Notes 79–86.: “Rebbi Eleazar says, only if he mentions ‘oath’ at the end. Rebbi Simeon says, only if he mentions ‘oath’ for every item.” 49From here to the end of the Halakhah, a parallel text is in Šebuot 5:4 (36b 1. 46). Rebbi Joḥanan said, [Rebbi Simeon implies]50The parallel text and the quote later in this paragraph show that the text in parentheses belongs here. if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is not prosecutable for the rest51Since in the preceding Mishnah, R. Simeon held that the “oath” only referred to the first item on the list; if there was no perjury for the first item, there was no perjury. (The Babli agrees, Menaḥot 103a.) As long as he did not say, “an oath for barley, and an oath for spelt”, he cannot be prosecuted for lying about these items.. Rebbi Abba said, even Rebbi Jehudah will agree with this52It is established in Šebuot that R. Jehudah is the anonymous Tanna of these Mishnaiot. He agrees that no prosecution is possible if the oath regarding the first item of the list was true.. If it turns out that he had no wheat, does [the oath] refer to the other kinds? The colleagues said, it does not53When she said, “so am I”, she only referred to the first woman in her present state, as nezirah, without further thought. This supports the colleagues’ interpretation.; Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it does. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, the baraita supports the colleagues: “A woman made a vow as nazir and her friend heard it and said, ‘so am I;’ if the first’s husband heard and told her, ‘it is permitted to you,’ the first one is permitted and the second forbidden. Rebbi Simeon says, if she said, my intention was only to be like her, in her state, the second also is permitted.” Because she said “to be like her, in her state;” therefore, if she did not say “to be like her, in her state,” the first is permitted and the second forbidden54Interpreting R. Simeon’s opinion, they hold that any vow or oath only refers to the item mentioned as its object.. Since there, where there was no original nezirut, you say it applies, here, where there was an original oath, not so much more55The argument of R. Jacob bar Aḥa is rejected. If an accessory vow is interpreted maximally, an original oath cannot be intepreted minimally.? When Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon implies that if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is not prosecutable for the rest, if he attaches56He explicitly attaches the second and third items to the first. Then it is clear that he cannot be prosecuted for perjury if he swore correctly on the first item.: If he says, [my obligation for] barley shall be like that for wheat; [my obligation for] spelt shall be like that for wheat. The following is obvious: If her husband did not dissolve for the first [woman] and she transgressed her vow, she is whipped. Can the second be whipped57If the second woman stated that “my intention was only to be like her, in her state,” and the first violated her vow and now cannot be a nezirah while she undergoes the purification rite, when the second also violated her vow.? Rebbi Yose said, since one is whipped, the other also is whipped. Rebbi La said, this58R. Yose’s statement. follows Rebbi Simeon. Can the second not be considered like one who said, I am a nezirah after twenty days59That the vow should count again after the first woman was purified.? Rebbi Simeon follows his own opinion; for Rebbi Simeon declares him free, because his offering was not according to the custom of offerers.60Mishnah Menaḥot 12:3 (formulated in the masculine), cf. Halakhah 2:4, Note 66. There does not exist an intermittent vow of nazir; if the second woman’s vow was valid, it remains valid.

MISHNAH: A woman who had made a vow of nazir and designated her animal61Really three animals for her prescribed sacrifice. when her husband dissolved her vow, if the animal was his, it leaves and grazes with the herd62Since one cannot dedicate anybody else’s property, the animals are not dedicated.. But if the animal was hers63If the spouses had signed a contract of separation of properties by which the husband renounced his right of administration and usufruct. Then the wife can dedicate her property without asking the husband’s consent., the purification offering shall die64Since an animal designated as purification offering can never be redeemed., the elevation offering shall be brought as an elevation offering65Since elevation offerings can be brought as voluntary gifts; Lev. 1., the well-being offering as a well-being offering66Most well-being offerings are voluntary gifts. But those are eaten during two days and the intervening night (Lev. 7:16) while the nazir’s well-being offering follows the rules of thanksgiving offerings which may be eaten only during one day and the following night (Lev. 7:15). The nazir’s offering also needs an accompanying gift of bread, similar to the thanksgiving offering. But since the woman is no nezirah after the husband’s dissolution of her vow, the bread cannot be offered. (The bread is baked on the day it is offered; since the husband has to dissolve the vow before it has run its course, there is no dedicated bread.), to be eaten on one day; it does not need bread. If she had money not designated67Money put aside for her sacrifices, without specifying which money should be used for which animal., it should be given as a donation68Given to the special Temple account, to be used for elevation sacrifices if the altar otherwise would be vacant.. If the monies were designated, the value of the purification offering shall be thrown into the Dead Sea69Where it will be quickly dissolved by the chemicals in the water. “Throwing something into the Dead Sea” means: “making sure it cannot be used.”; one may not use it70Since it is designated for a sacrifice. but there can be no larceny71Since the sacrifice cannot be offered, misappropriation of the money cannot be prosecuted; the rules of Lev. 5:14–16 cannot be applied.. For the value of the elevation offering, they shall bring an elevation offering; it is subject to the law of larceny. For the value of the well-being offering, they shall bring a well-being offering, to be eaten on one day; it does not need bread72Well-being sacrifices remain the property of the offerer; they may be sancta, but are not “The Eternal’s Sancta”, never subject to the rules of Lev. 5:14–16.. HALAKHAH: “A woman who had made a vow of nazir,” etc. Does this mean it became holy by dedication73Since in the absence of a contract to the opposite, all property of the wife’s is administered by her husband, how can the wife dedicate animals for her sacrifices without asking her husband to do it for her?? But if a third person gave her a gift and said, on condition that your husband have no right of disposition over it74This is one scenario in which the husband has no say in what she does. (Cf. Nedarim 11:8, Notes 69–70; Babli 24b.), then it is hers. Rebbi Mattaniah said, if he gave her power over his properties75The husband gives her the right to sign for everything concerning their properties. In this case, she is able to dedicate the animals but he retains veto power. In the scenario described in Note 63, he has no veto power.. If he comes to protest, it did not become holy; otherwise, it became holy. There76Mishnah 5:3: If an Elder annuls the vow for which animals already had been reserved, the animals are profane. Why are the wife’s animals not profane if her husband dissolves her vow?, you find it possible to say, “it should go grazing”, and here, you say so? There, the Elder eliminates the vow from the start; here, he77The husband. In the Babli, 19a, the question of the reach of the husband’s action remains unanswered. Only for the Elder, the Babli agrees, Ketubot 74b. eliminates only from that moment onwards. Who dissolves her obligations78It is agreed that Num. 30 gives the husband the right to dissolve his wife’s vows. But where is it written that the husband can eliminate the sacrifices which are implied by his wife’s vow?? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is a decree of Scripture: “He dissolved her vow;” he dissolved her obligation79Num. 30:9: “If on the day of his hearing he stops her and dissolves her vow [and] obligations.”. The one who dissolved her vow dissolved her obligation. It was stated: They81The sacrifices offered after a vow of nazir was dissolved. The Mishnah mentions that no bread is offered; it is a logical consequence that the officiating Cohen does not receive a foreleg from the goat offered as well-being sacrifice since Num. 6:19 makes the gift of the foreleg dependent on the gift of bread. need neither bread nor foreleg. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Do well-being sacrifices which are brought after death82If the estate of a deceased person included animals dedicated for well-being sacrifices, the heirs have to offer these animals in the Temple. need bread? He turned around and said, is it not the same during his lifetime, do they not come for nothing83A person made a vow for sacrifices and afterwards dedicated certain animals to satisfy his vow. If then these animals were lost or ran away, he dedicated other animals and offered them; when afterwards the original animals are found, they have to be sacrificed; this is “for nothing” since the vow already was fulfilled.? You say, they need bread, and here they need bread. Rebbi Yose said, it is obvious for Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya that well-being sacrifices which are brought after dissolution do not need bread84Since this is stated in our Mishnah. The question is why did R. Abun bar Ḥiyya not conclude (with the Babli, 24b) from the Mishnah that well-being sacrifices after the dedicator’s death do not need bread?. What is the difference between death and dissolution? In the case of death, they already were prepared to need bread; In the case of dissolution, they never were prepared to need bread85In the case of animals dedicated to fulfill a vow of well-being offerings, they can immediately be brought to the Temple and offered. But a well-being offering for a vow of nazir cannot be brought before the period of the vow has expired; before that time the dedication is potential, rather than actual.. It was stated: There is a reparation sacrifice after dissolution86If the wife became impure before her vow was annulled, she incurred the obligation of a reparation sacrifice. If the husband then dissolves her vow, the obligation is not dissolved since his action is not retroactive (Note 77).; there is no reparation sacrifice after death87Reparation sacrifices are parallel to purification sacrifices (Lev. 7:7). Since purification sacrifices after death are impossible, so are reparation sacrifices.. If she died, her reparation sacrifice is not offered, since there is no reparation sacrifice after death. If he dissolved for her, her reparation sacrifice is offered since that reparation sacrifice does not come for nothing. There, we have stated88Mishnah Šeqalim 2:6.: “Leftovers for nezirim are for nezirim; what is left over from a nazir is for donation89If moneys were collected to help indigent nezirim with the expenses of their sacrifices but not all was used, the remainder has to be kept in trust to be used in the future for the same purpose. But if a person dedicated his own money for his sacrifices and had money left over, that should go to the account for offerings (Note 68)..” Rav Ḥisda said, only if his purification offering was presented last. But if his well-being offering waspresented last, what is left over is for a well-being offering90Mishnah Šeqalim 2:6 also states that leftovers of monies for purification offerings go to the offerings account, but leftovers for well-being offerings must be used for well-being offerings.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, even if his well-being offering was presented last, it is a general rule for a nazir that his leftover be for donation91Overriding the general rules of Mishnah Šeqalim 2:6. In the Babli, 25a, this rule is attributed to R. Joḥanan (and, therefore, declared to be practice to be followed.). A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze‘ira: “The following are undesignated monies: any which contain money for purification offerings that should die. Even if he designated money for purification offerings that should die, it remains undesignated.92This refers to Mishnah Meʻilah 3:2 which decrees that money left over from unspecified funds set aside for nazir’s sacrifices must be given to the Temple’s offering account. Such money can be used for elevation or well-being offerings only if absolutely no money of purification offerings is mixed in (since one has to avoid the danger that the value of purification offerings be totally lost if anything goes wrong with that kind of sacrifice.)” A baraita supports Rav Ḥisda: “This is for my purification offering and the rest for my nezirut93The required elevation and well-being offerings.. Then he died. One commits larceny with all of them but not with part of them94Since well-being offerings are not subject to larceny by its owner, misappropriation cannot be prosecuted unless one can prove that money for elevation offerings is involved..”95A different version of this baraita is in the Babli, 26b; Tosephta Meʻilah 1:10. It does not say, when he died it should be given for donation. Rav Ḥisda said, a nazir’s leftover bread shall be left to decay. Rebbi Yose said, that is correct. You cannot sacrifice it by itself since (reparation sacrifices)96Instead of אָשָׁם “reparation sacrifice” one has to read לֶחֶם “bread”. While there are all kinds of offerings of flour and baked goods (Lev. 2), no offering of bread alone is authorized. cannot be brought alone. You cannot sacrifice it together with another nazir’s since no nazir sacrifices without bread97Also, nowhere do we find a procedure to redeem sacrificial bread.. Therefore, it was necessary to say that a nazir’s leftover bread shall be left to decay. They wanted to say, the same rule applies to his leftover bread as to his leftover wine offering98Required in Num. 6:15, following the rules of Num. 15:1–16.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, his leftover wine offering is most holy; it should be given to donation accounts99Since all leftovers of sacrifices characterized as “most holy” are to be given to the donation account of the Temple (Mishnah Šeqalim 2:5).. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Samuel, Rav Ḥisda, and Rebbi Eleazar, all three said the same. Rav Ḥisda, as quoted here100About wine offerings, in the interpretation of R. Yose ben R. Abun.. Samuel, as Rebbi Yasa101For historical reasons, one has to read ר׳ יסא instead of ר׳ יוסי. said, when I still was there102In Babylonia., I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking our teacher Samuel: If he designated his sheqel and died? He said, it should be given as donation103But leftover money to be used for the Temple tax of a living person is profane (Mishnah Šeqalim 2:5).. The leftover of his tenth of an epha104To buy the required flour offering belonging to a purification offering.: Rebbi Joḥanan said, he should bring it to the Dead Sea; Rebbi Eleazar said, it should be given as donation105Mishnah (Mishnah Šeqalim 2:5).. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Money can be non-designated, no animal can be non-designated106Money can be used to buy any animal; an animal usually defines the sacrifice for which it can be used: A female exclusively for a purification offering, a young male for an elevation offering, an older animal for a well-being offering. The same argument is in the Babli, 26b.. Rav Sheshet said, it was stated thus: 107Sifra Wayyiqra II Parašah 6(2), Babli 27b, Keritut 27b.“I might think that one could not satisfy his obligation with his father’s sacrifice, with an animal which he dedicated, whether from a minor sin for a major sin108A minor sin is one not punished either by divine exstirpation or by capital punishment. The latter are major sins. Since all purification offerings are the same, if it were possible to use one’s father’s designated purification offering for oneself, it would not matter for which sin his father designated the animal., or from a major sin for a minor sin, or from a minor sin for a minor sin, or from a major sin for a major sin, since he cannot shave for his nezirut with his father’s animal; but he could satisfy his obligation with his father’s sacrifice, with money he dedicated, whether from a minor sin for a major sin, or from a major sin for a minor sin, or from a minor sin for a minor sin, or from a major sin for a major sin, since he can shave on money for his nezirut, any time it is not designated, but not if it is designated. The verse says109For purification offerings, Lev. 4:29,32. For the nazir, Num. 6:14. The mention of his sacrifice in Lev. 4:32 is redundant; this is given as motivation for the restrictive interpretation of all three verses., ‘his sacrifice’, he can only satisfy his obligation with his sacrifice, not with his father’s sacrifice.” Talking about money, one mentions “not designated”.110But non-designated animals are not mentioned. This is Rav Sheshet’s support for Rebbi Abba’s statement. An animal is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning111Cf. Note 106., but it is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end112If an animal develops a defect and can no longer be offered on the altar, it must be redeemed and the redemption money may be used for any type of offering.. Money is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, but it is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end113Cf. Note 121.. Money is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, as we have stated: “If he had money not designated, it should be given as donation.” An animal is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end114As written, this is a non sequitur. It seems that one has to read: An animal is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning., as we have stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if he brought three animals but did not explain.115Mishnah 6:12. If somebody brings his three animals to the Temple without specification, the officiating priests do not have to ask him to designate the animals for specific offerings since the situation is clear, cf. Note 106.” They are subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning,116This must read: Money is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end. as we have stated117Tosephta Meʻilah 1:10. The text there is more complete: “ ‘These are for my purification offering, the remainder is for the rest of my nezirut’, when he died. The money’s worth of the purification offering shall be thrown into the Dead Sea; one may not use it but there can be no larceny. The remainder may be used for either elevation or well-being offerings. One commits larceny about all but one cannot commit larceny about a part.”If the moneys were under the rules of the non-designated, any surplus would have to be used for donation, i. e., to buy elevation offerings. Since it may also be used for well-being offerings, it is not subject to these rules.: “ ‘These are for my purification offering, the remainder is for the rest of my nezirut’, when he died. One commits larceny about all but one cannot commit larceny about a part118Since no money destined for well-being offerings can be misappropriated by its owner..” It is not subject119One has to read: “An animal is subject”, cf. Note 112. to the rules of the non-designated at the end, when he brought money and redeemed it for an animal. If he designated a donkey120An animal unfit as sacrifice is simply representing its money’s worth., it is as if he designated money. If he designated an ox121A sacrificial animal in general, but not for a nazir who is required to offer one female and one male sheep, and one male goat. The Babli rules that the animal must be treated as a sacrifice unless it be blemished, when it follows the rules of money (27b)., Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Ḥiyya ben Julianus, both speak in Shammai’s name. One says, he is like one who designates money; the other says, he is like one who designates an animal122It cannot be redeemed unless it develops a blemish; Lev. 27:10..

MISHNAH: If one of the bloods was sprinkled for her123The essence of any sacrifice is that its blood should be sprinkled on the walls of the altar. Once at least one of the sacrifices was presented, the nezirut is completed. The husband cannot dissolve a vow which no longer is active., he cannot dissolve. Rebbi Aqiba says, even if one of the animals was slaughtered for her, he cannot dissolve. When has this been said? If she shaves in purity. But if she shaves in impurity124And then has to start anew. he may dissolve since he can say, I cannot stand an unseemly wife125Since as a nezirah she is forbidden to comb her hair, lest she tear one out.. Rebbi says, he may dissolve even if she shaves in purity, since he can say, I cannot stand a shorn wife126While she could wear a wig after shearing off her hair, the Babli (28b) explains that the husband can object to her wearing a wig, which is difficult to keep clean. Therefore, a vow which will cause his wife to have to wear a wig is one which causes pain to the husband and is one which he may dissolve (Mishnah Nedarim 11:1).. HALAKHAH: “If one of the bloods was sprinkled for her,” etc. He dissolves for her because of her hair126While she could wear a wig after shearing off her hair, the Babli (28b) explains that the husband can object to her wearing a wig, which is difficult to keep clean. Therefore, a vow which will cause his wife to have to wear a wig is one which causes pain to the husband and is one which he may dissolve (Mishnah Nedarim 11:1).. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: It is a decision of Scripture: “He dissolved her vows,” he dissolves what is on her127He disagrees and holds that living with a shorn wife imposes no hardship on the husband and, therefore, the general rules of vows do not permit the husband to dissolve his wife’s vow of nazir. But he finds a special dispensation which empowers the husband to dissolve his wife’s vow of nazir. The verse, (Num. 30:9) is slightly misquoted; instead of הפר נדריה it should be והפר את נדרה. As in most cases, the argument is from the part of the verse which is not quoted: “But if on the day on which her husband hears it, he prevents her, and dissolves her vow which is on her …” This gives the husband the power to dissolve any vow she makes regarding what is on her; i. e., her hair. (In Sifry Num. 153, the verse is interpreted to mean that the husband has a say only over vows which are on her, i. e., after she made them. A preëmptive dissolution is invalid just as the Mishnah here states that a dissolution after the end of the period is invalid.). Whenever he dissolves her vow, he dissolves what is on her. Rebbi Eleazar said, it128The Mishnah, which considers the nezirut completed once the blood of a single animal was sprinkled on the altar in the final ceremony. follows Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion, after she was transferred from the prohibition to the positive commandment129From the moment when she starts the final ceremony, she is no longer forbidden to shave her hair but ordered to shave the hair and burn it in the fire under the well-being sacrifices. Since shaving the hair cannot be prohibited and required at the same time, the nezirut is completed according to everybody.. The rabbis say, “afterwards, the nazir shall drink wine,” after all these actions130Cf. Mishnah 6:9. In their opinion, the nazir may shave only after the conclusion of the entire ceremony.. Rebbi Simeon says, even after a single action131Mishnah 6:12; cf. Note 128.. Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi (Bevai)132Read: Eleazar.. “When has this been said? If she shaves in purity. But if she shaves in impurity, he may dissolve since he can say, I cannot stand an unseemly wife.” Therefore, shaving in purity does not make her unseemly. Who holds that shaving does not make unseemly133Therefore “unseemly” cannot mean “shaven”; it must refer to the fact that she cannot drink wine. Since R. Simeon allows the nazir to drink wine after the offering of one animal, before he shaves, he asserts that shaving and not drinking wine are separate matters.? Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, even Rebbi thinks so: “Rebbi says, he may dissolve even if she shaves [in purity], since he can say, I cannot stand a shorn wife.” Should he not say, I cannot stand an unseemly and shorn wife134Therefore, the argument that the husband suffers if his wife does not drink wine is applicable only if her vow was not completed and she shaves in impurity.? Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi (Jehudah)135Read: Aqiba; the reference is to the Mishnah. said that only for the purification sacrifice, since a purification sacrifice would be invalid if not in her name136If the husband were able to dissolve his wife’s nezirut after the slaughter of her purification offering, that offering would become invalid and would have to be burned outside the Temple precinct. Both elevation and well-being offerings may be used if the original intent became void.. That means, as long as it is alive it is surrendered to Heaven only by slaughter137Even though we say (Mishnah Qiddušin 1:6) that “a promise to Heaven is like a delivery to a person”, an animal dedicated as purification offering becomes Heaven’s property only by its slaughter, in contrast to all other sacrifices for which the dedication also equals delivery..

MISHNAH: A man can declare his son138His underage son. Why a father should have such power is a matter of disagreement in the Babli, 28b/29a. a nazir but a woman cannot declare her son a nazir139Since rabbinic law knows no materna potestas.. How is this? If he shaved him or relatives shaved him140If either the son or some relatives provided the sacrifices required while the father already had dedicated either animals or the monies needed for them.; if he protested or relatives protested141If either the son or relatives protested the father’s action, the child’s nezirut is voided. If the father already had dedicated either animals or the monies needed for them, they have to be treated according to the rules detailed in Mishnah 4 in the case of the woman who had prepared her sacrifices when her vow was dissolved by her husband., if he had designated animals, the purification offering shall die; the elevation offering shall be brought as elevation offering; the well-being offering shall be brought as elevation offering; it may be eaten for one day and does not need bread. If he had money not designated, it should be given as donation. If the monies were designated, the money’s worth of the purification offering shall be thrown into the Dead Sea; one may not use it but there can be no larceny. For the value of the elevation offering, he shall bring an elevation offering; it is subject to the law of larceny. For the value of the well-being offering, he shall bring a well-being offering, to be eaten on one day; it does not need bread.A man may shave on the basis of his father’s nezirut, but a woman may not shave on the basis of her father’s nezirut. How is this? If his father was a nazir and had set aside unspecified money for his nezirut when he died, and he said, I am a nazir on condition that I may shave on my father’s money, Rebbi Yose said, the money shall be given as donation, for he cannot shave on his father’s money. Who may shave based on his father’s nezirut? If both he and his father were nezirim and his father had set aside unspecified money for his nezirut when he died; this one shaves on his father’s nezirut. HALAKHAH: “A man can declare his son a nazir,” etc. 142Since the Mishnah deals with a difference between a man and a woman, it quotes another difference, regarding people afflicted with skin disease. The text is from Soṭah 3:9, Note 228.“A man”. This refers not only to a man; from where for a woman? The verse says, “afflicted with skin disease,” whether man, woman, or minor. If it is so, why is “a man” written? For the next theme, “a man is dishevelled and has open seams, no woman is dishevelled and has open seams.” A man can declare a nazir, and a man can shave143A man can declare his son to be a nazir, and the son can shave on the offerings which his father brings for him.. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Meïr: 144Tosephta Idiut 2:2. In 24 matters are the House of Shammai lenient but the House of Hillel stringent, and this is one of them: The House of Shammai say, a man cannot declare his son to be a nazir but the House of Hillel say, a man can declare his son to be a nazir. It was stated about those who are nazir from the womb145This sentence seems to be incomplete.. Some want to say, until he grows two pubic hairs146I. e., the father can declare his son to be a nazir until the latter reaches adulthood.. Some want to say, until he reaches the time of vows147Mishnah Niddah 5:6: “The vows of a girl 11 years and one day of age or a boy 12 years and one day of age are checked.” If they know what they are doing, their vows are valid.. Everybody agrees that he can no longer declare him a nazir once he reaches the time of vows148Once a boy’s own vows are valid, his father can no longer make vows for him. In the Babli, 29b/30a, the matter remains undecided.. “If he shaved him or relatives shaved him; if he protested or relatives protested,” in any language it is a valid protest149No particular language is prescribed for these protests.. If he sat before a barber150The protest must be verbal; a silent action does not count., it is not a protest; may a relative protest151If the child sits in a barber’s chair, may a relative protest for him? The question needs no answer since the relative can protest anywhere.? May his own vow of nazir and that of his father fall on him together152If he is between childhood and adulthood and it is not clear which vow would apply. The positive answer is given by the story.? 153Parallels are in the Babli, 29b, and Tosephta Niddah 5:15. It happened that Rebbi Ḥanina ben Ḥanina154In the Tosephta, Ḥananiah ben Ḥananiah. In the Babli, R. Ḥaninah.’s father made him a nazir and Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel155In both other sources, Rabban Gamliel. Since the story presupposes the existence of the Temple, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel would have to be the president of the revolutionary government in the war against the Romans, Rabban Gamliel his father. checked him whether he had grown two pubic hairs. He said to him, why are you checking me? If my father’s nezirut is on me, I am a nazir; otherwise, I declare being a nazir. Rabban Gamliel stood up and kissed him on his head and said, I am sure that you will not die from old age before you taught instruction in Israel. Rebbi Eleazar bar Ṣadoq156A Tanna of the first generation at Jabneh. said, I saw him sitting and explaining in Jabneh. Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Immi said that Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked: May his bird be eaten when its neck was broken157If the child who was declared nazir by his father became impure, his father has to bring a couple of birds for him. Both birds (pigeons or turtle doves) are killed by having their necks broken by the Cohen’s thumbnail (Lev. 5:8). The meat of one of them, offered as purification sacrifice, should be eaten by the priests. If the boy’s vow is valid in biblical law, there is no problem. But if it is valid only rabbinically, then the priest who eats this meat commits two sins, since (a) he slaughters in the Temple what is not a legitimate sacrifice and (b) he eats meat forbidden outside the Temple precinct since it was not ritually slaughtered.In the Babli, 29a, R. Joḥanan holds that the vow is biblically valid; there are no problems. R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that the vow is rabbinic; his position is that articulated by R. Mani in this paragraph.? Instead of asking about a bird whose neck was broken, why do you not ask about a slaughtered bird158Since it is forbidden to bring profane animals into the Temple precinct, one could ask not about birds, but about the animals required for the nazir who finishes his term in purity, whether his purification offering could be eaten by the priests.? There is one doubt, here are two doubts159The sacrifices of the pure underage nazir have only the problem of the validity of his vow in biblical law. The sacrifice of the impure in addition has the problem that the consumption of meat from a bird whose neck was broken is forbidden to everybody except priests in the Temple in the line of duty.. Rebbi Mani said, here also it is one doubt, as it was stated: One who perforates or tears out is not guilty because of profane slaughter in the Temple courtyard160It is forbidden to ritually slaughter profane animals in the Temple precinct. If the animals are killed in other ways than by slaughter, that prohibition was not violated (other prohibitions may have been violated). Cf. Babli Ḥulin 86a. There remains only the problem of eating the meat; the irregular slaughter in the Temple precinct is not an infraction.. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: There is not even one doubt, following him who says that slaughtering birds is not clear from the Torah161Ritual slaughter of four-legged animals is clearly prescribed in the Torah. In the desert, all non-sacrificial slaughter was forbidden, Lev. 17:1–7. When the Israelites entered the Land, profane slaughter was permitted, Deut. 12:21. Profane slaughter has to be executed “as I commanded you”, i. e., by the method of slaughter used in the Tabernacle. In all of Lev., slaughter is described by the verb שׁחט, Arabic سحط “to cut the throat”. According to this argument, birds should be killed by breaking their neck, rather than by cutting their throat.: “They spread them a spread,”162Num. 11:32, speaking of the quail. In Sifry Num. 98, the metathesis שחט - שטח is attributed to R. Jehudah. they spread out slaughtered [birds]. So far, if they are equal. If he was nazir once, his son nazir twice? He and his son nazir once, [but] he was a pure nazir, his son an impure nazir, [or] he an impure nazir, his son a pure nazir163Here starts the discussion of Mishnah 7. As explained in the next paragraph, R. Yose requires that the son’s vow precede the father’s dedication. How would R. Yose deal with the case that the vow of the son’s second nezirut precedes the father’s dedication but the actual realization of the vow starts only after the father’s death? Both for the anonymous Tanna, who allows the son unrestricted access to his father’s dedicated money, and for R. Yose, the question arises whether the money can be used for a sacrifice for which it was not intended (money for the offerings in purity for the reparation offering of the impure or vice versa)? The questions are not answered, neither here nor in the Babli (30b).? What is Rebbi Yose’s reason164That the son’s vow must precede the father’s dedication.? “His offering to the Eternal for his vow”165Num. 6:21., that (his sacrifice precede his vow)166The two parentheses have to be interchanged. The correct text is copied in Num. rabba 10(42), Yalqut #709. but not (that his vow precede his sacrifice). They wanted to say that Rebbi Jehudah167In the Tosephta, 3:18, it is explained that R. Jehudah and R. Meïr hold that any unspecified money in the estate can be used by the son for a future nezirut (but specified money has to be treated by the rules of Mishnah 6.) The opinion of R. Yose is shared by R. Eleazar (ben Shamua) and R. Simeon (ben Ioḥai). The problems with the text of Tosephta and Babli are treated at length by S. Lieberman (Tosefta ki-Fshutah p. 537–538).The Yerushalmi does not treat the anomaly that, by tradition, the daughter cannot use the father’s dedicated money even if she is the only heir (Babli 30a/b). would agree with Rebbi Yose. It was found said that neither of them agrees with the other.

MISHNAH: The house of Shammai say, dedication in error is dedication, but the House of Hillel say, dedication in error is not dedication. How? If one said, the black ox which comes out of my house first shall be dedicated, and a white one came out; the house of Shammai say, it is dedicated1We assume that he simply wanted to dedicate one of his animals as a sacrifice and since most of his animals were black, he mentioned black. If he had said explicitly, “the first ox which comes out of my house shall be dedicated if it be black,” the House of Shammai will agree that there is no dedication. Since oxen are possible as sacrifices, the dedication mentioned here is dedication as sacrifice., but the House of Hillel say, it is not dedicated.The gold denar which first comes into my hand shall be dedicated, but it was a silver one; the house of Shammai say, it is dedicated, but the House of Hillel say, it is not dedicated.The wine amphora which first comes into my hand shall be dedicated, but it was a one of oil; the house of Shammai say, it is dedicated, but the House of Hillel say, it is not dedicated2Even though all three Mishnaiot illustrate the same principle, the statements imply that the positions of the Houses of Hillel and Shammai apply to all kinds of dedications. Mishnah 1 exemplifies dedications for the altar, Mishnah 2 money donations, and Mishnah 3 things which could be brought to the altar as accessories but never are sacrifices on their own. The three Mishnaiot are an introduction to the nazir vow made in error treated in Mishnah 4.. HALAKHAH: “The House of Shammai say, dedication in error is dedication.” There4Mishnah Terumot 3:8. The following two paragraphs are Halakhah Terumot 3:8, explained there in Notes 85–92., we have stated: “If somebody intends to say heave but says tithe, tithe but says heave, fire offering but says well-being offering, well-being offering but says fire offering.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, if he intends to say “profane” and says “fire sacrifice”, he dedicated it. Rebbi Yose said, we consider only whether he intended to dedicate but erred because of something else. What is the status of this Mishnah? In the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah it is in dispute, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose it is everybody’s opinion. “With his lips but not in his mind.” I could think that I exclude him who decides in his mind; the verse says (Lev. 5:4): “To articulate”. But Samuel said, he who decides in his mind is not obligated until he pronounces with his lips. But did we not state: “(Ex. 35:5) Everyone who volunteers in his mind,” that is he who decides in his mind. You say, that is he who decides in his mind, but maybe that is he who pronounces with his lips? When he says (Deut. 23:24): “What comes out from your lips you have to keep,” that speaks about him who pronounces with his lips. Therefore, how can I confirm “every one who volunteers in his mind?” That is he who decides in his mind. What Samuel said refers to a sacrifice. There6Mishnah Šeqalim 2:3., we have stated: “If somebody collects coins and says, ‘these are for my Temple tax15Half a biblical šeqel (Ex. 30:13). While the relation of the biblical ŝeqel to currency in circulation may have varied from time to time, at the beginning of the tax season the amount was clearly stated and known to everybody (Mishnah Šeqalim 2:4). Therefore, nobody who mentions the Temple tax will intend to dedicate more than the stated amount. In contrast, a purification sacrifice can be a sheep or a goat (Lev. 4), in special circumstances also a couple of birds or a flour offering (Lev. 5).,’ the House of Shammai say, the excess should be given as a donation7They hold that the entire amount was dedicated even if only part can be used for the purpose stated., but the House of Hillel say, the excess is profane8Explained in Mishnah 2:4; Note 13.. ‘That I shall be able to pay my Temple tax,’ they agree that the excess is profane9The formulation makes it clear that the amount in excess of the required tax is not dedicated.. ‘These [monies] are for my purification offering’, they agree that the excess is profane.10The text is shortened so much as to be unintelligible. The Mishnah reads: “ ‘These are for a purification sacrifice,’ they agree that the excess should be a donation (cf. Chapter 4, Note 90). ‘That I shall be able to bring a purification sacrifice,’ the excess is profane (Note 8).”” 11From here to the end of the next paragraph, the text is Halakhah Šeqalim 2:3. The Yerushalmi text reproduced in the Babli (editio princeps) is too closely adapted to Babylonian spelling to be useful for variant readings. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: When do they disagree? If he collects little by little12He starts a cache of small coins with the declared intention of collecting money for either his future Temple tax or purification sacrifice.. But if he says “these13He declares that all his coins shall be dedicated to the stated purpose. The House of Hillel will agree that everything is dedicated and if it cannot be used for the stated purpose, it should be given to the Temple’s donation account.,” everybody agrees that the excess should be given as a donation. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: When do they disagree? If he collects little by little. But if he says “these,” everybody agrees that the excess is profane. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah14Šeqalim 2:4. supports Rebbi Bevai: “Rebbi Simeon says, what is the difference between Temple tax and purification sacrifices? Only that the Temple tax is a fixed amount15Half a biblical šeqel (Ex. 30:13). While the relation of the biblical ŝeqel to currency in circulation may have varied from time to time, at the beginning of the tax season the amount was clearly stated and known to everybody (Mishnah Šeqalim 2:4). Therefore, nobody who mentions the Temple tax will intend to dedicate more than the stated amount. In contrast, a purification sacrifice can be a sheep or a goat (Lev. 4), in special circumstances also a couple of birds or a flour offering (Lev. 5)..” Where do we hold? If he says, “that I shall use it for the Temple tax,” everybody agrees that the excess should be given as a donation16Read with the Šeqalim text: “Is profane” (as explained in Note 13).. If he says, “that I shall use it for my purification offering,” everybody agrees that the excess is profane17Read with the Šeqalim text: “Should be given as a donation” (as explained in Note 13).. But we are considering one who says “these18The monies are already collected; he declares them dedicated for a given purpose..” Since the Temple tax has a fixed rate from the Torah, the excess is profane. Since purification offerings do not have a fixed rate from the Torah, the excess should be given as a donation19Cf. Chapter 4, Note 90.. How does Rebbi Yose handle this? He explains it if he collects little by little20The argument of R. Simeon applies only if the stated intent is to collect money for the Temple tax, not if the declaration is made on monies already available. In the latter case, R. Simeon may agree that the excess is earmarked for donation., following the House of Hillel. If somebody put aside his Temple tax in the belief that he owed it and it turned out that he did not owe21After the dedication he remembered that he already had paid., it was not dedicated22In the next paragraph, it will be determined that this is the opinion of the House of Hillel.. If he put aside two in the belief that he owed twice and it turned out that he owed only once, how do you treat the second23In the first case, the entire dedication was in error; it is invalid. But in the second case, there is a valid dedication. In order to be able to speak of a second, the amounts must have been dedicated one after the other. But if two animals were dedicated simultaneously, it is clear that a choice of one over the other in this case would be an act of retroactive validation, which is not accepted in biblical law; both coins certainly remain dedicated.? If he believed that he owed it and it turned out that he did not owe24In that case, the dedication is removed as being made in error., [or as] if he said: “these”25Referring to R. Yose’s opinion in the preceding paragraph, implying that the money should be donated to the Temple.? 26In Šeqalim, this is introduced with a referral clause, “let us hear from the following.” That clause is correctly missing in the present text since the argument from Šeqalim is not presented here. If somebody put aside a purification sacrifice in the belief that he owed it and it turned out that he did not owe, it was not dedicated. If he put aside two in the belief that he owed two and it turned out that he owed only one, how do you treat the second? As if he believed that he owed it and it turned out that he did not owe, or as if he had said “these”27By contrast, in Šeqalim it is stated that the dedication is not removed automatically, that the second animal has to be sent to graze until it develops a defect or becomes too old to be an acceptable sacrifice. The implied conclusion seems to be that the redemption money for that animal is a donation to the Temple.? There28Mishnah Menaḥot 12:2., we have stated: “If somebody says, ‘I undertake [to bring] on a pan29A cereal offering fried in oil on a flat clay pan, Lev. 2:5–6.’ and he brought in a deep vessel30A cereal offering cooked in boiling oil in a deep clay vessel, Lev. 2:7., in a deep vessel and he brought on a pan.31“What he brought is acceptable but he did not fulfill his vow.”” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is the House of Shammai’s32Why should a flour offering be acceptable if it was not properly dedicated? Since it is forbidden to bring profane food into the Temple precinct (Deut. 12:26), the House of Hillel should hold that an offering which does not fulfill the specification of the donor’s vow has to be rejected by the officiating priests. But for the House of Shammai, who hold that a dedication is always valid, even if made in error, the nonconforming offering is not profane., since the House of Shammai say, “dedication in error is dedication.” Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yose33Since R. Yose was R. Ze‘ira’s student’s student, one has to read: R. Yasa (Assi).: Why do we not explain it according to everybody, if he said, “I said, on a pan”?34If the person who made the vow agrees that the present offering does not satisfy his vow, there is no reason why it should not be accepted as a separate offering. But if he said, “I undertake [to bring] on a pan,” and then he changed his mind35Immediately. and said, “in a deep vessel”, he fulfilled his duty. Rebbi Ḥanina36It seems that one has to read “R. Ḥinena”. and Rebbi Yasa came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: it is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he said, “I undertake [to bring] on a pan or in a deep vessel,” turned around35Immediately. and said, “on a pan”, and turned around and said, “in a deep vessel”?37Since he demonstrates that he did not make up his mind, do we hold him to his last statement or can he satisfy his vow with any of the kinds mentioned as possibilities? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Hama in the name of Rebbi Yose: He determines even orally38This is an independent statement. From the Mishnah in Menaḥot it follows that the donor’s statement determines the kind of cereal sacrifice he is required to bring, even if as yet he owes no flour.. They thought to say, even holidays determine39If he vows the sacrifice for a holiday, he cannot satisfy his vow on a workday., even vessels determine40If he vowed a cereal sacrifice without specifying its kind and then put the flour into one of the acceptable vessels without saying a word, the vessel determines the kind of offering he vowed and he cannot change it any longer.. There42Mishnah Temurah 2:3., we have stated: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, He43God, in instituting the rules of Lev. 27:10 ff. made error equal to intent for substitution, but not for sacrifices.” Ḥizqiah said, in error: a prohibition, the one who substitutes: a prohibition44He explains the Mishnah. Once an animal has been dedicated, it cannot be exchanged for another animal as long as it did not develop a blemish (Lev. 27:10). A person who intentionally violates this prohibition is whipped. It is asserted that a person who unintentionally violates the prohibition is also whipped (see the next paragraph). But a dedication in error is not a dedication for the House of Hillel.. If he wants to say “profane” but said “an elevation sacrifice”, it is sanctified45While for vows one requires that “his heart and mouth be in unison”, for Temple dedications only the pronouncement counts (Deut. 23:24).. If he wants to say “an elevation sacrifice” but said “profane”, it is not sanctified. It follows that Rebbi Joḥanan, interpreting Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, parallels Rebbi Jeremiah’s explanation46In the first paragraph of this Halakhah (Terumot 3:8, Note 86). regarding the House of Shammai on sacrifices. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, may one understand that “He made error equal to intent for substitution, but not for sacrifices,” if somebody dedicates a firstling?47This is a question for Ḥizqiah. Without his comment, we would have read the Mishnah in Temurah to state that substitution in error is substitution, dedication in error is not dedication. But he insists that for R. Yose ben R. Jehudah, substitution in error is criminally punishable. Now everybody agrees that dedication in error is not punishable, but where do we find that intentional dedication should be punishable, to justify R. Yose ben R. Jehudah’s formulation? The answer is that the dedication of a firstling (which must be given to a Cohen) for any other sacrifice is forbidden (Lev. 27:26) and, therefore, should be subject to criminal prosecution. Can it be dedicated? Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Aḥa, and Rebbi Yasa say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicated a firstling and it was brought to the altar, it is not sanctified even for its money’s worth48The firstling is sanctified at birth and never becomes the rancher’s property. The rancher has to raise the calf or lamb for 30 days and then is obligated to deliver it to a Cohen. Since nobody can dedicate what is not his, any dedication of a firstling by the rancher is void, not only invalid. In the case described, any Cohen can come and take the firstling from the altar and eat it (since only the blood of a firstling is given to the altar but nothing of its meat). There can be no prosecution for a nonexisting act.. If somebody dedicated a blemished animal for the altar, even as a substitute it is not sanctified49The example of dedication of a blemished animal cannot be used as illustration of R. Yose ben Jehudah’s statement. A blemished animal cannot be dedicated; therefore, it neither can become a substitute sacrifice. The rules of substitutions and dedications are identical for blemished animals.. But if somebody dedicated an animal with a temporary blemish. Is that consistent50(Logically) connected. This technical term appears as מְחֻוָּר “whitish, clear” in the Babli, pointing to differences in the pronunciation of ב, β in Galilee and ب in Babylonia. Cf. H. Guggenheimer, Die Aussprache des “Bet” in talmudischer Zeit, Bulletin, Verband jüdischer Lehrer und Kantoren der Schweiz Nr. 21, 1977, pp. 4–5. with whipping51Since a temporary blemish does not permanently disqualify the animal from the altar, the dedication cannot be a crime. Again, there is no difference between dedication and substitution; R. Yose ben R. Jehudah cannot refer to this case.? Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said, explain it if he gave unblemished animals for the upkeep of the Temple52Donating unblemished cattle, sheep, or goats for the upkeep of the Temple clearly violates the injunction of Lev. 27:9 to reserve such animals for the altar. However, that rule is formulated as an obligation, not as a prohibition and, therefore, involves no prosecutable offense. In the next paragraph it is established that R. Jehudah and his son found a biblical source which allows one to find a prohibition in Lev. 27:9. The rule of R. Yose ben Jehudah is valid only for him and his father, not for most other Sages.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah follows his father’s method: If somebody dedicated unblemished animals for the upkeep of the Temple, he violates a positive commandment53Lev. 27:9.. Why also a prohibition? The verse says: “The Eternal spoke to Moses לאמר”54Lev. 27:1. It is assumed that this heading applies also to the paragraph Lev. 27:9–34 since v. 9 starts with a connecting ו.: a prohibition was pronounced55“He said ‘no’ ”. The underlying pronunciation of לאמר cannot be recovered from the indications given here., the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi was sitting and studying the rule that “a firstling cannot be substituted” when Bar Pedaiah’s father was passing by. Rebbi saw him, and said, do I know what I should say here, “the Eternal spoke to Moses לאמר,” could one explain the words of Rebbi Jehudah? Is it written thus? 56Soṭah 5:1 (ס), explained there in Notes 8–10, Horaiot 1:3 (ה). It follows what Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For interpretation, one removes from its beginning to its end. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Even a middle word57In the application here, the word is split by duplication of a letter, לאמר as אמר לא.. “You have to pour oil on.” You have to pour oil on a flour offering, to subject all flour offerings to pouring. There, we have stated58Mishnah ‘Arakhin 6:1. The argument refers to the part of the Mishnah which is not quoted: “The public sale of orphans’ property goes on for 30 days, the public sale of Temple property goes on for 30 days, and one publicly announces mornings and evenings. If somebody dedicates his property while the lien if favor of a wife’s ketubah was in effect, Rebbi Eliezer says, if he would divorce her, he has to make her vow not to have any usufruct from him; Rebbi Joshua says, it is not necessary. Similarly, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says regarding a guarantor of a woman’s ketubah whose husband divorces her, that he shall make him execute a vow of usufruct lest he could plot against his property and take his wife back.”: “The public sale of orphans’ property59The administrator of an estate whose beneficiaries are underage can sell real estate to satisfy claims against the estate only under supervision by the court. There has to be a 30 day public notice of the land being up for sale; at the end of the period the parcel is sold to the highest bidder. goes on for 30 days, the public sale of Temple property60Sale of real estate donated to the Temple. goes on for 30 days, and they are publicly announed mornings and evenings.” Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Eliezer is afraid of trickery61If the wife has to vow not to have any future usufruct from her past husband in order to collect her ketubah from the Temple, she cannot remarry him. R. Eliezer suspects that a husband who donates his property to the Temple might want to get it back by divorcing his wife, waiting until she has collected her ketubah, then remarrying her and receiving the ketubah money as dowry., Rebbi Joshua is not afraid of trickery. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai and Rebbi Joshua the House of Hillel62He disagrees with R. Mana and holds that their differences are systemic. This is the only opinion quoted in the Babli, ‘Arakhin 23a.. Rebbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, a person may ask about his dedication; could he say that he does not have to vow usufruct?63This text seems to be corrupt. Since in our Mishnah, the House of Shammai hold that dedication in error is valid, it is clear that they must hold that a vow of dedication cannot be abrogated by an Elder (cf. Nedarim, Introduction p. 422, Chapter 9). Therefore, the text must read: דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. אֵיו אָדָם נִשְׁאַל עַל הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹ. וְהוּא דַהֲוָה אָמַר. אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַדִיר הֲנָייָה. וּדְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ כְּבֵית הִלֵּל. דְּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים. אָדָם נִשְׁאַל עַל הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹ. וְהוּא דַהֲוָה אָמַר. צָרִיךְ לְהַדִיר הֲנָייָה. “Rebbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, a person may not ask about his dedication; could he say that he does not have to vow ususfruct? Rebbi Joshua follows the House of Hillel, since the House of Hillel say, a person may ask about his dedication; could he say that he has to vow usufruct?” The “vow of usufruct” is a vow never to have any usufruct from the person designated in the vow. Rebbi Joshua follows the House of Hillel, since the House of Hillel say, a person may not ask about his dedication; could he say that he has to vow usufruct64Since he could ask an Elder about his vow, he does not need any tricks.? In any case, could not a man ask about his vow of usufruct?65R. Eliezer should agree that a man who cannot have his dedication annulled may try to have his vow of usufruct annulled. Rebbi Joshua agrees that a guarantor must execute a vow of usufruct66R. Joshua will agree that the husband of a woman whose ketubah is collected from a third party has to promise never to take her back. It is not that the guarantor has to vow; he has to ask the divorcing couple for their vows.. What does Rebbi Joshua say about a gift? Since he gives voluntarily, he does not have to vow usufruct, or since [the recipient’s] power is small and [the donor] may change his mind, does he have to vow usufruct? Let us hear from the following: The husband of a relative of Rebbi Ḥaggai owed on a document67Greek χάρτης, Latin charta, “papyrus, roll of papyrus”.. The creditor came and foreclosed. The case68After the foreclosure, the husband divorced his wife and she went to court to foreclose on the foreclosed parcel since the lien of her ketubah preceded the creditor’s loan document. came before Rebbi Aḥa, who said, he69The husband owes a vow of usufruct which will forbid him to remarry his wife in order to permit the wife to collect her ketubah. owes a vow of usufruct. Rebbi Yose said, he does not have to vow usufruct. The colleagues said before Rebbi Aḥa [and] Rebbi Yose: Does Rebbi Aḥa say it correctly? Since if he takes her back, does not the creditor come and foreclose70If the husband should remarry his divorcee, would not her property become the husband’s property as dowry, and could not the creditor then foreclose it for his claim? It seems that the creditor loses nothing if there is no vow.? Rebbi Yose said to them, she turns it into jewelry or keeps it as additions to her dowry71Cf. Ketubot 5:10, Note 218. Before the marriage, they sign a stipulation that the husband shall have no rights to the property. Then the creditor would be left without recourse.. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, by Moses! Rebbi Yose says it correctly. It was executed following Rebbi Aḥa72In this and similar cases, the husband has to deliver a vow which forbids him any future usufruct from his divorcee.. There73Mishnah 4. If a person makes a vow of nazir, designates an animal as his sacrifice at completion, and then asks about his vow and has it annulled, the animal becomes profane., you say: “It shall leave and graze with the herd.” And here, you say so74Should not the House of Shammai hold that the animal must remain dedicated if it was designated even in error?? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there he asked about his vow of nazir. Because of the vow of nazir75There never was a direct dedication of the animal, only a designation as nazir sacrifice. If there is no nazir, there is no sacrifice. The Babli rejects this argument and holds (9a) either that for the House of Shammai there can be no dissolution of a vow of nazir because there can be no dissolution of a dedication, or (32a) for the House of Hillel substitutions can be revoked. did his sacrifices become profane. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna; Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees that nobody can ask about his substitution75,There never was a direct dedication of the animal, only a designation as nazir sacrifice. If there is no nazir, there is no sacrifice. The Babli rejects this argument and holds (9a) either that for the House of Shammai there can be no dissolution of a vow of nazir because there can be no dissolution of a dedication, or (32a) for the House of Hillel substitutions can be revoked.76No Elder has the power to annul a (forbidden) substitution.. Where do they disagree? About his dedication; for the House of Shammai say, since a person cannot ask about his substitution, he cannot ask about his dedication, but the House of Hillel say, a person can ask about his dedication but not about his substitution77It is difficult to read Lev. 27:10 according to the House of Hillel but the interpretation is confirmed by the Babli, 31a.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara: You catch him at the mention of “ox”, at the mention of “first”78He denies that the reason of the House of Shammai be a comparison with the rules of substitutions but holds that they interpret any statement of dedication for the maximum benefit of the Temple (similar to the position of Rav Papa in the Babli, 32a).. “The black ox which comes out of my house first,” if a white one came out and the black followed him, you catch him because he is the leader of the black ones. “The white ox which comes out of my house first,” if a black one came out and the white followed him, you catch him because he is the leader of the white ones. “The ox which stands at the manger” and it was lying down, “lying down” and it was standing, should be like what Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he wanted to give heave from wheat and he gave from barley, during nighttime he did not do anything, during daytime, what he did is done79Since at night he could not see what he did, we have to take his word as expressing his intent. Therefore, the heave designated during nighttime is not sanctified. But during daytime, his action overrides his words and the heave from barley is sanctified. Similarly, the House of Shammai will sanctify the ox if the dedication was made under circumstances in which his action can override his words.. Brown grain and it turned out to be white80For the spelling and definition of these words, cf. Peah 2:5, Notes 85–86. אגרו, אגדו is human food, שחמתית שמתית usually is animal feed., even during daytime he did not do anything. “A ram” is nothing81If he dedicated some kind of cattle but the animal coming out of his house was a goat or sheep, even the House of Shammai will agree that there was no dedication.. “A calf” yes, since it is written: “A calf of cattle as purification offering.” “A sheep” is nothing. “Tetradrachmas” is nothing. “Change” is nothing82This refers to Mishnah 2. If he dedicated the first “denar” which he takes out of his wallet, the House of Shammai will agree that if he takes out only small change, none of which carries the denomination “denar”, it is not dedicated. Also tetradrachmas are never called “denar”. {Denar might mean “money” or “coin” in general. Denominations in late provincial usage may not correspond to standard values.}. “A gold denar”83Even though an unspecified "denar" in normal speech means "silver denar", the House of Hillel might agree that in a dedication it does apply to an aureus, a gold denar (in honest coin worth 25 silver denars) even though it is always referred to as "gold denar", not simply "denar". was sanctified.

MISHNAH: A person who made a vow of nazir, asked the Sages and they forbade, counts from the moment of his vow85He regretted his vow. When the vow was confirmed, the time of his regret is also counted.. If he asked the Sages and they permitted, if he had an animal designated, it leaves and grazes with the herd73Mishnah 4. If a person makes a vow of nazir, designates an animal as his sacrifice at completion, and then asks about his vow and has it annulled, the animal becomes profane.. The house of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: Do you not agree that this is dedication in error, it leaves and grazes in the herd86Therefore, the principle announced in Mishnah 1 does not always apply.? The House of Shammai anwered, do you not agree that if somebody erred and designated the ninth as the tenth, or the tenth as ninth, or the eleventh as tenth, it is sanctified87Mishnah Bekhorot 9:8. Every tenth newborn animal of cattle, sheep, and goats has to be brought as sacrifice (Lev. 27:31). The sacrifice is eaten by the rancher and his family; the priests have no part in it. The verse requires that the animals be counted with a staff and the tenth be designated. If the rancher erred between 9, 10, 11, all animals involved are sanctified. But if the error was by a count of more than one, there is no dedication and the animals remain profane.? The House of Hillel anwered, not the staff sanctified it, for if he erred and put his staff on the eighth or the twelth, did he do anything? But the verse which sanctified the tenth sanctified the ninth and the eleventh88Lev. 27:31, interpreted in the Halakhah, the Babli Bekhorot 61a, and Sifra Beḥuqqotay Pereq 13(2).. HALAKHAH: “A person who made a vow of nazir,” etc. It was stated89Tosephta 3:19, referring to the first sentence of the Mishnah.: The House of Shammai say, from the moment he asked; but the House of Hillel say, from the moment he vowed. Where do we hold? If he scoffed90For גלגל = לגלג cf. Peah 1:1, Note 178 (Berakhot 6:3, Note 130). at his vow, everybody agrees from the moment he asked91If he did not keep his vow, the time elapsed cannot be counted. The questions to be raised here are treated at the end of the paragraph.. If he did not scoff at his vow, everybody agrees from the moment he vowed. But we have to deal with one who is going to ask. The House of Shammai say, since he decided to ask, he is now scoffing. But the House of Hillel say, if he were scoffing, he would not ask. If he made a vow of nazir and scoffed at his vow, one does not let him ask about it unless he kept its prohibitions for the number of days he did not keep the prohibitions, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yasa said, when has this been said? If he vowed a lengthy period92More than 30 days.. But if he vowed a short period, thirty days are sufficient for him. What is the difference between a lengthy and a short period93In any case, one requires that he keep his vow the number of days for which he vowed.? But it must be: When has this been said? If he scoffed at his vow for a lengthy period. But if he scoffed at his vow for a short period, thirty days are sufficient for him94The minimum of a nazir vow.. Where are we holding? If he scoffed in impurity, everybody agrees that he invalidated everything95Since the impurity of the dead invalidates a vow of nazir by biblical decree.. If he scoffed in shaving, everybody agrees that he invalidated only 30 days96Since the nazir for many periods shaves every thirty days, Mishnah 1:4.. But we must deal with the case that he scoffed with wine97This is forbidden for the nazir; he is whipped if his transgression is observed by two witnesses after due warning. Biblical law contains no instructions which would require him to continue his vow for additional days. R. Jehudah’s rule which requires him to continue for an additional time, equal to that in which he disregarded the prohibition of wine, is purely rabbinical.. That is, if he is still within his period of nazir. But after his period of nazir, he invalidated everything98It follows from R. Jehudah’s rule that he has to start anew if he disregarded the prohibition of wine during the entire prior period of his vow.. There99Mishnah Bekhorot 9:8. This starts the discussion of the rules of animal tithes (Note 87)., we have stated: “If he called the ninth tenth, and the tenth ninth, and the eleventh tenth, all three are sanctified. The ninth may be eaten when it develops a defect100As explained later in this paragraph, the ninth is holy but is not dedicated as a sacrifice. Therefore, it is barred from becoming a sacrifice. The owner has to wait until it develops a blemish (which will be automatic with age); then it can be redeemed and eaten under the rules of profane slaughter., the tenth is tithe, the eleventh is brought as well-being sacrifice101It is holy and a sacrifice, but not tithe. Therefore, the priest’s parts are due from it..” “It shall be holy”102Lev. 27:32: “About tithes of cattle and flocks, anything which passes under the staff, the tenth shall be holy for the Eternal.” Since the determination of which animal is the tenth is not automatic, any which either is the tenth or is designated as the tenth by the rancher’s staff is holy., this teaches that holiness falls on the ninth and the eleventh. 103Babli Bekhorot 61a, Sifra Wayyiqra Pereq 16(4). I could think that both of them should be sacrificed, the verse says “cattle”104Lev. 3:1, speaking of well-being sacrifices., “cattle” to include the eleventh. “From the cattle”105In all situations, the expression מן “from” is interpreted to mean: “Not all.” It is then a problem of rabbinic interpretation to determine which kinds are excluded. Since the expression “from the cattle” mentioned in Lev. 1:3 was used to exclude animals used for sinful purposes [Sifra Wayyiqra Parsheta 2(7)], the expression used here can be taken to apply to other situations., to exclude the ninth. What reason do you have to include the eleventh and to exclude the ninth? After the verse included, it excluded. You can argue, when are sanctified [animals] subject to substitution106Substitutions of tithe animals arc mentioned in Lev. 27:33.? Before107There can be no substitution for an animal which has not yet been designated as sacrifice since that would be a purely profane operation. or after? One has to say, afterwards. I am including the eleventh which is after sanctification and I am excluding the ninth which is before sanctification. So far, if he thought that it was the tenth which he called “tenth”. If he knew that it was the ninth and called it “tenth”? The colleagues say, it is sanctified. Rebbi Yudan said, it is not sanctified108In the Babli, 32a, the different opinions are quoted in the name of Babylonian authorities.. The Mishnah supports the colleagues: “The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: Do you not agree that it leaves and grazes with the herd? The House of Shammai anwered them, do you not agree that if somebody erred and designated the ninth as the tenth, or the tenth as ninth, or the eleventh as tenth, it is sanctified.” And they do not accept it! Otherwise, they could have answered: Why do you answer us from something which is sanctified only if not in [willful] error about something which will be sanctified both in error and not in error! As Rebbi Immi said, they were rich in answer109The Talmudim never exhaust all possible arguments but quote only one. The text is better in Pesaḥim 6:2 (32b): עֲשִׁירִין הֲווּ בִתְשׁוּבוֹת., or as Rebbi Nasa said, like somebody who has two reasons and he responds by giving one of them.

MISHNAH: A person vowed to be a nazir and went to bring his animal when he found that it was stolen; if he vowed before the animal was stolen he is a nazir, after the animal was stolen he is not a nazir. This error was made by Naḥum from Media: When nezirim came from the Diaspora and found that the Temple had been destroyed, Naḥum from Media asked them: If you had known that the Temple would be destroyed, would you have made a vow of nazir113The question was legitimate for R. Eliezer (Mishnah Nedarim 9:2) who admits that people may ask to annul a vow because of unforseeable circumstances, but the anonymous majority forbid this kind of question.? They said to him, no, and Naḥum from Media permitted them. When the case came before the Sages they said, anyone who made his vow before the Temple was destroyed is a nazir, after the Temple was destroyed he is not a nazir. HALAKHAH: “If a person vowed to be a nazir and went to bring his animal,” etc. Where do we hold? If he saw an animal passing on the market and said, I am a nazir on that animal which passed by, he is a nazir even if the animal was stolen114Since the animal was not his and he could not be sure that the owners would sell it to him, his vow was not dependent on that animal (unless he would spell out that he would not be a nazir unless the animal was sold to him).. If he thought that he had one and it turned out that he did not, would we say if he was rich and became poor, the nezirut would be invalidated? But we must hold that he said, I am a nazir on the animal I have at home, then went and found it stolen. If he vowed before the animal was stolen he is a nazir, after the animal was stolen he is not a nazir. The students of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Julianus say: Rebbi Jehudah asked: If the thieves returned it in the night, did his nezirut return to him retroactively115From the moment of his vow. or for the future He has to start anew from the moment the animal was returned. No answer is given.? Nedarim 9:2, Notes 48–49.“That was the error of Naḥum from Media.” What was his error? That he found for them an opening due to changed circumstances. “Naḥum from Media said to them: ‘Would you have made a vow to become nezirim if you had known that the Temple would be destroyed at some future time?’ ” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the following he should have said to them: Did you not know that the prophets already had prophesied that eventually the Temple would be destroyed? Then there are no changed circumstances. Rebbi Hila said, still it is changed circumstances. They could have said to him, we knew it, but it seemed to us that this referred to the distant future: “The vision he sees is for many years.” It has been stated: 300 nezirim came in the days of Rebbi Simeon ben Shetaḥ. For 150 of them he found an opening, for 150 of them he did not find an opening. He came to king Yannai and said to him: There are here 300 nezirim who need 900 sacrifices. You should give half of them from your side, I shall give half from my side. The king sent him 450 animals. An informer went around and said that the other one had not given anything from his own money. King Yannai heard about it and got angry. Simeon ben Shetaḥ heard and fled. After some time, important people from the Persian empire came to king Yannai. They said to him: We remember that there was an old man who gave us a rabbinic discourse. They said to him, send and bring him! He sent and gave him his word; he came and sat between king and queen. He said to him, why did you trick me? He said, I did not trick you; you with your money and I with my learning, as it is written (Eccl. 7:12) “In the shadow of wisdom, in the shadow of money.” He said to him, why did you disappear? He said to him, I heard that my lord was angry with me and I wanted to fulfill the verse (Is. 26:20) “Hide a little bit until the rage passes;” he used about himself (Eccl. 7:12): “Knowledge is an advantage, wisdom lets its possessor live.” He said to him, why did you sit between king and queen? He said to him, it is written in the book of Ben Sirach: “Esteem it and it will raise you and seat you among princes.”⁠a He said, bring him a cup that he may recite Grace. They brought him a cup and he said: “Let us give praise for the food that Yannai and his company ate.” He said to him, what should I say, “for the food that we did not eat?” He said, bring him something that he may eat. They brought, he ate and recited: “For the food that we ate.” Rebbi Yoḥanan said, his colleagues disagree with Simeon ben Shetaḥ. Rebbi Jeremiah said, about the first action; Rebbi Abba said, about the second action. Rebbi Jeremiah seems to contradict himself! There he wondered about it and here it is obvious for him! He wondered following the Sages; it is obvious to him following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. We have stated about this: If one came, was lying on a couch, and dipped with them, even if he did not eat grain the volume of an olive one ‘invites’ with him, the words of the Sages. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: One never ‘invites’ anyone unless he has eaten grain the volume of an olive. But did we not formulate, “two [eating] bread and one [eating] vegetable, then one ‘invites’?” This baraita follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.

MISHNAH: If they were walking on the road and a person came towards them when one said, “I am a nazir unless he is Mr. X”, and another said, “I am a nazir if it is not he”; “I am a nazir unless one of you is a nazir”, “unless both of you are nezirim”, “unless all of you are nezirim”. The House of Shammai say, they are all nezirim120By their rule, anybody who said “I am a nazir” is a nazir, even if his condition was not satisfied., but the House of Hillel say, only those whose assertions prove wrong are nezirim. Rebbi Ṭarphon said, none of them is a nazir121Since Num. 6:2 requires that a vow of nazir be clearly expressed, but these people did mention nazir only to emphasize their statements, there is no valid vow..If he suddenly returned, no one is a nazir122This is a continuation of the previous Mishnah. The object of the disagreement of the travelers suddenly disappears and it is not possible to determine who is right and who is wrong, who should be a nazir and who should not.. Rebbi Simeon says, one123Everyone whose vow is in doubt. On the one hand, not to fulfill one’s vow is a grave sin; on the other hand, the sacrifices at the end of the period of nezirut can be offered only if they are due, otherwise the animals would be sinful profane offerings in the Temple. Therefore, it is necessary to offer a new vow which takes care of all possibilities. should say: If it was as I said, I am a nazir by obligation, otherwise I am a nazir voluntarily. If one saw a koy124An animal neither wild nor domesticated, which partially follows the rules of both kinds (Mishnah Bikkurim 2:9 ff., Note 154). and said, “I am a nazir if this is a wild animal”, “I am a nazir if this is not a wild animal”125These are statements by different prople walking together. Since all assertions are more or less true, all persons involved are nezirim., “I am a nazir if this is a domestic animal”, “I am a nazir if this is a not a domestic animal”, “I am a nazir if this is a wild and domestic animal”, “I am a nazir if this is neither a wild nor a domestic animal”, “I am a nazir if one of you is a nazir”, “if one of you is not a nazir”, “if both of you are nezirim”, then all of them are nezirim. HALAKHAH: “If they were walking on the road,” etc. Should the Mishnah not read: “whose assertions are correct”?126If Mishnah 6 is translated strictly literally, it reads: “I am a nazir if he is Mr. X”, and another said, “I am a nazir if he is not”; “I am a nazir if one of you is a nazir”, “if both of you are nezirim”, “if all of you are nezirim”. In that case, the House of Hillel should state that the ones whose statements are correct are nezirim. It is language of opposites, “that she did not bury her son.”127One does not want to express anything negative. A woman who is afraid for the life of her son will assert that she will not bury her son. A different explanation of the paragraph is given by J. N. Epstein, מבוא לנוסח המשנה2 pp. 332–335, more in accordance with the Babli (32b–33a). It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Ṭarphon: None of them is a nazir since nezirut exists only by warning.”128In the Babylonian sources, Babli 34a, Tosephta 3:19, “nezirut exists only by הפלאה ‘clear statement’ ”. The meaning is the same here; a legal warning for a breach of the vow could only be issued if the vow was clearly stated. That is what Rebbi Jehudah said, “doubtful nezirut is permitted.129Mishnah Ṭahorot 4:12.” 130Here starts the discussion of Mishnah 7. Where do we hold? If one says, Reuben, and the other says, Simeon, as you take it, if he is Reuben, one is a nazir, if he is Simeon, one is anazir. But we must hold that one says, Reuben, and the other says, Simeon. He suddenly disappeared, he was neither Reuben nor Simeon; nobody is a nazir. That is what Rebbi Simeon said, he cannot bring a sacrifice unless it exists131The statement of R. Simeon parallels his own in Mishnah 2:8, regarding the man who vowed to be nazir if his wife bore a son and she had a miscarriage.. It was stated132In the Tosephta, 3:19, this refers to people who meet a hermaphrodite and quarrel whether or not he is a man, a woman, or a man and a woman. In the Babli, 34a, there is a question whether to read “9 neziriot”, or “9 nezirim”. The formulation of the Mishnah in the Yerushalmi clearly speaks of only two people who dispute and pile vow onto vow.: “All of them count nine neziriot”. Are they not ten?133The questioner has a slightly different reading in the Mishnah which exhausts all logical possibilities: Wild animal or not, domestic or not, wild and domestic or not, neither wild nor domestic, one or none or both nezirim. It is impossible that the words of any of them should not be correct. Rebbi Yasa said, this134The Tosephta which counts 9 possibilities. is the House of Shammai’s, since the House of Shammai say, dedication in error is dedication.

MISHNAH: Three kinds are forbidden for the nazir: Impurity, shaving, and anything coming from the vine. Everything coming from the vine is added together1The verse prohibiting “anything coming from the vine” to the nazir makes it clear that the most minute amount is forbidden. But a nazir cannot cleanse himself by a purification sacrifice (or, if duly warned by two witnesses, cannot be criminally prosecuted for desecrating his holy status) unless he consumed more than the legal minimum. For most matters of food, the legal minimum is the size of an average olive used for the production of oil (cf. H. Guggenheimer, The Scholar’s Haggadah, Northvale 1995, pp. 326–328). For beverages, the standard is the revi‘it, definined by the Mishnah (Kelim 17:11) as Roman quartarius, 133 ml (loc. cit. pp. 212–213).. He is only guilty when he eats grapes in the volume of an olive; according to the early Mishnah if he drinks a quartarius of wine2Or eats an amount of grapes from which a quartarius of juice could be extracted.. Rebbi Aqiba says, even if he dipped his bread in wine for a total volume3The bread plus the wine absorbed in it. of an olive, he is guilty. HALAKHAH: “Three kinds are forbidden for the nazir,” etc. Impurity, as it is written4Lev. 6:6.: “During all the days he vowed to the Eternal he shall not come close to a human corpse.” Shaving, as it is written5Lev. 6:5.: “During all the days of his nazir vow, a shaving knife shall not come onto his head.” Anything from the vine, as it is written6Lev. 6:4.: “During all the days of his vow, of anything coming from the wine-vine [he shall not eat.]” 7This paragraph and the next are from Šabbat 7:2 (9c, 1. 11 ff.), as will be seen in the commentary. The variant readings refer to that text. The introductory section is from Šabbat 7:1 (9a, 1. 20–24), the one variant in spelling there is noted by: א.Mishnah Šabbat 7:2 states that on the Sabbath, 39 different activities are forbidden. This means that a person who violates the Sabbath unintentionally may be liable for up to 39 purification sacrifices. The question then appears whether in other cases multiple sacrifices also are necessary. Rav Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody sacrificed, burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting8He committed idolatry but forgot that sacrificing, burning incense, and pouring libations are forbidden as idolatrous actions, or he was conscious that these acts are part of idolatry but forgot that idolatry was forbidden., he is guilty for each action separately9In the Babli, Šabbat 72a, Sanhedrin 62a, the positions of R. Joḥanan and R. Zakkai are switched.. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, Babylonian! You crossed three rivers with your hands10Tigris, Euphrates, and Jordan. and were broken. He is guilty only once! 11The sentences in braces are unintelligible here; they refer to and are quoted from a discussion in Šabbat 7:1 (fol. 9a) which deals with the introductory sentence to the chapter of purification offerings, Lev. 4:2: “Speak to the Children of Israel, saying: If a person sins unintentionally against any commandments of the Eternal that are not to be broken, and did from any one, from those.” This implies that sometimes a purification offering is due for violating one prohibition, and sometimes one sacrifice is valid for a number of those. In general, the answer depends on what was unintentional. If a person does not know that today is Sabbath, for all he does wrong he owes one sacrifice. If he knows that it is Sabbath but forgot what is forbidden, he owes one sacrifice for each category of forbidden work. The problem is first whether this principle also applies to idolatry, the sacrifice for which is not described in Lev. 4 but in Num. 15:22–26, and second what is the status of the details enumerated in the Second Commandment, in particular why a detail, “do not prostrate yourself before them” is mentioned before the principle “do not serve them”.{Before he broke12The reference to “breaking” here is a continuation of R. Joḥanan’s criticism of Rav Zakkai (who in the Babli is Rebbi Zakkai): If the Second Commandment is considered a unit, there are no “those” to be applied to idolatry. If all activities mentioned are separate rules, how can one bring only one sacrifice? in his hand there is “one” but not “those”; after he broke in his hand there are “those” but not “one”.} Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Should he not be guilty for each action separately? As you say for the Sabbath: “Do not perform any work13Ex. 20:10.,” principle. “Do not light fire in any of your dwelling places,14Ex. 35:3.” a detail. Was not lighting fire subsumed under the principle, but it is mentioned separately from this principle! Since lighting fire is special in that it is the work of a single individual15A forbidden action on the Sabbath which is executed only by the common effort of several people is not prosecutable. and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which alone one is guilty16Needs a separate sacrifice. This is an application of the 9th hermeneutical principle of R. Ismael: Any detail which was subsumed under a principle but is mentioned separately in order to instruct, was not mentioned for itself but to explain the entire principle [Sifra Introduction 2; Pereq 1(1)]. In the text this is called “principle and detail”, which in the technical language of the Babli refers to the completely different rule No. 5 [Sifra Introduction (1,7)]. In Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 347 the argument is attributed to R. Jonathan (who in the Babli, Šabbat 70a, appears as R. Nathan.)Whether there is a connection between rules 5 and 9 is left open in the Babli, Baba qama 85a, decided in the negative in Menaḥot 55b. Menahem Cahana, in an exhaustive study of the problem (קווים לתולדות התפתחותה של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים p. 173–216 in: Studies in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature in Memory of Tirzah Lifshitz) holds that the original Tannaïtic theory knew only of two principles, one which corresponded to the later (Babli, Sifra, Sifry) rules entitled “principle and detail”, “detail and principle”, “principle and detail and principle”; the other one referring to all rules which in Babylonian formulation start with “any detail which was subsumed under a principle”. His arguments support the thesis of the present commentary that Mekhilta, Sifra, Sifry (and Tosephta) in our hands are essentially Babylonian editions.. Also here17Regarding idolatry.: “Do not worship them,18Ex. 20:5.” a principle. “Do not prostrate yourself,18Ex. 20:5.” a detail. Was not prostrating itself included in the principle and why was it mentioned separately? To infer, to tell you that prostrating oneself is special in that it is the work of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which alone one is guilty16Needs a separate sacrifice. This is an application of the 9th hermeneutical principle of R. Ismael: Any detail which was subsumed under a principle but is mentioned separately in order to instruct, was not mentioned for itself but to explain the entire principle [Sifra Introduction 2; Pereq 1(1)]. In the text this is called “principle and detail”, which in the technical language of the Babli refers to the completely different rule No. 5 [Sifra Introduction (1,7)]. In Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 347 the argument is attributed to R. Jonathan (who in the Babli, Šabbat 70a, appears as R. Nathan.)Whether there is a connection between rules 5 and 9 is left open in the Babli, Baba qama 85a, decided in the negative in Menaḥot 55b. Menahem Cahana, in an exhaustive study of the problem (קווים לתולדות התפתחותה של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים p. 173–216 in: Studies in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature in Memory of Tirzah Lifshitz) holds that the original Tannaïtic theory knew only of two principles, one which corresponded to the later (Babli, Sifra, Sifry) rules entitled “principle and detail”, “detail and principle”, “principle and detail and principle”; the other one referring to all rules which in Babylonian formulation start with “any detail which was subsumed under a principle”. His arguments support the thesis of the present commentary that Mekhilta, Sifra, Sifry (and Tosephta) in our hands are essentially Babylonian editions.. He answered19R. Ze‘ira, answering R. Abba bar Mamal. The translation follows the text in Šabbat.: For the Sabbath, he mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place. For idol worship, the principle is found close to the detail20In the same sentence. If “prostrating” had been mentioned after “serving”, the 5th hermeneutical principle would imply that the two notions are identical in intent. As the verse stands, it cannot be interpreted as “principle and detail”.. He retorted: Is it not witten: “Do not prostrate yourself before another power”21Ex. 34:14.? He did not state the principle and the detail at the same spot! He said, since you do not infer anything from it close up, you cannot infer anything from afar22Since 34:14 does not teach anything not contained in Ex. 20:5.. The colleagues say, it makes no difference; whether He gave the principle at one place and the detail at another, or gave principle and detail at the same place, it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He first gave the principle and then the detail. For idolatry, He gave the detail and only later the principle23Therefore, the 9th principle does not apply to idolatry since the detail does not follow after the principle.. Rebbi Yose said, it makes no difference whether 24Text from Šabbat.[He first gave the principle and then the detail or He gave the detail and only later the principle, or He gave principle, detail, and principle25This really is the case for the Second Comandment.]; it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He gave a general prohibition of work, followed by details; for idolatry, He was indeterminate regarding its worship but detailed the worship of Heaven26The prohibition refers to performing for idolatry any ceremony commanded for the worship of Heaven. The case of R. Zakkai really has no connection with the argument about the status of the mention of prostrating oneself in the Second Commandment.. Rebbi Mana said, lighting fire was mentioned unnecessarily28Since the prohibition of making fire is implied in the Fourth Commandment in any reasonable interpretation. Therefore, making fire is a detail which can be used to characterize all work forbidden on the Sabbath.; prostrating oneself was mentioned by necessity to explain about itself since it is not work29Nothing is changed or produced by prostrating oneself; it is not obvious that it should be forbidden under any circumstances.. This follows what Ḥizqiah stated: “He who sacrifices to powers shall be banned30Ex. 22:19. This explains the punishment for idolatrous acts forbidden in the Second Commandment. This is the interpretation in all of talmudic literature (Babli Sanhedrin 60b, Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 310, dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai p. 210.) (Nowhere in rabbinic literature does one find the more obvious explanation of Ex. 22:19: “Anyone sacrificing to the Elohim (God as Creator, Ruler of the physical world) shall be banned, only to YHWH (God the Merciful and Dispenser of Grace) alone.” In all of Lev. and Num., there is never any mention of a sacrifice to Elohim.}.” Sacrificing was mentioned separately to teach about everything31Since punishment for sacrificing is spelled out separately, any punishment for an act of idolatry must be given separately by the 9th rule, supporting R. Zakkai against R. Joḥanan., prostrating oneself to explain about itself since it is not work. Rebbi Jeremiah said, lighting fire was mentioned by necessity, to teach that courts should not sit on the Sabbath32In the Babli, Yebamot 6b, this is a Tannaïtic statement from the school of R. Ismael, appended to an argument also quoted in Mekhilta dR. Ismael, ויקהל.. What is the reason? It says here, “in all your settlements” and it says there, “these should be rules of law for your generations, in all your settlements33Num. 35:29. The quote is correct in Šabbat..” Since “settlements” mentioned there refers to courts, “settlements” referred to here also refers to courts. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, even if you say that it was mentioned by necessity, it is as if it were mentioned unnecessarily34Since the argument is based on Num. 35:29, not on Ex. 22:19, the latter verse can be used in an application of the 9th rule., and anything mentioned unnecessarily teaches. But here, skins and seeds were understood in the principle, and were listed separately35In Num. 6:4, it is started that a nazir is forbidden “everything coming from the vine”, followed by “skins and seeds”. Since skins and seeds of grapes come from the vine, this is “principle and detail” and the question arises why the Mishnah prescribes that all that comes from the vine be counted together; should not every kind be counted separately?. Should they not be separate rather than common? But there36The rules of the Sabbath., the principle is at one place and the details are at another place. But did not the colleagues say: It makes no difference: Whether he stated the principle and then a detail or the detail and after that the principle. And here, he stated the principle and then a detail. But did not Rebbi Yose say, there is no difference whether He gave principle, detail, and principle, it is the principle and then a detail, it is counted as the principle and then a detail. There, the detail was not necessary. Why were they detailed? To exclude leaves and twigs37Which may not be directly edible. But vine leaves are used in cooking, supporting R. Eliezer.. But was it not stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer38Babli 34b, Sifry Num. #24; rejected in the Babli.: “From anything coming from the wine-vine, from skins to seeds, he shall not eat;” leaves and twigs are also understood. There39While this paragraph is not found in Šabbat, it seems to have originated there since “there” is here, the discussion of the rules of nazir, but “here” is Šabbat, the discussion of the mention of making fire. In the case of the nazir, everything that comes from the vine is added together (one minimum quantity, one sacrifice) since everything mentioned (including in v. 3 wine, liquor, vinegar, grapes and raisins) is necessary as explained in Sifry Num. #23–24., they are mentioned for a need, but here, they are mentioned without need. Why? For additions40Reading לְצֵירוּפִין for לצירוכין of the text.. Warning41An infraction of a biblical law is prosecutable only if the prohibition is mentioned at least twice in the text, once as “warning” to spell out the prohibition and once to specify the punishment for infraction. If no punishment is specified, whipping is intended; nevertheless, the second mention is necessary. Cf. Yebamot 11:1, Note 47. for one who eats carcass meat, from where? “You shall not eat any carcass meat.42Deut. 14:21.” That covers carcass meat; from a “torn”43Ṭerephah is a technical term, originally meaning an animal which cannot survive an attack by a predator. The meaning has been extended to include all animals who cannot survive for any length of time, including dangerously sick animals and those born with severe birth defects. (As a practical matter, slaughtered animals have to be inspected for signs of tuberculosis, which would prohibit the meat for human consumption.) animal from where? Rebbi Joḥanan said, “carcass meat” and “any carcass meat”, to include the “torn” animal44The verse must forbid more than carcass meat, otherwise the mention of “all” was superfluous. The argument is reported as tannaitic in Sifry Deut. 104.. If somebody eats flesh from a living animal which is “torn”, Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is guilty twice, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty only once. What is the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan? “You shall not eat any carcass meat42Deut. 14:21.;” “you shall not eat of life with the flesh45,Deut. 12:23. It is forbidden to eat limbs torn from a living animal. (In rabbinic interpretation, this is the prohibition imposed on all mankind by Gen. 9:4: "But meat in whose blood is life you shall not eat", meat taken when life is still carried by the blood.)46The argument is that in one act one may transgress two prohibitions referring to two distinct verses as warnings and, therefore, be subject to distinct punishments. In the Babli, Hulin 102b/103a, the difference between the interpretations of R. Johanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish boils down to the question whether "flesh from a living animal" and "limbs from a living animal " are different prohibitions following distinct rules. (For the problems raised by the competition of laws, cf. Terumot 7:1, Notes 6 ff.).” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose: The assertion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish parallels what Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated: “ ‘Flesh torn on the field you shall not eat’47Ex. 22:30. In this interpretation, the verse forbids flesh or limbs torn from an animal (and also supports R. Joḥanan’s interpretation of Deut. 14:21.) A similar formulation, also in the name of R. Eliezer ben Jacob, is in Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai, p. 214., you shall not tear from an animal and eat in the way you tear from the ground48Vegetables. and eat.” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? The colleagues before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish does not hold with Rebbi Joḥanan about the “torn” animal; if he did hold with him, one should be twice guilty. He said to them, even if he held with him, one should be guilty only once. There is a difference, because He repeated it and combined it49It is impossible to say that Ex. 22:30 does not contain a prohibition of meat from “torn” animals, since this is the obvious meaning of the text. But since following R. Eliezer ben Jacob, the verse also prohibits flesh torn from living animals, there is no separate “warning” for eating meat from “torn” animals. The offender can be prosecuted either on basis of Deut. 14:21 or of Ex. 22:30, but not of both together. (Since in the desert, consumption of any non-sacrificial meat of domesticated animals was forbidden, Lev. 17:4, the mention of carcass meat would have been out of place in Ex. 22.). They objected: “Suet you shall not eat,50Lev. 7:24.” “and blood you shall not eat,51Lev. 7:26.” and it is written: “Any suet and any blood you shall not eat.52Lev. 3:17.” Then because He repeated it and combined it, one should be guilty only once! He said to them, if it were written “suet and blood”, you would be correct. But it is written “any suet and any blood,” to declare him guilty for each case separately. But it is not written: “Anything soaked with grapes he shall not drink53Num. 6:3.,” and it is written, “from skins to seeds he shall not eat54Num. 6:4..” Then because He repeated it and combined it, one should be guilty only once!55But Mishnah 6:2 will state that the nazir can be punished separately for each item on the list. He said to them, if it were written “skins and seeds”, you would be correct. But it is written “skins unto56A redundant word, not really required by the context. seeds,” to declare him guilty for each case separately. Rebbi [Yose]57Missing in ms. and editio princeps; needed by the context and historical considerations. said to the colleagues: You should know that Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree: If somebody split a limb from a living animal and ate it, everybody agrees that he is free from prosecution58He has an olive-sized piece of flesh taken from a living animal and splits it in two. Neither piece has the minimum size that would make prosecution possible. He eats both pieces in one meal. As Rashi explains in Ḥulin 103b (s.v. מהו): “In general, undersized parts of forbidden food consumed in the same meal are added together (Babli Yoma 80b). But the prohibition of limbs from a living animal is particular since in general inedible sinews and bones (of carcass and “torn” meat) are not forbidden food. By contrast, here one would be guilty since there is no limb without sinews and bones. One may say that its rules are separate and if one eats it in one piece one is guilty, since this is the normal way of eating, but not in minute pieces.”. Where do they disagree? If he split it in his mouth before he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan considers his mouth as inside, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish considers his mouth as outside59In the interpretation of the Babli, for R. Joḥanan the prohibition is triggered by the palate’s enjoyment, for R. Simeon ben Laqish by the act of swallowing.. They asked him, what do you say? He answered them, I informed you that mighty mountains disagree, and you ask this? If it is so, even if he split it outside and then ate, he should be guilty! Why? That is how one eats60In the Babli, Ḥulin 103b, this is R. Eleazar’s opinion. The configuration of the food is irrelevant.. If somebody split an ant in his mouth61Since an ant is a complete creature, it is forbidden food (Lev. 11:41) irrespective of size (cf. Berakhot 6:1, Note 17). In the Babli, Makkot 16b, eating an ant is counted as violating up to five prohibitions simultaneously. and ate it, that is the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish62According to R. Simeon ben Laqish, what he did is forbidden but not prosecutable.. Rebbi Maisha asked Rebbi Ze‘ira: If he63A nazir, who can be criminallyprosecuted for eating an olive’s volume of grapes. split a grape in his mouth and ate it, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? He answered, there64A limb taken from a living animal causes impurity (Ahilut 2:1); similarly, crawling animals are called “impure”. An entire crawling animal is always impure. But all parts of such an animal cut into pieces smaller than lentils are pure. it is something for which there is a prohibition and impurity. In a circumstance in which its impurity disappeard, its prohibition disappeared. But here is a prohibition and no impurity65R. Simeon ben Laqish will agree that for the nazir only the total amount consumed is relevant.. Rebbi Abba ben Rebbi Mamal asked: If he split an olive-sized bit of mazzah66In the first night of Passover, when there is a biblical commandment to eat mazzah (in the minimal amount of one olive’s size); Ex. 12:18. in his mouth and ate it, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in the other cases, his palate did not enjoy an olive sized bit67Here also, R. Simeon ben Laqish will agree with R. Joḥanan.. The rabbis of Caesarea said that Rebbi Nisa asked: If he split in his mouth pomegranate berries68The berries of the pomegranate, each containing a single seed. Such a berry is a creature (cf. Berakhot 6:1, Note 18). which are ‘orlah69Harvested before the tree is three years old, when all usufruct is forbidden. and ate them, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Where do we hold? If because of fluids, we already did state: “Nothing makes impure as a drink except what comes from olives and grapes.70Mishnah Terumot 11:3. Therefore, the pomegranate berries are food and follow the rules of food.” The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain it if he swallowed them71A pomegranate berry is much smaller than an olive. It is agreed that eating a whole berry of ‘orlah can be prosecuted since it means eating a complete creature. But if the berry is eaten after being split into two parts, one might assume that R. Joḥanan will agree with R. Simeon ben Laqish that one cannot be prosecuted.. A “torn” [creature] that was turned into a carcass72If a “torn” animal was not slaughtered according to the rules, is the meat forbidden under one or two statutes?. Rebbi Yasa, the son of Rebbi Yasa’s daughter, in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan says, he is guilty twice; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty only once. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose, the following73Sifra Aḥare Pereq 11(8). supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “ ‘Any person who would eat any carcass meat74Lev. 17:15.,’ why does the verse say ‘and torn’? If a ‘torn’ animal can survive, was ‘carcass meat’ mentioned before75No animal is ritually impure while alive. [Even the “impure” animals forbidden as food (Lev. 11:26, Deut. 14:9) are ritually pure while alive.] If a “torn” animal can survive and was ritually slaughtered, it does not become impure.? If a ‘torn’ animal must die, is it not included in ‘carcass meat’ ”76If a “torn” animal must die in the short run, it simply becomes impure as a carcass. The mention of “torn” in the verse seems superfluous; it can only be justified as adding another prohibition. (In Sifra, the argument is inverted to prove that a “torn” animal, if ritually slaughtered, is not impure even as it is forbidden food.)? Should he not say, it is carcass meat? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The reason of Rebbi Yose77Who seems to accept his son’s argument.: “Do not defile yourself by animals and birds78The argument refers to the part of the verse, Lev. 20:25, which is not quoted: “Do not defile yourself by animals and birds, and anything which crawls on the ground, which I separated for you as impure.” Now anything crawling on the ground (and in the water) is forbidden as food, but impurity caused by dead bodies is restricted to mammals, birds, and the Eight Reptiles enumerated in Lev. 11:29–30.,” but only the Eight Reptiles impart impurity! But the measure of their impurities is the measure of their uses as food79Since even in biblical usage, mammals and birds acceptable as food are called “pure” (Gen. 8:20). By inference, non-kosher animals are called “impure” even while alive and technically pure.. Rebbi Eleazar objected80To R. Abbahu.: May not the limbs of pure animals impart impurity in the most minute amount81Mishnah Ahilut 1:7. but as food only in the volume of an olive? He accepted it. What is meant by “he accepted it”? Like a person who said, the opponent accepted it. Ḥiyya bar Abba said: “You shall not [eat] any carcass meat.” The Torah identified all eating together. Rebbi Ḥanina objected: Is not the impurity of the Eight Reptiles in the size of a lentil, but as food in the volume of an olive, whether for blood or for meat82In the Babli, Me‘ilah 15b, R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina states, as explanation of his inference (Note 78) that eating parts of any of the Eight Reptiles is prosecutable in amounts the size of a lentil (Maimonides Ma‘akhalot asurot 2:7). The identity of the rules for blood and flesh of these reptiles is Mishnah Me‘ilah 4:3, for the rules of impurity Sifra Šemini Parašah 5(2), Pereq 7(6).? Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarti asked: Then one who eats a limb from a kosher living animal should be guilty on two counts83He argues against R. Joḥanan who stated that one who eats a limb from a “torn” animal violates two laws at the same time. Why should the verses quoted not apply to a completely healthy kosher animal?, because of “you shall not eat any carcass meat42Deut. 14:21.84Since the impurity of limbs from a living animal is identical with the impurity of carcasses, and by the argument of R. Yose ben Hanina food prohibitions follow impurity.;” and because of “you shall not eat of life with the flesh45Deut. 12:23. It is forbidden to cat limbs torn from a living animal. (In rabbinic interpretation, this is the prohibition imposed on all mankind by Gen. 9:4: “But meat in whose blood is life you shall not eat”, meat taken when life is still carried by the blood.).” Does one argue from kosher abour non-kosher animals? But did not Rebbi Eleazar argue80To R. Abbahu. from kosher about non-kosher animals? Then one who eats a limb from a non-kosher living animal should be guilty on three counts, because of “you shall not eat any carcass meat42Deut. 14:21.;” and because of “you shall not eat of life with the flesh45Deut. 12:23. It is forbidden to cat limbs torn from a living animal. (In rabbinic interpretation, this is the prohibition imposed on all mankind by Gen. 9:4: “But meat in whose blood is life you shall not eat”, meat taken when life is still carried by the blood.)”; and because of “you shall not eat from their flesh.85Lev. 11:8. The verse also connects food prohibition and impurity: “you shall not eat from their flesh nor touch their carcasses”. The prohibition of touching applies to people intending to enter the holy precinct.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: If somebody ate five ants together, in one forgetting86Even though all sins of the same kind incurred while one was oblivious of the prohibition can be atoned for by one purification sacrifice, each creature is in a category by itself., he is guilty for each one separately because of “creature”61Since an ant is a complete creature, it is forbidden food (Lev. 11:41) irrespective of size (cf. Berakhot 6:1, Note 17). In the Babli, Makkot 16b, eating an ant is counted as violating up to five prohibitions simultaneously.. If he fragmented and ate them, he is guilty only once, if together they amount to the volume of an olive. If he ate of the fragments in the volume of an olive, he is guilty; if he ate of the fragments in the volume of an olive and an ant, he is guilty twice87The same argument, applied to the Babli’s opinion (Note 62), is in the Babli Makkot 16b.. If this is correct, then if he ate of the fragments less than the volume of an olive and an ant completed the volume of an olive, is he guilty twice88Since the ant it counted for itself, can it be counted with the volume filled by the forbidden pieces?? If this is correct, if the ate an ant the size of an olive, is he guilty twice? The same rule applies to combinations89As enumerated in Mishnah 2, combining wine, vinegar, leaves, husks, pomace, etc. of a nazir. If he ate of the combinations in the volume of an olive, he is guilty. If he ate of the combinations in the volume of an olive and a grape berry, is he guilty twice90For eating the volume of an olive from the produce of the vine he violates Num. 6:4; for the single intact grape berry he violates Num. 6:3.? If this is correct, then if he ate a grape berry for the volume ofan olive, is he guilty twice? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All [food] prohibitions combine together91In the Babli, ‘Avodah zarah 66a, this is a tannaitic statement derived from Deut. 14:3. to be whipped for the volume of an olive, but for an ant one is guilty twice. Then if he ate prohibited food and an ant completed the volume of an olive, he is guilty twice. Then if he ate an ant the volume of an olive, he is guilty twice. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One estimates [food] prohibitions as if they concerned onions or leeks92Cf. Terumot 10:1, Notes 10–11.. This parallels what Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: If carcass meat disappeared among slaughtered meat93A piece of carcass meat is mixed up with slaughtered meat, and if the volume of the carcass meat were filled by onions and leeks one could not taste the onions after cooking, then the impurity of carcass meat also has disappeared (in the opinion of the Babli, Bekhorot 23a, only the impurity transmitted by touch has disappeared, not the impurity tranmitted by carrying without touching, Lev. 11:40.), its [impurity by] touch has disappeared by biblical law. 94This and the next paragraph are from ‘Orlah 2:6 (Notes 136–152). Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Ḥiya bar Yosef objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: Take, for example, meat in milk, where he did not taste the forbidden thing itself and you say that he is whipped! He accepted that. What is meant by: he accepted that? Rebbi Ḥiya bar Abun said before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Like a person who listens to the argument of the opposing party he accepted it. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste except imparting taste for the nazir. [Rebbi Ze‘ira said, one does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself]95Missing here, added from the text in ‘Orlah since it is required by the following text. except the nazir even if he did not taste the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, for food imparting taste what is forbidden and what is permitted is not combined, but for the nazir forbidden and permitted do combine. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze‘ira: If wine in the volume of an olive fell into a dish and he ate from it, he cannot be prosecuted unless he ate the entire dish. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, if he ate the volume of an olive from it he is guilty. A baraita supports Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “What do we understand when it is said (Num. 6:3): ‘Anything in which grapes were soaked he shall not eat, and fresh or dried grape berries he shall not eat’? What did the verse leave out that was not said? But since it was said (Num. 6:4): ‘anything made from the wine-vine, from grape skins to seeds he should not eat;’ (Num. 6:3) ‘from wine and liquor he shall abstain.’ Why does the verse say ‘anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? It means that if he soaked grapes and then soaked his bread in that, if it adds up to the volume of an olive, he is guilty. From here you argue about all prohibitions of the Torah. Since for all that comes from the vine, whose prohibition is neither permanent, nor a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition can be lifted, He made taste like the thing itself; it is logical that for every prohibition of the Torah which is permanent, is a prohibition of usufruct, whose prohibition cannot be lifted, taste is treated like the thing itself. From here, the Sages inferred that everything imparting taste is forbidden.” This is difficult for Rebbi Ze‘ira: you say everywhere “unless he tasted152The impure nazir cannot restart his vow if he left two hairs uncut. But the requirement of a knife also applies to a pure nazir.”, and here you say, “even if he did not taste.” “According to the early Mishnah if he drinks a quartarius of wine.” They did explain “liquor”. Since “liquor” mentioned there96Lev. 10:9, the prohibition for a priest to enter the holy precinct after he drank “wine or liquor”; Sifra Šemini Parašah 1(1). In the Babli, Keritut 13a, the rules of priests are deduced from those of the nazir. means a quartarius, so “liquor” mentioned here also means a quartarius. They changed to say “he shall not eat, he shall not drink.97Num. 6:3. Since both expressions appear in the same verse, they should conform to the same standard. Since the volume of an average olive is much smaller than a quartarius, the smaller standard in applicable in both cases.” Since eating is defined by an olive’s size so drinking is by an olive’s size. “Rebbi Aqiba says, even if he dipped his bread in wine for a total volume3The bread plus the wine absorbed in it. of an olive, he is guilty.” Rebbi Ḥanania said, only if he dipped in an olive-sized volume of wine. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For a mixed cup98One third wine mixed with two thirds water. one whips because of soaking. That is, if they did (not)99This word seems to be an error. It seems that R. Immi stated that if the nazir drank wine mixed with water when was he warned not to drink wine, he is whipped for drinking wine, but if he was warned not to drink anything soaked with the fruit of the vine, he is whipped for that. The next sentence then should read לֹא הִתְרוּ “did not warn” instead of הִתְרוּ “warned”. warn because of soaking. But if they warned because of soaking, this does not apply. It is written: “He shall not drink anything soaked in grapes100Num. 6:3..” Not only soaking grapes, from where soaking grape skins? The verse says “soaked, anything soaked,” that all kinds of soaking are counted101Cf. Note 44.. Mixed wine combines with pure wine102Half an olive’s volume pure wine and half an olive mixed wine result in an olive of forbidden drink for the nazir.. Soaking water of grapes combines with grapes. Do soaked grapes and wine combine? If one ate half an olive’s volume of wine and half an olive’s volume of soaking water, is he not guilty103The context shows that this sentence is interrogatory.. Separately104Drinking the two parts at different times., he is not prosecutable. Because he combined, he is guilty. If he ate (sic!) an olive’s volume of wine and an olive’s volume of soaking water, he is guilty only once. Separately, he is guilty twice. Because he combined, he should be guilty only once105This is quite obvious; it is stated only as contrast to the preceding case, in which combining made things worse..

MISHNAH: One is guilty for wine separately, for grapes separately, for grape skins separately, for seeds separately106All types of produce of the vine enumerated in the verses represent separate prohibitions; cf. Note 35.. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, he is guilty only if he eats two חרצנים and their זגים107Since a plural implies a minimum of 2.. What are חרצנים and what זגים108Both expressions are unexplained hapax legomena.? חרצנים are the outer skins, זגים the inner (seeds), the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said, that you should make no mistake109He disagrees with R. Jehudah and defines חרצן as seed, זג as skin (cf. Arabic زجّ “to be transparent”). The interpretation of R. Yose is accepted in the Babli (39a) and Targum Onkelos. Targum Yerushalmi follows R. Jehudah., like an animal’s bell, the outer shell is זוג, the inner the clapper. HALAKHAH: “One is guilty for wine separately, for grapes separately,” etc. It is written110Num. 6:3.: “Also grapes, fresh or dried, he shall not eat.” One understands, since it said “grapes”, do we not know that they are fresh111Since raisins are called צִמּוּקִים.? Why does the verse say, “grapes, fresh or dried”? To declare guilty for either one separately. This parallels what Ḥizqiah stated: Since at a place where He did not treat the waste of fruits like fruits112The biblical rules of ‘orlah, the prohibition of fruits for the first three years of a fruit tree, do not extend to branches, leaves, or flowers (Mishnah ‘Orlah 1:7)., He treated fresh and dried equally, here, where He treated the waste of fruits like fruits, would it not be logical that we treat fresh and dried equally? The verse said, “fresh or dried”, to declare guilty for either one separately. This parallels what Rebbi Hila said: “One may not impound the movable and the fixed part of a flour-mill.113Deut. 24:6. “One understands, since it said “the fixed part”, do we not know that the entire mill is understood? Why does the verse say, “the movable and the fixed part”? To declare guilty for either part separately114In Sifry Deut. 272, the conclusion arrived at here is taken as the obvious meaning of the verse.. “Fresh”, to include unripe berries.115Sifry Num. 23. “Fresh”, to include the flower. The baraita follows Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said, the flower is forbidden for the nazir because it is a fruit116Cf. Mishnah ‘Orlah 1:6, Note 182 (Babli Berakhot 36b). Probably the reference is to the bottom of the flower, from which the fruit develops.. It is possible to eat a bunch of grapes and to be guilty in reference to “grapes, fresh or dried, he shall not eat.117If some grapes in the bunch dried on the stem.” If he soaked it for soaking, pressed it for wine, and they warned him about “anything that comes from the wine-vine”118Jud. 13:14, as substitute of Num. 6:4. If the nazir took a bunch of grapes some of which where dried up, soaked it in water to fill the raisins with water as one does to prepare raisin wine, and then presses the bunch for its juice, and drinks after being duly warned, he can be convicted of four simultaneous crimes., etc. Rebbi Abba bar Aḥa said: The reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah is because of a creature119Even if skin and the seed inside do not fill the volume of an olive, the nazir who eats them is guilty for eating a complete creature.. But it was stated: “Skins and seeds,” to include the third [kind] between them120The flesh of the fruit. Since one speaks of skins and seeds as separate from the grape berry, one speaks of the husks left after pressing. Therefore, the “third” is what is left of the flesh after all juice has been squeezed out.. But was it not stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer38Babli 34b, Sifry Num. #24; rejected in the Babli.: “From anything made from the wine-vine”, leaves and twigs are also understood? Rebbi Eliezer parallels Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said, [if you have] a principle and a detail, everything is included in the principle121In the Babylonian sources (35a; Sifra Introduction 7), R. Ismael’s hermeneutical rule 5 is stated as: If the detail precedes the general statement, the general statement receives the maximal extension. If the general statement precedes the detail, the extension of the general statement is defined by the detail. This interpretation must be rejected by the Yerushalmi since Num. 6:4 contains first a general statement (all that comes from the vine) and then a detail (skins and seeds). The discussion disregards that v. 3 contains a list of details only.. And more than that, since Rebbi Ismael said, with a principle and a detail, everything is included in the principle; why are “skins and seeds” said? To include the third [kind] in between122Previously (Note 56), the expression “from skins unto seeds” was meant to imply that the nazir is guilty separately for skins and for seeds. This was derived from the additional word unto. Here, the argument refers to the mention of skins and seeds themselves, which does not seem to add anything to “everything coming from the vine.” For a different formulation, cf. Sifry Num. 24.. What is Rebbi Yose’s reason123R. Yose clearly must think that his interpretation of the words is linguistically correct. The question is, what are the legal implications of his definition; how would he rule differently from R. Jehudah?? If one ate half the volume of an olive of seeds and peels from one grape berry, in Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah’s opinion he is guilty124If a single berry was squeezed dry but two seeds and the skin were left, for R. Eleazar ben Azariah this would represent a creature and the nazir who eats them would be guilty. For the rabbis, anything less than the volume of an olive cannot lead to a conviction. But for R. Jehudah, two חרצנים means skins from two berries; there is no creature and the nazir is not prosecutable.., in the rabbis’ opinion he is not prosecutable. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? If he ate the volume of an olive of peels and seeds from two grape berries, in Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah’s opinion he is guilty only once125According to R. Jehudah, R. Eleazar ben Azariah’s requirement that the nazir must eat two חרצנים to be guilty means that even if each grape berry has the size of an olive, he must eat two of them to become guilty. For the rabbis, eating a single berry the size of an olive is a punishable offense., in the rabbis’ opinion he is guilty twice. Rebbi Abun said, it turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah holds with Rebbi Jehudah, if he ate the volume of an olive of two זגים and their חרצנים126He holds that the statement of R. Eleazar ben Azariah cannot be reconciled with the opinion of R. Jehudah since then he should have switched the mention of חרצן and זג as explained in Note 124.?

MISHNAH: An unspecified nezirut is thirty days127Repeated from Mishnah 1:3.. If he shaved, or robbers shaved him128Forcibly., he starts again for thirty129He counts a minimum of 30 days after his shaving before he can bring his sacrifices since no nazir can shave after less than 30 days.. A nazir who shaved any [hair], whether with scissors or razor knife, or cropped130Arukh: ספסף, “tearing off part of the hair, cropping,” with the root remaining in the scalp, contrasting רַט “tearing or falling out completely”. (Compare Arabic سفساف “to sift”). The commentary from the school of Rashi and Maimonides explain: “tore out.”, is guilty. A nazir may wash his head and separate his hair but may not comb. Rebbi Ismael says, he cannot wash his hair with powder because that removes hair. HALAKHAH: “An unspecified nezirut is thirty days,” etc. 133The text of the first two paragraphs of this Halakhah is in rather bad shape. It is written: “A shaving knife shall not pass over his head134Num. 6:5.;” therefore, if it did pass, he is guilty135He is guilty if it passed: even if the nazir is passive. (In the Babli, 44a, and Sifry Num. 25, the sentence is interpreted to make the shaver equally guilty with the shaved.). “His head’s hair grows wildly;” how much means growing hair? 30 days136Chapter 1, Notes 99,100.. {That refers to an impure nazir. A pure nazir? “He has to shave his head on the day be becomes pure.” Why does the verse say: “On the seventh day he shall shave all his hair”? That shows that he shaves a second time.}137The text in braces is corrupt as it stands. The proposals for emendations create a new text; it seems better to try to understand the text as it is.The verses quoted up to this point do not mention an impure nazir; it is possible to read with the classical commentaries: “That refers to a pure nazir. An impure nazir? ‘He has to shave his head on the day be becomes pure’ (Num. 6:9).” This presupposes that a pure nazir who shaves has to start anew; why does an impure nazir, who anyhow has to start anew for a minimum of 30 days, add to his period of nezirut if he tears out a hair?The following quote, Lev. 14:9, and its accompanying text have nothing to do with the nazir but refer to the convalescent sufferer from skin disease. He has to shave a second time, 7 days after the shaving ordered in v. 8. “He shaves,”138Num. 6:9 (the impure nazir), 6:18 (the pure nazir). all, not in part139This is a non sequitur. In all other sources, the rule for the nazir is determined in comparison with the recovered sufferer from skin disease (Note 137) and the Levites when inducted into the service of the Tabernacle (Num. 8:7). In both cases, the verse emphasizes the necessity to shave all hair, meaning that no two hairs can be left standing [Babli 32a; Mishnah Nega‘im 14:4; Sifra Meṣora‘ Pereq 2(6)].. From here that if he left two hairs, he [did] nothing. “A shaving knife shall not pass over his head.134Num. 6:5.” Not only a shaving knife, from where to treat a cropper and scissors like a shaving knife? The verse says, “shall not pass over his head.” That means not only a shaving knife; all methods of removal are understood. From here that he starts again only for a [shaving knife]140Part of the last sentence is missing here but can be recovered from the Babli, 39b, and Sifry Num. 25, where a text parallel to that extending the prohibition from a shaving knife to anything that shaves is attributed to R. Joshia; but R. Jonathan states that “the verse speaks of a shaving knife. Therefore, if he tore out, cropped, or went to the barber, he cannot be whipped.”Since the wording of R. Joshia’s text in the Yerushalmi differs from the Babli/Sifry text, for R. Jonathan’s opinion only the meaning, but not the text, can be recovered.. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi Ila asked before Rebbi Yasa: They should not start again for thirty, but should start again for seven141Since the person healed of skin disease shaves both after the initial ceremony (Lev. 14:8) and seven days afterwards (v. 9), it follows that seven days are sufficient to justify another shaving. Since shaving by means other than a knife is forbidden for the nazir only by implication, it seems reasonable to require only a 7 days’ growth for a nazir who removed hair not by a knife.! No, should they restart neither for seven nor for thirty142According to R. Jonathan (Note 140), shaving other than by a knife should not have any consequence.? If you say, they should not start again for thirty, what is the difference between a pure and an impure nazir143The baraita to be quoted states that the exact duration of the period to restart the growth of hair is different for a pure nazir who shaves and an impure nazir who is forced to shave.? “One has stated a leniency and a restriction for a pure nazir; one has stated a leniency and a restriction for an impure nazir. A leniency for a pure nazir that he restart only for thirty; a restriction that he restart for seven144This text makes no sense. It seems that it must read with Tosephta 4:3: “He restarts only if shaved by a knife (most of his head); a restriction that he restart for 30 days.” If you say, he should restart for thirty, what is the difference between a pure and an impure nazir?145This sentence has to be deleted; it belongs to the discussion after the baraita is quoted in its entirety. A leniency for an impure nazir that all cases make him restart; a restriction that he restarts for seven146In this sentence, “leniency” and “restriction” have to be switched. At the required shaving of the impure nazir, “knife” is not mentioned; everybody agrees that all methods of shaving are equally valid..” Should he not restart for thirty? If you say, he should restart for thirty, what is the difference between a pure and an impure nazir147And the baraita clearly stated that the time lost is different for the two kinds of nazir.? Some want to say, what is the difference between scissors and a shaving knife for a pure nazir following Rebbi Eliezer148Who in Mishnah 3:4 requires the nazir who fulfilled his time but shaved before he brought his sacrifice only to wait another seven days. He certainly must agree with R. Jonathan that if the nazir did not use a knife he does not have to wait at all.? There, we have stated149Mishnah Nega‘im 14:4; quoted Babli 40a; cf. Note 139.: “Three categories of people shave and their shaving is a commandment: the nazir, the sufferer from skin disease, and the Levites. All these, if they shaved not with a knife or left two hairs,did not do anything.” Rebbi Eleazar said: The Mishnah [speaks] about an impure nazir. But a pure nazir, once he shaved most of his head, even if not with a knife, has acquitted himself [of his obligation]. Rebbi Immi, following Rebbi Eleazar (ben Azariah)150Since the author of the remark is R. Eleazar ben Pada, the words in parenthesis have to be deleted., asked: The only place where a knife is mentioned is about a pure nazir: “A shaving knife shall not pass over his head until the days are fulfilled.151Num. 6:5.” Therefore, after he fulfilled them he needs a knife! Perhaps it was said only about an impure nazir with regard to two hairs152The impure nazir cannot restart his vow if he left two hairs uncut. But the requirement of a knife also applies to a pure nazir.. Rebbi Yose153In the Babli, 42a, the remark is attributed to R. Yose ben Ḥanina. Since R. Jacob bar Aḥa was a colleague of R. Yasa and a teacher of R. Yose, it seems that one has to read “Yasa” instead of “Yose”; the attribution of the Babli is impossible. said to Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Do you remember when we were studying Nazir, we said that there was no difference between scissors and a knife, and Rebbi Eleazar said: The Mishnah [speaks] about an impure nazir! Why not about a pure nazir? The pure nazir shaves after the blood was sprinkled154For all sacrifices, the sprinkling of the blood on the walls of the altar fulfills the purpose of the sacrifice; nothing that happens afterwards can invalidate the sacrifice.. When that was sanctified, his vow was completed. But it155The hair of the nazir’s head. is as if fallen out. You say about a pure nazir that most of his hair hinders him156If he shaved less than 50% of his head’s hair, he has not lived up to the conditions of his vow.. If he shaved a third but did not manage to finish until everything grew again: Is it sufficient that he shave the remainder or does he have to shave everything?157The question is not answered, being unrealistic. You say about an impure nazir that two hairs hinder152The impure nazir cannot restart his vow if he left two hairs uncut. But the requirement of a knife also applies to a pure nazir. or two hairs make him start again. Similarly, for a pure nazir, do two hairs hinder him or two hairs make him start again? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, so it is, and it was stated158Tosephta 4:3; Babli 40a.: “Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Simeon, just as two hairs hinder him, so two hairs cause him to start again.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he shaved everything but left two hairs which were long enough each to bend its end to its root159A hair is considered cut if it cannot be bent so that its head touches its root. twice; he shaved to reduce it to one160He cut all hairs to below the limit except two which he cut exactly to the limit. R. Jeremiah in general holds that the rules only state that the condition is fulfilled if the limit is not reached and violated if the limit is exceeded but at the exact limit nothing has been decided; cf. Babli Baba batra 22b, a position rejected in general.. Since he cut the required length, has he fulfilled his obligation, or because he omitted what was required, did he not fulfill his obligation? Rebbi Ila said before Rebbi Yose161Here also one has to read: Yasa.: For whipping one, for hindering two, to start again three162A nazir who cut one hair can be whipped. If he was impure and failed to cut two hairs, he cannot re-start his nezirut; if he was pure and failed to cut two hairs, he did not fulfill his vow. If he is pure and cut three hairs, he has to keep a minimum of 30 days of nezirut after that.. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose161Here also one has to read: Yasa.: “If he cropped any163He did not even cut one entire hair., he is guilty.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamai said, Rebbi Yasa explains it by a little bit from each one164Cropping many hairs is not comparable to cutting one hair.. A baraita disagrees with Samuel165The mention of Samuel instead of R. Hila seems to be a scribal error.: A person may tear out two hairs and have violated four prohibitions166The scribe did not quite understand his text. He wrote ללוים “for the Levites” insteat of לוים, לאוים “prohibitions”, literally “no’s”.: As a nazir, as a sufferer from sking disease, on a holiday, because of jaw stripping167If a person who is both a nazir and a sufferer from skin disease (who has to grow his hair, Lev. 13:45) shaves his sideburns on a holiday, he violates 4 prohibitions with one act. Since shaving on a holiday is prosecutable only if he shaves a minimum of two hairs, R. Hila’s assertion that one can be whipped for shaving a single hair is put into question.. We have enumerated the prohibitions; but with regard to whippings, one even whips for one168Things may be prohibited even if they cannot be prosecuted.. Some Tannaïm state: “One separates matted hair169קליקין is usually explained as κιλίκιον, τό “coarse cloth (of Cilician goat’s hair); covering used by soldiers and seamen”, but in this case (and the related one in Mishnah Miqwa’ot 9:2) one might refer to Latin culcita, culcitra, “sack filled with feathers, wool, or hair; cushion, mattress” (E. G.)..” Some Tannaïm state: “One does not separate.” Rav Ḥisda said, the one who states that one separates, for healthy [hair]; the one who states that one does not separate, for weak [hair].

MISHNAH: A nazir who was drinking wine all day long is guilty only once. If he was told “do not drink, do not drink” and he did drink, he is guilty for each single infraction170If he was duly warned once by two witnesses, he can be prosecuted and punished for one offense.If he was repeatedly warned and flouted each warning, he can be prosecuted for disregarding each warning separately. The same rules apply for all three prohibitions imposed on a nazir..One who shaved all day long is guilty only once. If he was told “do not shave, do not shave” and he did shave, he is guilty for each single infraction.One who defiled himself for the dead all day long is guilty only once. If he was told “do not defile yourself, do not defile yourself” and he did defile himself, he is guilty for each single infraction. HALAKHAH: “A nazir who drank wine,” etc. A nazir while he was in a cemetery: Rebbi Joḥanan said, one warns him about wine and shaving. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, since one cannot warn him because of impurity, one does not warn him about wine and shaving. One reads all this in the Third Chapter171Halakhah 3:5, Notes 58 ff.. If before him were two bottles, one of water and one of wine. He took and emptied the water bottle. They said to him, you should know that after you drank the water, if you then drink the wine, since its volume corresponds to ten olives you will be subject to ten whippings; he does not accept warning in this way172Since he did not touch the wine bottle yet and gave no indication that he would take it, the warning is purely preventive. In order to be used in criminal prosecution, the warning must be given when the person to whom it is directed seems likely to violate the law.. But if it was a wine bottle and he started drinking from it when they said to him, you should know that if you then drink it all, since its volume corresponds to ten olives you will be subject to ten whippings; he accepts warning in this way. If before him were two roasting spits, one with slaughtered meat and one with carcass meat. He took and ate the slaughtered meat. They said to him, you should know that after you ate the slaughtered meat, if you then ate the carcass meat, since its volume corresponds to ten olives you will be subject to ten whippings; he does not accept warning in this way172Since he did not touch the wine bottle yet and gave no indication that he would take it, the warning is purely preventive. In order to be used in criminal prosecution, the warning must be given when the person to whom it is directed seems likely to violate the law.. But if there was a roasting spit of carcass meat and he started eating from it when they said to him, you should know that if you then ate it all, since its volume corresponds to ten olives you will be subject to ten whippings; he accepts warning in this way.

MISHNAH: Three kinds are forbidden for the nazir: Impurity, shaving, and consuming produce of the vine173Repeated from Mishnah 6:1. Impurity and shaving are more severe than the prohibition of produce of the vine since impurity and shaving require him to start again, but produce of the vine does not require him to start again. The prohibition of produce of the vine is more severe than impurity and shaving since produce of the vine is never permitted but impurity and shaving are permitted for a commanded shaving174If a sufferer from skin disease is a nazir when he is healed, his vow does not preclude the required shavings for his rehabilitation. and a corpse of obligation175Any person, even a nazir or a High Priest, who comes upon an unattended corpse, has to defile himself and bring the dead to burial. The rules of the commanded burial are detailed in the next Chapter.. Impurity is more severe than shaving since for impurity he has to start again from the beginning and is obligated for a sacrifice, but for shaving he has to start again for at most 30 days and is not obligated for a sacrifice. HALAKHAH: 176Halakhah 6:1, Notes 4–6. Impurity, as it is written: “During all the days he vowed to the Eternal he shall not come close to a human corpse.” Shaving, as it is written: “During all the days of his nazir vow, a shaving knife shall not come onto his head.” Anything from the vine, as it is written: “During all the days of his vow, of anything coming from the wine-vine [he shall not eat.]” “Impurity and shaving are more severe than produce of the vine.” Impurity, as it is written: “All the days he vowed to the Eternal.” And shaving, as it is written: “The earlier days fall away177Cf. Halakhah 3:5, Note 57., for his vow in impure.178This verse proves that the impure nazir has to start again from the beginning. One is tempted, with the classical commentators, to move this verse to the previous sentence and find an appropriate verse for shaving. The problem is that no biblical verse requires the shaved nazir to start counting anew, as explained in Halakhah 3. The reference is to an argument, reproduced in extenso in the Babli 44a and Sifry Num. 31, shortened in Num. rabba 10(34), on exactly the quoted verse, Num. 6:12: “ ‘For his vow is impure’, impurity requires him to start from the beginning, shaving does not require him to start from the beginning, but he has to repeat 30 days.”” “The produce of the vine is more severe than impurity and shaving.” They wanted to say, for the Four Cups (of water or)179This clearly is a scribal error. wine180The 4 cups of wine one is required to drink in the Seder night (cf. H. Guggenheimer, The Scholar’s Haggadah, pp. 185–191.) Since this is a rabbinic (or in any case, post-biblical) requirement, it cannot eliminate a biblical prohibition. (In the opinion of the Babli, 3b/4a, the nazir may drink wine for the Sabbath qidduš since the Fourth Commandment to sanctify the Sabbath cannot be pushed aside by the vow of the nazir. This fact is irrelevant here since impurity and shaving can be imposed on the nazir after his vow, but the Sabbath wine is his duty before the vow. The Yerushalmi clearly holds that qidduš can be recited over bread; wine is not absolutely necessary.). But if he said, “a vow that I shall drink and be a nazir”, “that I shall drink” comes to say that he will not drink181Since in an oath formula, the positive stands for the negative.. He is permitted commanded shavings. Not only to signify his skin disease181Since in an oath formula, the positive stands for the negative. but also to signify his scall, to know whether it spread or did not spread182The shavings needed for diagnostic purposes, Lev. 13:33. “And a corpse of obligation.” That is what we have stated: “If they were walking and came upon a corpse of obligation.183Mishnah 7:1.” “Impurity is more severe than shaving.” Impurity, as it is written: “The earlier days fall away,” “and he shall bring a yearling sheep as a reparation offering184Num. 6:12..” Shaving is more severe because He made the shaver equal to the shaved185The person who shaves a nazir can be criminally prosecuted. Babli 44a, Sifry Num. 25, Tosephta 4:4., but in impurity He did not make the defiler equal to the defiled186A person who causes a nazir to be defiled by the impurity of the dead cannot be prosecuted..

MISHNAH: What is shaving in impurity? He was sprinkled on the third and seventh [days]187Since the only impurity which defiles the nazir is the impurity of the dead, he must have water with ashes from the Red Cow sprinkled on him on the 3rd and 7th days of his impurity (Num. 19)., shaves on the seventh, and brings his sacrifices on the eighth188As prescribed in Num. 6:9,10.. If he shaved on the eighth, he may bring his sacrifices189Two birds (Num. 6:10) and a sheep (Num. 6:12). on the same day, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Ṭarphon asked him, what is the difference between this one and the sufferer from skin disease190Mishnah Nega‘im 14:3 states that the person healed from skin disease can bring his sacrifices only after the sundown following his immersion in a miqweh. According to R. Aqiba [readings of Tosaphot, 44b s.v. א״ל; Maimonides (Commentary ad loc.; Meḥusere Kappara 4:2); see the readings in Sifra Meṣora‘ Pereq 2(7); another reading in the Commentary attributed to Rashi] this implies that he has to bring his sacrifices on the 9th if he shaved on the 8th.? He told him, the purification of this one is bound to his days188As prescribed in Num. 6:9,10., but the purification of the sufferer from skin disease is bound to his shaving191Lev. 14:9 prescribes the immersion of the sufferer from skin disease after his shaving but Num. 6:9 requires the impure nazir to shave “on the day of his purity”, i. e., after the second sprinkling and his immersion.. He cannot bring his sacrifices unless the sun had set for him192It is a general principle that immersion in water makes ritually pure only for profane places or food; for sancta only the following sundown brings purity, Lev. 22:7; cf. Soṭah 5:2, Note 42.. HALAKHAH: It is written: “He has to vow to the Eternal the days of his nezirut,193Num. 6:12. The requirement to renew his vow is written between the mention of the sacrifice of two birds and that of the sheep. The verse seems to refer to the eighth day, the day of his sacrifices.” from the day he brings his sacrifices, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, from the time of his shaving194I. e., after he immersed himself and is pure for profane purposes. Since he is no longer impure, there is no reason for him not to be a fully functioning nazir.In the Babli, 18b/19a, the verse quoted is brought as support for the majority opinion, that a resumption of the status of nazir only depends on his shaving, here attributed to R. Yose ben R. Jehudah, while the opinion of Rebbi, that a resumption of the status of nazir depends of his reparation offering, is quoted there in the name of R. Joḥanan ben Baroqa. This implies that the Yerushalmi prefers the opinion of Rebbi, the Babli that of R. Yose ben R. Yehudah.. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Hoshaia, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Where do they disagree? If he shaved on the seventh and brought his sacrifices on the eighth. But if he shaved on the eighth and brought his sacrifices on the same day, everybody agrees on the day he brings his sacrifices. Rebbi Yose said, that is, if he immersed himself on the seventh. But if he immersed himself on the eighth, the eighth takes the place of the seventh195Since he cannot enter the holy precinct before sundown. and the seventh of the eighth196I. e., the eighth is not different in status from the seventh.; he counts only from that “seventh”197For Rebbi from the 9th, for R. Yose ben R. Yehudah from the 8th.. If he became impure and impure again198He became impure after he went to the miqweh on the 7th day but before he brought his sacrifices on the 8th; cf. Tosephta 4:8; Babli 18b., he brings a sacrifice for each occurrence. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, that statement follows Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah199In the Babli, 18b, 52a, “R. Eliezer”. Rebbi’s opinion is referred to as that “of the rabbis” in the Babli., but following Rebbi this person still stays in impure nezirut200Since only the reparation offering eliminates his disability as nazir.. Rebbi Hila said, where do they disagree? To count nezirut in purity201Only for the count. Rebbi will agree that if he immersed himself on the 7th, any impurity he incurs after that is a new impurity even if he could not yet start counting the days of his nezirut.. “He has to vow to the Eternal the days of his nezirut and bring.” Rebbi said, until he actually brought. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, even if he was enabled to bring the sacrifice for impurity. Everybody agrees that he brings a sacrifice for impurity. It was stated thus: If he became impure on the seventh, and again impure on the eighth, he brings a sacrifice for each occurrence. In Rebbi Ze‘ira’s opinion193,Num. 6:12. The requirement to renew his vow is written between the mention of the sacrifice of two birds and that of the sheep. The verse seems to refer to the eighth day, the day of his sacrifices.194I. e., after he immersed himself and is pure for profane purposes. Since he is no longer impure, there is no reason for him not to be a fully functioning nazir.In the Babli, 18b/19a, the verse quoted is brought as support for the majority opinion, that a resumption of the status of nazir only depends on his shaving, here attributed to R. Yose ben R. Jehudah, while the opinion of Rebbi, that a resumption of the status of nazir depends of his reparation offering, is quoted there in the name of R. Joḥanan ben Baroqa. This implies that the Yerushalmi prefers the opinion of Rebbi, the Babli that of R. Yose ben R. Yehudah., following Rebbi the first sacrifice is superseded and he brings the second; following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah it was not superseded. In Rebbi Hila’s opinion201Only for the count. Rebbi will agree that if he immersed himself on the 7th, any impurity he incurs after that is a new impurity even if he could not yet start counting the days of his nezirut., everybody agrees that nothing is superseded and he brings another.

MISHNAH: What is shaving in purity? He brings three animals202Num. 6:14., a purification sacrifice, an elevation sacrifice, and a well-being sacrifice. He slaughters the well-being sacrifice ands shaves for it203Since shaving is mentioned in v. 18, after the slaughter of the well-being offering in v. 17., the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Eleazar204In some Mishnah mss., “R. Eliezer”. says, he only should shave for the purification sacrifice since that has precedence everywhere205In the case of the nazir, v. 16; in other cases of a common offering of purification and elevation offerings, Lev. 5:8., but if he shaved for any of the three, he satisfied his obligation. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: “The ram he shall offer, etc.206Num. 6:17.” Why does the verse say, “he shall offer”? Start the procedure with it207In Sifry zuṭa 17, this argument is tannaïtic and attributed to R. Jehudah. It seems that he contrasts the imperfect used for sacrificing the well-being offering with the perfect used for the other offerings, to indicate beginning of an action. In the Babli and Sifry Num. 35, the preferred treatment of the well-being offering is deduced from v. 18.. Rebbi Ḥinena objected before Rebbi Mana208The R. Mana quoted in this Halakhah is neither R. Mana I, of the first, nor R. Mana II, of the fifth generation. Either there exists a third, otherwise unkown, Amora of this name or “Mana” is erroneous for “Yasa”, or “Ze‘ira” is erroneous for “Ezra”.: But is it not written: “He shall offer his flour offering and his libation206Num. 6:17.”? Should he not start with them? How is that? Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: If he shaved for any of the three, he satisfied his obligation209Flour offerings and libations are mentioned last in v. 17. They accompany both the well-being offering (v. 17) and the elevation offering, mentioned in v. 16 together with the purification offering which needs neither flour nor wine. It is inferred that the order of the sacrifices is irrelevant.. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: Who is the Tanna of: “All purification offerings in the Torah precede the reparation offerings”? Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion, “all purification offerings in the Torah precede the reparation offerings.210Mishnah Zebaḥim 10:5. No reparation offering is due from the pure nazir.”

MISHNAH: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if he brought three animals but did not specify211No sacrifice can be offered unless it was sanctified by dedication. In general, the dedication must specify for which sacrifice the animal will be used. But for a nazir, dedication “for the nazir’s sacrifices” is sufficient since the purification offering requires a female sheep, the elevation offering a male sheep, and the well-being offering a male goat., the one proper for the purification offering shall be brought as purification offering, for the elevation offering shall be brought as elevation offering, for the well-being offering shall be brought as well-being offering. He took the hair shorn from his nazir head and sent it under the cooking pot212In general, any sacrificial meat permitted for human consumption can be eaten as desired, cooked, roasted, or scalded. Only for the well-being offering of the nazir does the verse prescribe cooking; Num. 6:19. The hair is “sent” since the nazir shaves outside the holy precinct but the well-being offering must be cooked inside (vv. 19–20).; even if he shaved in the countryside213If he sends money so that the sacrifices should be offered on his behalf while he remains outside of Jerusalem, his hair has to be burned. he sent it under the cooking pot. When has this been said? If he shaved in purity. But if he shaved in impurity, he does not send it under the cooking pot214His hair has to be buried; Mishnah Temurah 7:4.. Rebbi Meïr says, all send under the cooking pot except the impure in the countryside. HALAKHAH: They wanted to say, if he did not specify, but in his house he did specify215He did not dedicate specifically but when he selected the animals he specified.. They said, even in his house he need not specify. Why? The animal which at the start has the rules of the indeterminate216An animal has to be dedicated specifically only if there can be a doubt for what it will be used. For a nazir, no doubt is possible.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: He puts it into the sauce217Babli 45b [Num. rabba 6(39], as tannaïtic text. One takes from the sauce in which the well-being offering is cooked, wets the hair with it, and puts it into the fire.. What is the reason? “He puts it into the fire,218Num. 6:18.” the sacrifice also into the fire. It was stated219Slightly different text in the Babli, 45b, Tosephta 4:6.: “All send under the cooking pot except the impure in the countryside. The pure220This “pure” refers to a nazir who was impure, had to bring a reparation offering for his impurity, but now is pure after having been sprinkled with the ashes of the Red Cow and been immersed in a miqweh. in the Temple brings it under the cooking-pot of the reparation sacrifice, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, the pure brings in any case, the impure does not bring in any case. But the Sages say, neither the impure in the Temple nor the pure in the countryside bring. Nobody sends under the cooking-pot except the one who shaves in purity.” “Outside the door of the Tent of Meeting.218Num. 6:18.” Rebbi Meïr221Obviously, the attributions have to be switched. The rabbis allow burning only if the nazir is pure at the Temple gate; Rebbi Meïr allows it if either he is pure or at the Temple gate. says, only if he is proper and near; but the rabbis221Obviously, the attributions have to be switched. The rabbis allow burning only if the nazir is pure at the Temple gate; Rebbi Meïr allows it if either he is pure or at the Temple gate. say, proper even if not near, near even if not proper.

MISHNAH: He cooked the well-being offering or scalded222Cf. Nedarim 6:1, Note 1. it. A Cohen takes the cooked fore-leg of the ram, one unleavened loaf from the basket, and one unleavened thin bread, places it on the nazir’s hands and waves it223Num. 6:19–20.. Afterwards the nazir is permitted to drink wine and to defile himself with the dead. Rebbi Simeon says, when one of the bloods was sprinkled, the nazir is permitted to drink wine and to defile himself with the dead224In v. 20, the note that the nazir is now permitted to drink wine is an appendix to the text which deals exclusively with the Cohen, not the nazir. Therefore, it remains unclear whether the nazir is permitted only after all ceremonies or after the start of the ceremonies, when one of the sacrifices was validated by having its blood sprinkled on the walls of the altar [Num. rabba 6(41)].. HALAKHAH: 225The following two paragraphs are from Nedarim 6:1, Notes 6–14. A Mishnah states that scalding is called cooking, as we have stated: “If he cooked the well-being offering or scalded it7This paragraph and the next are from Šabbat 7:2 (9c, 1. 11 ff.), as will be seen in the commentary. The variant readings refer to that text. The introductory section is from Šabbat 7:1 (9a, 1. 20–24), the one variant in spelling there is noted by: א.Mishnah Šabbat 7:2 states that on the Sabbath, 39 different activities are forbidden. This means that a person who violates the Sabbath unintentionally may be liable for up to 39 purification sacrifices. The question then appears whether in other cases multiple sacrifices also are necessary..” A verse [states] that “roasted” is called “cooked”: “They cooked the pesaḥ”, etc. If you say, against the rules, Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, “as is the rule”. A Mishnah states that scalded is called cooked: “Is one who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food permitted roasted and scalded food”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, in matters of vows one follows common usage. Rebbi Joshia said, in matters of vows one follows biblical usage. What is the difference between them? ‘A qônām that I shall not taste wine on Tabernacles.’ In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is forbidden on the last day of the holiday. In the opinion of Rebbi Joshia, is he permitted? Rebbi Joshia also agrees that he is prohibited. Rebbi Joshia said it only for restrictions. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Joḥanan ate bake-meats and said, I did not taste food on that day. But did we not state: “He who made a vow not to eat food is permitted water and salt”? Explain it following Rebbi Joshia, who said, in matters of vows one follows biblical usage. And from where that everything is called food? Rebbi Aḥa bar Ulla said: “And ten female donkeys carrying grain, bread, and food, etc.” Why does the verse say, “and food”? From here that everything is called food. It is written: “The Cohen takes the cooked fore-leg of the ram.226Num. 6:19” If cooked, I could think separately227Since the fore-leg becomes the property of the Cohen and will be forbidden to lay people, its holiness is greater than the remainder of the well-being offering which is consumed by the nazir and his family. The obvious question is whether it is permissible to cook meat of different degrees of holiness together, which is answered in the following paragraphs.. The verse says, “from the ram”. How is this? He cuts it off so that only a barley grain’s width remains. Does not the sanctified absorb from the profane, or the profane from the sanctified?228The question is answered in the following paragraphs which are paralleled in ‘Orlah 1:4, Notes 137–154. The readings from there are noted ע.. Ḥilfai asked Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, do condiments forbid with more than 200? They said to him, condiments are not in more than 200. But did we not state: “Anything which sours, flavors, or creates dema‘?” If you say about 100 or 200, even if it does not sour, flavor, or create dema‘! But we deal with grapes. Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if they were not raisins, but if they were raisins they are condiments in more than 200. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if they were not cooked, but if they were cooked they are condiments in more than 200. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah: All sources of flavor one in a hundred. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah: All sources of flavor one in sixty. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Rebbi Yasa disagrees with you and the Mishnah disagrees with both of you: “Anything which sours, flavors, or creates dema‘? If you say about 100 or 200, even if it does not sour, flavor, or create dema‘230Translation of the text in ‘Orlah. Here: “Make leavened”.! Therefore, we hold even more. Rebbi Jeremiah said, explain it for meat in meat. Rebbi Yose said, meat in meat is the same as all other prohibitions since Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one estimates as if they were onion or leeks92Cf. Terumot 10:1, Notes 10–11.. How is this? One says, all sources of flavor by one in 100; the other says, all sources of flavor by one in 60. For him who says all sources of taste by one in 100, you take the foreleg as one in 100 of the ram. For him who says all sources of taste by one in 60, you take the foreleg as one in 60 of the ram. For him who says one in 100, you remove the bones from the foreleg. But if you remove the bones from the foreleg, remove them from the ram! This you cannot do, as it was stated: 230Translation of the text in ‘Orlah. Here: “Make leavened”.“The waste of heave does not combine with heave to forbid231The translation follows Terumot and ‘Orlah; the text here, “to lift”, makes no sense. the profane, but the waste of profane combines with the profane to lift the heave.” Rebbi Vivian asked: Does the waste of heave combine with profane to lift the heave? Since Rav Ḥuna said, the husks of what is forbidden combine to permit; that means waste of heave combines with profane to lift the heave. Rebbi Ḥizqiah232The reading “Ḥiyya” probably is correct since Ḥizqiah, the collector of baraitot and son of R. Ḥiyya (the Elder) has no title. stated: All I forbade to you at other places I permitted to you here. Since everywhere 100 is a prohibition, more than 100 is permitted, but here even 100 is permitted. Rav said, waving stops the nazir233The nazir is not permitted to drink wine or become impure unless he perfomed the waving of his well-being sacrifice. This is also quoted in the Babli, 46a/b, but is rejected there as practice.. But did we not state: “The teachings for the nazir,234Num. 6:21.” whether or not he has wings235Tosephta 1:5, Babli 46b. “The teaching of the nazir” must be applicable to everybody, whether he has arms and hands (“wings”) or not. But since the wavings have to be given “on the nazir’s hands”, how can they be absolutely required if the nazir has no hands?? What Rav says, if he does, as it was stated thus: For somebody able to wave, waving stops him; for somebody unable to wave, waving does not stop him. Samuel says, measure236It is unclear what this means. Most authors emend “measure” to “waving”. stops a nazir, as for the waves and thumbs of a sufferer from skin disease237The poor sufferer from skin disease must wave his reparation offering (Lev. 14:24); every healed sufferer from skin disease must receive blood and oil on his right thumb and great toe (Lev. 14:14,17,25,28).. But did we not state: “The teachings for the sufferer from skin disease,238Lev. 14:2.” whether or not he has thumbs? He explains it following Rebbi Eliezer who said, he puts it on their place239Mishnah Nega‘im 14:9; SifraMeṣora‘Pereq 3(11); quoted similarly in the Babli Yoma 61b (cf. Diqduqe Soferim Yoma p. 171 Note ח). In Babli Nazir, 47b, (with a different editorial history) R. Eliezer holds that he cannot ever be purified; R. Simeon is quoted parallel to R. Eliezer in the other sources..

MISHNAH: If he shaved for one of the sacrifices and it turned out to be invalid, his shaving is invalid240And he has to wait another 30 days to regrow his hair. and his sacrifices are not counted for him. If he shaved for the purification offering not in its name241A purification offering must be slaughtered explicitly for that purpose; Lev. 4:33. but brought the other sacrifices in their names, his shaving is invalid and his sacrifices are not counted for him242Elevation and well-being offerings are valid and can be brought to the altar. But since the nazir is required to bring all three sacrifices together, this Tanna holds that they cannot be counted as fulfilling his obligation.. If he shaved for the elevation or well-being offerings not in their names243These are valid sacrifices even if slaughtered for the wrong purpose “but are not counted for their owners to relieve them of their obligations” (Mishnah Zebaḥim 1:1). but then brought his sacrifices244The remaining two. in their names, his shaving is invalid and his sacrifices are not counted for him. Rebbi Simeon says, that sacrifice is not counted for him but the others are counted for him245Except for the purification offering not slaughtered for its purpose which is disqualified by biblical law.. But if he shaved for all three246Without specifying for which one he shaved; cf. Mishnah 9. and one of them is valid, his shaving is valid and he has to repeat the other sacrifices. HALAKHAH: Is it counted for him and his shaving252If a nazir shaved for an improper sacrifice when afterwards he brought two proper sacrifices, R. Simeon said that the two proper sacrifices are counted for him. But if the shaving were improper, he would have to wait another 30 days and bring a new set of sacrifices, and there would be no way in which the earlier sacrifices could be counted for him. It is proved that for R. Simeon, shaving is valid as long as one sacrifice was valid.? If you would say that it is not counted for him and his shaving, then his sacrifices count for nothing. Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Following Rebbi Simeon, may he shave for his holiday well-being offerings253He shaves on a holiday and brings with him not only the three obligatory sacrifices of a nazir but additional sacrifices for the holiday.? Is that not the Mishnah? “Rebbi Simeon says, that sacrifice is not counted for him but the others are counted for him.” When he slaughtered them254The well-being or elevation offerings which are acceptable as gifts to the altar if slaughtered without indicating the kind of sacrifices they should be. are they not like voluntary well-being offerings255In rabbinic terminology, a sacrifice corresponds to a vow (נדר) if a person engages himself for a certain kind of sacrifice. Then if the animal chosen to satisfy the vow becomes unusable for any reason, the vower has to provide a replacement animal. A voluntary gift (נדבה) is an animal dedicated as sacrifice. If it becomes unusable for any reason, the owner does not have to provide a replacement. Well-being and elevation sacrifices slaughtered for the wrong purpose or no purpose fall under the category of voluntary gifts.? This means that he may shave for voluntary well-being offerings following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said256He corrects the tradition: the person who asks is R. Ada bar Aḥawa, not R. Joḥanan., Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rebbi Joḥanan. For Rav Ada bar Aḥawa it is problematic257But in the Babli, 46b, he is quoted as proving the statement attributed here to R. Joḥanan., but for Rebbi Joḥanan it is obvious.

MISHNAH: If one of the bloods had been sprinkled for him247Sprinkling its blood on the walls of the altar makes any sacrifice irrevocably valid. when he became impure, Rebbi Eliezer says, he has to repeat everything248Not the nezirut, but all his sacrifices since he holds, against the Sages, that the sacrifices cannot be brought separately (cf. Mishnah 8:4).. But the Sages say, he shall bring his remaining sacrifices once he became pure again249And can enter the Temple precinct.. They told him, it happened with Miriam the Palmyrene, that one of the bloods had been sprinkled for her when she was informed that her daughter was dying; she went and found her dead250And defiled herself for her daughter.; then the Sages said, she shall bring her remaining sacrifices once she becomes pure again251Tosephta 4:10.. HALAKHAH: The argument of Rebbi Eliezer seems inverted. There258Mishnah 3:4., he says: “he has to repeat only for 30,” and here, he says so259If he becomes incapacitated, he has to repeat only for 30 days. If his sacrifice becomes invalid, why should he have to start everything anew?? Rebbi Joḥanan says, he has to repeat all his sacrifices248Not the nezirut, but all his sacrifices since he holds, against the Sages, that the sacrifices cannot be brought separately (cf. Mishnah 8:4).. It is obvious, if it would have been valid without him becoming impure, then why is it not valid if later he becomes impure260Why should R. Eliezer not agree that once part of the ceremony was performed correctly, he can replace any missing part?? Rebbi Ḥinena said, is that not Rebbi Eliezer’s? And Rebbi Eliezer follows the Shammaites, as it was stated261Babli 46b (in different formulation), Yoma 61b; Tosephta 1:6. As the Babli explains, the House of Shammai require him to shave, but since he cannot shave he never can terminate his nezirut.: Concerning a nazir who lost all his hair, the House of Shammai say, he has to move a shaving knife over his head; the House of Hillel say, he does not need to move a shaving knife over his head. So is the Mishnah262The Mishnah is formulated with a temporal inversion. The action to become pure must precede the offering of his or her sacrifices.: He shall become pure again and then bring his remaining sacrifices. So is the Mishnah: She shall become pure again and then bring her remaining sacrifices.

MISHNAH: The High Priest and the nazir do not defile themselves for their relatives1The High Priest is forbidden to defile himself even for father or mother, Lev. 21:11; the same holds for the nazir, Num. 6:7. In the Babli and many Mishnah mss. (but not in Maimonides’s autograph) there is an additional clause: “but they have to defile themselves for a corpse of obligation”, i. e., an abandoned corpse of whose burial nobody is taking care. The first person finding the body has to bury him.. If they were walking on a road and found a corpse of obligation, Rebbi Eliezer says, the High Priest2Even the High Priest, and certainly a common priest. Similarly, the Sages require that the nazir defile himself but not a common priest if they stumble on the corpse together. shall defile himself but the nazir shall not defile himself. But the Sages say, the nazir shall defile himself but the High Priest shall not defile himself. Rebbi Eliezer said to them, the Priest shall defile himself, who does not bring a sacrifice for his defilement, but the nazir shall not defile himself, who has to bring a sacrifice for his defilement. They told him, the nazir shall defile himself, whose holiness is temporary, but the Priest shall not defile himself, whose holiness is permanent. HALAKHAH: “The High Priest and the nazir,” etc. It is written: “He shall not go close to a dead body.3Lev. 21:11, speaking of the High Priest. A parallel argument in the Babli, 47b.” Where do we hold? If to forbid non-relatives, is he not also under the rules of a simple priest4A common priest is forbidden to defile himself for any dead person other than close relatives, Lev. 21:1–3.? If it cannot refer to non-relatives, refer it to relatives. It is written: “Not to go close to a dead body,” and you say so? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda said, from here repeated prohibitions in the Torah5In his opinion, the High Priest who defiles himself for a corpse violates two identical prohibitions.. But it is to permit the corpse of obligation6This follows the rule that “an exclusion on top of an exclusion means an inclusion.” Since in general a Cohen is forbidden to defile himself for the dead, the repetition of the prohibition for the High Priest indicates an obligation to defile himself in some cases. Since father and mother, for whom defilement is commanded to the common priest, are forbidden to the High Priest, the corpse for whom the High Priest (and by implication, any priest) has to defile himself is a non-relative, the corpse of obligation.. Some understand it from the following: “7Lev. 21:4. The man shall not defile himself, in the midst of his people” he may not defile himself8If other Jews are present who may bury the dead, he may not defile himself. By implication, if he is alone, he must defile himself.. But he defiles himself for a corpse of obligation. Some understand it from the following: “7Lev. 21:4. To profane himself.” He may not defile himself to profane himself; he defiles himself for a corpse of obligation. Some want to derive it from the following: “For a hanged person is blasphemy.9Deut. 21:23: “You may not leave his corpse on the gallows overnight, but bury, you shall bury him on that day, for a hanged person is blasphemy …”” Anybody warned about blasphemy is warned about a corpse of obligation. Anybody not warned about blasphemy is not warned about a corpse of obligation10This means that the details of the rules for burials apply only to Jews to whom the details of the rules of blasphemy apply.. They objected, are there not Gentiles11The prohibition of blasphemy is part of the “natural law” given to Adam and Noaḥ (Tosephta ‘Avodah zarah 9:4, Babli Sanhedrin 56a/b).? Those executed by hanging, this exludes those executed by the sword12The only method of execution recognized for Gentiles, Babli Sanhedrin 57a.. “Bury!” A positive commandment13This is a shortened version of the explanation in Sifry Deut. 220: “You may not leave his corpse on the gallows overnight,” a prohibition, “but bury!”, a positive commandment. A biblical commandment which is both positive and negative is the strongest of all commandments and will supersede opposing simple positive or simple negative commandments (Babli Yom Ṭob 8b, severely restricted in Yebamot 3b/4a) if written in the same verse (Yerushalmi Yom Ṭob 1:3, Ḥallah 2:1, Note 10, unrestricted).. From where do you add the sword he was killed with, the gallows on which he was hanged, the towel with which he was strangled? Why does the verse say, “you shall bury him”? I could think he alone is buried; the verse says “bury, you shall bury him”, a burial for him, and his gallows, and his stone14Quoted in the Babli, Sanhedrin 45b.. How does one do it? One digs down three [handbreadths], so the plough shall not unearth him. “You shall bury him”, whole and not partially. “You shall bury him”, from here that if he left anything [unburied], he did not do anything, for it is said “bury, you shall bury him”. From here that it is not a corpse of obligation unless it consists of his head with most of the body. Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: Just as one defiles himself for a corpse of obligation, so one defiles himself for a limb of a corpse of obligation15This contradicts the preceding statement.. Rebbi Joḥanan answered him: Is that so? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: Explain it if he returns16If a Cohen was burying a corpse of obligation and later found another limb of the same corpse, he may bury the limb since he already is impure and the prohibition of Lev. 21:1 refers only to him becoming impure, not to what he does once he is impure. In the Babli, 43b, this is a tannaïtic statement ascribed to R. Jehudah.. It was stated: Rebbi Yose said, nobody has to defile himself for a limb from his living father, but one has to defile himself for bone the size of a barley corn from his father. Rebbi Jehudah says, just as one has to defile himself for bone the size of a barley corn from his father, so one has to defile himself for a limb from his living father17Śemaḥot 4:27. In the Babylonian sources, Babli 43b, Sifra Emor Introduction 13, R. Jehudah represents the opinion ascribed here to R. Yose, while R. Yose denies that a Cohen defiles himself for a piece of his father’s bone. The reason given is Lev. 21:3 (speaking of the Cohen’s unmarried sister): “For her he has to defile himself,” interpreted as “for her body, but not for her body parts.”. 18Sifra Emor Introduction 14. Śemaḥot 4:28 (יוסף פסקס), Yalqut Qohelet 976 (יוסף הכהן). It is clear from the story that one speaks of a priestly family.“It happened that Yose ben Paxas developed a growth19Greek νομή “cancerous growth”. on his foot. When the surgeon came to remove it, he told him to inform him when only a hair’s breadth was left20Connecting the growth to his body.. He21The surgeon. cut until only a hair’s breadth was left, and informed him. He22Yose ben Paxas. addressed his son Onias and told him, Onias my son, up to now you had to care for me, but leave now since nobody has to defile himself for a limb from his living father23Since the growth, once separated from his body, is impure in the impurity of the dead (Mishnah Ahilut 2:1).. When this came before the Sages, they said, about him it was said: “It happens that a just man is lost in his merit24Eccl. 7:15. The implication is that practice follows R. Yose.;” the just is lost and his merit accompanies him. What is a corpse of obligation? Anyone for whom he shouts and nobody comes25In the Babli (43b, Yebamot 89b, Erubin 17b): “Anyone who has nobody to bury him; if he calls and others answer him it is not a corpse of obligation.” The Yerushalmi version is in Śemaḥot 4:29.. If the villagers come, he refrains26Cohen or nazir refrain from defiling themselves.. How many? For the carriers of the bier, their replacements, and the replacements of their replacements27In Śemaḥot 4:30: Carriers of the bier and grave diggers.. If he is not needed; but if he is needed, it is different28If the dead cannot have a decent burial without the help of nazir or Cohen, the latter have to defile themselves.. If [the deceased] is not recognized29If the deceased is not recognized by the locals; if he is recognized the nazir or Cohen is precluded from defiling himself.. But if he is recognized, it is different. If it is not according to his honor; but if it is according to his honor, it is different30This is the introduction to the following paragraphs. If the prestige of the deceased is so great that priests have to defile themselve for his burial, it is obvious that the nazir or Cohen who stumbles on his body also has to defile himself.. For the Patriarch it is his honor. 31The same text is in Berakhot 3:1, Notes 95–101. The following paragraphs (to 56a, line 68) are from the same source, Notes 64–120. May a Cohen defile himself for the Patriarch? When Rebbi Judah the Prince died, Rebbi Yannai proclaimed and said: “There is no priesthood today.” When Rebbi Judah the Prince, grandson of Rebbi Judah the Prince, died, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba did push Rebbi Zeïra32The Berakhot text clearly is the correct one. in the Gufna synagogue of Sepphoris and defiled him. When Yehudinai, the sister of Rebbi Judah the Prince, died, Rebbi Ḥanina sent for Rebbi Mana but the latter did not come. He said to him, if one does not defile himself for them during their lifetime, so much less in their death. Rebbi Nassa said, in their death they treated them like a corpse of obligation. May a Cohen defile himself for the honor of his teacher? The father-in-law of Rebbi Yannai the Younger died. He was both his father-in-law and his teacher. He asked Rebbi Yose who forbade it. Rebbi Ḥama (?) heard it and said: His students should defile themselves for him. The students [of Rebbi Yose]33From the text in Berakhot, required by the context. defiled themselves for him but ate meat and drank wine. Rebbi Mana told them: One of two things you cannot escape. If you are mourners, why did you eat meat and drink wine; if you are not mourners, why did you defile yourselves? May a Cohen defile himself for the study of Torah? Rebbi Yose was sitting and teaching when a dead body was brought in. He did not say anything either to those who remained sitting or to those who left. Rebbi Nihumi the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: My father did not walk under the arch of Caesarea. Rebbi Ammi walked. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Cohen and Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa went walking in the streets of Caesarea. They came to the arch and Rebbi Cohen left. They reached a place of purity and he returned to them. He asked them: “What were you discussing?” Rebbi Ḥizqiah said to Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: “Do not tell him anything!” We do not know whether it was because he was angry that he left since one defiles oneself for words of Torah or whether it was because he was haughty. It is stated: A Cohen may defile himself by leaving the Land for civil and criminal suits, for the consecration of the New Moon and intercalation of a year, to redeem a field from a Gentile, to study Torah, and to marry a wife. Rebbi Judah says, if he has a place to study, he should not defile himself. Rebbi Yose says, even if he has a place to study, he may defile himself, since a man may not have the luck to learn from every teacher. They said about Joseph the Cohen that he followed his teacher and defiled himself following his teacher to Sidon. In truth, they said a priest should not go abroad unless one promised him a wife. May a (High) Priest defile himself for the lifting of hands? Gabilah, the brother of Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: A Cohen defiles himself for the lifting of hands. Rebbi Aḥa heard it and said: I never told him anything. On second thoughts he said, maybe he heard from me what Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Every Cohen who stays in the synagogue and does not lift his hands transgresses a positive commandment, and he wanted to say that a positive commandment supersedes a negative commandment. I never told him anything. Bring him in and I will flog him! Rebbi Abbahu was sitting teaching in the fortified synagogue in Caesarea; there was a coffin there. There came the time for lifting the hands and they did not ask him. There came the time for eating and they asked him. He said to them: For the lifting of hands you did not ask me, for eating you are asking me? When they heard this, each one was taking himself away and fled. Rebbi Yannai said: A Cohen defiles himself in order to see the King. When King Diocletian visited here, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba was seen stepping over graves at Tyre in order to see him. Rebbi Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is an obligation to see great persons of government, so that when the kingdom of the dynasty of David will return one will know how to distinguish one government from the other. May [a Cohen] defile himself in honor of his father and mother? Rebbi Yasa heard that his mother had come to Bostra. He went and asked Rebbi Yoḥanan, may I leave? He said to him, if it is because of danger on the road, leave. If it is in order to honor your mother, I do not know. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Yoḥanan still needs to answer. He importuned him, so he said: Since you decided to go, return in peace. Rebbi Eleazar heard this and said: there is no greater permission than that. May a (person) [Cohen] defile himself in honor of the public? It is stated: When there are two acceptable roads, one long and pure, the other one short and impure: If the public was walking on the long one, he goes on the long one; otherwise, he goes on the short one in honor of the public. That refers to impurity by their words; also for impurity that is from the words of the Torah? From what Rebbi Zeïra said, so great is the honor of the public that it temporarily pushes aside a prohibition, that means even impurity that is from the words of the Torah. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Yose the Galilean, in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: One does not ask rulings on practice before the bier of a deceased. But Rebbi Yoḥanan asked Rebbi Yannai before the bier of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoẓadaq about him who dedicated his elevation sacrifice for the upkeep of the Sanctuary, and he answered him! Let us say when they were bringing him to the study hall. But Rebbi Jeremiah asked Rebbi Zeïra before the bier of (Rebbi Simeon and) Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac! Let us say that he answered him when he was far away; when he was close he did not answer him. It is stated: The carriers may not wear sandals lest a shoelace of one of them break so he would be prevented from performing a good deed. Rebbi Zeïra bent down during a eulogy. They wanted to straighten him up and found that he tarried. They said to him, what is this? He said to them, because we will go there, following (Eccl. 7:2): “Let the one who is alive take it to heart.” If somebody finds a corpse of obligation, he has to take care of it and bury it at its place35The definition of “its place” is given in the paragraph after the next.. When is that? If he finds it outside the town limits36Outside of 2000 cubits from the built-up domain of a village, or the city walls.. But if he found it inside the town limits, he brings it to the cemetary to bury it. 37Śemaḥot 4:34; Derekh Ereṣ zuṭa 8. Quoted Tosaphot Ketubot 17a, Megillah 29a, s.v. מבטלין. Rebbi Aqiba said, the start of my practice before the Sages was the following. Once I was on the road when I found a corpse of obligation; I carried it about four mil to a cemetery and buried it. When I came to Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua and told them, they said to me that every step that you walked is counted against you as if you were shedding blood38Since the corpse was removed from its natural place of burial.. I said, if I became guilty when I intended to acquire merit, how much worse is it if I do not intend to acquire merit. From that time on I did not interrupt practicing before Sages. He used to say, anybody who did not practice before Sages deserves the death penalty. The corpse of obligation acquired its place, four cubits39A square of land, four cubits in each direction, can be taken to dig the grave without requesting permission from the owner, who has no claim to compensation. even in a field of saffron, for on this condition did Joshua distribute the Land to Israel40Therefore, these rules do not apply outside the Land. The list of reservations for public use attributed to Joshua is in Baba batra 5:1, Babli Baba qama 80b–82a; cf. Kilaim 2:5, Note 73.. When is this? If he found it in the field. But if he found it on the road, he buries it either to the right or to the left of the road41Use of the road is public use; use of land for burial of a corpse of obligation is public use. The later use cannot displace the prior. The Babli, Eruvin 17b, explains this baraita away, assuming that the corpse was lying across the narrow roadway and encroaching on the fields on either side. According to Rashi, the corpse may be moved to protect passing Cohanim from the impurity of the dead.. A fallow and a ploughed field, he buries it in the fallow field42If the corpse was found on the road between two fields.. A ploughed and a sown field, he buries it in the ploughed field. A vineyard and a sown field, he buries it in the sown field. A vineyard and an orchard, some Tannaïm state, he buries it in the vineyard; some Tannaïm state, he buries it in the orchard. He who says, he buries it in the vineyard but not in the orchard, because of a tent over the corpse43If a grave is is the shade of a tree, the entire canopy of the tree forms a “tent” over the grave; any person passing under the tree becomes impure by the impurity of the dead (Num. 19:14).. He who says, he buries it in the orchard but not in the vineyard because of the preparation of the grape harvest44Since wine-grapes collected in a basket at harvest time will be wet from the juice of some squashed grapes, they are “prepared” for impurity (cf. Demay 2:3, Note 141), and a grave in a vineyard makes its entire harvest irreparably impure.. If he switched, Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: He transgressed “do not defile your land45Deut. 21:23..” If both were fallow, or ploughed, or sown, he buries in the one he chooses. A Cohen and a Levite, the Levite shall defile himself46Since a Levite is not forbidden to defile himself.. A Levite and an Israel, the Israel shall defile himself. No, is not the Levite like the Israel47In matters of impurity, the Levite has no more obligations than the Israel.? Rebbi Abin said, it was taught in the time of the platform48The platform in the Temple for the levitic singers. If the Levite was engaged in the Temple service, he must be careful not to become disabled by impurity.. The Sages agree with Rebbi Eliezer that between a High Priest and a nazir, the nazir shall defile himself but not the High Priest49This is the position of the Sages in the Mishnah.. Rebbi Eliezer agrees with the Sages that between a High Priest and a nazir, the nazir shall defile himself but not the High Priest50R. Eliezer holds to his position in the Mishnah only for a common priest, not the High Priest.. Think of it, if his father sanctified him from birth51Like Samson or Samuel. The reference is to the argument of the Sages that the nazir has to defile himself because his holiness is temporary. If the nazir is nazir from birth, that argument does not hold but the formulation of the Sages in the first sentence of the Mishnah does not admit of any exception.. The one52The holiness of the Cohen. is from the Torah, the other is not from the Torah53The possibility of a nazir from birth is only given in the Prophets.. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rav Joseph: Rebbi Eliezer parallels the House of Shammai. As the House of Shammai say, between holy and frequent the holy has precedence54In Mishnah Berakhot 8:1, the House of Shammai require that on Friday nights, the benediction for the Sanctification of the Sabbath (the holy) precede the benediction for the wine (the frequent)., so Rebbi Eliezer says, between holy and frequent the holy has precedence55For him, the nazir who must bring a sacrifice for his defilement is holier than the Cohen who brings no sacrifice.. A nazir for 30 days and a nazir for 100, the nazir for 30 days shall defile himself. A nazir for 100 days and a nazir forever, the nazir for 100 days shall defile himself. A nazir forever56He cuts his hair (but does not shave it off) once a year and brings three sacrifices; Halakhah 1:2., and a nazir of neziriot57Similar to one described in Mishnah 1:4; from the argument it seems that the nazir referred to here has vowed many periods of more than one year., some Tannaïm state, the nazir forever shall defile himself; but some Tannaïm state, the nazir of neziriot shall defile himself. He who says, the nazir forever shall defile himself but not the nazir of neziriot, since he58The nazir forever shall defile himself since he never shaves. shaves more frequently. He who says, the nazir of neziriot shall defile himself but not the nazir forever, since he brings more sacrifices59If the basic period of the nazir of neziriot is more than one year, the nazir forever brings more sacrifices.. If he switched, it should be as Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: He transgressed “do not defile your land45Deut. 21:23..” Here it is the same.

MISHNAH: The nazir shaves for the following impurities: For a corpse, for flesh in the volume of an olive of a corpse, and for the volume of an olive of decayed matter from a corpse60Either decaying flesh or fluid from the corpse. If it is decayed so that it looks like dust it is counted as decay and follows the standard of the spoonful (under certain conditions). It is implied that all impurities enumerated in the Mishnah are biblical in nature., and for a spoonful of decay, for the spine and for the skull61Even if no flesh is left., for a limb from a corpse or a limb from the living on which there is sufficient flesh62“Sufficient flesh” is enough left on a limb connected to a living body that it could heal., for half a qab63A qab is 4 log or 2.13 liter. of bones, and for half a log63A qab is 4 log or 2.13 liter. of blood, if they are touched, or carried64Even if the carrier does not touch the cause of impurity., or under a tent43If a grave is is the shade of a tree, the entire canopy of the tree forms a “tent” over the grave; any person passing under the tree becomes impure by the impurity of the dead (Num. 19:14).. Also for a bone in the volume of a barley grain if it is touched, or carried, (or under a tent.)65The last clause, which originally was also in Babli mss., is a scribal error since only half a qab of bones transmits impurity in a tent but less than that transmits impurity only by touch or carrying, not in a tent (Tosaphot 49b, s. v. על משאו). For these, the nazir shaves, he sprinkles on the third and seventh [days], he disregards the preceding days and starts to count only after he purifies himself and brings all his sacrifices. HALAKHAH: “The nazir shaves for the following impurities,” etc. An old man asked Rebbi Joḥanan66In the Babli, 49b/50b, the entire discussion is tannaïtic: Symmachos, a student of R. Meïr, asked R. Jehudah.: If the volume of an olive from a corpse makes impure, then certainly all of it also67The formulation of the Mishnah is redundant. If one kezayit of a corpse induces the impurity of the dead, why is it necessary to say that a complete corpse induces the impurity?? He said to him, to include the stillbirth which did not reach the volume of an olive68As explained in Mishnaiot Niddah 3:3 ff.. He continued to ask: If a limb of a corpse makes impure, then certainly all of it also? He said to him, to include the stillbirth whose limbs did not yet jell69No limb has a recognizable shape.. Rebbi Yose said, was that old man wise? His questions were not wise since after he asked the first question, it was not necessary to ask the second. If he wanted to ask both, he should have asked the second and after that the first70If the fetus does not fill the volume of an olive, it is to be assumed that its limbs are not recognizable. If its limbs are not recognizable, the body still might be larger than the volume of an olive.. The students of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta71He is “R. Yose” the Tanna; in the Babli, he gives the explanations ascribed in the Yerushalmi to R. Joḥanan. asked the second but did not ask the first because it was obvious for them that if he did not reach the volume of an olive it is certain that his limbs did not yet jell. Rebbi Mana bar72There is no “R. Mana bar Hizqiah” mentioned otherwise in the entire talmudic/midrashic literature. Moreover, it is not mentioned who his partner was. Therefore, it is reasonable to follow all commentators and emend בר to לר׳ and read: “R. Mana (II) said to R. Ḥizqiah.” Ḥizqiah said, do you remember when Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa was here, were not both questions by that old man [asked] about Ahilut12The only method of execution recognized for Gentiles, Babli Sanhedrin 57a. that the nazir shaves for them74R. Yose’s criticism of the old man is unjustified since it would not be inconsistent with either Mishnah to hold that a corpse induces biblical impurity but a small part of the corpse only rabbinic impurity. In that case, the double mention in the Mishnah would be justified and, as noted in the sequel, R. Joḥanan once held this opinion.? In addition, from what Rebbi Joḥanan said, I thought that the stillbirths were not Torah75It is generally accepted that a termination of pregnancy within 40 days of conception is simply a failed conception, not an abortion, since there is no human fetus (Niddah 3:5, Note 135). The status of the fetus between the 41st day and delivery is never defined in the biblical text.. But since he makes his mother sit days of purity76Mishnaiot Niddah 3:3–5 state that if there was a miscarriage and the sex of the fetus cannot be determined, the mother has to observe 14 days of impurity (for a girl) but the next 26 days are days of purity during which no genital discharge will make her impure (Niddah 3:2, Note 14). Since normally any genital discharge induces the seven-day impurity of menstruation in a woman, the rules of Tractate Niddah imply that the impurity of a stillbirth is biblical. If the impurity were rabbinic, it could not imply immunity (by necessity biblical) from impurity., it is implied that [the rules of] stillbirths are Torah. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai says, why did they say that a crawling animal77Enumerated in Lev. 11:29–30. the size of a lentil makes impure? Because the start of the creation of a crawling animal is the size of a lentil78In the Babli, 52a and Niddah 56a, the parallel is an anonymous tannaïtic statement, deriving the power of tradition to determine the amount which induces impurity from the change in wording from בהם in Lev. 11:31 to מהם in 11:32. Since that change is required by the meaning of the verses, the Babli’s source is the school of R. Aqiba.. Rebbi Yudan asked: Should not a corpse bring impurity even if it is less than the volume of an olive, for did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, “to include the stillbirth which did not reach the volume of an olive”79This in itself is an irrelevant question since R. Joḥanan makes it clear, here and elsewhere, that the minimal size requirements do not apply to fully formed creatures (cf. Berakhot 6:1, Note 17; Babli Nazir 51b).? And a carcass80From an otherwise kosher animal but which dies without being slaughtered. the size of a pea should cause impurity81When in fact the unchallenged tradition is that a minimum volume of an olive is required., for Rebbi Ḥanina said, I saw a calf the size of a pea in a placenta! How is that? I say, [these are] sermons. Preach and receive reward82But rules of practice should never be derived from sermons.. What is decayed matter? Flesh of the corpse which was separated83This text does not make much sense. The parallel in the Babli, 50a, reads בָּשָׂר הַמֵּת שֶׁקָּרַשׁ וְהַמּוֹהַל שֶׁהִרְתִּיחַ, “Flesh of the corpse that coagulated and fluid that was heated.” A gloss in the Arukh (s. v. נצל) explains: “A stillbirth whose flesh coagulated but did not firm.” The quote from the Yerushalmi reads in the Arukh: בָּשָׂר הַמֵּת שֶׁנָּצַל וְהַמּוֹהַל שֶׁקָּרַשׁ which can also be translated as: “Flesh of the corpse which was separated and fluid that coagulated”, the difference being that נצל means “to separate” in an abstract sense, as in Gen. 31:16 where Rachel and Leah congratulate themselves that God had separated Laban’s property from him and transferred it to them, while נתק means bodily separation, “tearing apart.” The suggestion by M. Margalit and J. Sussman to read נתוך instead of נתוק has no basis. It is remarkable that Tosephta Ahilut (2:3, quoted later in our text) goes into the details of the rules of decay but except for a fleeting reference to our Mishnah (Ahilut 4:5) never mentions נֵצֶל. If the text is taken as it stands, one might define nēṣel as “fibers from the corpse and fluid that coagulated.” and fluid that coagulated. Therefore not when it84The blood in an intermediate state between fluidity and coagulation. It is unreasonable to assume that the blood should be impure as fluid and as fully coagulated matter, but not in an intermediate state. is still mashed? Did not Rebbi Ḥanina say in the name of Rebbi: 85The text is paralleled in the Babli, 50a, and Tosephta Ahilut 4:3. In the latter, a Babylonian scribe or compiler systematically wrote חתך for התך, היתיך (as noted by D. Pardo). Fat from a corpse86The text is a contamination of two versions. “The fat of a corpse” may either be חֵלֶב הַמֵּת or חֶלְבּוֹ שֶׁל הַמֵּת. which was melted remains impure; if he cut it87The fat was cut in pieces smaller than olive size. Either this was done outside a “tent” (because all body parts of a corpse under one “tent” are joined together by the “tent”; Tosephta Ahilut 4:4), or small pieces of fat from two different corpses are fused together by heating. The resulting olive-sized piece is not impure since “connection by a human is not counted” (Tosephta Ahilut 4:3). and then melted it, it is pure88Then the question is, if the state of the material does not matter, why should the mashed state matter?. Rebbi Yudan and Rebbi Yose, one says to exclude the fluid in the flesh89Any fluid which is not blood but oozes from a corpse is impure only if it became solid in an olive-sized piece.; the other says that if it will fill the volume of an olive when congealed, it will be impure when still mashed90An exactly olive-sized piece of colloidal material will be pure since in solid form it will have shrunk.. We have stated91Mishnah Niddah 7:1.: “Rebbi Yose said, dried flesh from a corpse which even if soaked92The Babli, Niddah 56a, explains soaking 24 hours in lukewarm water. will not return to its former status is pure93In the Babli, Niddah 56a, this is qualified to mean that there is no impurity of flesh, but there is impurity of decay (requiring a spoonful for impurity.). What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? Did he not infer this from a carcass? From a carcass, since a dried carcass is pure94Babli, Niddah 56a., so also a dried corpse should be pure. Rebbi Immi asked: Since a foul-smelling carcass is pure95Babli, Bekhorot 23b. The argument is based on Deut. 14:21 which requires the animal carcass to be given to the non-Jewish resident or sold to the stranger. It is inferred that once a carcass can no longer be given away or sold, it has lost its legal standing as carcass. This corresponds to the rule, expounded at length in Tractate Kelim, that impure objects become pure once they have lost any commercial value., would a foul-smelling corpse also be pure? Then there can be no decayed matter for Rebbi Yose! It was found stated in Rebbi Yose’s name that there was decayed matter93In the Babli, Niddah 56a, this is qualified to mean that there is no impurity of flesh, but there is impurity of decay (requiring a spoonful for impurity.). The colleagues asked before Rebbi Yose: Since a carcass has no decay96By the argument of Note 95, a decaying animal carcass has no commercial value and, therefore, is pure. “No decay” means “no impurity classified under the heading of ‘decay’ ”., so a corpse should have no decay! He told them that he inferred from an animal only for the flesh, not for the bones. There is no decay from flesh97The argument of the colleagues is well taken; R. Yose accepts the impurity of human decay only for decaying bone material, not for decayed flesh., there is decay from bones, as Bar Qappara stated, “decay of bones is jealousy98Prov. 14:30..” Rebbi Yannai said, “or a grave99Num. 19:20. This is a new statement. Touching a grave induces the impurity of the dead irrespective of the age of the grave and the person buried while in the opinion of R. Simeon ben Ioḥai only a Jewish corpse induces the impurity of a “tent” (Babli Yebamot 61a.) The Babli concurs (loc. cit.). R. Yannai’s statement is attributed in the Babli, 54a, to his student R. Simeon ben Laqish.”, even if one touched the first Adam’s grave. The colleagues say, he100As confirmed by a fragment of baraita, Bar Qappara holds that any root may represent all 6 permutations of its letters. This cannot be classified as a derivation; it is a hint.) transposes the verse: “or a grave qbr” means “or decay rqb”. Bar Qappara stated, “or a grave qbr”, “or decay rqb”. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, the Holy One, praise to Him, took a spoonful from the place of the altar and created Adam from it. He said, he shall have been created from the place of the altar so that he should be able to stand up101Gen. rabba 14(9), R. Berekhiah and R. Ḥelbo in the name of R. Samuel ben Naḥman. The altar, with definite article, is the altar in the Temple courtyard in Jerusalem which by tradition [Gen. rabba 34(8)] is the altar used by Adam, Noah, and Abraham.. That is what is written: “The Eternal Omnipotent formed Adam the first of dust from the earth102Gen. 2:7.”, and it is written: “You shall build for me an altar of earth103Ex. 20:24..” Since “earth” there means an altar, here also [it means] an altar. “His days should be a hundred and twenty years.104Gen. 6:3.” Adam the first lived close to a thousand years and you say, “his days should be a hundred and twenty years”! But after 120 years he returns to be a spoonful of decay. That is difficult. For Og, the king of Bashan, 120 years, and for a newborn baby 120 years? Og [becomes] a spoonful of decay, and a newborn baby becomes a spoonful of decay. “105Tosephta Ahilut 2:2; Kelim Baba Meṣi‘a 7:1, as legal principle independent of the story of 120 years. Quoted in the Babli, 50b, but there the rabbis derive the decay from the body of the hand, without the fingers. The spoonful of decay which they mentioned is from his finger joints and upwards, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, from a fully developed hand.” Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi was illustrating that of Rebbi Meïr one way, that of the rabbis in another way. “Which corpse has decay106Obviously, every corpse will eventually produce decayed matter. What is meant here is, under which circumstances does one apply the rules of “decay” which induces impurity by the spoonful, and when the rules of “grave dust” which requires more than a spoonful (Ahilut Mishnah 2:2, Tosephta 2:3.)? One who was buried naked in a marble coffin, or on a stone floor, or on a marble table. But if he was buried in a wooden casket or on a woooden plank; that is not decay but graves’ dust and needs somewhat more than a spoonful.”107Tosephta Ahilut 2:3; quoted in the Babli Nazir 51a, Niddah 27b. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if even the smallest attachment was buried with him, there is no decay108But graves’ dust. In the Babli, 51a, this is implied by a statement of Ulla.. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Of two corpses which were buried together, each one becomes an attachment for the other109Babli 51a.. This110That there is symmetry between both corpses. is automatic; could one alone be an attachment to another? Abba bar Nathan111In the Babli, 51a, a Rav Nathan states that decay combined from two corpses induces impurity. objected: Think of it, that somebody brought half a spoonful from one and half a spoonful from the other! He112R. Yasa. was considering it when he113Abba bar Nathan. was seen laughing; he112R. Yasa. was offended by him and he113Abba bar Nathan. died. Rebbi Yose114Two generations later. said, there this man is gone and we did hear nothing about it115Whether decay from two corpses combines to induce impurity.. What about it? There, neither of them will produce a spoonful of decayed matter, but here, each of them can generate a spoonful of decay116If two corpses are buried in a common grave, neither of them can produce decay by R. Joḥanan’s definition. But pure decay from two distinct corpses can be combined.. If his foot was cut off, from above the joint117Since there is no Yerushalmi extant to Tractate Ḥulin, it is impossible to know exactly what is meant. Mishnah Ḥulin 6:4 states that an animal, one of whose legs was cut above the ארכובה, is unfit for consumption since it could not survive. There is no unanimity as to which leg joint is meant, the knee or the ankle. In the language of the Babli, both are called ארכובה (root רכב by metathesis from biblical ברך) and are distinguished by appropriate adjectives. It is reasonable to identify ארכובה here as the ankle, but this is far from certain. there is no “decay”118The corpse is missing a limb; the rules of “decay” do not apply., from below the joint there is “decay”. If it119The amputated limb. was buried together with him, from below the joint it becomes an attachment to him120Since he could have survived the amputation, the part taken becomes an attachment. But if the part amputated is so large that by the medical standards of the day the patient could not have survived, the amputated leg is part of the corpse if buried together with it., from above the joint it does not become an attachment to him. The colleagues asked before Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon: If he bound from below the joint as attachment? He said to them, if it were so121If the amputated limb was sewn back to the corpse, if it were considered a separate part then any limb could be considered separate and there never would be a complete corpse. The Babli, 63b, does not require sewing but holds that a grave makes a complete corpse whole even if it was brought to the grave in pieces., even if it was not cut I should consider it as if cut and it should be an attachment! Since it is connected to him, it forms one body. If there is something missing, can it have “decay”? Let us hear from the following: If it is imcomplete, there is no “decay”, it does not require the surrounding earth, and it is not part of a row of graves122This is also quoted in the Babli, 51b.It is stated in Mishnah 9:3 that a person who finds an unattended corpse must bury it together with all surrounding earth which might have soaked up his blood. This is now qualified to apply only to complete corpses.If one finds three graves next to one another they form a cemetery which may not be disturbed. The rules governing possible removal of graves are detailed in Halakhah 9:3. The rules arc restricted here to graves containing complete corpses.. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, how much must be missing that it have no “decay”? Might it follow what we have stated there123Mishnah Ahilut 2:3. In the list of body parts of a corpse which cause impurity by touch and carrying but not in a “tent” appears an incomplete skull. The skull is considered incomplete by the House of Shammai if it exhibits a hole made by a surgeon’s drill, but by the House of Hillel only if the missing piece was large enough so “that he would die if it was removed.”: “That he will die if it was removed.” Is it the same here? Think of it, if the esophagus was perforated, nothing was missing but he could not survive. You have only the following: If his foot was cut off, from below the joint there is “decay”, from above the joint there is no “decay”. If it was buried together with him, from below the joint it becomes an attachment to him, from above the joint it does not become an attachment to him. Do stillbirths generate “decay”? For him who says that their blood induces impurity by a quartarius124For him a fetus is human; a stillbirth follows all rules of human corpses. they generate “decay”; for him who says that their blood does not induce impurity by a quartarius, do they generate “decay”? Let us hear from the following: 125Tosephta Ahilut 16:1: “Small heaps close to a town or to a road, whether new or old, are impure since women bury there their stillbirths and lepers their limbs. Far away, new ones are pure, old ones impure; I am saying that there had been a road nearby.”“Why is the dust from small heaps impure? Because women bury there their stillbirths.” Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said: Would it not be reasonable otherwise, that lepers bury their limbs there?126Obviously, the Tosephta in this formulation was unknown to the editors of the Yerushalmi. The full Tosephta text is paraphrased in the Babli, Ketubot 20b. You must say that it is because of “decay”, not because a bone the size of a lentil, since it was stated127If some decay is replaced by pure dust from another place, the latter becomes an attachment and by the rules of the previous paragraph, the earth lost its character of “decay”. But if the impurity were caused by a human bone, its impurity would be original biblical impurity; the new dust would have become impure immediately as a “tent” over the bone. Therefore, the second opinion expressed in the first part of the Tosephta is inconsistent with the rule stated at the end.: “If he took some dust from it and replaced it, [the small heap] is pure.” Explain it following Tannaïm, as it was stated: If one removed it128If the entire little heap was levelled (without there appearing any bones in it), it remains impure if one assumes that some bone is buried below the levelled surface; it is pure if one assumes that it consisted only of “decay”., it remains impure; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel declares it pure. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said129This name attribution cannot be correct since R. Simeon ben Eleazar was a Tanna, student of R. Meïr. A statement of his appears in Tosephta Ahilut 2:6, denying that people with a trepanned skull can survive a winter. Probably one has to read: R. Eleazar said., it was formulated following Rebbi Simeon, as it was stated: 130This refers to the Mishnah and explains why spine and skull were mentioned separately when “half a qab of bones” is also mentioned and both a skull and a spine fill the required volume of about 1 liter. A similar (anonymous) text is in Tosephta Ahilut 2:5: “A spine of which bones were removed is pure even if its outline still exists; But in a grave it is impure, even if broken, even if crushed, since the grave unites them.” The spine and the skull are impure even if crushed, even disconnected, because the grave unites them as “a human in a tent”131Num. 19:14.. The Mishnah follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah132Probably both “Eleazar ben Azariah” and “Simeon ben Eleazar” should read simply “Eleazar”., as it was stated133Tosephta Ahilut 4:13: “Rebbi Eleazar said, earlier the Elders were divided; some said, a quartarius of blood, a quarter (qab) of bones; some said, half a qab of bones and half a log of blood. The later court said: a quartarius of blood, a quarter (qab) of bones for heave and sacrifices, a half a qab of bones and half a log of blood for the nazir and the Temple.” It is difficult to correct the Yerushalmi text by the Tosephta since our text clearly puts Temple and sacrifices in the same category. In a parallel text to the Tosephta in the Babli, 53a, the speaker is R. Eliezer. Instead of “Temple” (meaning “access to the Temple”), he formulates the equivalent, “people who come for the Passover sacrifice”.: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, earlier the courts were divided; some said, a quartarius of blood, a quarter bones; some said, half a log of blood, a half a log of bones, for nezirut and the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred offerings.” Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon134R. Simeon ben Laqish.: They said this135The determination of the minimum amounts inducing impurity was the result of prophetic inspiration, rathet than of logical derivation. In the Babli, loc. cit., this is a statement of R. Jacob bar Idi himself. as explanation from the mouths of Ḥaggai, Zachariah, and Malachi.

MISHNAH: But for overhanging branches136If the nazir walks under a tree under which a grave is suspected., or protuberances137Standing out from a building or a fence and it is suspected that a grave may be buried underneath., or broken fields138“The house of the broken-off piece” is a field which contained a grave ploughed under. Not only is the suspected place of the grave impure by biblical standards but the entire field is rabbinically impure since the plough might have caught a bone and transported it to another part of the field., or Gentile territory139Which is rabbinically impure even in the Holy Land., or the cave door, or its frame140גּוֹלֵל “the roller” is a large circular stone which closes the entrance to a burial cave. דּוֹפֵק “the knocker” is the frame which keeps the roller in place. The expressions were later transferred to burial in the earth, where “the roller” became the stone plate covering the grave and “the knocker” the stone frame on which it rests. Cf. Note 142., or a quartarius of blood141One-half of the amount which induces biblical impurity., or a tent142Everything inside a tent in which there is a corpse is impure (Num. 19:14). The tent confines the impurity; outside of the tent everything is pure. The impurity of a person touching a tent (or a “roller” or a “knocker”) from the outside is purely rabbinical. But cf. Note 164., or a quarter (qab) of bones141One-half of the amount which induces biblical impurity., or objects that touched the corpse143An object inside a tent in which there is a corpse is a source of original impurity. But an object touching a corpse under the open sky becomes impure in a derivative way. Anybody touching such an object becomes impure in a secondary way which in most cases is only rabbinical; cf. Demay 2:3, Note 137., or the days of his counting or his being absolute144This refers to the sufferer from skin disease. The nazir is enjoined from becoming impure by the impurity of the dead; in general, impurity generated by the nazir’s own body has no influence on his status as nazir. “The days of his counting” are the eight days which the healed sufferer from skin disease has to observe between the preliminary and the final expiation ceremonies. These days do not interfere with his status as nazir but they cannot count since he has to shave all his hair on the first and seventh days. “The days of his being absolute” is the time in which the sufferer is declared to be certainly impure. Then he is required not to shave his hair (Lev. 13:45); nevertheless, these days do not count towards the fulfillment of his vow., the nazir does not shave145If his impurity is caused by a corpse and either is rabbinical or questionable. but sprinkles on the third and seventh days146Num. 19:12., does not disregard the preceding147The time he is in any state of impurity caused by the dead, whether rabbinical or questionable, cannot be counted towards fulfillment of his vow of nazir. But the preceding and following days count and after purification he simply completes the count; he does not start anew., starts counting immediately, and has no sacrifice. In truth148This expression is a label for an old, pre-Mishnaic, rule., the days of a male or female sufferer from flux149Lev. 15. As explained in Note 144, this impurity generated by the nazir’s own body has no influence on his state of nezirut. “The days of quarantine” are those in which the possible sufferer from skin disease is put under observation before his final status is determined (Lev. 13:4,5,21,26, 31). and the days of quarantine of the sufferer from skin disease are counted for him. HALAKHAH: “But for overhanging branches, or protuberances,” etc. What is the status of the undistributed middle150Mishnah 2 spells out for which biblical impurities the nazir has to shave; the implication is that for anything less he does not have to shave. Mishnah 3 has a list of rabbinic impurities for which the nazir does not have to shave; the implication is that for anything more he has to shave. We are left without instructions for cases which fall in between.? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the undistributed middle is judged leniently151Anything not covered by Mishnah 2 is not biblical; the nazir is prevented from shaving.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the undistributed middle is judged restrictively152Anything not exempted by Mishnah 3 requires shaving and a new start. The Babli, 53b, reports the same opinions, limited to the case taken here as illustration.. What is the undistributed middle? That is a limb from a corpse or a limb from a living body which is not sufficiently62“Sufficient flesh” is enough left on a limb connected to a living body that it could heal. covered by flesh153Mishnah Ahilut 1:8 spells out that such a limb induces impurity by touch or carrying but not in a tent.. Rebbi Yose asked154He questions R. Simeon ben Laqish’s position.: From where [do we infer that] a bone [induces impurity in the size of] a barley grain? Not from that verse, “or a person’s bone155Num. 19:16. In v. 18, only “bone” is mentioned but not “human”. This is interpreted in Sifry Num. #127,129 to cover bones coming from both living or dead persons; cf. Babli 54a, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Num. 19:16,18.”? Here you require a barley grain, there you do not require a barley grain156For a bare bone, everybody agrees that a barley grain represents the minimum size which induces impurity. According to R. Simeon ben Laqish, a bone fragment with some flesh is not subject to a legal minimum.! Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon stated: “A slain one”, anything from a slain person157Without a minimum; Sifry Num. #127., that is a limb from a corpse or a limb from a living body which is not sufficiently covered by flesh. Rebbi Joḥanan said, overhanging branches and protuberances are biblical for heave158If heave was transported under overhanging branches or protuberances which might cover a grave, it becomes impure and forbidden as food; it must be burned. even though the nazir does not shave. Rebbi Jeremiah asked159Is there any practical difference whether the impurity imputed to the heave is biblical or rabbinical?, if to burn it, one burns even for a rabbinic doubt; maybe to whip160Implying that a person can be whipped for exposing heave to the impurity induced by overhanging branches or protuberances.? Rebbi [Yose]161Missing in the text; identified in Halakhah 4 (Note 219). from Sidon stated before Rebbi Jeremiah and disgagrees with Rebbi Jeremiah: “For any impurity deriving from a corpse for which a nazir shaves one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary, but any impurity deriving from a corpse for which a nazir does not shave one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary.162Mishnah 4. If entering the Temple is not prosecutable, neither is exposing heave to this impurity.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, layers of a tree which cover four-by-four [handbreadths]: the nazir shaves163If a tree has a thick crown which forms a roof over an area of at least 4 by 4 handbreadths so that the sky is not visible, and impurity derived from a corpse is under this roof; a nazir which passes under the tree is in a “tent” together with the impurity and has to shave.. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Joḥanan said, if one of his hands is on the other side and one hand is in the layer, the nazir does not shave164If the nazir stands outside the tree and only one of his hands is in the crown, he does not become impure by the “tent” formed by the tree. In general, the roof of a “tent” covering an impurity shields anything above it from impurity. The only exception is טוּמְאָה רְצוּצָה “squeezed impurity”: If the roof of the tent is less that a handbreadth above the impurity, it does not shield but the impurity rises up to the sky and below into the ground (Mishnah Ahilut 7:1, 14:7).. Rebbi Yose asked: If it separates from impurity it also should separate from purity; if it does not separate from impurity, it should not separate from purity165This question is directed towards Mishnah Ahilut 6:1 which states that “humans and objects form tents to make impure but not to make pure.” In the Mishnah, R. Eliezer disagrees and holds that any roof which brings impurity shields everything above it from impurity. R. Yose notes that the position of R. Eliezer is the only rational one.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the corpse is in the bedroom and the nazir under the bed, the nazir shaves166Since a bed can be moved, it is an object and brings impurity, even if the nazir is more than one handbreadth below the bottom of the bed.. Certainly if the corpse is under the bed and the nazir in the bedroom, does the nazir not shave167Even if the bed is one handbreadth above the corpse it does not form a “tent” to protect the nazir. The ceiling of the room is the “tent” and everything below it is impure.? Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the corpse and the nazir are under the bed frame168Not in a room, and the frame is not holding bedding. This is a situation similar to that of standing under the gutters attached to a building., under the belly of a camel169A moving “tent” which only transmits rabbinic impurity., under the width of a gate, under the gutters170Greek μέλαθρον “roof-tree, beam, roof”., the nazir does not shave, nor for anything which is there for protection171But not for dwelling.. Ḥizqiah heard it and said, they purified the dead172Since Ḥizqiah was R. Joḥanan’s teacher, practice cannot follow R. Joḥanan.! Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the corpse is in the anteroom and the nazir in the dining hall, the nazir shaves; certainly if the corpse is in the dining hall and the nazir in the anteroom, the nazir shaves173This now refers to Mishnah Ahilut 4:3: “If [impurity] was in the entrance with the door open, the house is pure; if it was in the house, everything in the house is impure, since it is the way of impurity to leave but not to enter.” If the dining hall had no windows (or its windows were narrow slits through which no corpse could be transported), so that the only way out was through the door of the anteroom, it is obvious that everybody in the anteroom was biblically impure if the corpse was in the dining hall. If the corpse was in the outer room, it still was on the same floor in the same building as the nazir, who would be made biblically impure by the “tent”, the ceiling of his room.. Rebbi Mana asked, if it is a tent to separate it should be a tent to draw along; if it is not a tent to draw along, the impurity should disappear174As explained in the preceding Note, the second case is the more natural and should have been mentioned first. In the formulation given, should one not ask whether in the first case the nazir was not biblically impure since impurity is supposed to leave?! Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the impurity is under the outer half of the wall, the nazir shaves175This is a commentary on Mishnah Ahilut 6:3. If the wall of a house is rather thick and the “squeezed” impurity (Note 165) is under the inner part of the wall, the house is impure but anybody standing on the roof is pure since the roof intercepts the impurity. But if the “squeezed” impurity (Note 165) is under the outer part of the wall, the house is pure but anybody standing on the wall is impure since a roof does not intercept a “squeezed” impurity. R. Joḥanan asserts that this rule is biblical.. Rebbi Joshia said, if impurity is hidden in the ground176The definition of “squeezed” impurity. of the house, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshia: The nazir does not shave for most of the skeleton177The spine and skull (assuming they do not amount to half a qab); cf. Babli 53a. or most of the bones178125 bones (assuming they do not amount to half a qab); Mishnah Ahilut 2:1.. “In truth;” Rebbi Eliezer178aThis reading is found also in Sabbat 10:4 (12c, 1. 46). But in the other occurrences in the Yerushalmi, Sabbat 1 (3b 1. 69), Kilaim 2:2 Note 36, Terumot 2:1 Note 16, the name is "Eleazar" (Lazar). In the Babli the quote is anonymous in Sabbat 92b; it appears in the name of R. Eleazar in Baba mesi'a 60a. said that every place where they stated “in truth,” refers to practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. “They shall fall away, for his vow of nazir is impure.179Num. 6:12.” From here that the days of impurity fall away180The days of certified skin disease cannot count as days of nezirut even though the sufferer from skin disease is also required to let his hair grow.. Then should he invalidate181The Mishnah states that a nazir who develops skin disease simply waits until he is healed and then finishes his count. Why does he not start anew as in the case of impurity of the dead?? He invalidates only the days of [impurity of] the dead182The biblical law is quite clear that only the impurity of the dead makes him lose the earlier days of his count.. Why should they not be counted? If you say that days in which he causes [impurity to] couch and seat are counted, days in which he does not cause [impurity to] couch and seat are certainly counted183Mishnah Kelim 1:4 states that the impurity of the sufferer from skin disease is more severe than the impurity of the female sufferer from flux. For the latter, it is stated explicitly (Lev. 15:26) that any couch and any seat used by her becomes a source of original impurity. No direct biblical source exists for declaring the sufferer from skin disease to cause this kind of impurity; it is derived indirectly in Sifra Meṣora‘ Parashah 2(6). This derivation is accepted at face value by Maimonides both in his Mishnah Commentary (Kelim 1:4) and in his Code (Turn‘at Ṣara‘at 10:11). The commentators of the Babli (Rashi, Pesaḥim 67b s. v. זב, Ravad, Commentary to Sifra) have difficulties in accepting the Sifra since it seems to contradict the Babli Pesaḥim 67b, but a student of the Yerushalmi does not have to consider this, in particular since Ravad does not object to Maimonides’s ruling in his Code. For impurity there is no difference between a sufferer from skin disease in quarantine and one positively declared infirm (Mishnah Megillah 1:7, Nega‘im 8:8).The argument given here refers to Mishnah Nega‘im 14:2 which states that the healed sufferer from skin disease in his days of counting, between the preliminary and the definitive purification, is free from all severe impurities and does not cause more impurity than a dead reptile (the slightest of impurities, Mishnah Kelim 1:1). It does not seem to make any sense to accept the days of the severely impure quarantined but not to accept the slightly impure counting sufferer from skin disease (cf. Note 144).! What did you see to say that they are not counted? Rebbi []184There are no sources which would permit filling in the lacuna. said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “For a wild growth of his head’s hair”185Num. 6:5.. Days of hair growth are counted, days preparing for shaving186For the final purification of the sufferer from skin disease. are not counted. So far in his days of counting; in the days of his definite status? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “Please do not let her be like a corpse187Num. 12:12, speaking of Miriam who was punished for calumniating Moses by becoming a clear sufferer from skin disease (v. 10), not a case of quarantine..” Since the days of a corpse are not counted, the days of quarantine are not counted. A student quoted this saying cf Rebbi Joḥanan’s before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who did not accept it. He said to him: Here, you call it quarantine, but there, you want to call it absolute; you cannot do that. For Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “Please do not let her be like a corpse; let her be quarantined188Num. 12:14..” Just as the days of the dead are seven, so the days of quarantine are seven189While the case of Miriam was clearly not one of quarantine, the verse treats it as such by (1) calling her exclusion from the camp “quarantine” and (2) exempting her from the cleansing ritual which is required of the absolute sufferer but not the quarantined (Mishnah Megillah 1:8, Nega‘im 8:8). The verse cannot be applied to the absolute sufferer..

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves190Explained in Mishnah 2., one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary, but for any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave191Explained in Mishnah 3. In Mishnah Parah 11:4 the formulation is: “For any impurity which requires immersion in water by biblical decree, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary, but for any impurity which does not require immersion in water by biblical decree, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary.”, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary. Rebbi Meïr said, this should not be less than the impurity of a dead reptile192Which requires immersion in water by biblical decree, Lev. 11:31, and a person is guilty if he enters the Sanctuary when impure, Lev. 5:2.! Rebbi Aqiba said, I argued before Rebbi Eliezer: If for a barley-grain sized bone, which does not cause impurity to a human in a tent193Mishnah Ahilut 2:1., a nazir shaves if he touches or carries it190Explained in Mishnah 2., should it not be logical that for a quartarius of blood, which causes impurity to a human in a tent194Mishnah Ahilut 2:2. The nazir does not shave, Mishnah 3., a nazir should have to shave if he touches or carries it? He said to me, what is that, Aqiba? This is not a place for an argument de minore ad majus! When I came and expounded that before Rebbi Joshua, he said to me, you have a good argument, but that is what they said was practice195“Practice” here means an old tradition, whose origin can no longer be ascertained and which cannot be overruled. The relationship of this kind of practice to the interpretation of biblical verses is not amenable to logical analysis.. HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Joshua,” etc. There196Mishnah Ahilut 1:1., we have stated: “Two are impure from the dead, one is impure for seven days and one is impure by the impurity of evening197As explained at the end of the Mishnah, a person touching a corpse becomes a source of original impurity. A second person touching the first becomes impure in the first degree. The first is subject to the rules of Num. 19, the second can cleanse himself by immersion in water; then he will become pure in all respects at sundown (Lev. 22:7). For degrees of impurity, cf. Demay 2:3, Note 137.. Three are impure from the dead, two are impure for seven days and one is impure until nightfall198Explained in Mishnah Ahilut 1:2: An object touching the corpse becomes impure like the corpse itself (Sifry Num. 130). A second object touches the first; it becomes a source of original impurity; both need the ritual of Num. 19. A third object or a human touching the second object becomes impure in the first degree and can become pure at sundown.. Four are impure from the dead, three are impure for seven days and one is impure until nightfall199Explained in Mishnah Ahilut 1:3: An object which touches the corpse becomes impure like the corpse itself. A human touches the first object, becoming a source of original impurity; a second object touches the human, also becoming a source of original impurity. A third object or a human touching the second object becomes impure in the first degree and can become pure at sundown.. How is it for two? Any person who touches a corpse is impure for seven days; a person who touches him is impure until nightfall,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: All are biblically [impure] for heave200Not only for heave but also for sacrifices: anything with a status of sanctity. But for profane food, humans, or objects, anything touching a corpse becomes a source of original impurity; the person touching it or him becomes impure in the first degree. In biblical law, no human can become impure by derivative impurity. No person touching anything more than once removed from the corpse can become biblically impure., but for entering the Sanctuary only the second impure who touched the first impure. What is the reason? “A person who would be impure and did not purify himself201Num. 19:20: “This person will be extirpated from the congregation, for he desecrated the Eternal’s Sanctuary”.;” anybody needing purification is guilty for entering the Sanctuary; anybody not needing purification is not guilty for entering the Sanctuary. They objected: But a person who touches objects which touched a corpse needs purification, but is he the second202A person who touched objects which touched objects which touched the corpse is a third in line who is impure by biblical standards and guilty if he enters the Sanctuary unpurified.? Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, for impurity of a person from a person203The statement of R. Joḥanan refers to impurity of a person induced by a person., not for impurity of a person from objects. The statement of Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya [implies that] only the first is guilty204Anybody needing the ritual of Num. 19 but entering the Sanctuary without it is guilty of a deadly sin, as stated in Num. 19:20. The person only impure in the first degree, not subject to this ritual, is guilty of a sin but not a deadly one. As explained in Note 199, if the impurity is transmitted by an object, the human may be the second in the sequence.. Since [for impurity of] a person from a person only the first is guilty, so here the first is guilty. Rebbi Yose said, only if he immersed himself. That is a statement of Rebbi, since Rebbi said, all impure persons remain impure until the are immersed in water205The person impure in the first degree may still commit a deadly sin by entering the Sanctuary (Lev. 22:3) without immersing himself in water. But if he enters (or eats sanctified food) between immersion and sundown, he commits a minor sin (Lev. 22:7).. Rebbi Illa said: He himself, who touched the corpse, is guilty206He holds that a deadly sin is only committted if a person impure by contact from body to body is entering the Sanctuary, not if the impurity was transmitted by contact with an object as explained in Notes 197,198.. He said it and gave its reason: “who became impure201Num. 19:20: “This person will be extirpated from the congregation, for he desecrated the Eternal’s Sanctuary”.,” that refers to the impurity of a human. But is there not a third207How could it be that a person needs purification by the rites of Num. 19 and not be guilty entering the Sanctuary unpurified?? As Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, for impurity of a person from a person a man is guilty for impurity in the Sanctuary208The verse does not deal with the impurity transmitted by objects; its status remains indeterminate.. They objected: If objects touch the corpse, a human the objects, and objects the human197As explained at the end of the Mishnah, a person touching a corpse becomes a source of original impurity. A second person touching the first becomes impure in the first degree. The first is subject to the rules of Num. 19, the second can cleanse himself by immersion in water; then he will become pure in all respects at sundown (Lev. 22:7). For degrees of impurity, cf. Demay 2:3, Note 137.. For impurity of a person from a person, not for impurity of a person from objects208The verse does not deal with the impurity transmitted by objects; its status remains indeterminate.. Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Rav Hamnuna: The Tanna there209Tosephta Kelim Baba Meṣi‘a 1:5 says the same in different words. disagrees with Rebbi Illa: “For an object made half of cement־earth210Probably clay is meant; earth of a consistency from which objects can be made. Clay objects are the paradigm of objects which can become impure; they cannot be purified except by being broken. and half of dung211Objects made of dried camel or cow dung cannot become impure. one is not guilty for coming to the Sanctuary212If such an object was brought to the Sanctuary after being exposed to impurity, no sin was committed.” Because it is half of earth and half of dung; but if it were totally of earth, one would be guilty. Who is guilty? Not the one who touches it? Is he not the second who touches the first213Since an object cannot be guilty, the human who touches it must be guilty. This contradicts both R. Ila and R. Abin bar Ḥiyya.? Rebbi Phineas said before Rebbi Yose: Explain it if he threw it214Somebody threw an impure clay object into the Sanctuary grounds. Then there is no question of a human entering the holy precinct.. He answered him, about him who threw it we stated: For washing his body he is subject to extirpation, for washing his garments to the forty215A person is impure in original impurity who transmits impurity to his garments. If he enters the Sanctuary while impure, he commits a deadly sin with his body. But at the same time, he carries his impure garments into the holy precinct. This is a separate offense, punishable by 39 (= 40–1) lashes. The implication is that a person throwing an impure object into the Sanctuary is whipped but not subject to Divine extirpation.. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose, do we not have the Mishnah in support of that first Tanna216R. Ila, an Amora., as is stated: “Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary, but for any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary.” For the first, for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary; for the second, for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary. Rebbi Joḥanan said217R. Joḥanan holds that the entire discussion up to this point is based on a false premise. It is clear to him that anybody impure in at least the first degree is forbidden access to the Sanctuary on penalty of extirpation. R. Joshua’s statement only deals with the impurity generated by the corpse. Such impurity prohibits the person contaminated by it (or any of its derivatives up to the level of first degree impurity) from entering the Sanctuary if and only if it forces the nazir to shave., it is needed from what comes from the corpse: For a quartarius of blood or a quarter qab of bones, for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary; for half a log of blood and half a qab of bones, for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary. Rebbi Jeremiah said, we were of the opinion that they disagree about a sacrifice, but one whips even the third, even the fourth218He tries to salvage the opinions of R. Illa and R. Abin ben Ḥiyya, that everybody would agree that any person entering the Sanctuary in impurity commits a sin; the question would only be about a sacrifice for an unintended infraction. But for wilful transgression, the Mishnah in Ahilut is quite clear that it is punishable even for the third and fourth person.. Rebbi Yose from Sidon stated before Rebbi Jeremiah in opposition to Rebbi Jeremiah219He confirms the interpretation given in Note 217.: “For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary, but for any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Yannai, Rebbi Joḥanan220The order of the last two names has to be inverted: R. Yose ben R. Bun said in the name of R. Joḥanan who heard it from R. Yannai.: It is needed from what comes from the corpse: For a quartarius of blood or a quarter qab of bones, for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty; for half a log of blood and half a qab of bones, for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty.

MISHNAH: If a person said to two nezirim: I saw one of you becoming impure but I do not know which one of you it was, they bring1They purify themselves from the impurity of the dead and at the end of their period of nezirut they shave and bring the sacrifices in common. one sacrifice of impurity2Two birds and a sheep. and one of purity3A male and a female sheep and a ram.. One of them says, if I am impure, the sacrifice of impurity is mine and that of purity is yours; otherwise the sacrifice of purity is mine and that of impurity is yours. Then they count another thirty days4Assuming that both had vowed the standard period of 30 days. Otherwise they would have to repeat the longer of the respective periods of nezirut. and bring one sacrifice of purity; (Mishnah 2) one of them says, if I was impure, the sacrifice of impurity was mine and that of purity was yours, hence this is my sacrifice of purity; otherwise the sacrifice of purity was mine and that of impurity was yours, hence this is your sacrifice of purity.If one of them died5Then the survivor is in danger of never being able to conclude his nezirut since, not knowing which sacrifice to bring, he can bring neither., Rebbi Joshua said, he should seek out a person from the general public who would make a vow of nazir corresponding to his needs and say: If I was impure, you are a nazir immediately6And the sacrifice of purity will be yours., but if I was pure, you are a nazir after 30 days. They count 30 days and bring one sacrifice of impurity and one of purity (Mishnah 3) and he says: If I am impure, the sacrifice of impurity is mine and that of purity is yours; otherwise the sacrifice of purity is mine and that of impurity is questionable7The sacrifice of impurity consists of two birds. The one offered as elevation sacrifice can be given as obligation, if there was impurity, or as voluntary gift, if there was none. The bird offered as purification sacrifice cannot be eaten by the priests; after its blood was used, it has to be burned outside the Temple precinct (Mishnah Temurah 7:6).. Then they count another thirty days, bring one sacrifice of purity (Mishnah 4) and he says: If I was impure, the sacrifice of impurity was mine and that of purity was yours, hence this is my sacrifice of purity; otherwise the sacrifice of purity was mine and that of impurity was questionable; hence this is your sacrifice of purity.Ben Zoma said to him, who would accommodate him to make a vow of nazir corresponding to his needs? But he brings a bird as purification offering and an animal as elevation offering and says: If I was impure, the purification offering is for my obligation8While this offering is incomplete, it is sufficient to let him shave and restart his nezirut. and the elevation offering is voluntary9Of all kinds of offerings required from a pure or impure nazir, only the elevation offering can be voluntary.. But if I was pure, the elevation offering is for my obligation and the purification offering is questionable. Then he counts 30 days and brings one sacrifice (of impurity and one)10This clause in parenthesis is obviously false; it is missing in the Babli and the independent Mishnah mss. of purity3A male and a female sheep and a ram. (Mishnah 5) and says: If I was impure, the first elevation offering was voluntary and the one now is for my obligation. But if I was pure, the first elevation offering was for my obligation and now I am bringing the remainder of my sacrifices. Rebbi Joshua said, then it turns out that he brings his sacrifices piecemeal11If he was pure, he brings the first offering 30 days before the other two, but the verse (Num. 6:14) calls all three sacrifices together “his sacrifice” in the singular, meaning that they have to be offered together.! But the Sages accepted the words of Ben Zoma12As the only reasonable solution to an intractable problem.. HALAKHAH: “If a person said to two nezirim,” etc. Not only if he said to one of them, “I saw one of you becoming impure but I do not know which one of you it was,13In this case it can really happen that the witness knew of a “tent” impurity unknown to the nezirim.” but even if he said, “I saw one of you vowing to be a nazir but I do not know which one of you it was,” both of them have to follow the rules of nazir because of his testimony. If they do not contradict him14In matters of ritual law, the uncontested testimony of a single witness is valid.. But if they contradict him, this does not apply15A contested testimony of a single witness is worthless, not even admissible as supporting evidence.. If both of them16It seems that the text, שניהם, is an error for שְׁנַיִם, “two [witnesses].” The concurrent testimony of two witnesses must be believed by biblical standards. contradict, it parallels the following: “If one witness says, he became impure, but he says, I did not become impure, he is pure. If two witnesses say, he became impure, but he says, I did not become impure, the two are believed more than he is, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, everybody is believed about himself.17Mishnah Ṭaharot 5:9.” Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: So is the Mishnah: Rebbi Meïr declares impure, Rebbi Jehudah and the Sages declare pure18In this matter of the standing of two witnesses, the Sages fully accept the position of R. Jehudah.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, so is the Mishnah: Rebbi Meïr declares impure, Rebbi Jehudah declares pure19But the Sages disagree with R. Jehudah; the Mishnah should have mentioned R. Jehudah and not the Sages. In his interpretation, the Sages follow R. Jehudah in accepting the statement of a person accused of a sin even against two witnesses but not in cases of impurity.. The rabbis’ words support Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Gurion said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Rebbi Jehudah said this only about an old impurity, for he can say to them, I had been impure but I purified myself20If at least one evening has passed since the possible impurity and the person in question denies that he was impure, we read from his disclaimer that he admits having incurred impurity but eliminated it quickly by immersion in a miqweh., and we have stated: The same holds for eating suet; the same holds for entering the Sanctuary21A single witness can force a person to bring a purification sacrifice for committing a sin. But since for an intentional sin, no purification sacrifice is possible, the person accused of committing the sin can always assert that he committed the sin intentionally and, therefore, cannot bring a sacrifice. Then he also must be believed if he asserts that he did not commit the sin (Babli Keritut 12a). (Talmudic law does not accept confessions since testimony of relatives is excluded and “everybody is related to himself.” Therefore, the person asserting that he intentionally committed the sin attributed to him by a single witness, cannot be prosecuted.). Should they not accept his position for impurity? Because of the impurity of a nazir22The nazir brings a sacrifice for becoming impure by the impurity of the dead whether incurred willingly or involuntarily. The sacrifice is a public act; he cannot claim to have purified himself in private., could they not say, where is the sacrifice which you brought? Then should they not accept his position for heave23If an unauthorized person is accused of eating heave, he can always claim to have done it intentionally; so he does not have to pay the 25% fine (Mishnah Terumot 7:1).? So far the questions of Rebbi Ḥanina. Rebbi Mana understood it25That the Sages and R. Jehudah do not agree about the weight of a person’s disclaimer as against two witnesses to his actions. from the following26Mishnah Keritut 3:1.: “They told him, if he wishes, he says that he did it intentionally.” What can he say for an assigned slave girl27Lev. 19:20–22, the case of a man sleeping with a slave girl assigned as a future wife to another free man. As long as the girl is not totally freed, she cannot marry the man to whom she is assigned. Therefore, her relations with another man are not adultery. A reparation offering is required from the man. This is one of the few cases in which a sacrifice is possible for deliberate sin.? In error28If in the dark he thought that she was his wife., he is obligated; intentionally29This is the case treated by the verse. If he denies the accusation by two witnesses, one cannot take his denial as assertion that he did it but already had remedied the situation., he is obligated! He can tell him, I touched her but did not finish30This is a first explanation: A sacrifice is due only if there was an ejaculation of semen (v. 20). If he took the slave girl to bed but stopped before there was an ejaculation, no sacrifice is due., or as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, I was forced to it by the spell she put on me31He disclaims responsibility by reason of temporary insanity caused by the girl’s charms. This is enough to support his disclaimer against even two witnesses.. For a nazir32Exposed to the impurity of the dead; the case of the Mishnah. what can you say? In error, he is obligated; intentionally, he is obligated; forced, he is obligated! “Suddenly”, to include in error, “suddenly”, to include intentionally33This is proof that the nazir must bring his sacrifices even if forced. The reference is to Num. 6:9. In all other sources, Sifry Num. 28 [= Num. rabba 10(31)], Babli Keritut 9a, the inference is from the double expression “if a person should die near him suddenly,unexpectedly …” “Suddenly” is taken to refer to accidental impurity, “unexpectedly” to outside force (Sifry) or outside force and intention (Babli).. “There was a condition in my mind that if I should become impure, my nezirut should burst away from me and a new nezirut would fall on me”; in any case he was not obligated to be a nazir until now34Since the vow of nezirut could have been formulated in a way that eliminates the possibility of a sacrifice for impurity, the testimony of the witnesses can be explained away.. (“There was a condition in my mind that if I should become impure, my nezirut should burst away from me and a new nezirut would fall on me”; in any case he was not obligated to be a nazir until now.)35A case of dittography. What do you have in case of an oath36If two witnesses tell a person that he owes a sacrifice because he has violated an oath imposed on him by other people (Lev. 5:1,4). How can he be believed if he denies the accusation?? In error, he is obligated; intentionally, he is obligated37Mishnah Keritut 2:2.! A condition may apply to words38If he undertakes anything, he may add conditions. If others (usually a court of law) impose an oath on him, he swears according to their understanding, rather than his own.; there is no condition for oaths! It follows what Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah: For error, its sacrifice, for intention, its sacrifice. But if he said, I thought that this was no oath, he is free39Here, there may be a case in which no sacrifice can be demanded if the interested party denies their obligation.. Therefore, all these subjects cannot be stated, but the following can be stated40In all cases discussed so far, the Sages cannot disagree with R. Jehudah; that is possible only in the cases dealt with in the next paragraph.. 41From Soṭah 6:2, Notes 34–42. The readings from the Leiden ms. in Soṭah are noted ל, those from a Genizah text ג. The sentence which really refers to the discussion here is missing in the text; the scribe omitted from the first אמר לו אחד to the next occurrence; cf. Soṭah p. 252. From what Rebbi Yose said, “X ate suet, and they warned him,” he is not whipped. If one person said to him, you are a nazir, and based on this testimony he behaved like a nazir, when then he drank wine or became impure in the impurity of the dead, if two warned him, he is whipped. Is not the main testimony given by a single witness? From what Rebbi Mana said, “X is the wife of a Cohen and whored; her husband, a Cohen, then had relations with her but I had warned him;” he is [not] whipped. If she went to a secluded place in the presence of two, and one said, I saw her that she became impure; when her husband, the Cohen, had relations with her but two had warned him, he is whipped. Is not the main testimony given by a single witness? “They bring one sacrifice of impurity and one of purity.” That is, if they are at the end of thirty days42The Mishnah seems to indicate that immediately after being informed of the impurity, the nezirim bring the sacrifices. This impression is rectified here; the first set of sacrifices is due only if both have satisfied the terms of their original vows.. But if one is in the middle of thirty days, one has to wait till the end of thirty days. If both of them were nezirim for thirty days. But if one was a nazir for thirty and the other a nazir for 100, one has to wait for 100. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked before Rebbi Yose: If one of them became impure during these days, what is the rule? He said to him, like one who has to seek out a person from the general public43The nazir who is not impure without a doubt observes the rules (either following R. Yose or Ben Zoma) for a person possibly impure whose companion nazir has died (Mishnaiot 2–4).. If he drank wine within the first 30 days, he is (not) whipped; within the last 30 days, he is [] whipped44Here begins the discussion of Mishaniot 2 ff. The scribe (or the text he copied from) switched the places of “whipped” and “not whipped”. If one of the nezirim died, the other certainly has to finish the period of his vow and then has to start a second period because he might have been impure and the nezirut of part of his first period might have been invalid. Since the first period was in fulfillment of his vow of nazir, any transgression is prosecutable. But since he keeps the second period only because of a doubt, even if there are two witnesses both to his vow of nazir and to his drinking wine, a prosecutor could not prove that a crime certainly had been commited. Nobody can be found guilty by a human court if the crime was not proven.. The one coming from the general population cannot be whipped, either for the (second) or the last period45Since his nezirut in both periods is conditional, the certainty of his crime is not provable.. So far, if he was warned separately for each period46Even if the crime was proven, a conviction is possible only if criminal intent was proven by two witnesses who testify that the perpetrator was warned of the criminality of his undertaking; cf. Kilaim 8:1, Note 9.. If they warned him for both together47It is clear that either the first or the second period of nezirut are in fulfillment of his vow, even if it is not known which period counts in biblical law. If the nazir was warned for both during his first period after it was determined that he had to keep a second period, and he drank wine during both periods, the fact of the crime has been established. (The separate problem, that the accused might have forgotten the warning if it preceded the action by a long time, is not considered here.) this is the disagreement48פלוגתא is the Babylonian form for Galilean תפלוגתא. between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who disagreed about the two days of holiday in the diaspora49Before the publication of the computed calendar, communities which could not be informed by messengers about the determination of the first days of the months of Nisan and Tishri, kept two days of holidays to account for possible variations in the dates. Since each day was only one of a possible two, no work on the holidays could be prosecutable unless the warning was given for both days, the infraction occured on both days, and this kind of long־term conditional warning was accepted in court. [After the publication of the calendar computations, the first day of a holiday is of biblical character; the second day is of purely rabbinic character and is kept only because the algorithm was published on condition that its users continue to keep the second day (Eruvin 3:10 21c 1. 24; Babli Beṣah 4b).]. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one accepts warning in case of a doubt; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not accept warning in case of a doubt50Yebamot 11:7 (Note 171), Pesaḥim 5:4 (32s 1. 5); Babli Makkot 16a.. “I made a vow of nazir but I forgot whether it was for now or for a later date51From the context it seems that he vowed a standard 30 day nezirut but does not remember whether it was to begin immediately or after 30 days. Then he has to keep 60 days and bring one set of sacrifices after 60 days..” They told him, this [warning] is for now, and that for the later date. If he drank wine within the first 30 days, he is [] whipped; within the last 30 days, he is (not) whipped52Here again, the statements are switched. He cannot be convicted during the first 30 days since it cannot be proven that he is obligated during these days.. Should one not say that the first days may be within the period of his vow, the later ones are after the period of his vow53How can he be convicted for drinking wine during the second 30 days when it cannot be proven that these were intended by his vow (unless he drank during both periods)?? “All days of his status as nazir,54Num. 6:4. As spelled out in v. 20, the nazir is forbidden to drink wine until he has brought his sacrifices. Since he did not bring sacrifices after the first 30 days, during the second 30 days he certainly is guilty, either because of his vow of the second 30 days or as an extension of his vow of the first 30 days for which the sacrifice was not yet offered.” to make the days after he finished his term like the days before he finished his term with respect to wine, impurity, and shaving. Why can he not bring his sacrifices one by one? Not to preclude answers in the house of study55This refers to the objection R. Joshua voiced to the method proposed by Ben Zoma. There is no reason why the sacrifices could not be brought at different times; R. Joshua offered his objection as a training exercise to his students, lest they accept any statement without subjecting it to criticism and also that they should not be afraid to propose hypothetical answers which could be disproved by analysis.. 56This paragraph presents textual difficulties. Since the following paragraph makes sense only in Pesaḥim 8:8, the present paragraph also must be parallel Pesaḥim 8:8 (36b 1. 43 ff.) But the text there is quite different from the text here; they are not versions of a common original. In the text, the words “the community” and “a (single) person” have switched places. In Pesaḥim, different questions are asked, and the comparison is between “the community” and “a nazir”, which would make better sense here.(The community) [A person] who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain57It is a general principle that doubts about impurity are resolved by treating doubts in a private domain as certain impurity, in a public domain as certain purity (cf. Soṭah 1:2, Note 88). The rule becomes ineffective if the doubt arises in a domain whose status is in doubt. on Passover58The 14th of Nisan, the day on which the Pesaḥ sacrifice has to be slaughtered in the afternoon.. Rebbi Hoshaia said, he should be pushed to the Second Passover59The 14th of Iyyar, instituted for someone who either was impure or “on a far journey” on the 14th of Nisan (Num. 9:9–14). R. Hoshaia treats him as certainly impure; he can stay near the Temple precinct and nevertheless celebrate the “Second Passover”.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one sends him on a far journey60For R. Joḥanan the case remains one of doubt. If he stayed near the Temple precinct, he could celebrate neither the first (not being pure) nor the second (not being impure) Passover. Therefore, one sends him away so he can celebrate the Second Passover under a different qualification.. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he became impure by the impurity of the abyss61In Pesaḥim, this is called “the impurity of a broken field” (cf. Mishnah 7:3, Note 138); it applies to all impurities rabbinic in character. If the person incurs the impurity during the 14th of Nisan, he cannot offer the First Passover because he becomes pure after immersion in a miqweh only at sundown. He cannot offer the Second Passover because he was not biblically impure on the 14th of Nisan. He has to leave Jerusalem to be sufficiently “far away” in the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan., one sends him on a far journey. (A nazir) [The community] who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain on Passover62The Second Passover was instituted only for individuals; if the majority of the people were impure, the Passover sacrifice was offered in impurity (Mishnah Pesaḥim 7:4,6).. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it should be presented in their doubt; Rebbi Hoshaia said, it should be made in impurity63Since the community offers the First Passover in impurity, the difference between the two opinions is only that for R. Joḥanan the pure minority offers its sacrifices in purity whereas it seems that for R. Hoshaia the minority is obligated to follow the majority. This interpretation is rejected in the next sentence so that there remains no material difference between the two statements.. The great Rebbi Hoshaia also agrees that it should be presented in their doubt; what Rebbi Hoshaia said referrred only to restrictions. 64The parallel text is in Pesaḥim 8:8 (36b, 1. 55ff.) It belongs there and has no direct connections with the topics discussed here. A parallel discussion is in the Babli, Yebamot 71b. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Benaiah: One sprinkles on an uncircumcised Jew65The person impure by the impurity of the dead has to be sprinkled with water containing ashes of the Red Cow on the third and the seventh day of his impurity (Num. 19). The uncircumcised is barred from the Passover sacrifice (Ex. 12:48). It is asserted that the uncircumcised can purify himself from the impurity and, being circumcised later, participate in the Passover celebration., for we find that our forefathers in the desert66Not in the desert, but after crossing the Jordan on the 10th of Nisan (Jos. 4:19). They were then circumcised (Jos. 5:2–8) and celebrated Passover on the 14th (Jos. 5:10). received sprinkling when uncircumcised. Rav Ḥisda said, following him who said that they circumcised on the eleventh67If they were circumcised on the 11th they had to be sprinkled on the 10th, when they still were uncircumcised, in order to become pure on the 14th.. But for him who said that they circumcised on the tenth, they did not count sprinkling when uncircumcised. Rebbi Abin said, did they not have to count for sprinkling when uncircumcised in any case68Rav Ḥisda’s argument has to be rejected since if sprinkling on an uncircumcised person is ineffective, the underlying counting (of the third, seventh days) also must be ineffective. But for the Passover on the 14th, the counting had to start on the 7th, when according to the biblical text everybody (except Joshua, Caleb, and possibly Levites and/or Priests) were uncircumcised. He will hold that the first Passover in Canaan was held in impurity. This argument, represented in the Babli, loc.cit., by Mar Zuṭra, there is rejected by Rav Ashi.? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: It happened that an uncircumcised Cohen was sprinkled69In Pesaḥim: “he sprinkled” (active verb form). and the sprinklings were declared valid. It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, there were soldiers70Greek στρατιώτης. and gate keepers in Jerusalem who immersed themselves and ate their Passover sacrifices in the evening71They were Gentiles who converted to Judaism, were circumcised on the 14th of Nisan, immersed themselves in a miqweh and participated in Passover, not needing cleansing by sprinkling following the House of Shammai (Mishnah Pesaḥim 8:8)..

MISHNAH: A nazir who was doubtfully impure and doubtfully definitely [suffering from skin disease]72A person who has completed the 30 days of his nazir vow but is not sure whether or not he became impure from the impurity of the dead in his period of nezirut. Also, he was recently healed from skin disease. The sufferer from skin disease is called “definitively suffering from the disease” only if the conditions for impurity apply and he was declared impure by a Cohen(Lev. 13:8,11,20,22,25,27,30,44). A definitively suffering person has to be cleansed by the ritual of Lev. 14:1–32 which includes repeated shavings of all his hair. In the case treated in the Mishnah, the person was in a group where one was declared definitively affected, but the Cohen does not remember whom in particular he declared impure. may eat sacrificial meat after 60 days73After he was healed from skin disease, purified from his impurity, and has completed the 30 days of his vow, he shaves the first time for his rehabilitation from skin disease. He cannot do it before he has completed the 30 days since he might be a pure nazir for whom it is forbidden to shave for a possible impurity of skin disease, as explained at the end of the Mishnah. He then should count seven days and shave a second time, but he cannot do that since he might have been impure and the shaving was not for his skin disease but for his impurity. Therefore, he can shave a second time and finish his purification from skin disease after an additional nazir period of 30 days; then he is able to partake of sacrificial meat. and drink wine and become impure by the dead after 120 days74He cannot drink wine after 60 days since he might have been definitively sick but pure from the impurity of the dead; the period of his impurity as a sufferer from skin disease is not counted for his nezirut (Halakhah 7:3), which he has to keep for another 30 days. He cannot drink wine after 90 days since he might have been both definitively sick and impure from the impurity of the dead; his three shavings take care of the impurities both of skin disease and of the impure nazir; he has satisfied his obligations after 120 days and four shavings. The details of the required procedures and sacrifices are explained in the Halakhah., since the shaving for skin disease supersedes the shaving of the nazir when it is certain, but when it is in doubt it does not supersede. HALAKHAH: Who is doubtfully definitely [suffering]? Two who came to him75To a Cohen knowledgeable in the diagnosis of skin disease.. He declared one of them definitively affected but before he could declare the second one definitively affected, they were changed for him76Since he does no longer recognize them, he cannot declare the second one definitively impure, even though he realizes that both of them satisfy all criteria of impurity, since the Cohen may not see two cases together (Mishnah Nega‘im 3:1), and by now both are healed (cf. S. Lieberman, Tosefta kiFshutah Nezirut p. 563.). That is a doubtfully definitely [suffering person]. This is the one about whom Rebbi Ḥiyya stated77Tosephta Nazir 6:1. (Cf. Tosaphot Zebaḥim 76a, Menaḥot 105a, Niddah 70a, all s.v. למחרת.): A nazir, in doubt whether impure or pure, but certainly he was a nazir. A sufferer from skin disease, in doubt whether impure or pure, but certainly he was a sufferer from skin disease. He eats from sacrificial meat after 60 days, drinks wine and defiles himself for the dead after 120 days. How is that? One said to him, you are an impure nazir, go count seven [days]. He sprinkled, repeated, shaved, and brought78The offerings of two birds required from the impure nazir. The sentence can also be interpreted as imperative: Go count seven [days], sprinkle, repeat (on day 7), shave (on day 7), and bring! The Erfurt text of the Tosephta is self־contradictory; it is partially vocalized הַיזה ושנה וגַילח; the consonantal text is in the imperfect, the punctuation in the imperative.. He then counted seven [days] and wanted to shave. One said to him, impure nazir, go count seven [days] and continue for 30. He counted 30 [days] and wanted to shave. One said to him, you are a pure nazir, does not a pure nazir shave on kinds of blood79He cannot shave without an appropriate sacrifice. In the Tosephta, the sentence is declarative: וְאֵין נָזִיר טָהוֹר מְגַלֵּחַ אֶלָּא עַל הַדָּמִים “a pure nazir shaves only on a bloody sacrifice”.? He brings an elevation offering and shaves on it, a bird purification offering and stipulates, saying: “If I was impure, the purification offering is my obligation and the elevation offering is voluntary. If I was pure, the elevation offering is my obligation and the purification offering is in doubt.7The sacrifice of impurity consists of two birds. The one offered as elevation sacrifice can be given as obligation, if there was impurity, or as voluntary gift, if there was none. The bird offered as purification sacrifice cannot be eaten by the priests; after its blood was used, it has to be burned outside the Temple precinct (Mishnah Temurah 7:6).” He shaves his head, his beard, and his eyebrows in the way the sufferer from skin disease shaves80Lev. 14:9.. 77Tosephta Nazir 6:1. (Cf. Tosaphot Zebaḥim 76a, Menaḥot 105a, Niddah 70a, all s.v. למחרת.) How does one deal with him in a restrictive way? He brings two swallows and slaughters one of them over a clay vessel filled from running water; one digs und buries it, for it is forbidden for usufruct81Mishnah Nega‘im 14:1 (Lev. 14:4–5).. He shaves his head, beard, and eyebrows in the way the sufferers from skin disease do. He counts 30 days and brings another animal as elevation offering, saying: “If I was impure, the first elevation offering was voluntary and this one82This translation follows the Tosephta text. In ms. and editio princeps at both places אוֹ “or” instead of וְזֶה “and this one”. is obligatory, and the purification offering is my obligation. If I was pure, the first elevation offering was my obligation, this one82This translation follows the Tosephta text. In ms. and editio princeps at both places אוֹ “or” instead of וְזֶה “and this one”. is voluntary, and the purification offering is in doubt.7The sacrifice of impurity consists of two birds. The one offered as elevation sacrifice can be given as obligation, if there was impurity, or as voluntary gift, if there was none. The bird offered as purification sacrifice cannot be eaten by the priests; after its blood was used, it has to be burned outside the Temple precinct (Mishnah Temurah 7:6).” He shaves his head, his beard, and his eyebrows in the way the sufferer from skin disease shaves80Lev. 14:9.. 77Tosephta Nazir 6:1. (Cf. Tosaphot Zebaḥim 76a, Menaḥot 105a, Niddah 70a, all s.v. למחרת.)Rebbi Simeon said: On the next day83As required in the purification ritual for the sufferer from skin disease, Lev. 14:10., he brings his reparation sacrifice84The healed person has to bring three sacrifices (Lev. 14:10,21–22), but only the sheep as reparation sacrifice is needed in the purification ceremony. and a log85A log is .533 1. of oil with it and says: If I was impure, this is my obligatory offering, otherwise it is my doubtful offering86This text cannot be accepted; it makes no sense and contradicts the last statement in the Halakhah. The text should be replaced by the corresponding one in the Tosephta: וְאִם לָאו הֲרֵי זֶה שַׁלְמֵי נְדָבָה "otherwise, it should be a voluntary well-being offering". It is impossible to bring a reparation offering except for an obligation but a well-being offering is voluntary in almost all cases.. He slaughters in the North87Since a reparation offering is “most holy”, it must be slaughtered to the North of the altar (Lev. 7:2). The Tosephta adds that the sacrifice also needs the obligatory gifts accompanying a well-being offering., it needs giving on the thumbs88Blood of the sacrifice and oil from the flask have to be put on the convalescent’s right earlobe, right thumb, and right great toe (Lev. 14:14,17)., and it is eaten by male Cohanim at any place89Any place within the Temple precinct; Lev. 7:6, Mishnah Zebaḥim 5:5). during the day and the following night until midnight. But the Sages did [not]90Text of the Tosephta, required by the context. agree with Rebbi Simeon because he causes sacrifices to become invalid91Well-being sacrifices may be eaten by all pure Israelites for two days and the intervening night, reparation sacrifices only by priests and only for a day and half a night. There is a likelyhood that some of the meat of the reparation sacrifice will become invalid after midnight; it has to be burned outside the Temple precinct. This is an alienation from the original purpose and has to be avoided.. 77Tosephta Nazir 6:1. (Cf. Tosaphot Zebaḥim 76a, Menaḥot 105a, Niddah 70a, all s.v. למחרת.) He cannot bring an animal as purification sacrifice since he does not have the right to an animal purification sacrifice92The Tosephta is more explicit: “Because an animal purification sacrifice cannot be offered in case of doubt.”. He cannot bring a bird as purification sacrifice93The offering of the poor person healed from skin disease, Lev. 14:22. since a rich person who brought the sacrifices prescribed for a poor person did not fulfill his obligation94Mishnah Nega‘im 14:12.. What can he do? He shall write his property over to another person95Then he is poor. and bring the sacrifices prescribed for a poor person; this enables the rich person to bring a bird as a purification sacrifice. He stipulates and says: If I was impure, that is my obligation. Otherwise, this is in doubt7The sacrifice of impurity consists of two birds. The one offered as elevation sacrifice can be given as obligation, if there was impurity, or as voluntary gift, if there was none. The bird offered as purification sacrifice cannot be eaten by the priests; after its blood was used, it has to be burned outside the Temple precinct (Mishnah Temurah 7:6).. 77Tosephta Nazir 6:1. (Cf. Tosaphot Zebaḥim 76a, Menaḥot 105a, Niddah 70a, all s.v. למחרת.) He may eat sacrificial meat immediately. He cannot drink wine or defile himself for the dead since his nezirut is not counted during the days of his [impurity of] skin disease74He cannot drink wine after 60 days since he might have been definitively sick but pure from the impurity of the dead; the period of his impurity as a sufferer from skin disease is not counted for his nezirut (Halakhah 7:3), which he has to keep for another 30 days. He cannot drink wine after 90 days since he might have been both definitively sick and impure from the impurity of the dead; his three shavings take care of the impurities both of skin disease and of the impure nazir; he has satisfied his obligations after 120 days and four shavings. The details of the required procedures and sacrifices are explained in the Halakhah.. He counts another 30 days and brings all his sacrifices, stipulates, and says: If I was impure, the first elevation offering was obligatory and this one is voluntary. But if I was pure, the first elevation offering was voluntary and this one is obligatory. The purification offering is in doubt. He shaves his head, beard, and eyebrows, etc.96It is difficult to make sense of this text (which has no parallel in the Tosephta). The last sentence is certainly out of place since the ceremonies at the end of 60 days disposed of all possible impurities of the sufferer from skin disease. He cannot bring the entire set of sacrifices of the pure nazir before 120 days, as explained in Note 74. In addition, since an impure nazir has to bring a bird as elevation offering, rather than a four-legged animal, it is clear that after 120 days the declaration must read: “If I was impure, the first elevation offering was voluntary and this one is obligatory. But if I was pure, the first elevation offering was obligatory and this one is voluntary.” It seems that a paragraph is missing, describing the offering after 90 days (which is parallel to the one after 30 days for the person who might have been impure by the impurity of the dead, Mishnah 3) and that the duly corrected present paragraph describes the sacrifices after 120 days.. 97This text is hopelessly garbled. It seems that the original text was close to the Tosephta:כֵּיצַד תַּעֲשֶׂה לוֹ כְדִבְרֵי בֶּן זוֹמָא. סוֹפֵר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וּמֵבִיא עוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה וּמְגַלֵּחַ וּמֵבִיא חַטַּאת הָעוֹף וּמַתְנֶה עָלֶיהָ וְאוֹמֵר אִם טָמֵא אֲנִי חַטָּאת מֵחוֹבָתִי וְעוֹלָה נְדָבָה אִם טָהוֹר אֲנִי עוֹלָה מֵחוֹבָתִי וְחַטָּאת סָפֵק. וְסוֹפֵר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וּמֵבִיא קָרְבְּנוֹתָיו שְׁלֵמִים וּמֵבִיא עוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה וּמַתְנֶה עָלֶיהָ וְאָמַר אִם טָמֵא אֲנִי עוֹלָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה חוֹבָה וְזוֹ נְדָבָה וְחַטַּאת הָעוֹף מֵחוֹבָתוֹ. אִם טָהוֹר אֲנִי עוֹלָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה נְדָבָה וְזוֹ חוֹבָה וְחַטַּאת הָעוֹף סְפֵיקִי וְשׁוֹתֶה יַיִן וּמִטַּמֵּא לַמֵּתִים מִיָּד. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּזְמַן שֶׁנָּזַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אֲבָל נָזַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ אוֹכֵל בַּקֳּדָשִׁים לְאַחַר שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים. וְשׁוֹתֶה יַיִן וּמִיטַּמֵּא לַמֵּתִים אַחַר אַרְבַּע שָׁנִים.How does one treat him according to Ben ZomaaBen Zoma disagrees with R. Simeon and holds that the healed sufferer from skin disease can cleanse himself by the bird purification sacrifice of the poor, without a reparation sacrifice. The Tosephta text also is defective, since Ben Zoma also agrees that complete purification is possible only after four periods. The original statement also must have contained four parts, not two as in the current text.? He counts 30 days, brings an animal elevation offering and shavesbAs Tosaphot explains in Zebaḥim 76a, it is assumed that he already cleansed himself from the impurity of the dead by sprinkling. This shaving is valid if he was not impure from skin disease; it is useless if he was impure from skin disease since then it was not done in the correct framework and nezirut is not counted during his skin disease impurity., a bird as purification offeringcAfter another 30 days., stipulates, and says: “If I was impure, the purification offering is for my obligation and the elevation offering is voluntary. If I was pure, the elevation offering is for my obligation and the purification offering is in doubt.” Then he counts 30 days, brings the completion of his sacrificesdThe well-being offering of the pure nazir. He cannot bring the animal purification offering since this may not be offered in cases of doubt. Naturally, he also shaves for this sacrifice, and he has to stipulate that all sacrifices are either voluntary or in doubt in case he was already completely purified by the prior shavings and an animal elevation offering, stipulates, and says: eThis text is from the Vienna ms. and the editio princeps. The Erfurt ms. reads “If I was impure, the prior purification offering was obligatory, the present one is voluntary, and the bird purification offering is obligatory. If I was pure, the prior elevation offering was voluntary and the present one obligatory; the purification offering is in doubt.” It seems that the two texts are not variations of one another (which would make the Erfurt text obviously erroneous) but residues of two different paragraphs of the original four-part text. “If I was impure, the prior purification offering was voluntary, the present one is obligatory, and the bird purification offering is obligatory. If I was pure, the prior elevation offering was obligatory and the present one voluntary; the purification offering is in doubt.” fThe forth period; its sacrifices and declarations are missing. He immediately drinks wine and defiles himself for the dead. When had this been said? If the vow of nazir was for 30 days. But if his vow was for 12 months, he eats sacrificial meat after two years, drinks wine, and defiles himself for the dead after four years. How does one treat him according to Ben Zoma? He brings an animal elevation offering and shaves for it, a bird as purification offering, stipulates, and says: “If I was impure, the purification offering is for my obligation and the elevation offering is voluntary. If I was pure, the elevation offering is for my obligation and the purification offering is in doubt.” He shaves his head, beard, and eyebrows, etc.98This sentence is out of place here. He may drink wine and defile himself for the dead immediately99There is a possibility that the original text underlying the Halakhah was not that of the Tosephta but referred to the situation mentioned by R. Ze‘ira in the next Halakhah.. When has this been said? If he made the vow of nazir as a nazir, but if he made the vow of nazir as a sufferer from skin disease he might eat sacrificial meat after two years, drink wine, and defile himself for the dead after four years97,This text is hopelessly garbled. It seems that the original text was close to the Tosephta:כֵּיצַד תַּעֲשֶׂה לוֹ כְדִבְרֵי בֶּן זוֹמָא. סוֹפֵר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וּמֵבִיא עוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה וּמְגַלֵּחַ וּמֵבִיא חַטַּאת הָעוֹף וּמַתְנֶה עָלֶיהָ וְאוֹמֵר אִם טָמֵא אֲנִי חַטָּאת מֵחוֹבָתִי וְעוֹלָה נְדָבָה אִם טָהוֹר אֲנִי עוֹלָה מֵחוֹבָתִי וְחַטָּאת סָפֵק. וְסוֹפֵר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וּמֵבִיא קָרְבְּנוֹתָיו שְׁלֵמִים וּמֵבִיא עוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה וּמַתְנֶה עָלֶיהָ וְאָמַר אִם טָמֵא אֲנִי עוֹלָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה חוֹבָה וְזוֹ נְדָבָה וְחַטַּאת הָעוֹף מֵחוֹבָתוֹ. אִם טָהוֹר אֲנִי עוֹלָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה נְדָבָה וְזוֹ חוֹבָה וְחַטַּאת הָעוֹף סְפֵיקִי וְשׁוֹתֶה יַיִן וּמִטַּמֵּא לַמֵּתִים מִיָּד. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּזְמַן שֶׁנָּזַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אֲבָל נָזַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ אוֹכֵל בַּקֳּדָשִׁים לְאַחַר שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים. וְשׁוֹתֶה יַיִן וּמִיטַּמֵּא לַמֵּתִים אַחַר אַרְבַּע שָׁנִים.How does one treat him according to Ben ZomaaBen Zoma disagrees with R. Simeon and holds that the healed sufferer from skin disease can cleanse himself by the bird purification sacrifice of the poor, without a reparation sacrifice. The Tosephta text also is defective, since Ben Zoma also agrees that complete purification is possible only after four periods. The original statement also must have contained four parts, not two as in the current text.? He counts 30 days, brings an animal elevation offering and shavesbAs Tosaphot explains in Zebaḥim 76a, it is assumed that he already cleansed himself from the impurity of the dead by sprinkling. This shaving is valid if he was not impure from skin disease; it is useless if he was impure from skin disease since then it was not done in the correct framework and nezirut is not counted during his skin disease impurity., a bird as purification offeringcAfter another 30 days., stipulates, and says: “If I was impure, the purification offering is for my obligation and the elevation offering is voluntary. If I was pure, the elevation offering is for my obligation and the purification offering is in doubt.” Then he counts 30 days, brings the completion of his sacrificesdThe well-being offering of the pure nazir. He cannot bring the animal purification offering since this may not be offered in cases of doubt. Naturally, he also shaves for this sacrifice, and he has to stipulate that all sacrifices are either voluntary or in doubt in case he was already completely purified by the prior shavings and an animal elevation offering, stipulates, and says: eThis text is from the Vienna ms. and the editio princeps. The Erfurt ms. reads “If I was impure, the prior purification offering was obligatory, the present one is voluntary, and the bird purification offering is obligatory. If I was pure, the prior elevation offering was voluntary and the present one obligatory; the purification offering is in doubt.” It seems that the two texts are not variations of one another (which would make the Erfurt text obviously erroneous) but residues of two different paragraphs of the original four-part text. “If I was impure, the prior purification offering was voluntary, the present one is obligatory, and the bird purification offering is obligatory. If I was pure, the prior elevation offering was obligatory and the present one voluntary; the purification offering is in doubt.” fThe forth period; its sacrifices and declarations are missing. He immediately drinks wine and defiles himself for the dead. When had this been said? If the vow of nazir was for 30 days. But if his vow was for 12 months, he eats sacrificial meat after two years, drinks wine, and defiles himself for the dead after four years.99There is a possibility that the original text underlying the Halakhah was not that of the Tosephta but referred to the situation mentioned by R. Ze‘ira in the next Halakhah.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are Ben Zoma’s words, but the words of the Sages: Forever is he definitively [impure] until he heave100Lev. 14:12,24. the reparation sacrifice101The entire purification of the convalescent from skin disease is by the blood of the reparation sacrifice and the olive oil; the other sacrifices are dependent on the reparation sacrifice; cf. Mishnah Nega‘im 14:11.. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Why is he definitively [impure] until he heave the reparation sacrifice102This would imply that the nazir who may be impure from the dead and may be definitively impure from skin disease can never cleanse himself for sacrificial meat since R. Simeon’s approach was rejected. The purification of the convalescent in all other respects only depends on the ceremonies described in Lev. 14:1–9, which do not require any sacrifice (Mishnah Nega‘im 14:3; Maimonides Tum’at Ṣara‘at 11:2).? Rebbi Yose said to him, why not? We find several reparation sacrifices which are pushed aside because of doubts! As we have stated there103Mishnah Zebaḥim 8:3. The animals should be put out to graze until they develop a blemish, when they can be sold and the money used for new sacrifices. In the meantime, the owners of the sacrifices can fulfill their obligations only by offering substitute animals.: “If a reparation sacrifice was mixed up with a well-being sacrifice, Rebbi Simeon says that both should be slaughtered in the North and eaten following the more restrictive rules. They said to him, one does not cause sacrifices to become invalid91Well-being sacrifices may be eaten by all pure Israelites for two days and the intervening night, reparation sacrifices only by priests and only for a day and half a night. There is a likelyhood that some of the meat of the reparation sacrifice will become invalid after midnight; it has to be burned outside the Temple precinct. This is an alienation from the original purpose and has to be avoided.. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked before Rebbi Yose: Could they not arrange something for his wine104Why does the nazir have to wait until the problems arising from the skin disease are resolved, which in the best case takes 2 periods of nezirut and in the worst forever? Why can he not shave twice within eight days to remove the impurity of skin disease (for profane purposes and heave) and then proceed directly to resolve the problem of nezirut?? He said to him, “the nazir shaves at the gate of the Tent of Meeting105Num. 6:18. The nazir cannot proceed to liquidate his vow as long as he is barred from holy places. (Cf. also Note 110).;” if he is able to appear at the gate of the Tent of Meeting. This excludes him who is unable to appear at the gate of the Tent of Meeting. What is the status of his hair106The shavings of a nazir are forbidden for usufruct; they must be burned within the Temple precinct (Num. 6:18). But nothing is prescribed for the shavings of the convalescent sufferer from skin disease; therefore, these are permitted for usufruct.? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. Rebbi Joḥanan said, his hair is forbidden; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, his hair is permitted. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: Do they disagree about a sufferer from skin disease who made a vow of nazir or do they disagree about a nazir who became a sufferer from skin disease? If you say that they disagree about a sufferer from skin disease who made a vow of nazir, then for a nazir who became a sufferer from skin disease everybody agrees that it is forbidden107Since his hair was forbidden already before he contracted the disease.. If you say that they disagree about a nazir who became a sufferer from skin disease, then for a sufferer from skin disease who made a vow of nazir everybody agrees that it is permitted108Any shavings for his convalescence are subject to the rules of skin disease.. For Rebbi Jeremiah it was obvious that they disagreed about a sufferer from skin disease who made a vow of nazir. Therefore, for a nazir who became a sufferer from skin disease everybody agrees that it is permitted109For consistency, one should read here: “forbidden.” Does the obligatory shaving push aside the rules of voluntary shaving110Lev. 19:27 forbids to “shear off the corners of your head and to destroy the corners of your beard.” The nazir must shave his entire head, including its corners; the sufferer from skin disease must shave off all his hair, including corners of head and beard. There is no question that a person certainly impure, either from a corpse in the case of the nazir, or being declared impure as a sufferer from skin disease, must shave as required. The problem is only how far a shaving because of doubt really pushes aside the general rules about forbidden shaving.? Let us hear from the following111Halakhah 4, speaking of a case of double doubt.: “He shaves his head, his beard, and his eyebrows in the way sufferers from skin disease shave.” But there one could say, maybe it was an obligatory shaving. 112It seems that this text does not belong here. It belongs to the paragraph before the last (Notes 102, 103), where R. Ze‘ira notes that the nazir cannot begin counting for his vow unless he is able to enter the Temple precinct. He brings an additional proof from Mishnah 6:11, which notes that permission to drink wine is given to the nazir if and only if one of his sacrifices was offered in the Temple, whether he shaved or not. Therefore, his proceedings as nazir cannot be based on the shavings as a convalescent alone, disregarding his required sacrifice. There can be no shortcut. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Yudan: The Mishnah says so; “for Rebbi Simeon says, when one of the bloods was sprinkled, the nazir is permitted to drink wine and to defile himself with the dead.” Is he not forbidden because of “do not destroy”? Samuel bar Abba113It seems that reference is made not to R. Samuel bar Abba, the student of R. Joḥanan, but to Samuel (bar Abba bar Abba) the Babylonian who in the Babli, 57b, restricts the applicability of the rules of shavings to women and minors, to whom Lev. 19:27 does not apply. said, explain it if he was a eunuch114Since we are speaking of a person who certainly had made a vow of nazir, there can be no question that he is entitled to shear “the corners of his head”; the only problem is to shave “the corners of his beard” when it is not clear that it is really required. If the person in question has no beard, there is no problem.. But did we not state “the beard”? How can you say, a eunuch? You have only what Rebbi Jacob said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he removed it from bottom to top it is forbidden115By implication it would not be forbidden if the head was shaved totally before the beard was.. Rebbi Yose bar Abin said, there is no difference between bottom to top or top to bottom116The preceding statement is rejected. It follows that Lev. 19:27 forbids to “shear off the corners of your head and to destroy the corners of your beard” but not to shave off all hair on the head and all hair on the chin in case of need.. 117Tosephta 6:1, Babli 60b. The text as it stands here is mostly unintelligible; the correct numbers are given in Tosephta 6/Babli:טָמֵא בְסָפֵק וּמוּחְלַט בְּוַדַּיי אוֹכֵל בַּקֳּדָשִׁים לְאַחַר שְׁמוֹנָה יָמִים שׁוֹתֶה יַיִן וּמִיטַּמֵּא לַמֵּתִים לְאַחַר שִׁשִּׁים וְשִׁבְעָה יוֹם. טָמֵא בְּוַדַּאי וּמוּחְלָט בְּסָפֵק אוֹכֵל בַּקֳּדָשִׁים לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים וְשִׁבְעָה יוֹם שׁוֹתֶה יַיִן וּמִטַּמֵּא לַמֵּתִים לְאַחַר שִׁבְעִים וְאַרְבַּע יוֹם. טָמֵא בְּוַדַּאי וּמוּחְלַט בְּוַדַּיי אוֹכֵל בַּקֳּדָשִׁים לְאַחַר שְׁמוֹנָה יָמִים וְשׁוֹתֶה בַּיַּיִן וּמִיטַּמֵּא לַמֵּתִים לְאַחַר ארְבָּעִים וְאַרְבָּעָה יוֹם.If he was doubtfully impure and certainly definitely [suffering from skin disease], he eats from sacrificial meat after 8 daysaThe eight days of purification of the sufferer from skin disease., drinks wine and defiles himself for the dead after 67 daysbThe sixty days for two periods of nezirut plus seven days of the sufferer from skin disease which do not count for his nezirut.. If he was certainly impure and doubtfully definitely [suffering from skin disease], he eats from sacrificial meat after 37 dayscHe waits 7 days and shaves, both for his impurity of the dead and since he might have been impure with skin disease. He then keeps 30 days of nezirut in purity and shaves. This shaving certainly counts for the second shaving of the sufferer from skin disease; afterwards he may eat sacrificial meat. Since the thirty days would not count for his nezirut if he actually was a sufferer from skin disease, he keeps another 7 days for his impurity of the dead followed by 30 days of nezirut in purity, shaves, and is permitted wine., drinks wine and defiles himself for the dead after 74 days. If he was certainly impure and certainly definitely [suffering from skin disease], he eats from sacrificial meat after eight daysaThe eight days of purification of the sufferer from skin disease., drinks wine and defiles himself for the dead after 44 daysdSeven days of the convalescent sufferer from skin disease, seven days of the person defiled by the impurity of the dead, and 30 days of pure nezirut..“If he was doubtfully impure and certainly definitely [suffering from skin disease], he eats from sacrificial meat after 60 days, drinks wine and defiles himself for the dead after 120 days. If he was certainly impure and doubtfully definitely [suffering from skin disease], he eats from sacrificial meat after 20 days, drinks wine and defiles himself for the dead after 44 days. If he was certainly impure and certainly definitely [suffering from skin disease], he eats from sacrificial meat after eight days, drinks wine and defiles himself for the dead after 44 days.” Rebbi Abbamari, the brother of Rebbi Yose said, this shows that the shaving knife destroys seven for an impure nazir118This shows that the Tosephta/Babli text is also understood here. In no case are the seven days counting for the convalescent counted for the nazir..

MISHNAH: Gentiles cannot take a vow as nazir1As explained in the Halakhah, Gentiles may vow under Jewish law. Only the special vow of nazir is restricted to Jews.. Women and slaves2Who had been circumcised and become Jewish by immersion in a miqweh. When manumitted, such a slave will be a full member of the Jewish community. While still in servile status, he is obligated to follow all rules imposed on women. can take a vow as nazir. A man’s power is restricted for his wives more than for his slaves since he can force his slave3If the slave makes any vow which inconveniences his master, the latter can veto the execution of the vow as long as the slave is under his authority. but he cannot force his wife. His power is restricted for his slaves more than for his wives since he can dissolve his wife’s vows4Nedarim Chapters 10,11. but not his slave’s vows5If the master vetoed the implementation of his slave’s vow, that vow becomes dormant but not cancelled. Once the master’s authority is lifted, the vow is automatically activated, as explained in the next sentence.. If he dissolved his wife’s, they are eternally dissolved. If he dissolved his slave’s, once the slave gains his freedom he has to fulfill his nezirut. If [the slave]6Who made a vow of nazir against his master’s wishes. is not in the presence of his master, Rebbi Meïr says, he cannot drink7Wine. Similarly, R. Meїr will hold that the slave may not defile himself for the dead without specific instruction by his master., but Rebbi Yose says, he may drink. HALAKHAH: “Gentiles cannot vow as nazir,” etc. Israelites can vow as nazir, Gentiles cannot vow as nazir. 8Sifra Emor Parašah 7(2); Babli Menaḥot 72b. The reference is to Lev. 22:18: “Every man of the House of Israel, and of the sojourners in Israel, who would bring their sacrifices for all their vows and all their gifts, to present them to the Eternal as elevation offerings.” In the same Chapter, v. 25 makes it clear that what is acceptable from the Israelite is accptable from the Gentile both as vow (in which a person engages himself to dedicate an animal) and a gift (in which a person dedicates an animal, in which case he does not have to supply a replacement if anything should happen to the animal before it could be sacrificed.) Since you say, “a man”, why does the verse mention “a man”9“Every person” is in Hebrew אִישׁ אִישׁ “man, man”. The repetition has to be explained.? To include Gentiles, who make vows and offer voluntary gifts like Israelites! Why should one not say the same here10Num. 6:2 reads: “A man or a woman, if he makes a clear vow of nazir to the Eternal.” “Man” should include Gentiles by the preceding argument.? There is a difference, for it is written “He shall atone for him.11Num. 6:11. Since Gentiles are not subject to the rules of impurity, the rituals of purification cannot apply to them.” This refers to one to whom atonement applies. It excludes Gentiles, to whom atonement does not apply. There12Mishnah ‘Arakhin 1:2., we have stated: “The Non-Jew, Rebbi Meїr says, is evaluated but does not evaluate13This refers to Lev. 27:1–8, where “evaluation” amounts are specified to be offered to the Sanctuary for persons of specified age and sex. According to R. Meïr, a Jew may vow to pay a Gentile’s evaluation but a Gentile cannot make such a vow. According to R. Jehudah, a Gentile may vow to pay a Jew’s valuation but a Jew cannot offer to pay the Gentile’s evaluation.; Rebbi Jehudah says, he evaluates but is not evaluated. Both agree that they make vows and are objects of vows14Both Jew and Gentile may make a vow to pay to the Sanctuary the amount another person would fetch were he to be sold on the slave market..” Rebbi Jeremiah asked: For him who says there that he evaluates, here can he declare a nazir? For him who says there that he is evaluated, here can he be declared a nazir15The texts used to introduce a vow of evaluation (Lev. 27:2) and a vow of nazir (Num. 6:2) are completely parallel. It is to be assumed that the rules derived from the texts are also parallel; if a Gentile can cause an obligation of payment of an evaluation, he also can cause an obligation of nazir; if a Gentile can be the object of an obligation of payment of an evaluation, he also can be the object of an obligation of nazir.? How would it be possible for him to [be declared a nazir]16The context requires to read ניזור for מזיר and vice-versa.? A Israelite can declare a Gentile to be a nazir17Tentative answer.. Would he listen to him18Rejection of the tentative answer.? But the Israelite said, “I am a nazir,” the Gentile heard it and said, “I am responsible for what this one said.” It is only as if he paid a debt19The Gentile may well vow to the Jew’s obligatory sacrifices since by biblical law, Gentiles’ sacrifices are accepted. But this does not make the Gentile a nazir.. How would it be possible for him to [declare a nazir]16The context requires to read ניזור for מזיר and vice-versa.? A Gentile can declare an Israelite to be nazir17Tentative answer.. Since an Israelite cannot declare [another] Israelite to be a nazir, a Gentile cannot declare an Israelite to be a nazir18Rejection of the tentative answer.. But it must be that the Gentile said, “I am a nazir”, the Israelite heard it and said, “I am taking upon me what this one said.20Since the Gentile’s vow is invalid, so is the Jew’s.” What did you exclude from him21This now is R. Jeremiah’s real question. Since it was shown that the power to evaluate is not related to the power to vow for nazir, the question arises whether in general the power of Gentiles to make vows is equal to that of Jews or not.? An Israelite is subject to “not to desecrate”22Num. 30:3; Sifry zuṭa 30:2. Since a Gentile is not subject to biblical laws other than those given to Adam and Noah, he cannot be held responsible if he “desecrates his word,” i. e., does not keep his vow., a Gentile is not subject to “not to desecrate”. Rebbi Jonah said, Israelites can be relieved by a Sage23An Elder can annul the vow; cf. Tractate Nedarim, Introduction and Chapter 9., Gentiles cannot be relieved by a Sage24Since Gentiles are not subject to the Law, they cannot profit from the Law. He will hold that Gentiles, whose informal marriages have biblical sanction, never can be divorced; cf. Qiddušin 1:2, Notes 33 ff.. Rebbi Yose said, Israelites need a Sage to be relieved, Gentiles do not need a Sage to be relieved25Since Gentiles are not subject to the Law, they do not need the Law. He will hold that since Gentiles are not under the biblical obligation of formal marriage, they never need a divorce but can validly terminate a companionship through unilateral action by either one of the parties.. It follows that Rebbi (Jonah) [Yose] follows Rebbi Abbahu. A Gentile woman came before Rebbi Abbahu, who said to Abime bar Tobi: Go and find her an opening by unforeseen circumstances26Which is forbidden to Jews, Mishnah Nedarim 9:2. He ordered the lady’s vow to be dissolved to give her peace of mind, not because it would have been necessary.. And Rebbi Jonah follows Rebbi Aḥa, who said that Laban was Kushan-Riš‘ataim. Why was he called “Kushan the doubly bad”? Because he committed two evils. One that he desecrated his oath, the other that he subjugated Israel for eight years27Babli Sanhedrin 105b, as tannaïtic text. The story would make Laban live more than 300 years.. 28The argument about the wife’s vow is from Nedarim 11:1, Notes 23–25. Why can he not force his wife? Did not Rebbi Huna say, [if she vowed] any benefit from me [shall be forbidden] to you, he forces her and sleeps with her. Any benefit from you [shall be forbidden] to me, he hasto dissolve. There is a difference because it is a benefit for him and her. He should not be able to force his slave! There is a difference, “because his God’s crown is on his head29Num. 6:7.,” a person who has no other master. This excludes the slave who has another master30The master has the power to force the slave to disregard the vow. The slave in obeying his master does not commit any sin.. If he comes to protest his master’s word, one says to him: this is practice31He has to follow his master’s command., obey your master’s orders! If his master pushed him and he became impure, does he have to bring a sacrifice of impurity? Is he a nazir, did not you decide for him that he should become impure32If his master’s action invalidates the slave’s vow, there is no valid vow of nazir. The status of the slave reverts to profane; the slave is not responsible for the lifting of the status of nazir from him. If there were anything sinful in this action, it would be the master’s responsibility.? You say, he brings a sacrifice of impurity; could he bring here a sacrifice of impurity? Does he annul? Is he a nazir, did not you decide for him that he should become impure? You say, he annuls; could he here annul33Argument and meaning are completely parallel to the preceding.? The following is obvious: If he became impure and then was manumitted, he brings a sacrifice of impurity. When is that, if his master forced him or if his master did not force him34What was the cause of the slave’s impurity?? If you say that he forced him, how can be bring a sacrifice of impurity35It was shown in the preceding paragraph that no sacrifice is due.? If you say he did not force him, should he not count for his master as long as he still is in the latter’s power36If the slave made a vow of nazir for a specified period, he should be able to count that period as long as he did not violate its terms by his own will.? Rebbi Yose said, we are dealing with the case that his master forced him. You should not say that because he was manumitted, the nezirut in impurity was lifted from him37Even if the slave was manumitted during his nezirut, the days he was impure because of his master’s command are counted. The rules of nezirut of free men apply to him only from the moment of his manumission.. Therefore, it was necessary to say that he counts nezirut in impurity38This is explained somewhat more fully in the Tosephta (6:6): “If [the slave] became impure and was manumitted, he counts from the time he became impure.” In contrast to the free person, the 7 days he counts for his purification by means of the ashes of the Red Cow are counted as days of nezirut.. 39Tosephta 6:6; Babli 62b.“Rebbi Yose said, if a slave said, ‘I shall be a nazir when manumitted,’ his master forces him in matters of nezirut40Without having any influence on the status of the vow.. [The master] can force a slave in matters of nezirut; he does not have to force him in matters either of vows or of oaths41Since the slave is not his own master, he has no power to forbid anything to himself by vow or oath (explanation of the Babli, 62b)..” Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If his master forced him and he became impure, is he to be whipped? Or is that only practice? Where do we hold? If his nezirut has biblical status and by practice one may force, he is whipped. If both are rabbinical, he is not whipped. Rebbi Mana said, does one whip for practice? But it must be the following: If his nezirut is practice and by practice one may force, he is whipped. If both are rabbinical, he is not whipped42The question of R. Mana shows that two sentences have to be switched. Instead of נזירתו תורה one has to read נזירותו הלכה and vice-versa.The first version of the argument of R. Jeremiah goes as follows: If the power of the slave to enter into a state of nazir is the same as the power of the master to force him to disregard his vow, and both have status of “practice”, i. e., have quasi-biblical status as part of Judaism as organized by Ezra and his contemporaries, in the absence of a special practice exempting the slave, the latter should be held liable for infractions of his vow even if he was forced. But if the power of the slave to vow as nazir be rabbinical, then there can be no biblical punishment for infraction. On this R. Mana notes that quasi-biblical status is not biblical status, and biblical punishment for non-biblical infractions (Deut. 25:4) is impossible.Therefore, the question is rephrased: If the power of the slave to enter into a state of nazir is biblical but the power of the master to force him to disregard his vow is only from practice, should the slave not be subject to prosecution for infringing his vow? The question is not to be taken seriously; it rather points out a logical inconsistency between the rule which allows the slave to become a nazir and the rule which allows the master to override, but not abolish, that vow.. If his master forced him in one respect, did he force him in all respects43Nezirut has three aspects: Growing hair, abstention from the fruit of the vine, and avoidance of the impurity of the dead. If the master objected to one aspect, does he reject the others automatically?? We came to the disagreement between Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Yose: “If [the slave] is not in the presence of his master, Rebbi Meїr says, he cannot drink, but Rebbi Yose says, he may drink.” Where do we hold? If he told him, drink whether in my presence or not in my presence, even Rebbi Meїr will agree. If he told him, drink in my presence, do not drink in my absence, even Rebbi Yose will agree. But we hold in the case that he tells him: “drink!” Rebbi Meїr says, [it means] drink in my presence, do not drink in my absence44Therefore, R. Meїr must hold that objection to one aspect does not imply anything for the others, while R. Yose holds that an objection to one aspect is interpreted as objection to all of them unless specified otherwise by the master.. Rebbi Yose says, [it is] as if he said, drink whether in my presence or not in my presence.

MISHNAH: If a nazir was informed that he was impure after he had shaved45After he had finished his nezirut and has reverted to profane status. and it was a known impurity he cancels46He has to repeat the entire period of nezirut., but if it was impurity of the abyss47If the source of impurity was only detected after he had shaved in purity. he does not cancel. If it was before he shaved, he cancels in any case. How is that? If he went to immerse himself in a cave48A miqweh in a cave. It seems that in the Judean and Galilean hills practically all miqwaot were in caves. where a corpse was floating at the entrance, he is impure49Even if there is a doubt whether the corpse already was there when he immersed himself, or if the corpse was there whether it floated outside the cave (when it would have transmitted impurity only by touch) or was inside (where the cave created the impurity of a “tent” and everybody under the “tent” became impure.). If it was found buried in the ground and he went there to refresh himself50And did not take sufficient care about his purity., he is pure, but to purify himself from the impurity of the dead he is impure51In any case of probable impurity caused by a buried corpse one continues in the prior state. since the presumptive state of the impure is impure and the presumptive state of the pure is pure, for it is not unsubstantiated52Since his prior state is known but his actual state in doubt, the certainly known is preferred to the doubtful.. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, who is the Tanna of “when he had shaved, before he shaved”53That the final act of nezirut which returns the nazir to normal life is shaving.? Rebbi Eliezer! But for the rabbis it would be before the blood was sprinkled for him54Mishnah 6:13: The Sages say that a person who became impure after one kind of sacrificial blood was sprinkled on the altar for him can bring his remaining sacrifices after he was purified but does not have to start anew.. Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: What is Rebbi Eliezer’s reason? “The nazir shall shave the hair of his crowned head.55This is a telescoped version of Num: 6:18: “The nazir shall shave his crowned head at the door of the Tent of Meeting, take the hair of his crowned head and put it in the fire under the well-being sacrifice.”” The Torah made his nezirut dependent on his hair. If he completed his nezirut but did not manage to shave before he was informed about a possible case of a grave in the abyss, he cancels. If he designated his sacrifices but did not manage to shave before he was informed about a grave in the abyss56Can designating the sacrifices be considered as liquidation of the status of nazir to free the person from repeating in case of a possible impurity from a hidden source?? Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana: Is that not the Mishnah? Whether he shaved or did not shave following Rebbi Eliezer, or whether it happened before or after blood was sprinkled according to the rabbis57The Mishnah makes it quite clear that only shaving (according to R. Eliezer) or sprinkling of blood (according to the rabbis) is counted; dedicating the sacrifices does not mean anything in this respect.! From where about a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of the rabbis: “Or on a far trip for you.58Num. 9:10, detailing the rules of “Second Passover” for people impure or absent on the 14th of Nisan.” What is open for you, including everything in the open. This excludes the case of a grave in the abyss which is not open59This and the following paragraphs are copied from Pesaḥim 7:7. In the present paragraph, the main text is missing. Both for the person going to celebrate the Passover sacrifice and the nazir who finished his term, the impurity caused by a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss is disregarded. In view of the central role of purity in everything connected with the Sanctuary, it is obvious that some biblical justification has to be found for the rule. In the case of Passover, the argument notes that the verse could have stated that a person “on a far trip” was required to celebrate the Second Passover. The addition “for you” seems to be superfluous. It is interpreted to mean just as the road is open to the wanderer, so the impurity has to be in the open for the impure person. The same argument is in the Babli, Pesaḥim 81b.What is missing here is the argument for the nazir who had finished his term. In Pesaḥim 7:7 (34c bottom), R. Joḥanan in the name of R. Yannai quotes Num. 6:9: “If a person dies suddenly on him”, and explains the expression “over him” to indicate that it has to be in the open:. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi [Yannai]: “If a person dies suddenly on him”. Since on him it is in the open, so everything in the open. This eliminates the grave in the abyss which is not in the open. 60While the text in Pesaḥim 7:7 is not without its problems, it is clear that the text there has to be taken as the source; the copyist here neither understood nor proofread what he wrote. If the public became publicly61The word is [correctly] missing in Pesaḥim; a case of doubtful impurity in the public domain is always resolved by a presumption of purity (Soṭah 1:2, Note 88). impure in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss, does the diadem make it acceptable62About the diadem worn by the High Priest, Ex. 28:38 states: “It shall be on Aaron’s forehead; Aaron shall carry the iniquity of the sacrificial gifts which the Children of Israel will dedicate, all their holy gifts; it shall always be on his forehead, to be accepted for them before the Eternal.” The action of the diadem, to make somewhat questionable sacrifices, e. g., those offered while using one of the legal fictions that may be used to overlook possible impurities, is therefore called “to make it acceptable.”? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since in the case of a single person, whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of known impurity63A single person impure on the 14th of Nisan is required to celebrate the Second Passover on the 14th of Iyar while if the majority of the people are impure on the 14th of Nisan the congregation celebrate Passover in impurity. In this respect the standing of a single person clearly is inferior to that of the majority of the people., you clarified to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss64If a doubt (mentioned explicitly in Pesaḥim, understood here) arises about a “grave of the abyss” in a private domain, it is treated as if it were in the public domain (Note 61)., it should be only logical that for the public, whose position you clarified to its advantage in the case of known impurity, you should clarify it to its advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. A leniency which you apply to a single person you treat as a restriction for the public65This disproves the previous argument. The rules of impurity for private persons and for the majority of the people are not comparable.. A leniency which you apply to a single person, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he should be treated as if he became impure before sprinkling, that he should eat the meat66This text does not make any sense. The correct text is in Pesaḥim: “A leniency which you apply to a single person, viz., that if it became known to him before sprinkling he should be treated as if he became impure after sprinkling, so that he should not be pushed to the Second Passover. You treat that as restriction for the public, that if it became known to them after sprinkling it should be treated as if they became impure before sprinkling, that the meat should not be eaten.”The first statement is derived from Mishnah Pesaḥim 7:7: “For a nazir and one who celebrates Passover who became impure in the impurity of the abyss, the diadem makes it acceptable.” The private person being involved in a possible impurity caused by a grave of the abyss never has to celebrate the Second Passover.The second statement refers to Mishnaiot Pesaḥim 7:4–5. If the public are impure, the Passover sacrifice is slaughtered and eaten in impurity. But if it was slaughtered as pure and then it became impure or became known to be impure, it cannot be eaten.. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir is a restriction for the impure nazir67This is a kind of headline for the following argument, rather than a case of dittography.. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as impure after sprinkling, that he should bring a sacrifice of impurity68The intelligible text is in Pesaḥim: “The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, viz., that if it became known to him before sprinkling he is treated as impure after sprinkling, so that he should not bring a sacrifice of impurity.” This is the statement of the Mishnah here, following the rabbis.. You treat it as a restriction for the impure nazir, that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as somebody repeatedly becoming impure so that he has to bring a sacrifice of impurity for each single case69But if the impure nazir became aware of the second impurity before he offered his sacrifice of impurity, he has to bring only one sacrifice.. As it was stated: If he repeatedly became impure, he has to bring a sacrifice for each single case70Halakhah 6:8, Note 198.. If somebody is officiating71The Nazir text has עוֹבֵר “the passer-by” instead of עוֹבֵד “the officiating [priest]” passim. for the Passover sacrifice, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since for the owners [of the Passover sacrifice] whose position you clarified to their disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged72The Passover sacrifice has to be slaughtered in the name of those who will be eating it, its “subscribers” (Mishnah Pesaḥim 5:3, Ex. 12:4). An old person and an infirm one who cannot eat meat in the volume of an olive may not subscribe to the Passover sacrifice, but as long as they do not exhibit a disability which disqualifies them (Lev. 21:18–20), old or infirm priests may serve in the Temple., you clarified to their advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you should clarify it to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. No. For the owners [of sacrifices] you clarify to their disadvantage73The correct reading “advantage” is in Pesaḥim. An impure person (including a nazir not impure by the impurity of the dead) can send his sacrifices (other than the Passover sacrifice) to the Temple by a pure agent, but an impure priest cannot officiate, irrespective of the nature of his impurity. in the case of impurity during the rest of the year; you also say for the officiating that you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year. Since you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year, you also clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of the impurity of the dead on Passover. How is it really? “For you58Num. 9:10, detailing the rules of “Second Passover” for people impure or absent on the 14th of Nisan.”, whether for him or for the one officiating for him. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: We thought, “on him74Num. 6:9: “If a person suddenly dies on him.” In Sifry Num. 28, the expression “if a person dies” is interpreted as stating a fact, not a suspicion. This is used to clear the nazir from any suspected, unproven impurity from the dead.”, not on the one officiating for him. Since we stated that the same rules apply to the nazir and to those celebrating Passover, it means that what holds for the one holds for the other75Babli Pesaḥim 80b.. “What is a grave of the abyss? A corpse buried in stubble, straw, dust, or pebbles76Tosephta Zabim 2:9; quoted in the Babli, 63b and Pesaḥim 81b, without further discussion. As explained in the next paragraph, a “grave of the abyss” is that of a person killed by an accident not witnessed by anybody. If one finds a corpse buried under a heap of straw, one has to assume that he suffocated when the straw fell on him. A corpse buried in dust or pebbles probably was the victim of an accident.. But if it was buried in water, a dark spot, or rock crevasses, it does not create a grave of the abyss77In this case, the person also probably was the victim of an accident. But since it could have been seen by a passer-by, the competent authorities should have been alerted; this is not an unknown body..” The principle: Any place from where it can be removed creates a grave of the abyss; any place from where it cannot be removed does not create a grave of the abyss78Obviously, the clauses in this sentence are switched (here and in Pesaḥim). As explained in the preceding notes, one must read: “Any place from where it cannot be removed creates a grave of the abyss; any place from where it can be removed does not create a grave of the abyss.” A corpse whose existence is unknown cannot be removed.. Can stubbles and straw not be removed? Does the Mishnah not follow Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said, straw said to be disregarded is disregarded79This refers to the rules of the tent-impurity caused by a corpse. A “tent” is any covered space in which there is at least one handbreadth of space between the corpse and the roof. If the space is enclosed, the impurity is restricted to the “tent”; anything above the ceiling and below the floor of the “tent” is pure. But if the entire space between floor and ceiling is filled with matter, there is no “tent” and the impurity entends indefinitely above and below the tent space. This is known as טוּמְאָה רְצוּצָה “squeezed impurity” (Mishnah Ahilut 15:1,5,6; Halakhah 7:3, Note 164). It is implied in Tosephta Ahilut 15:5 that R. Yose restricts “squeezed impurity” to material permanently deposited; but a storage of straw which is to be removed in the future is not counted as filler.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: It is everybody’s opinion. What Rebbi Yose said, if he mixed it with dust80Not really “mixed with”, but “treated like,” as formulated in the Tosephta.. “There is straw which is treated like dust and dust which is treated like straw. Straw not to be removed is like dust; dust to be removed is like straw.81Statement of R. Yose in Tosephta Ahilut 15:5; quoted in the Babli Eruvin 79a. “Straw” stands here for “material to be removed,” “dust” for “permanent filling.”” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said: If he covered it with mats it is disregarded82Straw covered with mats is not considered filling.. Come and see: If he [filled]83Reading from Pesaḥim, required by the text. In Nazir, “covered”. it with mats it is not disregarded84Filling the “tent” with mats creates “broken impurity”., if he covered it with mats it is disregarded85If the floor is covered with mats, anything below the mats is disregarded concerning impurity.. If he filled it with branches of date palms it is problematic86No ruling is available in this case.. Rebbi Zeriqan, Rebbi Immi, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Even thin sheets87This translation is tentative, it follows the Pesaḥim text, reading רַקּ. The Nazir text reads ריק, which cannot be רִיק “emptiness”, nor רֵיק “empty”, nor רוֹק “spittle”.. 88Tosephta Zabim 2:9, quoted Babli Pesaḥim 81b.“What is a grave of the abyss? Any which nobody remembers.” Should we not be cautious and say, maybe one at the end of the world89He might know of the grave even if we do not.? And is the permanence of the living not like living90Cf. Giṭṭin 3:3, Notes 81,87. If any person left from here, when that person left he was alive and we have to apply the legal principle of permanence of the status quo and consider him permanently alive, disregarding the notion of “unknown grave”.? Explain that he was found compressed91Which clearly shows that he was not buried by humans but was the victim of an accident. Since the accident was not noticed when it occurred, there is nobody “at the end of the world” who would know of it.. It was stated: “Only a corpse creates a grave of the abyss.”92Tosephta Zabim 2:9, quoted Babli Pesaḥim 80b. Therefore, not a carcass93Obviously, only a human corpse has a grave that presents problems of impurity. A buried animal carcass does not produce impurity. Carcasses cause impurity only when touched or carried. The meaning of this sentence can be clarified: Only for the impurity of the dead do we find a rule that sometimes allows one to disregard biblical impurity.. Would it not be a conclusion de minore ad majus? Since a corpse, which does not cause impurity of couch and seat, creates a grave of the abyss, should a carcasss which causes impurity of couch and seat not create a grave of the abyss? Why was it said that only a corpse creates a grave of the abyss? To exclude couch and seat94This argument, equally found in Pesaḥim, does not make any sense. There are several distinct ways to emend the passage to create sense; therefore, no textual emendation is proposed but the meaning can easily be clarified.A person who is the source of his own impurity (a male or female sufferer from genital discharges) causes original impurity to any couch or personal seat he is using (Lev. 15:4–6,21–22,26). But any impurity induced on an inanimate object by a corpse is only derivative. The argument shows that the rules of the impurity of the dead and impurity produced by a living human body are not comparable: Each kind of impurity has its own severities and leniencies not found in the other.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said that Bar Piqa asked Rebbi: So far in a cave that had a ceiling95This refers to the Mishnah about the person who immersed himself in water in a cave in which a corpse was later found.. Even in a cave without ceiling96Is he impure only because of the “tent” impurity induced by the ceiling of the cave or is he impure since he might have touched the corpse without noticing? A “cave without ceiling” seems to be a pond.? Does Bar Piqa think that if there is a doubt regarding floating impurity, it is pure? Rebbi told him, Bar Piqa remains in his stupidity: No case of doubt regarding floating impurity is declared pure except a reptile97Or any similar impurity which is removed by immersion in water without delay or further ceremony.; but a corpse is like something fixed in place. As it was stated98The meaning of this baraita, formulated differently, is found in Tosephta Ṭaharot 5:6–7 and in the Babli, 63b–64a.: “Anything thrown99An impure item thrown over a person and it is not clear whether he or she was touched by the item or not. is pure in case of a doubt except an olive-sized piece from a corpse, [and] also those covers100Those whose impurity is generated by their bodies (Note 93) who cause original impurity to what is below (the couch or seat) and above (the clothing) their persons. which induce impurity on bottom and top.” Does this101Since the Mishnah states that he is impure but not, speaking of a nazir, that he has to shave, do we have to read the Mishnah as equating this impurity to those mentioned in Chapter Seven for which the nazir does not have to shave? not disagree with Rebbi Joshia, since Rebbi Joshia said102Chapter 7:3, Note 176., if impurity is hidden in the ground below the house, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Joḥanan said, here on the side, there on place103The Mishnah deals with a doubt of impurity; R. Joshia speaks of “squeezed impurity”, which is certain.. Rebbi Ezra said in the name of Rebbi Yudan: Even if you say in both cases on the side, in both cases on place. What means “impure”? Impure and he does not shave104The Mishnah has to be read as meaning: “He is impure and, if a nazir, has to shave.”?

MISHNAH: If somebody finds106Ploughing his field or excavating his property, he finds a grave unknown to him. a corpse in original position, lying as usual107The position of the bones is that usual in Jewish burials., he takes him and his surroundings108He can remove the bones and the earth that will have absorbed the decaying flesh. The Mishnah assumes that no sarcophagus was used.. If he finds two, he takes them and their surroundings. If he finds three109Three parallel graves. and between one and the next is a distance of between four and eight cubits, enough for the bier and the people who bury110It is forbidden to step on a grave while burying another person. Therefore, a Jewish cemetery must allow enough space that burials can take place which do not desecrate prior graves., that is a cemetery111It is forbidden to remove the graves or to use the ground for other purposes.. He has to check on both sides for another 20 cubits. If he finds a grave at the end of 20 cubits, he has to check another 20 cubits since it is obvious that if this were a new burial ground, one would have taken him and his surroundings there112If a series of graves was found which conform to the rules of a cemetery, it must be a cemetery since otherwise the bones would have been removed.. HALAKHAH: What means “lying as usual”? His legs straight and his hands over his heart. But if he found him compressed, I am saying that a heap fell on him and killed him. But did we not state: “If he found two with their heads beside their legs, he takes them and their surroundings?”113Babli 65a. They wanted to say, what means “compressed”? Their heads beside their legs114A Gentile way of burial.. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar said, like fried fish, the head of one near the tail of the other and vice versa115The head of one corpse between the legs of another is not a form of burial but a sign of an accident.. Rebbi Isaac bar Gufta asked before Rebbi Mana: In a statement you say, “he collects every single bone and everything is pure116Mishnah Ahilut 16:5: “If one removes a grave from his field, he collects every single bone and everything is pure.” In contrast, the Mishnah here requires that a certain amount of earth also be removed.;” and here, you say so? He answered him, say what comes afterwards: “If he prepared it from the start as a grave, it has surroundings.117Statement of R. Simeon in the same Mishnah. From a cistern used to bury stillbirths or crime victims (incomplete corpses which have no claim to “surroundings”) one can remove all bones and it is pure. But if he prepared the cistern from the start as a temporary grave, it has surroundings (when the bones are finally removed). This is the case considered in the Mishnah here, since one speaks of graves parallel to one another, i. e., intended as temporary graves.” How much is the surrounding of a grave? One shaves off three finger-breadths, the place where fluid penetrates118In the Babli, 65a, this is a little more explicit: In virgin soil, one takes three finger-breadths. In loose soil, one takes as much as one recognizes that the decomposing flesh penetrated.. Rav Ḥisda said, [the Mishnah] implies that it is permitted to remove a corpse of obligation119Since the Mishnah permits removal of any grave which was found accidentally, it must permit the removal of a “corpse of obligation” once it is no longer remembered.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, explain it if the burial was unauthorized or subject to question. Should one not be afraid that it might be a corpse of obligation? Rebbi Ze‘ira thinks that corpses of obligation are infrequent120R. Ze‘ira holds that graves of unattended people are such a rarity that their locations remain known over a very long time. If the owner of a parcel finds there a grave of whose existence he was not informed by its prior owner, either it was an illegitimate burial (which may be removed since “nobody can fulfill his obligations with his neighbor’s money”) or it was a burial with consent of the prior owner done on condition that it might later be removed and the prior owner was under the mistaken impression that it already had been removed. The same interpretation is given in the Babli Sanhedrin 47b.. 121Tosephta Ahilut 16:9; Tractate Śemaḥot 14; Babli Sanhedrin 47b. To this one may add the versions in Maimonides Ṭum’at Mēt 9:5–6 which is essentially identical with the Yerushalmi and the text there of Ravad, which in general follows the Babli. Tractate Śemaḥot does not give an opinion about impurity; otherwise it follows the Babli. The three texts, Yerushalmi (Y), Babli (B), and Tosephta (T) state that if the grave found accidentally be removed the place is impure (Y), pure (BT); its use is forbidden (YT), permitted (B). The place of a known grave after removal is pure (YT), impure (B); its use is permitted (YT), forbidden (B). The place of a grave removed because of a danger to the public is impure (YT), pure (B); its use is forbidden (YBT) except that Ravad reads here “permitted” in the Babli, a reading contradicting all our other sources for the Babli.“It turns out that there are three kinds of burials. A grave which is found one removes; after removal the place is impure122In the interpretation of Maimonides, the place is only impure as long as not all earth, including 3 finger-breadths of virgin soil, has been removed. This interpretation shows clearly that he reads here “impure”; there can be no emendation of the text. and forbidden for use123Since a grave is forbidden for any use by biblical law, a removal cannot change the character of the ground.. A known grave may not be removed; but if it was removed the place is pure and permitted for use124Since the Tosephta shows that the text here cannot be amended, the only explanation is that a known grave may be removed only if either it was established illegally as a criminal act which cannot deprive the owner of the lawful use of his property, or it was intended as a temporary grave exempt from the biblical rules (Note 120).. A grave which endangers the public125A grave in a public road is considered a danger to the public. is removed; after removal the place is impure and forbidden for use.” Rebbi Abba bar Cohen instructed in Kefar Aqabia126The locality has not been determined; it might designate any place located on a hill (عقبة). that its place is permitted for use. Does he disagree? There if it preceded the village, here if the village preceded it127If the grave predated the building of the access road to a village, the road should have avoided the place of the grave; it has to be rerouted. But if the grave was dug in an existing public road, it is illegal, not considered a grave, nor protected by the rules.. It was stated: “A grave surrounded by a village on three sides can be removed128,A similar text is in Tractate Śemaḥot 14.129Since it will be a public obstacle.,” on two sides, some Tannaïm state that one removes it, some state that one may not remove it. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says that one removes it, if it is within slightly more than 70 cubits130In Śemaḥot, this is part of the statement of the baraita: If a grave is between two parallel rows of houses and the empty space in between is at least the size of a standard field, a bet se’ah, it cannot be removed. If the difference is less, it may be removed. The bet se’ah is defined as 5’000 square cubits (cf. Peah 2:1, Note 31), its edge length is √5000 = 70.71… cubits. This length is the general standard for defining a “built-up area.” As long as no two buildings are separated by more than 70.7 cubits, they are part of the same urban area, e. g., for defining the area of free mobility on the Sabbath. Therefore, an empty strip less than 70.7 cubits wide is not open space but a built-up area.. He who says that one does not remove it, if it is outside slightly more than 70 cubits. He who says that one removes it, if [the village] is built in the form of a Γ131Any point within the right angle is accessible from the outside and is considered part of an open field.. He who says that one does not remove it, if [the village] is built in the form of a ה.132Since the break in the left hand stroke of the letter ה is a relatively late development, it would be better to designate the shape of the village as ח. In old texts, the left stroke of ח is flush with the end of the horizontal stroke and ends a little higher; the one of ה is slightly to the right of the end of the horizontal stroke and ends exactly at the horizontal stroke. The meaning is that if the grave is between two rows of houses at a distance less than 70.7 cubits, it is within a built-up area where it does not belong. 128A similar text is in Tractate Śemaḥot 14.“All kinds of graves may be removed except the graves of a king or a prophet. They said to him, were not the graves of David’s sons removed but the graves of the sons of Ḥulda were in Jerusalem and nobody ever touched them to remove them133Which is extraordinary since within the urban area of Jerusalem no grave could be tolerated, seeing that a grave is a “squeezed impurity” (Note 79) which causes “tent” impurity to anybody stepping over it and disables him from entering the Temple Mount.. Rebbi Aqiba told them, is that a proof? A duct was there and the impurity exited from there horizontally into the Qidron valley134If the graves were open to the outside, the impurity was not “squeezed” and there was no induced “tent” impurity over them..” There135Mishnah Baba batra 6:8, detailing the standards for a builder of burial caves., we have stated: “He makes a courtyard136A flat space outside the cave. in front of the cave six cubits square as a place for the bier.” And here, he says so137Why does the contractor only have to build a space of six cubits square for burial in a cave whereas for burial in the ground one reserves eight cubits on either side? It is to be expected that the minimal standards for a commercial contract are less than those for checking for impurity.? There for a bier standing, here for the width of a turning bier. How far138This has nothing to do with either commercial contracts or impurity; it defines the persons participating in a funeral and exempt from any other duties while the funeral procession is in progress; Mishnah Berakhot 3:1.? For the carriers of the bier, their replacements, and the replacements of their replacements. There, we have stated139Mishnah Kilaim 5:2.: “If a vineyard is planted with less that four cubits of space, Rebbi Simeon says that it is no vineyard. But the Sages say that it is a vineyard and one disregards the plants in the middle as if nonexistent.” 140Kilaim 5:2 (29d 1. 54 ff.), full variant readings and commentary there, Notes 32–40. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan32If his master’s action invalidates the slave’s vow, there is no valid vow of nazir. The status of the slave reverts to profane; the slave is not responsible for the lifting of the status of nazir from him. If there were anything sinful in this action, it would be the master’s responsibility.: Just as they disagree here, they disagree about a graveyard33Argument and meaning are completely parallel to the preceding.. Rebbi Jonah said, one cannot compare these. There, they form a graveyard; here, they do not form a graveyard. Rebbi Yose said, one cannot compare these. There, if they were spaced apart and one moved them closer together, that is the disagreement. If they were close and one moved them apart, everybody would agree. But here, what is their disagreement? When one found them close together. Rebbi Simeon said, a landslide fell on them and compressed them. But the Sages say, were they spaced apart and somebody brought them close together?” How far does one importune him142This refers to the end of Mishnah 3: If there are three parallel graves and one found another grave at the end of 20 cubits, how often does he have to repeat the operation?? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Miasha bar Jeremiah: Up to 40 cubits. If he checked twenty and found, he checks another ten. If he checked twenty and found, he checks another ten143In this version, he has to check 60 cubits. On either side of the graves he has to check at most 20 cubits. If he found a grave, he has to check 10 more cubits, for a total of 2(20+10) = 60 cubits.. Some Tannaïm state: If he checked ten and found, he checks another ten. If he checked ten and found, he checks another ten144This agrees with the original statement. He has to check a maximum of 10+10 = 20 cubits on either side for a total of 40..

MISHNAH: Any person with initially doubtful skin disease is pure as long as he was not declared impure. After he was declared impure, in doubt he is impure145A sufferer from skin disease is impure only after he was declared impure by a Cohen. Once he is impure, he can regain purity only by a ceremony administered by a Cohen. A Cohen may not declare a person impure unless the impurity is clearly demonstrated; he may not cleanse a person declared impure unless that person is clearly healed. The details are given in Mishnah Nega‘im 5:4–5.. 146The Mishnah is given in great detail in Zavim 2:2; it is included here only because it is a “not unsubstantiated” case. In seven ways does one check the sufferer from a genital discharge before he becomes impure147The basic source is Lev. 15:1–15. After a discharge of semen, a male is impure for the rest of the day (Lev. 15:16). For any other discharge, the first time he is pure. After the second discharge within 24 hours he is impure for seven days. However, if there is a reason to suspect that the discharge was induced by an outside cause, he remains pure since impurity is created by (Lev. 15:2) “flow from his flesh”, not from any outside cause. After the third discharge, he needs purification by a sacrifice.: About eating and drinking148If he ate or drank excessively., carrying a load or jumping149Extraordinary physical exertion, whether professional or for sport., sickness, looking, and thought150Looking at women might cause an ejaculation as well as thinking of copulation.. After he becomes impure one does not check him; his accident, doubtful case, and semen are impure since the matter is not unsubstantiated151Once he is suffering from gonorrhea, any discharge is ascribed to his condition rather than to extraneous influences.. HALAKHAH: “He shall declare him impure152Lev. 13:2. This is the first case of skin disease treated in Lev.; it stands for all cases..” The certain case he declares impure, he does not declare the doubtful case impure. Forever he is in his impurity until he is known to be pure. “He shall purify him153Lev. 13:23. Sifra Tasria‘ Parashah 4(9); Babli 65b..” The certain case he declares pure, he does not declare the doubtful case impure154Read: “pure”.. Forever he is in his purity until he is known to be impure. It is written155Lev. 15:33, the final verse of the chapter dealing with impurity caused by the human body.: “The unwell woman in her separation and the sufferer from flux in his flux.” Since the menstruating woman may become impure also by accident, so the sufferer from flux may become impure also by accident156Since the two kinds of impurity are mentioned together.. Then even at his first episode157But the Mishnah declares that outside influences are disregarded only after the sufferer from flux is subject to a week-long impurity.? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, from the moment he becomes like a menstruating woman158Whose impurity always extends for seven days.. “His accident,” Rebbi Eleazar said, his real accident. “His doubtful case,” a doubt whether it is flux or ejaculation. Are flux and semen not impure anyhow159But semen is impure only until sundown after immersion in water.? But one does not consider it for the 24 hour period160If the sufferer is impure for seven days and he has an ejaculation, any further discharge within 24 hours of his prior episode of flux is not considered caused by his sexual activity but will cause him to require a sacrifice for his purification..

MISHNAH: If somebody injured another person who was judged dying and then this person’s state improved161The injured is no longer critical but did not get out of bed, which would be the biblical criterion preventing a prosecution of the attacker for murder (Ex. 21:19). but later he died, he is guilty. Rebbi Neḥemiah says, he cannot be prosecuted162If at any moment the victim was judged not critically ill, death could have a cause unrelated to the attack. since it is not unsubstantiated. HALAKHAH: 163The origin of this and the following paragraphs is in Sanhedrin 9:3 (fol. 27a). The first part of our text is almost identical with the text there; the second part is badly garbled and can be understood only from the Sanhedrin text. (ג denotes a Genizah reading.) So164Reading כיני as in Sanhedrin, in place of מני “who is the author”? is the Mishnah: Rebbi Neḥemia declares him not prosecutable but the Sages declare him guilty since it is not unsubstantiated165The expression רגלים לדבר “the thing has feet” formulates prima facie evidence of guilt, not an argument which prohibits prosecution.. The Sages say, two estimations have precedence over one estimation166Any “estimation” here is a judicial act. If the physician in charge as an officer of the court considered the victim as critically ill both at the beginning and at the end of treatment, this overrides the fact that for some time the victim was taken off the critical list. The attacker can be jailed only if the victim is in danger of his life and there is the possibility that the case may become one of capital crime (Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Mišpaṭim 6; Babli Sanhedrin 78b, Ketubot 33b).; Rebbi Neḥemiah says, the intermediate estimation has precedence over the two167Once the victim was taken off the critical list, it is impossible to convict the attacker of premeditated murder.. What is Rebbi Neḥemiah’s reason? “ ‘If he gets up and walks outside on his cane, the attacker is exonerated168Ex. 21:19. Both Targum Onqelos and Mekhilta dR. Ismael explain משענת not as “cane” but as “health”. This meaning seems to be understood here..’ Could you think that this one walks in the market and the other is executed because of him169The verse seems to be superfluous (but its continuation, spelling out the financial obligations of the attacker, is not.)? But even if he died according to the first estimation he cannot be prosecuted170The term “exonerated” is read as “permanently exonerated.”.”171Babli Sanhedrin 78a/b, Ketubot 33b; Tosephta Baba qama 9:7; Mekhilta dR. Simeon bar Ioḥai pp. 174–175. What is the rabbi’s reason? “If he does not die but is bedridden172Ex. 21:18..” Would we not know that even if he does not die that he will be bedridden173Otherwise there could not be any monetary claim derived from this paragraph. (There could be a claim under rabbinic rules for insult, etc.)? But if they estimated174In Sanhedrin: “estimated” and “did not estimate” are exchanged everywhere. This seems to be the correct version; in v. 18 the imperfect לא יָמוּת is read as “not expected to die”, since it does not say לֹא מֵת. But then v. 19 could simply mean that [the attacker] has to pay for disability and medical costs; the long introductory clause therefore refers to another case. For the Sages, the medical prognosis is irrelevant. that he would die. If they estimated174In Sanhedrin: “estimated” and “did not estimate” are exchanged everywhere. This seems to be the correct version; in v. 18 the imperfect לא יָמוּת is read as “not expected to die”, since it does not say לֹא מֵת. But then v. 19 could simply mean that [the attacker] has to pay for disability and medical costs; the long introductory clause therefore refers to another case. For the Sages, the medical prognosis is irrelevant. that he would die, that is what is written: “If he gets up and walks outside on his cane.” Therefore, if he does not get up, [the attacker] is guilty. But if they did not estimate174In Sanhedrin: “estimated” and “did not estimate” are exchanged everywhere. This seems to be the correct version; in v. 18 the imperfect לא יָמוּת is read as “not expected to die”, since it does not say לֹא מֵת. But then v. 19 could simply mean that [the attacker] has to pay for disability and medical costs; the long introductory clause therefore refers to another case. For the Sages, the medical prognosis is irrelevant. that he would die? If they did not estimate174In Sanhedrin: “estimated” and “did not estimate” are exchanged everywhere. This seems to be the correct version; in v. 18 the imperfect לא יָמוּת is read as “not expected to die”, since it does not say לֹא מֵת. But then v. 19 could simply mean that [the attacker] has to pay for disability and medical costs; the long introductory clause therefore refers to another case. For the Sages, the medical prognosis is irrelevant. that he would die, that is what is written: “But he has to pay for his disability.” Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay175As a matter of principle, a person convicted of a crime cannot be made to pay since that would constitute multiple punishment (cf. Terumot 7:1, Notes 3–73; Ketubot 3:1). Therefore, a verse is needed to force the potential murderer to pay if his victim survives.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: It was an erroneous estimation176If the victim survives, it is proof that the first estimation was wrong; there is no criminal case and the civil case can proceed unhindered.. 177From here on, the sentences have to be re-ordered as indicated by the text in Sanhedrin (different text in Sanhedrin is in parentheses and italicized):What is the difference between them? If his state improved. For him who says, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he pay, if he paid, he paid. If he did not pay, the verse makes him pay178Even if the victim later dies. (does he have to pay?).For him who says, it was an erroneous estimation, if he did not pay one does not order him to pay178Even if the victim later dies.. If he paid, can he take it back?A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: If they estimated that he would die, when does he have to pay him? From the moment he improves179But for R. Simeon ben Laqish he has to pay for disability from the moment of the injury.. (It proves that the estimate was wrong.)This (A baraita) supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If they estimated that he would live but he died (die but he lived). From when does he have to pay him (count for him)? From the moment he turns worse180That means, even if he turns worse, since he had to pay from the start by court order. For R. Yose ben Hanina, he never pays once the case has turned into a criminal matter.. Rebbi Yose said, it does not say here, “from the moment he turns worse” but “from the moment he turns better.181Then the baraita is no support for R. Simeon ben Laqish since R. Yose ben Hanina will agree that the agressor has to pay the victim who is getting better.” (but from the start. That means, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he pay. But if you say, it was an erroneous estimation, he has to pay until [the victim] dies.) What is the difference between them? If his state improved. For him who says, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay; if he paid, he paid. If he did not pay, the verse makes him pay. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: If they estimated that he would die, when does he have to pay him? From the moment he improves. For him who says, it was an erroneous estimation; if he did not pay one does not order him to pay. If he paid, can he take it back? This supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If they estimated that he would live but he died. From when does one have to pay him? From the moment he turns worse. Rebbi Yose said, it does not say here, “from the moment he turns worse” but “from the moment he turns better.” If he hit him on his hand and it withered. The physicians said, if it is amputated he will live. Does he have to pay for the [hand]182Reading of Sanhedrin. The reading here, הָעֶבֶד “the slave” is an obvious misspelling for הָאֵבֶד “the limb”. Throughout the Halakhah, the scribe is not sure in his distinction between ע and א.It is clear that the attacker has to pay for the operation since this is medical treatment. The question is whether he also has to pay for the permanent impairment of the victim’s earning power caused by the loss of his hand.? Let us hear from the following: “If people quarrel183Ex. 21:22, speaking of the injury to an innocent bystander, the unintended victim of an intended hit. The verse decrees the responsibility of the attacker for pain and impairment of the victim.,” “if people brawl.184Ex. 21:18, the paragraph under discussion, about the intended victim of an intended hit. The verse decrees the responsibility of the attacker for medical cost and disability.” Is not quarrel brawl and brawl quarrel? Why does the verse say, “if people quarrel, if people brawl”? To apply the rules of the unintended to the intended and of the intended to the unintended185In both cases, all four payments are due from the attacker.. It must be the following: If he hit him on his hand and it withered. The physicians said, if it is amputated he will live. Does he have to pay for the [hand]182Reading of Sanhedrin. The reading here, הָעֶבֶד “the slave” is an obvious misspelling for הָאֵבֶד “the limb”. Throughout the Halakhah, the scribe is not sure in his distinction between ע and א.It is clear that the attacker has to pay for the operation since this is medical treatment. The question is whether he also has to pay for the permanent impairment of the victim’s earning power caused by the loss of his hand.? Since you say there, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he pay for the hand, so here it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he pay for the hand186Since the attacker has to pay for the operation, he has to pay for the permanent impairment..

MISHNAH: Samuel was a nazir following the words of Rebbi Nahorai, as it is said: “A shaving knife shall not come on his head1871S. 1:11..” It is said about Samson “a shaving knife188Jud. 13:5”, and it is said about Samuel “a shaving knife”. Since “a shaving knife” mentioned for Samson refers to nazir188Jud. 13:5, so “a shaving knife” mentioned for Samuel refers to nazir. Rebbi Yose said, but fear189Reading מוֹרָא (root ירא) “fear” for מוֹרָה (root possibly مار) “shaving knife”. is only of flesh and blood! Rebbi Nahorai answered him: Was it not said: “Samuel said, how can I go? Will not Saul hear of it and kill me?1901S. 16:2.” The fear191In most Mishnah mss., the reading here also is מוֹרָה. of flesh and blood already was on him. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yannai said: It is written192Is. 7:25.: “To all the hills which are to be worked by the harrow the fear of worm193A rock-splitting worm used by King Solomon to quarry the stones for the Temple without iron implements (Soṭah 9:13/14, Note 219.) and snail will not come.” Just as the stalk fears the iron, so the hair fears the iron194For him, מוֹרָה also is derived from the root ירא..