Nazir3

1MISHNAH: If somebody said, “I am a nazir,” he shaves on the 31 day, but if he shaved on the 30 day, he has fulfilled his obligation [An 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 days [If 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.

2HALAKHAH: “If somebody said, “I am a nazir,” etc. This supports Bar Qappara [Chapter 1:3, Note 93.] , that if he shaved on the 30 day, he did not fulfill his obligation. This supports Rebbi Jonathan [Chapter 1:3, Note 94.] , that if he shaved on the 30 day, he did fulfill his obligation. Both of them [One anonymous Mishnah cannot represent two contradictory opinions.] ? It is only one opinion, “this testimony [Mishnah 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.

3Something happened [A 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 30 day, and something happened to Rebbi Immi and he shaved on the 31 day [He was inconsistent in his actions.] . Rebbi Zeriqa said, Rebbi Immi learned this from the Mishnah, as we have stated there [Mishnah 2.] : “If somebody vowed two neziriot, he shaves for the first on the 31 day, for the second on the 61 day [The argument is from the part of the Mishnah which is not quoted: “But if he shaved for the first on the 30 day, he shaves for the second on the 60” (cf. Note 6).] .” Rebbi Yose said, there when it happened, here from the start [R. Yose criticizes R. Immi. The Mishnah requires the nazir to shave on his 31 day; it only legitimizes shaving on the 30 after the fact. But R. Immi shaved on the 30 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 Mishnah12 [Mo‘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 30 day [The 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 30 day can nevertheless count the entire 30 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 30 day falls on the Sabbath, he should shave Sabbath eve14 [Nobody 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 said [Mo‘ed qaṭan 3:5 (82b 1. 10), 3:8 (83d 1. 23); Babli 22b.] : “For all deceased [Except 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 30 day? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, this has been transmitted in this way and that has been transmitted in that way [Except 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”?] .

4MISHNAH: If somebody vowed two neziriot, he shaves for the first on the 31 day, for the second on the 61 day [In 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 30 day, he shaves for the second on the 60, and if he shaved on the day before the 6018 [Compare Latin usage to replace 19 by 20-1, etc.] , he has fulfilled his obligation. The following testimony did Rebbi Pappaias give [Any “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.

5HALAKHAH: “If somebody vowed two neziriot,” etc. If he finished his first period of nezirut and started to lean [The 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 second [Since 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 first [If 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 annulled [Mishnah 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 first [If 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. [He 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 first [If 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 second [R. 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 disagrees [Since 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 sacrifice [R. 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 hand [This 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 or [This 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 holy [If 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 state [Chapter 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 nezirut [The 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 first [The case treated at the start of the Halakhah.] . The first for the second [The 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 Simeon [Since 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 first [He 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” [It 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?

6MISHNAH: If somebody says, “I am a nazir” and became impure on the 30 day [Before he offered his sacrifices.] , he invalidated everything [He 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 seven [Since 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 30 day, he invalidated everything [R. Eliezer agrees that he has to start anew since he must wait until the 31st day to bring his sacrifices.] .

7HALAKHAH: “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 shaving [Cf. 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 nazir [Who shaves after 7 days, Num. 6:9.] . What difference does it make for Rebbi Eliezer whether the vow for nazir was implicit rather than explicit [Whether 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 out [Num. 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 30 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 30 day of the implicit vow they are completed.] , and his seventh day [If 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 explicit [Then 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.

8MISHNAH: “I am a nazir for 100 days,” if he became impure on day 100 he invalidated everything but Rebbi Eliezer said, he invalidated only 30 [And 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 seven [Since 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.] .

9HALAKHAH: ““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; [Then 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 nazir [And the implicit vow of a nazir run for 30 days.] . Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If he becomes impure in those days [If 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 counted [The problem arises only if he becomes impure on the 30 day since before it is obvious that he has to start anew. If he is considered to have finished his nezirut, then the 7 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 7 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 seven52 [Since 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 fulfilling [If he becomes impure on day 101, R. Eliezer will apply his ruling of Mishnah 3.] , the seventh day is counted for him.

10MISHNAH: If somebody made a vow of nazir while he was in a cemetery [Since 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 impurity [The 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 impurity [The 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 away [Num. 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.

11HALAKHAH: “If somebody made a vow of nazir while he was in a cemetery,” etc. If he made the vow while he was among grave sites [He 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 shaving [It 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 shaving [For 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. There [Halakhah 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 shaving [It 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.

12If he is still there [Here 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, [R. 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 leaves [He 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” [If 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 whipped [He 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 there [Mishnah 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 prostrating [Where 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. [Mishnah 6:4. This presupposes that he was warned only once.] ” He explains it, that his throat was never empty [If 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 once [Mishnah 6:4. This presupposes that he was warned only once.] .” He explains it about one who waits before every leaving, who is whipped [He 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 cemetery [Legitimately, 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 family [Lev. 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 impurity [If 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. [Num. 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 disagree [The 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 there [To avoid that vessels become impure at his death.] .

13If he left and re-entered [He 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 desecration [Since 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 days [As 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 evening [If 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) [This 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.

14Rav said, when he has left, he counts his nezirut in purity [The 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 day [If 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 seventh [The purification rite prescribed in Num. 19: Being sprinkled with water containing some of the ashes of the Red Cow on the 3 and 7 day, and immersing himself on the 7. 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.87 [Ez. 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 day [Samuel 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.] .

15Ulla bar Ismael said, what is his problem [He 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 combined [In 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 his [This 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’s [This must read: His own.] nezirut! Rebbi Mana said, explain it at twilight [Then 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 son [As 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.] ?

16Rebbi Yose said, what is his problem [He 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 cannot [From 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 nezirut [The 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 Mana [The 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, there [If 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 here [If 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 omit [Sifry 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 seven [Since 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?

17MISHNAH: If somebody vowed [Somewhere 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 days [The 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 Helena [Of 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 Land [According 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 years [Since 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.] .

18HALAKHAH: “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 years [The Babli disagrees, 20a.] .

19MISHNAH: 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 split [Following 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 two [Following 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.

20HALAKHAH: “If two groups of witnesses,” etc. [Parallels 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] [Read: “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 Eliezer [Read: “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”.

21It was stated [An 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 split [Following 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. [Following 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.] ”