json/Mishnah/Seder Nashim/Mishnah Nazir/English/The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein.json

{
    "language": "en",
    "title": "Mishnah Nazir",
    "versionSource": "http://www.sefaria.org/shraga-silverstein",
    "versionTitle": "The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein",
    "status": "locked",
    "license": "CC-BY",
    "versionNotes": "To enhance the quality of this text, obvious translation errors were corrected in accordance with the Hebrew source",
    "versionTitleInHebrew": "המשנה עם פירושי רבי עובדיה מברטנורא, רבי שרגא זילברשטיין",
    "versionNotesInHebrew": "כדי לשפר את איכות הטקסט הזה, שונו שגיאות תרגום ברורות בהתאם למקור העברי",
    "actualLanguage": "en",
    "languageFamilyName": "english",
    "isBaseText": false,
    "isSource": false,
    "direction": "ltr",
    "heTitle": "משנה נזיר",
    "categories": [
        "Mishnah",
        "Seder Nashim"
    ],
    "text": [
        [
            "\tAll epithets (kinuyei) of Naziritism are like Naziritism. [Something which is not the name per se is called a kinui, as in (Bava Metzia 58b) \"hamechaneh shem lechavero\" (\"one who calls his friend by an epithet\")]. If one says: \"I shall be,\" he becomes a Nazirite [This is not a kinui, but is called a \"yad\" (\"hand\"), like a handle by which a vessel is held. In the same way the vow is \"held\" by this expression. Our Mishnah is \"lacking,\" and this is what is meant: All epithets of Naziritism are like Naziritism, and all yadoth of Naziritism are like Naziritism. These are yadoth of Naziritism: If one says: \"I shall be,\" \"I shall be beautified.\" And these are epithets of Naziritism: \"nazik,\" \"naziach,\" \"paziach.\" (\"If one says: 'I shall be,'\":) If he sees a Nazirite passing before him and says: \"I shall be,\" even if he did not say: \"I shall be like this one,\" if his intent were to be a Nazirite like him, he becomes a Nazirite, even though he did not make it explicit.], or (if one says:) \"I shall be beautified,\" he becomes a Nazirite. [If he grasped his hair and said: \"I shall be beautified,\" the implication is: I shall be comely by growing this hair long (as a Nazirite does). If this were his intent, he becomes a Nazirite, even though he did not make it explicit. For these and expressions like them are yadoth of Naziritism, and they are like (assuming) Naziritism (itself).] If one says: \"nazik,\" \"naziach,\" \"paziach,\" he becomes a Nazirite. [They are gentile expressions for a Nazirite, close to the Hebrew, and they are called \"epithets of Naziritism.\"] (If one says:) \"I shall be like this one\" [pointing to a Nazirite near him], \"I shall smooth my hair,\" \"I shall be mechalkel\" [\"mechalkel\" — growing hair, as in (Niddah 52b): \"mishetechalkel ha'atarah,\" when the hair of the pudenda is fully grown.] (If one says:) \"I shall let my hair grow long,\" he becomes a Nazirite. (If one says:) \"I shall bring birds,\" [two turtle-doves or two young pigeons, which are the offering of a Nazirite who has become unclean (This, when a Nazirite passes before him.)], R. Meir says: He becomes a Nazirite. [Since a Nazirite passes before him, and birds are the offering of a Nazirite who has become unclean, it is clear that when he said: \"I shall bring birds,\" he intended Naziritism.] And the sages say: He does not become a Nazirite. [The halachah is in accordance with the sages. He is not a Nazirite, but he brings birds to fulfill his vow.]",
            "\t(If one said:) \"I shall be a Nazirite from chartzanim\" (kernels of grapes)l \"from zagim\" (husks of grapes), \"from shaving,\" or \"from uncleanliness,\" he becomes a Nazirite and all the details of Naziritism apply to him. [If he mentions any one of these, he becomes a Nazirite, as if he had said: \"I shall be a Nazirite,\" unqualified. And because it is taught at the end of the Mishnah that not all the details of Naziritism apply to a perpetual Nazirite (Nazir olam) and a Shimshon Nazirite, it is taught here that all the details of Naziritism apply to him.] (If one said:) \"I shall be like Shimshon,\" like the son of Manoach,\" \"like the husband of Delilah,\" \"like the one who uprooted the doors of Azzah,\" \"like the one whose eyes were gouged out by the Philistines,\" he becomes a Shimshon Nazirite. What is the difference between a perpetual Nazirite and a Shimshon Nazirite? [Our Mishnah is \"lacking,\" and this is what is meant: \"And if he vowed to become a perpetual Nazirite, he becomes a perpetual Nazirite. And what is the difference between a perpetual Nazirite and a Shimshon Nazirite?\"] A perpetual Nazirite — if his hair grows heavy, he can lighten it with a razor [every twelve months. This is derived from (the instance of) Avshalom, who was a perpetual Nazirite, and concerning whom it is written (II Samuel 14;26)): \"And it was at the end of yamim, to the yamim that he would shave; for it became heavy upon him and he would shave it,\" and it is written elsewhere (Leviticus 25:29): \"yamim\" (in context: \"a year of days\") shall be its redemption.\"] and he brings three beasts (on the day that he shaves it). And if he becomes unclean, he brings an offering (to atone) for his uncleanliness. A Shimshon Nazirite — if his hair grows heavy, he may not lighten it, and if he becomes unclean, he does not bring an offering for is uncleanliness. [And he may become unclean even ab initio, for Shimshon would become unclean by (contact with dead bodies), this serving as the source (for the halachah). As to our learning: \"if he becomes unclean,\" which implies \"after the fact,\" but not ab initio — Because it was taught in the first part of the Mishnah in respect to a perpetual Nazirite: \"and if he becomes unclean,\" it is also taught at the end, in respect to a Shimshon Nazirite: \"and if he becomes unclean.\"]",
            "\t\"Naziritism,\" unqualified, is for thirty days, [it being written (Numbers 6:5): \"Holy yiheyeh\" (\"shall he be\"). The gematria (numerical equivalent) of \"yiheyeh\" is thirty — whence they found support for saying that there is no Naziritism for less than thirty days.] (If he said:) \"I shall be a Nazirite, one great [Naziritism],\" \"I shall be a Nazirite, one small [Naziritism]\" — even [if he said: \"I shall be a Nazirite] from now until the end of the world,\" he observes Naziritism for thirty days. [As to his saying: \"from now until the end of the world,\" his intent is: This Naziritism is as long to me as it were from now until the end of the world.] (If he said:) \"I shall be a Nazirite and one day,\" \"I shall be a Nazirite and one hour,\" \"I shall be a Nazirite one and a half,\" he observes two Naziritisms. [If he said: \"I shall be a Nazirite and one day,\" when he said: \"I shall be a Nazirite,\" he accepted upon himself one Naziritism, so that when he added: \"and one day,\" another Naziritism obtains, for there is no Naziritism less than thirty days. Similarly, if he said: \"I shall be a Nazirite and one hour,\" or \"I shall be a Nazirite one and a half,\" two Naziritisms obtain; for it is impossible to be a Nazirite for one hour or (to observe) half a Naziritism without being a Nazirite for thirty days. Accordingly, he observes two Naziritisms. He shaves at the end of thirty days and observes a new Naziritism.] (If he said:) \"I shall be a Nazirite for thirty days and one hour,\" he observes Naziritism for thirty-one days, for there is no Naziritism for hours, [it being written (Ibid. 6): \"the days of his Naziritism\"; and it is as if he had said: \"thirty-one days.\" And we do not say that the \"one hour\" which he mentioned is (a thirty-day) Naziritism in itself, since it can be conjoined to the \"thirty\" which he mentioned before.]",
            "\t(If he said:) \"I shall be a Nazirite like the hair of my head,\" \"like the dust of the earth,\" \"like the sand of the sea,\" he becomes a perpetual Nazirite (Nazir olam) and shaves once every thirty days. [Not a \"Nazir olam,\" literally, for a Nazir olam shaves once every twelve months, whereas this one shaves once every thirty days. Since he linked his Naziritism to distinct things, it is as if he equated the number of his Naziritisms with the number of hairs on his head or the number of dust (particles) on the ground, as opposed to a Nazir olam, who does not divide his Naziritisms but makes it all one Naziritism.] Rebbi says: This one does not shave once every thirty days. [For since he says: \"I shall be a Nazirite,\" it is all one Naziritism, and he shaves only once every twelve months, just as a Nazir olam.] And who does shave once every thirty days? One who says: \"I undertake Naziritism according to the hair of my head,\" \"according to the dust of the earth,\" \"according to the sand of the sea.\" [For in that instance he indicates that he has taken distinct Naziritisms upon himself, as the number of the hairs on his head. The halachah is not in accordance with Rebbi.]",
            "\t(If he said:) \"I shall be a Nazirite a full house,\" or \"a full basket,\" he is examined (i.e., questioned). If he says: I took upon myself one Naziritism [which seemed to me as] great [as the entire house], he becomes a Nazirite for thirty days. And if he says: I simply vowed [and I intended it to mean whatever the sages saw it to signify], the basket is perceived as if it is full of mustard (seeds) and he is a Nazirite all of his days [and he shaves every twelve months.]",
            "\t(If he said:) \"I shall be a Nazirite from here until that place\" [and he kept to the road to go to that place], we estimate the number of days from here to that place — If less than thirty days, he becomes a Nazirite for thirty days; if not, for the number of days (it takes to get there). [But if he did not continue going there, he is regarded as one who said: \"from here until the end of the world,\" and he becomes a Nazirite for thirty days, whether the place were near or far, even a walking (distance) of many years, his intent having been only \"one great Naziritism.\"",
            "\t(If one said:) \"I shall be a Nazirite as the number of the days of the sun, [365 Naziritisms, as the number of the days of the sun], he counts Naziritisms as the number of the days of the sun. R. Yehudah said: There was such an episode. When he completed (his Naziritisms), he died. [R. Yehudah heard that Rebbi differed with the first tanna, ruling that if one said: \"I shall be a Nazirite as the number of the days of the sun,\" he becomes a Nazir olam, and he adduced this episode to show that he does not become a Nazir olam. For in this episode \"he completed (his Naziritisms) and died,\" and with a Nazir olam, \"completion\" does not obtain. It is clear, then, that he counts Naziritisms. And this is the halachah.]"
        ],
        [
            "\t(If one said:) \"I shall be a Nazirite from dried figs or pressed figs\" (to which Naziritism does not apply), Beth Shammai say: He becomes a Nazirite, and Beth Hillel say: He does not become a Nazirite. [Beth Shammai hold that one does not utter things in vain, and that when he said: \"I shall be a Nazirite,\" he meant it — so that when he continued: \"from dried figs or pressed figs,\" he meant to retract. And even in the midst of his words he cannot retract, Beth Shammai holding that hekdesh (\"dedication\") in error remains hekdesh, and is susceptible neither of absolution nor retraction. And the same applies to Naziritism, it being written in that regard (Numbers 6:5): \"Holy shall he be\" — for which reason he becomes a Nazirite. And Beth Hillel hold that since he did not vow in the manner of vowers, he does not become a Nazirite, there being no such thing as Naziritism from dried figs or pressed figs.] R. Yehudah said: Even when Beth Shammai said what they did, they said so only when he thought (in his heart): \"They are (forbidden) to me as an offering (is forbidden).\" [Beth Shammai do not differ with Beth Hillel as to his not becoming a Nazirite. They differ only when he says: I intended that the figs be (forbidden) as an offering (is forbidden) to me. Beth Shammai hold him to be bevowed from figs; Beth Hillel do not.]",
            "\tIf he said: \"This cow said: 'I shall be a Nazirite if I stand up’\", \"This door said: 'I shall be a Nazirite if I am opened'\" [If one's cow were lying down and refused to stand up, and he said: This cow thinks she will not stand up, and she says in her heart: \"I shall be a Nazirite if I stand up\"; and I say: I shall be a Nazirite from her if she does not stand up! Likewise, with a locked door that he could not open, if he said: This door thinks I shall not open it, and it says: \"I shall be a Nazirite if I am opened\"; and I say: I shall be a Nazirite from it if it is not opened! And afterwards the cow stood up of itself without his making it stand, and, similarly, the door opened of itself, or another came and opened it, without his opening it] — Beth Shammai say: He becomes a Nazirite [consistent with their saying that if one bevows himself from dried figs or from pressed figs he becomes a Nazirite, even though there is no Naziritism from figs — Here, too, even though there is no Naziritism from a beast and from a door, he becomes a Nazirite. And even though the beast stood up and the door was opened, his intent was that only he make it stand or open it.] And Beth Hillel say: He is not a Nazirite [according to the words of Beth Shammai. For according to us (Beth Hillel), even if she did not stand up at all he is not a Nazirite, his not having vowed in the manner of the vowers, there being no Naziritism from a beast and from a door. But according to you who say that one does not utter things in vain, and that when he said: \"I shall be a Nazirite,\" he meant it, concede to us, at least, that if it stood up of itself or others stood it up that he does not become a Nazirite, for he said: \"if she does not stand up,\" and she did!] R. Yehudah said: Even when Beth Shammai said what they did, they said so only when he thought (in his heart): \"This cow is (forbidden) to me as an offering if it stands up.\" [Beth Shammai do not differ with Beth Hillel as to his not becoming a Nazirite. They differ only when he says: When I said I would be a Nazirite from it if it did not stand, I meant that this beast should be (forbidden) as an offering — Beth Shammai holding that since he himself did not stand it up, it is an offering, and Beth Hillel holding that since it stood up, it is not an offering.]",
            "\tIf they poured the (wine) cup for him, and he said: \"I shall be a Nazirite from it,\" he becomes a Nazirite. It once happened that a certain inebriated woman was poured a cup and said: \"I shall be a Nazirite from it,\" at which the sages said: \"She intended only to say: 'It is (forbidden) to me (as) an offering.'\" [Our Mishnah is \"lacking,\" and this is what is meant: If he were inebriated and said: \"I shall be a Nazirite from it,\" he does not become a Nazirite, his intent having been only to forbid to himself that cup alone. And so that he not be brought another cup, he said: \"I shall become a Nazirite.\" And it once happened that a certain inebriated women, etc.]",
            "\t(If one said:) \"I shall be a Nazirite on condition that I (be permitted to) drink wine and become unclean to the dead,\" he becomes a Nazirite and is forbidden in all (that is forbidden to a Nazirite). [And in this, all concur, for he thereby makes a condition against what is written in the Torah; and if one makes a condition against what is written in the Torah, his condition is void.] (If one said: \"I shall be a Nazirite,\" and then said:) \"I knew that there was (such a thing as) Naziritism, but I did not know that a Nazirite was forbidden wine,\" he is forbidden (to drink wine). [For wine, shaving, and dead-body defilement, which are forbidden to a Nazirite — if one becomes a Nazirite in respect to one of them, he is a Nazirite in respect to all.] And R. Shimon permits it, [holding that he does not become a Nazirite unless he assumes Naziritism in respect to all.] (If one said: \"I shall be a Nazirite,\" and then said:) \"I knew that a Nazirite was forbidden wine, but I thought that the sages would permit it to me because I cannot live without wine,\" or \"because I bury the dead\" (i.e., that is my occupation), he is permitted, [this being in the class of \"vows of constraint,\" one of the four classes of vows permitted by the sages (Nedarim 3:1-4).] And R. Shimon forbids it, [holding that the four types of vows permitted by the sages require consultation of a sage (for their absolution). The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon in these two cases in our Mishnah.]",
            "\t(If one said:) \"I shall be a Nazirite, and I shall shave a Nazirite,\" [He took upon himself Naziritism and also the bringing of the offerings for another Nazirite], and his fellow heard and said: \"And I [shall be a Nazirite] and I shall shave a Nazirite\" — if they are \"clever,\" the one shaves the other. [Each one exempts his fellow with his offerings, even though when the first vowed to shave a Nazirite, the second was not a Nazirite.]",
            "\t(If one said:) \"I shall shave half a Nazirite,\" and his fellow heard and said: \"And I shall shave half a Nazirite,\" each shaves a complete Nazirite. These are the word of R. Meir. And the sages say: Each shaves half a Nazirite. [R. Meir is consistent with his view that \"the first expression 'takes,'\" so that when he says: \"I shall shave,\" a full shaving is implied, and when he continues: \"half a Nazirite,\" he can no longer retract — even in the midst of his words. And the rabbis hold: \"The vow and its 'opening' are concomitant,\" so that it is as if he would have said: Half the offerings of a Nazirite are upon me (to bring),\" in which instance he is liable only for that. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.]",
            "\t(If one said:) \"I shall be a Nazirite when I have a ben\" (generically, \"a child\"), and a son were born to him, he becomes a Nazirite. If there were born to him a daughter, a tumtum (one whose genitals are concealed), or an androgynos (a hermaphrodite), he does not become a Nazirite. [For in common parlance, only a male is called \"ben,\" and not a female, a tumtum, or an androgynous.] If he said: (\"I shall be a Nazirite) when I have a valad (offspring),\" even if he had a daughter, a tumtum, or an androgynos, he becomes a Nazirite. [Even a daughter, a tumtum, and an androgynos are called \"valad.\"]",
            "\tIf his wife miscarried [and he did not know if it were a live birth or not], he does not become a Nazirite. [Our Mishnah is in accordance with R. Yehudah, who says that \"one does not place himself in a position of doubt,\" so that when he said: \"when I have a valad,\" he meant a definite (i.e., live) valad.] R. Shimon says: He must say: \"It if were live, I am a Nazirite by obligation; if not, I am a Nazirite by election. [R. Shimon holds that in an instance of doubt as to whether one is or is not a Nazirite, the stringent option must be followed. Therefore, he must be \"a Nazirite by doubt,\" and stipulate: \"If it were live, I am a Nazirite by obligation; if not, I am a Nazirite by election\"; and he shaves and brings his offerings at the end of thirty days. Without this stipulation, he could not bring an offering in doubt. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon.] If she subsequently gave birth, he becomes a Nazirite, [not having observed Naziritism for the miscarriage. And now that she bore a live child the Naziritism takes effect.] R. Shimon says: He must say: \"If the first one were live, then the first was obligation, and this, election; and if not, the first was election, and this, obligation.\" [According to R. Shimon it is necessary to stipulate again, for the first may have been live.]",
            "\t(If one said:) \"I shall be a Nazirite,\" and (\"I shall be) a Nazirite when I have a son,\" [taking upon himself Naziritism, unqualified, and another Naziritism when he has a son] — if he started counting his, and then a son were born to him, he completes his [first, and brings an offering], and then counts for that of his son. (If he said:) \"I shall be a Nazirite when I have a son,\" and (\"I shall be) a Nazirite,\" [taking upon himself first the Naziritism for his son, and beginning to count his own, after which a son were born to him, before the thirty days were completed], he suspends his own, counts for his son, and then completes his own. [For since he first took upon himself Naziritism for his son, as soon as he is born he must suspend his own and count for his son and then complete his own.]",
            "\t(If he said:) \"I shall be a Nazirite when I have a son,\" and (\"I shall be) a Nazirite a hundred days,\" if he had a son by seventy days, he has lost nothing. [For when he suspends his own Naziritism and counts the Naziritism for his son, and then completes the count of the seventy that he counted until the hundred that he vowed, i.e., thirty days, there are found to be thirty days between the shaving for the Naziritism of his son and the completion of his own Naziritism, so that he has lost nothing.] (If he had a son) after seventy days, the (addition to) seventy is offset, for there is no shaving (after) less than thirty days. [If he counted more than seventy days before he began (counting for) the Naziritism of his son, and suspended his own Naziritism to begin the latter — when he shaves himself for the Naziritism of his son and comes to complete the hundred that he vowed for himself, there are found to be fewer than thirty days between the shaving for his sons' Naziritism and the shaving for his own Naziritism. And there cannot be less than thirty days between one shaving and another, so that he is found to have lost all those days that he counted beyond seventy.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tIf one said: \"I shall be a Nazirite,\" he shaves on the thirty-first day, [for \"Naziritism,\" unqualified, is thirty days.] And if he shaved on the thirtieth day, it suffices, [for part of the day is like all of it.] (If he said:) \"I shall be a Nazirite for thirty days,\" it does not suffice, [for since he stated \"thirty days,\" full days are implied.]",
            "\tIf one assumed two Naziritisms, he shaves for the first one on the thirty-first day, and for the second, on the sixty-first. And if he shaved for the first on the thirtieth day, he shaves for the second on the sixtieth. And if he shaved on the fifty-ninth, it suffices. [For the thirtieth day of the first Naziritism reverts to both. And since the thirtieth day of the first is also counted for the second Naziritism, the thirty days of the second Naziritism end on the fifty-ninth day.] And this testimony was stated by R. Papyas about one who assumed two Naziritism: that if he shaved for the first on the thirtieth day, he was to shave for the second on the sixtieth day. And if he shaved on the fifty-ninth day, it sufficed; for the thirtieth day is included in the reckoning (of the second Naziritism).",
            "\tIf one said: \"I shall be a Nazirite\" and he became unclean on the thirtieth day, he offsets the whole (Naziritism), [for he became unclean in the midst of the days of Naziritism. And we do not say that the thirtieth day reverts to both (Naziritisms), that part of the day is like all of the day, except when he shaved and brought offerings on that day.] R. Eliezer says: He offsets only seven days (of purification for his uncleanliness). [For he holds that we say part of the day is like all of the day, and it is as if he became unclean after fulfillment (of his Naziritism). And uncleanliness after fulfillment, according to R. Eliezer, offsets (i.e., adds on) only seven.] (If one said:) \"I shall be a Nazirite for thirty days,\" if he became unclean on the thirtieth day, he offsets the whole, [both according to R. Eliezer and according to the rabbis. For since he said; \"I shall be a Nazirite for thirty days,\" all agree that he requires thirty full days and that we do not say in this instance: \"part of the day is like all of the day.\" And R. Eliezer, who holds (3:4) that one who becomes unclean on the day of fulfillment itself offsets thirty days alone, but not the whole, derives it from (Numbers 6:13): \"And this is the law of the Nazirite on the day of the fulfillment\" — If he became unclean on the day of the fulfillment, \"give him\" the law of the Nazirite; that is, Naziritism in general, thirty days — Here, where he said: \"I shall be a Nazirite for thirty days, and he became unclean on the thirtieth day, which is the day of fulfillment, when he offsets all thirty, he offsets the whole. And the rabbis, too, who differ with R. Eliezer, saying that the one who becomes unclean on the day of fulfillment offsets the whole, even if he counted many days — here, where he said: \"I shall be a Nazirite for thirty days,\" and he became unclean on the day of fulfillment, by offsetting the thirty, he offsets the whole. So that both according to R. Eliezer and according to the rabbis, he offsets the whole. And wherever R. Eliezer and the sages differ, the halachah is in accordance with the sages.]",
            "\t(If one said:) \"I shall be a Nazirite for a hundred days,\" if he became unclean on the hundredth day, he offsets the whole. [The rabbis are consistent with their view that if one becomes unclean on the day of fulfillment, it is as if he became unclean in the middle of his time, and he offsets the whole.] R. Eliezer says: He offsets only thirty, [holding that one who became unclean on the day of fulfillment offsets only thirty.] If he became unclean on the hundred and first day, he offsets thirty days. [The rabbis rule that he offsets thirty days, decreeing the hundred and first day, the day of shaving, by reason of the hundredth day. In any event, they were not so stringent with him as to make it like the hundredth day, the day of fulfillment, which offsets the whole. They decreed only that it offset general Naziritism, which is thirty days.] R. Eliezer sys: It offsets only seven. [He is consistent with his view that even on the thirtieth day they did not decree (offsetting), when he had said: \"I shall be a Nazirite,\" unqualified.]",
            "\tIf one assumed Naziritism while he was in the cemetery, even if he were there thirty days, they do not accrue to the count (of Naziritism), and he does not bring an offering for uncleanliness. [For that offering is prescribed for a Nazirite who was clean and became unclean. In any event, if he were forewarned, he receives stripes.] If he went out and re-entered, they do accrue to the count, and he brings an offering of uncleanliness. [The gemara explains this Mishnah thus: If he went out of the cemetery, and were besprinkled (with the cleansing waters) the third and seventh days, and immersed, and were purified from his uncleanliness, and began to count the days of his Naziritism — even though he afterwards re-entered the cemetery, these days that he counted after he became clean do accrue to him, since cleanliness intervened between the first days that he assumed Naziritism in the cemetery and these latter days. And even though he re-entered the cemetery, the uncleanliness of the cemetery does not offset the number of days that he counted in cleanliness. For only the twelve varieties of uncleanliness stated in respect to Naziritism offset these days. As to \"and he brings an offering of cleanliness,\" this is what is meant: If he became unclean again, with one of the uncleanlinesses which cause a Nazirite to shave, he brings an offering of uncleanliness and offsets (the count). R. Eliezer says; Not on the same day, it being written (Numbers 6:12): \"And the first days shall fall off\" — there must be \"first days.\" [That is, if on the day that he immersed and cleansed himself he became unclean with one of the uncleanlinesses which cause the Nazirite to shave, he does not offset that day, it being written: \"And the first days shall fall off\" — Uncleanliness does not offset until two days of Naziritism have been counted. And the same is true for a Nazirite in general, who became unclean on the first day of his Naziritism — Uncleanliness does not offset that day, but he includes it in the count of the days of his Naziritism. The halachah is in accordance with R. Eliezer.]",
            "\tIf one assumed many Naziritisms and completed his Naziritism and then came to Eretz Yisrael, [For Naziritism obtains only in Eretz Yisrael because of the uncleanliness of \"the lands of the nations.\" And if one vowed Naziritism outside Eretz Israel, he is obliged to go up to Eretz Yisrael and observe his Naziritism there.], Beth Shammai say: He becomes a Nazirite for thirty days; and Beth Hillel say: He becomes a Nazirite from the beginning. [He must observe in Eretz Yisrael the number of days of Naziritism that he vowed. And the days of Naziritism that he observed outside of Eretz Yisrael are not regarded as such at all.] It once happened with Queen Hilni that her son went to war and she said: \"If my son returns from the war in peace, I shall be a Nazirite for seven years.\" And her son returned from the war and she was a Nazirite for seven years. At the end of the seven years, she went up to Eretz Yisrael, and Beth Hillel instructed her to be a Nazirite for another seven years. At the end of the seven years she became unclean, so that she was found to be a Nazirite for twenty-one years. R. Yehudah said: She was a Nazirite for only fourteen years. [R. Yehudah holds with R. Eliezer, who says above (3:4) that if one becomes unclean on the day of fulfillment, he offsets only thirty days. Accordingly, he says that Queen Hilni, who became unclean at the end of fourteen years, the day of fulfillment, did not offset the whole and was not required to count another seven years, but only thirty days. And because this is not a whole year, it was not included in the count; but it is as if he said: She was a Nazirite for fourteen years and thirty days.]",
            "\tIf two sets of witnesses testified about a man, one set saying that he had vowed two [Naziritisms] and the other set saying that he had vowed five — [At the same time that you say he vowed two, we say that he vowed five. And he says that he did not vow at all] — Beth Shammai say that the testimony is split. [Since they contradict each other, their words are voided and no testimony obtains.] And Beth Hillel say: Included in five are two, and he is to observe two Naziritisms."
        ],
        [
            "\tIf one said: \"I shall be a Nazirite,\" and his neighbor heard and said: \"And I,\" and (his neighbor:) \"And I,\" they all became Nazirites. [This, on condition that each one of them \"latched onto\" the words of his neighbor (after no longer a period than) it takes for a disciple to greet his master, viz., to say to him: \"Peace to you, my master.\"] If the first were absolved (of his vow), all are absolved. If the last were absolved, the last is permitted, and all the others, forbidden. If one said: \"I shall be a Nazirite,\" and his neighbor heard and said: \"My mouth as his mouth,\" or \"My hair as his hair\" [He must say: \"My mouth is as his mouth from wine,\" and \"My hair is as his hair from shaving.\"], he becomes a Nazirite. If one said: \"I shall become a Nazirite,\" and his wife heard and said: \"And I,\" he can annul hers, and his remains. If she said: \"I shall be a Nazirite,\" and her husband heard and said: \"And I,\" he cannot annul it. [For he already caused her vow to stand by saying \"And I.\" And if a woman vowed to be a Nazirite, and another heard and said: \"And I,\" and afterwards her husband annulled her vow, it is not annulled for the other, who said: \"And I,\" for a husband does not uproot a vow from its beginning as a sage does.]",
            "\tIf one said: \"I shall be a Nazirite, and you,\" and she said: \"Amen,\" he can annul hers, and his remains. [This is only when he inflected it as a question, i.e., \"And you?\" Will you be a Nazirite as I, or not? In that instance he can annul it. But if he said: \"I shall be a Nazirite, and you,\" affirmatively, and she answered \"Amen,\" he cannot annul it, for he had already caused it to stand.]",
            "\tIf a woman vowed to be a Nazirite and drank wine or made herself unclean to the dead, [and afterwards her husband annulled her vow], she receives forty stripes [for having transgressed before the annulment]. If her husband annulled it without her knowledge, and she drank wine or made herself unclean to the dead, she does not receive forty stripes. R. Yehudah says: Though she does not receive forty stripes, she receives \"stripes of rebellion\" [by ordinance of the scribes. \"Stripes of rebellion,\" wherever mentioned, is (assessed) according to the judge's judgment and the exigencies of the time. And this (the limitation upon the number of stripes) obtains only where a transgression has already been committed. But as regards a positive commandment, such as: \"Build a succah,\" and his refusing to build it; \"Take a lulav,\" and refusing to take it, he is given stripes until he acquiesces or until \"his soul expires.\"]",
            "\tIf a woman vowed to be a Nazirite, and separated her beast (for the Nazirite's offering), and then her husband annulled it — if her beast were his, it goes out and grazes with the flock. And if it were hers, [as when another gave it to her as a gift on condition that her husband have no rights in it (for melog property and tzon-barzel property are all bound to her husband)], the (beast designated as a) sin-offering dies. [ We wait until it dies], the burnt-offering is sacrificed as a burnt-offering, and the peace-offering is sacrificed as a peace-offering and is eaten in one day [as the peace-offerings of a Nazirite, which are eaten only for a day and a night], and they do not require bread. [For all the peace-offerings of a Nazirite require bread; but in this instance, since her husband annulled her vow, these peace-offerings do not require bread.] If she has unspecified monies [which she had set aside for \"the offerings of a Nazirite,\" without specifying which for a sin-offering, which for a burnt-offering, and which for a peace-offering], they \"fall\" as a gift-offering [into the boxes in the Temple where the other monies for gift-offerings are deposited, and burnt-offerings exclusively are purchased with them.] (If she had) specified monies — the monies for the sin-offering go to the Dead Sea; it is not permitted to benefit from them, and they are not subject to me'ilah (abuse of sacred property). [Ab initio, it is forbidden to benefit from them; but if one does benefit from them, he is not required to bring a me'ilah offering, which is required of one who benefits from sacred property.] The monies for the burnt-offering go towards a burnt-offering, and they are subject to me'ilah. The monies for a peace-offering go towards a peace-offering. It is eaten for one day and does not require bread.",
            "\tIf one of the bloods (of the offerings) were sprinkled for her, he (her husband) can no longer annul it. [For after the blood is sprinkled, she is permitted to drink wine and to make herself unclean to the dead and is no longer under any vow of affliction.] R. Akiva says: Even if one of all the beasts were slaughtered for her, he cannot annul it, [for he would be causing a loss of consecrated property]. When is this so? (that he cannot annul her vow)? With her shaving for cleanliness; but with her shaving for uncleanliness, he can annul it. [For she must go back and count Naziritism of cleanliness], for he can say: \"I do not want a 'marred' wife\" [that is, one who is afflicted and constrained from the drinking of wine.] Rebbi says: He can annul it even with her shaving for cleanliness, saying: \"I do not want a shaved wife.\" [i.e., so that she not be required to \"mar\" her appearance by shaving, shaving being \"marring\" to a woman. And the first tanna holds that shaving is not marring, for she can wear a wig. The halachah is neither in accordance with R. Akiva nor with Rabbi.]",
            "\tA man can bevow his son as a Nazirite [when he is a minor until he brings two (pubertal) hairs after he is thirteen years and one day old. And all the laws of Naziritism apply to him. His father brings his offerings, and if he becomes unclean, he brings an offering of uncleanliness. He \"bevows\" him by saying: \"Be a Nazirite,\" or: \"My son, so and so, is a Nazirite.\" This, on condition that neither the son nor relatives protest. This is a halachah received through the kabbalah (tradition)], and a woman cannot bevow her son as a Nazirite. What [should the father do with the offerings] if he [the son] shaved, [not accepting the Naziritism], or if his relatives shaved him, or if he protested, or if his relatives protested? [in which instance the Naziritism is voided. (And this obtains only if he or the relatives protested immediately. But if he began to observe Naziritism or he took Naziritism upon himself, he can no longer protest — neither he nor his relatives.)] If he had a beast separated — the sin-offering dies, the burnt-offering is sacrificed as a burnt-offering, and the peace-offering is sacrificed as a peace-offering, is eaten in one day, and does not require bread. If he had unspecified monies, they \"fall\" as a gift-offering. (If he had) specified monies — the monies for the sin-offering go to the Dead Sea; it is not permitted to benefit from them, and they are not subject to me'ilah. The monies for the burnt-offering go towards a burnt-offering, and they are subject to me'ilah. The monies for a peace-offering go towards a peace-offering. It is eaten for one day and does not require bread.",
            "\tA man may shave over the Naziritism of his father, but a woman may not shave over the Naziritism of her father [even if she is an inheriting daughter. We have this halachah through the kabbalah. How so? If one's father were a Nazirite, and he separated unspecified monies for his Naziritism and died, and he (the son) said: \"I shall be a Nazirite on condition that I shave over (i.e., using) the monies of my father\" (for the offerings). R. Yossi said: They \"fall\" as a gift-offering. This is not \"shaving over the Naziritism of his father.\" What is \"shaving over the Naziritism of his father\"? If he and his father were Nazirites, and his father separated unspecified monies for his Naziritism, and he died — this is \"shaving over the Naziritism of his father.\" [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yossi, but whether his father died, and he said: \"I shall be a Nazirite on condition that I shave over the monies of my father,\" or he and his father were Nazirites and his father died, he shaves over the Naziritism of his father. And if there were many sons, and one were beforehand and shaved over the Naziritism of his father, he acquires (the monies for his Naziritism)]."
        ],
        [
            "\tBeth Shammai say: Hekdesh (consecration) in error is hekdesh, [deriving it from temurah (a substitute), which is hekdesh even in error, it being written (Leviticus 27:10): \"And it (the offering) and its substitute shall be holy,\" \"shall be\" being expounded to include unwitting substitution along with witting substitution.] And Beth Hillel say: It is not hekdesh. [For we do not derive the beginning of hekdesh — something that does not come from the \"power\" of hekdesh — from something which comes from the power of hekdesh — from temurah, which is the end of hekdesh, coming from the power of a different thing which was already hekdesh.] How so? If he said: \"Let the black ox that leaves my house first be hekdesh,\" and a white one came out. Beth Shammai say that it is hekdesh, and Beth Hillel say that it is not hekdesh.",
            "\tIf one said:) \"Let the first golden dinar that comes up in my hand be hekdesh,\" and a silver one came up, Beth Shammai say that it is hekdesh, and Beth Hillel say that it is not hekdesh. (If one said;) \"Let the first keg of wine that comes up in my hand be hekdesh, and a keg of oil came up, Beth Shammai say that it is hekdesh, and Beth Hillel say that it is not hekdesh. [The first part (5:1) apprises us of what becomes hekdesh in itself; and here we are apprised of what becomes hekdesh in monetary value.]",
            "\tIf one vowed to be a Nazirite, and he consulted a sage, who forbade him, [i.e., if he told him that his language betokened Naziritism; and he (the vower) had not taken care not to drink wine], he counts from the time he vowed. [And we do not penalize him for having transgressed and drunk (even though, if in doubt, he should have abstained until he had consulted a sage.)] If he consulted a sage, who permitted him, [saying that his language did not betoken Naziritism] — if he had a beast set aside, it goes out and grazes with the flock. [For it was set aside in error and becomes chullin (non-sacred). In this instance Beth Shammai concede that since he is not a Nazirite, when he designated the animal as an offering for his Naziritism, he said nothing, as one who was not liable to bring a sin-offering and said: \"This is for my sin-offering.\"] Beth Hillel asked Beth Shammai: Do you not concur in this instance, which is \"hekdesh in error,\" that it goes out and grazes in the flock? [i.e., How does this differ from the first instance (5:1), where you say: \"Hekdesh in error is hekdesh\"?] Beth Shammai responded: Do you not concur that if one erred and called the ninth, the tenth; or the tenth, the ninth; or the eleventh, the tenth, that it is consecrated (as ma'aser)? [They did not feel obliged to respond with their rationale, but they challenged their (Beth Hillel's) view from the ninth and the eleventh, which were consecrated in error and which are included (as consecrated), this being derived from (Leviticus 27:32): \"And all the ma'asser of cattle and sheep\"]. Beth Hillel rejoined: Is it not the staff that consecrated them? [i.e., This is a Scriptural decree — that the staff consecrates the ninth and the eleventh which are close to the tenth, if he calls them \"the tenth.\"] And what if he had erred and placed the staff on the eighth or on the twelfth — would he have done anything? [i.e., We do not learn from this that, in general, \"hekdesh in error is hekdesh\"; for if that were the reason, then even the eighth and the twelfth would be hekdesh.] But it is Scripture that consecrated the tenth and Scripture that consecrated the ninth and the eleventh. [i.e., It is a Scriptural decree, and we cannot derive (a general ruling) from it.]",
            " \tIf one vowed to be a Nazirite and went to bring his beast and found that it had been stolen, [When he made the vow, he (assumed that) he had beasts, and it was on the basis of this assumption that he vowed, intending his Nazirite offerings to come from these beasts. And he went and found that they had been stolen, so that he regretted having vowed to be a Nazirite] — If he had vowed before his beast were stolen, he is a Nazirite [And the sage cannot absolve him of his vow with this \"opening,\" for it is \"nolad\" (something \"born\" after the vow), and \"nolad\" cannot be used as an opening.], and if he had vowed after his beast were stolen, he is not a Nazirite. [If he said: \"Had I known that it had been stolen, I would not have vowed, this is an opening, and the sage can absolve him of the vow.] And Nachum Hamadi fell into this error when the Nazirites came up from the exile and found that the Temple had been destroyed. [They had vowed before the Temple had been destroyed, and he absolved them, and the sages said to him that this was nolad, which may not be used as an opening. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.] Nachum Hamadi said to them: \"Had you known that the Temple had been destroyed, would you have vowed?\" They answered in the negative, and he absolved them. And when the sages were apprised of it, they said to him: Everyone who vowed Naziritism before the Temple had been destroyed is a Nazirite. (Everyone who vowed Naziritism) after the Temple had been destroyed is not a Nazirite.",
            "\tIf they were walking on the road, and someone came towards them, and one of them said: \"I shall be a Nazirite if that man is so and so\"; and the other said: \"I shall be a Nazirite if that man is not so and so\"; \"I shall be a Nazirite if one of you is a Nazirite\"; \"if one of you is not a Nazirite\"; \"if both of you are Nazirites\"; \"if all of you are Nazirites\" — Beth Shammai say: They are all Nazirites [even those whose words were not fulfilled. For just as hekdesh in error is hekdesh, so Naziritism in error is Naziritism.] Beth Hillel say: Only one whose words are fulfilled is a Nazirite. And R. Tarfon says: Not one of them is a Nazirite, [R. Tarfon holding there is no Naziritism without distinctness, i.e., without its being clear at the time of his vow that he is becoming a Nazirite. And in all of the above instances, he does not know at the time of his vow whether it will be as he says. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Tarfon.]",
            "\tIf he drew back, [If the one coming towards them went back, so that it was not known who it was], he is not a Nazirite. [Not one of them is a Nazirite, for one does not place himself in a position of doubt, it being assumed at the time of the vow that if there is no clear determination the vow does not obtain.] R. Shimon says: He must say: \"If it were as I said, I am a Nazirite by obligation; if not, I am a Nazirite by election.\" [R. Shimon is consistent with his view that in an instance of doubt as to whether one is or is not a Nazirite, the stringent option must be followed. And what is their remedy? (For they cannot bring an offering in doubt.) Each one must stipulate that if it is not as he vowed, he is a Nazirite by election. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon.]",
            "\tIf he saw a koi, and he said: \"I am a Nazirite if that is an animal\"; \"I am a Nazirite if that is not an animal\"; \"I am a Nazirite if that is a beast\"; \"I am a Nazirite if that is not a beast\"; \"I am a Nazirite if that is an animal and a beast\"; \"I am a Nazirite if that is neither animal nor beast\"; \"I am a Nazirite if one of you is a Nazirite\"; \"I am a Nazirite if none of you is a Nazirite\"; \"I am a Nazirite if you are all Nazirites\" — they are all Nazirites. [If six men saw a koi, and one of them said: \"I shall be a Nazirite if that is an animal\"; the second: \"I shall be a Nazirite if that is not an animal\"; the third: \"I shall be a Nazirite if that is a beast\"; the fourth: \"I shall be a Nazirite if that is not a beast\"; the fifth: \"I shall be a Nazirite if that is an animal and a beast\"; the sixth: \"I shall be a Nazirite if that is neither animal nor beast\" — and then three other men came and one of them said to these six: \"I shall be a Nazirite if one of you is a Nazirite\"; the second: \"I shall be a Nazirite if one of you is not a Nazirite\"; the third: \"I shall be a Nazirite if you are all Nazirites\" — all are Nazirites, the first six and the last three. According to Beth Shammai, they are definite Nazirites, for Naziritism in error is Naziritism. And according to Beth Hillel, they are Nazirites \"by doubt,\" because there is a doubt as to whether a koi is a beast or an animal or a distinctive creature.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tThree things are forbidden to a Nazirite: Uncleanliness [(Numbers 6:6): \"Upon the soul of a dead one he shall not come.\"], shaving [(Ibid. 5): \"A blade shall not pass over his head.\"], and what comes from the vine [(Ibid. 3): \"And grapes, wet or dry, he shall not eat.\"] And everything that comes from the vine [such as grapes, wet and dry, kernels and husk] combine with each other [to an olive-size, making one liable to stripes.] And he is not liable until he eats an olive-size of grapes. And the quantity for drinking is, likewise, an olive-size. For since it is written: \"And grapes, wet and dry, he shall not eat,\" we derive: Just as with eating, an olive-size, so with drinking, an olive-size.] An earlier Mishnah: (He is not liable) until he drinks a revi'ith of wine. [The earlier Mishnah apprises us that we derive it in the opposite manner, eating from drinking. And the quantity for drinking for a Nazirite (to be liable) is a revi'ith, this being derived \"shechar\" (strong drink) (Numbers 6:3) - \"shechar\" (Leviticus 10:9), from (what is written in respect to) the sanctuary. And just as the prohibited drinking quantity is a revi'ith, so the prohibited eating quantity is a revi'ith.] R. Akiva says: Even if one soaks his bread in wine and there is enough to combine to an olive-size, he is liable. [R. Akiva holds that the prohibited quantity for a Nazirite, both for eating and for drinking is an olive-size, and the permitted (food) combines with the forbidden to complete the (forbidden) quantity. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Akiva.]",
            "\tAnd he is liable for the wine in itself, for the grapes in themselves, for the chartzanim in themselves, and for the zagim in themselves. R. Elazar says: He is not liable until he eats two chartzanim (kernels) and their zag (husk), [it being written (Numbers 6:4): \"from chartzanim until zag,\" the minimum of \"chartzanim\" being two, for which there is one zag. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Elazar b. Azaryah. But if one eats from chartzan and zag, he does not receive stripes until he eats an olive-size. Which are \"charzanim\" and which are \"zagim\"? The chartzanim are the outer (the husk); the zagim, the inner (the kernels). These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Yossi says: Make no mistake. [R. Yossi gave a sign to prevent a mistake.] It is as the zug (bell) of a beast. The outer part is called \"zug\"; the inner part, \"inbal\" (the clapper).",
            "\t\"Naziritism,\" unqualified, is for thirty days. [Even though this was taught above (1:3), it is taught again here for what follows, viz. \"If he shaved, etc.\"] If he shaved or bandits shaved him, he offsets thirty days. [That is, he offsets it until he has a hair-growth of thirty days, when he shaves the shaving of mitzvah.] A Nazirite who shaved, whether with a pair (of scissors), or with a blade, or who plucked out anything [i.e., who uprooted even one hair] is liable (to stripes), it being written (Numbers 6:5): \"A blade shall not pass\" — to include all (instruments) that pass.] A Nazirite may rub [his hair with his hand] and he may part it [with his fingernails or with an instrument, so long as he does not intend to remove (any hair), for \"what is not intended is permitted.\"], but he may not comb it [with a comb, it being certain (that some hair will be torn out), which is forbidden. Even though one who pulls out even one hair receives stripes, still, he does not offset thirty days until he shaves most of his hair with a blade or with scissors at the source of the hair.] R. Yishmael says: He may not rub (his hair) with earth [one of the depilatories], for this, [too, is certain] to cause some hair to fall out. [The halachah is in accordance with R. Yishmael.]",
            "\tIf a Nazirite drank wine the whole day, [and he were warned only once] he is liable (to stripes) only once. If they said to him: \"Do not drink,\" \"Do not drink\" [i.e., if he were warned between one drinking and the next], and he drank, he is liable for each one. If he shaved the whole day, he is liable only once. If they said to him: \"Do not shave,\" \"Do not shave,\" and he shaved, he is liable for each one. If he made himself unclean to the dead a whole day, he is liable only once. If they said to him: \"Do not make yourself unclean,\" \"Do not make yourself unclean,\" and he made himself unclean, he is liable for each one.",
            "\tThree things are forbidden to a Nazirite: Uncleanliness, shaving, and what comes from the vine. A stringency of uncleanliness over shaving and what comes from the vine: Uncleanliness and shaving offset, [it being written in respect to uncleanliness (Numbers 6:12): \"And the first days shall fall off\"; and shaving offsets thirty, it being written (Ibid. 5): \"He shall let grow the locks of his hair,\" which does not obtain in less than thirty days.] A stringency of what comes from the vine over uncleanliness and shaving: What comes from the vine — nothing in its class was permitted, [such as drinking wine of mitzvah, for we say (Ibid. 3): \"From wine and strong drink shall he separate himself\" — to forbid wine of mitzvah just as ordinary wine.] But uncleanliness and shaving — something in their class was permitted, with shaving of mitzvah and with a meth-mitzvah (a dead man who has no one to bury him) [(the permitting of uncleanliness for a meth-mitzvah (Ibid. 7): \"For his father and his mother … he shall not become unclean\" — For his father he may not become unclean, but he does become unclean for a meth-mitzvah. And shaving for a Nazirite who became leprous — the positive commandment of (Leviticus 14:9): \"And he shall shave all his hair\" coming and pushing aside the negative commandment of (Numbers 5): \"A blade shall not pass over his head.\"] And a stringency of uncleanliness over shaving. For uncleanliness offsets the whole (Naziritism) and obliges one to bring an offering, whereas shaving offsets only thirty days and does not oblige one to bring an offering.",
            "\tThe shaving of uncleanliness — How? He would be besprinkled (with the cleansing waters) on the third and seventh days, and he would shave on the seventh, and he would bring his offerings on the eighth. And if he shaved on the eighth, he brings his offerings on that day, [as it is written (Numbers 6:9): \"Then he shall shave it. (10) And on the eighth day he shall bring two turtle-doves, etc.\"] These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Tarfon asked him: What is the difference between him and a leper? [it being written in respect to the second shaving of a leper (Leviticus 14:9): \"And it shall be on the seventh day that he shall shave off all his hair … (10) And on the eighth day he shall take, etc.\" And it is ruled in respect to a leper that if he shaved on the eighth day, he brings his offering on the ninth!] He answered: This one [the Nazirite], his cleaning is contingent upon his days, [sprinkling on the third and on the seventh, and immersion. Therefore, since he is cleansed on the seventh, even though he did not shave until the eighth day, he brings his offerings on that day], whereas a leper — his cleansing is contingent upon his shaving, and he cannot bring an offering until the sun has set (after his cleansing), [it being written: \"On the seventh day he shall shave off all his hair,\" followed by: \"And he shall bathe his flesh in water.\" And if he immersed before he shaved, his immersion is of no avail. Therefore, if he shaved on the eighth, he still requires immersion and setting of the sun, for which reason he cannot bring his offerings until the ninth day. The halachah is in accordance with R. Akiva.]",
            "\tThe shaving of cleanliness — How? He would bring three beasts: a sin-offering, a burnt-offering, and a peace-offering, and he would slaughter the peace-offering and shave over it, [it being written (Numbers 6:18): \"And he shall shave at the door of the tent of meeting,” which is understood thus: And he shall shave his head over the sacrifice of which it is written: \"at the door of the tent of meeting,\" this being the peace-offering, of which it is written (Leviticus 3:3): \"And he shall slaughter it at the door of the tent of meeting.\"] These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Elazar says: He would shave only over the sin-offering, for the sin-offering takes precedence [to a burnt-offering and a peace-offering] in all places. And it is over the first that he should shave.] And if he shaved over (any) one of the three, he has satisfied the requirement.",
            "\tR. Shimon b. Gamliel says: He would bring three beasts and not specify. That which was fit for a sin-offering was sacrificed as a sin-offering; for a burnt-offering, as a burnt-offering; for a peace-offering, as a peace-offering. [Even though all offerings must be specifically designated by the owners, here it was not necessary. For when he said: \"These are for Naziritism,\" it is as if he had designated each one. For a female lamb is fit only for a sin-offering; a male-lamb, only for a burnt-offering; and a ram, only for a peace-offering.] He would take the hair of the head of his Naziritism and cast it under the cauldron [in which the peace-offering was being cooked.] And if he shaved in the province [i.e., Jerusalem (outside the Temple) (Even though it is written: \"at the door of (pethach) the tent of meeting,\" this is not to be taken literally, but to be understood as: \"at the time the tent of meeting is open (patuach)\"], he would not cast it under the cauldron, [it being written (Numbers 6:18): \"And he shall take the hair of the head of his Naziritism and he shall place it upon the fire\" — one who is lacking only taking and placing — to exclude this one, who is lacking taking, bringing, and placing under the cauldron]. When does this apply? [that in the Temple he takes the hair and casts it under the cauldron]? With the shaving of cleanliness. But with the shaving of uncleanliness, he did not cast it under the cauldron. [Even if he shaved in the sanctuary, he did not take the hair and cast it under the cauldron of the guilt-offering and the bird sin-offering, for placing hair under the cauldron is stated only in  respect to a clean Nazirite.] R. Meir says: All cast it under the cauldron, [a clean Nazirite in the Temple and in the province, and an unclean Nazirite in the Temple], except for an unclean (Nazirite) in the province alone [whose hair is buried]. And the halachah is that the only one who casts it under the cauldron is a clean Nazirite, who shaved at the door of the tent of meeting, according to the mitzvah]. And if he cast it under the cauldron of the sin-offering, he fulfills the requirement. [\"He shall place it upon the first which is under the sacrifice of the peace-offering\" was stated only for the mitzvah (but the requirement can be satisfied otherwise)].",
            "\tAfter cooking or boiling the peace-offering, the Cohein would take the cooked shoulder of the ram, and one unleavened cake from the basket, and one unleavened wafer, and place them on the hands of the Nazirite, and he would lift them; and then the Nazirite would be permitted to drink wine and to make himself unclean for the dead, [it being written (Numbers 6:20): \"And after, the Nazirite may drink wine\" — after all of the aforementioned acts.] R. Shimon says: Once one of the bloods (of the offerings) has been sprinkled for him, the Nazirite is permitted to drink wine and to become unclean for the dead, [it being written here: \"And after, the Nazirite may drink wine,\" and elsewhere (Ibid. 19): \"after his shaving of his Naziritism\" — Just as there, after a single act, so here, after a single act — whereby we are taught that once one of the bloods has been sprinkled for him, he is permitted to drink wine and to make himself unclean for the dead.]",
            "\tIf he shaved over the offering, and it were found to be unfit [as when its blood spilt, or it left (its precincts), or it became unclean], his shaving is void [Since the offering over which he shaved became unfit, it is as if bandits shaved him, concerning which we learned above that according to R. Eliezer it offsets seven days, and, according to the rabbis, thirty.], and his offerings are not credited to him [(the other offerings, that he sacrificed after his invalid shaving.) For since he must offset (the Naziritism) until his hair grows back, it is as if he sacrificed them before their time.] If he shaved over a sin-offering [(the \"offering,\" above)], not (offered up) for its sake (lo lishmah), [and it were found to be unfit, (for a sin-offering not for its sake is unfit.) (Since we must be apprised of the difference between R. Shimon and the rabbis in respect to burnt-offering and peace-offering, \"sin-offering,\" too, is taught)], and then he brought his offerings for their sakes, his shaving is void, and his offerings are not credited to him. If he shaved over the burnt-offering or over the peace-offering not for their sake, and then he brought his offerings for their sakes, his shaving is void and his offerings are not credited to him. [For since they are not credited as the peace-offering and the burnt-offering of a Nazirite, it is as if shaved over a gift burnt-offering or a gift peace-offering.] R. Shimon says: That offering (not for its sake) is not credited to him, but the other offerings are credited to him. [R. Shimon holds that if he shaves over a gift burnt-offering or peace-offering he satisfied the (shaving) requirement. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon.] And if he shaved over the three [after all of them were sacrificed], and one of them were found to be fit (kasher) and the others, unfit, his shaving is valid [according to all, viz. (6:7): \"And if he shaved over (any) one of the three, he has satisfied the requirement.\"], and he brings the other offerings.",
            "\tIf one of the bloods were sprinkled for him and he became unclean, R. Eliezer says: He offsets all. [Not all of the days (of Naziritism), but all of the offerings. R. Eliezer is consistent with his view that the Nazirite is not permitted to drink wine until all of the (aforementioned acts), after the bringing of all the offerings. So that when he became unclean before he offered all of them, it is as if he became unclean in the morning, before he had offered any of them. And the offering that he brought is reckoned as having been brought before \"fulfillment\" (of his Naziritism).] And the sages say: He may bring the other offerings and become clean. [(That is, when he becomes clean.) And he need not bring again the offering that he brought when he was clean. The rabbis are consistent with their view (6:9) that after a single act it is permitted to drink wine and to shave. Therefore, before he became unclean, he was fit to shave, and that offering is not offset. But the other offerings, which he sacrificed after becoming unclean, are certainly offset, Scripture requiring that all the Nazirite offerings be brought in cleanliness.] They said to him. It happened with Miriam the Tarmodith [(from Tarmod)] that one of the bloods had been sprinkled for her and they came and told her that her daughter was gravely ill — whereupon she went and found that she had died. And the sages said: \"Let her bring the other offerings and become clean.\""
        ],
        [
            "\tA high-priest and a Nazirite may not make themselves unclean for their relatives, [as written in Emor and Nasso], but they do make themselves unclean for a meth-mitzvah. If they were walking on the road and came upon a meth-mitzvah — R. Eliezer says: The high-priest should make himself unclean and not the Nazirite. [Not necessarily a high-priest, for they differ with respect to a regular priest, too, the reason being the same]. And the sages say: The Nazirite should make himself unclean, and the high-priest should not make himself unclean. R. Eliezer said to them: Let the Cohein make himself unclean, who does not bring an offering for his uncleanliness, and let the Nazirite not make himself unclean, who does bring an offering for his uncleanliness. They said to him: Let the Nazirite become unclean, whose holiness is not forever, and let the Cohein not become unclean, whose holiness is forever.",
            "\tThe Nazirite shaves for these uncleanlinesses: a dead body [even though it is not whole, but possesses most of the build — two legs and one thigh — or most of the limbs, one hundred and twenty-five, even if they do not amount to a quarter of a kav. They cause tent-uncleanliness, and a Nazirite shaves for it. And if most of the limbs and most of the build are lacking, the Nazirite does not shave for tent-uncleanliness unless the bones amount to half a kav.], an olive-size (of flesh) of a dead body, an olive-size of netzel [liquid exuded by a dead body from the decaying of the flesh], and a spoonful tarvad of rakav [the dust of the decay of a dead body. And this does not cause uncleanliness unless he were buried naked in a marble casket or the like, where the only decay is that of the body, and where he were buried whole, no limbs lacking. A tarvad is a large spoon, which holds whole handfuls.], the spine [even if there is no flesh on it], the skull [likewise, even if there is no flesh on it], a limb from a dead person or a limb from a living person, which has upon it a sufficient amount of flesh [\"sufficient\" being the amount of flesh which could effect healing in a limb attached to a living person (less than an olive-size)], a half kav of bones, and a half log of blood [Even though a quarter of a kav of bones causes tent-uncleanliness, it is a halachah to Moses from Sinai that a Nazirite shaves only for half a kav. Similarly, with a half log of blood. Even though a quarter causes tent-uncleanliness, a Nazirite shaves only for a half log] — (a Nazirite shaves) for touching them, carrying them, and tent-uncleanliness; and, for a bone the size of a barley-corn, (he shaves) for touching or carrying them [but not for tent-uncleanliness, a bone the size of a barley-corn not causing tent-uncleanliness]. For these, the Nazirite shaves and sprinkles on the third and seventh days, and offsets the previous days (of Naziritism), [viz. (Numbers 6:7): \"And the first days shall fall off\"], and he does not begin to count until he is cleansed and he has brought his offerings. [i.e., after having immersed and the sun having set after the sprinkling of the third and seventh days.]",
            "\tBut sechachoth [(a tree with separate boughs) — If there were an olive-size of the dead under one of them, and a Nazirite passed by, it not being known whether he passed under the bough \"tending\" the dead], protrusions, [stones or (pieces of) wood protruding from a wall, and uncleanliness (lying) under one of them], beth hapras, [A field in which a grave was plowed up makes a beth hapras of a hundred cubits, this being estimated to be the distance that the plow carries a bone], \"the land of the peoples,\" [the sages having decreed uncleanliness on \"the lands of the peoples\"], the golel [the cover of the casket], the dofek [the casket itself, on which the covering \"knocks\" (dofek)], a quarter (of a log) of blood, [(Even for carrying or for touching it, the Nazirite does not shave)], \"tenting\" over a quarter of bones [(If he tented over a quarter of a kav of bones from the dead, he does not shave — until he \"tents\" over half a kav. But for touching and carrying a quarter of bones, he does shave, even if they were crushed and not one of them were the size of a barley-corn)], and vessels which touched the dead, [which cause uncleanliness as the dead body itself; and one who touches them becomes unclean for seven days], and the days of his [a leper's] counting [after having been cleansed of his leprosy, viz. (Leviticus 14:8): \"And he shall sit outside his tent for seven days\"], and the days of his [the leper's] confirmation — For these [all of these mentioned in our Mishnah], the Nazirite does not shave. He sprinkles on the third and seventh days [(This does not refer to \"the days of his counting\" and \"the days of his confirmation,\" sprinkling on the third and seventh not being applicable to these)], and he does not offset the previous days, and he begins counting immediately [All of these (days of uncleanliness) mentioned above are not counted with the days of his Naziritism, and do not offset it, but he cleanses himself after the sprinkling of the third and the seventh if he became unclean by the dead, or after completing the days of his confirmation and of his counting if he became leprous. He completes his Naziritism of the days already counted before he became unclean ], and he does not bring an offering [of uncleanliness.] In truth, it was said: The days of a zav and a zavah, [all the days of their uncleanliness, and the days of their counting seven clean days] and the days of the closeting of a (suspected) leper [viz. (Leviticus 13:4): \"And the Cohein shall quarantine the plague-spot seven days\"] are counted for him [towards the days of his Naziritism. And it goes without saying that they do not offset the previous days.]",
            "\tR. Eliezer said in the name of R. Yehoshua: With every dead-body uncleanliness for which a Nazirite shaves, there is liability for entering the sanctuary. [If he incurred that uncleanliness and entered the sanctuary, or if he ate of the offerings before he cleansed himself of his uncleanliness, he is liable to kareth if he sinned wittingly.] And with every dead-body uncleanliness for which a Nazirite does not shave, there is no liability for entering the sanctuary. R. Meir said: This (the above) should not be less stringent than sheretz (\"creeping thing\" uncleanliness)! [for which there is liability for entering the sanctuary, viz. (Leviticus 5:2): \"…or the dead body of an unclean creeping thing.\" (R. Meir's argument does not stand. For a Nazirite shaves for touching or carrying a bone the size of a barley-corn, which is of lesser stringency, not causing tent-uncleanliness, as we learned in our Mishnah (7:3), yet he does not shave for a revi'ith of blood, which is of greater stringency, causing tent-uncleanliness.] R. Akiva said: \"I reasoned thus before R. Eliezer: Now if a Nazirite shaves for carrying or touching a bone the size of a barley-corn, which does not cause tent-uncleanliness, should he not shave for touching or carrying a revi'ith of blood, which does not cause tent-uncleanliness! He said to me: What is this, Akiva, we cannot reason a fortiori here! [An a fortiori argument cannot be based on a halachah to Moses from Sinai. For (the halachah of) \"a bone the size of a barley-corn\" is not written in the Torah, but is a halachah to Moses from Sinai, and it cannot be the basis for an a fortiori argument.] And when I came and repeated this to R. Yehoshua, he said to me: You said well, but they stated thus as a halachah (to Moses from Sinai). [The words of R. Yehoshua are essentially the same as those of R. Eliezer.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tIf a man said to two Nazirites: \"I saw one of you become unclean, but I do not know which one,\" [and they remain silent. For if they deny it, he is not believed. For a single witness, where his testimony is denied, is not believed. And our Mishnah speaks of an instance in which this witness was not together with them, but says: \"From a distance, I saw uncleanliness fall between you.\" For if he were together with them at the time, this would constitute \"a possibility of uncleanliness in the public domain,\" which is ruled to be clean. For every \"possibility of uncleanliness is derived from sotah, viz. (Numbers 5:13): \"…and she shall have secreted herself, and she be unclean,\" where there are only she and the (suspected) adulterer, and where, on the possibility (of having committed adultery) she becomes unclean. But so long as there are more than two, even inside the house, in a doubtful instance, the ruling is \"clean,\" this constituting \"a possibility of uncleanliness in the public domain.\" For this reason, it must be posited that the witness was not together with them at the time of the \"possibility of uncleanliness.\"], they shave and bring an offering of uncleanliness and an offering of cleanliness. And they say (respectively): \"If I am the unclean one, then the offering of uncleanliness is mine, and the offering of cleanliness is yours; and if I am the clean one, then the offering of cleanliness is mine and the offering of uncleanliness is yours.\" And they count thirty days, [as when both vowed unspecified Naziritism at the same time. And the same applies if they both vowed together to observe Naziritism for a specified time. After they bring the offerings of cleanliness and uncleanliness, they again count that specified time, and they set aside an offering of cleanliness.] And they bring an offering of cleanliness and say (respectively): \"If I am the unclean one, then the offering of uncleanliness is mine, and the offering of cleanliness yours; and this is my offering of cleanliness. And if I am the clean one, then the offering of cleanliness is mine, and the offering of uncleanliness is yours; and this is your offering of cleanliness.\" If one of them died — R. Yehoshua said: Another man is sought to vow Naziritism with him and he says: \"If I were unclean, you are a Nazirite immediately; and if I were clean, you are a Nazirite after thirty days.\" And they count thirty days, and they bring an offering of uncleanliness and an offering of cleanliness, and he says: \"If I am the unclean one, then the offering of uncleanliness is mine, and the offering of cleanliness is yours; and if I am the clean one, then the offering of cleanliness is mine, and the offering of uncleanliness [the bird sin-offering, which is brought for uncleanliness] is in (a status of) doubt [and is not eaten].\" And they count thirty days, and they bring an offering of cleanliness, and he says: \"If I am the unclean one, then the offering of uncleanliness (which we already sacrificed) was mine, and the offering of cleanliness was yours, and this is the offering of my cleanliness (for my second Naziritism.) And if I were the clean one, then the offering of cleanliness was mine, and the offering of uncleanliness is in doubt, and this is the offering of your cleanliness.\" Ben Zoma said to him: And who will pay heed to him to become a Nazirite with him! Rather, he brings a bird sin-offering [for the possibility of Nazirite uncleanliness] and a beast burnt-offering, [but he does not bring a guilt-offering, as per the rabbis (above): \"If he brought his sin-offering, but not his guilt-offering,\" he counts.\"], and he says: \"If I were unclean, the sin-offering is mandatory and the burnt-offering is a gift; and if I were clean, then the burnt-offering is mandatory and the sin-offering is in (a status of) doubt.\" And he counts thirty days, and he brings an offering of cleanliness, and he says: \"If I were unclean, then the first burnt-offering was a gift, and this is mandatory. And if I were clean, the first burnt-offering was mandatory, and this (burnt-offering) is a gift, and this (the remainder is the rest of my offering.\" R. Yehoshua said: But then he is found to bring his offerings by halves! [if he were a clean Nazirite; for the first burnt-offering was mandatory, and now he offers a sin-offering and a burnt-offering.] But the sages conceded to Ben Zoma, [and they were not concerned about his bringing his offerings by halves. And the halachah is in accordance with Ben Zoma.]",
            "\tIf a Nazirite were possibly unclean and possibly confirmed, [possibly having incurred dead-body uncleanliness, and possibly being a confirmed leper], he may eat consecrated food after sixty days [but not before, for he is possibly a leper, who is forbidden to eat consecrated food until he brings his atonement. (But the possibility of his being an unclean Nazirite does not forbid him to eat consecrated food. For only one whose uncleanliness comes from his own body renders him \"lacking in atonement,\" which forbids the eating of consecrated offerings.) How so? If he vowed Naziritism for thirty days, and on the first day he incurred possible dead-body uncleanliness and possible leprosy, he sprinkles, and repeats, and immerses, and is cleansed of dead-body uncleanliness, as if he would come to shave as an unclean Nazirite or as a leper who had been healed. But he cannot shave until thirty days from the time he vowed Naziritism. For he might be a clean Nazirite, who is forbidden to shave until the fulfillment of the days of his Naziritism until he brings his offerings. And after thirty days he shaves: possibly the shaving of a leper, possibly the shaving of an unclean Nazirite, possibly the shaving of a clean Nazirite. And he brings two birds, as per the halachah of the shaving for the confirmation of a leper: a bird sin-offering, on the possibility of his being an unclean Nazirite, and a beast burnt-offering, on the possibility of his being a clean Nazirite. And even though he does not bring the other offerings of the shaving of cleanliness, we have already stated that if he shaved over one of the three, he has satisfied the requirement. And he makes the condition that if he is not a clean Nazirite, it is to be a gift burnt-offering. And the law of a confirmed leper is that he requires two shavings: one after the end of his confirmation, when he is healed of his leprosy; a second, after the days of his counting, after having counted seven days from the first shaving, viz. (Leviticus 14:9): \"And it shall be on the seventh day that he shall shave all of his hair.\" But his possibly being a Nazirite makes him unable to shave. Therefore, he must wait thirty days of possible clean Naziritism and shave for the possible days of counting of a leper and of possible clean Naziritism. And he brings a beast burnt-offering of possible Naziritism in order to shave over the offerings, and he makes the condition (above) over them. And on the morrow of the day of his shaving, he brings the offering of the leper to allow him to eat consecrated food, and a bird sin-offering. For a beast offering is not brought for a possibility, and he does not bring a guilt-offering, (the lack of) a guilt-offering not preventing one from eating consecrated food. It is found, then, that at the end of sixty days he eats consecrated food. For it is then that he brings his atonement for the possibility of confirmed leprosy], and he may drink wine and make himself unclean for the dead after a hundred and twenty days. For the shaving of a leper overrides the shaving of a Nazirite (only) when it (his being a leper) is certain; but if it is in doubt, it does not override. [He is still forbidden to drink wine and to make himself unclean for the dead, for he might have been a confirmed leper. And the shaving for leprosy does not satisfy the requirement of shaving for clean Naziritism or for unclean Naziritism, so that two additional Naziritisms are required — one for clean Naziritism and one for unclean Naziritism. And if he were a confirmed leper then all that he counted for the days of his Naziritism is not credited to him, the days of his confirmation and the days of his counting not being credited to him. He must, therefore, count another thirty days, and after those thirty days, he shaves — possibly as an unclean Nazirite, possibly as a clean Nazirite. And he brings a bird sin-offering on the possibility of unclean Naziritism, and a beast burnt-offering on the possibility of clean Naziritism in order to shave over the offering. And he makes the condition (above) over it. But he still is forbidden to drink wine and to make himself unclean for the dead. For he might have been a confirmed leper, in which instance the first two shavings would not have been credited to Naziritism, neither unclean nor clean. And he might have been an unclean Nazirite, so that the third shaving would have been for uncleanliness. Therefore, he must count another thirty days for clean Naziritism and bring the offering of a clean Nazirite and make the condition — after which he is permitted to drink wine and to make himself unclean for the dead. Likewise, if he vowed Naziritism for a year, and he incurred possible dead-body uncleanliness at the beginning of the year, and possibly leprosy, he counts a year and shaves for: possibility of uncleanliness, possibility of cleanliness, possibility of leprosy. And he counts a second year and shaves and brings his atonement, and eats consecrated food. And he counts another two years before he can drink wine and make himself unclean for the dead.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tNaziritism does not obtain with gentiles. [Even though gentiles bring vow and gift offerings as Israelites do, if a gentile vowed Naziritism, it does not apply to him, and he is permitted to drink wine and to make himself unclean for the dead, it being written in the beginning of the section on Naziritism (Numbers 6:2): \"Speak to the children of Israel\" — Naziritism obtains with the children of Israel, and not with gentiles.] Naziritism obtains with women and with bondsmen. A stringency of women over bondsmen: One can force his bondsman [to drink wine and to make himself unclean for the dead], but he cannot force his wife. [And in other vows of affliction and of abstention from work, the master need not force his bondsmen, but they are voided of themselves, it being written (Numbers 30:3): \"to bind a bond upon his soul\" — one whose soul is like his own, to exclude a bondsman, whose \"soul\" is not his own. Likewise, with all oaths sworn by a bondsman, whether or not they are vows of affliction, his master need not force him, for they are voided of themselves, the bondsman having no jurisdiction over himself. But a bondsman is obligated to fulfill vows which do not entail affliction or abstention from his master's work, and his master cannot force their voidance.] A stringency of bondsmen over women: He can annul the vows of his wife, but he cannot annul the vows of his bondsman. [If he desired that his wife fulfill her vow after he had annulled it, she is not obligated to fulfill it once it has been annulled. But if he forced his bondsman to transgress his vow and then desired him to fulfill it, he must fulfill it. ] If he annulled his wife's (Naziritism), it is \"eternally\" annulled. If he annulled his bondsman's (Naziritism), when he goes out free, he completes his Naziritism. [Not literally, \"annulled\"; but if he forced his bondsman to drink wine or to make himself unclean for the dead, and then the bondsman went out free, he must complete his Naziritism. Rambam explains: If one says to his bondsman: \"It (your Naziritism) is annulled,\" the master's rights in him dissolve, the bondsman gains his freedom thereby, and he must complete his Naziritism. (I am uneasy with this interpretation.)] If he (the bondsman) fled from him [after he had vowed Naziritism], R. Meir says: He should not drink (wine) [so that he be aggrieved and return to his master, who will force him to transgress his vow, and thus permit him to drink wine.] R. Yossi says: He should drink [so that he not take ill and die. For he is destined to return to his master. For his master will seek him out and take him back, so that it is as if he is in his master's domain].",
            "\tIf a Nazirite shaved, and then it became known to him that he had become unclean, [i.e., if he brought his offerings and shaved over them, and then he discovered that he had become unclean in the days of his Naziritism] — if it were known uncleanliness [uncleanliness that could be known of, as when it were not \"buried in the depths\"], it offsets, [and he counts another Naziritism.] And if it were \"uncleanliness of the depths,\" it does not offset. [If it became known to him that in the place he had passed through there were \"uncleanliness of the depths,\" i.e., uncleanliness which no one, even in the ends of the world, was aware of, even though it were definitely unclean, it does not offset, this being a halachah of Naziritism.] If [it became known to him] before he shaved, in either event, [whether it were known uncleanliness or uncleanliness of the depths], it offsets, [for the halachah that uncleanliness of the depths does not offset applies only after the shaving of cleanliness]. How so? [i.e., What is \"uncleanliness of the depths\"?] If he went down to immerse himself in (the waters of) a cave, and he found (matter from) a dead body floating on the surface of the cave, he is unclean. [If he were unclean with creeping-thing uncleanliness, or with something similar — not dead-body uncleanliness — and he went down to immerse (and cleanse himself) from his uncleanliness, and he found an olive-size (of matter) from a dead body floating on the surface of the water, and he were in doubt as to whether he had or had not become unclean, he is unclean. (As to the ruling that in the instance of uncleanliness floating on the surface of the water, he is clean, that refers to creeping-thing uncleanliness, but with dead-body uncleanliness, he is unclean.) And if this possibility became known to him after he had shaved, he is unclean. For this is known uncleanliness, since it was in a place where people would see it. As to its being stated: \"If he went down to immerse,\" this is to strengthen the point, i.e., even though one who goes down to immerse from uncleanliness to cleanliness guards himself against all manner of uncleanliness, he is still unclean.] If it were found embedded in the soil of the cave [in the place where he immersed, so that he had become unclean of a certainty — if it became known to him after he had shaved, he is clean, and it does not offset (the Naziritism), this being \"uncleanliness of the depths,\" it not having been known to anyone.], if he had gone down to cool off, he is clean. [Even if he had gone down to cool off, and not to immerse himself (in which instance he would take care to guard himself against uncleanliness), even so, he is clean], but (if he had gone down) to cleanse himself from dead-body uncleanliness, he is unclean. For a status of clean remains clean, and a status of unclean remains unclean. [If he went down to cleanse himself from dead-body uncleanliness, and immersed himself in a cave where a dead body was embedded, and he completed his Naziritism; or if he went down to cleanse himself from dead-body uncleanliness and then assumed Naziritism, he is unclean and offsets (his Naziritism). For a status of clean remains clean and a status of unclean remains unclean.] For there is a rationale for this, [for saying that the halachah that a Nazirite in the instance of \"uncleanliness of the depths\" is clean applies if he were in a status of clean, and not if he were in a status of unclean.]",
            "\tIf one found a dead body in the beginning [i.e., not having known that there was a grave there, as stated in the gemara: \"If he found him,\" and not if he were already 'found.'\" It is also derived from \"dead\" as opposed to \"slain.\"], lying [and not sitting] in the usual position [and not with his head placed between his thighs, all such suspected to be gentiles. Jews not being buried in this manner], he is permitted to take it [(He may remove it from there and bury it elsewhere)]and its tevusah. [He must take some of the soil of the grave with him, as much as the body \"takes up\" (kedai tefisah), which is all the moist soil under it. And he digs three fingers in the virgin soil, viz. (Genesis 47:30): \"And carry me from Egypt and bury me in their burying place\" — The intent of the seemingly superfluous \"from Egypt\" is: Take some of the soil of Egypt with me.] If he found two, he takes them and their tevusah. If he found three — if there were between one and the other from four cubits until eight [That is, if from the first grave until the third, there were not less than four cubits and not more than eight], it is a burial area, [it being clear that they were interred there, and it is forbidden to remove them. But if there were only one or two, we assume that they were buried there only temporarily, to be reinterred elsewhere. If there were three, however, this is indication of a burial plot. The conventional crypt was six cubits long and four cubits wide, and its diagonal, an additional two cubits (whence \"eight\"). This explains \"from four cubits until eight.\" (\"the full space of a litter and its buriers\" is to be omitted)] He examines from it onwards twenty cubits, [For the crypt was four cubits by six, and the space that the crypt opened onto, six by six on either side (as per the view of the rabbis. Bava Bathra 102b), so that the length of two crypts and the space between them was eighteen cubits. And because sometimes he examines one crypt on its diagonal, which is approximately two cubits longer, there are twenty cubits (to examine): eight of the first crypt, six of the intervening space, and six of the second crypt (for one diagonal is posited, but not two). This accounts for \"twenty.\" (And he must further examine twenty cubits from top to bottom, forty cubits.) For this might be the crypt at the east of the space, and there might be another opposite, at the west of the space. Or this might be the crypt at the west of the space, and there might be another at the east of the space.] If he found one at the end of twenty cubits, he examines from it onwards twenty cubits. [For who is to say that that crypt is part of this burial ground? Perhaps it is part of a different ground belonging to a different person. And all of the above examinations must, likewise, be made here. For just as there is a grave there, there might be others.] For there is a rationale for this [i.e., for saying that this field was made for graves, and that there were also other crypts there. (All of these Mishnayoth are included here by reason of \"There is a rationale for this.\")] For if he found it first, he would remove it and its tevusah (see above).",
            "\tEvery doubtful instance of plague-spots, in the beginning, is clean, [as when two came before a Cohein: one, with a bahereth (a bright spot) the size of a garis; the other, with a bahereth the size of a sela. And at the end of the week, each one's spot was the size of a sela (larger than a garis). If it were not known in which one the spreading had taken place, they are both (pronounced) clean, even though one of them is definitely unclean.)] This, so long as they had not been uncleanliness-linked. Once they had been uncleanliness-linked, a doubtful instance is unclean, [as when two came before a Cohein: one with a bahereth the size of a garis; the other with a bahereth the size of sela. And at the end of the week, each one's spot was the size of a sela and some addition, and then they reverted to the size of a sela. Even though one of them was definitely clean, the spreading having gone, both of them are pronounced unclean since they had been uncleanliness-linked (until the spots return to the size of a garis)]. In seven ways a zav (one with a genital discharge) is examined. [For if he \"saw\" (i.e., if the discharge was) by accident, he is clean, this being derived from (Leviticus 15:2): \"…if there be a discharge from his flesh\" — from (the nature of) his flesh, and not by accident.] This, so long as he had not been uncleanliness-linked. [That is, until the second sighting, when he becomes a confirmed zav, to produce lying and sitting uncleanliness. But at the first sighting, he produces uncleanliness until evening, as a ba'al keri (one with a seminal discharge), and it combines with the second even if it were by accident.] (the seven ways:) through eating [eating things conducive to zivah (the genital discharge), e.g., fat meat, milk, cheese, eggs, and old wine], through drinking [an abundance of drinking], through carrying [heavy loads], through jumping, through sickness, through looking [seeing a beautiful woman, even without thinking about her], and through thinking [even without looking. If he experienced any of these before the second sighting, he does not become a zav, and the drop does not produce carrying uncleanliness.] Once he has become zivah-linked [i.e., after the second-sighting, not by accident], he is not examined. [And even if the third sighting were by accident, he becomes a zav liable for an offering]. And his \"doubt\" and his semen are unclean, [his doubt because of his semen, i.e., if he saw semen first and a drop of zivah afterwards, it does not produce uncleanliness. For one who sees semen does not produce zivah uncleanliness for twenty-four hours. As long as he has not become zivah-linked, the semen \"cleanses\" the zivah, as having been caused by accident. But after he had become uncleanliness-linked, the semen does not cleanse the zivah, it not being assumed that the zivah discharge was produced by the seminal discharge]. For there is a rationale for this [i.e., for saying that the zivah sighting was not caused by accident, since he had already become a zav.] If a man struck his neighbor and he were diagnosed as dying, and then his condition improved, and then it worsened and he died, he (the smiter) is liable. R. Nechemiah says: He is not liable, for there is a rationale for this [i.e., for saying that he did not die because of the blow; for his condition had improved after it. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Nechemiah.]",
            "\tShmuel was a Nazirite [And if one says: \"I shall be like Shmuel\" or \"like the son of Elkanah,\" or \"like the one who clove Agag in Gilgal,\" he becomes a Nazirite according to R. Nehorai. And this is the halachah.] As R. Nehorai said: It is written (I Samuel 1:11): \"And morah shall not come upon his (Shmuel's) head.\" And, in respect to Shimshon (Judges 13:5): \"And morah (a razor) shall not come upon his head, for a Nazirite of G d shall he be.\" Just as \"morah\" in respect to Shimshon refers to Naziritism, so \"morah\" in respect to Shmuel refers to Naziritism. R. Yossi demurred: Is (the first) morah not \"fear\" of flesh and blood? [i.e., that Shmuel not be in fear and awe of men] R. Nehorai answered: But is it not already written (I Samuel 16:2): \"And Shmuel said: 'How can I go (to anoint David)? If Saul hears of it, he will kill me!'\" which indicates that he did fear flesh and blood (so that \"morah\" in respect to Shmuel must mean a razor, and not fear.)"
        ]
    ],
    "sectionNames": [
        "Chapter",
        "Mishnah"
    ]
}