json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nashim/English Explanation of Mishnah Nazir/English/merged.json

{
    "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Nazir",
    "language": "en",
    "versionTitle": "merged",
    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Nazir",
    "text": {
        "Introduction": [
            "The Torah discusses the laws of becoming a nazirite in Numbers 6:1-21.  There are three things prohibited to a nazirite:  1)  drinking or eating anything that comes from grapes; 2) cutting hair; 3) contracting impurity from a dead body.  The Torah provides rules for a nazirite who became impure by having someone die on or near him.  Finally the Torah describes a ritual to be performed at the end of the term of naziriteship.  He or she (women also can and did become nazirites) brings an offering, then the nazirite may cut his/her hair and the hair is also burnt on the altar.  ",
            "The other famous description of a nazirite in the Bible is Samson, whose mother made him a Nazirite for life.  The rabbis discuss the difference between life-long nazirites such as Samson and temporary nazirites, as discussed in Numbers.  ",
            "It is often debated whether or not becoming a nazirite is a positive or negative step.  According to Philo, a first century Jewish philosopher from Alexandria, a nazirite is holy like a priest.  Just as a priest is prohibited from contracting impurity, so too is a nazirite.  Amos 2:11 also compares nazirites to priests.  Josephus testifies that when a person was sick, they would vow a nazirite vow as a prayer for well-being.  From the Mishnah we will see that people frequently took vows of naziriteship, as a self-sacrifice to God.  ",
            "However, there were sages who looked askance at the institute of naziriteship, and called the nazirite a sinner, for the Torah mandates him to bring a sin offering.  This opposition to naziriteship probably should be soon as part of the general rabbinic opposition toward asceticism.  There are enough things already prohibited or mandated by the Torah.  One need not take upon himself more prohibitions in order to become extra holy.  ",
            "To become a nazirite, one vows a vow. Hence this tractate is found in the Mishnah immediately after tractate Nedarim. \n"
        ],
        "": [
            [
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b> This mishnah is very similar to the first mishnah of nedarim, indeed the first line of our mishnah is quoted there.  The mishnah discusses vow substitute formulas.  People were afraid to mention the entire vow formula because of the awe they had in the power of a vow.  Hence they used substitutes.  The rabbis teach that substitutes are just as valid as the full formula.  The mishnah continues to discuss other statements that make one into a nazir.",
                    "<b>All the substitutes for vows have the validity of vows.</b>  This is an introduction to the rest of the mishnah.  One need not state the full nazirite formula in order to become a nazirite.",
                    "<b>If one says, “I shall be [one]” he is a nazirite.</b>  According to the simple reading of this section, all one needs to say to become a nazirite is “I shall be”, with the direct object “a nazirite” understood.  The Talmud says that in order for this to be a valid nazirite formula, he must state it while a nazir is walking by.",
                    "<b>I shall be comely.</b>  Nazirites, who grew their hair long, were considered to be comely.  Therefore, one who says “I shall be comely” has taken a nazirite vow.",
                    "<b>“A nazik”, “a naziah”, “a paziah”, he is a nazirite.</b>  These words all sound close enough to “nazir” that it is clear that by using them, the person intends to take a nazirite vow.",
                    "<b>[If one says,] “Behold I shall be like this one,” or “Behold I shall curl [my hair]” or “Behold, I shall tend [my hair]” or “Behold, I shall grow my hair long,” he is a nazirite.</b>  The first statement “I shall be like this one” must have been made while a nazirite was walking by, as we explained in section two.  The other statements, references to growing beautiful, long hair, are also references to becoming a nazir.  As we can see, nazirites were distinguished by their growing their hair long.",
                    "<b>[If one says] “Behold, I shall [bring] birds [as offerings]” Rabbi Meir says he is a nazirite, but the sages say he is not a nazirite.</b>  A nazirite who became impure must bring two birds as sacrifices (Numbers 6:10).  According to Rabbi Meir, if one says, “I shall bring bird offerings”, his intention is to make himself a nazirite.  The Sages hold that he has not vowed a nazirite vow.  However, he would have to bring two birds as offerings."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b> This first section of this mishnah teaches that if one accepts some of the prohibitions for which a nazirite is liable, he is obligated for all of the regulations. The second section deals with becoming a nazirite like Samson. The third section deals with the distinction between a nazirite like Samson and one who is a regular life-long nazirite.",
                    "<b>[If one says,] “Behold I am a nazir [to abstain] from grape seeds, or from grape skins, or from shaving, or from [contracting] ritual defilement,” he is a nazirite and all the regulations of naziriteship apply to him.</b>  There are three nazirite prohibitions:  eating things that come from grapes, shaving/cutting hair, and contracting impurity.  If one takes a vow of naziriteship but tries to limit his prohibitions to one of these things, the nazirite vow if valid and all of the prohibitions apply, not just those that he mentioned.  The mishnah uses the example of grape seeds and skins since they are mentioned in Numbers 6:4.",
                    "<b>[If one says,] “Behold, I shall be like Samson”, “like the son of Manoah”, “like the husband of Delilah, or “like the one who uprooted the doors of Gaza,” or “like the one whose eyes the Philistines put out,” he is a nazirite like Samson.</b>  Samson, son of Manoah, husband of Delilah, who uprooted the doors of Gaza,  and whose eyes were put out by the Philistines, was perhaps the most famous nazirite ever (see Judges 13).  One who uses one of these aspects of Samson’s life to vow a nazirite vow is a nazirite like Samson.",
                    "<b>What difference is there between a nazirite like Samson and a life-nazirite? A life-nazirite if his hair becomes burdensome, he may thin it with a razor and then offer three animal sacrifices. If he should be ritually defiled, he must offer the sacrifice [prescribed] for defilement. The nazirite like Samson if his hair becomes burdensome, he may not thin it. And if he becomes ritually defiled, he does not offer the sacrifice [prescribed] for defilement.</b>  This section explains the differences between a nazirite like Samson and a regular life-nazirite.  A person can become a life long nazirite if he says, “Behold I am a life-nazirite” or “ “Behold, I am a nazirite all my life.”  According to the Talmud, Absalom, son of David, was a life-long Nazirite.  This assumption is made because of Absalom’s long hair (II Samuel 14:26) which was also his eventual undoing (II Samuel 18:9).  As we shall see in tomorrow’s mishnah, if a person vows a nazirite vow but does not stipulate for how long his naziriteship is to last, he is a nazirite for only thirty days. There are two differences between Samson-nazirites and life-nazirites.  If a life-long Nazirite wishes to lighten his heavy hair he may do so.  This is derived from Absalom who, once a year when his hair became too heavy, cut it (II Samuel 14:26).  However, if he chooses to cut his hair, he must bring three sacrificial animals:  one for a sin offering, one for a burnt offering and one for an offering of well-being (Numbers 6:14). If a life-long nazirite becomes impure, he must bring an offering made as a result of impurity, as is mandated in Numbers 6:10-12. In contrast, a Samson-nazirite may never cut his hair, because Samson never cut his hair.  However, if he becomes impure he does not bring a sacrifice, just as Samson did not bring a sacrifice when he became impure (Judges 14:19)."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nAs we explained above, the minimum period of naziriteship is thirty days.  However, a person can accept upon himself more than one “naziriteship”, and thereby become a nazirite for 60 days, 90 days etc.  In such a case, after each thirty day naziriteship he would bring the sacrifices, shave his head and then start a new, thirty day period of naziriteship.  In addition, a person can certainly become a nazirite for longer than thirty days if he so specifies.",
                    "<b>A nazirite vow of unspecified duration is for thirty days. If one says, “Behold, I am a nazirite for one long [period”], or “Behold, I am a nazirite for one short [period]”, or even [if he says, “[Behold, I am a nazirite for as long as it takes to go] from here to the end of the earth,” he is a nazirite for thirty days.</b>  If someone vows a nazirite vow but does not specify how long the naziriteship will last, the naziriteship will be thirty days.  This is true even if he says that he wants to be a nazirite for a long time, or a nazirite for a short time, or even if he says he wants to be a nazirite for as long as it takes to walk from here to the end of the world, since he did not mention a specific period of time, he is a nazirite for only thirty days, no more and no less.",
                    "<b>[If one says,] “Behold, I am a nazirite, plus one day,” or “Behold, I am a nazirite, plus one hour,” or “Behold, I am a nazirite, once and a half,” he becomes a nazirite for two [periods of naziriteship].</b>  In the cases mentioned in this section, he vows one period of naziriteship, and then a partial second period.  The mishnah treats this as if he has vowed two periods of naziriteship. The first one he expressed fully, and the second one, even though he only partially expressed, is obligates him for a full second naziriteship.",
                    "<b>[If one says,] “Behold, I am a nazirite for thirty days plus an hour,” he becomes a nazirite for thirty-one days, since there is no naziriteship for hours.</b>  In this case he did not say “I am a nazirite” without specifying for how long, but rather, “I am a nazirite for thirty days plus one hour.”  Since he mentioned thirty days he has only vowed one naziriteship that shall last thirty days plus one hour.  However, one cannot be a nazirite for hours, and therefore he must observe a naziriteship of thirty-one days."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah discusses a person who seemingly accepts upon himself an extremely large number of naziriteships.  The question is, is he considered a life-nazirite, or one who is observing an endless series of naziriteships, who must shave his head between each period.",
                    "<b>[If one says,] “Behold, I am a nazirite as the hairs of my head”, or “As the dust of the earth”, or “As the sands of the sea,” he becomes a life-nazirite, and shaves his head every thirty days. Rabbi says: this one does not shave his head every thirty days.</b>  According to the first opinion in this mishnah, this person has made an infinite number of nazirite vows, each one being without specified duration, and hence thirty days.  Therefore, he observes one naziriteship, shaves his head, offers sacrifices, and then immediately begins to observe another naziriteship.  According to Rabbi, this person’s intention was merely to be a life-nazirite. Therefore, he does not shave his head once every thirty days.",
                    "<b>The one who shave his head every thirty days is the one who says, “Behold, upon me are naziriteships as the hair on my head”, or “As the dust of the earth”, or “As the sands of the sea.”</b>  This is a continuation of Rabbi’s words from the previous section.  In order for him to be in the category of one who shaves his head every thirty days, he must specify that he is vowing many naziriteships.  In this case he accepts upon himself distinct periods of naziriteship, shaving after each one is completed."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah introduces a situation in which it is unclear what type of nazirite vow a person took and in order to clarify the matter, they ask him to explain what his intention was.  As we shall see, even after he explains his intention it is still somewhat unclear what he really meant, and hence we are forced to interpret his words.",
                    "<b>[If he says,] “Behold, I am a nazirite as the capacity of this house”, or “as the capacity of this basket,” we check him. If he says “I vowed one long period of naziriteship”, he becomes a nazirite for thirty days. But if he says “I vowed without specification”, we regard the basket as though it were full of mustard seed, and he becomes a nazirite for life.</b> It is unclear whether this person has taken one long, unspecified vow of naziriteship, as if he said “Behold, I am a nazirite from here until the end of the world” (see mishnah 3) or whether he intended to give a set time for his naziriteship, that it should be as long as the number of the things in a house or in a basket. In order to clarify, he is checked and the court asks him what his intention was.  If he says that his intention was to vow one long period of naziriteship, he is treated like the person who stated “Behold, I am a nazirite from here until the end of the world”, and he is a nazirite for only thirty days.  If however, he says he did not specify how long he wanted to be a nazirite, or that he doesn’t know what he really meant, it is treated as though he said that he wants to be a nazirite for as long as the things found in this basket.  This would return us to the situation in the beginning of yesterday’s mishnah.  According to Rabbi, he would be a nazirite forever, and he does not shave every thirty days.  According to the majority opinion, he would serve an infinite number of naziriteships, shaving in between each one."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn mishnah three we learned that if one says “Behold I am a nazirite from here until the end of the world” he is a nazirite for only thirty days, because he did not specify the length of his vow.  Our mishnah teaches that if he does specify the place to which he refers, he may be a nazirite for as long as it takes to get to such and such a place.",
                    "<b>[If one says,] “Behold, I am a nazirite, as [long as it takes to get] from here to such and such a place,” we estimate the number of days [journey] from here to the place mentioned. If this is less than thirty days, he becomes a nazirite for thirty days; Otherwise he becomes a nazirite for that number of days.</b> In this case, the court simply estimates how long it would take to get from the place where he vows to the place that he mentions.  If it would take less than thirty days, then he is a nazirite for thirty days.  As we have noted, one can never be a nazirite for less than thirty days.  However, if it takes longer, then he is a nazirite for however many days it takes to get to that place."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah seven continues to teach that a person may make an extremely large number of nazirite vows, as we learned in mishnah four.",
                    "<b>[If one says], “Behold I am a nazirite, as the number of days in a solar year” he must count as many naziriteships as there are days in the solar year. Rabbi Judah said: such a case once occurred, and when the man had completed [his naziriteships], he died.</b> This person took a vow to keep 365 naziriteships, and not one naziriteship of 365 days.  This is similar to the person who vowed to keep naziriteships like the hairs on his head.  After each thirty days he can shave, bring the sacrifices and begin counting again. Rabbi Judah relates a story where this really happened, and after the 30 years of being a nazirite (365 times 30 days) the person died.  The point of his statement seems to be that if you make a vow of so many naziriteships, you will die by the time they are completed."
                ]
            ],
            [
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah deals with a person who says that he is nazirite but says also that he will abstain from figs, which are normally permitted to a nazirite.  The Talmud understands the tannaitic dispute on this debate to be about a larger issue of how to interpret self-contradictory language.  When a person makes a statement where the two parts of his statement contradict one another, how are we to interpret his statement.",
                    "<b>[If one says,] “Behold I am a nazirite [and abstain] from dried figs and pressed figs”: Beth Shammai says: he is an [ordinary] nazirite. Beth Hillel says: he is not a nazirite. Rabbi Judah said: even though Beth Shammai did say [that his formula is effective] they meant only one who says, “They are [forbidden] to me, as is a sacrifice.”</b> Beth Shammai takes seriously the first part of this person’s statement “Behold I am a nazirite”, and therefore holds that this person has indeed taken a nazirite vow.  Regarding the second half of his statement “and abstain from dried figs and pressed figs”, it is as if he tried to change his mind after he had already taken the vow.  Beth Shammai considers this change of mind to be irrelevant and therefore he is a nazir. Beth Hillel considers his whole statement to be one integral statement, the end being inseparable from the beginning.  Since figs are permitted to nazirites, he has not made a valid nazirite vow. Rabbi Judah reinterprets Beth Shammai’s statement.  Beth Shammai does not hold that he is an ordinary nazirite. Rather, they meant that if he thought to himself that this was a valid way of prohibiting figs, just as saying “they are forbidden to me, as is a sacrifice”, is a valid way of prohibiting figs, then the prohibition works, and he is forbidden to eat figs.  However, Beth Shammai would agree with Beth Hillel that if he intended by these words to take a regular nazirite vow, nothing is prohibited to him.  He is neither a nazirite, nor prohibited from eating figs."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah discusses a person who may have made a nazirite vow using an extremely strange formula.",
                    "<b>If one says, “This cow is saying ‘Behold, I am a nazirite if I get up,” or “This door is saying ‘Behold, I am a nazirite if I open”: Bet Shammai says:  he is a nazirite, But Bet Hillel says: he is not a nazirite. Rabbi Judah said: even though Beth Shammai did say [that his formula is effective] they meant only one who says, “This cow is [forbidden] to me, as is a sacrifice if it gets up.”</b> The mishnah describes a person whose cow will not stand up or whose door will not open.  The person says “This cow doesn’t want to get up.  It is as if she is saying ‘Behold, I am a nazirite if I get up.’”  Or “This door doesn’t want to open.  It is as if it is saying ‘Behold, I am a nazirite if I open up.’” Beth Shammai holds that the person has actually made a nazirite vow, even though it seems that he was just using language to illustrate how difficult it is to get the cow to get up or the door to open. Albeck explains that according to Beth Shammai since the person said “Behold, I am a nazirite”, he is a nazirite even though he was saying it as if the cow or door was saying the words. A different explanation is offered by the Talmud, which interprets it as if he meant to say that he himself would be a nazirite if the cow wouldn’t get up or the door wouldn’t open. Beth Hillel holds that this person is not a nazirite, just as they did in the previous mishnah. Rabbi Judah again reinterprets Beth Shammai’s position.  Beth Shammai did not mean to say that the person is a nazirite.  Beth Shammai holds that if the person meant that he would be forbidden to eat the cow or use the door as if it was a sacrifice then the vow is effective."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with a person who tries to become a nazirite in regard to one cup of wine alone, without being a total nazirite.",
                    "<b>If they mixed for him a cup of wine, and he said, “Behold, I am a nazirite in regard to it,” he becomes a nazirite.</b>  This section rules that the person did not intend to become a nazirite just from the cup of wine served to him.  When he said “in regard to it” his intention may have been in regard to wine in general.  We will learn in tomorrow’s mishnah that one cannot be a partial nazirite, being prohibited from wine and not from shaving, for example.  Hence this person is a full nazirite.",
                    "<b>It once happened that a woman was intoxicated and they mixed for her a cup of wine and she said, “Behold, I am a nazirite in regard to it.” The sages ruled that she only meant to forbid it to herself as a sacrifice.</b>  The fact that this woman was already intoxicated means that she did not intend to make all wine forbidden to her; she wanted only to forbid herself one more cup of wine.  Therefore the sages interpret her to have meant that the cup of wine offered to her should be prohibited like a sacrifice."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b> The first section of this mishnah deals with a person who tries to take upon himself a partial naziriteship. The second section deals with a person who vowed a nazirite vow but did not have full comprehension of the prohibitions involved.",
                    "<b>[If one says,] “Behold, I am a nazirite, on condition that I can drink wine, or can have contact with the dead”, he becomes a nazirite, and all these things are forbidden him.</b>  This person makes a nazirite vow on condition that some of the prohibitions would not apply to him.  There is a rule that a person may not make a condition against what is written in the Torah.  Hence the condition is invalid and he is a full nazirite, forbidden to shave his hair, drink wine or have contact with the dead.",
                    "<b>[If he says,] “I knew that there is such a thing as naziriteship but I did not know that a nazirite is forbidden to drink wine”, he is bound [to his vow]. Rabbi Shimon releases him.</b>  In this case, a person takes a nazirite vow and afterwards claims that he didn’t know that nazirites could not have wine.  According to the Sages, his lack of knowledge does not exempt him and he is a full nazirite.  Rabbi Shimon holds that he is not a nazirite because it was a mistaken vow.  Alternatively, Rabbi Shimon holds that one is not a nazirite unless he accepts upon himself all of the minutiae of being a nazirite.",
                    "<b>[If he says,] “I knew that a nazirite is forbidden to drink wine,  but I imagined that the sages would give me permission, since I cannot do without wine”, or “since [my profession] is to bury the dead”,  he is released. Rabbi Shimon binds him [to his vow].</b>  In this case, when the person vowed he knew that wine and coming into contact with the dead were prohibited to a nazirites.  Nevertheless, he thought that the sages would allow him to either drink because he can’t live without wine or bury the dead because that is his profession.  The Sages consider his vow to be mistaken vow, and therefore he is released.  Rabbi Shimon does not consider this a mistaken vow. Alternatively, Rabbi Shimon agrees that this was a mistaken vow, but holds that he must first ask to be released by a Sage."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nAt the end of his naziriteship a nazirite brings three offerings, a sin offering, a burnt offering and well-being offering, and shaves his hair (Numbers 30:13-18).  Together these three offerings are called “the hair offering”, for they are accompanied by the shaving of the hair.  Our mishnah deals with a person who takes a nazirite vow and also accepts upon himself to bring another person’s “hair offering”.",
                    "<b>[If one says,] “Behold, I am a nazirite and I take it upon myself to bring the hair offering of another nazirite”,  and his friend heard and said “I too, and I take it upon myself to bring the hair offering of another nazirite”, then, if they are clever they will bring the other’s hair offering; otherwise they must bring hair offerings on behalf of other nazirites.</b> In this case two people both take nazirite vows and in addition take it upon themselves to bring another person’s hair offering.  The mishnah teaches that each can bring each other’s offerings, and in that way each will have fulfilled all of his requirements without bringing more than one set of offerings.  However, if they do not bring each other’s offerings, each will have to bring a different person’s offerings, as well as his own.  This will end up costing them double."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah.  It deals with a situation in which a person vows that he will bring the offerings of half of a nazirite.",
                    "<b>[If one says,] “I take it upon myself to bring the hair offering of half of another nazirite,”  and his friend heard and said, “I too take it upon myself to bring the hair offering of half of another nazirite,” –, this one brings a full hair offering and this one brings a full hair offering, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: each brings half a hair offering.</b> The statement of these two people is strange and can be interpreted in two different ways.  When they each say, “I take it upon myself to bring the hair offering of half of another nazirite”, they may have thought that there was such a thing as a half-nazirite.  Since there is no such thing, Rabbi Meir says they both must bring a full hair-offering. In contrast, the Sages assume that what he meant to say was that he would bring half of the hair offering of a nazirite.  Therefore, each pays for half of the offerings that one nazirite must bring, and the nazirite himself would be responsible for the remainder."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with a person who stipulates that he will be a nazirite if he has a son, or, alternatively, if he has a child. The question is, what is the definition of a son or child.\nAs an aside, we can see from this mishnah that people made nazirite vows as a way of thanking God for things God has given them.  The same is true for vows in general.",
                    "<b>[If one says,] “Behold, I am a nazirite when I shall have a son,” and son is born to him, he becomes a nazirite. If the child is a daughter, or a tumtum, or an hermaphrodite, he does not become a nazirite.</b>  A “tumtum” is a person who has no signs of being male or female.  A hermaphrodite has both male and female genitalia.  The mishnah teaches that when the person said “when I shall have a son”, his intention was specifically for a son and not for any of the other three genders, female, the gender-less tumtum or double-gendered.  Note that the mishnah has to say this because sometimes the Hebrew word for son “ben” can mean “child.”   This is how the word is interpreted in Deuteronomy 25:5, in the context of the laws of levirate marriage.",
                    "<b>If he said, “When I shall have a child,” then even if it is a daughter, or a tumtum, or an hermaphrodite, he becomes a nazirite.</b>  However, if he says “child” any child is included, no matter the gender."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah where a man vowed to be a nazirite if he had a child.  Our mishnah deals with a case where his wife miscarries.  The question is, do we consider the miscarriage to be a case where the child was viable while in the womb, and hence he had a child or not.",
                    "<b>If his wife miscarries, he does not become a nazirite. Rabbi Shimon says: [in this case] he should say, “If it was a viable child, behold, I am a nazirite from obligation; otherwise behold, I am a voluntary nazirite.”</b>  According to the first opinion, if his wife miscarries he is not a nazirite.  Although there is some doubt that the child might have reached viability before the miscarriage, in cases of doubtful naziriteships the ruling is lenient. Rabbi Shimon is more concerned with the possibility that the child reached viability.  Therefore, the one who vowed is considered a doubtful nazirite.  The way that one observes this doubtful naziriteship is by saying that if the child was viable, then he is now serving a mandatory naziriteship.  If, however the child was not viable, then his naziriteship is just from doubt. In any case, he must observe a naziriteship.",
                    "<b>If [his wife] later bears a child, he then becomes a nazirite. Rabbi Shimon says: he should say, “If the first was a viable child, the first [naziriteship] was obligatory, and this one is voluntary; otherwise, the first one was voluntary, and the present one is obligatory.”</b>  If after the first miscarriage his wife becomes again pregnant and this time has a child, according to the first opinion, he must now observe a naziriteship because he did not previously observe one. For Rabbi Shimon he cannot just simply observe another naziriteship because he may have fulfilled his vow when he previously served a naziriteship.  However, if the first one was only voluntary, then he is still liable to serve an obligatory naziriteship for his original vow.  Therefore, he again stipulates, that if the first naziriteship was obligatory (the fetus was viable), then the current one is only voluntary, but if the first one was voluntary (the fetus was not viable), then the current one is the obligatory naziriteship."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah discusses a person who makes a nazirite vow on his own behalf and promises to serve another naziriteship if he has a son.  The question is, if he has a son, in which order does he serve the naziriteships?",
                    "<b>[If one says,] “Behold, I am a nazirite [now] and a nazirite when I shall have a son”, and begins to count his own [naziriteship] and then a son is born to him, he completes his own [naziriteship] and then counts the one on account of his son.</b>  In this case, the person first accepted upon himself to be a nazirite and then to be a nazirite when a son is born to him.  He therefore immediately begins to serve his own naziriteship.  If he has a son while he is still serving his own naziriteship, he nevertheless completes his own naziriteship and only then begins one on account of his having had a son.  Since he mentioned his own naziriteship first, the naziriteship for his son does not begin until he has completed his own.  In this case he will shave and bring sacrifices after his own naziriteship has been completed and then again when the naziriteship for his son is completed.",
                    "<b>[If one says,] “Behold, I am a nazirite when I shall have a son, and a nazirite [on my own account]”, and begins to count his own [naziriteship] and then a son is born to him, he interrupts his own [naziriteship], counts the one on account of his son, and then complete his own.</b>  In this case, he stated first the naziriteship for his son and then his own.  He starts to count his own immediately, because a son has not yet been born to him.  If he has a son before his own naziriteship has been completed, he interrupts his own naziriteship and starts to count that which he is serving on account of his son.  When he has completed his son’s naziriteship, he returns to complete his own.  However, since he already started to serve his own, he does not shave and bring sacrifices for his son’s naziriteship.  Rather he waits and at the end shaves and brings a double set of sacrifices."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe final mishnah of chapter two continues to deal with nazirite vows made on the condition that the one vowing will have a son.",
                    "<b>[If one says] “Behold, I am a nazirite when I shall have a son, and I will be a nazirite for one hundred days [on my own account],”:  if a son was born to him before the expiration of seventy days, he loses none of this period;  but if after seventy days, it voids [anything over the] seventy days, since there can be no shaving for a period of less than thirty days.</b> A person vows to serve a regular naziriteship of thirty days if he has a son, and he also vows to be a nazirite for 100 days.  This situation is similar to that described at the end of yesterday’s mishnah. He begins to serve his own naziriteship immediately, as we learned yesterday.  If his son is born before he serves seventy days of his own naziriteship, then he will lose nothing of the days that he has already served.  What he will do in this case is serve a thirty day naziriteship for his son, and then go back and serve the remaining days of his own naziriteship.  However, if his son is born after he has served seventy days, he will lose credit for some of the days which he has served towards his own 100 day naziriteship.  In this case he will serve the thirty days for his son’s naziriteship and then complete his naziriteship with another thirty days.  If he had previously served eighty days, he will serve a term of 110 days for his own naziriteship, thereby serving an extra ten days.  This is because a term of naziriteship can never be less than thirty days. According to the Rambam, this mishnah clarifies the end of yesterday’s mishnah.  There, when we learned that he goes back and counts his own naziriteship, the intention was that he must in all cases count at least thirty days."
                ]
            ],
            [
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nWe have already had several opportunities to mention that a nazirite vow of unspecified duration is thirty days.  Our mishnah deals with two related rulings.",
                    "<b>If one says, “Behold, I am a nazirite,” he shaves on the thirty-first day. If he shaved on the thirtieth day, he has fulfilled his obligation.</b>  One who takes an nazirite vow of unspecified duration should shave on the thirty-first day, after he has observed thirty full days of naziriteship.  However, if he shaves on the thirtieth day, he has still fulfilled his obligation to complete his naziriteship.  This is because observing part of the day is counted as if he had observed the full day.  Since he observed part of the thirtieth as a nazirite, it can count.  You might note the similarity between this rule and the customs of shiva (the seven days in which one mourns close relatives).  The seventh day of shiva is only observed in the morning because of this principle, that part of the day is as the full day.  After “sitting shiva” in the morning of the seventh day, people customarily end shiva.",
                    "<b>[If, however, he says] “Behold, I am a nazirite for thirty days,” and shaves on the thirtieth day, he has not fulfilled his obligation.</b>  In this case he specifies that he will be a nazirite for thirty days.  Since he said “thirty days” he must observe thirty full days. Should he shave on the thirtieth day he will not have fulfilled his obligation."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah continues to illustrate the principle which we learned in yesterday’s mishnah, that observing part of the day as a nazirite counts as a full day’s observance.  Yesterday we saw that this means that one who shaves on the thirtieth day has fulfilled his obligation.\nToday’s mishnah deals with one who has made two nazirite vows.",
                    "<b>If a man vows two naziriteships, he shaves for the first one on the thirty-first day, and for the second on the sixty-first day. If he shaved for the first on the thirtieth day, he can shave for the second on the sixtieth day. If he shaved on the day before the sixtieth, he has fulfilled his obligation.</b>  If one vows two naziriteships, the best thing would be to shave on the thirty-first day, and then begin counting the second naziriteship that same day.  If he does so, he will shave for the second naziriteship on the sixty-first day. However, if he shaved for the first naziriteship on the thirtieth day, he can shave for the second on the sixtieth day, and he could even shave on the fifty-ninth day.  This would mean that he shaved for the first on the thirtieth day, and then began counting the second that very day, and twenty-nine days later shaved, counting part of the fifty-ninth day as the completion of the second naziriteship.  Note that the thirtieth day is in all cases counted for both naziriteships.",
                    "<b>For this was the testimony that Rabbi Papias testified concerning one who vows two naziriteships, that if he shaved for the first on the thirtieth day, he is to shave for the second on the sixtieth day.  And if he shaved on the day before the sixtieth day, he has fulfilled his obligation, the thirtieth day counting towards the required number.</b>  This section is a mishnah in tractate Eduyoth 7:5.  It states the same thing as we just learned.  This is probably the older version of the way the halakhah was preserved. The halakhah was later developed into the above section."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nWhen a nazirite becomes impure he renders void the entire term of naziriteship that he has already observed.  He must purify himself in the standard procedure, which takes seven days.  He then shaves, brings a bird sacrifice and then he begins to count again (see Numbers 6:9-12). Our mishnah deals with one who has become impure on the thirtieth day of his nazirite period.  This person has not yet brought the sacrifices which he brings at the end of his naziriteship.",
                    "<b>If one says, “Behold, I am a nazirite,” and becomes impure on the thirtieth day, he renders void the whole period. Rabbi Eliezer says: only seven days are void.</b>  According to the first opinion, even though he has reached the thirtieth day, and thereby completed his nazirite vow of unspecified duration, since he has not yet brought his sacrifices, his becoming impure renders the whole period void.  He now has to become pure, shave and bring sacrifices and then start counting again. Rabbi Eliezer holds that this does not void all of the days which he has already served.  Rather he waits seven days, during which he purifies himself and then brings the end of naziriteship sacrifices.  According to Rabbi Eliezer, since on the thirtieth day he could have offered his sacrifices before he became impure, it is as if he completed his naziriteship, he just can’t offer his sacrifices until he becomes pure.",
                    "<b>[If one says,] “Behold, I am a nazirite for thirty days”, and becomes impure on the thirtieth day, the he renders void the whole period.</b>  However, if he vows to be a nazirite for thirty days, he must serve a full thirty days, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah.  In this case if he becomes impure on the thirtieth day, Rabbi Eliezer would agree that he has rendered the entire naziriteship void.  He must become pure and then start counting again."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nYesterday’s mishnah contained a debate between Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages concerning a case in which a person who had made a nazirite vow of unspecified duration became impure on the thirtieth day, the last day of his naziriteship and the day on which he could shave.  Today’s mishnah contains two debates over one who took a one hundred day nazirite vow and became impure on the one hundredth day.  Note that when one specifies an amount of days, he can only shave the day after, in this case on the 101st day.",
                    "<b>[If he says,] “Behold, I am a nazirite for one hundred days,” and becomes impure on the hundredth day, he renders void the whole period. Rabbi Eliezer says: only thirty days are void.</b>  The Sages (the first opinion) hold that if a nazirite becomes impure before he has completed his naziriteship, he voids all of the days he has already served and must start counting over after he becomes pure.  This is true even if he has served longer than the minimum thirty days. Rabbi Eliezer holds that one who becomes impure on the day that his naziriteship is completed does not void his entire term, but rather only thirty days.  In other words, he must go back and serve another naziriteship, but it need only be a naziriteship of minimal length. This is the same as his opinion in the second clause of yesterday’s mishnah, but in that case the Sages would have agreed because the vow was only for thirty days.  In the first clause of yesterday’s mishnah he said that becoming impure renders void only seven days.  The difference is that that was a case of a nazirite vow of unspecified duration and hence he could have brought his sacrifices on that very day.",
                    "<b>If he becomes impure on the hundred and first day, thirty days are void. Rabbi Eliezer says: only seven days are void.</b>  If he becomes impure on the day after his naziriteship has been completed but before he brings the sacrifices, the Sages hold that he must become pure and then serve another thirty day naziriteship, the minimum length of any naziriteship.  Because he served his full term, he need not serve the entire 100 days. Rabbi Eliezer again holds that since he has completed his full term, becoming impure before bringing the sacrifices doesn’t void anything.  He need only wait seven days until he becomes pure, and then he may bring his nazirite sacrifices."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nAs we have already mentioned, if a nazirite becomes impure, he must bring a sacrifice and begin to recount his naziriteship.  Our mishnah deals with a person who takes a nazirite vow while he is in a graveyard, a place of high impurity.",
                    "<b>If one takes a nazirite vow while in a graveyard, then even if he remains there for thirty days, these do not count, and he does not have to bring the sacrifice [prescribed] for impurity.</b>  This person took a nazirite vow while standing in a place of impurity.  Therefore he cannot even begin to count the days of his naziriteship.  As long as he stays in the place of impurity he has not yet become a nazirite.  Therefore, he also does not need to bring a sacrifice of impurity, which he would have been obligated for, had he been a nazirite and then became impure.",
                    "<b>If he leaves it and re-enters, [the period]  counts, and he must bring the sacrifice [prescribed] for impurity. Rabbi Eliezer says: not [if he re-enters] on the same day, for it says, “But the former days shall be void,” (Numbers 6:12)  until there are former days.</b>  However, if he leaves the graveyard, and then becomes pure (which takes seven days) he now begins to count the days of naziriteship.  If after he leaves he re-enters the graveyard, he is now a nazirite who has become impure and is obligated to bring the requisite sacrifices. Rabbi Eliezer holds that if he returns to the graveyard (or is otherwise made impure) the same day that he began to count his naziriteship, the day is not lost and he does not bring impurity sacrifices.  After he becomes pure, he goes on counting from where he left off.  This halakhah is derived by means of a midrash on the word “days”.  In order to void that part of the naziriteship which was previously observed, there must have been full days which were observed."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b> According to the Talmud, the Sages decreed that land outside of Israel is ritually impure, and therefore anyone who walks there or touches the earth is impure.  However, this impurity is only considered “derabbanan”.  In a sense then, taking a nazirite vow while outside of the land of Israel is like taking a nazirite vow while in a graveyard, the subject of yesterday’s mishnah.  The difference is that, because the impurity of outside of Israel is only derabbanan, one who takes a nazirite vow outside of Israel must begin to observe his naziriteship immediately.  However, when he comes to the land of Israel, according to the rabbis the only pure land, he must begin to observe his naziriteship over again.  In our mishnah, Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel dispute over how much of his naziriteship he must re-observe. This mishnah contains a story about Queen Helena, who was the queen of Adiabene, a country in Asia Minor.  There are several other stories about her and her sons Munbaz and Izates, who according to both Josephus and rabbinic literature converted to Judaism, several decades before the destruction of the Temple.  One can read more about her in the Encyclopedia Judaica.",
                    "<b>If one vows a long naziriteship of and completes his naziriteship and afterwards comes to the land [of Israel]: Beth Shammai says that he is a nazirite for thirty days, But Beth Hillel says that his naziriteship begins again.</b>  A person took a vow to observe a long naziriteship, meaning one longer than thirty days.  After he completed his naziriteship he came to the land of Israel.  According to Beth Shammai, after he purifies himself from the impurity contracted outside of the land of Israel, he need only observe another thirty days of naziriteship.  According to the Talmud, Beth Shammai reasons that since the impurity outside Israel is only of “derabbanan” status, the Sages only penalize him by making him observe a minimum period of naziriteship.  In contrast, Beth Hillel holds that he must re-observe his full term.  The original term does not count at all.",
                    "<b>It happened that Queen Helena, when her son went to war, said: “If my son returns in peace from the war, I shall be a nazirite for seven years.”  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 the land [of Israel] and Beth Hillel instructed her to be a nazirite for a further seven years. Towards the end of this seven years, she contracted ritual defilement, and so altogether she was a nazirite for twenty-one years. Rabbi Judah said: she was a nazirite only for fourteen years.</b>  This section contains the remarkable story of Queen Helena, who according to some accounts was a nazirite for twenty-one years!  She took a nazirite vow that if her son would return safely from war, she would be a nazirite for seven years.  When he returned safely, she observed a seven year naziriteship.  Afterwards, she went to the land of Israel and observed another seven-year naziriteship, under the instruction of Beth Hillel.  When she became impure at the end of her naziriteship, this voided all of her naziriteship, and she had to serve another seven years.  With regard to this last fact, Rabbi Judah disagrees and holds that she served “only” fourteen years.  Some explain, that according to Rabbi Judah, she did not become impure.  Others explain that Rabbi Judah agrees with Rabbi Eliezer who holds that when one becomes impure one only voids thirty days.  Therefore, Queen Helena did become impure at the end of her naziriteship, but only served another thirty days.  Since these days are insignificant, Rabbi Judah rounds down to fourteen years of naziriteship, still an impressive amount of time, especially for a queen!"
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah, while ostensibly discussing nazirite laws, is really discussing the laws of testimony.  Generally, when two sets of witnesses disagree, two saying one thing and two saying the other, the testimony is invalid.  However, if one set says that the defendant owes two hundred, and the other set says he owes five hundred, there is a dispute whether the defendant is liable for the lower amount, based on the principle that all witnesses agree that he owes at least two hundred.  Our mishnah deals with a similar case, except it uses naziriteships instead of money.",
                    "<b>One who has two sets of witnesses testifying about him:  one says that he vowed two [naziriteships] and the other that he vowed five: Beth Shammai says: the evidence is conflicting, and there is no naziriteship at all. But Beth Hillel says:  “five” includes “two”, so that he becomes a nazirite for two [naziriteships].</b> According to Beth Shammai, the testimony is conflicting and therefore it is as if there is no testimony at all. However, Beth Hillel says that there is testimony from all sets regarding two naziriteships, and therefore he must observe two."
                ]
            ],
            [
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b> This mishnah teaches that a person can become a nazirite by seeing his friend take a nazirite vow and saying “I too.”  The Talmud teaches that in order for this to be effective he must state “I too” as soon as he hears his friend vow, for only in such a way is it clear that he has vowed.",
                    "<b>One who said, “Behold, I am a nazirite”, and his friend overheard and said “I too,” [and another one said] “I too”, all are nazirites. If the first one is released [from his vow], all are released. If the last one is released, he alone is released, and the others remain bound [by their vows].</b>  The mishnah teaches that it is effective to state “I too” when one hears another take a nazirite vow.  In this case, each person who took a later vow is dependent upon the earlier vows.  If the first person asks a sage to release him from his vow, a process which we learned about in chapter nine of Nedarim, the latter are also released from their vows.  In contrast, if the latter nazirites are released, those who vowed earlier are not released.",
                    "<b>If he said, “Behold, I am a nazirite”, and his companion overheard and said, “My mouth shall be as his mouth and my hair as his hair”, he becomes a nazirite.</b>  Besides saying “I too” he may also employ other hints that he wishes his status to be like that of the one who vowed.  He may say that just as the other’s mouth cannot taste wine, so too my mouth cannot taste wine, or just as the other does not cut his hair, so too I won’t cut my hair.  These are all clear enough statements in order to make him a nazirite.",
                    "<b>[If he said,] “Behold, I am a nazirite,” and his wife overheard and said, “I too,” he can annul her vow, but his own remains binding. [If a woman says,] “Behold, I am a nazirite”, and her husband overhears and adds, “I too,” he cannot annul her vow.</b>  A wife can make her nazirite vow depend on her husband's by saying “I too.” He can annul her vow, since this is a vow that has in it the element of self-denial.  If he annuls her vow, his is still valid because his does not depend on hers.  However, if he makes his vow dependent on hers, he cannot annul her vow.  This is because saying “I too” is a means of affirming her vow, and once a husband affirms his wife’s vow he can no longer annul it."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah continues to deal with when a husband can annul his wife’s nazirite vow.",
                    "<b>[If he says in conversation with his wife,] “Behold, I am a nazirite. What about you?” and she answers “Amen,” he can annul her vow, but his own remains binding.</b>  In this case, the husband has not confirmed his wife’s vow, but merely asked her if she would like to be a nazirite.  The question itself cannot be construed as a confirmation of her vow because she has not yet vowed.  Since he never confirmed her vow, he can annul it.",
                    "<b>[But if she should say,] “Behold, I am a nazirite, what about you?” and he answers, “Amen,” he cannot annul her vow.</b>  However, if she says that she is a nazirite and then asks him if he too would like to be a nazirite and he says “Amen”, he has not only taken a nazirite vow, he has also confirmed her vow.  By doing so he has relinquished the right to later annul her vow."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nA person who intentionally breaks their nazirite vow receives up to forty lashes, the same punishment received for breaking any negative commandment.\nThis mishnah deals with a woman who broke her nazirite vow but did not know that her husband had already annulled it.",
                    "<b>If a woman takes a nazirite vow and then drinks wine or is defiled by a corpse, she receives forty [lashes].</b>  This section simply states that a woman who breaks her nazirite vow is punished by up to forty lashes, as is anyone who breaks a nazirite vow.  The Talmud explains that this is true even if her husband annuls the vow after she broke it.  Since she broke it while the vow was still valid, she has transgressed and is therefore punished.",
                    "<b>If her husband annuls [her vow] and she did not know that he annulled it, and she drinks wine or is defiled by a corpse, she does not receive the forty [lashes]. Rabbi Judah says: even though she does not receive the forty [lashes] she should receive lashes for disobedience.</b>  In this case, the husband annulled the vow before she broke it, but she did not know that he had annulled it.  When she drank wine or defiled herself (intentionally) she thought that she was breaking her vow.  The case is therefore one of a person who intended to sin but did not know that what they were actually doing was not sinful.  According to the first opinion she receives no punishment.  However, Rabbi Judah adds that although she is not punished with the regular lashes, she receives “lashes for disobedience”.  These are “derabbanan” lashes, which the court can hand out whenever it sees fit.  Since she intended to be sinful, she deserves to be punished, even though she did not actually break any vow."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>A woman takes a nazirite vow and sets aside the requisite animal [for the sacrifice] and then her husband subsequently annuls [her vow]: If the animal belonged to him, it can be put to pasture with the herd; If it belonged to her: the sin-offering is left to die, the burnt-offering is offered as an [ordinary] burnt-offering, and the peace-offering is offered as an [ordinary] peace-offering, and it may be eaten for one day [only], and it does not require loaves of bread.<br>If she has a lump sum of money [set aside for the purchase of these sacrifices] it is to be used for voluntary offerings;<br>If she has specified money: The money for the sin-offering is to be taken to the Dead Sea, the use of it is forbidden, but the laws of sacrilege do not apply; The money for the burnt-offering they bring a burnt-offering, and the laws of sacrilege do apply; The money for the peace-offering they bring a peace-offering, and it may be eaten for one day [only], and it does not require loaves of bread.</b><br>At the completion of a naziriteship a person must bring a sin-offering, a burnt-offering and a peace-offering (can also be translated as an offering of well-being.  In Hebrew well-being, whole and peace are all from the same word “shalom”/“shalem”/“shlamim”).  Our mishnah deals with a woman who took a nazirite vow and then either set aside the animals for her sacrifices or set aside money to be used to purchase those animals. This money may now be considered holy.  The problem arises if the husband annuls her vow.  The question is what to do with this money or with these animals.<br>Section one:  If she set aside animals, the first question we must ask is to whom do the animals belong.  If she set aside her husband’s animals, then when he annuls the vow none of the animals are considered sacred and they may all be returned to the herd.  Since they were his animals, we know from the fact that he annulled her vow that he did not want her to use them as sacrifices and therefore they are not sacrifices.<br>However, if they were her animals, then they have become sacred, even though her vow was annulled.  Therefore, the sin-offering is treated as are all sin-offerings whose owners have died.  It must die.  According to Rashi, in order to do so, it is put into a pen and starved to death.  The burnt-offering is offered in its usual manner.  The peace-offering is sacrificed.  It must be eaten within one day, the same rule that applies to all peace-offerings for nazirites.  However, unlike other peace-offerings by nazirites which are offered with loaves of bread, since she is not a nazirite she is not required to bring the usual loaves that accompany such offerings.<br>Section two:  In this section she has set aside money.  If she did not specify which coins would be used for which animal, then all of the coins are used to purchase voluntary offerings. The money is sacred so it must be used for sacrifices, but since nothing has been specified it can be used for what are basically generic offerings.<br>However, if the money has been set aside for each specific offering (i.e. these coins are for a sin-offering, etc.), then they are treated similarly to the way the animals were treated.  The money for the sin-offering must be “killed”.  The closest one can come to killing coins is by throwing them into the Dead Sea, where they will be of use to no one.  One is not to benefit from these coins, but nevertheless, if one does, it is not considered sacrilege.<br>The money for the burnt-offering is used to buy a burnt-offering and the money for the peace-offering is used to buy the peace-offering.  The rules here are the same as if she had already separated the animal itself."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah continues to discuss the point until which a husband retains the right to annul his wife’s nazirite vow.",
                    "<b>If one of the kinds of blood has been sprinkled on her behalf, [the husband] can no longer annul [the vow]. Rabbi Akiba says: even if one of the animals has been slaughtered on her behalf, he can no longer annul [the vow].</b>  According to the first opinion, once the blood from one of the sacrifices which the woman set aside for the end of her naziriteship has been sprinkled on the altar, the husband can no longer annul her vow.  In other words, whereas the previous mishnah stated that even though she had set aside her sacrifices, he could still annul the vow, our mishnah teaches that once their blood has been sprinkled, it is too late. Rabbi Akiva sets the limit on the husband’s right to annul his wife’s vow slightly earlier.  Once the animal has been slaughtered, the husband may no longer annul the vow.",
                    "<b>When is this true?  If she is shaving [after observing the naziriteship] in purity, but if she is shaving after ritual defilement, he can [still] annul [the vow], because he can say, “I do not want a disgraced woman.” Rabbi says that he can annul [her vow] even if she is shaving [after observing the naziriteship] in purity, since he can say: “I do not want a woman who is shaved.</b>  This section limits that which was stated in the previous section.  What was stated above was with regard to the sacrifices offered at the end of a naziriteship.  However, if she was shaving and offering sacrifices after becoming impure, since she must go back and continue observing her naziriteship, he may still annul the vow.  The reason that he has a right to annul this vow is that he may say that he does not want a woman who distorts her own beauty by becoming a nazirite, or in this case, by continuing to observe the nazirite restrictions.  According to commentators, what makes her ugly is that she cannot drink wine or participate in many of life’s pleasures. Rabbi [Judah Hanasi] disagrees with the opinion in the beginning of section two, and also in section one.  He holds that even after the sacrifices have been offered, the husband may continue to annul his wife’s vow because he may claim that he does not want her to shave her head.  Only once she has shaven her head does he no longer have the right to annul the vow."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah teaches that a father may impose a nazirite vow on his son, but that the vow is valid only if the son or the relatives do not protest.  Most of the mishnah discusses a case where the son or relatives protest, thereby voiding the vow, but the father has already set aside the animals for the sacrifices or has set aside money, with which to buy the sacrifices.  The end of the mishnah is exactly the same as that found in mishnah four.  To understand the rules regarding the sacrifices look back there.",
                    "<b>A man may impose a nazirite vow on his son, but a woman cannot impose a nazirite vow on her son. How so?</b>  In theory a father can impose a nazirite vow on his son and then not cut his hair for the term of his naziriteship, prevent him from becoming impure or eating/drinking things which derive from grapes.  A father can impose this vow only so long as his son is a minor.  In contrast, a woman cannot impose a nazirite vow on her son.",
                    "<b>[If the boy] shaves himself or is shaved by his relatives, or if he protests or his relatives protest on his behalf, Then if [the father] had set aside an animal [for the sacrifice]: the sin-offering is left to die, the burnt-offering is offered as an [ordinary] burnt-offering, and the peace-offering is offered as an [ordinary] peace-offering, and it may be eaten for one day [only], and it does not require loaves of bread. If he had a lump sum of money [set aside for the purchase of these sacrifices] it is to be used for voluntary offerings; If he had specified money: The money for the sin-offering is to be taken to the Dead Sea, the use of it is forbidden, but the laws of sacrilege do not apply; The money for the burnt-offering they bring a burnt-offering, and the laws of sacrilege do apply; The money for the peace-offering they bring a peace-offering, and it may be eaten for one day [only], and it does not require loaves of bread.</b>  However, the father’s imposed vow is only valid so long as the neither the son nor other relatives protest.  If the relatives or the son protest, or if they perform an action which proves that they do not want the child to be a nazirite, the son is not a nazirite.  In such a case a problem will be created if the father has already separated the requisite sacrifices.  Since this is the same problem that exists should a husband annul his wife’s nazirite vow, the solutions are the same.  For more detail, see the commentary to mishnah four."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn this mishnah we learn that under certain circumstances, a man may use for himself money that his father set aside to purchase his own nazirite sacrifices.  However, a woman cannot do so, even though she can potentially inherit her father.  This difference mirrors the difference in the previous mishnah, where a man can impose a nazirite vow on his son but a woman cannot do so.",
                    "<b>A man can shave [with offerings set aside for] his father’s naziriteship but a woman cannot shave [with offerings set aside for] her father’s naziriteship. How so?</b>  The introduction to the mishnah establishes that a man may sometimes use money that was set aside by his father for his own nazirite offerings.  This contrasts with the cases in mishnayoth four and six, in which the money which was set aside for sacrifices before the vow was annulled cannot be used by anyone else, but rather must be used for freewill offerings.",
                    "<b>If a man’s father had been a nazirite, and had set apart a lump sum of money for [the sacrifices of] his naziriteship and died and [the son] said, “Behold, I am a nazirite on condition that I may shave with my father’s money.”</b>  The mishnah now explains how this can happen.  If the father was a nazirite and set aside money to be used for his sacrifices, and then died before he completed his term of naziriteship, the son may use the money set aside, provided he stipulate that he will do so.",
                    "<b>Rabbi Yose said: this money is to be used for freewill-offerings, this man cannot  shave [with offerings set aside for] his father’s naziriteship. Who is the one who can shave [with offerings set aside for] his father’s naziriteship? He who was a nazirite together with his father, and whose father had set apart a lump sum of money for his nazirite [sacrifices] and died.  This one can shave [with offerings set aside for] his father’s naziriteship.</b>  Rabbi Yose disagrees and holds that in such a case the money must be used for freewill-offerings, as was instructed in mishnayoth four and six, in cases where the money had not been directed toward specific sacrifices.  The reason why this doesn’t work in this case is that the son was not a nazirite while the father was still alive. The only time that he can use his the money that his father had set aside is when his father and he were both nazirites at the same time."
                ]
            ],
            [
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis chapter deals with a person who made a nazirite vow based on a mistaken premise.  The chapter is introduced by two mishnayoth which discuss cases where one mistakenly consecrated property to the Temple.",
                    "<b>Beth Shammai says: something consecrated in error is consecrated; But Beth Hillel says: it is not consecrated.</b>  This section outlines the basic debate, which shall be illustrated in the next section, and in the following mishnah.",
                    "<b>How is this so? If someone says, “The black bull that leaves my house first shall be consecrated,” and a white one comes out, Beth Shammai says: it is consecrated, But Beth Hillel says: it is not consecrated.</b>  According to Beth Shammai, the white bull is consecrated.  When he said “the black bull” he meant the “first bull” but he assumed it would be a black one.  Since “something consecrated in error is consecrated”, he must give the white bull to the Temple.  Beth Hillel says that it is not consecrated, for he made a mistake in assuming that it would be a black bull."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>[If he says,] “The gold denar that comes into my hand first shall be consecrated”, and a silver denar came to his hand: Beth Shammai says: it is consecrated, Beth Hillel says: it is not consecrated.<br>[If he says,] “The cask of wine that comes into may hand first shall be consecrated,” and a cask of oil came into his hand: Beth Shammai says: it is consecrated, Beth Hillel says: it is not consecrated.</b><br>This mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah, where we learned that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel debate the status of something that was consecrated based on a mistaken premise.  Today’s mishnah is very similar to yesterday’s and quite simple to understand.  A question that we might ask is why the mishnah brings three examples to illustrate one principle rather than sufficing with one.  I shall discuss this below.<br>As stated above, the mishnah is quite simple to understand, both cases dealing with a person who consecrated an item assuming that it would be different than it actually was.<br>One reason that the mishnah may have continued to bring examples of this debate is that the previous mishnah was about an ox, an animal that can be sacrificed on the altar, while section one of this mishnah is about money, which is not put directly onto the altar.  We might have thought that the debate between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel did not exist if the consecrated item was a denar, which must be used to purchase something which then can be sacrificed.  The first section of our mishnah teaches that the debate exists even if the item consecrated is not sacrificable.<br>In the second case, the person thought that he was going to consecrate a cask of wine which is cheaper than a cask of oil.  We might have thought that in this case, Beth Shammai would agree that the cask of oil is not consecrated since he surely did not intend to give something of this value to the Temple.  The mishnah teaches that even so, the item is consecrated.  According to Beth Shammai, people are generous in their gifts to the Temple, and are willing to give even a greater portion of their property than they might have stated.  Whether this is wishful thinking on their part or not, the principle of Beth Shammai, that property consecrated under a mistaken principle is consecrated, still holds even in this case."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>If a man vowed to be a nazirite and then asked a sage [to be released from his vow] but [the sage] bound him [to his vow] he counts [the naziriteship] from the time that the vow was made.<br>If he asked a sage [to be released from his vow] and he released him, if he had an animal set aside [for a sacrifice], it goes forth to pasture with [the rest of] the herd.<br>Beth Hillel said to Beth Shammai: do you not admit that here where the consecration is in error, [the animal] goes forth to pasture with the herd?<br>Beth Shammai said to them: do you not admit that if a man in error calls the ninth [animal], the tenth, or the tenth the ninth, or the eleventh the tenth, each is consecrated?<br>Beth Hillel said to them: it is not the staff that makes these consecrated.  For suppose that by mistake he placed the staff upon the eighth or upon the twelfth, would this have any effect?  Rather Scripture which has consecrated the tenth, has also declared consecrated the ninth and the eleventh.</b><br>This whole mishnah contains an argument between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel over consecration in error.<br>Section one:  If a person makes a nazirite vow, he may ask a sage to be released from his vow, just as he can ask a sage to be released from any vow.  However, if the sage refuses to release him from his vow, then he must observe his naziriteship, and the naziriteship is counted from the beginning.<br>Sections two and three:  If he asked the sage and the sage released him, then his animal that he set aside to be used for his sacrifice, is not considered to be consecrated. Beth Hillel considers this to be a precedent for all cases of mistaken consecration.  In this case the person made a nazirite vow and then separated an animal to be used as a sacrifice.  Later, he told a sage that the vow was mistaken and the sage agreed.  Hence the animal was consecrated also by mistake.  The fact that it is not consecrated, and may go back and join the herd, proves to Beth Hillel that something consecrated by mistake is not consecrated.<br>Section four:  Beth Shammai retorts with their own precedent to prove that something consecrated by mistake is consecrated.  Animals must be tithed (like produce), every tenth animal going to the priest (Leviticus 27:32).  This is done by passing all of the animals under a staff and counting them.  The tenth animal that passes under the staff is consecrated. If a person accidentally calls the ninth animal the tenth, or the eleventh animal the tenth, both the ninth and eleventh animals are consecrated (as is the actual tenth animal). This proves that things consecrated by mistake are consecrated.<br>Section five:  Beth Hillel refutes this proof.  The staff placed on the animals is not what consecrates them in general, rather the Torah consecrates them, or dictates that the tenth animal is consecrated.  To prove that the staff does not consecrate them, Beth Hillel points out that if one calls the eighth animal the tenth, or the twelfth animal the tenth, they are not consecrated.  Rather the Torah stated that the tenth animal is consecrated, and also stated (through a midrash:  do not look for this in the verse itself), that if one places the staff on the ninth or the eleventh, that they are consecrated.  However, one should not use this as a precedent for other cases to prove that all things consecrated by mistake are consecrated."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with the concept that a vow, in this case a nazirite vow, may not be released by a sage based on something that occurred after the vow was taken.  This concept was already taught by mishnah Nedarim 9:2, so look there for further reference.  Our mishnah illustrates this principle using two cases.",
                    "<b>If one vowed to be a nazirite and went to bring his animal [for the sacrifice] and found that it had been stolen: If he had taken the nazirite vow before his animal was stolen, he is [still] a nazirite. But if he had taken the nazirite vow after his animal was stolen, he is not a nazirite.</b>  If a person vowed a nazirite vow and then separated an animal to use as a sacrifice and then the animal was stolen, the sage may not release him from his vow, even though now that the animal was stolen he regrets having taken the vow.  This is because the theft of the animal is something that happened after the vow, and therefore cannot be used as grounds for the vow’s release. However, if the animal was, unbeknownst to him, stolen before he vowed, and then he declared that the animal would be used as his nazirite sacrifice, and then discovered that it was stolen, the vow can be released.  This is because at the time he made his vow, he was basing it on the mistaken premise that he would be able to use that animal as a sacrifice.  This was already in error and hence the vow may be released.",
                    "<b>It was this mistake that Nahum the Mede made. When nazirites arrived [in Jerusalem] from the Diaspora and found the Temple destroyed, Nahum the Mede said to them, “Had you known that the Temple would be destroyed, would you have become nazirites?” They answered, no, and Nahum the Mede released them [from their vow].  When the matter came before the sages they said to him: whoever vowed a nazirite vow before the destruction of the Temple is a nazirite, but if after the destruction of the temple, he is not a nazirite.</b>  The mishnah now relates an interesting story that happened right after the destruction of the Temple.  A group of nazirites from the Diaspora, who had made their nazirite vows before the destruction of the Temple, came to Jerusalem to complete their naziriteship and to offer their sacrifices.  When they saw that the Temple had been destroyed they came to Nahum the Mede to ask them what to do.  He asked them if they would have still made their vows had they known that the Temple would be destroyed, to which they answered no.  The reason why they clearly would answer no is that after the Temple was destroyed there was no way to end nazirite vows, and the person is stuck being a nazirite forever!  Nahum the Mede mistakenly released them from their vow.  The Sages pointed out to him that this was mistaken because at the time when they vowed the Temple still stood.  Only people who make nazirite vows after the destruction of the Temple may be released from their vows using the Temple as grounds for the release."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah again deals with the debate between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel over mistaken nazirite vows.",
                    "<b>If [people] were walking along the road and [saw] someone coming towards them, and one said, “Behold, I am a nazirite if it is so-and-so,” and the other said, “Behold, I am a nazirite if it is not so-and-so,” [and a third said,] “Behold I am a nazirite if one of you is a nazirite,” [and a fourth said, “Behold I am a nazirite] if neither of you is a nazirite,” [and a fifth said, “Behold I am a nazirite] if both of you are nazirites,” [and a sixth said, “Behold I am a nazirite] if all of you are nazirites”: Beth Shammai says:  all of them are nazirites. Beth Hillel says only those whose words were [not] fulfilled are nazirites. Rabbi Tarfon says: not one of them is a nazirite.</b> Obviously, not all of the people who vowed these nazirite vows can be correct.  For instance, if it is “so and so”, only the first and third people are correct.  If it is not “so and so”, the second and third people are correct. Nevertheless, Beth Shammai holds that they are all nazirites, because even nazirite vows taken under a mistaken premise are binding. Beth Hillel says that only those whose words were actually fulfilled, that is whose words turn out to be correct, are nazirites.  Note that the mishnah actually says “not fulfilled”.  The Talmud emends the mishnah to read “fulfilled.”  Albeck explains that either version leads to the same conclusion, for Beth Hillel holds that a nazirite vow made under a mistaken premise is not valid. Rabbi Tarfon holds that unclear nazirite vows are not binding.  Even if it turns out that what he thought was indeed correct, a person must have full awareness of the facts at the time of his vow for his vow to be valid."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah continues to discuss the scenario in yesterday’s mishnah, that of an unidentified man approaching and a group of people “gambling” nazirite vows over his identity.  This mishnah discusses what is to occur if the person approaching turns away without being identified.  The whole mishnah goes according to Beth Hillel, for according to Beth Shammai even had they been proven to be mistaken, they are still nazirites.",
                    "<b>If [the person approaching] turned around suddenly [without being identified], he is not a nazirite. Rabbi Shimon says: he should say, “If it was as I said, behold I am a nazirite by obligation; and if not, behold I am a voluntary nazirite.”</b> According to the first opinion, in such a case no one is a nazirite.  The reason is that in cases of a doubtful nazirite vow, the ruling is lenient.  When a person takes a nazirite vow with a stipulation, his intention is to be a nazirite only if his stipulation proves true.  If it is not proven to be true, he does not intend to be a nazirite. Rabbi Shimon holds that in cases of a doubtful nazirite vow, the ruling must be more stringent and since his stipulation may actually have been true he must actually observe a naziriteship.  However, he must again vow a naziriteship and say that if what he had said before really was true (i.e. it was or was not the person he thought it was), then he is a nazirite due to his obligation to observe that vow.  If, however, it was not true, then he now makes a new nazirite vow, one not connected to the previous one.  The reason why he cannot just observe a naziriteship is that one cannot bring nazirite sacrifices in cases of doubtful naziriteship.  Therefore, he creates a situation in which no matter the identity of the original person, he has made a certain nazirite vow."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b> In this mishnah nine (!) people “wager” their nazirite vows over whether a koy is a wild beast or a domesticated beast.  Already by the Talmudic period they did not know exactly what animal a koy really was.  Some said it was a wild ox, while others interpret it as a mix of different deer species.  In any case, it was considered in some ways similar to a wild beast and some ways similar to a domesticated beast.  Mishnah Bikkurim 2:8-10 discusses the halakhic nature of the matter, for there are halakhic differences between rules regarding domesticated and wild animals.",
                    "<b>If he saw a koy and said, “Behold, I am a nazirite if this is a wild beast”, [and another] “Behold, I am a nazirite if that is not a wild beast,” [a third said] “Behold, I am a nazirite if that is a domesticated beast,” [and a fourth said,] “Behold, I am a nazirite if that is not a domesticated beast,” [a fifth said,] Behold, I am a nazirite if that is both a wild beast and a domesticated beast,” [and a sixth said,] “Behold, I am a nazirite if that is neither a wild beast nor a domesticated beast” [and a seventh said,] “Behold, I am a nazirite if one of you is a nazirite,” [and an eighth said,] Behold, I am a nazirite if one of you is not a nazirite,” [and a ninth said,] “Behold, I am a nazirite if you are all nazirites”, then all of them are nazirites.</b> Some mishnaic commentators claim that in this case, Beth Hillel agrees with Beth Shammai that they are all nazirites.  A koy is not an animal about which we have a doubt whether it is a domesticated or wild beast.  Rather a koy is both a domesticated and a wild beast.  This mishnah is different from the previous mishnayoth in that in this case there is no true identity to the koy, whereas regarding the person, he certainly has an identity, even if that identity is unknown. Others explain that Beth Hillel holds that they are all nazirites in doubt, the category mentioned at the end of yesterday’s mishnah.  If so, the mishnah teaches that even if the status of the matter in question is by definition one of doubt, they are nazirites in doubt."
                ]
            ],
            [
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah first lists what is prohibited to a nazirite and then delineates the minimum amount of products that a nazirite must eat/drink to be considered liable.",
                    "<b>Three things are forbidden to a nazirite:  ritual defilement, shaving, and products of the vine.</b>  This section provides an overview of what is forbidden to the nazirite.  Note that the prohibition of ritual defilement refers only to defilement contracted from dead bodies, and not other forms of defilement.",
                    "<b>All products of the vine join together [to add up to a minimum measure], and he is not liable until he eats an olive’s worth of grapes. According to the earlier mishnah, until he drinks a quarter [of a log] of wine. Rabbi Akiba says: even if he soaked his bread in wine and it is enough to make an olive’s worth he is liable.</b>  As with most halakhot, the rabbis give a minimum measure beyond which a person has transgressed against the Torah.  According to our mishnah, a mishnah which can be attributed to Rabbi Akiba, as we shall see below, a person is liable once he has eaten an olive’s worth of grapes.  This olive’s worth can be composed of any grape products:  juices, skins and seeds. In contrast, according to the earlier mishnah, he is not obligated unless he drinks a quarter log of wine, an amount that is about an eighth of a liter (a little less than one-third of a soda can). Rabbi Akiba disagrees with the earlier mishnah and holds that the minimum measure is an olive’s worth, an amount smaller than a quarter of a log.  He also holds that if the wine is soaked up by something which is permitted to eat, then if together they add up to an olive’s worth, he is liable. So if the bread and wine together are an olive’s worth he is liable."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nNumbers 6:4 states:  “Throughout his term as a nazirite, he may not eat anything that is obtained from the grapevine, even seeds (harzanim) or skin (zag).”  Our mishnah discusses the meaning of this verse, and especially the meaning of the last two words.",
                    "<b>He is liable for wine on its own, for grapes on their own, for grape-skins ( on their own and for seeds ( on their own. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said: there is no penalty unless he eats two grape-skins and one seed.</b>  The verse from Numbers above states clearly that a nazirite may not eat/drink anything which comes from grapevines.  Our mishnah teaches that he need not eat/drink each part of the grape in order to become liable.  Rather he is liable even if he just eats seeds, or just skins or just the grapes.  Furthermore, if he eats all three, according to the Talmud he is liable for three transgressions and not merely one. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah notes that the word “harzanim” is plural, whereas “zag” is singular.  Therefore the Torah hints that in order to be liable he must eat two harzanim, which he interprets as seeds since grapes have more than one seed, and one zag, since each grape obviously only has one skin.  This accords with Rabbi Yose’s interpretation in section two below.  Note that in the introduction I have translated according to Rabbi Judah, as does JPS.",
                    "<b>What are harzanim and what are zagim? Harzanim: those are the outer part, and the zagim are the inner part, according to Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose says:  that you may not err, [think of] the zug [bell] of an animal, the outer part is called the zug [hood] and the inner part the inbal [clapper].</b>  There are two interpretations for the words “harzanim” and “zagim”.  According to Rabbi Judah the former are the skins and the latter are the seeds.  Rabbi Yose reverses this and uses a mnemonic device to remember which is which.  With a cow’s bell, the “zug” is the outer part and the inner part is called the “inbal”.  What is important here is that the “zug” is the outer part. According to Jacob Milgrom in his JPS commentary on Numbers, these two words are unique; hence any suggestions as to their meaning is conjectural."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nAs we have already learned, a nazirite may not shave.  This mishnah discusses what is included in the prohibition of shaving.",
                    "<b>A nazirite vow of unspecified duration is for thirty days.</b>  This halakhah was already taught above 1:3.  It is repeated here because of the halakhah in the following section.",
                    "<b>If [the nazirite] shaved himself or bandits shaved him, it overturns thirty days.</b>  If the nazirite is shaved, even if others shave him against his will, he must count another thirty days until he is able to shave and bring his sacrifices.  However, shaving overturns only thirty days.  Thus if he made a sixty day nazirite vow, and already served 50 days and then shaved or was shaven, he must count another thirty days, but he doesn’t lose the first twenty days which he served.",
                    "<b>A nazirite who shaves himself, whether with scissors or a razor, or who singes [the ends of his hair], even a minimal amount, is liable.</b>  It doesn’t matter how he cuts his hair he is liable and must count another thirty days.  The word for “singes” is unclear and is also interpreted to mean “pull out a little bit of hair”, “pull hair out from its roots.”  In any case, he is liable for all of these things.",
                    "<b>A nazirite may shampoo [his hair] and part it [with his fingers] but may not comb it. Rabbi Ishmael says: he is not to cleanse it with dirt because it causes the hair to fall out.</b>  When one washes one’s hair, some of it sometimes falls out.  [Personal confession:  I remember this quite well when I went bald at the age of 20.  I would have made a poor nazirite!]  Nevertheless, the mishnah rules that a nazirite can wash his hair, since it is not certain that his hair will fall out.  However, he may not comb his hair for then it is certain that some of his hair will be uprooted by the comb. Rabbi Ishmael rules that he may not wash his hair with dirt, which was a means in the ancient world to cleanse hair (things have certainly improved) for that too will certainly cause some hair to fall out. We see, therefore, that the issue is not one of intent but certainty.  A nazirite may not do something that will certainly cause his hair to fall out, but he may do something that is likely to cause hair to fall out."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>A nazirite who drank wine all day long is liable for only a single penalty. If they said to him, “do not drink,” “do not drink” and he drank, he is liable for a penalty for each time [they warned him].<br>[A nazirite who was] shaving all day long is liable for only a single penalty. If they said to him, “do not shave,” “do not shave” and he shaved, he is liable for a penalty for each time [they warned him].<br>[A nazirite who was] defiling himself with the dead all day long is liable for only a single penalty. If they said to him, “do not be defiled,” “do not be defiled” and he was defiled, he is liable for a penalty for each time [they warned him].</b><br>Every time that a person breaks a commandment s/he incurs a penalty.  A question can be asked about a prohibition that can be broken continuously for an extended period of time, such as the Sabbath.  For instance, writing is prohibited on Shabbat.  If I write a letter that has five hundred words, how many times have I broken the Shabbat?  What if I do so in two sittings?  What if I do so over two Shabbatot?<br>Our mishnah teaches that what divides actions into separate prohibitions is awareness of the prohibition itself.  This awareness is established by another person relating to the transgressor that s/he is transgressing.<br>The ruling in all three sections is nearly identical.  As long as he has not been warned by others that what he is doing, drinking wine, shaving or becoming defiled, is prohibited to a nazirite, he is considered as having transgressed once.  In such a case he will receive one set of lashes, the punishment for breaking any negative commandment that is not punishable by death.<br>However, if after taking one sip of wine, or after cutting one hair or after defiling himself once, they warn him that what he has done is prohibited and he continues to do so, he is liable for each time he transgresses.  In such a case he will receive multiple sets of lashes.<br>"
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah compares different stringencies that exist for each of the three nazirite prohibitions:  ritual defilement, shaving and the consumption of things which come from the vine.",
                    "<b>Three things are forbidden to a nazirite:   ritual defilement, shaving and products of the vine.</b>  This section was taught above in mishnah one.  It is repeated here as an introduction to the rest of this mishnah.",
                    "<b>Defilement and shaving have a stringency that products of the vine do not have, in that defilement and shaving annul [the period of naziriteship already observed], whereas [partaking of] products of the vine does not do so.</b>  If a nazirite is defiled through contact with the dead, or shaves (intentionally or unintentionally) he annuls at least part of the period of naziriteship that he has already served.  However, if a nazirite partakes of a product which comes from the vine, he does not annul any of the period of naziriteship which he has already served.",
                    "<b>Products of the vine have a stringency that defilement or shaving do not have, in that products of the vine permit of no exception from the general prohibition, whereas defilement and shaving are allowed as exception from the general prohibition in the case where shaving is a religious duty, or where there is a neglected corpse.</b>  Under no circumstances may a nazirite eat of a product of the vine.  Certainly he cannot drink wine for kiddush or havdalah, for these are both considered rabbinic commandments, whereas his nazirite obligations are toraitic in origin.  Even if he swears to drink wine, thereby creating a toraitic obligation for him to drink wine, he may not do so. In contrast, under certain circumstances a nazirite may intentionally defile himself or cut his hair.  A person with scale disease (tzaraat, often called leprosy) shaves as part of the ritual to complete his purification process (see Leviticus 14:9).  If this person was also a nazirite, he is allowed to shave his hair.  If a nazirite came across a corpse which no one else is taking care of in order to bury it, he is allowed to defile himself in order to bury the corpse.  I should note that although I have translated the Hebrew into “neglected corpse”, a more literal translation would be “a commanded corpse”, meaning a corpse which all Jews, no matter their status, are commanded to bring to proper burial.  From here we can see how important proper burial and respect for a person’s body is in Judaism.",
                    "<b>And defilement has a stringency that shaving does not have, in that defilement annuls the whole [period of naziriteship already served], and [a nazirite who is defiled] is liable for a sacrifice, whereas shaving annuls only thirty days and he is not liable for a sacrifice.</b>  In section two the mishnah noted that both defilement and shaving one’s hair annul at least part of the term of naziriteship already served.  Here the mishnah notes that defilement is more stringent in that a nazirite who is defiled must begin his entire naziriteship again, whereas a nazirite who shaves only loses thirty days of his term."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIf a nazirite contracts ritual impurity, he must count seven days, shave his head on the seventh, bring two sacrifices on the eighth day, one a sin offering and the other a burnt offering, and then begin to count his naziriteship again.  This is spelled out in Number 6:9-12.  Our mishnah describes this ritual.",
                    "<b>Shaving on account of defilement:  How was it done? He would sprinkle [with purification water] on the third and seventh days, shave on the seventh day and bring his sacrifices on the eighth day.</b>  Numbers 19:19 states that a person who has become ritually defiled by contact with a corpse must have purification water sprinkled on him on the third and seventh days.  Our mishnah adds this information into the procedure clearly stated in Numbers 6, that a nazirite who has become impure shaves on the seventh day and brings his sacrifices on the eighth.",
                    "<b>If he shaved on the eighth day, he would bring his sacrifices on that same day, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Tarfon said to him: what difference is there between this one and a person with scale disease? He said to him: the purification of this one depends on his days, whereas the purification of one with scale disease depends on his shaving, and he cannot bring a sacrifice unless the sun has set upon him [after his purification].</b>  According to Rabbi Akiva, if he shaved on the eighth day, he may bring his sacrifices that very same day.  Rabbi Akiva reasons that a nazirite may always bring his sacrifices the day after he has become pure, regardless of when he shaves. Rabbi Tarfon raises a difficulty on Rabbi Akiva.  When a person with scale disease becomes pure, he too must shave on the seventh day and bring his sacrifices on the eighth day (see Leviticus 14:9-10).  However, in that case, Rabbi Akiva agrees that if he shaves on the eighth day, he may not bring his sacrifices until the ninth. Rabbi Akiva responds that a nazirite’s purity depends on the seven days and not on his having shaved.  This is demonstrated by the fact that the nazirite goes to the mikveh on the seventh day, even if he doesn’t shave until the eighth.  Therefore, once he has become pure on the seventh day, he may bring his sacrifices on the eighth, even if he also shaves that day.  In contrast, a person with scale disease cannot go to the mikveh, until he shaves.  He cannot bring his sacrifice, therefore, until the sun sets on the day that he has become pure by going to the mikveh, which if he shaves on the eighth will not be until the ninth.  Therefore, the person with scale disease is not analogous to the nazirite."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nYesterday’s mishnah dealt with a nazirite who had to shave because he had become ritually defiled.  Today’s mishnah deals with a nazirite who has successfully completed his term of naziriteship, and is shaving as part of its completion, as is prescribed in Numbers 6.  In our mishnah two sages dispute when exactly he shaves during this process.",
                    "<b>Shaving in a case of purity:  How was it done?<br>He would bring three animals, a sin-offering, a burnt-offering, and a well-being offering, slaughter the peace-offering and shave thereafter, the words of Rabbi Judah.</b>  Numbers 6:14 states that a nazirite upon completion of his naziriteship is to bring three sacrifices, as stated in the mishnah.  Verse 16-18 then state:  “The priest shall present them before the Lord and offer the sin offering and the burnt offering.  He shall offer the ram of sacrifice of well-being…The nazirite shall then cut his hair.”  Rabbi Judah therefore requires that all three sacrifices be offered before he cuts his hair.  This is the literal interpretation of the verse.",
                    "<b>Rabbi Elazar says: he shaves after the sin-offering, for in all cases [the sacrifice of] the sin-offering takes precedence.</b>  In contrast, Rabbi Elazar holds that the nazirite should shave after the sacrifice of the sin-offering, for the sin-offering always takes precedence (see Leviticus 5:8).  To show that it takes precedence, Rabbi Elazar says that he should shave after its offering, before the other two sacrifices are offered.",
                    "<b>But if he shaved after [the slaughter] of any one of the three he has fulfilled his obligation.</b>  Nevertheless, if he shaved after any of the other offerings, both sages agree that he has fulfilled his obligation."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe first section of this mishnah teaches that although in general when bringing sacrifices, a person must specify which animal is for which sacrifice, the nazirite need not do so.\nThe second section of the mishnah teaches what a nazirite does with his hair once he has shaved it off.",
                    "<b>Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: if he brought three animals without specifying [what they were for], the one suitable for a sin offering is sacrificed as a sin offering, for a burnt offering as a burnt offering, and for a well-being offering as a well-being offering.</b>  Generally speaking, when a nazirite brings his offerings he should state which is for a sin offering, which is for a burnt offering and which is for a well-being offering.  However, since each offering is from a different type of animal, even if he did not do so, it is obvious which is for which.  The female sheep is the sin offering, the male sheep is the burnt offering and the well being offering is a ram.  These are all prescribed by Numbers 6:14.",
                    "<b>He would then take the hair of his nazirite head and threw it under the cauldron. If he shaved in the province he [also] would throw it under the cauldron.</b>  Numbers 6:18 states, “The Nazirite shall then shave his consecrated hair, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and take the locks of his consecrated hair and put them on the fire that is under the sacrifice of well-being.”  Our mishnah adds that even if he shaved his hair in the province, which means in Jerusalem but outside the Temple, he still throws it under the cauldron.",
                    "<b>With regard to what was this said? With regard to shaving in ritual purity, whereas in shaving [after] ritual defilement he does not throw it under the cauldron. Rabbi Meir says: all [nazirites] throw it under the cauldron, except for the defiled nazirite [who shaved] in the provinces.</b>  According to the first opinion, he only throws his hair under the cauldron if he is shaving at the end of his naziriteship.  He does not do so if he is shaving due to his having been ritually defiled.  In contrast, Rabbi Meir holds that even when shaving due to defilement, he throws it under the cauldron.  The only one who does not do so is the nazirite who shaved due to defilement outside of the Temple.  According to another mishnah (Temurah 7:4), the hair of a nazirite is buried."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b> Numbers 6:17-20 read:  “He shall offer the ram as a sacrifice of well-being to the Lord, together with the basket of unleavened cakes; the priest shall also offer the meal offerings and the libations.  The nazirite shall then shave his consecrated hair…The priest shall take the shoulder of the ram when it has been boiled, one unleavened cake from the basket, and one unleavened wafer, and place them on the hands of the nazirite after he has shaved his consecrated hair.  The priest shall wave them as a wave-offering before the Lord… After that the nazirite shall drink wine.” Our mishnah discusses this process and contains a dispute over exactly when the nazirrite shaves his head.",
                    "<b>He would then boil or completely boil the peace-offering.</b>  To the biblical requirements quoted above, the mishnah adds that the well-being offering may either be boiled or completely boiled, such that the meat falls of the bone extremely easily.",
                    "<b>The priest then took the boiled shoulder of the ram, an unleavened cake from the basket, and an unleavened wafer, placed them on the nazirite’s hands and waved them.</b>  These actions are prescribed by verse 19.",
                    "<b>After this, the nazirite was allowed to drink wine and defile himself for the dead. Rabbi Shimon says:  as soon as one kind of blood had been sprinkled on his behalf the nazirite could drink wine and defile himself for the dead.</b>  According to the first opinion, only after the priest has completed these actions can the nazirite drink wine and defile himself for the dead.  This is a simple reading of the order of the activities prescribed in the above verses. Rabbi Shimon says that as soon as one of the sacrifices blood is sprinkled on the altar on behalf of the nazirite, he may drink wine and defile himself for the dead.  This is so even though he has not yet shaved or offered the other sacrifices.  In the Talmud midrashic proof is brought for Rabbi Shimon’s position."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b> This mishnah deals with a person who offered one (or more) of his sacrifices, then shaved and then discovered that his sacrifice had been improperly offered.  When offering a sacrifice, the priest must have the correct intention in mind.  When offering a sin-offering he must intend to offer a sin-offering and follow all of that specific offering’s regulations. A wrong intention invalidates the sacrifice.  It turns out that this person has shaved before he offered his sacrifice.  Therefore, the shaving is invalid and he must add on another thirty days of naziriteship.",
                    "<b>If he shaves after one of the sacrifices and the sacrifice is found to be invalid, his shaving is invalid and his sacrifices do not count:</b>  According to some commentators, after the sacrifice was offered he shaved, and then the sacrifice turned out to be in some way invalid.  Rashi, however, explains that this section is an introduction to the next section, and in both it turns out that the sacrifice itself was valid, but that it was offered with improper intent.  In any case, since it turns out that he shaved before he had offered any valid sacrifices, he must go back, serve another thirty days of naziriteship and then re-offer all of his sacrifices.",
                    "<b>If he shaves after the sin-offering, which was not offered for its correct designation and then he brought the other sacrifices under their correct designations, his shaving is invalid and [none of] his sacrifices counts for him.</b>  A sin-offering must be offered with the proper intent.  Since it was not, it is invalid, and again none of his sacrifices count.",
                    "<b>[Similarly], if he shaves after the burnt-offering or the wellbeing offering, which have not been offered for their correct designation, and then he brought the other sacrifices under their correct designation, his shaving is invalid and [none of] his sacrifices counts for him. Rabbi Shimon says: that particular sacrifice does not count, but his other sacrifices do count.</b>  Unlike the sin-offering, the burnt offering and the wellbeing offering are valid, even if offered with improper intent.  Nevertheless, they do not count as nazirite offerings and therefore, the nazirite has again shaved his hair before offering any of his mandatory sacrifices.  Again, he must serve another thirty days of naziriteship and then offer all three sacrifices. Rabbi Shimon holds that since the burnt or wellbeing offerings are valid, even though it doesn’t count toward his nazirite obligations, they do not invalidate the offering of the other properly-offered sacrifices.  He must merely bring another of the same type of sacrifice that did not count for him.",
                    "<b>If he shaved after all three sacrifices and one of them was found to valid, his shaving is valid and he has [only] to bring the other sacrifices.</b>  If, however, he sacrificed all three sacrifices, and only then shaved, and only one of them was found to be valid, the shaving was not improper.  As we learned above in mishnah seven, a nazirite can shave even after bringing one sacrifice.  Therefore, all he must do in this case is bring another one of the sacrifices which was invalidated."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with a situation where a nazirite began to have his sacrifices offered and then during the process, he became impure through contact with a dead body.  The question is, when he becomes clean, does he have to bring again the sacrifice(s) which was already offered.",
                    "<b>If [a nazirite] on whose behalf one kind of blood has been sprinkled becomes unclean, Rabbi Eliezer says: everything is annulled. But the Sages say: he should bring his remaining sacrifices after purification. They said to him: it happened that Miriam the Tadmorite had one kind of blood sprinkled on her behalf, and they came and told her that her daughter was dangerously ill. She went and found her dead and the sages told her to offer her remaining sacrifices after purification.</b> The topic of this mishnah is a nazirite who became impure after one of her sacrifices had been slaughtered and its blood sprinkled on the altar, but before the other sacrifices had undergone this process.  According to Rabbi Eliezer, her becoming impure annuls all of her sacrifices, even the one whose blood had already been spilled.  Therefore, she must wait seven days to become pure and then bring a new set of sacrifices. In contrast, the sages hold that the sacrifice whose blood had already been sprinkled counts and that after becoming pure, she need bring only the sacrifices that had not yet been offered.  The sages prove their point by bringing a story of where this actually happened. As a side note, it is interesting that the two stories of nazirites which we have encountered, the story regarding Queen Helena and this one, involve women. While it may be imprudent to make any conclusions from such scanty evidence, perhaps taking nazirite vows was a form of religious expression common, at least relatively speaking, among women."
                ]
            ],
            [
                [
                    "<b>A high priest and a nazirite may not defile themselves with their [dead] relatives, but they may defile themselves with a neglected corpse.<br>If they were walking on the path and found a neglected corpse: Rabbi Eliezer says: the high priest should defile himself but not the nazirite. But the Sages say: the nazirite should defile himself but not the high priest.<br>Rabbi Eliezer said to them: the priest should defile himself, for he does not offer a sacrifice for his defilement,  and the nazirite should not defile himself, for he does offer a sacrifice on defilement. They said to him: the nazirite should defile himself, for his holiness is not permanent,  and the priest should not defile himself, for his holiness is permanent.</b><br>Just as it is forbidden for nazirite to defile himself, even in order to take care of his relatives (Numbers 6:6), so too this is forbidden for a high priest (see Leviticus 21:11).  An ordinary priest is allowed to take care of the burial of his close relatives, but he is forbidden from defiling himself for others.<br>In Nazir 6:5 we learned that the one exception to this rule for a nazirite is a “neglected corpse”, literally termed “a commanded corpse”.  All Jews are commanded to take care of bringing this corpse to a proper burial, and this commandment overrides the prohibition of defilement.  Our mishnah deals with a priest and a nazirite who are walking together and see a neglected corpse.  Only one of them need defile himself; the question is which one.<br>Section one:  As we stated in the introduction, even a high priest and a nazirite may defile themselves in order to take care of a neglected corpse.<br>Section two:   In this situation one of them, either the priest or the nazirite, but not both of them must defile themselves in order to take care of the neglected corpse.  Note that once one person is taking care of the corpse, it is no longer a “neglected corpse” and hence the other one is forbidden to defile himself.<br>Rabbi Eliezer says that the high priest/priest should defile himself.  In the following section he provides his reasoning.  A priest who defiles himself does not bring a sacrifice as atonement, but a nazirite does.  Rabbi Eliezer reads the bringing of a sacrifice as a sign of the greater seriousness of the transgression.  To avoid this, the priest, or even high priest, should take care of the corpse, and the nazirite should remain pure.<br>The Sages respond that the priest’s holiness is greater than that of the nazirite for his holiness is permanent, whereas the nazirite’s is temporary.  This is indeed a different way of looking at holiness.  Holiness is measured by the innate quality of having been born into a priestly family, and not by the “mitzvah” oriented idea that being liable to bring a sacrifice make’s one status holier.<br>As an aside, we might note in this mishnah that a nazirite’s vow in some ways is an attempt for him to become holy like the priest.  While their prohibitions are different, there is enough similarity between the two that we may sense that one reason that a person might take a nazirite vow was to become holy in much the same way that a priest is holy."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThere are two categories of defilement with the dead that are relevant to nazirite laws.  If he is defiled through actual contact with the dead, he loses his whole period of naziriteship and he must shave and begin to count his naziriteship over.  This contact can occur either through touching, carrying or being overshadowed by contact with a dead body or part of a dead body.  [Overshadowing refers to a case where an object overshadowed him and the part of the dead body. For instance, they were under the same roof.]\nIn tomorrow’s mishnah we will learn of cases where the nazirite is considered to be impure, but he has not contracted that impurity from direct contact with the dead.  In such a case the nazirite does not shave, bring a sacrifice or lose the previously served part of his naziriteship.  However, in such a case the days that he is impure do not count toward his naziriteship.",
                    "This mishnah lists the types of impurity through contact with the dead that obligate a nazirite to shave, bring sacrifices and start counting his entire term of naziriteship from the beginning.",
                    "<b>For which types of defilement must the nazirite shave?<br>For [defilement contracted from] a corpse, or an olive’s bulk of [the flesh of] a corpse, or an olive’s bulk of corpse ooze, or a ladleful of corpse-mould;</b>  He is impure through contact with any piece of flesh, as long as it is of minimum size.  There are different minimum measurements depending upon the state of this flesh.  (Yes, I know this is a little on the ‘yucky’ side, especially the “corpse mould”.  It just goes to show that in the ancient world death was probably less removed from their reality than it is in our world.)",
                    "<b>Or the spinal column, or the skull, or any limb [severed] from a corpse, or any limb [severed] from a living body that is still properly covered with flesh, or a half-kav of bones, or a half-log of blood.</b>  This section lists mostly limbs, bones and at the end a minimum measurement of blood.  Note that except for a “limb from a living body”, the rest of these come from a corpse.",
                    "<b>Whether [the defilement was contracted] from contact with them, from carrying them, or from overshadowing them.</b>  The things listed in the first two sections transmit their impurity to the nazirite by contact, by being carried or through overshadowing.  “Carrying” can cause impurity even if the impurity was not directly touched.",
                    "<b>For [defilement contracted from] a barley-grain’s bulk of bone, whether by contact or carrying.</b>  In contrast, a minimum piece of bone, the size of a barley-grain, does not transmit impurity through overshadowing, but only through contact and carrying.",
                    "<b>On account of these, a nazirite must shave and be sprinkled on the third and seventh days, and such [defilement] annuls the previously served period, and he does not begin to count a new [naziriteship] until he has become clean and brought his sacrifices.</b>  This section lists the rules for a nazirite who contracts such defilement.  As stated above, he must shave, purify himself, bring a sacrifice and only after becoming pure can he begin to count his naziriteship again."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn yesterday’s mishnah we learned which types of defilement annul a nazirite’s previously served days of naziriteship, and make him liable to bring a sacrifice.  Today we learn the opposite cases:  defilement that does not force him to shave, does not annul his previously served days and does not  make him liable for a sacrifice.",
                    "<b>But for [defilement contracted by] overhanging branches, or protruding stones, or a field that may have once been a cemetery, or land of the Gentiles, or the stone which covers the tomb or the supporting stone of a tomb, or a quarter-log of blood, or a tent, or a quarter-kav of bones, or utensils that have been in contact with a corpse, or on account of the days of counting [after contracting scale disease] or the days during which he is certified unclean [because of scale disease];</b>  All of the things listed here defile a person, but since they are not considered defilement coming directly from a corpse, they do not force the nazirite to annul his naziriteship.  I shall explain each one at a time: Overhanging branches:  this refers to a branches of a tree which hang over him and a doubtful piece of a dead body. Protruding stones:  similarly, these are overhanging stones which may overshadow him and a doubtful piece of a dead body. A grave that has been plowed:  this actually refers to the area around such a grave, which might have on it bones or pieces of bones. Land of the Gentiles:  the sages declared that all land outside of Israel defiles (see above 3:6). The stone which covers the tomb or the supporting stone of a tomb:  The former refers to a round stone, rolled in front of the tomb to seal it off. The latter refers to the stones surrounding this stone which supported it in its place. A quarter-log of blood:  In yesterday’s mishnah we saw that a half-log was necessary for to force the nazirite to restart his counting and to bring a sacrifice.  A quarter-log, therefore, transmits full impurity but does not count enough to annul his naziriteship. Or a tent:  this refers to touching a tent in which a dead body is found. A quarter-kav of bones: In yesterday’s mishnah we saw that a half-kav was necessary to restart his counting and to bring a sacrifice.  Similar to the case of blood, a smaller amount still causes impurity but doesn’t count as defilement from a corpse. Utensils that have been in contact with a corpse:  These will cause impurity, but even though the impurity is indirectly from a corpse, since the nazirite was not defiled directly by the corpse, his naziriteship is not annulled. On account of the days of counting [after becoming a leper] or the days during which he is certified unclean;  this refers to a nazirite who has become a leper (one with scale disease).  Becoming a leper does not cause him to lose his term already served as a nazirite, neither the days in which he becomes clean, nor the days in which he is certified unclean.",
                    "<b>For all these the nazirite is not required to shave, but they do sprinkle him on the third and seventh [days], and [the defilement] does not annul the formerly served period, and he begins to resume counting [his naziriteship] immediately [after purification] and there is no sacrifice.</b>  For all of these things he is considered to be defiled, and he must be sprinkled with hatat water on the third and seventh days.  However, he does not shave, nor does he bring a sacrifice, nor does he lose his earlier served days.  As soon as he becomes clean, he may begin to count again.",
                    "<b>In fact they said: the days of [defilement of] a male or female sufferer from gonorrhea and the days that a leper is shut up as a leper count toward his [naziriteship].</b>  This halakhah is even more radical than that in the previous section.  If, while serving a naziriteship, he contracts gonorrhea (zav), or becomes a leper, not only does he not lose his previously served days, but these days also count toward his naziriteship. The only reason that a nazirite must shave and lose his previously served days is through contact with the dead.  Other forms of impurity, as serious as they may be, do not have the same effect.  Here we learn that they can even count as days served toward his naziriteship."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe first section of our mishnah contains a discussion related to the categories of impurity explained in the previous two mishnayoth.\nThe second section contains a debate over whether a quarter-log of blood forces the nazirite to shave. This section contains an interesting insight into the tension between two primary sources of halakhah:  tradition and logical reasoning.",
                    "<b>Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Joshua:  for every defilement [conveyed] by a corpse on account of which a nazirite must shave, people are liable for entering the sanctuary, and for every defilement [conveyed] by a corpse on account of which a nazirite does not shave, people are not liable for one entering the sanctuary. Rabbi Meir said: such [defilement] should not be less serious than [defilement through] a dead creeping thing.</b>  Rabbi Elazar correlates the two categories of corpse defilement explained in the previous mishnah to another halakhah, that of entering the sanctuary while defiled, punishable by kareth if done intentionally or a sacrifice if done unintentionally. According to Rabbi Elazar, those categories of defilement for which a nazirite does not shave, a person is also not liable for entering the sanctuary while defiled by them. Rabbi Meir argues that defilement contracted through these things for which a nazirite does not shave should not be considered less serious than defilement contracted by contact with a dead creeping thing.  Since a person who enters the sanctuary after contracting defilement from a dead creeping thing is liable (see Leviticus 5:2), so too is one who contracted defilement from one of the impurities in mishnah three above.",
                    "<b>Rabbi Akiba said: I argued in the presence of Rabbi Eliezer:  Now if on account of a barley-corn’s bulk of bone which does not defile a man by overshadowing, a nazirite shaves should he touch it or carry it, then surely a quarter-log of blood which defiles a man by overshadowing, should cause a nazirite to shave should he touch it or carry it? He replied: What is this Akiva! We do not make here an ‘all the more so’ (a kal argument. When I afterwards went and recounted these words to Rabbi Joshua, he said to me, “You spoke well, but thus they have ruled the halakhah.”</b>  This section deals with the teaching in mishnah three, according to which a nazirite who was defiled by contact with a quarter-log of blood does not have to shave.  Rabbi Akiva argues against this position in front of Rabbi Eliezer, one of his teachers.  Rabbi Akiva’s argument is based on the precedent of a barley corn’s bulk of bone.  Such a small piece of bone does not defile through overshadowing, and yet nevertheless a nazirite who comes into contact with it or carries it must shave, bring a sacrifice and begin counting his naziriteship.  If so, a quarter-log of blood, which does defile through overshadowing should all the more so make a nazirite shave, bring a sacrifice and start his naziriteship over.  This type of formal argumentation is called an a “kal vehomer” in Hebrew, which I translate as an “all the more so” argument.  Others use the term “a fortiori”.  The reasoning here is that if a lesser thing (the tiny piece of bone) carries a certain power, all the more so should the greater thing (the small amount of blood). Rabbi Eliezer responds to Rabbi Akiva by telling him that we don’t make this type of argument here.  Rabbi Eliezer is known as being an arch-conservative in halakhic matters.  He typically rejects reason as a source of new halakhot, relying strictly on tradition. Rabbi Joshua, on the other hand, is known more typically as the innovator, ready to modify traditions if so persuaded.  However, over here, he too does not feel able to modify the halakhah that a quarter-log of blood does not make a nazirite liable to shave.  While he accepts Rabbi Akiva’s reason, he says that since the Sages ruled based on their traditions, this halakhah cannot be changed."
                ]
            ],
            [
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b> This extremely long mishnah deals with the case of two nazirites, one of whom was defiled, but it is uncertain which one it was.  The problem is that the one who was defiled must bring the sacrifices for defilement and shave, while the one who was not defiled must bring his sacrifices for completing a naziriteship in purity.",
                    "<b>Two nazirites to whom someone says, “I saw one of you defiled, but I do not know which of you it was,”</b>  This section sets up the situation.  Evidently, the nazirites themselves do not know which one was clean and which one was not.",
                    "<b>[Both] must shave and [together] bring sacrifices for defilement and sacrifices [for completing a naziriteship] in purity, [and one of them] must say, “If I am unclean, the sacrifices for defilement are mine, and the sacrifices in purity are yours, whereas if I am the one who is clean, the sacrifices in purity are mine and the sacrifices for defilement are yours.” And they must then count thirty [more] days and bring sacrifices in purity and [one of them] must say, “If I am the one who was unclean, the sacrifices for defilement were mine, the sacrifices in purity were yours, and these are my sacrifices in purity, whereas if I was the one who was clean, the sacrifices in purity were mine, the sacrifices for defilement were yours, and these are your sacrifices in purity.”</b>  Immediately, both nazirites must shave and together they bring sacrifices of defilement and sacrifices of completing the naziriteship in purity (purity sacrifices).  One of the two nazirites then declares that if he was the one defiled, the defilement sacrifices are his, but if the other was defiled, then the purity sacrifices are his and the sacrifices of defilement belong to the other.  They then must count another thirty days, assuming that this was a naziriteship of unspecified duration.  If it was a longer vow, then they must wait the entire period of the vow.  This period is to allow the one who was not defiled time to serve out his naziriteship after he had just shaved. Then they make the same statement again.  In this way it is certain that the defiled one surely has offered one sacrifice of defilement and one sacrifice of purity.",
                    "<b>If one of them dies: Rabbi Joshua said that [the other] should request that someone from the marketplace take a nazirite vow together with him, and say: “If I am unclean, you are to be a nazirite immediately, but if I was clean, you are to become a nazirite at the end of thirty days.” They then count thirty days and bring sacrifices for defilement and sacrifices [for completing a naziriteship] in purity and [the first one] says, “If I am the one who was unclean, the sacrifices for defilement are mine and the sacrifices in purity are yours, whereas if I am the one who is clean, the sacrifices in purity are mine and the sacrifices for defilement are [sacrifices offered] in doubt.” They then count [another] thirty days and bring [one set of] the sacrifices in purity and [the first one] says, “If I am the one who was defiled, the sacrifice for defilement [offered previously] was mine and the sacrifice in purity was yours, and this is my sacrifice in purity, whereas if I was the one who was clean, the sacrifice in purity was mine and the sacrifice for defilement [was offered] in doubt and this is your sacrifice in purity.”</b>  The situation now gets much more complicated.  One of the two nazirities dies and they don’t know whether the clean or unclean one died.  Rabbi Joshua suggests a complicated solution.  The remaining nazirite finds someone who is not a nazirite and asks him to take a nazirite vow, but not just a regular nazirite vow but rather a vow that will answer the needs of the nazirite who may be unclean.  The potentially unclean nazirite then stipulates that if he really is unclean, the new person should be a nazirite immediately, but if he was clean, then the beginning of the other person’s naziriteship should wait thirty days.  They then wait the thirty days and then together they bring sacrifices of purity and defilement and again the original nazirite makes a stipulation.  If he was the unclean one, then this is his sacrifice of defilement and the sacrifice of purity belongs to the “new” nazirite, who is now completing his naziriteship.  If he was the clean nazirite, then the sacrifice of purity is his, and the sacrifice of defilement has the status of a doubtful sacrifice.  In practice this means that the sin offering of a bird cannot be eaten, but is nevertheless sacrificed.  Note that the other nazirite now begins to serve his own naziriteship, as stated in the original stipulation.  Therefore, they must wait another thirty days and then bring a sacrifice of purity.  The original doubtfully unclean nazirite now states that if was the unclean one, then the previously brought sacrifice of defilement was his and the current sacrifice of purity belongs to the new nazirite.  But, if the original nazirite was clean, the previously brought sacrifice of purity was his, and the previously brought sacrifice of defilement remains doubtful and the current sacrifice of purity is for the new nazirite.",
                    "<b>Ben Zoma said to him:  Who will listen to him and take a nazirite vow together with him? Rather he must bring a bird as a sin offering and an animal as a burnt offering and say, “If I was defiled, the sin offering is part of my obligation and the burnt offering is a voluntary offering, whereas if I remained clean, the burnt-offering is part of my obligation and the sin offering is [a sacrifice offered] in doubt.” ‘ He must then count thirty days and bring the sacrifices in purity and say, “If I was defiled, the former burnt offering was a voluntary offering and this is part of my obligation, whereas if I remained clean, the former burnt offering was part of my obligation and this is the voluntary one. And these are the rest of my sacrifices.”</b>  Ben Zoma, being a great Sage, has somehow managed to follow this quite complicated system, but nevertheless has a practical problem with its application.  How is he going to find a volunteer willing to go through all of this trouble just to get him out of his problem?  This does seem very unlikely.  Therefore, Ben Zoma comes up with an alternative solution, one that doesn’t involve others. After one of the two doubtful nazirites dies, the living one brings a sin offering of a bird, which is one of the two sacrifices offered for nazirite defilement and a burnt offering of a beast, one of the three offerings upon completion of naziriteship in purity.  He then states that if he was the unclean one, then the sin offering should count as his obligatory offering, and the burnt offering is voluntary.  Note that the sacrifice of well-being is not brought, for it cannot be offered as a voluntary sacrifice.  He continues to state that if he was the clean one, then the burnt offering counts as part of his obligatory sacrifices for the completion of his naziriteship and the sin offering is voluntary. He then waits another thirty days, again assuming that his original nazirite vow was thirty days.  If it was longer, he must wait as long as the original vow was.  At this point he brings the full set of purity sacrifices (sin, burnt and well-being offerings) and states that if he was the unclean one then his original burnt offering was voluntary and the one that he is currently bringing is the obligatory one.  But if he was the clean one, the original burnt offering was obligatory and the current one is voluntary.  In any case, he is now bringing the remainder of his sacrifices, meaning the sin offering and the well-being offering.",
                    "<b>Rabbi Joshua said: the result is that he brings his sacrifices half at a time! But the Sages agreed with Ben Zoma.</b>  Rabbi Joshua now responds that according to Ben Zoma’s system the nazirite may end up bringing his purity sacrifices in two stages.  If he was the clean nazirite, then he brought his burnt offering was brought first and the other two were brought thirty days later.  Despite this, the Sages agree that Ben Zoma’s system is preferable."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b> There is a good deal of background information that will help (some) in understanding this mishnah. The topic of the mishnah is someone who is not only a doubtfully defiled nazirite, but a doubtful metzorah, one who has scale disease (which I will, for convenience sake, call leprosy).  The process of the “leper” is as follows.  When the priest checks him and decides that he does have the disease, he sits outside of the camp for seven days.  Afterwards, he offers two bird sacrifices, shaves and bathes, and then may enter the camp.  On the seventh day he again shaves, then goes to the mikveh and on the eighth day brings more sacrifices.  He may not eat consecrated food until he brings these last sacrifices. We have already learned two things regarding the leper and the nazirite.  First of all, the nazirite is allowed to shave if he has to do so to be purified from leprosy.  Second, if a nazirite becomes a leper the days of his leprosy do not count toward his naziriteship, but neither does his becoming a leper overturn his entire naziriteship. Our mishnah also holds that shaving for leprosy cannot at the same time count for shaving for a naziriteship.",
                    "<b>A nazirite who was in doubt whether he had been defiled and in doubt whether he had been a confirmed leper, may eat consecrated food after sixty days, and drink wine and come into contact with the dead after one hundred and twenty days, since shaving on account of leprosy overrides [the prohibition against] the shaving of the nazirite only when [the leprosy] is certain, but when it is doubtful it does not override it.</b> The mishnah explains what is to happen in this situation.  First of all, he must wait thirty days after he has been purified from having potentially come into contact with the dead and then he may shave his first shaving for leprosy.  He could not shave earlier for he may not have been a leper and he may have been a pure nazirite in which case the leprosy shaving would not override the prohibition for a nazirite to shave, as the mishnah states at the end.  Then he counts another seven days at which point he normally could shave his second leprosy shaving, but he cannot for the same reason.  If he is a pure nazirite, he would need to wait thirty days in between each shaving.  His second leprosy shaving is therefore at sixty days.  At this point he may eat consecrated food.  However, he may still be a nazirite, for if he was really a leper then those days did not count towards his naziriteship and he has not served thirty days after shaving.  Therefore he cannot drink wine or come into contact with the dead. Thirty days later he again shaves, but this shaving may be for becoming defiled as a nazirite, if he was indeed unclean, or it may be for completion of his naziriteship.  Since he may still not have served a nazirite term in purity, even after this shaving, he waits another thirty days and shaves again, only then is he allowed to drink wine and come into contact with the dead. While this mishnah is difficult, one thing is sure:  the barber will be getting a lot of work!"
                ]
            ],
            [
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b> This mishnah deals with the subjectivity to nazirite vows of three, typically somewhat marginal groups of people in rabbinic thought and society:  Gentiles, women and slaves.",
                    "<b>Gentiles are not subject [to the laws] of naziriteship.</b>  The opening verse of the passage in Numbers which deals with the nazirite laws states, “Speak to the children of Israel” (Numbers 6:2).  From here the rabbis conclude that Gentiles are not subject to the Jewish nazirite laws.",
                    "<b>Women and slaves are subject [to the laws] of naziriteship.</b>  In contrast, the children of Israel includes women and slaves (those working in Israelite households).",
                    "<b>The nazirite vow is more stringent in the case of women than in the case of slaves, for a man can compel his slave [to break his vow] but he cannot compel his wife [to do so].</b>  The mishnah now compares the situation of the woman/wife with that of the slave.  Both are subject to the authority of their \"masters\", but in different ways.  In one way the rules for the women are more stringent.  A master can at any point come up to his slave and say that the slave can no longer keep his nazirite vow and that he must perform one of the prohibitions.  This is not voiding the vow, but preventing the slave from observing a vow that he remains obligated to observe.  In other words, the master has total control over the slave’s work life.  A husband does not have this power over his wife, for she is certainly not his slave.  Although, as we shall see below, a husband may annul his wife’s vow, once the vow has been confirmed, he cannot impede her nazirite observance.",
                    "<b>[The nazirite vow] is more stringent in the case of slaves than in the case of women, for he can void the vows of his wife, but he cannot void the vows of his slaves. If he voids his wife’s [vow], it is void for ever, but if he voids his slave’s vow, [if] the slave becomes free he must complete his naziriteship.</b>  On the other hand, a husband can annul his wife’s nazirite vow (as he can all her vows) completely, such that she is no longer subject to the vow.  In contrast, while he can prevent his slave from observing his vow, technically the vow is still valid and the slave is still obligated to observe a naziriteship.  If he is freed, all of the sages agree that he must complete his naziriteship.  The master did not void the naziriteship, he merely delayed its observance.",
                    "<b>When [the slave] passes from [his master's] presence: Rabbi Meir says: he may not drink [wine]. Rabbi Yose says: he may drink [wine].</b>  Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose disagree over whether the slave must observe his naziriteship when not in the presence of the master.  Rabbi Meir says that he must observe the naziriteship and not drink wine, even though in the master’s presence the master wants him to drink wine.  Rabbi Yose disagrees and holds that as long as he is enslaved to his master, he must continue to fulfill his master’s wishes, in or out of his presence. As an aside note, it seems to me that this mishnah is demonstrating a key difference in the rabbinic perception of wives and slaves.  Rabbinic ideology in this period was certainly patriarchal, as was that of all of their surrounding society.  However, the rabbis don’t view the wife, despite her obligations to her husband, as a slave to him.  The Torah gave the husband a right to void her vows, but the rabbis limit that to a formal process.  They do not extrapolate and conclude that therefore a husband’s control over his wife is like that over his slave.  Rather, the Torah-bequeathed power remains local, and perhaps of a different nature than that of a master’s control over his slave."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah deals with a type of corpse defilement known as “defilement of the depth.”  This refers to a corpse found in a place where no one knew it had been.  Figuratively, it is as if it came out of the depths.  Our mishnah shall illustrate a case where it really is found in a deep place.",
                    "<b>A nazirite shaves and then discovers that he was defiled: If the defilement was certain, it voids [the naziriteship], But if it is a defilement of the depth, it is not rendered void.</b>  If after having shaved at the completion of his naziriteship, the nazirite discovers that he had contracted corpse defilement while he was still a nazirite, if the defilement was certain, he loses his whole period of naziriteship.  However, if the defilement was “defilement of the depth”, it does not void his naziriteship.  This seems to be a leniency due to the nature of this type of defilement and the situation (he has already shaved).",
                    "<b>[If he discovers that he was defiled] before shaving, in either case it voids [the naziriteship].</b>  However, if he discovered that he had been defiled before he shaved for completing his naziriteship, either type of defilement voids his naziriteship.  The leniency in the previous section no longer applies.",
                    "<b>How is [the law regarding ‘defilement of the depth’]? If he goes down into a cavern to bathe, and a corpse is found floating at the mouth of the cavern, he is [definitely] unclean. If it is found embedded in the floor of the cavern, Then if he went in merely to cool himself off he remains clean, But if he went to purify himself after defilement through contact with the dead he remains unclean, Because the assumption concerning an unclean person is that he is unclean and the assumption concerning a clean person is that he is clean,.</b>  This section explains how “defilement of the depth” works.  If he goes into a cavern to bathe and finds a corpse in the water, he is definitely unclean.  If he is a nazirite, this will void the days of his naziriteship which he has already served.  However, if he finds that a corpse that was embedded in the floor, this is “defilement of the depth”. In such a case there is one more question which must be asked before we can determine if he is considered unclean.  If he went down just to cool off, and then later, after having shaved when completing his naziriteship, someone told him that a corpse was embedded in the floor of that cavern, he is still pure. However, if a nazirite went into the cavern to purify himself from corpse impurity, and then began to count his naziriteship again, and after completing his naziriteship and shaving, someone told him that there was a corpse in the floor of the cavern where he had earlier bathed, he is considered unclean and his naziriteship is voided.  The mishnah explains that each person stays in his already-presumed status.  The clean person who went into the cavern to cool off remains clean, despite having come into contact with “defilement of the depth”.  But, the unclean person who used this cavern as his mikveh remains unclean, the status he was in when he came into contact with the corpse."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nYesterday’s mishnah ended with the phrase, “for there are grounds for such an assumption” (raglayim ledavar).  This can be translated literally as “the matter has legs”, but it means that an assumption is probably correct.  The following two mishnayoth are brought here in this tractate because they too contain that phrase.\nSpecifically, today’s mishnah deals with a person who finds a body or more than one body buried on his property.  The question is, was his property a cemetery or not.  Note that normally speaking Jewish law forbids the moving of a corpse.  However, in certain circumstances it is permitted.  In our mishnah the owner of the property wants to prevent his property from being unclean and therefore the mishnah allows him, under certain circumstances, to remove the body.",
                    "<b>If a man finds a corpse for the first time lying in a typical position, he may remove it together with the soil that it occupies.</b>  A person finds a single corpse on his property and he has never found one there before.  The corpse is lying in a position typical for the burial of Jews.  If it had been a non-Jewish body, there would be no concern for impurity since non-Jewish corpses do not defile.  The mishnah rules that he may move it, together with the soil surrounding it.  The soil must be removed for it has soaked up some of his blood and moisture and hence may be impure.",
                    "<b>[If he finds] two, he may remove them together with the ground they occupy.</b>  If he finds two bodies, he may proceed in the same manner.  Two bodies is not enough for us to begin to be concerned about it being a cemetery.",
                    "<b>If he finds three, then if the distance between the first and the last is from four to eight cubits, this is a graveyard site. He [must] check from that point twenty cubits in all directions. If he finds one twenty cubits away, he must check from it another twenty cubits, for there are grounds [that it is a graveyard]. For if he had found it at the outset he would have removed it and the soil that it occupies.</b>  However, if he finds three bodies and there are no more than eight cubits separating the two furthest apart, he must assume that he has stumbled upon a cemetery.  In this case he cannot move the corpses.  He must look around in a twenty cubit radius to see how large the cemetery is.  If he finds another corpse even twenty cubits away, he must treat the entire area as a cemetery.  He may not remove this single corpse, even though it is a large distance away from the others, for there are grounds (no pun intended) to assume that the entire area was used as a cemetery.  In contrast, if he had found a single corpse there before finding others, it would not have been considered part of the cemetery, and he would have been allowed to remove it with its soil."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah continues to bring cases that involve the concept of “there are grounds for the assumption.”  The first section discusses doubtful skin afflictions. The second case involves doubtful cases of “zivah”, usually translated as flux, an unusual genital emission.  The third case involves estimating the cause of death of a person struck by his fellow.",
                    "<b>Any matter of doubt regarding [leprous affliction] at the outset is clean before a decision is made [to declare it] unclean. Once a decision has been made [to declare it] unclean, any matter of doubt is regarded as unclean.</b>  If something is seen on a person’s skin that may be the sign of an unclean skin affliction, he is still considered clean until the priests decide that it is an unclean skin affliction.  However, once he has been declared to be unclean, any further doubtful matters are ruled as if they too render him unclean.  In other words, he remains in his presumed assumption.",
                    "<b>A person suffering from gonorrhea (a is examined regarding seven things,   before it has been decided that it is gonorrhea: With regard to food, drink, carrying things, jumping, sickness, something seen, or an impure thought. Once gonorrhea is established, he is no longer examined. [Any flux resulting] from an accident to him, doubtful [flux] and his semen are unclean, for there are grounds for this assumption.</b>  For a person to be considered a full zav (one suffering a certain type of sexually transmitted disease), he must see flux (unusual genital emission) three times with no more than one day between each emission.  After his first two emissions, he is still not a full zav.  Furthermore, for the emission to be legally considered flux it must be from this disease and not as a result of something else.  Therefore, after the first and second emissions he is checked to make sure the emission was not caused by something else.  Our mishnah teaches the questions that he is asked.  All of these were considered potential causes of emissions.  However, once he has been declared a zav, a sufferer of this disease, he is not asked these questions concerning further emissions.  Rather they are all considered to be flux.  Again, the person remains in his currently assumed status unless it can be proven otherwise.  The mishnah continues that even if he were to have his third emission as an accident resulting from one of the above causes, or there is a doubt whether he had a third emission, or it is unclear whether it was a seminal emission or a gonorrheal emission, he is still ruled to be a zav, for there are grounds to assume that after the first two emissions of flux, the third one is flux as well.",
                    "<b>If a one strikes his fellow, and they expected him to die and he partially recovered and then grew worse and died [the other] is liable [for murder]. Rabbi Nehemiah exempts him, for there are grounds for this assumption.</b>  According to the first opinion, even though the injured person partially recovered and only after his recovery again grew ill and died, it is clear that he died from the blows of the first person.  Hence the one who struck him is considered to be a murderer.  Rabbi Nehemiah disagrees and holds that it can be presumed that he died of other causes, and therefore the one who struck him cannot be considered a murderer.  Others interpret the final words of this mishnah “for there are grounds for this assumption” to relate to the words of the first opinion. Since there are solid grounds to assume that the person died from the blows, he is deemed to be a murderer."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe last mishnah of tractate Nazir deals with the question of whether Samuel, the biblical prophet, was a nazirite.  It is very typical for tractates of Mishnah to end with words of aggadah, the non-halakhic parts of the rabbinic tradition.",
                    "<b>Samuel was a nazirite, according to the words of Rabbi Nehorai, as it says, “And no razor [morah] shall come upon his head” (I Samuel 1:11).  It says with reference to Samson, “And [no] razor [morah]” (Judges 13:5) and it says with reference to Samuel, “And [no] razor [morah]”,  just as “razor [morah]” in the case of Samson [teaches that he was] a nazirite, so “razor [morah]” in the case of Samuel [teaches that he was] a nazirite. Rabbi Yose says: but does not “morah” refer to [fear] of  flesh and blood? Rabbi Nehorai said to him: But does it not also say, “And Samuel said; ‘How can I go? If Saul will hear it he will kill me’” (I Samuel 16:2) [which shows] that he was afraid of flesh and blood?</b> The case of Samuel is truly puzzling: was he or wasn’t he a nazirite?  When Hana prays to God to give her a child, she promises that if she does have a male child, no “morah (razor) shall ever touch his head.”  The obvious meaning seems to be that just as Samson’s mother was promised that he would have a child and that her boy was to become a nazirite and “no razor shall touch his head”, so too Samuel’s mother was promising that he would be a nazirite.  This is the gist of Rabbi Nehorai’s argument. However, unlike Samson’s mother, Samuel’s mother does not promise the other two nazirite prohibitions, that her son will not become defiled through contact with the dead or eat/drink anything from the vine.  Samuel is not subsequently referred to as a nazirite, nor does he seem to act as one.  Therefore, Rabbi Yose interprets the Hebrew word “morah” to refer to fear.  Samuel’s mother promises that he will not be afraid of anyone.  While the word “morah” can mean fear, the simple meaning of the word in this verse seems to obviously be razor.  Rabbi Yose interprets it to mean “fear” because it just doesn’t seem that Samuel is a nazirite. Rabbi Nehorai responds by pointing out that this interpretation also does not fit with the facts of Samuel’s life.  Samuel did fear Saul, as is evident from the quote.  Therefore, the word “morah” must refer to razor, and Samuel must have actually been a nazirite. Interestingly, in a fragmentary scroll of Samuel found in Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls), I Samuel 1:22, instead of reading, “[For when he has appeared before the Lord], he must remain there for good”, reads “he will be a nazirite for good, for all his life.”  Ben Sira, a second century BCE book, writes that Samuel was a prophetic nazirite (46:3).  The Septuagint, the third century BCE translation of the Bible into Greek adds to verse 11 “and he shall not drink wine or strong drink”.  Josephus too states that Samuel didn’t drink wine.  All of this proves that there was a strong trend in Second Temple Judaism to view Samuel as a nazirite.  This view was shared by Rabbi Nehorai in our mishnah. Congratulations!  We have finished Nazir. It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. This last mishnah is an important close to tractate Nazir.  We see here that in ancient times when women were grateful to God for having brought them a child, they dedicated their child to God by making the child a nazirite.  As an aside, perhaps this is part of why we have seen such a strong connection to women in this tractate.  In any case, today people can no longer become nazirites.  However, becoming pregnant and having children is still, despite modern technology, very difficult.  Although, as a token of gratitude to God we cannot make our children nazirites, we can make a resolution to raise them to a life of Torah and good deeds, to bring them closer to their Jewish roots, to the Jewish people and to the land of Israel.  As a father, that is one of the lessons that I learn from this tractate.  Congratulations on making it through another tractate.  May you have the strength and time to keep on learning more Mishnah!  Tomorrow we begin Sota."
                ]
            ]
        ]
    },
    "versions": [
        [
            "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp",
            "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/"
        ]
    ],
    "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה נזיר",
    "categories": [
        "Mishnah",
        "Modern Commentary on Mishnah",
        "English Explanation of Mishnah",
        "Seder Nashim"
    ],
    "schema": {
        "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה נזיר",
        "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Nazir",
        "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Nazir",
        "nodes": [
            {
                "heTitle": "הקדמה",
                "enTitle": "Introduction"
            },
            {
                "heTitle": "",
                "enTitle": ""
            }
        ]
    }
}