תלמוד על במדבר 6:31

MISHNAH: All substitute names¹Num. 6:2 reads: “A man or a woman who clearly intend to vow the vow of a nazir, to become a nazir for the Eternal.” This makes it clear that making a vow of nazir, like any other vow, is implicitly an invocation of God’s name. The speaking of any vow therefore is an invocation of God’s name and this should be avoided; cf. Nedarim 1:1, Note 1. In this the vow of nazir is not different from any other vow. for nazir vows are like nazir vows. If somebody says “I shall be” he is a nazir². But only if stated in the presence of a nazir, when it can be interpreted as “I shall be like him”., “I shall be beautiful”, he is a nazir². But only if stated in the presence of a nazir, when it can be interpreted as “I shall be like him”.; naziq,naziaḥ,paziaḥ³. Names invented to avoid spelling out “nazir”; Mishnah Nedarim 1:2. Some of these words have meaning in Arabic: نزق “to be quick (or irritable)”, نزح “to be far away”., he is a nazir. “I shall be like this one”². But only if stated in the presence of a nazir, when it can be interpreted as “I shall be like him”., “I shall tend my hair,” “I shall groom my hair”. “I shall be obligated to grow my hair”, he is a nazir. “I have to bring birds”, Rebbi Meїr says, he is a nazir⁴The required sacrifice for a nazir who became impure, Num. 6:10., but the Sages say, he is not a nazir⁵It is not reasonable to assume that a person vows to be a nazir with the expectation to break the rules, even if unintentionally..

HALAKHAH: “Gentiles cannot vow as nazir,” etc. Israelites can vow as nazir, Gentiles cannot vow as nazir. ⁸Sifra Emor Parašah 7(2); Babli Menaḥot 72b. The reference is to Lev. 22:18: “Every man of the House of Israel, and of the sojourners in Israel, who would bring their sacrifices for all their vows and all their gifts, to present them to the Eternal as elevation offerings.” In the same Chapter, v. 25 makes it clear that what is acceptable from the Israelite is accptable from the Gentile both as vow (in which a person engages himself to dedicate an animal) and a gift (in which a person dedicates an animal, in which case he does not have to supply a replacement if anything should happen to the animal before it could be sacrificed.) Since you say, “a man”, why does the verse mention “a man”⁹“Every person” is in Hebrew אִישׁ אִישׁ “man, man”. The repetition has to be explained.? To include Gentiles, who make vows and offer voluntary gifts like Israelites! Why should one not say the same here¹⁰Num. 6:2 reads: “A man or a woman, if he makes a clear vow of nazir to the Eternal.” “Man” should include Gentiles by the preceding argument.? There is a difference, for it is written “He shall atone for him.¹¹Num. 6:11. Since Gentiles are not subject to the rules of impurity, the rituals of purification cannot apply to them.” This refers to one to whom atonement applies. It excludes Gentiles, to whom atonement does not apply.

HALAKHAH: “All substitute names¹Num. 6:2 reads: “A man or a woman who clearly intend to vow the vow of a nazir, to become a nazir for the Eternal.” This makes it clear that making a vow of nazir, like any other vow, is implicitly an invocation of God’s name. The speaking of any vow therefore is an invocation of God’s name and this should be avoided; cf. Nedarim 1:1, Note 1. In this the vow of nazir is not different from any other vow. for nazir vows are like nazir vows,” etc. “All substitute names for vows are like vows,” etc. It is written¹²From the list mentioned in the Mishnah. “Any person who vows,” why does the verse say “a vow”? From here that substitute names for vows are like vows. “Or he swears,” why does the verse say “an oath”? From here that substitute names for oaths are like oaths. One reads that⁶The text is quoted from Nedarim 1:1, Notes 12–22. at the start of the first Chapter of Nedarim, up to: Rebbi Ismael stated: “any person who vows a vow of nazir”. From there that a person can obligate himself as nazir while he currently is a nazir.

HALAKHAH: “Gentiles cannot vow as nazir,” etc. Israelites can vow as nazir, Gentiles cannot vow as nazir. ⁸Sifra Emor Parašah 7(2); Babli Menaḥot 72b. The reference is to Lev. 22:18: “Every man of the House of Israel, and of the sojourners in Israel, who would bring their sacrifices for all their vows and all their gifts, to present them to the Eternal as elevation offerings.” In the same Chapter, v. 25 makes it clear that what is acceptable from the Israelite is accptable from the Gentile both as vow (in which a person engages himself to dedicate an animal) and a gift (in which a person dedicates an animal, in which case he does not have to supply a replacement if anything should happen to the animal before it could be sacrificed.) Since you say, “a man”, why does the verse mention “a man”⁹“Every person” is in Hebrew אִישׁ אִישׁ “man, man”. The repetition has to be explained.? To include Gentiles, who make vows and offer voluntary gifts like Israelites! Why should one not say the same here¹⁰Num. 6:2 reads: “A man or a woman, if he makes a clear vow of nazir to the Eternal.” “Man” should include Gentiles by the preceding argument.? There is a difference, for it is written “He shall atone for him.¹¹Num. 6:11. Since Gentiles are not subject to the rules of impurity, the rituals of purification cannot apply to them.” This refers to one to whom atonement applies. It excludes Gentiles, to whom atonement does not apply.

HALAKHAH: “All substitute names of vows are like vows,” etc. It is written¹²Num. 30:3. “Any person who vows,” why does the verse say “a vow”? From here that substitute names of vows are like vows. “Or he swears,” why does the verse say “an oath”? From here that substitute names of oaths are like oaths. “But any ban,¹³Lev. 27:28.” why does the verse say “which he bans”? From here that substitute names of bans are like bans. “A vow of nazir¹⁴Num. 6:2.”, why does the verse say “to be a nazir”? From here that substitute names of nazir vows are like nazir vows. So far for Rebbi Aqiba who says that these are expressions of additions. ¹⁵Cf. Yebamot 8:1, Note 72, Babli Avodah zarah 27a (and another 18 times without attribution). The quotes are from speeches of Laban and Joseph in Gen. which have no legal implications. This proves that the repetitions are a matter of style. For Rebbi Ismael who said, these are double expressions in the normal style of the Torah, “going you went, desiring you desired, by stealing I was stolen”, from where? “¹²Num. 30:3. Any person who vows a vow to the Eternal or swears an oath to forbid a prohibition on himself shall not profane his word,” why does the verse say “he must fulfill anything coming out of his mouth”? From here that substitute names of vows are like vows and substitute names of oaths are like oaths¹⁶The second half of the verse is clearly written for emphasis. It implies (a) that a vow is valid only if pronounced, not if only thought of and (b) that any speech which can be interpreted as a vow is a vow.
The Babli, 3a/b, quotes both the argument in the style of R. Aqiba and that of R. Ismael without mentioning any names.. And from where that substitute names of bans are like bans? “A vow, a vow”¹⁷This is an application of the second hermeneutical rule of gezerah šawah “equal cut”. If it was established in Num. 30:3 that “vow” means “anything that implies a vow” and in Lev. 27:2 any dedication to the Temple, including bans, is classified as “vow”, it follows that anything which implies a ban is a ban.. Since “a vow” at one place means that substitute names of vows are like vows and substitute names of oaths are like oaths, “a vow” at the other place means that substitute names of bans are like bans. And from where that substitute names of being a nazir are like being a nazir? “A vow, a vow”¹⁸Again this is an application of gezerah šawah, but this time the reference quote is Num. 6:2, cf. Note 14.. Since “a vow” at one place means that substitute names of oaths are like oaths¹⁹This reference is odd since the argument is about vows, not oaths. One has to assume that the scribe left out the relevant portion of the sentence which should be identical to the one used in the preceding case., “a vow” at the other place means that substitute names of being a nazir are like being a nazir.

How does Rebbi Aqiba explain “he must fulfill anything coming out of his mouth”²⁰If a vow cannot be fulfilled completely, it is not a vow.? From here that if part of a vow is invalid, all of it is invalid. Does Rebbi Ismael not agree with this? Everything derives from there. It follows from there that substitute names of vows are like vows and substitute names of oaths²¹That conclusion could have been drawn even if the word כל “all, anything” were not written. Therefore, the clause admits two conclusions independent of one another. are like oaths and it follows from there that if part of a vow is invalid, all of it is invalid. How does Rebbi Ismael explain “any person who vows a vow of nazir¹⁴Num. 6:2.”? From there that a person can obligate himself as nazir while he currently is a nazir²²The pentateuchal state of nazir is always limited in time (when a Temple is in existence. Since a nazir is only permitted to drink wine after he has absolved the required Temple ritual, a person vowing to be a nazir today must remain in that state until the Temple is rebuilt and officiating Cohanim are found who have complete documentary proof of their priestly status going back to the priests officiating in the second Temple.) The prophetic state of nazir, as exemplified by Simson and Samuel, is unlimited but does not include a prohibition of the impurity of the dead. It is noted here that while a person is in the state of a nazir for a fixed period, he can undertake to be a nazir for an additional period, to begin after the Temple procedure for the current nezirut was performed. This statement is needed since the vow of nazir of an unincumbered person makes that person a nazir immediately upon pronouncing his vow.. Does Rebbi Aqiba not agree with this? He agrees and everything derives from there²³The same verse.. He agrees that from there a person can obligate himself as nazir while he currently is a nazir.

²⁸The argument about the wife’s vow is from Nedarim 11:1, Notes 23–25. Why can he not force his wife? Did not Rebbi Huna say, [if she vowed] any benefit from me [shall be forbidden] to you, he forces her and sleeps with her. Any benefit from you [shall be forbidden] to me, he hasto dissolve. There is a difference because it is a benefit for him and her. He should not be able to force his slave! There is a difference, “because his God’s crown is on his head²⁹Num. 6:7.,” a person who has no other master. This excludes the slave who has another master³⁰The master has the power to force the slave to disregard the vow. The slave in obeying his master does not commit any sin.. If he comes to protest his master’s word, one says to him: this is practice³¹He has to follow his master’s command., obey your master’s orders! If his master pushed him and he became impure, does he have to bring a sacrifice of impurity? Is he a nazir, did not you decide for him that he should become impure³²If his master’s action invalidates the slave’s vow, there is no valid vow of nazir. The status of the slave reverts to profane; the slave is not responsible for the lifting of the status of nazir from him. If there were anything sinful in this action, it would be the master’s responsibility.? You say, he brings a sacrifice of impurity; could he bring here a sacrifice of impurity? Does he annul? Is he a nazir, did not you decide for him that he should become impure? You say, he annuls; could he here annul³³Argument and meaning are completely parallel to the preceding.?

From where the lifting of hands? So you shall bless the Children of Israel²²Num. 6:22.. So far during the morning prayers²³Since in the Temple the priestly blessing was recited at the time of the morning sacrifice, the inspiration for the morning prayer service.. At musaf? Aaron lifted his hands for the people²⁴Lev. 9:22, description of the special inauguration service of the Tabernacle.. Is not this verse distorted? Should it not read: he descended from making the purification sacrifice, and the elevation sacrifice, and the well-being sacrifice, and after this, Aaron lifted his hands for the people? But it teaches²⁵The verse mentioning blessing before descent. that while descending from the altar he lifted his hands and blessed the people. ²⁶Babli Sotah38a.And he blessed them, standing. I could think, not while standing. The verse says²⁷Deut. 21:5., the Eternal, your God, selected them to serve Him and to bless in His Name. It combines blessing with service. Since service is done standing, also blessing is done standing. And so it says²⁸2Chr. 30:27., the Levitic Cohanim rose and blessed the people. The verse speaks of the generation of Ezechias, when they toiled in the Torah. But in other generations, when they were serving foreign worship, what does it say? When you spread your hands my eyes shall disregard you²⁹Is. 1:15.. ²²Num. 6:22.And he blessed them, any blessing. But we did not hear which it was until the verse came and explained it³⁰Num. 6:24–26.: The Eternal shall bless you and guard you. The Eternal shall enlighten His presence to you and show you favor. The Eternal shall turn His presence to you and give you peace.

From where the lifting of hands? So you shall bless the Children of Israel²²Num. 6:22.. So far during the morning prayers²³Since in the Temple the priestly blessing was recited at the time of the morning sacrifice, the inspiration for the morning prayer service.. At musaf? Aaron lifted his hands for the people²⁴Lev. 9:22, description of the special inauguration service of the Tabernacle.. Is not this verse distorted? Should it not read: he descended from making the purification sacrifice, and the elevation sacrifice, and the well-being sacrifice, and after this, Aaron lifted his hands for the people? But it teaches²⁵The verse mentioning blessing before descent. that while descending from the altar he lifted his hands and blessed the people. ²⁶Babli Sotah38a.And he blessed them, standing. I could think, not while standing. The verse says²⁷Deut. 21:5., the Eternal, your God, selected them to serve Him and to bless in His Name. It combines blessing with service. Since service is done standing, also blessing is done standing. And so it says²⁸2Chr. 30:27., the Levitic Cohanim rose and blessed the people. The verse speaks of the generation of Ezechias, when they toiled in the Torah. But in other generations, when they were serving foreign worship, what does it say? When you spread your hands my eyes shall disregard you²⁹Is. 1:15.. ²²Num. 6:22.And he blessed them, any blessing. But we did not hear which it was until the verse came and explained it³⁰Num. 6:24–26.: The Eternal shall bless you and guard you. The Eternal shall enlighten His presence to you and show you favor. The Eternal shall turn His presence to you and give you peace.

But here, skins and seeds were understood in the principle, and were listed separately³⁵In Num. 6:4, it is started that a nazir is forbidden “everything coming from the vine”, followed by “skins and seeds”. Since skins and seeds of grapes come from the vine, this is “principle and detail” and the question arises why the Mishnah prescribes that all that comes from the vine be counted together; should not every kind be counted separately?. Should they not be separate rather than common? But there³⁶The rules of the Sabbath., the principle is at one place and the details are at another place. But did not the colleagues say: It makes no difference: Whether he stated the principle and then a detail or the detail and after that the principle. And here, he stated the principle and then a detail. But did not Rebbi Yose say, there is no difference whether He gave principle, detail, and principle, it is the principle and then a detail, it is counted as the principle and then a detail. There, the detail was not necessary. Why were they detailed? To exclude leaves and twigs³⁷Which may not be directly edible. But vine leaves are used in cooking, supporting R. Eliezer.. But was it not stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer³⁸Babli 34b, Sifry Num. #24; rejected in the Babli.: “From anything coming from the wine-vine, from skins to seeds, he shall not eat;” leaves and twigs are also understood. There³⁹While this paragraph is not found in Šabbat, it seems to have originated there since “there” is here, the discussion of the rules of nazir, but “here” is Šabbat, the discussion of the mention of making fire. In the case of the nazir, everything that comes from the vine is added together (one minimum quantity, one sacrifice) since everything mentioned (including in v. 3 wine, liquor, vinegar, grapes and raisins) is necessary as explained in Sifry Num. #23–24., they are mentioned for a need, but here, they are mentioned without need. Why? For additions⁴⁰Reading לְצֵירוּפִין for לצירוכין of the text..

Warning⁴¹An infraction of a biblical law is prosecutable only if the prohibition is mentioned at least twice in the text, once as “warning” to spell out the prohibition and once to specify the punishment for infraction. If no punishment is specified, whipping is intended; nevertheless, the second mention is necessary. Cf. Yebamot 11:1, Note 47. for one who eats carcass meat, from where? “You shall not eat any carcass meat.⁴²Deut. 14:21.” That covers carcass meat; from a “torn”⁴³Ṭerephah is a technical term, originally meaning an animal which cannot survive an attack by a predator. The meaning has been extended to include all animals who cannot survive for any length of time, including dangerously sick animals and those born with severe birth defects. (As a practical matter, slaughtered animals have to be inspected for signs of tuberculosis, which would prohibit the meat for human consumption.) animal from where? Rebbi Joḥanan said, “carcass meat” and “any carcass meat”, to include the “torn” animal⁴⁴The verse must forbid more than carcass meat, otherwise the mention of “all” was superfluous. The argument is reported as tannaitic in Sifry Deut. 104.. If somebody eats flesh from a living animal which is “torn”, Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is guilty twice, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty only once. What is the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan? “You shall not eat any carcass meat⁴²Deut. 14:21.;” “you shall not eat of life with the flesh^45,Deut. 12:23. It is forbidden to eat limbs torn from a living animal. (In rabbinic interpretation, this is the prohibition imposed on all mankind by Gen. 9:4: "But meat in whose blood is life you shall not eat", meat taken when life is still carried by the blood.)⁴⁶The argument is that in one act one may transgress two prohibitions referring to two distinct verses as warnings and, therefore, be subject to distinct punishments. In the Babli, Hulin 102b/103a, the difference between the interpretations of R. Johanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish boils down to the question whether "flesh from a living animal" and "limbs from a living animal " are different prohibitions following distinct rules. (For the problems raised by the competition of laws, cf. Terumot 7:1, Notes 6 ff.).” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose: The assertion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish parallels what Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated: “ ‘Flesh torn on the field you shall not eat’⁴⁷Ex. 22:30. In this interpretation, the verse forbids flesh or limbs torn from an animal (and also supports R. Joḥanan’s interpretation of Deut. 14:21.) A similar formulation, also in the name of R. Eliezer ben Jacob, is in Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai, p. 214., you shall not tear from an animal and eat in the way you tear from the ground⁴⁸Vegetables. and eat.” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? The colleagues before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish does not hold with Rebbi Joḥanan about the “torn” animal; if he did hold with him, one should be twice guilty. He said to them, even if he held with him, one should be guilty only once. There is a difference, because He repeated it and combined it⁴⁹It is impossible to say that Ex. 22:30 does not contain a prohibition of meat from “torn” animals, since this is the obvious meaning of the text. But since following R. Eliezer ben Jacob, the verse also prohibits flesh torn from living animals, there is no separate “warning” for eating meat from “torn” animals. The offender can be prosecuted either on basis of Deut. 14:21 or of Ex. 22:30, but not of both together. (Since in the desert, consumption of any non-sacrificial meat of domesticated animals was forbidden, Lev. 17:4, the mention of carcass meat would have been out of place in Ex. 22.). They objected: “Suet you shall not eat,⁵⁰Lev. 7:24.” “and blood you shall not eat,⁵¹Lev. 7:26.” and it is written: “Any suet and any blood you shall not eat.⁵²Lev. 3:17.” Then because He repeated it and combined it, one should be guilty only once! He said to them, if it were written “suet and blood”, you would be correct. But it is written “any suet and any blood,” to declare him guilty for each case separately. But it is not written: “Anything soaked with grapes he shall not drink⁵³Num. 6:3.,” and it is written, “from skins to seeds he shall not eat⁵⁴Num. 6:4..” Then because He repeated it and combined it, one should be guilty only once!⁵⁵But Mishnah 6:2 will state that the nazir can be punished separately for each item on the list. He said to them, if it were written “skins and seeds”, you would be correct. But it is written “skins unto⁵⁶A redundant word, not really required by the context. seeds,” to declare him guilty for each case separately.

Warning⁴¹An infraction of a biblical law is prosecutable only if the prohibition is mentioned at least twice in the text, once as “warning” to spell out the prohibition and once to specify the punishment for infraction. If no punishment is specified, whipping is intended; nevertheless, the second mention is necessary. Cf. Yebamot 11:1, Note 47. for one who eats carcass meat, from where? “You shall not eat any carcass meat.⁴²Deut. 14:21.” That covers carcass meat; from a “torn”⁴³Ṭerephah is a technical term, originally meaning an animal which cannot survive an attack by a predator. The meaning has been extended to include all animals who cannot survive for any length of time, including dangerously sick animals and those born with severe birth defects. (As a practical matter, slaughtered animals have to be inspected for signs of tuberculosis, which would prohibit the meat for human consumption.) animal from where? Rebbi Joḥanan said, “carcass meat” and “any carcass meat”, to include the “torn” animal⁴⁴The verse must forbid more than carcass meat, otherwise the mention of “all” was superfluous. The argument is reported as tannaitic in Sifry Deut. 104.. If somebody eats flesh from a living animal which is “torn”, Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is guilty twice, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty only once. What is the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan? “You shall not eat any carcass meat⁴²Deut. 14:21.;” “you shall not eat of life with the flesh^45,Deut. 12:23. It is forbidden to eat limbs torn from a living animal. (In rabbinic interpretation, this is the prohibition imposed on all mankind by Gen. 9:4: "But meat in whose blood is life you shall not eat", meat taken when life is still carried by the blood.)⁴⁶The argument is that in one act one may transgress two prohibitions referring to two distinct verses as warnings and, therefore, be subject to distinct punishments. In the Babli, Hulin 102b/103a, the difference between the interpretations of R. Johanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish boils down to the question whether "flesh from a living animal" and "limbs from a living animal " are different prohibitions following distinct rules. (For the problems raised by the competition of laws, cf. Terumot 7:1, Notes 6 ff.).” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose: The assertion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish parallels what Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated: “ ‘Flesh torn on the field you shall not eat’⁴⁷Ex. 22:30. In this interpretation, the verse forbids flesh or limbs torn from an animal (and also supports R. Joḥanan’s interpretation of Deut. 14:21.) A similar formulation, also in the name of R. Eliezer ben Jacob, is in Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai, p. 214., you shall not tear from an animal and eat in the way you tear from the ground⁴⁸Vegetables. and eat.” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? The colleagues before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish does not hold with Rebbi Joḥanan about the “torn” animal; if he did hold with him, one should be twice guilty. He said to them, even if he held with him, one should be guilty only once. There is a difference, because He repeated it and combined it⁴⁹It is impossible to say that Ex. 22:30 does not contain a prohibition of meat from “torn” animals, since this is the obvious meaning of the text. But since following R. Eliezer ben Jacob, the verse also prohibits flesh torn from living animals, there is no separate “warning” for eating meat from “torn” animals. The offender can be prosecuted either on basis of Deut. 14:21 or of Ex. 22:30, but not of both together. (Since in the desert, consumption of any non-sacrificial meat of domesticated animals was forbidden, Lev. 17:4, the mention of carcass meat would have been out of place in Ex. 22.). They objected: “Suet you shall not eat,⁵⁰Lev. 7:24.” “and blood you shall not eat,⁵¹Lev. 7:26.” and it is written: “Any suet and any blood you shall not eat.⁵²Lev. 3:17.” Then because He repeated it and combined it, one should be guilty only once! He said to them, if it were written “suet and blood”, you would be correct. But it is written “any suet and any blood,” to declare him guilty for each case separately. But it is not written: “Anything soaked with grapes he shall not drink⁵³Num. 6:3.,” and it is written, “from skins to seeds he shall not eat⁵⁴Num. 6:4..” Then because He repeated it and combined it, one should be guilty only once!⁵⁵But Mishnah 6:2 will state that the nazir can be punished separately for each item on the list. He said to them, if it were written “skins and seeds”, you would be correct. But it is written “skins unto⁵⁶A redundant word, not really required by the context. seeds,” to declare him guilty for each case separately.

“I made a vow of nazir but I forgot whether it was for now or for a later date⁵¹From the context it seems that he vowed a standard 30 day nezirut but does not remember whether it was to begin immediately or after 30 days. Then he has to keep 60 days and bring one set of sacrifices after 60 days..” They told him, this [warning] is for now, and that for the later date. If he drank wine within the first 30 days, he is [] whipped; within the last 30 days, he is (not) whipped⁵²Here again, the statements are switched. He cannot be convicted during the first 30 days since it cannot be proven that he is obligated during these days.. Should one not say that the first days may be within the period of his vow, the later ones are after the period of his vow⁵³How can he be convicted for drinking wine during the second 30 days when it cannot be proven that these were intended by his vow (unless he drank during both periods)?? “All days of his status as nazir,⁵⁴Num. 6:4. As spelled out in v. 20, the nazir is forbidden to drink wine until he has brought his sacrifices. Since he did not bring sacrifices after the first 30 days, during the second 30 days he certainly is guilty, either because of his vow of the second 30 days or as an extension of his vow of the first 30 days for which the sacrifice was not yet offered.” to make the days after he finished his term like the days before he finished his term with respect to wine, impurity, and shaving.

“ ‘I have to bring birds’, Rebbi Meïr says, he is a nazir, but the Sages say, he is not a nazir.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of substitutes of substitutes: “Until his hair became mighty as an eagle’s and his fingernails like those of birds.²²Dan. 4:30. This establishes a proverbial connection between long hair and a mention of birds.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, because an impure nazir brings birds²⁷Num. 6:10. But no pure person would entertain the idea of becoming a nazir if he expects to become impure since that could extend his period of nezirut indefinitely.. Does he bring birds²⁸Many people use צִפּוֹר only for wild birds.? He brings turtledoves or young pigeons. There are some Tannaïm who state that all pure birds are called צפור, and there are some Tannaïm who state that all birds, whether pure or impure, are called צפור. He who says that all pure birds are called צפור, “you may eat any pure bird²⁹Deut. 14:11. In Scripture, צפור is feminine..” He who says that all birds, whether pure or impure, are called צפור, “say to any winged bird³⁰Ez. 39:14.. “What is the rabbi’s reason? He is like somebody offering birds for the upkeep of the Temple³¹The expression הֲרֵי עָלַי “I have to bring” is a regular form of a vow, which in Temple times implied a gift to the Temple. A single bird can be offered as a voluntary sacrifice (Lev. 1:14–17) but a couple can be given only as an obligatory sacrifice, i. e., a reparation or a purification sacrifice. These can never be given voluntarily, as result of a vow. Since the vow was formulated for birds, not a bird, it is concluded that the birds have to be given to the Temple for its upkeep, to be sold to persons needing them for obligatory sacrifices, with the proceeds given to the Temple treasury.. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? He is like somebody offering a reparation sacrifice for the upkeep of the Temple³²This is an impossibility; an obligatory sacrifice cannot be given voluntarily and it has to be offered on the altar, not sold for the Temple’s benefit. Therefore, the vow has to be interpreted as a wish to be in a situation in which one has to bring a reparation sacrifice to the Temple. The only reparation sacrifices which depend on the person’s initiative are either the possible sacrifice of the impure nazir or those required of the person guilty of larceny (Lev. 5:14–16, 21–26). Since it is impossible to think that a person should want to commit larceny for religious purposes, the state of nazir is the only alternative.. What is the difference between them? If somebody says, “I take upon myself to bring a reparation sacrifice.” In the opinion of Rebbi Meïr he is a nazir since one cannot bring a reparation sacrifice for the upkeep of the Temple. In the opinion of the rabbis he is a nazir since an impure nazir brings a reparation sacrifice³³Since in this formulation there is no difference between the rabbis and R. Meïr, all commentaries read “he is not a nazir”; since no person would accept nezirut with the prospect of an indefinite duration unless he spells this out clearly at the start, the vow is invalid because it is unrealistic. If one keeps the original wording, the rabbis and R. Meїr agree not only on the result but also on the reasoning behind it..

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: It is written<sup>101</sup>Lev. 27:33. When one counts the calves or lambs born in one tax year, the tenth must be consumed, if unblemished as a sacrifice (of which the altar gets the blood but the Cohanim nothing); if blemished as profane food., do not investigate between good or bad. If he transgressed and investigated, does he transgress<sup>102</sup>If one transgressed the biblical injunction and substituted an unblemished animal for a blemished one, both animals are dedicated (Lev. 27:34). The question now is whether he transgresses the commandment “do not tarry” unless the substituted animal was sacrificed within one year or before three holidays have elapsed.? He told him, for anything which comes to permit one does not transgress. What does it come to permit? Here the Torah permitted to dedicate deficient animals<sup>103</sup>Since the sanctity of the tithe is conferred on the substituted animal even if it is blemished and the original unblemished.. There, we have stated<sup>104</sup>Mishnah Nega`im14:7; the purification ritual of the healed sufferer from skin disease (Lev. 14:1–32.): “On the eighth day he brings three animals, purification sacrifice, reparation sacrifice, and elevation sacrifice. But the poor man brought birds as reparation and elevation offerings.” Is not the bird¹⁰⁵This word is missing in G and it seems that it should be deleted. It is stated in Lev. 14:10 that the rich sufferer from skin disease brings two undifferentiated male sheep and one female. The female automatically is the purification offering; of the males one will be designated by the Cohen as reparation offering and the other as elevation offering. Therefore the dedication of the purification offering precedes that of the reparation offering. Now Mishnah Zevaḥim10:5 notes that while in general purification offerings precede reparation ones, for the healed sufferer from skin disease this is not so since the ritual described in vv.14–18 is the prerequisite for the other two sacrifices. Therefore the dedication of the purification offering which is not a bird happens at a time when the animal cannot be sacrificed. In the case of the poor man, the birds for purification and elevation offerings are dedicated after the lamb of the reparation offering; the argument is not applicable. as reparation offering deficient in time next to the reparation offering? Rebbi Eleazar said, here the Torah did permit to dedicate those deficient in time. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Immi: It is written¹⁰⁶Num. 6:10, sacrifices of the impure nazir., on the eighth he shall bring. If he transgressed and did not bring, does he transgress¹⁰⁷As before, if the impure nazir does not bring his sacrifices on the eighth day, would he transgress “do not tarry” if he waited more than 3 holidays or one year to bring them?? He told him, for anything which comes to permit one does not transgress. What does it come to permit? As Rebbi Eleazar said, here the Torah did permit to dedicate those deficient in time¹⁰⁸As for the healed sufferer from skin disease.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, all seven days one does not tell him, bring. Afterwards one tells him, bring¹⁰⁹He disagrees and holds that both the healed sufferer from skin disease and the impure nazir transgress the prohibition “do not tarry” immediately at the end of the eighth day.. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: Everybody plans and brings his sacrifices on the holiday¹¹⁰It is presumed that anybody making a vow to offer a sacrifice from the start intends to fulfill his vow on a holiday of pilgrimage; the same holds for obligatory sacrifices whose obligations arise in the meantime.. One understands a nazir. Is the sufferer from skin disease not missing atonement¹¹¹The nazir who was impure by the impurity of the dead is purified by sprinkling with water containing ashes of the Red Cow and immersion in a miqweh; his sacrifice on the eighth day is the start of his new period of nezirut. He may bring his holiday offering on the holiday itself and later his nazir offering during the holiday week. But for the sufferer from skin disease the reparation offering is required to permit him access to the Temple domain; by necessity this would have to occur before the holiday for him to make a valid pilgrimage.? And did we not state¹¹²Mishnah Sukkah4:1. As explained there in Halakhah 4, if the first day of the holiday is a Sabbath, the festival offering which is the symbol of joy may be brought only on the second day, and there would only be 7 days of joy., Hallel and joy eight? Explain it for a nazir. Rebbi Sachariah the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi asked, the beginning one explains for a nazir and the end for a sufferer from skin disease¹¹³This refers to Mishnah Sukkah4:6. Eight days of joy are possible for the nazir(if the first day of the holiday is not a Sabbath), but the last day also is accessible to the sufferer from skin disease who brings his enabling sacrifice during the holiday week.? Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, was this not already objected there? And Rebbi Yose said, Rav Eudaimon the emigrant explained it for Cohanim and the goat. Here also, Cohanim and the goat¹¹⁴As explained in Sukkah4:5, Note 82. Eight days of joy (i. e., eating sacrificial meat) always is possible for the Cohanim in the Temple. Since it is not implied that everybody is required to have 8 days of access to sacrificial meat, there is no problem with the healed sufferer from skin disease: he may bring his enabling sacrifice during the holiday week and the holiday is counted for him..

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste except imparting taste for the nazir. [Rebbi Ze‘ira said, one does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself]⁹⁵Missing here, added from the text in ‘Orlah since it is required by the following text. except the nazir even if he did not taste the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, for food imparting taste what is forbidden and what is permitted is not combined, but for the nazir forbidden and permitted do combine. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze‘ira: If wine in the volume of an olive fell into a dish and he ate from it, he cannot be prosecuted unless he ate the entire dish. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, if he ate the volume of an olive from it he is guilty. A baraita supports Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “What do we understand when it is said (Num. 6:3): ‘Anything in which grapes were soaked he shall not eat, and fresh or dried grape berries he shall not eat’? What did the verse leave out that was not said? But since it was said (Num. 6:4): ‘anything made from the wine-vine, from grape skins to seeds he should not eat;’ (Num. 6:3) ‘from wine and liquor he shall abstain.’ Why does the verse say ‘anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? It means that if he soaked grapes and then soaked his bread in that, if it adds up to the volume of an olive, he is guilty. From here you argue about all prohibitions of the Torah. Since for all that comes from the vine, whose prohibition is neither permanent, nor a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition can be lifted, He made taste like the thing itself; it is logical that for every prohibition of the Torah which is permanent, is a prohibition of usufruct, whose prohibition cannot be lifted, taste is treated like the thing itself. From here, the Sages inferred that everything imparting taste is forbidden.” This is difficult for Rebbi Ze‘ira: you say everywhere “unless he tasted¹⁵²The impure nazir cannot restart his vow if he left two hairs uncut. But the requirement of a knife also applies to a pure nazir.”, and here you say, “even if he did not taste.”

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste except imparting taste for the nazir. [Rebbi Ze‘ira said, one does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself]⁹⁵Missing here, added from the text in ‘Orlah since it is required by the following text. except the nazir even if he did not taste the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, for food imparting taste what is forbidden and what is permitted is not combined, but for the nazir forbidden and permitted do combine. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze‘ira: If wine in the volume of an olive fell into a dish and he ate from it, he cannot be prosecuted unless he ate the entire dish. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, if he ate the volume of an olive from it he is guilty. A baraita supports Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “What do we understand when it is said (Num. 6:3): ‘Anything in which grapes were soaked he shall not eat, and fresh or dried grape berries he shall not eat’? What did the verse leave out that was not said? But since it was said (Num. 6:4): ‘anything made from the wine-vine, from grape skins to seeds he should not eat;’ (Num. 6:3) ‘from wine and liquor he shall abstain.’ Why does the verse say ‘anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? It means that if he soaked grapes and then soaked his bread in that, if it adds up to the volume of an olive, he is guilty. From here you argue about all prohibitions of the Torah. Since for all that comes from the vine, whose prohibition is neither permanent, nor a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition can be lifted, He made taste like the thing itself; it is logical that for every prohibition of the Torah which is permanent, is a prohibition of usufruct, whose prohibition cannot be lifted, taste is treated like the thing itself. From here, the Sages inferred that everything imparting taste is forbidden.” This is difficult for Rebbi Ze‘ira: you say everywhere “unless he tasted¹⁵²The impure nazir cannot restart his vow if he left two hairs uncut. But the requirement of a knife also applies to a pure nazir.”, and here you say, “even if he did not taste.”

“According to the early Mishnah if he drinks a quartarius of wine.” They did explain “liquor”. Since “liquor” mentioned there⁹⁶Lev. 10:9, the prohibition for a priest to enter the holy precinct after he drank “wine or liquor”; Sifra Šemini Parašah 1(1). In the Babli, Keritut 13a, the rules of priests are deduced from those of the nazir. means a quartarius, so “liquor” mentioned here also means a quartarius. They changed to say “he shall not eat, he shall not drink.⁹⁷Num. 6:3. Since both expressions appear in the same verse, they should conform to the same standard. Since the volume of an average olive is much smaller than a quartarius, the smaller standard in applicable in both cases.” Since eating is defined by an olive’s size so drinking is by an olive’s size.

“Like vows of the good ones, he did not say anything.” Does this mean that good people make vows⁸³The formulation seems to imply that free-will offerings of the wicked do exist; otherwise how could one speak about them?? Since that one made a vow, he is not a good one. ⁹²Purification offerings cannot be voluntary; they are required either for an inadvertent sin or for purification from a state of impurity. A male who does not sin inadvertently and who does not suffer from an impure sickness has no way to fulfill the commandments relative to the purification offerings. A woman can always bring a purification offering after childbirth. The Mishnah follows Rebbi Jehudah since it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, the ancient pious ones desired to bring a purification offering⁹³From here to the end of the paragraph, the text is also in Nazir 1:6, 51c 1. 36., but the Omnipresent did not let a sin happen to them; so they made a vow of nazir in order to be able to bring a purification offering⁹⁴One of the 3 prescribed animal sacrifices at the end of the nazir period; Num. 6:14.. Rebbi Simeon says, they became sinners because they made a vow of nazir, for it was said: “He shall atone for him for what he sinned about the person⁹⁵Num. 6:11. In Sifry Num. 30, R. Ismael points out that this verse is written about the nazir who became inadvertently impure in the impurity of the dead, who is in effect a sinner in respect to the dead person. The Babli, 10a, accepts the argument of R. Simeon, which in the Tosephta, 1:1, is in the name of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.,” that one sinned against his own person because he barred himself from [drinking] wine. It turns out that that of Simeon the Just parallels Rebbi Simeon. As it was stated⁹⁶Babli 9b, Nazir Yerushalmi 1:6, Babli 4b, Sifry Num. 22, Num. rabba10(20).: Simeon the Just said, I never ate the reparation offering of a nazir except once. Once a man came to me from the South, I saw that he was reddish, with beautiful eyes and good looks, and his hair in nice rows of waves⁹⁷A combination of images referring to David (1S. 17:42) and the friend in the Song of Songs (5:11).. I said to him, my son, what induced you to cut off that beautiful hair? He said to me: Great man, I was a shephard in my village and I went to fill the water vessel with water when I saw my mirror image in the water and my instinct rushed over me and tried to lose me from the World⁹⁸He realized how much money he could make as a male prostitute in a hellenized city but that he would lose the World to Come.. I said to it, wicked! You are rushing me to something which is not yours; it is upon me to sanctify you to Heaven! I bent my head to him and said, my son, there should be many more in Israel who fulfill the Omnipresent’s will like you. About you the verse says¹⁴Num. 6:2., “man or woman, if he clearly articulates vowing a vow of nazir, to be a nazir for the Eternal.” Rebbi Mana asked⁹⁹Babli 9b.: Why following Simeon the Just, even following Rebbi Simeon? Did Simeon the Just never eat a purification offering for suet¹⁰⁰The standard purification offering is for the purification from an inadvertent sin which at least carries a penalty of extirpation by Divine decree, e. g., if somebody ate suet or blood inadvertently. In order to effect the purification, the Cohanim have to eat the sacrificial meat (Lev. 6:19). How can somebody called “the Just” refuse to purify people?? Did Simeon the Just never eat a purification offering for blood? Simeon the Just holds that people make a vow while they are upset. Since they make the vow while they are upset, in the end, they wonder¹⁰¹They feel that they should not have made the vow. This becomes acute in particular in the case of the reparation offering, which is brought only in case of impurity of the nazir, who has to restart his entire time as nazir after his impurity has been repaired. Since the verse repeatedly requires that offerings in the Temple must be brought willingly (Lev. 1:3, 22:29), an offering brought unwillingly is of questionable validity.. But if he wonders, his sacrifices become similar to one of those who slaughtered profane animals in the Temple courtyard. But this one made a well thought-out dedication, when his mouth and his thoughts were in unison¹⁰²Which alone makes the vow unquestionably valid..

“Like vows of the good ones, he did not say anything.” Does this mean that good people make vows⁸³The formulation seems to imply that free-will offerings of the wicked do exist; otherwise how could one speak about them?? Since that one made a vow, he is not a good one. ⁹²Purification offerings cannot be voluntary; they are required either for an inadvertent sin or for purification from a state of impurity. A male who does not sin inadvertently and who does not suffer from an impure sickness has no way to fulfill the commandments relative to the purification offerings. A woman can always bring a purification offering after childbirth. The Mishnah follows Rebbi Jehudah since it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, the ancient pious ones desired to bring a purification offering⁹³From here to the end of the paragraph, the text is also in Nazir 1:6, 51c 1. 36., but the Omnipresent did not let a sin happen to them; so they made a vow of nazir in order to be able to bring a purification offering⁹⁴One of the 3 prescribed animal sacrifices at the end of the nazir period; Num. 6:14.. Rebbi Simeon says, they became sinners because they made a vow of nazir, for it was said: “He shall atone for him for what he sinned about the person⁹⁵Num. 6:11. In Sifry Num. 30, R. Ismael points out that this verse is written about the nazir who became inadvertently impure in the impurity of the dead, who is in effect a sinner in respect to the dead person. The Babli, 10a, accepts the argument of R. Simeon, which in the Tosephta, 1:1, is in the name of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.,” that one sinned against his own person because he barred himself from [drinking] wine. It turns out that that of Simeon the Just parallels Rebbi Simeon. As it was stated⁹⁶Babli 9b, Nazir Yerushalmi 1:6, Babli 4b, Sifry Num. 22, Num. rabba10(20).: Simeon the Just said, I never ate the reparation offering of a nazir except once. Once a man came to me from the South, I saw that he was reddish, with beautiful eyes and good looks, and his hair in nice rows of waves⁹⁷A combination of images referring to David (1S. 17:42) and the friend in the Song of Songs (5:11).. I said to him, my son, what induced you to cut off that beautiful hair? He said to me: Great man, I was a shephard in my village and I went to fill the water vessel with water when I saw my mirror image in the water and my instinct rushed over me and tried to lose me from the World⁹⁸He realized how much money he could make as a male prostitute in a hellenized city but that he would lose the World to Come.. I said to it, wicked! You are rushing me to something which is not yours; it is upon me to sanctify you to Heaven! I bent my head to him and said, my son, there should be many more in Israel who fulfill the Omnipresent’s will like you. About you the verse says¹⁴Num. 6:2., “man or woman, if he clearly articulates vowing a vow of nazir, to be a nazir for the Eternal.” Rebbi Mana asked⁹⁹Babli 9b.: Why following Simeon the Just, even following Rebbi Simeon? Did Simeon the Just never eat a purification offering for suet¹⁰⁰The standard purification offering is for the purification from an inadvertent sin which at least carries a penalty of extirpation by Divine decree, e. g., if somebody ate suet or blood inadvertently. In order to effect the purification, the Cohanim have to eat the sacrificial meat (Lev. 6:19). How can somebody called “the Just” refuse to purify people?? Did Simeon the Just never eat a purification offering for blood? Simeon the Just holds that people make a vow while they are upset. Since they make the vow while they are upset, in the end, they wonder¹⁰¹They feel that they should not have made the vow. This becomes acute in particular in the case of the reparation offering, which is brought only in case of impurity of the nazir, who has to restart his entire time as nazir after his impurity has been repaired. Since the verse repeatedly requires that offerings in the Temple must be brought willingly (Lev. 1:3, 22:29), an offering brought unwillingly is of questionable validity.. But if he wonders, his sacrifices become similar to one of those who slaughtered profane animals in the Temple courtyard. But this one made a well thought-out dedication, when his mouth and his thoughts were in unison¹⁰²Which alone makes the vow unquestionably valid..

“Rebbi Aqiba says, even if he dipped his bread in wine for a total volume³The bread plus the wine absorbed in it. of an olive, he is guilty.” Rebbi Ḥanania said, only if he dipped in an olive-sized volume of wine. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For a mixed cup⁹⁸One third wine mixed with two thirds water. one whips because of soaking. That is, if they did (not)⁹⁹This word seems to be an error. It seems that R. Immi stated that if the nazir drank wine mixed with water when was he warned not to drink wine, he is whipped for drinking wine, but if he was warned not to drink anything soaked with the fruit of the vine, he is whipped for that. The next sentence then should read לֹא הִתְרוּ “did not warn” instead of הִתְרוּ “warned”. warn because of soaking. But if they warned because of soaking, this does not apply. It is written: “He shall not drink anything soaked in grapes¹⁰⁰Num. 6:3..” Not only soaking grapes, from where soaking grape skins? The verse says “soaked, anything soaked,” that all kinds of soaking are counted¹⁰¹Cf. Note 44.. Mixed wine combines with pure wine¹⁰²Half an olive’s volume pure wine and half an olive mixed wine result in an olive of forbidden drink for the nazir.. Soaking water of grapes combines with grapes. Do soaked grapes and wine combine? If one ate half an olive’s volume of wine and half an olive’s volume of soaking water, is he not guilty¹⁰³The context shows that this sentence is interrogatory.. Separately¹⁰⁴Drinking the two parts at different times., he is not prosecutable. Because he combined, he is guilty. If he ate (sic!) an olive’s volume of wine and an olive’s volume of soaking water, he is guilty only once. Separately, he is guilty twice. Because he combined, he should be guilty only once¹⁰⁵This is quite obvious; it is stated only as contrast to the preceding case, in which combining made things worse..

MISHNAH: But the following must be said in the holy language: The recitation for the first fruits³⁰The declaration in the Temple, Mishnah Bikkurim 2:5., ḥalîṣah³¹The required declarations by the childless widow and brother-in-law in the ceremony which frees her to marry outside the family; cf. Yebamot12:3–4., blessings and curses³²This is of purely antiquarian character, asserting that the curses detailed in Deut. 27:11–26 (each curse prefaced by a corresponding blessing: “Blessed be the man who will not …”) were pronounced in Hebrew, based on Jos. 8:34; cf. Halakhah 4., the priestly blessing³³Num. 6:22–26., the benedictions of the High Priest³⁴In the service of the Day of Atonement, Mishnah Yoma 7:1; cf. Halakhah 6., the portion about the king³⁵The public reading from the Torah at the end of a Sabbatical year, Deut. 31:10–13; cf. Halakhot 7–8., the portion about the calf whose neck was broken³⁶The declarations Deut. 21:7 (the Elders), 8 (the priests); cf. Chapter 9., the [priest] anointed for war at the time he speaks to the people³⁷Deut. 20:1–9; cf. Chapter 8.. The recitation for the first fruits, how? “You shall begin and say before the Eternal, your God³⁸Deut. 26:5.” but further on it says, “the Levites shall begin and say to all the men of Israel in an elevated voice³⁹Deut. 27:14. The implication of this verse is explained in the Halakhah.”. Since “beginning” further on means in the holy language, so also here in the holy language⁴⁰This is an application of the third hermeneutical rule of R. Ismael: The meaning of a word is defined by one paradigm. It does not fit the mold of the second rule, “equal cut”, preferred by the commentators..
Ḥalîṣah how? “She shall begin and say: So shall be done to the man⁴¹Deut. 25:9.” but further on it says, “the Levites shall begin and say to all the men of Israel in an elevated voice”. Since “beginning” further on means in the holy language, so also here in the holy language. Rebbi Jehudah says, “She shall begin and say so,” [it is invalid] unless she says exactly that text⁴²He disregards the dividing accent in the sentence and reads: “She shall begin and say so: it will be done to the man who will not build his brother’s house” instead of “She shall begin and say: thus will be done …” It gives a different twist to a derivation originating with R. Jehudah’s father’s teacher R. Eliezer in Mishnah Yebamot 12:4; cf. Babli 33a/b..

HALAKHAH: “One is guilty for wine separately, for grapes separately,” etc. It is written¹¹⁰Num. 6:3.: “Also grapes, fresh or dried, he shall not eat.” One understands, since it said “grapes”, do we not know that they are fresh¹¹¹Since raisins are called צִמּוּקִים.? Why does the verse say, “grapes, fresh or dried”? To declare guilty for either one separately. This parallels what Ḥizqiah stated: Since at a place where He did not treat the waste of fruits like fruits¹¹²The biblical rules of ‘orlah, the prohibition of fruits for the first three years of a fruit tree, do not extend to branches, leaves, or flowers (Mishnah ‘Orlah 1:7)., He treated fresh and dried equally, here, where He treated the waste of fruits like fruits, would it not be logical that we treat fresh and dried equally? The verse said, “fresh or dried”, to declare guilty for either one separately. This parallels what Rebbi Hila said: “One may not impound the movable and the fixed part of a flour-mill.¹¹³Deut. 24:6. “One understands, since it said “the fixed part”, do we not know that the entire mill is understood? Why does the verse say, “the movable and the fixed part”? To declare guilty for either part separately¹¹⁴In Sifry Deut. 272, the conclusion arrived at here is taken as the obvious meaning of the verse..

Can a man be taken to nezirut by language appropriate for a woman⁴¹Probably one should translate: “a vow formulated in the feminine”; but the explanation given “there” (in Babylonia) then does not quite fit.? There, they say, “a nezirah was passing by⁴²Reading with editio princeps איעבר “passed by” (m.) for אי עבר “did not pass”. This refers to the case discussed in Halakhah 1:1 (Notes 2,23) that a person points to a nazir and indicates that he wants to be like him. It is admitted that he can point to a female.”. Can a man be taken to nezirut by masculine language? Rebbi Yose said, the notion of nezirut is defined in the masculine: “… or a woman if he clearly makes a vow.⁴³Num. 6:2: “A man or a woman, if he clearly makes a vow”. Since a verb referring both to a male and a female is used in the masculine by traditional grammatical rules, he infers that the masculine can be used in all cases.”

⁶⁰While the text in Pesaḥim 7:7 is not without its problems, it is clear that the text there has to be taken as the source; the copyist here neither understood nor proofread what he wrote. If the public became publicly⁶¹The word is [correctly] missing in Pesaḥim; a case of doubtful impurity in the public domain is always resolved by a presumption of purity (Soṭah 1:2, Note 88). impure in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss, does the diadem make it acceptable⁶²About the diadem worn by the High Priest, Ex. 28:38 states: “It shall be on Aaron’s forehead; Aaron shall carry the iniquity of the sacrificial gifts which the Children of Israel will dedicate, all their holy gifts; it shall always be on his forehead, to be accepted for them before the Eternal.” The action of the diadem, to make somewhat questionable sacrifices, e. g., those offered while using one of the legal fictions that may be used to overlook possible impurities, is therefore called “to make it acceptable.”? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since in the case of a single person, whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of known impurity⁶³A single person impure on the 14^th of Nisan is required to celebrate the Second Passover on the 14^th of Iyar while if the majority of the people are impure on the 14^th of Nisan the congregation celebrate Passover in impurity. In this respect the standing of a single person clearly is inferior to that of the majority of the people., you clarified to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss⁶⁴If a doubt (mentioned explicitly in Pesaḥim, understood here) arises about a “grave of the abyss” in a private domain, it is treated as if it were in the public domain (Note 61)., it should be only logical that for the public, whose position you clarified to its advantage in the case of known impurity, you should clarify it to its advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. A leniency which you apply to a single person you treat as a restriction for the public⁶⁵This disproves the previous argument. The rules of impurity for private persons and for the majority of the people are not comparable.. A leniency which you apply to a single person, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he should be treated as if he became impure before sprinkling, that he should eat the meat⁶⁶This text does not make any sense. The correct text is in Pesaḥim: “A leniency which you apply to a single person, viz., that if it became known to him before sprinkling he should be treated as if he became impure after sprinkling, so that he should not be pushed to the Second Passover. You treat that as restriction for the public, that if it became known to them after sprinkling it should be treated as if they became impure before sprinkling, that the meat should not be eaten.”
The first statement is derived from Mishnah Pesaḥim 7:7: “For a nazir and one who celebrates Passover who became impure in the impurity of the abyss, the diadem makes it acceptable.” The private person being involved in a possible impurity caused by a grave of the abyss never has to celebrate the Second Passover.
The second statement refers to Mishnaiot Pesaḥim 7:4–5. If the public are impure, the Passover sacrifice is slaughtered and eaten in impurity. But if it was slaughtered as pure and then it became impure or became known to be impure, it cannot be eaten.. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir is a restriction for the impure nazir⁶⁷This is a kind of headline for the following argument, rather than a case of dittography.. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as impure after sprinkling, that he should bring a sacrifice of impurity⁶⁸The intelligible text is in Pesaḥim: “The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, viz., that if it became known to him before sprinkling he is treated as impure after sprinkling, so that he should not bring a sacrifice of impurity.” This is the statement of the Mishnah here, following the rabbis.. You treat it as a restriction for the impure nazir, that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as somebody repeatedly becoming impure so that he has to bring a sacrifice of impurity for each single case⁶⁹But if the impure nazir became aware of the second impurity before he offered his sacrifice of impurity, he has to bring only one sacrifice.. As it was stated: If he repeatedly became impure, he has to bring a sacrifice for each single case⁷⁰Halakhah 6:8, Note 198.. If somebody is officiating⁷¹The Nazir text has עוֹבֵר “the passer-by” instead of עוֹבֵד “the officiating [priest]” passim. for the Passover sacrifice, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since for the owners [of the Passover sacrifice] whose position you clarified to their disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged⁷²The Passover sacrifice has to be slaughtered in the name of those who will be eating it, its “subscribers” (Mishnah Pesaḥim 5:3, Ex. 12:4). An old person and an infirm one who cannot eat meat in the volume of an olive may not subscribe to the Passover sacrifice, but as long as they do not exhibit a disability which disqualifies them (Lev. 21:18–20), old or infirm priests may serve in the Temple., you clarified to their advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you should clarify it to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. No. For the owners [of sacrifices] you clarify to their disadvantage⁷³The correct reading “advantage” is in Pesaḥim. An impure person (including a nazir not impure by the impurity of the dead) can send his sacrifices (other than the Passover sacrifice) to the Temple by a pure agent, but an impure priest cannot officiate, irrespective of the nature of his impurity. in the case of impurity during the rest of the year; you also say for the officiating that you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year. Since you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year, you also clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of the impurity of the dead on Passover. How is it really? “For you⁵⁸Num. 9:10, detailing the rules of “Second Passover” for people impure or absent on the 14^th of Nisan.”, whether for him or for the one officiating for him. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: We thought, “on him⁷⁴Num. 6:9: “If a person suddenly dies on him.” In Sifry Num. 28, the expression “if a person dies” is interpreted as stating a fact, not a suspicion. This is used to clear the nazir from any suspected, unproven impurity from the dead.”, not on the one officiating for him. Since we stated that the same rules apply to the nazir and to those celebrating Passover, it means that what holds for the one holds for the other⁷⁵Babli Pesaḥim 80b..

“I am a nazir after 30 days, but already a Samson-nazir.” Rebbi Ḥinena said, it is reasonable that the Torah nezirut should preëmpt the Samson-nezirut⁷⁹He keeps the regular nezirut, including its shaving, as if the Samson-nezirut did not exist.. What is the reason? “Thus he shall proceed, following the Torah of his nazir vow;⁸⁰Num. 6:21.” if his nazir vow follows the Torah. This excludes Samson-nezirut which is not from the Torah⁸¹But from the prophets; it is valid as a common usage, not as a biblical precept..

⁸²Here starts the discussion of the rules of the Samson-nazir.“If he becomes impure, he does not bring a sacrifice of impurity.” He only said, “he does not bring a sacrifice of impurity.” But is he whipped⁸³For intentionally violating the commandment of purity of a nazir.? The Mishnah follows Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah⁸⁴Babli 4b, Tosephta 1:5. The Babli explains that the sentence about the Samson-nazir is formulated in parallel to the sentence about the nazir in perpetuity who is forbidden to become impure.: A Samson-nazir makes himself impure for the dead, since Samson himself was making himself impure for the dead. Rebbi Simeon says, if somebody said, “as Samson”, he did not say anything, since the quality of nazir was not brought on by his mouth⁸⁵In the interpretation of the Babli, 4b, R. Simeon negates the possibility for anybody to validly vow to be a Samson-nazir.. What is the reason? “By the word of his nazir-vow”⁸⁶Num. 6:21. In the Biblical text: כְּפִי נִדְרוֹ “by the mouth of his vow”.. Any whose quality of nazir was brought on by his mouth; this excludes Samson-nezirut which was not brought on by his mouth but by the Word. What is the reason? “For the lad will be God’s nazir from the womb.⁸⁷Jud. 13:5.”

HALAKHAH: “An unspecified nezirut is for thirty days,” etc. Bar Qappara said “ιʼεʼιʼεʼ” is thirty⁹³Num. 6:5: “Until the fulfillment of the days he shall be holy”. Since the verse mentions “the fulfillment of the days”, it must refer to a fixed number; but none is indicated. The number is found by interpreting “he shall be” יהיה in the Alexandrian numbering system using letters as numbers. Since י (ι) = 10, ה (ε) = 5, the sum is 2∙10+2∙5 = 30. (In the Babli, 5a and Sanhedrin 22b, this is attributed to Rav Mattanah; in Sifry Deut. 25 it is a gloss.). Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Corresponding to the 29 times that in the Chapter about the nazir in the Torah is written “vow, nazir, to vow as nazir”⁹⁴In Chapter 6, 6 times in v. 21, 4 times in v. 2, 3 each in vv. 5,12,16, 2 each in vv. 13,19, and once in vv. 3,4,6,8,9,20. In the Babli, 5a, this passage is attributed to bar Pada.. Are they not 30⁹⁵If one counts the related word נֶזֶר in v. 7.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one has to be removed for its definition⁹⁶Before rules of the nazir can be explained, the notion of nazir has to be defined.. In the opinion of Bar Qappara, if he shaved on the 30th day, he did not fulfill his obligation. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan⁹⁷This should read: “R. Jonathan” since it refers to the statement of R. Samuel bar Nahman. (However, in the Babli, Sanhedrin 22b, R. Samuel bar Naḥman reports a similar statement in the name of R. Joḥanan.), if he shaved on the 30th day, he fulfilled his obligation⁹⁸Since the obligation is 29 days, the 30th day automatically is the day of celebration.. Some want to understand it from here: “To let his head’s hair grow wildly.⁹⁹Num. 6:5.” How much is a hair growth¹⁰⁰The scribe wrote first: “How much is wild hair?” This might be the better reading.? 30 days. Some want to understand it from here: “She shall cry for her father and her mother the days of a month¹⁰¹Deut. 21:13. The argument is based on the doctrine of uniqueness of lexemes, viz., that a word used in the Torah has one and only one meaning: A meaning established in one place can be transferred to any other. Cf. Berakhot 1:1, Note 70..” Since “days” mentioned there are 30, so also “days” mentioned here. Some want to understand it from here: ¹⁰²Num. 6:12.“The prior days shall fall, for his nezirut is impure.” The days which became permitted, which Moses and his court had permitted¹⁰³Moses had forbidden Aaron and his sons to let their hair grow in mourning for Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10:6), which otherwise they would have done for the customary period of 30 days (cf. Num. 20:29, Deut. 34:8)., and that is no less than 30 days. Some want to understand it from here: “Until the days are fulfilled⁹⁹Num. 6:5.”. How much are full days¹⁰⁴From one full moon to the next.? 30 days. Then if he shaved on the 30th day, he did not fulfill his obligation! Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, “days” are written defectively יָמִם, with a letter י missing¹⁰⁵Therefore, there can be a day missing in the count, as there may be only 29 days from one full moon to the next..

HALAKHAH: “Also he can separate his heave” etc. If somebody fixes the harvest of another person without the latter’s knowledge, who receives the goodwill⁵⁴That value is estimated by what a third party Israel would be willing to pay to the farmer to have the latter give his heave to his grandson, the son of his daughter and his Cohen son-in-law, or the tithes to a levitic grandson. “To fix” means to separate heave and tithes, to prepare the harvest for use and sale. from the tithes? Rebbi Abbahu says, the one who does the fixing⁵⁵Since he uses his own produce to make the other person’s produce permitted for profane use.. Rebbi Ze‘ira says, the owner of the produce. Rebbi Ze‘ira is consistent since Rebbi Ze‘ira said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish⁵⁶In the Babli, 36b (and also Yoma50b, Zebaḥim 6a, Temurah 2b, 10b), a statement of R. Abbahu in the name of R. Joḥanan states that the person purged only can make the exchange but the goodwill belongs to the person who gives the produce. The Babli also quotes R. Ze‘ira in the same sense as the Yerushalmi but clearly prefers R. Abbahu over R. Ze‘ira against the Yerushalmi., if somebody gave the sacrifice of a nazir⁵⁷Num. 6:14–15. or of a [healed] person afflicted with skin disease⁵⁸Lev. 14:10., the person purged makes (heave)⁵⁹This word, found in the ms. and the editio princeps, makes no sense since the sacrifices are given to the Cohen who alone directs the purging ceremony. With all commentaries one has to read תְמוּרָה “substitution” instead of תְרוּמָה “heave”, a simple metathesis. It is asserted that if somebody dedicates an animal as somebody else’s obligatory sacrifice, then only the person for whom the sacrifice is destined may substitute another animal (which action is sinful, Lev. 27:9–10). If the donor would substitute another animal after dedication, the action would be invalid and the substitute profane as before. In analogy, R. Simeon ben Laqish must hold that sanctified food can be disposed of only by the person whose obligation is satisfied by the sanctification.. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “Also he can separate his heave and tithes with his knowledge.⁶⁰In that case, A would make a donation of the value of the goodwill to B while B is forbidden to receive any gain from A!” Explain it, that [it was stipulated] that the other should not get the goodwill⁶¹This stipulation overrides any general rule and makes the transaction legal..

HALAKHAH: “If both of them disavowed simultaneously,” etc. If they dedicated a sacrifice and said, we are going to disavowe in court. This is what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, his sacrifice for the Eternal for his vow of nazir; that his vow of nazir precede his sacrifice, not that his sacrifice precede his vow of nazir⁴⁹Num. 6:21. An obligatory sacrifice cannot be brought voluntarily. Therefore it cannot be dedicated before the obligation exists. The dedication cannot be undone (Lev. 27:9). Therefore, the original sacrifice has to be rededicated as voluntary offering and a new sacrifice be given as obligatory sacrifice. Nazir 2:9 (Note 118), 3:2 (Note 32), Tosephta Nazir 2:6, Num. rabba 10(42).. If they were sworn to out of court, dedicated a sacrifice and said, we are going to renege in court, how do you treat this? As if his sin did precede his sacrifice or since the are liable only in court as if their sacrifice did precede their sin⁵⁰The question is not answered. Possibly it is a sequel to R. Jeremiah’s questions in the preceding Halakhah; cf. Terumot 10:11 Note 110.?

HALAKHAH: “An unspecified nezirut is for thirty days,” etc. Bar Qappara said “ιʼεʼιʼεʼ” is thirty⁹³Num. 6:5: “Until the fulfillment of the days he shall be holy”. Since the verse mentions “the fulfillment of the days”, it must refer to a fixed number; but none is indicated. The number is found by interpreting “he shall be” יהיה in the Alexandrian numbering system using letters as numbers. Since י (ι) = 10, ה (ε) = 5, the sum is 2∙10+2∙5 = 30. (In the Babli, 5a and Sanhedrin 22b, this is attributed to Rav Mattanah; in Sifry Deut. 25 it is a gloss.). Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Corresponding to the 29 times that in the Chapter about the nazir in the Torah is written “vow, nazir, to vow as nazir”⁹⁴In Chapter 6, 6 times in v. 21, 4 times in v. 2, 3 each in vv. 5,12,16, 2 each in vv. 13,19, and once in vv. 3,4,6,8,9,20. In the Babli, 5a, this passage is attributed to bar Pada.. Are they not 30⁹⁵If one counts the related word נֶזֶר in v. 7.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one has to be removed for its definition⁹⁶Before rules of the nazir can be explained, the notion of nazir has to be defined.. In the opinion of Bar Qappara, if he shaved on the 30th day, he did not fulfill his obligation. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan⁹⁷This should read: “R. Jonathan” since it refers to the statement of R. Samuel bar Nahman. (However, in the Babli, Sanhedrin 22b, R. Samuel bar Naḥman reports a similar statement in the name of R. Joḥanan.), if he shaved on the 30th day, he fulfilled his obligation⁹⁸Since the obligation is 29 days, the 30th day automatically is the day of celebration.. Some want to understand it from here: “To let his head’s hair grow wildly.⁹⁹Num. 6:5.” How much is a hair growth¹⁰⁰The scribe wrote first: “How much is wild hair?” This might be the better reading.? 30 days. Some want to understand it from here: “She shall cry for her father and her mother the days of a month¹⁰¹Deut. 21:13. The argument is based on the doctrine of uniqueness of lexemes, viz., that a word used in the Torah has one and only one meaning: A meaning established in one place can be transferred to any other. Cf. Berakhot 1:1, Note 70..” Since “days” mentioned there are 30, so also “days” mentioned here. Some want to understand it from here: ¹⁰²Num. 6:12.“The prior days shall fall, for his nezirut is impure.” The days which became permitted, which Moses and his court had permitted¹⁰³Moses had forbidden Aaron and his sons to let their hair grow in mourning for Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10:6), which otherwise they would have done for the customary period of 30 days (cf. Num. 20:29, Deut. 34:8)., and that is no less than 30 days. Some want to understand it from here: “Until the days are fulfilled⁹⁹Num. 6:5.”. How much are full days¹⁰⁴From one full moon to the next.? 30 days. Then if he shaved on the 30th day, he did not fulfill his obligation! Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, “days” are written defectively יָמִם, with a letter י missing¹⁰⁵Therefore, there can be a day missing in the count, as there may be only 29 days from one full moon to the next..

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

HALAKHAH: “An unspecified nezirut is thirty days,” etc. ¹³³The text of the first two paragraphs of this Halakhah is in rather bad shape. It is written: “A shaving knife shall not pass over his head¹³⁴Num. 6:5.;” therefore, if it did pass, he is guilty¹³⁵He is guilty if it passed: even if the nazir is passive. (In the Babli, 44a, and Sifry Num. 25, the sentence is interpreted to make the shaver equally guilty with the shaved.). “His head’s hair grows wildly;” how much means growing hair? 30 days¹³⁶Chapter 1, Notes 99,100.. {That refers to an impure nazir. A pure nazir? “He has to shave his head on the day be becomes pure.” Why does the verse say: “On the seventh day he shall shave all his hair”? That shows that he shaves a second time.}¹³⁷The text in braces is corrupt as it stands. The proposals for emendations create a new text; it seems better to try to understand the text as it is.
The verses quoted up to this point do not mention an impure nazir; it is possible to read with the classical commentaries: “That refers to a pure nazir. An impure nazir? ‘He has to shave his head on the day be becomes pure’ (Num. 6:9).” This presupposes that a pure nazir who shaves has to start anew; why does an impure nazir, who anyhow has to start anew for a minimum of 30 days, add to his period of nezirut if he tears out a hair?
The following quote, Lev. 14:9, and its accompanying text have nothing to do with the nazir but refer to the convalescent sufferer from skin disease. He has to shave a second time, 7 days after the shaving ordered in v. 8. “He shaves,”¹³⁸Num. 6:9 (the impure nazir), 6:18 (the pure nazir). all, not in part¹³⁹This is a non sequitur. In all other sources, the rule for the nazir is determined in comparison with the recovered sufferer from skin disease (Note 137) and the Levites when inducted into the service of the Tabernacle (Num. 8:7). In both cases, the verse emphasizes the necessity to shave all hair, meaning that no two hairs can be left standing [Babli 32a; Mishnah Nega‘im 14:4; Sifra Meṣora‘ Pereq 2(6)].. From here that if he left two hairs, he [did] nothing. “A shaving knife shall not pass over his head.¹³⁴Num. 6:5.” Not only a shaving knife, from where to treat a cropper and scissors like a shaving knife? The verse says, “shall not pass over his head.” That means not only a shaving knife; all methods of removal are understood. From here that he starts again only for a [shaving knife]¹⁴⁰Part of the last sentence is missing here but can be recovered from the Babli, 39b, and Sifry Num. 25, where a text parallel to that extending the prohibition from a shaving knife to anything that shaves is attributed to R. Joshia; but R. Jonathan states that “the verse speaks of a shaving knife. Therefore, if he tore out, cropped, or went to the barber, he cannot be whipped.”
Since the wording of R. Joshia’s text in the Yerushalmi differs from the Babli/Sifry text, for R. Jonathan’s opinion only the meaning, but not the text, can be recovered..

HALAKHAH: “An unspecified nezirut is thirty days,” etc. ¹³³The text of the first two paragraphs of this Halakhah is in rather bad shape. It is written: “A shaving knife shall not pass over his head¹³⁴Num. 6:5.;” therefore, if it did pass, he is guilty¹³⁵He is guilty if it passed: even if the nazir is passive. (In the Babli, 44a, and Sifry Num. 25, the sentence is interpreted to make the shaver equally guilty with the shaved.). “His head’s hair grows wildly;” how much means growing hair? 30 days¹³⁶Chapter 1, Notes 99,100.. {That refers to an impure nazir. A pure nazir? “He has to shave his head on the day be becomes pure.” Why does the verse say: “On the seventh day he shall shave all his hair”? That shows that he shaves a second time.}¹³⁷The text in braces is corrupt as it stands. The proposals for emendations create a new text; it seems better to try to understand the text as it is.
The verses quoted up to this point do not mention an impure nazir; it is possible to read with the classical commentaries: “That refers to a pure nazir. An impure nazir? ‘He has to shave his head on the day be becomes pure’ (Num. 6:9).” This presupposes that a pure nazir who shaves has to start anew; why does an impure nazir, who anyhow has to start anew for a minimum of 30 days, add to his period of nezirut if he tears out a hair?
The following quote, Lev. 14:9, and its accompanying text have nothing to do with the nazir but refer to the convalescent sufferer from skin disease. He has to shave a second time, 7 days after the shaving ordered in v. 8. “He shaves,”¹³⁸Num. 6:9 (the impure nazir), 6:18 (the pure nazir). all, not in part¹³⁹This is a non sequitur. In all other sources, the rule for the nazir is determined in comparison with the recovered sufferer from skin disease (Note 137) and the Levites when inducted into the service of the Tabernacle (Num. 8:7). In both cases, the verse emphasizes the necessity to shave all hair, meaning that no two hairs can be left standing [Babli 32a; Mishnah Nega‘im 14:4; Sifra Meṣora‘ Pereq 2(6)].. From here that if he left two hairs, he [did] nothing. “A shaving knife shall not pass over his head.¹³⁴Num. 6:5.” Not only a shaving knife, from where to treat a cropper and scissors like a shaving knife? The verse says, “shall not pass over his head.” That means not only a shaving knife; all methods of removal are understood. From here that he starts again only for a [shaving knife]¹⁴⁰Part of the last sentence is missing here but can be recovered from the Babli, 39b, and Sifry Num. 25, where a text parallel to that extending the prohibition from a shaving knife to anything that shaves is attributed to R. Joshia; but R. Jonathan states that “the verse speaks of a shaving knife. Therefore, if he tore out, cropped, or went to the barber, he cannot be whipped.”
Since the wording of R. Joshia’s text in the Yerushalmi differs from the Babli/Sifry text, for R. Jonathan’s opinion only the meaning, but not the text, can be recovered..

There, we have stated¹⁴⁹Mishnah Nega‘im 14:4; quoted Babli 40a; cf. Note 139.: “Three categories of people shave and their shaving is a commandment: the nazir, the sufferer from skin disease, and the Levites. All these, if they shaved not with a knife or left two hairs,did not do anything.” Rebbi Eleazar said: The Mishnah [speaks] about an impure nazir. But a pure nazir, once he shaved most of his head, even if not with a knife, has acquitted himself [of his obligation]. Rebbi Immi, following Rebbi Eleazar (ben Azariah)¹⁵⁰Since the author of the remark is R. Eleazar ben Pada, the words in parenthesis have to be deleted., asked: The only place where a knife is mentioned is about a pure nazir: “A shaving knife shall not pass over his head until the days are fulfilled.¹⁵¹Num. 6:5.” Therefore, after he fulfilled them he needs a knife! Perhaps it was said only about an impure nazir with regard to two hairs¹⁵²The impure nazir cannot restart his vow if he left two hairs uncut. But the requirement of a knife also applies to a pure nazir.. Rebbi Yose¹⁵³In the Babli, 42a, the remark is attributed to R. Yose ben Ḥanina. Since R. Jacob bar Aḥa was a colleague of R. Yasa and a teacher of R. Yose, it seems that one has to read “Yasa” instead of “Yose”; the attribution of the Babli is impossible. said to Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Do you remember when we were studying Nazir, we said that there was no difference between scissors and a knife, and Rebbi Eleazar said: The Mishnah [speaks] about an impure nazir! Why not about a pure nazir? The pure nazir shaves after the blood was sprinkled¹⁵⁴For all sacrifices, the sprinkling of the blood on the walls of the altar fulfills the purpose of the sacrifice; nothing that happens afterwards can invalidate the sacrifice.. When that was sanctified, his vow was completed. But it¹⁵⁵The hair of the nazir’s head. is as if fallen out.

“In truth;” Rebbi Eliezer^178aThis reading is found also in Sabbat 10:4 (12c, 1. 46). But in the other occurrences in the Yerushalmi, Sabbat 1 (3b 1. 69), Kilaim 2:2 Note 36, Terumot 2:1 Note 16, the name is "Eleazar" (Lazar). In the Babli the quote is anonymous in Sabbat 92b; it appears in the name of R. Eleazar in Baba mesi'a 60a. said that every place where they stated “in truth,” refers to practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai.

“They shall fall away, for his vow of nazir is impure.¹⁷⁹Num. 6:12.” From here that the days of impurity fall away¹⁸⁰The days of certified skin disease cannot count as days of nezirut even though the sufferer from skin disease is also required to let his hair grow.. Then should he invalidate¹⁸¹The Mishnah states that a nazir who develops skin disease simply waits until he is healed and then finishes his count. Why does he not start anew as in the case of impurity of the dead?? He invalidates only the days of [impurity of] the dead¹⁸²The biblical law is quite clear that only the impurity of the dead makes him lose the earlier days of his count.. Why should they not be counted? If you say that days in which he causes [impurity to] couch and seat are counted, days in which he does not cause [impurity to] couch and seat are certainly counted¹⁸³Mishnah Kelim 1:4 states that the impurity of the sufferer from skin disease is more severe than the impurity of the female sufferer from flux. For the latter, it is stated explicitly (Lev. 15:26) that any couch and any seat used by her becomes a source of original impurity. No direct biblical source exists for declaring the sufferer from skin disease to cause this kind of impurity; it is derived indirectly in Sifra Meṣora‘ Parashah 2(6). This derivation is accepted at face value by Maimonides both in his Mishnah Commentary (Kelim 1:4) and in his Code (Turn‘at Ṣara‘at 10:11). The commentators of the Babli (Rashi, Pesaḥim 67b s. v. זב, Ravad, Commentary to Sifra) have difficulties in accepting the Sifra since it seems to contradict the Babli Pesaḥim 67b, but a student of the Yerushalmi does not have to consider this, in particular since Ravad does not object to Maimonides’s ruling in his Code. For impurity there is no difference between a sufferer from skin disease in quarantine and one positively declared infirm (Mishnah Megillah 1:7, Nega‘im 8:8).
The argument given here refers to Mishnah Nega‘im 14:2 which states that the healed sufferer from skin disease in his days of counting, between the preliminary and the definitive purification, is free from all severe impurities and does not cause more impurity than a dead reptile (the slightest of impurities, Mishnah Kelim 1:1). It does not seem to make any sense to accept the days of the severely impure quarantined but not to accept the slightly impure counting sufferer from skin disease (cf. Note 144).! What did you see to say that they are not counted? Rebbi []¹⁸⁴There are no sources which would permit filling in the lacuna. said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “For a wild growth of his head’s hair”¹⁸⁵Num. 6:5.. Days of hair growth are counted, days preparing for shaving¹⁸⁶For the final purification of the sufferer from skin disease. are not counted. So far in his days of counting; in the days of his definite status? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “Please do not let her be like a corpse¹⁸⁷Num. 12:12, speaking of Miriam who was punished for calumniating Moses by becoming a clear sufferer from skin disease (v. 10), not a case of quarantine..” Since the days of a corpse are not counted, the days of quarantine are not counted. A student quoted this saying cf Rebbi Joḥanan’s before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who did not accept it. He said to him: Here, you call it quarantine, but there, you want to call it absolute; you cannot do that. For Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “Please do not let her be like a corpse; let her be quarantined¹⁸⁸Num. 12:14..” Just as the days of the dead are seven, so the days of quarantine are seven¹⁸⁹While the case of Miriam was clearly not one of quarantine, the verse treats it as such by (1) calling her exclusion from the camp “quarantine” and (2) exempting her from the cleansing ritual which is required of the absolute sufferer but not the quarantined (Mishnah Megillah 1:8, Nega‘im 8:8). The verse cannot be applied to the absolute sufferer..

“They shall fall away, for his vow of nazir is impure.¹⁷⁹Num. 6:12.” From here that the days of impurity fall away¹⁸⁰The days of certified skin disease cannot count as days of nezirut even though the sufferer from skin disease is also required to let his hair grow.. Then should he invalidate¹⁸¹The Mishnah states that a nazir who develops skin disease simply waits until he is healed and then finishes his count. Why does he not start anew as in the case of impurity of the dead?? He invalidates only the days of [impurity of] the dead¹⁸²The biblical law is quite clear that only the impurity of the dead makes him lose the earlier days of his count.. Why should they not be counted? If you say that days in which he causes [impurity to] couch and seat are counted, days in which he does not cause [impurity to] couch and seat are certainly counted¹⁸³Mishnah Kelim 1:4 states that the impurity of the sufferer from skin disease is more severe than the impurity of the female sufferer from flux. For the latter, it is stated explicitly (Lev. 15:26) that any couch and any seat used by her becomes a source of original impurity. No direct biblical source exists for declaring the sufferer from skin disease to cause this kind of impurity; it is derived indirectly in Sifra Meṣora‘ Parashah 2(6). This derivation is accepted at face value by Maimonides both in his Mishnah Commentary (Kelim 1:4) and in his Code (Turn‘at Ṣara‘at 10:11). The commentators of the Babli (Rashi, Pesaḥim 67b s. v. זב, Ravad, Commentary to Sifra) have difficulties in accepting the Sifra since it seems to contradict the Babli Pesaḥim 67b, but a student of the Yerushalmi does not have to consider this, in particular since Ravad does not object to Maimonides’s ruling in his Code. For impurity there is no difference between a sufferer from skin disease in quarantine and one positively declared infirm (Mishnah Megillah 1:7, Nega‘im 8:8).
The argument given here refers to Mishnah Nega‘im 14:2 which states that the healed sufferer from skin disease in his days of counting, between the preliminary and the definitive purification, is free from all severe impurities and does not cause more impurity than a dead reptile (the slightest of impurities, Mishnah Kelim 1:1). It does not seem to make any sense to accept the days of the severely impure quarantined but not to accept the slightly impure counting sufferer from skin disease (cf. Note 144).! What did you see to say that they are not counted? Rebbi []¹⁸⁴There are no sources which would permit filling in the lacuna. said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “For a wild growth of his head’s hair”¹⁸⁵Num. 6:5.. Days of hair growth are counted, days preparing for shaving¹⁸⁶For the final purification of the sufferer from skin disease. are not counted. So far in his days of counting; in the days of his definite status? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “Please do not let her be like a corpse¹⁸⁷Num. 12:12, speaking of Miriam who was punished for calumniating Moses by becoming a clear sufferer from skin disease (v. 10), not a case of quarantine..” Since the days of a corpse are not counted, the days of quarantine are not counted. A student quoted this saying cf Rebbi Joḥanan’s before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who did not accept it. He said to him: Here, you call it quarantine, but there, you want to call it absolute; you cannot do that. For Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “Please do not let her be like a corpse; let her be quarantined¹⁸⁸Num. 12:14..” Just as the days of the dead are seven, so the days of quarantine are seven¹⁸⁹While the case of Miriam was clearly not one of quarantine, the verse treats it as such by (1) calling her exclusion from the camp “quarantine” and (2) exempting her from the cleansing ritual which is required of the absolute sufferer but not the quarantined (Mishnah Megillah 1:8, Nega‘im 8:8). The verse cannot be applied to the absolute sufferer..

MISHNAH: Dough intended for Bismarcks and made into Bismarcks is free from ḥallah.¹⁷⁶According to Maimonides, only if baked in the sun. If it was started as bread dough but made into Bismarcks, or started as Bismarck dough and used as bread dough, is obligated for ḥallah. Similarly, qenubqa’ot¹⁷⁷A word of unknown etymology, cf. Note 182. {Perhaps cf. Latin clibanicius (viz., panis) “bread baked in a clibanus, an earthen or iron vessel for baking bread; oven, furnace” (Lewis & Short) (E. G.).} are obligated.
The House of Shammai free parboiled dough but the House of Hillel obligate it. The House of Shammai obligate dumplings but the House of Hillel free it¹⁸⁵In both cases, the dough will be baked in the end. In the Babli, Pesaḥim 37b, the definition of מעיסה and חליטה are switched; the Babli essentially follows the Yerushalmi here. The disagreement of the Houses of Hillel and Shammai is also quoted in Mishnah Idiut 5:2.. The loaves for a thanksgiving sacrifice¹⁸⁶Lev. 7:12. and those needed by the nazir¹⁸⁷Num. 6:15., if he made them for himself they are exempt¹⁸⁸Since they are dedicated when baking they are exempt as sacrifice., to sell on the market obligated.

Any defilement contracted by a Nazirite from the dead and for which he must shave his head,³⁶Cf. Num. 6, 9. if contracted by a High Priest he receives forty lashes for it; but [for those defilements for which] the Nazirite has not to shave his head, [if contracted by a High Priest], he does not receive forty lashes.³⁷Cf. Nazir 49b (Sonc. ed., p. 184). If, e.g., the Nazirite came in contact with a corpse or the flesh of a corpse of the size of an olive.

MISHNAH: If somebody made a vow of nazir while he was in a cemetery⁵⁴Since a nazir may not be in a cemetery, in one opinion the vow cannot be activated until he leaves the cemetery; in the other opinion the vow is activated but the days cannot be counted since the nazir is not pure (Babli 16b)., even if he stayed there for thirty days, they are not counted and he does not bring a sacrifice for impurity⁵⁵The vow is activated the moment he leaves the cemetery. While the nazir is forbidden to defile himself by the impurity of the dead, it is not forbidden to vow to be a nazir while one is impure. He has to untergo the seven-day purification ritual; these days are counted as regular days of nezirut.. If he left and re-entered, they are counted and he has to bring a sacrifice for impurity⁵⁶The special sacrifices prescribed for the nazir who became impure, Num. 6:10–11.. Rebbi Eliezer said, not on that day, since it is said: “The earlier days fall away⁵⁷Num. 6:12. Since a plural indicates at least 2, no sacrifice is due unless the person has been a nazir for at least 2 days.,” until he has earlier days.

HALAKHAH: “Leaves and shoots.” Our Mishnah does not follow Rebbi Eliezer, as was stated¹⁸¹Nazir 6:1 (fol. 54d), 6:2 (fol. 55a); Babli Nazir 34b. in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: (Num. 6:4) “Anything made from the wine-vine, from seeds to skin he shall not eat,” that includes leaves and shoots.

If he is still there⁶³Here starts the discussion of the Mishnah. What is the situation of the person who vowed in the cemetery to be a nazir., Rebbi Joḥanan said, one warns him about everything for every possible leaving,⁶⁴R. Joḥanan holds that the vow becomes effective the moment it is uttered. Then the nazir is informed that he has to leave the cemetery immediately (and refrain from wine and shaving). If he does not obey, he can be repeatedly warned and the disregard of every warning is a new, punishable offence. and he is whipped. Rebbi Eleazar said, he does not accept [warning] unless he leaves⁶⁵He holds that the vow becomes effective only when the nazir leaves the cemetery. Then also the warning becomes relevant for him and he can be punished if he returns to the cemetery. and returns. Rebbi Abba said: So did Rebbi Joḥanan answer Rebbi Eleazar: Is it not written, “he shall not come” and “he may not defile himself”⁶⁶If Num. 6:6, there is a general prohibition, “to any dead person he shall not come.” In v. 7, there is a particular prohibition; for close relatives “he may not be defiled.” R. Joḥanan interprets this to mean: even in a case where he does not defile himself, because he was defiled before he made the vow, he violates the separate prohibition of v. 6.? He said to him, if they warned him because of “he shall not come”, he is whipped; because of “he shall not defile himself” he is not whipped⁶⁷He reads the verses as they are written. The nazir can be warned, and is whipped, for an active coming to corpses. But nobody can be whipped for a prohibition formulated in the passive voice.. Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned from prostrating, as we have stated there⁶⁸Mishnah Šebuot 2:3. A person who comes to the Temple precinct and belatedly remembers that he is impure, has to leave immediately. If he tarries long enough for an act of prostration, he is punished.: “If he prostrated himself or stayed there long enough to prostrate himself.” Rebbi Mattaniah said, we thought that was where they do disagree? About lashes, but not about a sacrifice. Since Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned from prostrating⁶⁹Where the main thrust of the entire Chapter in the Mishnah is the obligation to bring a sacrifice to purify himself from the inadvertent sin., that means that lashes and sacrifices are one and the same. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “A nazir who drank wine the entire day is guilty only once.⁷⁰Mishnah 6:4. This presupposes that he was warned only once.” He explains it, that his throat was never empty⁷¹If the nazir actually never stopped drinking the entire day, he could not have been warned more than once. The Mishnah is irrelevant for the statement that separate warnings imply separate punishments.. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he was defiling himself for the dead the entire day, he is guilty only once⁷⁰Mishnah 6:4. This presupposes that he was warned only once..” He explains it about one who waits before every leaving, who is whipped⁷²He explains the Mishnah, if there was only one warning. But if he was warned repeatedly, each action represents a new offense. (Whether tarrying plays a role in this case remains an open question in the Babli, Šebuot 17a.). A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: If a Cohen was standing in a cemetery⁷³Legitimately, when burying a close relative. and they were handing another corpse to him, could he accept? The verse says, “the husband shall be defiled for his family⁷⁴Lev. 21:4. The verse really reads: “The husband shall not be defiled for his family, to be profaned,” meaning that the Cohen cannot defile himself for a wife he was forbidden to marry. This implies that he can be defiled only for the benefit of his legal family..” If he accepted it, I could think that he was guilty. The verse says, “to be profaned”. One who adds impurity to the impurity; that excludes him who does not add impurity to his impurity⁷⁵If he already is impure, touching another corpse does not change his status. (In the Babli, the Babylonian authorities disagree, 42b.). Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Rebbi Neḥemiah said, “to be profaned”, that excludes him who does not add impurity to his impurity, lest he say, because I became defiled for my father I may go and collect the bones of X. “To be profaned”, at the time of death; Rebbi said, also “in their death.⁷⁶Num. 6:7 prohibits the nazir from being defiled for his close relatives “in their death”, meaning that he does not have to leave the house when they lie dying, but only after they are dead. The same baraita is quoted in the Babli, 43a.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they disagree⁷⁷The authorities disagreeing with Rebbi require the nazir to leave the house when they lie dying.. It follows that Rebbi Simeon bar Abba follows Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. When Simeon bar Abba was dying, he said, this should be taken out here, that should be taken out there⁷⁸To avoid that vessels become impure at his death..

If he is still there⁶³Here starts the discussion of the Mishnah. What is the situation of the person who vowed in the cemetery to be a nazir., Rebbi Joḥanan said, one warns him about everything for every possible leaving,⁶⁴R. Joḥanan holds that the vow becomes effective the moment it is uttered. Then the nazir is informed that he has to leave the cemetery immediately (and refrain from wine and shaving). If he does not obey, he can be repeatedly warned and the disregard of every warning is a new, punishable offence. and he is whipped. Rebbi Eleazar said, he does not accept [warning] unless he leaves⁶⁵He holds that the vow becomes effective only when the nazir leaves the cemetery. Then also the warning becomes relevant for him and he can be punished if he returns to the cemetery. and returns. Rebbi Abba said: So did Rebbi Joḥanan answer Rebbi Eleazar: Is it not written, “he shall not come” and “he may not defile himself”⁶⁶If Num. 6:6, there is a general prohibition, “to any dead person he shall not come.” In v. 7, there is a particular prohibition; for close relatives “he may not be defiled.” R. Joḥanan interprets this to mean: even in a case where he does not defile himself, because he was defiled before he made the vow, he violates the separate prohibition of v. 6.? He said to him, if they warned him because of “he shall not come”, he is whipped; because of “he shall not defile himself” he is not whipped⁶⁷He reads the verses as they are written. The nazir can be warned, and is whipped, for an active coming to corpses. But nobody can be whipped for a prohibition formulated in the passive voice.. Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned from prostrating, as we have stated there⁶⁸Mishnah Šebuot 2:3. A person who comes to the Temple precinct and belatedly remembers that he is impure, has to leave immediately. If he tarries long enough for an act of prostration, he is punished.: “If he prostrated himself or stayed there long enough to prostrate himself.” Rebbi Mattaniah said, we thought that was where they do disagree? About lashes, but not about a sacrifice. Since Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned from prostrating⁶⁹Where the main thrust of the entire Chapter in the Mishnah is the obligation to bring a sacrifice to purify himself from the inadvertent sin., that means that lashes and sacrifices are one and the same. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “A nazir who drank wine the entire day is guilty only once.⁷⁰Mishnah 6:4. This presupposes that he was warned only once.” He explains it, that his throat was never empty⁷¹If the nazir actually never stopped drinking the entire day, he could not have been warned more than once. The Mishnah is irrelevant for the statement that separate warnings imply separate punishments.. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he was defiling himself for the dead the entire day, he is guilty only once⁷⁰Mishnah 6:4. This presupposes that he was warned only once..” He explains it about one who waits before every leaving, who is whipped⁷²He explains the Mishnah, if there was only one warning. But if he was warned repeatedly, each action represents a new offense. (Whether tarrying plays a role in this case remains an open question in the Babli, Šebuot 17a.). A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: If a Cohen was standing in a cemetery⁷³Legitimately, when burying a close relative. and they were handing another corpse to him, could he accept? The verse says, “the husband shall be defiled for his family⁷⁴Lev. 21:4. The verse really reads: “The husband shall not be defiled for his family, to be profaned,” meaning that the Cohen cannot defile himself for a wife he was forbidden to marry. This implies that he can be defiled only for the benefit of his legal family..” If he accepted it, I could think that he was guilty. The verse says, “to be profaned”. One who adds impurity to the impurity; that excludes him who does not add impurity to his impurity⁷⁵If he already is impure, touching another corpse does not change his status. (In the Babli, the Babylonian authorities disagree, 42b.). Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Rebbi Neḥemiah said, “to be profaned”, that excludes him who does not add impurity to his impurity, lest he say, because I became defiled for my father I may go and collect the bones of X. “To be profaned”, at the time of death; Rebbi said, also “in their death.⁷⁶Num. 6:7 prohibits the nazir from being defiled for his close relatives “in their death”, meaning that he does not have to leave the house when they lie dying, but only after they are dead. The same baraita is quoted in the Babli, 43a.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they disagree⁷⁷The authorities disagreeing with Rebbi require the nazir to leave the house when they lie dying.. It follows that Rebbi Simeon bar Abba follows Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. When Simeon bar Abba was dying, he said, this should be taken out here, that should be taken out there⁷⁸To avoid that vessels become impure at his death..

“Impurity is more severe than shaving.” Impurity, as it is written: “The earlier days fall away,” “and he shall bring a yearling sheep as a reparation offering¹⁸⁴Num. 6:12..” Shaving is more severe because He made the shaver equal to the shaved¹⁸⁵The person who shaves a nazir can be criminally prosecuted. Babli 44a, Sifry Num. 25, Tosephta 4:4., but in impurity He did not make the defiler equal to the defiled¹⁸⁶A person who causes a nazir to be defiled by the impurity of the dead cannot be prosecuted..

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste except imparting taste for the nazir¹⁴¹Num. 6.. Rebbi Zeïra said, one does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself except the nazir even if he did not taste the forbidden thing itself¹⁴²R. Zeïra takes the statements of R. Abbahu in this and the preceding paragraph as one. A similar interpretation in Babli Pesaḥim 43b, Nazir 35b.. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, for food imparting taste what is forbidden and what is permitted are not combined, but for the nazir forbidden and permitted do combine¹⁴³Since nobody can be punished for eating less than the volume of an olive of a forbidden substance, this is his interpretation of the statements of R. Abbahu.. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeïra: If wine in the volume of an olive fell into a dish and he¹⁴⁴A nazir. ate from it, he cannot be prosecuted unless he ate the entire dish. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, if he ate the volume of an olive from it he is guilty. A baraita¹⁴⁵A shortened version in Sifry Num. 23, a short reference to the argument is in Babli Pesaḥim 44a/b. supports Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “What do we understand when it is said (Num. 6:3): ‘Anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? What did the verse leave out that was not said? But since it was said (Num. 6:4): ‘anything made from the wine-vine, from seeds to grape skins he should not eat;’ (Num. 6:3) ‘from wine and liquor he shall abstain.’ Why does the verse say ‘anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? That means that if he soaked grapes and then soaked his bread in that, if it¹⁴⁶The amount of water soaked up by the bread. adds up to the volume of an olive, he is guilty. From here you argue about all prohibitions of the Torah. Since for all that comes from the vine, whose prohibition is neither permanent¹⁴⁷It is forbidden only for the nazir and only for a period of time specified at the beginning., nor a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition can be lifted¹⁴⁸The vow of a nazir can be annulled just as any other vow can be annulled., He made taste like the thing itself; is it not logical that for all prohibitions of the Torah, whose prohibition is permanent, is a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition cannot be lifted¹⁴⁹At least one of these categories applies to any food prohibition in the Torah., that we¹⁵⁰The principle formulated is divine for the nazir and rabbinic for all other prohibitions. treat taste like the thing itself¹⁵¹Babli Pesaḥim 44b.? From here, the Sages inferred that everything imparting taste is forbidden.” This is difficult for Rebbi Zeïra who says everywhere “unless he tasted¹⁵²The forbidden food itself.”, and here he says, “even if he did not taste.”

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste except imparting taste for the nazir¹⁴¹Num. 6.. Rebbi Zeïra said, one does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself except the nazir even if he did not taste the forbidden thing itself¹⁴²R. Zeïra takes the statements of R. Abbahu in this and the preceding paragraph as one. A similar interpretation in Babli Pesaḥim 43b, Nazir 35b.. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, for food imparting taste what is forbidden and what is permitted are not combined, but for the nazir forbidden and permitted do combine¹⁴³Since nobody can be punished for eating less than the volume of an olive of a forbidden substance, this is his interpretation of the statements of R. Abbahu.. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeïra: If wine in the volume of an olive fell into a dish and he¹⁴⁴A nazir. ate from it, he cannot be prosecuted unless he ate the entire dish. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, if he ate the volume of an olive from it he is guilty. A baraita¹⁴⁵A shortened version in Sifry Num. 23, a short reference to the argument is in Babli Pesaḥim 44a/b. supports Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “What do we understand when it is said (Num. 6:3): ‘Anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? What did the verse leave out that was not said? But since it was said (Num. 6:4): ‘anything made from the wine-vine, from seeds to grape skins he should not eat;’ (Num. 6:3) ‘from wine and liquor he shall abstain.’ Why does the verse say ‘anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? That means that if he soaked grapes and then soaked his bread in that, if it¹⁴⁶The amount of water soaked up by the bread. adds up to the volume of an olive, he is guilty. From here you argue about all prohibitions of the Torah. Since for all that comes from the vine, whose prohibition is neither permanent¹⁴⁷It is forbidden only for the nazir and only for a period of time specified at the beginning., nor a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition can be lifted¹⁴⁸The vow of a nazir can be annulled just as any other vow can be annulled., He made taste like the thing itself; is it not logical that for all prohibitions of the Torah, whose prohibition is permanent, is a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition cannot be lifted¹⁴⁹At least one of these categories applies to any food prohibition in the Torah., that we¹⁵⁰The principle formulated is divine for the nazir and rabbinic for all other prohibitions. treat taste like the thing itself¹⁵¹Babli Pesaḥim 44b.? From here, the Sages inferred that everything imparting taste is forbidden.” This is difficult for Rebbi Zeïra who says everywhere “unless he tasted¹⁵²The forbidden food itself.”, and here he says, “even if he did not taste.”

HALAKHAH: It is written: “He has to vow to the Eternal the days of his nezirut,¹⁹³Num. 6:12. The requirement to renew his vow is written between the mention of the sacrifice of two birds and that of the sheep. The verse seems to refer to the eighth day, the day of his sacrifices.” from the day he brings his sacrifices, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, from the time of his shaving¹⁹⁴I. e., after he immersed himself and is pure for profane purposes. Since he is no longer impure, there is no reason for him not to be a fully functioning nazir.
In the Babli, 18b/19a, the verse quoted is brought as support for the majority opinion, that a resumption of the status of nazir only depends on his shaving, here attributed to R. Yose ben R. Jehudah, while the opinion of Rebbi, that a resumption of the status of nazir depends of his reparation offering, is quoted there in the name of R. Joḥanan ben Baroqa. This implies that the Yerushalmi prefers the opinion of Rebbi, the Babli that of R. Yose ben R. Yehudah.. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Hoshaia, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Where do they disagree? If he shaved on the seventh and brought his sacrifices on the eighth. But if he shaved on the eighth and brought his sacrifices on the same day, everybody agrees on the day he brings his sacrifices. Rebbi Yose said, that is, if he immersed himself on the seventh. But if he immersed himself on the eighth, the eighth takes the place of the seventh¹⁹⁵Since he cannot enter the holy precinct before sundown. and the seventh of the eighth¹⁹⁶I. e., the eighth is not different in status from the seventh.; he counts only from that “seventh”¹⁹⁷For Rebbi from the 9^th, for R. Yose ben R. Yehudah from the 8^th.. If he became impure and impure again¹⁹⁸He became impure after he went to the miqweh on the 7^th day but before he brought his sacrifices on the 8^th; cf. Tosephta 4:8; Babli 18b., he brings a sacrifice for each occurrence. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, that statement follows Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah¹⁹⁹In the Babli, 18b, 52a, “R. Eliezer”. Rebbi’s opinion is referred to as that “of the rabbis” in the Babli., but following Rebbi this person still stays in impure nezirut²⁰⁰Since only the reparation offering eliminates his disability as nazir.. Rebbi Hila said, where do they disagree? To count nezirut in purity²⁰¹Only for the count. Rebbi will agree that if he immersed himself on the 7^th, any impurity he incurs after that is a new impurity even if he could not yet start counting the days of his nezirut.. “He has to vow to the Eternal the days of his nezirut and bring.” Rebbi said, until he actually brought. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, even if he was enabled to bring the sacrifice for impurity. Everybody agrees that he brings a sacrifice for impurity. It was stated thus: If he became impure on the seventh, and again impure on the eighth, he brings a sacrifice for each occurrence. In Rebbi Ze‘ira’s opinion^193,Num. 6:12. The requirement to renew his vow is written between the mention of the sacrifice of two birds and that of the sheep. The verse seems to refer to the eighth day, the day of his sacrifices.¹⁹⁴I. e., after he immersed himself and is pure for profane purposes. Since he is no longer impure, there is no reason for him not to be a fully functioning nazir.
In the Babli, 18b/19a, the verse quoted is brought as support for the majority opinion, that a resumption of the status of nazir only depends on his shaving, here attributed to R. Yose ben R. Jehudah, while the opinion of Rebbi, that a resumption of the status of nazir depends of his reparation offering, is quoted there in the name of R. Joḥanan ben Baroqa. This implies that the Yerushalmi prefers the opinion of Rebbi, the Babli that of R. Yose ben R. Yehudah., following Rebbi the first sacrifice is superseded and he brings the second; following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah it was not superseded. In Rebbi Hila’s opinion²⁰¹Only for the count. Rebbi will agree that if he immersed himself on the 7^th, any impurity he incurs after that is a new impurity even if he could not yet start counting the days of his nezirut., everybody agrees that nothing is superseded and he brings another.

What is Rebbi Yose’s reason¹⁶⁴That the son’s vow must precede the father’s dedication.? “His offering to the Eternal for his vow”¹⁶⁵Num. 6:21., that (his sacrifice precede his vow)¹⁶⁶The two parentheses have to be interchanged. The correct text is copied in Num. rabba 10(42), Yalqut #709. but not (that his vow precede his sacrifice). They wanted to say that Rebbi Jehudah¹⁶⁷In the Tosephta, 3:18, it is explained that R. Jehudah and R. Meïr hold that any unspecified money in the estate can be used by the son for a future nezirut (but specified money has to be treated by the rules of Mishnah 6.) The opinion of R. Yose is shared by R. Eleazar (ben Shamua) and R. Simeon (ben Ioḥai). The problems with the text of Tosephta and Babli are treated at length by S. Lieberman (Tosefta ki-Fshutah p. 537–538).
The Yerushalmi does not treat the anomaly that, by tradition, the daughter cannot use the father’s dedicated money even if she is the only heir (Babli 30a/b). would agree with Rebbi Yose. It was found said that neither of them agrees with the other.

MISHNAH: What is shaving in purity? He brings three animals²⁰²Num. 6:14., a purification sacrifice, an elevation sacrifice, and a well-being sacrifice. He slaughters the well-being sacrifice ands shaves for it²⁰³Since shaving is mentioned in v. 18, after the slaughter of the well-being offering in v. 17., the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Eleazar²⁰⁴In some Mishnah mss., “R. Eliezer”. says, he only should shave for the purification sacrifice since that has precedence everywhere²⁰⁵In the case of the nazir, v. 16; in other cases of a common offering of purification and elevation offerings, Lev. 5:8., but if he shaved for any of the three, he satisfied his obligation.

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

¹⁶⁴From here on, the text is also found in Nazir 9:2, Notes 58–94. From where about a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss¹⁶⁵Both for the person going to celebrate the Pesaḥ and the nazir who finished his term, the impurity caused by a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss is disregarded. In view of the central role of purity in everything connected with the Sanctuary, it is obvious that some biblical justification has to be found for the rule. In the case of Passover, the argument notes that Num. 9:9 could have stated that a person on a far trip was required to celebrate the Second Pesaḥ. The addition for you seems to be superfluous. It is interpreted to mean just as the road is open to the wanderer, so the impurity has to be in the open for the impure person. The same argument is in the Babli 81b.? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of the rabbis: Or on a far trip for you. What is in the open for you, including everything in the open. This excludes the case of a grave in the abyss which is not open. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi [Yannai]⁸⁷Reading of K.: If a person dies suddenly on him¹⁶⁶Num. 6:9.. Since on him it is in the open, so everything in the open. This eliminates the grave in the abyss which is not in the open¹⁶⁷The same argument as before; Babli 81b, Sifry Num. 28..

If the public became impure in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since in the case of a single person, whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of known impurity¹⁶⁸Since a single person impure on the 14th of Nisan is required to celebrate the Second Pesaḥ, his standing is inferior to that of the public who celebrate the First Pesaḥ in impurity., you clarified to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss¹⁶⁹The case of a grave in the abyss can arise only in a private domain since in a public domain all doubts are automatically resolved in favor of purity (Sotah 1:2, Note 88). For a private person, a case of doubt in matters of a grave in the abyss in a private domain is treated as if it were occurring in the public domain., for the public, whose position you clarified to its advantage in the case of known impurity¹⁷⁰In that they may bring the Pesaḥ in impurity., it only is logical that you should clarify it to its advantage in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss. A leniency which you apply to a single person you treat as a restriction for the public¹⁷¹This is how one intends to disprove the argument de minore ad majus.. A leniency which you apply to a single person, so that if it became known to him¹⁷²The impurity of a grave in the abyss never forces a person to the Second Pesaḥ; so if he was told before pouring it is as if he became otherwise impure after pouring, where the sacrificial act was completed and while he cannot eat his part of the Pesaḥ he has discharged all his obligations. before pouring he should be treated as if he became impure after pouring, that he should not be pushed to the Second Pesaḥ, you restrict him in public, so that if it became known to him after pouring he should be treated as if he became impure before pouring, that he should not be able to eat the meat¹⁷³If the public are impure, the Pesaḥ is slaughtered and eaten in impurity. But if it was slaughtered as pure and then it became impure or became known to be impure, it cannot be eaten.. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, so that if it became known to him before pouring he is treated as impure after pouring, that he should not have to bring a sacrifice of impurity¹⁷⁴Mishnah Nazir 9:2. Corrector’s addition supported by K., you treat as a restriction for the impure nazir, that if it became known to him after pouring he is treated as somebody repeatedly becoming impure; he has to bring a sacrifice of impurity for each single case¹⁷⁵But if the nazir became aware of the second impurity before he offered his sacrifice of impurity, he has to bring only one sacrifice.. [As it was stated: If he repeatedly became impure, he has to bring a sacrifice for each single case¹⁷⁶Nazir Halakhah 6:8, Note 198..] If somebody is officiating for the Pesaḥ, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad majus. Since for the owner [of the Pesaḥ] whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged¹⁷⁷While a person unable to eat the volume of an olive of the Pesaḥ may not subscribe to it, an old or sick priest is able to serve in the Temple as long as his infirmity is not of the kind listed in Lev, 21:18–20., you clarified to their advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you should clarify it to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. No. Since for the owner you clarify to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year; what can you say for the officiating where you clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year¹⁷⁸An impure person, including a nazir not impure by the impurity of the dead, can send his sacrifice other than the Pesaḥ to the Temple by a pure agent, but an impure priest cannot officiate, irrespective of the nature of his impurity.. Since you clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year, you also clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of the impurity of the dead on Passover. How is it really? For you¹⁶⁵Both for the person going to celebrate the Pesaḥ and the nazir who finished his term, the impurity caused by a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss is disregarded. In view of the central role of purity in everything connected with the Sanctuary, it is obvious that some biblical justification has to be found for the rule. In the case of Passover, the argument notes that Num. 9:9 could have stated that a person on a far trip was required to celebrate the Second Pesaḥ. The addition for you seems to be superfluous. It is interpreted to mean just as the road is open to the wanderer, so the impurity has to be in the open for the impure person. The same argument is in the Babli 81b., whether for him or for the one officiating for him. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Ḥisda: We thought to say, on him¹⁶⁶Num. 6:9., not on the one officiating for him. Since we stated that the same rules apply to the nazir and to those celebrating Passover, it means that what holds for the one holds for the other¹⁷⁹Babli 80b..

[How is it with a Nazirite whose vow is of unspecified duration?]⁵⁹Cf. Num. 6, Nazir 5a (Sonc. ed., p. 16). The vow of a Nazirite which is of unspecified duration [remains in force] thirty days.⁶⁰The period of thirty days is based on the numerical value of the word yihyeh, he shall be [holy] in Num. 6, 5. Whether he declared, ‘Behold I am a Nazirite’ without qualification, or he declared, ‘Behold I am a Nazirite for one day’, his status as a Nazirite lasts thirty days.⁶¹So GRA. If he completed his period as a Nazirite outside the land of Israel⁶²Where the laws incumbent on a Nazirite cannot be carried out effectively. and later returned there, [47a] Beth Shammai said that he remains a Nazirite for thirty days, and Beth Hillel said that he [reverts to the] beginning of his status as a Nazirite.⁶³i.e. he has to start afresh; cf. ‘Eduy. IV, 11 (Sonc. ed., p. 28).

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: He puts it into the sauce²¹⁷Babli 45b [Num. rabba 6(39], as tannaïtic text. One takes from the sauce in which the well-being offering is cooked, wets the hair with it, and puts it into the fire.. What is the reason? “He puts it into the fire,²¹⁸Num. 6:18.” the sacrifice also into the fire.

It was stated²¹⁹Slightly different text in the Babli, 45b, Tosephta 4:6.: “All send under the cooking pot except the impure in the countryside. The pure²²⁰This “pure” refers to a nazir who was impure, had to bring a reparation offering for his impurity, but now is pure after having been sprinkled with the ashes of the Red Cow and been immersed in a miqweh. in the Temple brings it under the cooking-pot of the reparation sacrifice, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, the pure brings in any case, the impure does not bring in any case. But the Sages say, neither the impure in the Temple nor the pure in the countryside bring. Nobody sends under the cooking-pot except the one who shaves in purity.” “Outside the door of the Tent of Meeting.²¹⁸Num. 6:18.” Rebbi Meïr²²¹Obviously, the attributions have to be switched. The rabbis allow burning only if the nazir is pure at the Temple gate; Rebbi Meïr allows it if either he is pure or at the Temple gate. says, only if he is proper and near; but the rabbis²²¹Obviously, the attributions have to be switched. The rabbis allow burning only if the nazir is pure at the Temple gate; Rebbi Meïr allows it if either he is pure or at the Temple gate. say, proper even if not near, near even if not proper.

MISHNAH: He cooked the well-being offering or scalded²²²Cf. Nedarim 6:1, Note 1. it. A Cohen takes the cooked fore-leg of the ram, one unleavened loaf from the basket, and one unleavened thin bread, places it on the nazir’s hands and waves it²²³Num. 6:19–20.. Afterwards the nazir is permitted to drink wine and to defile himself with the dead. Rebbi Simeon says, when one of the bloods was sprinkled, the nazir is permitted to drink wine and to defile himself with the dead²²⁴In v. 20, the note that the nazir is now permitted to drink wine is an appendix to the text which deals exclusively with the Cohen, not the nazir. Therefore, it remains unclear whether the nazir is permitted only after all ceremonies or after the start of the ceremonies, when one of the sacrifices was validated by having its blood sprinkled on the walls of the altar [Num. rabba 6(41)]..

Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he polluted himself during his son’s nezirut but was warned because of his own nezirut, he is whipped¹¹⁶Since a nazir is forbidden by biblical law to pollute himself with the impurity of the dead (Num. 6:6–7), if he pollutes himself intentionally and his criminal intent was ascertained because he was warned by two witnesses not to pollute himself and he did it anyway, he is punished in criminal law. In order to lead to prosecution, the warning must correctly state the law which might be broken.. If he dedicated his sacrifices, they are sanctified¹¹⁷In the Babli, 14a, in a different context, R. Joḥanan holds that his two neziriot are only one extended vow. There, it is disputed by R. Simeon ben Laqish.. One does not consider what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “His sacrifice to the Eternal for his nezirut,¹¹⁸Num. 6:21. Tosephta 2:6, Halakhah 3:2 (52c 1. 37), Šebuot 4:4 (35c 1. 58) {Num. rabba 10:42}. In the parallel sources, the statement is accepted as practice.” i. e., his vow of nazir should precede his sacrifice, rather than that his sacrifice precede his vow of nazir.

It is written: “The Cohen takes the cooked fore-leg of the ram.²²⁶Num. 6:19” If cooked, I could think separately²²⁷Since the fore-leg becomes the property of the Cohen and will be forbidden to lay people, its holiness is greater than the remainder of the well-being offering which is consumed by the nazir and his family. The obvious question is whether it is permissible to cook meat of different degrees of holiness together, which is answered in the following paragraphs.. The verse says, “from the ram”. How is this? He cuts it off so that only a barley grain’s width remains. Does not the sanctified absorb from the profane, or the profane from the sanctified?²²⁸The question is answered in the following paragraphs which are paralleled in ‘Orlah 1:4, Notes 137–154. The readings from there are noted ע..

Rav said, waving stops the nazir²³³The nazir is not permitted to drink wine or become impure unless he perfomed the waving of his well-being sacrifice. This is also quoted in the Babli, 46a/b, but is rejected there as practice.. But did we not state: “The teachings for the nazir,²³⁴Num. 6:21.” whether or not he has wings²³⁵Tosephta 1:5, Babli 46b. “The teaching of the nazir” must be applicable to everybody, whether he has arms and hands (“wings”) or not. But since the wavings have to be given “on the nazir’s hands”, how can they be absolutely required if the nazir has no hands?? What Rav says, if he does, as it was stated thus: For somebody able to wave, waving stops him; for somebody unable to wave, waving does not stop him. Samuel says, measure²³⁶It is unclear what this means. Most authors emend “measure” to “waving”. stops a nazir, as for the waves and thumbs of a sufferer from skin disease²³⁷The poor sufferer from skin disease must wave his reparation offering (Lev. 14:24); every healed sufferer from skin disease must receive blood and oil on his right thumb and great toe (Lev. 14:14,17,25,28).. But did we not state: “The teachings for the sufferer from skin disease,²³⁸Lev. 14:2.” whether or not he has thumbs? He explains it following Rebbi Eliezer who said, he puts it on their place²³⁹Mishnah Nega‘im 14:9; SifraMeṣora‘Pereq 3(11); quoted similarly in the Babli Yoma 61b (cf. Diqduqe Soferim Yoma p. 171 Note ח). In Babli Nazir, 47b, (with a different editorial history) R. Eliezer holds that he cannot ever be purified; R. Simeon is quoted parallel to R. Eliezer in the other sources..

Where [does the translator] begin? At Oh this people have sinned.⁵⁷ibid. 31-35. This disagrees with Meg. quoted above. The blessing of the priests⁵⁸Num. 6, 24-27 which includes the phrase lift up … countenance which in the Heb. could be misunderstood in its lit. meaning of ‘favouritism’. and the stories of David⁵⁹2 Sam. 11, 2-17 which is discreditable to David. and Amnon⁶⁰ibid. XIII, 1-14 which records Amnon’s disgrace. are neither read nor translated.⁶¹So V and H in agreement with Meg. loc. cit.; but GRA and others omit the negative before ‘read’

It follows what Rebbi Ḥelbo said in the name of Rav Ḥuna: The priestly blessings are read but not translated¹⁸³This refers to the first sentence in Mishnah 12. The first sentence presupposes a reading “is read but not translated” as in the Babli whereas the question of R. Abba bar Cohen is based on the reading here which declares that the priestly blessing is not read from the Torah. There is no indication in the Palestinian Midrashim that this was actual practice.. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose, what is the reason? He told him, so you shall bless¹⁸⁴Num. 6:22., it was given as blessing, it was not given to be read.

MISHNAH: The priestly blessing¹⁸⁵Num. 6:24–27., the stories of David¹⁸⁶The story of David and Batsheva, 2S. 11. and Amnon¹⁸⁷The rape of Tamar, 2S. 13:1–22. are neither read nor translated. One does not close with the Chariot¹⁸⁸Ez. Chapter 1, the traditional reading from Prophets on Pentecost., but Rebbi Jehudah permits. And Rebbi Eliezer says, one does not close with tell Jerusalem its abominations¹⁸⁹Ez. Chap. 16..

R. Joshua of Siknin said in the name of R. Levi: Great is peace, for all benedictions and prayers conclude with ‘peace’. In the case of the benedictions of the Shema‘⁶²In the morning service two benedictions precede the Shema‘ and one benediction follows it; in the evening service two precede and two follow it (P.B., pp. 37ff., 96). one concludes with ‘peace’: ‘[Blessed art Thou, O Lord,] Who spreadest the tabernacle of peace’;⁶³The conclusion of the second benediction after the Shema‘ in the evening services on Sabbaths and Festivals (P.B., p. 114). in the case of prayers⁶⁴i.e. the ‘Amidah (P.B., pp. 44-54). one concludes with ‘peace’: ‘[Blessed art Thou, O Lord,] Who makest peace’.⁶⁵P.B., p. 54, where this formula is now used only during the penitential season, though originally said on all occasions. V and H include, but GRA deletes, ‘The benediction of the kohanim concludes with “peace” in and give them peace (Num. 6, 26)’.