## Mishnah Nazir Chapter 9

###### Mishnah Nazir 9:1
[Mishnah Nazir 9:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishnah%20Nazir/r/9:1)

הַגּוֹיִם אֵין לָהֶם נְזִירוּת. נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים יֵשׁ לָהֶם נְזִירוּת. חֹמֶר בַּנָּשִׁים מִבָּעֲבָדִים, שֶׁהוּא כוֹפֶה אֶת עַבְדּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ כוֹפֶה אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. חֹמֶר בָּעֲבָדִים מִבַּנָּשִׁים, שֶׁהוּא מֵפֵר נִדְרֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ מֵפֵר נִדְרֵי עַבְדּוֹ. הֵפֵר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, הֵפֵר עוֹלָמִית. הֵפֵר לְעַבְדּוֹ, יָצָא לְחֵרוּת מַשְׁלִים נְזִירוּתוֹ. עָבַר מִכְּנֶגֶד פָּנָיו, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, לֹא יִשְׁתֶּה, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, יִשְׁתֶּה:

**The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein:**
Naziritism does not obtain with gentiles. [Even though gentiles bring vow and gift offerings as Israelites do, if a gentile vowed Naziritism, it does not apply to him, and he is permitted to drink wine and to make himself unclean for the dead, it being written in the beginning of the section on Naziritism (Numbers 6:2): "Speak to the children of Israel" — Naziritism obtains with the children of Israel, and not with gentiles.] Naziritism obtains with women and with bondsmen. A stringency of women over bondsmen: One can force his bondsman [to drink wine and to make himself unclean for the dead], but he cannot force his wife. [And in other vows of affliction and of abstention from work, the master need not force his bondsmen, but they are voided of themselves, it being written (Numbers 30:3): "to bind a bond upon his soul" — one whose soul is like his own, to exclude a bondsman, whose "soul" is not his own. Likewise, with all oaths sworn by a bondsman, whether or not they are vows of affliction, his master need not force him, for they are voided of themselves, the bondsman having no jurisdiction over himself. But a bondsman is obligated to fulfill vows which do not entail affliction or abstention from his master's work, and his master cannot force their voidance.] A stringency of bondsmen over women: He can annul the vows of his wife, but he cannot annul the vows of his bondsman. [If he desired that his wife fulfill her vow after he had annulled it, she is not obligated to fulfill it once it has been annulled. But if he forced his bondsman to transgress his vow and then desired him to fulfill it, he must fulfill it. ] If he annulled his wife's (Naziritism), it is "eternally" annulled. If he annulled his bondsman's (Naziritism), when he goes out free, he completes his Naziritism. [Not literally, "annulled"; but if he forced his bondsman to drink wine or to make himself unclean for the dead, and then the bondsman went out free, he must complete his Naziritism. Rambam explains: If one says to his bondsman: "It (your Naziritism) is annulled," the master's rights in him dissolve, the bondsman gains his freedom thereby, and he must complete his Naziritism. (I am uneasy with this interpretation.)] If he (the bondsman) fled from him [after he had vowed Naziritism], R. Meir says: He should not drink (wine) [so that he be aggrieved and return to his master, who will force him to transgress his vow, and thus permit him to drink wine.] R. Yossi says: He should drink [so that he not take ill and die. For he is destined to return to his master. For his master will seek him out and take him back, so that it is as if he is in his master's domain].


###### Mishnah Nazir 9:2
[Mishnah Nazir 9:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishnah%20Nazir/r/9:2)

נָזִיר שֶׁגִּלַּח וְנוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא, אִם טֻמְאָה יְדוּעָה, סוֹתֵר. וְאִם טֻמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם, אֵינוֹ סוֹתֵר. אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא גִלַּח, בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ סוֹתֵר. כֵּיצַד, יָרַד לִטְבֹּל בִּמְעָרָה וְנִמְצָא מֵת צָף עַל פִּי הַמְּעָרָה, טָמֵא. נִמְצָא מְשֻׁקָּע בְּקַרְקַע הַמְּעָרָה, יָרַד לְהָקֵר, טָהוֹר. לִטַּהֵר מִטֻּמְאַת מֵת, טָמֵא, שֶׁחֶזְקַת טָמֵא טָמֵא וְחֶזְקַת טָהוֹר טָהוֹר, שֶׁרַגְלַיִם לַדָּבָר:

**The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein:**
If a Nazirite shaved, and then it became known to him that he had become unclean, [i.e., if he brought his offerings and shaved over them, and then he discovered that he had become unclean in the days of his Naziritism] — if it were known uncleanliness [uncleanliness that could be known of, as when it were not "buried in the depths"], it offsets, [and he counts another Naziritism.] And if it were "uncleanliness of the depths," it does not offset. [If it became known to him that in the place he had passed through there were "uncleanliness of the depths," i.e., uncleanliness which no one, even in the ends of the world, was aware of, even though it were definitely unclean, it does not offset, this being a halachah of Naziritism.] If [it became known to him] before he shaved, in either event, [whether it were known uncleanliness or uncleanliness of the depths], it offsets, [for the halachah that uncleanliness of the depths does not offset applies only after the shaving of cleanliness]. How so? [i.e., What is "uncleanliness of the depths"?] If he went down to immerse himself in (the waters of) a cave, and he found (matter from) a dead body floating on the surface of the cave, he is unclean. [If he were unclean with creeping-thing uncleanliness, or with something similar — not dead-body uncleanliness — and he went down to immerse (and cleanse himself) from his uncleanliness, and he found an olive-size (of matter) from a dead body floating on the surface of the water, and he were in doubt as to whether he had or had not become unclean, he is unclean. (As to the ruling that in the instance of uncleanliness floating on the surface of the water, he is clean, that refers to creeping-thing uncleanliness, but with dead-body uncleanliness, he is unclean.) And if this possibility became known to him after he had shaved, he is unclean. For this is known uncleanliness, since it was in a place where people would see it. As to its being stated: "If he went down to immerse," this is to strengthen the point, i.e., even though one who goes down to immerse from uncleanliness to cleanliness guards himself against all manner of uncleanliness, he is still unclean.] If it were found embedded in the soil of the cave [in the place where he immersed, so that he had become unclean of a certainty — if it became known to him after he had shaved, he is clean, and it does not offset (the Naziritism), this being "uncleanliness of the depths," it not having been known to anyone.], if he had gone down to cool off, he is clean. [Even if he had gone down to cool off, and not to immerse himself (in which instance he would take care to guard himself against uncleanliness), even so, he is clean], but (if he had gone down) to cleanse himself from dead-body uncleanliness, he is unclean. For a status of clean remains clean, and a status of unclean remains unclean. [If he went down to cleanse himself from dead-body uncleanliness, and immersed himself in a cave where a dead body was embedded, and he completed his Naziritism; or if he went down to cleanse himself from dead-body uncleanliness and then assumed Naziritism, he is unclean and offsets (his Naziritism). For a status of clean remains clean and a status of unclean remains unclean.] For there is a rationale for this, [for saying that the halachah that a Nazirite in the instance of "uncleanliness of the depths" is clean applies if he were in a status of clean, and not if he were in a status of unclean.]


###### Mishnah Nazir 9:3
[Mishnah Nazir 9:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishnah%20Nazir/r/9:3)

הַמּוֹצֵא מֵת בִּתְחִלָּה מֻשְׁכָּב כְּדַרְכּוֹ, נוֹטְלוֹ וְאֶת תְּבוּסָתוֹ. מָצָא שְׁנַיִם, נוֹטְלָן וְאֶת תְּבוּסָתָן. מָצָא שְׁלשָׁה, אִם יֵשׁ בֵּין זֶה לָזֶה מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת וְעַד שְׁמֹנֶה, הֲרֵי זוֹ שְׁכוּנַת קְבָרוֹת. בּוֹדֵק הֵימֶנּוּ וּלְהַלָּן עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה. מָצָא אֶחָד בְּסוֹף עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה, בּוֹדֵק הֵימֶנּוּ וּלְהַלָּן עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה, שֶׁרַגְלַיִם לַדָּבָר, שֶׁאִלּוּ מִתְּחִלָּה מְצָאוֹ, נוֹטְלוֹ וְאֶת תְּבוּסָתוֹ:

**The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein:**
If one found a dead body in the beginning [i.e., not having known that there was a grave there, as stated in the gemara: "If he found him," and not if he were already 'found.'" It is also derived from "dead" as opposed to "slain."], lying [and not sitting] in the usual position [and not with his head placed between his thighs, all such suspected to be gentiles. Jews not being buried in this manner], he is permitted to take it [(He may remove it from there and bury it elsewhere)]and its tevusah. [He must take some of the soil of the grave with him, as much as the body "takes up" (kedai tefisah), which is all the moist soil under it. And he digs three fingers in the virgin soil, viz. (Genesis 47:30): "And carry me from Egypt and bury me in their burying place" — The intent of the seemingly superfluous "from Egypt" is: Take some of the soil of Egypt with me.] If he found two, he takes them and their tevusah. If he found three — if there were between one and the other from four cubits until eight [That is, if from the first grave until the third, there were not less than four cubits and not more than eight], it is a burial area, [it being clear that they were interred there, and it is forbidden to remove them. But if there were only one or two, we assume that they were buried there only temporarily, to be reinterred elsewhere. If there were three, however, this is indication of a burial plot. The conventional crypt was six cubits long and four cubits wide, and its diagonal, an additional two cubits (whence "eight"). This explains "from four cubits until eight." ("the full space of a litter and its buriers" is to be omitted)] He examines from it onwards twenty cubits, [For the crypt was four cubits by six, and the space that the crypt opened onto, six by six on either side (as per the view of the rabbis. Bava Bathra 102b), so that the length of two crypts and the space between them was eighteen cubits. And because sometimes he examines one crypt on its diagonal, which is approximately two cubits longer, there are twenty cubits (to examine): eight of the first crypt, six of the intervening space, and six of the second crypt (for one diagonal is posited, but not two). This accounts for "twenty." (And he must further examine twenty cubits from top to bottom, forty cubits.) For this might be the crypt at the east of the space, and there might be another opposite, at the west of the space. Or this might be the crypt at the west of the space, and there might be another at the east of the space.] If he found one at the end of twenty cubits, he examines from it onwards twenty cubits. [For who is to say that that crypt is part of this burial ground? Perhaps it is part of a different ground belonging to a different person. And all of the above examinations must, likewise, be made here. For just as there is a grave there, there might be others.] For there is a rationale for this [i.e., for saying that this field was made for graves, and that there were also other crypts there. (All of these Mishnayoth are included here by reason of "There is a rationale for this.")] For if he found it first, he would remove it and its tevusah (see above).


###### Mishnah Nazir 9:4
[Mishnah Nazir 9:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishnah%20Nazir/r/9:4)

כָּל סְפֵק נְגָעִים בַּתְּחִלָּה, טָהוֹר עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִזְקַק לַטֻּמְאָה. מִשֶּׁנִּזְקַק לַטֻּמְאָה, סְפֵקוֹ טָמֵא. בְּשִׁבְעָה דְרָכִים בּוֹדְקִין אֶת הַזָּב עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִזְקַק לַזִּיבָה. בְּמַאֲכָל, וּבְמִשְׁתֶּה, בְּמַשָּׂא, וּבִקְפִיצָה, וּבְחֹלִי, וּבְמַרְאֶה, וּבְהִרְהוּר. מִשֶּׁנִּזְקַק לַזִּיבָה, אֵין בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ. אָנְסוֹ וּסְפֵקוֹ וְשִׁכְבַת זַרְעוֹ, טְמֵאִין, שֶׁרַגְלַיִם לַדָּבָר. הַמַּכֶּה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ וַאֲמָדוּהוּ לְמִיתָה, וְהֵקֵל מִמַּה שֶּׁהָיָה, לְאַחַר מִכָּאן הִכְבִּיד וּמֵת, חַיָּב. רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר, פָּטוּר, שֶׁרַגְלַיִם לַדָּבָר:

**The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein:**
Every doubtful instance of plague-spots, in the beginning, is clean, [as when two came before a Cohein: one, with a bahereth (a bright spot) the size of a garis; the other, with a bahereth the size of a sela. And at the end of the week, each one's spot was the size of a sela (larger than a garis). If it were not known in which one the spreading had taken place, they are both (pronounced) clean, even though one of them is definitely unclean.)] This, so long as they had not been uncleanliness-linked. Once they had been uncleanliness-linked, a doubtful instance is unclean, [as when two came before a Cohein: one with a bahereth the size of a garis; the other with a bahereth the size of sela. And at the end of the week, each one's spot was the size of a sela and some addition, and then they reverted to the size of a sela. Even though one of them was definitely clean, the spreading having gone, both of them are pronounced unclean since they had been uncleanliness-linked (until the spots return to the size of a garis)]. In seven ways a zav (one with a genital discharge) is examined. [For if he "saw" (i.e., if the discharge was) by accident, he is clean, this being derived from (Leviticus 15:2): "…if there be a discharge from his flesh" — from (the nature of) his flesh, and not by accident.] This, so long as he had not been uncleanliness-linked. [That is, until the second sighting, when he becomes a confirmed zav, to produce lying and sitting uncleanliness. But at the first sighting, he produces uncleanliness until evening, as a ba'al keri (one with a seminal discharge), and it combines with the second even if it were by accident.] (the seven ways:) through eating [eating things conducive to zivah (the genital discharge), e.g., fat meat, milk, cheese, eggs, and old wine], through drinking [an abundance of drinking], through carrying [heavy loads], through jumping, through sickness, through looking [seeing a beautiful woman, even without thinking about her], and through thinking [even without looking. If he experienced any of these before the second sighting, he does not become a zav, and the drop does not produce carrying uncleanliness.] Once he has become zivah-linked [i.e., after the second-sighting, not by accident], he is not examined. [And even if the third sighting were by accident, he becomes a zav liable for an offering]. And his "doubt" and his semen are unclean, [his doubt because of his semen, i.e., if he saw semen first and a drop of zivah afterwards, it does not produce uncleanliness. For one who sees semen does not produce zivah uncleanliness for twenty-four hours. As long as he has not become zivah-linked, the semen "cleanses" the zivah, as having been caused by accident. But after he had become uncleanliness-linked, the semen does not cleanse the zivah, it not being assumed that the zivah discharge was produced by the seminal discharge]. For there is a rationale for this [i.e., for saying that the zivah sighting was not caused by accident, since he had already become a zav.] If a man struck his neighbor and he were diagnosed as dying, and then his condition improved, and then it worsened and he died, he (the smiter) is liable. R. Nechemiah says: He is not liable, for there is a rationale for this [i.e., for saying that he did not die because of the blow; for his condition had improved after it. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Nechemiah.]


###### Mishnah Nazir 9:5
[Mishnah Nazir 9:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishnah%20Nazir/r/9:5)

נָזִיר הָיָה שְׁמוּאֵל, כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי נְהוֹרַאי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמואל א א) וּמוֹרָה לֹא יַעֲלֶה עַל רֹאשׁוֹ, נֶאֱמַר בְּשִׁמְשׁוֹן (שופטים יג) וּמוֹרָה, וְנֶאֱמַר בִּשְׁמוּאֵל וּמוֹרָה, מַה מּוֹרָה הָאֲמוּרָה בְשִׁמְשׁוֹן, נָזִיר, אַף מוֹרָה הָאֲמוּרָה בִשְׁמוּאֵל, נָזִיר. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, וַהֲלֹא אֵין מוֹרָה אֶלָּא שֶׁל בָּשָׂר וָדָם. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי נְהוֹרַאי, וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר (שמואל א טז) וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁמוּאֵל אֵיךְ אֵלֵךְ וְשָׁמַע שָׁאוּל וַהֲרָגָנִי, שֶׁכְּבָר הָיָה עָלָיו מוֹרָה שֶׁל בָּשָׂר וָדָם:

**The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein:**
Shmuel was a Nazirite [And if one says: "I shall be like Shmuel" or "like the son of Elkanah," or "like the one who clove Agag in Gilgal," he becomes a Nazirite according to R. Nehorai. And this is the halachah.] As R. Nehorai said: It is written (I Samuel 1:11): "And morah shall not come upon his (Shmuel's) head." And, in respect to Shimshon (Judges 13:5): "And morah (a razor) shall not come upon his head, for a Nazirite of G d shall he be." Just as "morah" in respect to Shimshon refers to Naziritism, so "morah" in respect to Shmuel refers to Naziritism. R. Yossi demurred: Is (the first) morah not "fear" of flesh and blood? [i.e., that Shmuel not be in fear and awe of men] R. Nehorai answered: But is it not already written (I Samuel 16:2): "And Shmuel said: 'How can I go (to anoint David)? If Saul hears of it, he will kill me!'" which indicates that he did fear flesh and blood (so that "morah" in respect to Shmuel must mean a razor, and not fear.)