MISHNAH: Three kinds are forbidden for the nazir: Impurity, shaving, and anything coming from the vine. Everything coming from the vine is added together¹ makes it clear that the most minute amount is forbidden. But a nazir cannot cleanse himself by a purification sacrifice (or, if duly warned by two witnesses, cannot be criminally prosecuted for desecrating his holy status) unless he consumed more than the legal minimum. For most matters of food, the legal minimum is the size of an average olive used for the production of oil (cf. H. Guggenheimer, The Scholar’s Haggadah, Northvale 1995, pp. 326–328). For beverages, the standard is the revi‘it, definined by the Mishnah (Kelim 17:11) as Roman quartarius, 133 ml (loc. cit. pp. 212–213).. He is only guilty when he eats grapes in the volume of an olive; according to the early Mishnah if he drinks a quartarius of wine² of juice could be extracted.. Rebbi Aqiba says, even if he dipped his bread in wine for a total volume³ of an olive, he is guilty.

footnotes: ¹ The verse prohibiting “anything coming from the vine” to the nazir ² Or eats an amount of grapes from which a quartarius ³ The bread plus the wine absorbed in it.

HALAKHAH: “Three kinds are forbidden for the nazir,” etc. Impurity, as it is written⁴. 6:6.: “During all the days he vowed to the Eternal he shall not come close to a human corpse.” Shaving, as it is written⁵. 6:5.: “During all the days of his nazir vow, a shaving knife shall not come onto his head.” Anything from the vine, as it is written⁶. 6:4.: “During all the days of his vow, of anything coming from the wine-vine [he shall not eat.]”

footnotes: ⁴ Lev ⁵ Lev ⁶ Lev

⁷ 7:2 (9c, 1. 11 ff.), as will be seen in the commentary. The variant readings refer to that text. The introductory section is from Šabbat 7:1 (9a, 1. 20–24), the one variant in spelling there is noted by: א. Mishnah Šabbat 7:2 states that on the Sabbath, 39 different activities are forbidden. This means that a person who violates the Sabbath unintentionally may be liable for up to 39 purification sacrifices. The question then appears whether in other cases multiple sacrifices also are necessary. Rav Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody sacrificed, burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting⁸, he is guilty for each action separately⁹ 72a, Sanhedrin 62a, the positions of R. Joḥanan and R. Zakkai are switched.. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, Babylonian! You crossed three rivers with your hands¹⁰ and were broken. He is guilty only once! ¹¹ 7:1 (fol. 9a) which deals with the introductory sentence to the chapter of purification offerings, Lev. 4:2: “Speak to the Children of Israel, saying: If a person sins unintentionally against any commandments of the Eternal that are not to be broken, and did from any one, from those.” This implies that sometimes a purification offering is due for violating one prohibition, and sometimes one sacrifice is valid for a number of those. In general, the answer depends on what was unintentional. If a person does not know that today is Sabbath, for all he does wrong he owes one sacrifice. If he knows that it is Sabbath but forgot what is forbidden, he owes one sacrifice for each category of forbidden work. The problem is first whether this principle also applies to idolatry, the sacrifice for which is not described in Lev. 4 but in Num. 15:22–26, and second what is the status of the details enumerated in the Second Commandment, in particular why a detail, “do not prostrate yourself before them” is mentioned before the principle “do not serve them”.{Before he broke¹² in his hand there is “one” but not “those”; after he broke in his hand there are “those” but not “one”.} Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Should he not be guilty for each action separately? As you say for the Sabbath: “Do not perform any work¹³. 20:10.,” principle. “Do not light fire in any of your dwelling places,¹⁴. 35:3.” a detail. Was not lighting fire subsumed under the principle, but it is mentioned separately from this principle! Since lighting fire is special in that it is the work of a single individual¹⁵ and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which alone one is guilty¹⁶ 2; Pereq 1(1)]. In the text this is called “principle and detail”, which in the technical language of the Babli refers to the completely different rule No. 5 [Sifra Introduction (1,7)]. In Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 347 the argument is attributed to R. Jonathan (who in the Babli, Šabbat 70a, appears as R. Nathan.) Whether there is a connection between rules 5 and 9 is left open in the Babli, Baba qama 85a, decided in the negative in Menaḥot 55b. Menahem Cahana, in an exhaustive study of the problem (קווים לתולדות התפתחותה של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים p. 173–216 in: Studies in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature in Memory of Tirzah Lifshitz) holds that the original Tannaïtic theory knew only of two principles, one which corresponded to the later (Babli, Sifra, Sifry) rules entitled “principle and detail”, “detail and principle”, “principle and detail and principle”; the other one referring to all rules which in Babylonian formulation start with “any detail which was subsumed under a principle”. His arguments support the thesis of the present commentary that Mekhilta, Sifra, Sifry (and Tosephta) in our hands are essentially Babylonian editions.. Also here¹⁷: “Do not worship them,¹⁸. 20:5.” a principle. “Do not prostrate yourself,¹⁸. 20:5.” a detail. Was not prostrating itself included in the principle and why was it mentioned separately? To infer, to tell you that prostrating oneself is special in that it is the work of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which alone one is guilty¹⁶ 2; Pereq 1(1)]. In the text this is called “principle and detail”, which in the technical language of the Babli refers to the completely different rule No. 5 [Sifra Introduction (1,7)]. In Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 347 the argument is attributed to R. Jonathan (who in the Babli, Šabbat 70a, appears as R. Nathan.) Whether there is a connection between rules 5 and 9 is left open in the Babli, Baba qama 85a, decided in the negative in Menaḥot 55b. Menahem Cahana, in an exhaustive study of the problem (קווים לתולדות התפתחותה של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים p. 173–216 in: Studies in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature in Memory of Tirzah Lifshitz) holds that the original Tannaïtic theory knew only of two principles, one which corresponded to the later (Babli, Sifra, Sifry) rules entitled “principle and detail”, “detail and principle”, “principle and detail and principle”; the other one referring to all rules which in Babylonian formulation start with “any detail which was subsumed under a principle”. His arguments support the thesis of the present commentary that Mekhilta, Sifra, Sifry (and Tosephta) in our hands are essentially Babylonian editions.. He answered¹⁹.: For the Sabbath, he mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place. For idol worship, the principle is found close to the detail²⁰. He retorted: Is it not witten: “Do not prostrate yourself before another power”²¹. 34:14.? He did not state the principle and the detail at the same spot! He said, since you do not infer anything from it close up, you cannot infer anything from afar²². 20:5.. The colleagues say, it makes no difference; whether He gave the principle at one place and the detail at another, or gave principle and detail at the same place, it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He first gave the principle and then the detail. For idolatry, He gave the detail and only later the principle²³. Rebbi Yose said, it makes no difference whether ²⁴.[He first gave the principle and then the detail or He gave the detail and only later the principle, or He gave principle, detail, and principle²⁵]; it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He gave a general prohibition of work, followed by details; for idolatry, He was indeterminate regarding its worship but detailed the worship of Heaven²⁶.

footnotes: ⁷ This paragraph and the next are from Šabbat ⁸ He committed idolatry but forgot that sacrificing, burning incense, and pouring libations are forbidden as idolatrous actions, or he was conscious that these acts are part of idolatry but forgot that idolatry was forbidden. ⁹ In the Babli, Šabbat ¹⁰ Tigris, Euphrates, and Jordan. ¹¹ The sentences in braces are unintelligible here; they refer to and are quoted from a discussion in Šabbat ¹² The reference to “breaking” here is a continuation of R. Joḥanan’s criticism of Rav Zakkai (who in the Babli is Rebbi Zakkai): If the Second Commandment is considered a unit, there are no “those” to be applied to idolatry. If all activities mentioned are separate rules, how can one bring only one sacrifice? ¹³ Ex ¹⁴ Ex ¹⁵ A forbidden action on the Sabbath which is executed only by the common effort of several people is not prosecutable. ¹⁶ Needs a separate sacrifice. This is an application of the 9th hermeneutical principle of R. Ismael: Any detail which was subsumed under a principle but is mentioned separately in order to instruct, was not mentioned for itself but to explain the entire principle [Sifra Introduction ¹⁷ Regarding idolatry. ¹⁸ Ex ¹⁸ Ex ¹⁶ Needs a separate sacrifice. This is an application of the 9th hermeneutical principle of R. Ismael: Any detail which was subsumed under a principle but is mentioned separately in order to instruct, was not mentioned for itself but to explain the entire principle [Sifra Introduction ¹⁹ R. Ze‘ira, answering R. Abba bar Mamal. The translation follows the text in Šabbat ²⁰ In the same sentence. If “prostrating” had been mentioned after “serving”, the 5th hermeneutical principle would imply that the two notions are identical in intent. As the verse stands, it cannot be interpreted as “principle and detail”. ²¹ Ex ²² Since 34:14 does not teach anything not contained in Ex ²³ Therefore, the 9th principle does not apply to idolatry since the detail does not follow after the principle. ²⁴ Text from Šabbat ²⁵ This really is the case for the Second Comandment. ²⁶ The prohibition refers to performing for idolatry any ceremony commanded for the worship of Heaven. The case of R. Zakkai really has no connection with the argument about the status of the mention of prostrating oneself in the Second Commandment.

Rebbi Mana said, lighting fire was mentioned unnecessarily²⁸ work forbidden on the Sabbath.; prostrating oneself was mentioned by necessity to explain about itself since it is not work²⁹. This follows what Ḥizqiah stated: “He who sacrifices to powers shall be banned³⁰. 22:19. This explains the punishment for idolatrous acts forbidden in the Second Commandment. This is the interpretation in all of talmudic literature (Babli Sanhedrin 60b, Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 310, dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai p. 210.) (Nowhere in rabbinic literature does one find the more obvious explanation of Ex. 22:19: “Anyone sacrificing to the Elohim (God as Creator, Ruler of the physical world) shall be banned, only to YHWH (God the Merciful and Dispenser of Grace) alone.” In all of Lev. and Num., there is never any mention of a sacrifice to Elohim.}.” Sacrificing was mentioned separately to teach about everything³¹, prostrating oneself to explain about itself since it is not work. Rebbi Jeremiah said, lighting fire was mentioned by necessity, to teach that courts should not sit on the Sabbath³² 6b, this is a Tannaïtic statement from the school of R. Ismael, appended to an argument also quoted in Mekhilta dR. Ismael, ויקהל.. What is the reason? It says here, “in all your settlements” and it says there, “these should be rules of law for your generations, in all your settlements³³. 35:29. The quote is correct in Šabbat..” Since “settlements” mentioned there refers to courts, “settlements” referred to here also refers to courts. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, even if you say that it was mentioned by necessity, it is as if it were mentioned unnecessarily³⁴. 35:29, not on Ex. 22:19, the latter verse can be used in an application of the 9th rule., and anything mentioned unnecessarily teaches.

footnotes: ²⁸ Since the prohibition of making fire is implied in the Fourth Commandment in any reasonable interpretation. Therefore, making fire is a detail which can be used to characterize all ²⁹ Nothing is changed or produced by prostrating oneself; it is not obvious that it should be forbidden under any circumstances. ³⁰ Ex ³¹ Since punishment for sacrificing is spelled out separately, any punishment for an act of idolatry must be given separately by the 9th rule, supporting R. Zakkai against R. Joḥanan. ³² In the Babli, Yebamot ³³ Num ³⁴ Since the argument is based on Num

But here, skins and seeds were understood in the principle, and were listed separately³⁵. 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 there³⁶, 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 twigs³⁷. But was it not stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer³⁸. #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. There³⁹, 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 additions⁴⁰.

footnotes: ³⁵ In Num ³⁶ The rules of the Sabbath. ³⁷ Which may not be directly edible. But vine leaves are used in cooking, supporting R. Eliezer. ³⁸ Babli 34b, Sifry Num ³⁹ While this paragraph is not found in Šabbat ⁴⁰ Reading לְצֵירוּפִין for לצירוכין of the text.

Warning⁴¹ 11:1, Note 47. for one who eats carcass meat, from where? “You shall not eat any carcass meat.⁴². 14:21.” That covers carcass meat; from a “torn”⁴³ 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” animal⁴⁴. 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 meat⁴². 14:21.;” “you shall not eat of life with the flesh¹⁴⁶.” 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’⁴⁷. 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 ground⁴⁸ 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 it⁴⁹. 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,⁵⁰. 7:24.” “and blood you shall not eat,⁵¹. 7:26.” and it is written: “Any suet and any blood you shall not eat.⁵². 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 drink⁵³. 6:3.,” and it is written, “from skins to seeds he shall not eat⁵⁴. 6:4..” Then because He repeated it and combined it, one should be guilty only once!⁵⁵ 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 unto⁵⁶ seeds,” to declare him guilty for each case separately.

footnotes: ⁴¹ An 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 ⁴² Deut ⁴³ Ṭerephah ⁴⁴ The verse must forbid more than carcass meat, otherwise the mention of “all” was superfluous. The argument is reported as tannaitic in Sifry Deut ⁴² Deut ¹ 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.) ⁴⁶ The 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.) ⁴⁷ Ex ⁴⁸ Vegetables. ⁴⁹ It is impossible to say that Ex ⁵⁰ Lev ⁵¹ Lev ⁵² Lev ⁵³ Num ⁵⁴ Num ⁵⁵ But Mishnah 6:2 will state that the nazir ⁵⁶ A redundant word, not really required by the context.

Rebbi [Yose]⁵⁷; needed by the context and historical considerations. said to the colleagues: You should know that Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree: If somebody split a limb from a living animal and ate it, everybody agrees that he is free from prosecution⁵⁸ 103b (s.v. מהו): “In general, undersized parts of forbidden food consumed in the same meal are added together (Babli Yoma 80b). But the prohibition of limbs from a living animal is particular since in general inedible sinews and bones (of carcass and “torn” meat) are not forbidden food. By contrast, here one would be guilty since there is no limb without sinews and bones. One may say that its rules are separate and if one eats it in one piece one is guilty, since this is the normal way of eating, but not in minute pieces.”. Where do they disagree? If he split it in his mouth before he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan considers his mouth as inside, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish considers his mouth as outside⁵⁹. They asked him, what do you say? He answered them, I informed you that mighty mountains disagree, and you ask this? If it is so, even if he split it outside and then ate, he should be guilty! Why? That is how one eats⁶⁰ 103b, this is R. Eleazar’s opinion. The configuration of the food is irrelevant.. If somebody split an ant in his mouth⁶¹. 11:41) irrespective of size (cf. Berakhot 6:1, Note 17). In the Babli, Makkot 16b, eating an ant is counted as violating up to five prohibitions simultaneously. and ate it, that is the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish⁶². Rebbi Maisha asked Rebbi Ze‘ira: If he⁶³, who can be criminallyprosecuted for eating an olive’s volume of grapes. split a grape in his mouth and ate it, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? He answered, there⁶⁴ 2:1); similarly, crawling animals are called “impure”. An entire crawling animal is always impure. But all parts of such an animal cut into pieces smaller than lentils are pure. it is something for which there is a prohibition and impurity. In a circumstance in which its impurity disappeard, its prohibition disappeared. But here is a prohibition and no impurity⁶⁵ only the total amount consumed is relevant.. Rebbi Abba ben Rebbi Mamal asked: If he split an olive-sized bit of mazzah⁶⁶ (in the minimal amount of one olive’s size); Ex. 12:18. in his mouth and ate it, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in the other cases, his palate did not enjoy an olive sized bit⁶⁷. The rabbis of Caesarea said that Rebbi Nisa asked: If he split in his mouth pomegranate berries⁶⁸ 6:1, Note 18). which are ‘orlah⁶⁹ and ate them, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Where do we hold? If because of fluids, we already did state: “Nothing makes impure as a drink except what comes from olives and grapes.⁷⁰ 11:3. Therefore, the pomegranate berries are food and follow the rules of food.” The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain it if he swallowed them⁷¹ can be prosecuted since it means eating a complete creature. But if the berry is eaten after being split into two parts, one might assume that R. Joḥanan will agree with R. Simeon ben Laqish that one cannot be prosecuted..

footnotes: ⁵⁷ Missing in ms. and editio princeps ⁵⁸ He has an olive-sized piece of flesh taken from a living animal and splits it in two. Neither piece has the minimum size that would make prosecution possible. He eats both pieces in one meal. As Rashi explains in Ḥulin ⁵⁹ In the interpretation of the Babli, for R. Joḥanan the prohibition is triggered by the palate’s enjoyment, for R. Simeon ben Laqish by the act of swallowing. ⁶⁰ In the Babli, Ḥulin ⁶¹ Since an ant is a complete creature, it is forbidden food (Lev ⁶² According to R. Simeon ben Laqish, what he did is forbidden but not prosecutable. ⁶³ A nazir ⁶⁴ A limb taken from a living animal causes impurity (Ahilut ⁶⁵ R. Simeon ben Laqish will agree that for the nazir ⁶⁶ In the first night of Passover, when there is a biblical commandment to eat mazzah ⁶⁷ Here also, R. Simeon ben Laqish will agree with R. Joḥanan. ⁶⁸ The berries of the pomegranate, each containing a single seed. Such a berry is a creature (cf. Berakhot ⁶⁹ Harvested before the tree is three years old, when all usufruct is forbidden. ⁷⁰ Mishnah Terumot ⁷¹ A pomegranate berry is much smaller than an olive. It is agreed that eating a whole berry of ‘orlah

A “torn” [creature] that was turned into a carcass⁷². Rebbi Yasa, the son of Rebbi Yasa’s daughter, in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan says, he is guilty twice; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty only once. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose, the following⁷³ 11(8). supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “ ‘Any person who would eat any carcass meat⁷⁴. 17:15.,’ why does the verse say ‘and torn’? If a ‘torn’ animal can survive, was ‘carcass meat’ mentioned before⁷⁵. 11:26, Deut. 14:9) are ritually pure while alive.] If a “torn” animal can survive and was ritually slaughtered, it does not become impure.? If a ‘torn’ animal must die, is it not included in ‘carcass meat’ ”⁷⁶, the argument is inverted to prove that a “torn” animal, if ritually slaughtered, is not impure even as it is forbidden food.)? Should he not say, it is carcass meat? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The reason of Rebbi Yose⁷⁷: “Do not defile yourself by animals and birds⁷⁸. 20:25, which is not quoted: “Do not defile yourself by animals and birds, and anything which crawls on the ground, which I separated for you as impure.” Now anything crawling on the ground (and in the water) is forbidden as food, but impurity caused by dead bodies is restricted to mammals, birds, and the Eight Reptiles enumerated in Lev. 11:29–30.,” but only the Eight Reptiles impart impurity! But the measure of their impurities is the measure of their uses as food⁷⁹. 8:20). By inference, non-kosher animals are called “impure” even while alive and technically pure.. Rebbi Eleazar objected⁸⁰: May not the limbs of pure animals impart impurity in the most minute amount⁸¹ 1:7. but as food only in the volume of an olive? He accepted it. What is meant by “he accepted it”? Like a person who said, the opponent accepted it. Ḥiyya bar Abba said: “You shall not [eat] any carcass meat.” The Torah identified all eating together. Rebbi Ḥanina objected: Is not the impurity of the Eight Reptiles in the size of a lentil, but as food in the volume of an olive, whether for blood or for meat⁸² 15b, R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina states, as explanation of his inference (Note 78) that eating parts of any of the Eight Reptiles is prosecutable in amounts the size of a lentil (Maimonides Ma‘akhalot asurot 2:7). The identity of the rules for blood and flesh of these reptiles is Mishnah Me‘ilah 4:3, for the rules of impurity Sifra Šemini Parašah 5(2), Pereq 7(6).?

footnotes: ⁷² If a “torn” animal was not slaughtered according to the rules, is the meat forbidden under one or two statutes? ⁷³ Sifra Aḥare Pereq ⁷⁴ Lev ⁷⁵ No animal is ritually impure while alive. [Even the “impure” animals forbidden as food (Lev ⁷⁶ If a “torn” animal must die in the short run, it simply becomes impure as a carcass. The mention of “torn” in the verse seems superfluous; it can only be justified as adding another prohibition. (In Sifra ⁷⁷ Who seems to accept his son’s argument. ⁷⁸ The argument refers to the part of the verse, Lev ⁷⁹ Since even in biblical usage, mammals and birds acceptable as food are called “pure” (Gen ⁸⁰ To R. Abbahu. ⁸¹ Mishnah Ahilut ⁸² In the Babli, Me‘ilah

Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarti asked: Then one who eats a limb from a kosher living animal should be guilty on two counts⁸³, because of “you shall not eat any carcass meat⁴². 14:21.⁸⁴;” and because of “you shall not eat of life with the flesh⁴⁵. 12:23. It is forbidden to cat 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.).” Does one argue from kosher abour non-kosher animals? But did not Rebbi Eleazar argue⁸⁰ from kosher about non-kosher animals? Then one who eats a limb from a non-kosher living animal should be guilty on three counts, because of “you shall not eat any carcass meat⁴². 14:21.;” and because of “you shall not eat of life with the flesh⁴⁵. 12:23. It is forbidden to cat 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.)”; and because of “you shall not eat from their flesh.⁸⁵. 11:8. The verse also connects food prohibition and impurity: “you shall not eat from their flesh nor touch their carcasses”. The prohibition of touching applies to people intending to enter the holy precinct.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: If somebody ate five ants together, in one forgetting⁸⁶, he is guilty for each one separately because of “creature”⁶¹. 11:41) irrespective of size (cf. Berakhot 6:1, Note 17). In the Babli, Makkot 16b, eating an ant is counted as violating up to five prohibitions simultaneously.. If he fragmented and ate them, he is guilty only once, if together they amount to the volume of an olive. If he ate of the fragments in the volume of an olive, he is guilty; if he ate of the fragments in the volume of an olive and an ant, he is guilty twice⁸⁷ 16b.. If this is correct, then if he ate of the fragments less than the volume of an olive and an ant completed the volume of an olive, is he guilty twice⁸⁸? If this is correct, if the ate an ant the size of an olive, is he guilty twice? The same rule applies to combinations⁸⁹ of a nazir. If he ate of the combinations in the volume of an olive, he is guilty. If he ate of the combinations in the volume of an olive and a grape berry, is he guilty twice⁹⁰. 6:4; for the single intact grape berry he violates Num. 6:3.? If this is correct, then if he ate a grape berry for the volume ofan olive, is he guilty twice? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All [food] prohibitions combine together⁹¹ 66a, this is a tannaitic statement derived from Deut. 14:3. to be whipped for the volume of an olive, but for an ant one is guilty twice. Then if he ate prohibited food and an ant completed the volume of an olive, he is guilty twice. Then if he ate an ant the volume of an olive, he is guilty twice.

footnotes: ⁸³ He argues against R. Joḥanan who stated that one who eats a limb from a “torn” animal violates two laws at the same time. Why should the verses quoted not apply to a completely healthy kosher animal? ⁴² Deut ⁸⁴ Since the impurity of limbs from a living animal is identical with the impurity of carcasses, and by the argument of R. Yose ben Hanina food prohibitions follow impurity. ⁴⁵ Deut ⁸⁰ To R. Abbahu. ⁴² Deut ⁴⁵ Deut ⁸⁵ Lev ⁸⁶ Even though all sins of the same kind incurred while one was oblivious of the prohibition can be atoned for by one purification sacrifice, each creature is in a category by itself. ⁶¹ Since an ant is a complete creature, it is forbidden food (Lev ⁸⁷ The same argument, applied to the Babli’s opinion (Note 62), is in the Babli Makkot ⁸⁸ Since the ant it counted for itself, can it be counted with the volume filled by the forbidden pieces? ⁸⁹ As enumerated in Mishnah 2, combining wine, vinegar, leaves, husks, pomace, etc. ⁹⁰ For eating the volume of an olive from the produce of the vine he violates Num ⁹¹ In the Babli, ‘Avodah zarah

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One estimates [food] prohibitions as if they concerned onions or leeks⁹² 10:1, Notes 10–11.. This parallels what Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: If carcass meat disappeared among slaughtered meat⁹³ 23a, only the impurity transmitted by touch has disappeared, not the impurity tranmitted by carrying without touching, Lev. 11:40.), its [impurity by] touch has disappeared by biblical law.

footnotes: ⁹² Cf. Terumot ⁹³ A piece of carcass meat is mixed up with slaughtered meat, and if the volume of the carcass meat were filled by onions and leeks one could not taste the onions after cooking, then the impurity of carcass meat also has disappeared (in the opinion of the Babli, Bekhorot

⁹⁴ 2:6 (Notes 136–152). Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Ḥiya bar Yosef objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: Take, for example, meat in milk, where he did not taste the forbidden thing itself and you say that he is whipped! He accepted that. What is meant by: he accepted that? Rebbi Ḥiya bar Abun said before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Like a person who listens to the argument of the opposing party he accepted it.

footnotes: ⁹⁴ This and the next paragraph are from ‘Orlah

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]⁹⁵ 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 tasted¹⁵² 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.”

footnotes: ⁹⁵ Missing here, added from the text in ‘Orlah ¹⁵² The impure nazir

“According to the early Mishnah if he drinks a quartarius of wine.” They did explain “liquor”. Since “liquor” mentioned there⁹⁶. 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.⁹⁷. 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.

footnotes: ⁹⁶ Lev ⁹⁷ Num

“Rebbi Aqiba says, even if he dipped his bread in wine for a total volume³ 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 cup⁹⁸ one whips because of soaking. That is, if they did (not)⁹⁹ 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 grapes¹⁰⁰. 6:3..” Not only soaking grapes, from where soaking grape skins? The verse says “soaked, anything soaked,” that all kinds of soaking are counted¹⁰¹. Mixed wine combines with pure wine¹⁰².. 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 guilty¹⁰³. Separately¹⁰⁴, 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 once¹⁰⁵.

footnotes: ³ The bread plus the wine absorbed in it. ⁹⁸ One third wine mixed with two thirds water. ⁹⁹ This word seems to be an error. It seems that R. Immi stated that if the nazir ¹⁰⁰ Num ¹⁰¹ Cf. Note 44. ¹⁰² Half an olive’s volume pure wine and half an olive mixed wine result in an olive of forbidden drink for the nazir ¹⁰³ The context shows that this sentence is interrogatory. ¹⁰⁴ Drinking the two parts at different times. ¹⁰⁵ This is quite obvious; it is stated only as contrast to the preceding case, in which combining made things worse.

MISHNAH: One is guilty for wine separately, for grapes separately, for grape skins separately, for seeds separately¹⁰⁶. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, he is guilty only if he eats two חרצנים and their זגים¹⁰⁷. What are חרצנים and what זגים¹⁰⁸.? חרצנים are the outer skins, זגים the inner (seeds), the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said, that you should make no mistake¹⁰⁹, like an animal’s bell, the outer shell is זוג, the inner the clapper.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁶ All types of produce of the vine enumerated in the verses represent separate prohibitions; cf. Note 35. ¹⁰⁷ Since a plural implies a minimum of 2. ¹⁰⁸ Both expressions are unexplained hapax legomena ¹⁰⁹ He disagrees with R. Jehudah and defines חרצן as seed, זג as skin (cf. Arabic زجّ “to be transparent”). The interpretation of R. Yose is accepted in the Babli (39a) and Targum Onkelos. Targum Yerushalmi follows R. Jehudah.

HALAKHAH: “One is guilty for wine separately, for grapes separately,” etc. It is written¹¹⁰. 6:3.: “Also grapes, fresh or dried, he shall not eat.” One understands, since it said “grapes”, do we not know that they are fresh¹¹¹? 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 fruits¹¹², 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.¹¹³. 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 separately¹¹⁴. 272, the conclusion arrived at here is taken as the obvious meaning of the verse..

footnotes: ¹¹⁰ Num ¹¹¹ Since raisins are called צִמּוּקִים. ¹¹² The biblical rules of ‘orlah ¹¹³ Deut ¹¹⁴ In Sifry Deut

“Fresh”, to include unripe berries.¹¹⁵. 23. “Fresh”, to include the flower. The baraita follows Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said, the flower is forbidden for the nazir because it is a fruit¹¹⁶ 1:6, Note 182 (Babli Berakhot 36b). Probably the reference is to the bottom of the flower, from which the fruit develops.. It is possible to eat a bunch of grapes and to be guilty in reference to “grapes, fresh or dried, he shall not eat.¹¹⁷” If he soaked it for soaking, pressed it for wine, and they warned him about “anything that comes from the wine-vine”¹¹⁸. 13:14, as substitute of Num. 6:4. If the nazir took a bunch of grapes some of which where dried up, soaked it in water to fill the raisins with water as one does to prepare raisin wine, and then presses the bunch for its juice, and drinks after being duly warned, he can be convicted of four simultaneous crimes., etc.

footnotes: ¹¹⁵ Sifry Num ¹¹⁶ Cf. Mishnah ‘Orlah ¹¹⁷ If some grapes in the bunch dried on the stem. ¹¹⁸ Jud

Rebbi Abba bar Aḥa said: The reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah is because of a creature¹¹⁹ who eats them is guilty for eating a complete creature.. But it was stated: “Skins and seeds,” to include the third [kind] between them¹²⁰. But was it not stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer³⁸. #24; rejected in the Babli.: “From anything made from the wine-vine”, leaves and twigs are also understood? Rebbi Eliezer parallels Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said, [if you have] a principle and a detail, everything is included in the principle¹²¹ 7), R. Ismael’s hermeneutical rule 5 is stated as: If the detail precedes the general statement, the general statement receives the maximal extension. If the general statement precedes the detail, the extension of the general statement is defined by the detail. This interpretation must be rejected by the Yerushalmi since Num. 6:4 contains first a general statement (all that comes from the vine) and then a detail (skins and seeds). The discussion disregards that v. 3 contains a list of details only.. And more than that, since Rebbi Ismael said, with a principle and a detail, everything is included in the principle; why are “skins and seeds” said? To include the third [kind] in between¹²² is guilty separately for skins and for seeds. This was derived from the additional word unto. Here, the argument refers to the mention of skins and seeds themselves, which does not seem to add anything to “everything coming from the vine.” For a different formulation, cf. Sifry Num. 24..

footnotes: ¹¹⁹ Even if skin and the seed inside do not fill the volume of an olive, the nazir ¹²⁰ The flesh of the fruit. Since one speaks of skins and seeds as separate from the grape berry, one speaks of the husks left after pressing. Therefore, the “third” is what is left of the flesh after all juice has been squeezed out. ³⁸ Babli 34b, Sifry Num ¹²¹ In the Babylonian sources (35a; Sifra Introduction ¹²² Previously (Note 56), the expression “from skins unto seeds” was meant to imply that the nazir

What is Rebbi Yose’s reason¹²³? If one ate half the volume of an olive of seeds and peels from one grape berry, in Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah’s opinion he is guilty¹²⁴ who eats them would be guilty. For the rabbis, anything less than the volume of an olive cannot lead to a conviction. But for R. Jehudah, two חרצנים means skins from two berries; there is no creature and the nazir is not prosecutable.., in the rabbis’ opinion he is not prosecutable. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? If he ate the volume of an olive of peels and seeds from two grape berries, in Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah’s opinion he is guilty only once¹²⁵ must eat two חרצנים to be guilty means that even if each grape berry has the size of an olive, he must eat two of them to become guilty. For the rabbis, eating a single berry the size of an olive is a punishable offense., in the rabbis’ opinion he is guilty twice. Rebbi Abun said, it turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah holds with Rebbi Jehudah, if he ate the volume of an olive of two זגים and their חרצנים¹²⁶?

footnotes: ¹²³ R. Yose clearly must think that his interpretation of the words is linguistically correct. The question is, what are the legal implications of his definition; how would he rule differently from R. Jehudah? ¹²⁴ If a single berry was squeezed dry but two seeds and the skin were left, for R. Eleazar ben Azariah this would represent a creature and the nazir ¹²⁵ According to R. Jehudah, R. Eleazar ben Azariah’s requirement that the nazir ¹²⁶ He holds that the statement of R. Eleazar ben Azariah cannot be reconciled with the opinion of R. Jehudah since then he should have switched the mention of חרצן and זג as explained in Note 124.

MISHNAH: An unspecified nezirut is thirty days¹²⁷. If he shaved, or robbers shaved him¹²⁸, he starts again for thirty¹²⁹ can shave after less than 30 days.. A nazir who shaved any [hair], whether with scissors or razor knife, or cropped¹³⁰: ספסף, “tearing off part of the hair, cropping,” with the root remaining in the scalp, contrasting רַט “tearing or falling out completely”. (Compare Arabic سفساف “to sift”). The commentary from the school of Rashi and Maimonides explain: “tore out.”, is guilty. A nazir may wash his head and separate his hair but may not comb. Rebbi Ismael says, he cannot wash his hair with powder because that removes hair.

footnotes: ¹²⁷ Repeated from Mishnah 1:3. ¹²⁸ Forcibly. ¹²⁹ He counts a minimum of 30 days after his shaving before he can bring his sacrifices since no nazir ¹³⁰ Arukh

HALAKHAH: “An unspecified nezirut is thirty days,” etc. ¹³³ It is written: “A shaving knife shall not pass over his head¹³⁴. 6:5.;” therefore, if it did pass, he is guilty¹³⁵ 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 days¹³⁶. {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.}¹³⁷; 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,”¹³⁸. 6:9 (the impure nazir), 6:18 (the pure nazir). all, not in part¹³⁹. 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.¹³⁴. 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]¹⁴⁰. 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..

footnotes: ¹³³ The text of the first two paragraphs of this Halakhah is in rather bad shape. ¹³⁴ Num ¹³⁵ He ¹³⁶ Chapter 1, Notes 99,100. ¹³⁷ The 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 ¹³⁸ Num ¹³⁹ This is a non sequitur ¹³⁴ Num ¹⁴⁰ Part of the last sentence is missing here but can be recovered from the Babli, 39b, and Sifry Num

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi Ila asked before Rebbi Yasa: They should not start again for thirty, but should start again for seven¹⁴¹. 14:8) and seven days afterwards (v. 9), it follows that seven days are sufficient to justify another shaving. Since shaving by means other than a knife is forbidden for the nazir only by implication, it seems reasonable to require only a 7 days’ growth for a nazir who removed hair not by a knife.! No, should they restart neither for seven nor for thirty¹⁴²? If you say, they should not start again for thirty, what is the difference between a pure and an impure nazir¹⁴³ to be quoted states that the exact duration of the period to restart the growth of hair is different for a pure nazir who shaves and an impure nazir who is forced to shave.? “One has stated a leniency and a restriction for a pure nazir; one has stated a leniency and a restriction for an impure nazir. A leniency for a pure nazir that he restart only for thirty; a restriction that he restart for seven¹⁴⁴ If you say, he should restart for thirty, what is the difference between a pure and an impure nazir?¹⁴⁵ is quoted in its entirety. A leniency for an impure nazir that all cases make him restart; a restriction that he restarts for seven¹⁴⁶, “knife” is not mentioned; everybody agrees that all methods of shaving are equally valid..” Should he not restart for thirty? If you say, he should restart for thirty, what is the difference between a pure and an impure nazir¹⁴⁷ clearly stated that the time lost is different for the two kinds of nazir.? Some want to say, what is the difference between scissors and a shaving knife for a pure nazir following Rebbi Eliezer¹⁴⁸ who fulfilled his time but shaved before he brought his sacrifice only to wait another seven days. He certainly must agree with R. Jonathan that if the nazir did not use a knife he does not have to wait at all.?

footnotes: ¹⁴¹ Since the person healed of skin disease shaves both after the initial ceremony (Lev ¹⁴² According to R. Jonathan (Note 140), shaving other than by a knife should not have any consequence. ¹⁴³ The baraita ¹⁴⁴ This text makes no sense. It seems that it must read with Tosephta 4:3: “He restarts only if shaved by a knife (most of his head); a restriction that he restart for 30 days.” ¹⁴⁵ This sentence has to be deleted; it belongs to the discussion after the baraita ¹⁴⁶ In this sentence, “leniency” and “restriction” have to be switched. At the required shaving of the impure nazir ¹⁴⁷ And the baraita ¹⁴⁸ Who in Mishnah 3:4 requires the nazir

There, we have stated¹⁴⁹ 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)¹⁵⁰, 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.¹⁵¹. 6:5.” Therefore, after he fulfilled them he needs a knife! Perhaps it was said only about an impure nazir with regard to two hairs¹⁵² cannot restart his vow if he left two hairs uncut. But the requirement of a knife also applies to a pure nazir.. Rebbi Yose¹⁵³ 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 sprinkled¹⁵⁴. When that was sanctified, his vow was completed. But it¹⁵⁵’s head. is as if fallen out.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁹ Mishnah Nega‘im ¹⁵⁰ Since the author of the remark is R. Eleazar ben Pada, the words in parenthesis have to be deleted. ¹⁵¹ Num ¹⁵² The impure nazir ¹⁵³ In 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. ¹⁵⁴ For 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. ¹⁵⁵ The hair of the nazir

You say about a pure nazir that most of his hair hinders him¹⁵⁶. If he shaved a third but did not manage to finish until everything grew again: Is it sufficient that he shave the remainder or does he have to shave everything?¹⁵⁷ You say about an impure nazir that two hairs hinder¹⁵² cannot restart his vow if he left two hairs uncut. But the requirement of a knife also applies to a pure nazir. or two hairs make him start again. Similarly, for a pure nazir, do two hairs hinder him or two hairs make him start again? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, so it is, and it was stated¹⁵⁸: “Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Simeon, just as two hairs hinder him, so two hairs cause him to start again.”

footnotes: ¹⁵⁶ If he shaved less than 50% of his head’s hair, he has not lived up to the conditions of his vow. ¹⁵⁷ The question is not answered, being unrealistic. ¹⁵² The impure nazir ¹⁵⁸ Tosephta 4:3; Babli 40a.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he shaved everything but left two hairs which were long enough each to bend its end to its root¹⁵⁹ twice; he shaved to reduce it to one¹⁶⁰ 22b, a position rejected in general.. Since he cut the required length, has he fulfilled his obligation, or because he omitted what was required, did he not fulfill his obligation?

footnotes: ¹⁵⁹ A hair is considered cut if it cannot be bent so that its head touches its root. ¹⁶⁰ He cut all hairs to below the limit except two which he cut exactly to the limit. R. Jeremiah in general holds that the rules only state that the condition is fulfilled if the limit is not reached and violated if the limit is exceeded but at the exact limit nothing has been decided; cf. Babli Baba batra

Rebbi Ila said before Rebbi Yose¹⁶¹: For whipping one, for hindering two, to start again three¹⁶² who cut one hair can be whipped. If he was impure and failed to cut two hairs, he cannot re-start his nezirut; if he was pure and failed to cut two hairs, he did not fulfill his vow. If he is pure and cut three hairs, he has to keep a minimum of 30 days of nezirut after that.. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose¹⁶¹: “If he cropped any¹⁶³, he is guilty.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, Rebbi Yasa explains it by a little bit from each one¹⁶⁴. A baraita disagrees with Samuel¹⁶⁵: A person may tear out two hairs and have violated four prohibitions¹⁶⁶: As a nazir, as a sufferer from sking disease, on a holiday, because of jaw stripping¹⁶⁷ and a sufferer from skin disease (who has to grow his hair, Lev. 13:45) shaves his sideburns on a holiday, he violates 4 prohibitions with one act. Since shaving on a holiday is prosecutable only if he shaves a minimum of two hairs, R. Hila’s assertion that one can be whipped for shaving a single hair is put into question.. We have enumerated the prohibitions; but with regard to whippings, one even whips for one¹⁶⁸.

footnotes: ¹⁶¹ Here also one has to read: Yasa. ¹⁶² A nazir ¹⁶¹ Here also one has to read: Yasa. ¹⁶³ He did not even cut one entire hair. ¹⁶⁴ Cropping many hairs is not comparable to cutting one hair. ¹⁶⁵ The mention of Samuel instead of R. Hila seems to be a scribal error. ¹⁶⁶ The scribe did not quite understand his text. He wrote ללוים “for the Levites” insteat of לוים, לאוים “prohibitions”, literally “no’s”. ¹⁶⁷ If a person who is both a nazir ¹⁶⁸ Things may be prohibited even if they cannot be prosecuted.

Some Tannaïm state: “One separates matted hair¹⁶⁹ 9:2) one might refer to Latin culcita, culcitra, “sack filled with feathers, wool, or hair; cushion, mattress” (E. G.)..” Some Tannaïm state: “One does not separate.” Rav Ḥisda said, the one who states that one separates, for healthy [hair]; the one who states that one does not separate, for weak [hair].

footnotes: ¹⁶⁹ קליקין is usually explained as κιλίκιον, τό “coarse cloth (of Cilician goat’s hair); covering used by soldiers and seamen”, but in this case (and the related one in Mishnah Miqwa’ot

MISHNAH: A nazir who was drinking wine all day long is guilty only once. If he was told “do not drink, do not drink” and he did drink, he is guilty for each single infraction¹⁷⁰.. One who shaved all day long is guilty only once. If he was told “do not shave, do not shave” and he did shave, he is guilty for each single infraction. One who defiled himself for the dead all day long is guilty only once. If he was told “do not defile yourself, do not defile yourself” and he did defile himself, he is guilty for each single infraction.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁰ If he was duly warned once by two witnesses, he can be prosecuted and punished for one offense.If he was repeatedly warned and flouted each warning, he can be prosecuted for disregarding each warning separately. The same rules apply for all three prohibitions imposed on a nazir

HALAKHAH: “A nazir who drank wine,” etc. A nazir while he was in a cemetery: Rebbi Joḥanan said, one warns him about wine and shaving. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, since one cannot warn him because of impurity, one does not warn him about wine and shaving. One reads all this in the Third Chapter¹⁷¹.

footnotes: ¹⁷¹ Halakhah 3:5, Notes 58 ff.

If before him were two bottles, one of water and one of wine. He took and emptied the water bottle. They said to him, you should know that after you drank the water, if you then drink the wine, since its volume corresponds to ten olives you will be subject to ten whippings; he does not accept warning in this way¹⁷². But if it was a wine bottle and he started drinking from it when they said to him, you should know that if you then drink it all, since its volume corresponds to ten olives you will be subject to ten whippings; he accepts warning in this way.

footnotes: ¹⁷² Since he did not touch the wine bottle yet and gave no indication that he would take it, the warning is purely preventive. In order to be used in criminal prosecution, the warning must be given when the person to whom it is directed seems likely to violate the law.

If before him were two roasting spits, one with slaughtered meat and one with carcass meat. He took and ate the slaughtered meat. They said to him, you should know that after you ate the slaughtered meat, if you then ate the carcass meat, since its volume corresponds to ten olives you will be subject to ten whippings; he does not accept warning in this way¹⁷². But if there was a roasting spit of carcass meat and he started eating from it when they said to him, you should know that if you then ate it all, since its volume corresponds to ten olives you will be subject to ten whippings; he accepts warning in this way.

footnotes: ¹⁷² Since he did not touch the wine bottle yet and gave no indication that he would take it, the warning is purely preventive. In order to be used in criminal prosecution, the warning must be given when the person to whom it is directed seems likely to violate the law.

MISHNAH: Three kinds are forbidden for the nazir: Impurity, shaving, and consuming produce of the vine¹⁷³. Impurity and shaving are more severe than the prohibition of produce of the vine since impurity and shaving require him to start again, but produce of the vine does not require him to start again. The prohibition of produce of the vine is more severe than impurity and shaving since produce of the vine is never permitted but impurity and shaving are permitted for a commanded shaving¹⁷⁴ when he is healed, his vow does not preclude the required shavings for his rehabilitation. and a corpse of obligation¹⁷⁵ or a High Priest, who comes upon an unattended corpse, has to defile himself and bring the dead to burial. The rules of the commanded burial are detailed in the next Chapter.. Impurity is more severe than shaving since for impurity he has to start again from the beginning and is obligated for a sacrifice, but for shaving he has to start again for at most 30 days and is not obligated for a sacrifice.

footnotes: ¹⁷³ Repeated from Mishnah 6:1 ¹⁷⁴ If a sufferer from skin disease is a nazir ¹⁷⁵ Any person, even a nazir

HALAKHAH: ¹⁷⁶ Impurity, as it is written: “During all the days he vowed to the Eternal he shall not come close to a human corpse.” Shaving, as it is written: “During all the days of his nazir vow, a shaving knife shall not come onto his head.” Anything from the vine, as it is written: “During all the days of his vow, of anything coming from the wine-vine [he shall not eat.]”

footnotes: ¹⁷⁶ Halakhah 6:1, Notes 4–6.

“Impurity and shaving are more severe than produce of the vine.” Impurity, as it is written: “All the days he vowed to the Eternal.” And shaving, as it is written: “The earlier days fall away¹⁷⁷, for his vow in impure.¹⁷⁸ has to start again from the beginning. One is tempted, with the classical commentators, to move this verse to the previous sentence and find an appropriate verse for shaving. The problem is that no biblical verse requires the shaved nazir to start counting anew, as explained in Halakhah 3. The reference is to an argument, reproduced in extenso in the Babli 44a and Sifry Num. 31, shortened in Num. rabba 10(34), on exactly the quoted verse, Num. 6:12: “ ‘For his vow is impure’, impurity requires him to start from the beginning, shaving does not require him to start from the beginning, but he has to repeat 30 days.””

footnotes: ¹⁷⁷ Cf. Halakhah 3:5, Note 57. ¹⁷⁸ This verse proves that the impure nazir

“The produce of the vine is more severe than impurity and shaving.” They wanted to say, for the Four Cups (of water or)¹⁷⁹ wine¹⁸⁰, pp. 185–191.) Since this is a rabbinic (or in any case, post-biblical) requirement, it cannot eliminate a biblical prohibition. (In the opinion of the Babli, 3b/4a, the nazir may drink wine for the Sabbath qidduš since the Fourth Commandment to sanctify the Sabbath cannot be pushed aside by the vow of the nazir. This fact is irrelevant here since impurity and shaving can be imposed on the nazir after his vow, but the Sabbath wine is his duty before the vow. The Yerushalmi clearly holds that qidduš can be recited over bread; wine is not absolutely necessary.). But if he said, “a vow that I shall drink and be a nazir”, “that I shall drink” comes to say that he will not drink¹⁸¹.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁹ This clearly is a scribal error. ¹⁸⁰ The 4 cups of wine one is required to drink in the Seder night (cf. H. Guggenheimer, The Scholar’s Haggadah ¹⁸¹ Since in an oath formula, the positive stands for the negative.

He is permitted commanded shavings. Not only to signify his skin disease¹⁸¹ but also to signify his scall, to know whether it spread or did not spread¹⁸². 13:33. “And a corpse of obligation.” That is what we have stated: “If they were walking and came upon a corpse of obligation.¹⁸³”

footnotes: ¹⁸¹ Since in an oath formula, the positive stands for the negative. ¹⁸² The shavings needed for diagnostic purposes, Lev ¹⁸³ Mishnah 7:1.

“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 offering¹⁸⁴. 6:12..” Shaving is more severe because He made the shaver equal to the shaved¹⁸⁵ can be criminally prosecuted. Babli 44a, Sifry Num. 25, Tosephta 4:4., but in impurity He did not make the defiler equal to the defiled¹⁸⁶ to be defiled by the impurity of the dead cannot be prosecuted..

footnotes: ¹⁸⁴ Num ¹⁸⁵ The person who shaves a nazir ¹⁸⁶ A person who causes a nazir

MISHNAH: What is shaving in impurity? He was sprinkled on the third and seventh [days]¹⁸⁷ is the impurity of the dead, he must have water with ashes from the Red Cow sprinkled on him on the 3 and 7 days of his impurity (Num. 19)., shaves on the seventh, and brings his sacrifices on the eighth¹⁸⁸. 6:9,10.. If he shaved on the eighth, he may bring his sacrifices¹⁸⁹. 6:10) and a sheep (Num. 6:12). on the same day, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Ṭarphon asked him, what is the difference between this one and the sufferer from skin disease¹⁹⁰ 14:3 states that the person healed from skin disease can bring his sacrifices only after the sundown following his immersion in a miqweh. According to R. Aqiba [readings of Tosaphot, 44b s.v. א״ל; Maimonides (Commentary ad loc.; Meḥusere Kappara 4:2); see the readings in Sifra Meṣora‘ Pereq 2(7); another reading in the Commentary attributed to Rashi] this implies that he has to bring his sacrifices on the 9 if he shaved on the 8.? He told him, the purification of this one is bound to his days¹⁸⁸. 6:9,10., but the purification of the sufferer from skin disease is bound to his shaving¹⁹¹. 14:9 prescribes the immersion of the sufferer from skin disease after his shaving but Num. 6:9 requires the impure nazir to shave “on the day of his purity”, i. e., after the second sprinkling and his immersion.. He cannot bring his sacrifices unless the sun had set for him¹⁹² only the following sundown brings purity, Lev. 22:7; cf. Soṭah 5:2, Note 42..

footnotes: ¹⁸⁷ Since the only impurity which defiles the nazir ¹⁸⁸ As prescribed in Num ¹⁸⁹ Two birds (Num ¹⁹⁰ Mishnah Nega‘im ¹⁸⁸ As prescribed in Num ¹⁹¹ Lev ¹⁹² It is a general principle that immersion in water makes ritually pure only for profane places or food; for sancta

HALAKHAH: It is written: “He has to vow to the Eternal the days of his nezirut,¹⁹³. 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 shaving¹⁹⁴. 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 seventh¹⁹⁵ and the seventh of the eighth¹⁹⁶; he counts only from that “seventh”¹⁹⁷. If he became impure and impure again¹⁹⁸ on the 7 day but before he brought his sacrifices on the 8; cf. Tosephta 4:8; Babli 18b., he brings a sacrifice for each occurrence. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, that statement follows Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah¹⁹⁹, but following Rebbi this person still stays in impure nezirut²⁰⁰.. Rebbi Hila said, where do they disagree? To count nezirut in purity²⁰¹.. “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 opinion¹. 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.¹⁹⁴. 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 opinion²⁰¹., everybody agrees that nothing is superseded and he brings another.

footnotes: ¹⁹³ Num ¹⁹⁴ I. 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 ¹⁹⁵ Since he cannot enter the holy precinct before sundown. ¹⁹⁶ I. e., the eighth is not different in status from the seventh. ¹⁹⁷ For Rebbi from the 9th, for R. Yose ben R. Yehudah from the 8th. ¹⁹⁸ He became impure after he went to the miqweh ¹⁹⁹ In the Babli, 18b, 52a, “R. Eliezer”. Rebbi’s opinion is referred to as that “of the rabbis” in the Babli. ²⁰⁰ Since only the reparation offering eliminates his disability as nazir ²⁰¹ Only for the count. Rebbi will agree that if he immersed himself on the 7th, any impurity he incurs after that is a new impurity even if he could not yet start counting the days of his nezirut ¹ Num ¹⁹⁴ I. 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 ²⁰¹ Only for the count. Rebbi will agree that if he immersed himself on the 7th, any impurity he incurs after that is a new impurity even if he could not yet start counting the days of his nezirut

MISHNAH: What is shaving in purity? He brings three animals²⁰². 6:14., a purification sacrifice, an elevation sacrifice, and a well-being sacrifice. He slaughters the well-being sacrifice ands shaves for it²⁰³, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Eleazar²⁰⁴ says, he only should shave for the purification sacrifice since that has precedence everywhere²⁰⁵, 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.

footnotes: ²⁰² Num ²⁰³ Since shaving is mentioned in v. 18, after the slaughter of the well-being offering in v. 17. ²⁰⁴ In some Mishnah mss., “R. Eliezer”. ²⁰⁵ In the case of the nazir

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: “The ram he shall offer, etc.²⁰⁶. 6:17.” Why does the verse say, “he shall offer”? Start the procedure with it²⁰⁷ 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 Mana²⁰⁸: But is it not written: “He shall offer his flour offering and his libation²⁰⁶. 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 obligation²⁰⁹. 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.²¹⁰ 10:5. No reparation offering is due from the pure nazir.”

footnotes: ²⁰⁶ Num ²⁰⁷ In Sifry zuṭa ²⁰⁸ The 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”. ²⁰⁶ Num ²⁰⁹ Flour 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. ²¹⁰ Mishnah Zebaḥim

MISHNAH: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if he brought three animals but did not specify²¹¹, dedication “for the nazir’s sacrifices” is sufficient since the purification offering requires a female sheep, the elevation offering a male sheep, and the well-being offering a male goat., the one proper for the purification offering shall be brought as purification offering, for the elevation offering shall be brought as elevation offering, for the well-being offering shall be brought as well-being offering. He took the hair shorn from his nazir head and sent it under the cooking pot²¹² does the verse prescribe cooking; Num. 6:19. The hair is “sent” since the nazir shaves outside the holy precinct but the well-being offering must be cooked inside (vv. 19–20).; even if he shaved in the countryside²¹³ he sent it under the cooking pot. When has this been said? If he shaved in purity. But if he shaved in impurity, he does not send it under the cooking pot²¹⁴ 7:4.. Rebbi Meïr says, all send under the cooking pot except the impure in the countryside.

footnotes: ²¹¹ No sacrifice can be offered unless it was sanctified by dedication. In general, the dedication must specify for which sacrifice the animal will be used. But for a nazir ²¹² In general, any sacrificial meat permitted for human consumption can be eaten as desired, cooked, roasted, or scalded. Only for the well-being offering of the nazir ²¹³ If he sends money so that the sacrifices should be offered on his behalf while he remains outside of Jerusalem, his hair has to be burned. ²¹⁴ His hair has to be buried; Mishnah Temurah

HALAKHAH: They wanted to say, if he did not specify, but in his house he did specify²¹⁵. They said, even in his house he need not specify. Why? The animal which at the start has the rules of the indeterminate²¹⁶, no doubt is possible..

footnotes: ²¹⁵ He did not dedicate specifically but when he selected the animals he specified. ²¹⁶ An animal has to be dedicated specifically only if there can be a doubt for what it will be used. For a nazir

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: He puts it into the sauce²¹⁷ 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,²¹⁸. 6:18.” the sacrifice also into the fire.

footnotes: ²¹⁷ Babli 45b [Num. rabba ²¹⁸ Num

It was stated²¹⁹: “All send under the cooking pot except the impure in the countryside. The pure²²⁰ 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.²¹⁸. 6:18.” Rebbi Meïr²²¹ 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 rabbis²²¹ 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.

footnotes: ²¹⁹ Slightly different text in the Babli, 45b, Tosephta 4:6. ²²⁰ This “pure” refers to a nazir ²¹⁸ Num ²²¹ Obviously, the attributions have to be switched. The rabbis allow burning only if the nazir ²²¹ Obviously, the attributions have to be switched. The rabbis allow burning only if the nazir

MISHNAH: He cooked the well-being offering or scalded²²² 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 it²²³. 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 dead²²⁴ 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)]..

footnotes: ²²² Cf. Nedarim ²²³ Num ²²⁴ In v. 20, the note that the nazir

HALAKHAH: ²²⁵ 6:1, Notes 6–14. A Mishnah states that scalding is called cooking, as we have stated: “If he cooked the well-being offering or scalded it⁷ 7:2 (9c, 1. 11 ff.), as will be seen in the commentary. The variant readings refer to that text. The introductory section is from Šabbat 7:1 (9a, 1. 20–24), the one variant in spelling there is noted by: א. Mishnah Šabbat 7:2 states that on the Sabbath, 39 different activities are forbidden. This means that a person who violates the Sabbath unintentionally may be liable for up to 39 purification sacrifices. The question then appears whether in other cases multiple sacrifices also are necessary..” A verse [states] that “roasted” is called “cooked”: “They cooked the pesaḥ”, etc. If you say, against the rules, Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, “as is the rule”. A Mishnah states that scalded is called cooked: “Is one who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food permitted roasted and scalded food”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, in matters of vows one follows common usage. Rebbi Joshia said, in matters of vows one follows biblical usage. What is the difference between them? ‘A qônām that I shall not taste wine on Tabernacles.’ In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is forbidden on the last day of the holiday. In the opinion of Rebbi Joshia, is he permitted? Rebbi Joshia also agrees that he is prohibited. Rebbi Joshia said it only for restrictions.

footnotes: ²²⁵ The following two paragraphs are from Nedarim ⁷ This paragraph and the next are from Šabbat

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Joḥanan ate bake-meats and said, I did not taste food on that day. But did we not state: “He who made a vow not to eat food is permitted water and salt”? Explain it following Rebbi Joshia, who said, in matters of vows one follows biblical usage. And from where that everything is called food? Rebbi Aḥa bar Ulla said: “And ten female donkeys carrying grain, bread, and food, etc.” Why does the verse say, “and food”? From here that everything is called food.

It is written: “The Cohen takes the cooked fore-leg of the ram.²²⁶. 6:19” If cooked, I could think separately²²⁷ 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?²²⁸ 1:4, Notes 137–154. The readings from there are noted ע..

footnotes: ²²⁶ Num ²²⁷ Since 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 ²²⁸ The question is answered in the following paragraphs which are paralleled in ‘Orlah

Ḥilfai asked Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, do condiments forbid with more than 200? They said to him, condiments are not in more than 200. But did we not state: “Anything which sours, flavors, or creates dema‘?” If you say about 100 or 200, even if it does not sour, flavor, or create dema‘! But we deal with grapes. Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if they were not raisins, but if they were raisins they are condiments in more than 200. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if they were not cooked, but if they were cooked they are condiments in more than 200.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah: All sources of flavor one in a hundred. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah: All sources of flavor one in sixty. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Rebbi Yasa disagrees with you and the Mishnah disagrees with both of you: “Anything which sours, flavors, or creates dema‘? If you say about 100 or 200, even if it does not sour, flavor, or create dema‘²³⁰. Here: “Make leavened”.! Therefore, we hold even more. Rebbi Jeremiah said, explain it for meat in meat. Rebbi Yose said, meat in meat is the same as all other prohibitions since Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one estimates as if they were onion or leeks⁹² 10:1, Notes 10–11..

footnotes: ²³⁰ Translation of the text in ‘Orlah ⁹² Cf. Terumot

How is this? One says, all sources of flavor by one in 100; the other says, all sources of flavor by one in 60. For him who says all sources of taste by one in 100, you take the foreleg as one in 100 of the ram. For him who says all sources of taste by one in 60, you take the foreleg as one in 60 of the ram. For him who says one in 100, you remove the bones from the foreleg. But if you remove the bones from the foreleg, remove them from the ram! This you cannot do, as it was stated: ²³⁰. Here: “Make leavened”.“The waste of heave does not combine with heave to forbid²³¹ and ‘Orlah; the text here, “to lift”, makes no sense. the profane, but the waste of profane combines with the profane to lift the heave.” Rebbi Vivian asked: Does the waste of heave combine with profane to lift the heave? Since Rav Ḥuna said, the husks of what is forbidden combine to permit; that means waste of heave combines with profane to lift the heave.

footnotes: ²³⁰ Translation of the text in ‘Orlah ²³¹ The translation follows Terumot

Rebbi Ḥizqiah²³² stated: All I forbade to you at other places I permitted to you here. Since everywhere 100 is a prohibition, more than 100 is permitted, but here even 100 is permitted.

footnotes: ²³² The reading “Ḥiyya” probably is correct since Ḥizqiah, the collector of baraitot and son of R. Ḥiyya (the Elder) has no title.

Rav said, waving stops the nazir²³³ 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,²³⁴. 6:21.” whether or not he has wings²³⁵” 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, measure²³⁶ stops a nazir, as for the waves and thumbs of a sufferer from skin disease²³⁷. 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,²³⁸. 14:2.” whether or not he has thumbs? He explains it following Rebbi Eliezer who said, he puts it on their place²³⁹ 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..

footnotes: ²³³ The nazir ²³⁴ Num ²³⁵ Tosephta 1:5, Babli 46b. “The teaching of the nazir ²³⁶ It is unclear what this means. Most authors emend “measure” to “waving”. ²³⁷ The poor sufferer from skin disease must wave his reparation offering (Lev ²³⁸ Lev ²³⁹ Mishnah Nega‘im

MISHNAH: If he shaved for one of the sacrifices and it turned out to be invalid, his shaving is invalid²⁴⁰ and his sacrifices are not counted for him. If he shaved for the purification offering not in its name²⁴¹. 4:33. but brought the other sacrifices in their names, his shaving is invalid and his sacrifices are not counted for him²⁴² is required to bring all three sacrifices together, this Tanna holds that they cannot be counted as fulfilling his obligation.. If he shaved for the elevation or well-being offerings not in their names²⁴³ 1:1). but then brought his sacrifices²⁴⁴ in their names, his shaving is invalid and his sacrifices are not counted for him. Rebbi Simeon says, that sacrifice is not counted for him but the others are counted for him²⁴⁵. But if he shaved for all three²⁴⁶ and one of them is valid, his shaving is valid and he has to repeat the other sacrifices.

footnotes: ²⁴⁰ And he has to wait another 30 days to regrow his hair. ²⁴¹ A purification offering must be slaughtered explicitly for that purpose; Lev ²⁴² Elevation and well-being offerings are valid and can be brought to the altar. But since the nazir ²⁴³ These are valid sacrifices even if slaughtered for the wrong purpose “but are not counted for their owners to relieve them of their obligations” (Mishnah Zebaḥim ²⁴⁴ The remaining two. ²⁴⁵ Except for the purification offering not slaughtered for its purpose which is disqualified by biblical law. ²⁴⁶ Without specifying for which one he shaved; cf. Mishnah 9.

HALAKHAH: Is it counted for him and his shaving²⁵² shaved for an improper sacrifice when afterwards he brought two proper sacrifices, R. Simeon said that the two proper sacrifices are counted for him. But if the shaving were improper, he would have to wait another 30 days and bring a new set of sacrifices, and there would be no way in which the earlier sacrifices could be counted for him. It is proved that for R. Simeon, shaving is valid as long as one sacrifice was valid.? If you would say that it is not counted for him and his shaving, then his sacrifices count for nothing. Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Following Rebbi Simeon, may he shave for his holiday well-being offerings²⁵³ but additional sacrifices for the holiday.? Is that not the Mishnah? “Rebbi Simeon says, that sacrifice is not counted for him but the others are counted for him.” When he slaughtered them²⁵⁴ are they not like voluntary well-being offerings²⁵⁵ (נדר) if a person engages himself for a certain kind of sacrifice. Then if the animal chosen to satisfy the vow becomes unusable for any reason, the vower has to provide a replacement animal. A voluntary gift (נדבה) is an animal dedicated as sacrifice. If it becomes unusable for any reason, the owner does not have to provide a replacement. Well-being and elevation sacrifices slaughtered for the wrong purpose or no purpose fall under the category of voluntary gifts.? This means that he may shave for voluntary well-being offerings following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said²⁵⁶, Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rebbi Joḥanan. For Rav Ada bar Aḥawa it is problematic²⁵⁷, but for Rebbi Joḥanan it is obvious.

footnotes: ²⁵² If a nazir ²⁵³ He shaves on a holiday and brings with him not only the three obligatory sacrifices of a nazir ²⁵⁴ The well-being or elevation offerings which are acceptable as gifts to the altar if slaughtered without indicating the kind of sacrifices they should be. ²⁵⁵ In rabbinic terminology, a sacrifice corresponds to a vow ²⁵⁶ He corrects the tradition: the person who asks is R. Ada bar Aḥawa, not R. Joḥanan. ²⁵⁷ But in the Babli, 46b, he is quoted as proving the statement attributed here to R. Joḥanan.

MISHNAH: If one of the bloods had been sprinkled for him²⁴⁷ when he became impure, Rebbi Eliezer says, he has to repeat everything²⁴⁸, but all his sacrifices since he holds, against the Sages, that the sacrifices cannot be brought separately (cf. Mishnah 8:4).. But the Sages say, he shall bring his remaining sacrifices once he became pure again²⁴⁹. They told him, it happened with Miriam the Palmyrene, that one of the bloods had been sprinkled for her when she was informed that her daughter was dying; she went and found her dead²⁵⁰; then the Sages said, she shall bring her remaining sacrifices once she becomes pure again²⁵¹.

footnotes: ²⁴⁷ Sprinkling its blood on the walls of the altar makes any sacrifice irrevocably valid. ²⁴⁸ Not the nezirut ²⁴⁹ And can enter the Temple precinct. ²⁵⁰ And defiled herself for her daughter. ²⁵¹ Tosephta 4:10.

HALAKHAH: The argument of Rebbi Eliezer seems inverted. There²⁵⁸, he says: “he has to repeat only for 30,” and here, he says so²⁵⁹? Rebbi Joḥanan says, he has to repeat all his sacrifices²⁴⁸, but all his sacrifices since he holds, against the Sages, that the sacrifices cannot be brought separately (cf. Mishnah 8:4).. It is obvious, if it would have been valid without him becoming impure, then why is it not valid if later he becomes impure²⁶⁰? Rebbi Ḥinena said, is that not Rebbi Eliezer’s? And Rebbi Eliezer follows the Shammaites, as it was stated²⁶¹ 61b; Tosephta 1:6. As the Babli explains, the House of Shammai require him to shave, but since he cannot shave he never can terminate his nezirut.: Concerning a nazir who lost all his hair, the House of Shammai say, he has to move a shaving knife over his head; the House of Hillel say, he does not need to move a shaving knife over his head.

footnotes: ²⁵⁸ Mishnah 3:4. ²⁵⁹ If he becomes incapacitated, he has to repeat only for 30 days. If his sacrifice becomes invalid, why should he have to start everything anew? ²⁴⁸ Not the nezirut ²⁶⁰ Why should R. Eliezer not agree that once part of the ceremony was performed correctly, he can replace any missing part? ²⁶¹ Babli 46b (in different formulation), Yoma

So is the Mishnah²⁶²: He shall become pure again and then bring his remaining sacrifices. So is the Mishnah: She shall become pure again and then bring her remaining sacrifices.

footnotes: ²⁶² The Mishnah is formulated with a temporal inversion. The action to become pure must precede the offering of his or her sacrifices.