MISHNAH: If a person said to two nezirim: I saw one of you becoming impure but I do not know which one of you it was, they bring¹ they shave and bring the sacrifices in common. one sacrifice of impurity² and one of purity³. One of them says, if I am impure, the sacrifice of impurity is mine and that of purity is yours; otherwise the sacrifice of purity is mine and that of impurity is yours. Then they count another thirty days⁴. and bring one sacrifice of purity; (Mishnah 2) one of them says, if I was impure, the sacrifice of impurity was mine and that of purity was yours, hence this is my sacrifice of purity; otherwise the sacrifice of purity was mine and that of impurity was yours, hence this is your sacrifice of purity. If one of them died⁵ since, not knowing which sacrifice to bring, he can bring neither., Rebbi Joshua said, he should seek out a person from the general public who would make a vow of nazir corresponding to his needs and say: If I was impure, you are a nazir immediately⁶, but if I was pure, you are a nazir after 30 days. They count 30 days and bring one sacrifice of impurity and one of purity (Mishnah 3) and he says: If I am impure, the sacrifice of impurity is mine and that of purity is yours; otherwise the sacrifice of purity is mine and that of impurity is questionable⁷ 7:6).. Then they count another thirty days, bring one sacrifice of purity (Mishnah 4) and he says: If I was impure, the sacrifice of impurity was mine and that of purity was yours, hence this is my sacrifice of purity; otherwise the sacrifice of purity was mine and that of impurity was questionable; hence this is your sacrifice of purity. Ben Zoma said to him, who would accommodate him to make a vow of nazir corresponding to his needs? But he brings a bird as purification offering and an animal as elevation offering and says: If I was impure, the purification offering is for my obligation⁸. and the elevation offering is voluntary⁹, only the elevation offering can be voluntary.. But if I was pure, the elevation offering is for my obligation and the purification offering is questionable. Then he counts 30 days and brings one sacrifice (of impurity and one)¹⁰ of purity³ (Mishnah 5) and says: If I was impure, the first elevation offering was voluntary and the one now is for my obligation. But if I was pure, the first elevation offering was for my obligation and now I am bringing the remainder of my sacrifices. Rebbi Joshua said, then it turns out that he brings his sacrifices piecemeal¹¹ 6:14) calls all three sacrifices together “his sacrifice” in the singular, meaning that they have to be offered together.! But the Sages accepted the words of Ben Zoma¹².

footnotes: ¹ They purify themselves from the impurity of the dead and at the end of their period of nezirut ² Two birds and a sheep. ³ A male and a female sheep and a ram. ⁴ Assuming that both had vowed the standard period of 30 days. Otherwise they would have to repeat the longer of the respective periods of nezirut ⁵ Then the survivor is in danger of never being able to conclude his nezirut ⁶ And the sacrifice of purity will be yours. ⁷ The sacrifice of impurity consists of two birds. The one offered as elevation sacrifice can be given as obligation, if there was impurity, or as voluntary gift, if there was none. The bird offered as purification sacrifice cannot be eaten by the priests; after its blood was used, it has to be burned outside the Temple precinct (Mishnah Temurah ⁸ While this offering is incomplete, it is sufficient to let him shave and restart his nezirut ⁹ Of all kinds of offerings required from a pure or impure nazir ¹⁰ This clause in parenthesis is obviously false; it is missing in the Babli and the independent Mishnah mss. ³ A male and a female sheep and a ram. ¹¹ If he was pure, he brings the first offering 30 days before the other two, but the verse (Num. ¹² As the only reasonable solution to an intractable problem.

HALAKHAH: “If a person said to two nezirim,” etc. Not only if he said to one of them, “I saw one of you becoming impure but I do not know which one of you it was,¹³.” but even if he said, “I saw one of you vowing to be a nazir but I do not know which one of you it was,” both of them have to follow the rules of nazir because of his testimony. If they do not contradict him¹⁴. But if they contradict him, this does not apply¹⁵. If both of them¹⁶ contradict, it parallels the following: “If one witness says, he became impure, but he says, I did not become impure, he is pure. If two witnesses say, he became impure, but he says, I did not become impure, the two are believed more than he is, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, everybody is believed about himself.¹⁷ 5:9.” Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: So is the Mishnah: Rebbi Meïr declares impure, Rebbi Jehudah and the Sages declare pure¹⁸. Rebbi Joḥanan said, so is the Mishnah: Rebbi Meïr declares impure, Rebbi Jehudah declares pure¹⁹. The rabbis’ words support Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Gurion said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Rebbi Jehudah said this only about an old impurity, for he can say to them, I had been impure but I purified myself²⁰., and we have stated: The same holds for eating suet; the same holds for entering the Sanctuary²¹ 12a). (Talmudic law does not accept confessions since testimony of relatives is excluded and “everybody is related to himself.” Therefore, the person asserting that he intentionally committed the sin attributed to him by a single witness, cannot be prosecuted.). Should they not accept his position for impurity? Because of the impurity of a nazir²² brings a sacrifice for becoming impure by the impurity of the dead whether incurred willingly or involuntarily. The sacrifice is a public act; he cannot claim to have purified himself in private., could they not say, where is the sacrifice which you brought? Then should they not accept his position for heave²³ 7:1).? So far the questions of Rebbi Ḥanina.

footnotes: ¹³ In this case it can really happen that the witness knew of a “tent” impurity unknown to the nezirim ¹⁴ In matters of ritual law, the uncontested testimony of a single witness is valid. ¹⁵ A contested testimony of a single witness is worthless, not even admissible as supporting evidence. ¹⁶ It seems that the text, שניהם, is an error for שְׁנַיִם, “two [witnesses].” The concurrent testimony of two witnesses must be believed by biblical standards. ¹⁷ Mishnah Ṭaharot ¹⁸ In this matter of the standing of two witnesses, the Sages fully accept the position of R. Jehudah. ¹⁹ But the Sages disagree with R. Jehudah; the Mishnah should have mentioned R. Jehudah and not the Sages. In his interpretation, the Sages follow R. Jehudah in accepting the statement of a person accused of a sin even against two witnesses but not in cases of impurity. ²⁰ If at least one evening has passed since the possible impurity and the person in question denies that he was impure, we read from his disclaimer that he admits having incurred impurity but eliminated it quickly by immersion in a miqweh ²¹ A single witness can force a person to bring a purification sacrifice for committing a sin. But since for an intentional sin, no purification sacrifice is possible, the person accused of committing the sin can always assert that he committed the sin intentionally and, therefore, cannot bring a sacrifice. Then he also must be believed if he asserts that he did not commit the sin (Babli Keritut ²² The nazir ²³ If an unauthorized person is accused of eating heave, he can always claim to have done it intentionally; so he does not have to pay the 25% fine (Mishnah Terumot

Rebbi Mana understood it²⁵ from the following²⁶ 3:1.: “They told him, if he wishes, he says that he did it intentionally.” What can he say for an assigned slave girl²⁷ 19:20–22, the case of a man sleeping with a slave girl assigned as a future wife to another free man. As long as the girl is not totally freed, she cannot marry the man to whom she is assigned. Therefore, her relations with another man are not adultery. A reparation offering is required from the man. This is one of the few cases in which a sacrifice is possible for deliberate sin.? In error²⁸, he is obligated; intentionally²⁹, he is obligated! He can tell him, I touched her but did not finish³⁰. 20). If he took the slave girl to bed but stopped before there was an ejaculation, no sacrifice is due., or as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, I was forced to it by the spell she put on me³¹. For a nazir³² what can you say? In error, he is obligated; intentionally, he is obligated; forced, he is obligated! “Suddenly”, to include in error, “suddenly”, to include intentionally³³ must bring his sacrifices even if forced. The reference is to Num. 6:9. In all other sources, Sifry Num. 28 [= Num. rabba 10(31)], Babli Keritut 9a, the inference is from the double expression “if a person should die near him suddenly,unexpectedly …” “Suddenly” is taken to refer to accidental impurity, “unexpectedly” to outside force (Sifry) or outside force and intention (Babli).. “There was a condition in my mind that if I should become impure, my nezirut should burst away from me and a new nezirut would fall on me”; in any case he was not obligated to be a nazir until now³⁴ could have been formulated in a way that eliminates the possibility of a sacrifice for impurity, the testimony of the witnesses can be explained away.. (“There was a condition in my mind that if I should become impure, my nezirut should burst away from me and a new nezirut would fall on me”; in any case he was not obligated to be a nazir until now.)³⁵ What do you have in case of an oath³⁶ 5:1,4). How can he be believed if he denies the accusation?? In error, he is obligated; intentionally, he is obligated³⁷ 2:2.! A condition may apply to words³⁸; there is no condition for oaths! It follows what Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah: For error, its sacrifice, for intention, its sacrifice. But if he said, I thought that this was no oath, he is free³⁹. Therefore, all these subjects cannot be stated, but the following can be stated⁴⁰.

footnotes: ²⁵ That the Sages and R. Jehudah do not agree about the weight of a person’s disclaimer as against two witnesses to his actions. ²⁶ Mishnah Keritut ²⁷ Lev. ²⁸ If in the dark he thought that she was his wife. ²⁹ This is the case treated by the verse. If he denies the accusation by two witnesses, one cannot take his denial as assertion that he did it but already had remedied the situation. ³⁰ This is a first explanation: A sacrifice is due only if there was an ejaculation of semen (v ³¹ He disclaims responsibility by reason of temporary insanity caused by the girl’s charms. This is enough to support his disclaimer against even two witnesses. ³² Exposed to the impurity of the dead; the case of the Mishnah. ³³ This is proof that the nazir ³⁴ Since the vow of nezirut ³⁵ A case of dittography. ³⁶ If two witnesses tell a person that he owes a sacrifice because he has violated an oath imposed on him by other people (Lev. ³⁷ Mishnah Keritut ³⁸ If he undertakes anything, he may add conditions. If others (usually a court of law) impose an oath on him, he swears according to their understanding, rather than his own. ³⁹ Here, there may be a case in which no sacrifice can be demanded if the interested party denies their obligation. ⁴⁰ In all cases discussed so far, the Sages cannot disagree with R. Jehudah; that is possible only in the cases dealt with in the next paragraph.

⁴¹ 6:2, Notes 34–42. The readings from the Leiden ms. in Soṭah are noted ל, those from a Genizah text ג. The sentence which really refers to the discussion here is missing in the text; the scribe omitted from the first אמר לו אחד to the next occurrence; cf. Soṭah p. 252. From what Rebbi Yose said, “X ate suet, and they warned him,” he is not whipped. If one person said to him, you are a nazir, and based on this testimony he behaved like a nazir, when then he drank wine or became impure in the impurity of the dead, if two warned him, he is whipped. Is not the main testimony given by a single witness? From what Rebbi Mana said, “X is the wife of a Cohen and whored; her husband, a Cohen, then had relations with her but I had warned him;” he is [not] whipped. If she went to a secluded place in the presence of two, and one said, I saw her that she became impure; when her husband, the Cohen, had relations with her but two had warned him, he is whipped. Is not the main testimony given by a single witness?

footnotes: ⁴¹ From Soṭah

“They bring one sacrifice of impurity and one of purity.” That is, if they are at the end of thirty days⁴² bring the sacrifices. This impression is rectified here; the first set of sacrifices is due only if both have satisfied the terms of their original vows.. But if one is in the middle of thirty days, one has to wait till the end of thirty days. If both of them were nezirim for thirty days. But if one was a nazir for thirty and the other a nazir for 100, one has to wait for 100. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked before Rebbi Yose: If one of them became impure during these days, what is the rule? He said to him, like one who has to seek out a person from the general public⁴³ who is not impure without a doubt observes the rules (either following R. Yose or Ben Zoma) for a person possibly impure whose companion nazir has died (Mishnaiot 2–4)..

footnotes: ⁴² The Mishnah seems to indicate that immediately after being informed of the impurity, the nezirim ⁴³ The nazir

If he drank wine within the first 30 days, he is (not) whipped; within the last 30 days, he is [] whipped⁴⁴ died, the other certainly has to finish the period of his vow and then has to start a second period because he might have been impure and the nezirut of part of his first period might have been invalid. Since the first period was in fulfillment of his vow of nazir, any transgression is prosecutable. But since he keeps the second period only because of a doubt, even if there are two witnesses both to his vow of nazir and to his drinking wine, a prosecutor could not prove that a crime certainly had been commited. Nobody can be found guilty by a human court if the crime was not proven.. The one coming from the general population cannot be whipped, either for the (second) or the last period⁴⁵ in both periods is conditional, the certainty of his crime is not provable.. So far, if he was warned separately for each period⁴⁶ 8:1, Note 9.. If they warned him for both together⁴⁷ are in fulfillment of his vow, even if it is not known which period counts in biblical law. If the nazir was warned for both during his first period after it was determined that he had to keep a second period, and he drank wine during both periods, the fact of the crime has been established. (The separate problem, that the accused might have forgotten the warning if it preceded the action by a long time, is not considered here.) this is the disagreement⁴⁸ between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who disagreed about the two days of holiday in the diaspora⁴⁹ 3:10 21c 1. 24; Babli Beṣah 4b).]. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one accepts warning in case of a doubt; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not accept warning in case of a doubt⁵⁰ 11:7 (Note 171), Pesaḥim 5:4 (32s 1. 5); Babli Makkot 16a..

footnotes: ⁴⁴ Here begins the discussion of Mishaniot 2 ff. The scribe (or the text he copied from) switched the places of “whipped” and “not whipped”. If one of the nezirim ⁴⁵ Since his nezirut ⁴⁶ Even if the crime was proven, a conviction is possible only if criminal intent was proven by two witnesses who testify that the perpetrator was warned of the criminality of his undertaking; cf. Kilaim ⁴⁷ It is clear that either the first or the second period of nezirut ⁴⁸ פלוגתא is the Babylonian form for Galilean תפלוגתא. ⁴⁹ Before the publication of the computed calendar, communities which could not be informed by messengers about the determination of the first days of the months of Nisan and Tishri, kept two days of holidays to account for possible variations in the dates. Since each day was only one of a possible two, no work on the holidays could be prosecutable unless the warning was given for both days, the infraction occured on both days, and this kind of long־term conditional warning was accepted in court. [After the publication of the calendar computations, the first day of a holiday is of biblical character; the second day is of purely rabbinic character and is kept only because the algorithm was published on condition that its users continue to keep the second day (Eruvin ⁵⁰ Yebamot

“I made a vow of nazir but I forgot whether it was for now or for a later date⁵¹ but does not remember whether it was to begin immediately or after 30 days. Then he has to keep 60 days and bring one set of sacrifices after 60 days..” They told him, this [warning] is for now, and that for the later date. If he drank wine within the first 30 days, he is [] whipped; within the last 30 days, he is (not) whipped⁵². Should one not say that the first days may be within the period of his vow, the later ones are after the period of his vow⁵³? “All days of his status as nazir,⁵⁴ 6:4. As spelled out in v. 20, the nazir is forbidden to drink wine until he has brought his sacrifices. Since he did not bring sacrifices after the first 30 days, during the second 30 days he certainly is guilty, either because of his vow of the second 30 days or as an extension of his vow of the first 30 days for which the sacrifice was not yet offered.” to make the days after he finished his term like the days before he finished his term with respect to wine, impurity, and shaving.

footnotes: ⁵¹ From the context it seems that he vowed a standard 30 day nezirut ⁵² Here again, the statements are switched. He cannot be convicted during the first 30 days since it cannot be proven that he is obligated during these days. ⁵³ How can he be convicted for drinking wine during the second 30 days when it cannot be proven that these were intended by his vow (unless he drank during both periods)? ⁵⁴ Num.

Why can he not bring his sacrifices one by one? Not to preclude answers in the house of study⁵⁵.

footnotes: ⁵⁵ This refers to the objection R. Joshua voiced to the method proposed by Ben Zoma. There is no reason why the sacrifices could not be brought at different times; R. Joshua offered his objection as a training exercise to his students, lest they accept any statement without subjecting it to criticism and also that they should not be afraid to propose hypothetical answers which could be disproved by analysis.

⁵⁶ 8:8, the present paragraph also must be parallel Pesaḥim 8:8 (36b 1. 43 ff.) But the text there is quite different from the text here; they are not versions of a common original. In the text, the words “the community” and “a (single) person” have switched places. In Pesaḥim, different questions are asked, and the comparison is between “the community” and “a nazir”, which would make better sense here.(The community) [A person] who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain⁵⁷ 1:2, Note 88). The rule becomes ineffective if the doubt arises in a domain whose status is in doubt. on Passover⁵⁸ sacrifice has to be slaughtered in the afternoon.. Rebbi Hoshaia said, he should be pushed to the Second Passover⁵⁹ 9:9–14). R. Hoshaia treats him as certainly impure; he can stay near the Temple precinct and nevertheless celebrate the “Second Passover”.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one sends him on a far journey⁶⁰. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he became impure by the impurity of the abyss⁶¹, this is called “the impurity of a broken field” (cf. Mishnah 7:3, Note 138); it applies to all impurities rabbinic in character. If the person incurs the impurity during the 14th of Nisan, he cannot offer the First Passover because he becomes pure after immersion in a miqweh only at sundown. He cannot offer the Second Passover because he was not biblically impure on the 14th of Nisan. He has to leave Jerusalem to be sufficiently “far away” in the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan., one sends him on a far journey. (A nazir) [The community] who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain on Passover⁶² 7:4,6).. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it should be presented in their doubt; Rebbi Hoshaia said, it should be made in impurity⁶³. The great Rebbi Hoshaia also agrees that it should be presented in their doubt; what Rebbi Hoshaia said referrred only to restrictions.

footnotes: ⁵⁶ This paragraph presents textual difficulties. Since the following paragraph makes sense only in Pesaḥim ⁵⁷ It is a general principle that doubts about impurity are resolved by treating doubts in a private domain as certain impurity, in a public domain as certain purity (cf. Soṭah ⁵⁸ The 14th of Nisan, the day on which the Pesaḥ ⁵⁹ The 14th of Iyyar, instituted for someone who either was impure or “on a far journey” on the 14th of Nisan (Num. ⁶⁰ For R. Joḥanan the case remains one of doubt. If he stayed near the Temple precinct, he could celebrate neither the first (not being pure) nor the second (not being impure) Passover. Therefore, one sends him away so he can celebrate the Second Passover under a different qualification. ⁶¹ In Pesaḥim ⁶² The Second Passover was instituted only for individuals; if the majority of the people were impure, the Passover sacrifice was offered in impurity (Mishnah Pesaḥim ⁶³ Since the community offers the First Passover in impurity, the difference between the two opinions is only that for R. Joḥanan the pure minority offers its sacrifices in purity whereas it seems that for R. Hoshaia the minority is obligated to follow the majority. This interpretation is rejected in the next sentence so that there remains no material difference between the two statements.

⁶⁴ 8:8 (36b, 1. 55ff.) It belongs there and has no direct connections with the topics discussed here. A parallel discussion is in the Babli, Yebamot 71b. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Benaiah: One sprinkles on an uncircumcised Jew⁶⁵ 19). The uncircumcised is barred from the Passover sacrifice (Ex. 12:48). It is asserted that the uncircumcised can purify himself from the impurity and, being circumcised later, participate in the Passover celebration., for we find that our forefathers in the desert⁶⁶. 4:19). They were then circumcised (Jos. 5:2–8) and celebrated Passover on the 14 (Jos. 5:10). received sprinkling when uncircumcised. Rav Ḥisda said, following him who said that they circumcised on the eleventh⁶⁷. But for him who said that they circumcised on the tenth, they did not count sprinkling when uncircumcised. Rebbi Abin said, did they not have to count for sprinkling when uncircumcised in any case68.cit., by Mar Zuṭra, there is rejected by Rav Ashi.? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: It happened that an uncircumcised Cohen was sprinkled⁶⁹: “he sprinkled” (active verb form). and the sprinklings were declared valid. It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, there were soldiers⁷⁰ and gate keepers in Jerusalem who immersed themselves and ate their Passover sacrifices in the evening⁷¹ and participated in Passover, not needing cleansing by sprinkling following the House of Shammai (Mishnah Pesaḥim 8:8)..

footnotes: ⁶⁴ The parallel text is in Pesaḥim ⁶⁵ The person impure by the impurity of the dead has to be sprinkled with water containing ashes of the Red Cow on the third and the seventh day of his impurity (Num. ⁶⁶ Not in the desert, but after crossing the Jordan on the 10th of Nisan (Jos ⁶⁷ If they were circumcised on the 11th they had to be sprinkled on the 10th, when they still were uncircumcised, in order to become pure on the 14th. ⁶⁹ In Pesaḥim ⁷⁰ Greek στρατιώτης. ⁷¹ They were Gentiles who converted to Judaism, were circumcised on the 14th of Nisan, immersed themselves in a miqweh

MISHNAH: A nazir who was doubtfully impure and doubtfully definitely [suffering from skin disease]⁷² vow but is not sure whether or not he became impure from the impurity of the dead in his period of nezirut. Also, he was recently healed from skin disease. The sufferer from skin disease is called “definitively suffering from the disease” only if the conditions for impurity apply and he was declared impure by a Cohen(Lev. 13:8,11,20,22,25,27,30,44). A definitively suffering person has to be cleansed by the ritual of Lev. 14:1–32 which includes repeated shavings of all his hair. In the case treated in the Mishnah, the person was in a group where one was declared definitively affected, but the Cohen does not remember whom in particular he declared impure. may eat sacrificial meat after 60 days⁷³ for whom it is forbidden to shave for a possible impurity of skin disease, as explained at the end of the Mishnah. He then should count seven days and shave a second time, but he cannot do that since he might have been impure and the shaving was not for his skin disease but for his impurity. Therefore, he can shave a second time and finish his purification from skin disease after an additional nazir period of 30 days; then he is able to partake of sacrificial meat. and drink wine and become impure by the dead after 120 days⁷⁴ (Halakhah 7:3), which he has to keep for another 30 days. He cannot drink wine after 90 days since he might have been both definitively sick and impure from the impurity of the dead; his three shavings take care of the impurities both of skin disease and of the impure nazir; he has satisfied his obligations after 120 days and four shavings. The details of the required procedures and sacrifices are explained in the Halakhah., since the shaving for skin disease supersedes the shaving of the nazir when it is certain, but when it is in doubt it does not supersede.

footnotes: ⁷² A person who has completed the 30 days of his nazir ⁷³ After he was healed from skin disease, purified from his impurity, and has completed the 30 days of his vow, he shaves the first time for his rehabilitation from skin disease. He cannot do it before he has completed the 30 days since he might be a pure nazir ⁷⁴ He cannot drink wine after 60 days since he might have been definitively sick but pure from the impurity of the dead; the period of his impurity as a sufferer from skin disease is not counted for his nezirut

HALAKHAH: Who is doubtfully definitely [suffering]? Two who came to him⁷⁵. He declared one of them definitively affected but before he could declare the second one definitively affected, they were changed for him⁷⁶ 3:1), and by now both are healed (cf. S. Lieberman, Tosefta kiFshutah Nezirut p. 563.). That is a doubtfully definitely [suffering person]. This is the one about whom Rebbi Ḥiyya stated⁷⁷ 6:1. (Cf. Tosaphot Zebaḥim 76a, Menaḥot 105a, Niddah 70a, all s.v. למחרת.): A nazir, in doubt whether impure or pure, but certainly he was a nazir. A sufferer from skin disease, in doubt whether impure or pure, but certainly he was a sufferer from skin disease. He eats from sacrificial meat after 60 days, drinks wine and defiles himself for the dead after 120 days. How is that? One said to him, you are an impure nazir, go count seven [days]. He sprinkled, repeated, shaved, and brought⁷⁸. The sentence can also be interpreted as imperative: Go count seven [days], sprinkle, repeat (on day 7), shave (on day 7), and bring! The Erfurt text of the Tosephta is self־contradictory; it is partially vocalized הַיזה ושנה וגַילח; the consonantal text is in the imperfect, the punctuation in the imperative.. He then counted seven [days] and wanted to shave. One said to him, impure nazir, go count seven [days] and continue for 30. He counted 30 [days] and wanted to shave. One said to him, you are a pure nazir, does not a pure nazir shave on kinds of blood⁷⁹ shaves only on a bloody sacrifice”.? He brings an elevation offering and shaves on it, a bird purification offering and stipulates, saying: “If I was impure, the purification offering is my obligation and the elevation offering is voluntary. If I was pure, the elevation offering is my obligation and the purification offering is in doubt.⁷ 7:6).” He shaves his head, his beard, and his eyebrows in the way the sufferer from skin disease shaves⁸⁰ 14:9..

footnotes: ⁷⁵ To a Cohen knowledgeable in the diagnosis of skin disease. ⁷⁶ Since he does no longer recognize them, he cannot declare the second one definitively impure, even though he realizes that both of them satisfy all criteria of impurity, since the Cohen may not see two cases together (Mishnah Nega‘im ⁷⁷ Tosephta Nazir ⁷⁸ The offerings of two birds required from the impure nazir ⁷⁹ He cannot shave without an appropriate sacrifice. In the Tosephta, the sentence is declarative: וְאֵין נָזִיר טָהוֹר מְגַלֵּחַ אֶלָּא עַל הַדָּמִים “a pure nazir ⁷ The sacrifice of impurity consists of two birds. The one offered as elevation sacrifice can be given as obligation, if there was impurity, or as voluntary gift, if there was none. The bird offered as purification sacrifice cannot be eaten by the priests; after its blood was used, it has to be burned outside the Temple precinct (Mishnah Temurah ⁸⁰ Lev.

⁷⁷ 6:1. (Cf. Tosaphot Zebaḥim 76a, Menaḥot 105a, Niddah 70a, all s.v. למחרת.) How does one deal with him in a restrictive way? He brings two swallows and slaughters one of them over a clay vessel filled from running water; one digs und buries it, for it is forbidden for usufruct⁸¹ 14:1 (Lev. 14:4–5).. He shaves his head, beard, and eyebrows in the way the sufferers from skin disease do. He counts 30 days and brings another animal as elevation offering, saying: “If I was impure, the first elevation offering was voluntary and this one⁸² at both places אוֹ “or” instead of וְזֶה “and this one”. is obligatory, and the purification offering is my obligation. If I was pure, the first elevation offering was my obligation, this one⁸² at both places אוֹ “or” instead of וְזֶה “and this one”. is voluntary, and the purification offering is in doubt.⁷ 7:6).” He shaves his head, his beard, and his eyebrows in the way the sufferer from skin disease shaves⁸⁰ 14:9..

footnotes: ⁷⁷ Tosephta Nazir ⁸¹ Mishnah Nega‘im ⁸² This translation follows the Tosephta text. In ms. and editio princeps ⁸² This translation follows the Tosephta text. In ms. and editio princeps ⁷ The sacrifice of impurity consists of two birds. The one offered as elevation sacrifice can be given as obligation, if there was impurity, or as voluntary gift, if there was none. The bird offered as purification sacrifice cannot be eaten by the priests; after its blood was used, it has to be burned outside the Temple precinct (Mishnah Temurah ⁸⁰ Lev.

⁷⁷ 6:1. (Cf. Tosaphot Zebaḥim 76a, Menaḥot 105a, Niddah 70a, all s.v. למחרת.)Rebbi Simeon said: On the next day⁸³ 14:10., he brings his reparation sacrifice⁸⁴ 14:10,21–22), but only the sheep as reparation sacrifice is needed in the purification ceremony. and a log⁸⁵ is .533 1. of oil with it and says: If I was impure, this is my obligatory offering, otherwise it is my doubtful offering⁸⁶. He slaughters in the North⁸⁷ 7:2). The Tosephta adds that the sacrifice also needs the obligatory gifts accompanying a well-being offering., it needs giving on the thumbs⁸⁸ 14:14,17)., and it is eaten by male Cohanim at any place⁸⁹ 7:6, Mishnah Zebaḥim 5:5). during the day and the following night until midnight. But the Sages did [not]⁹⁰ agree with Rebbi Simeon because he causes sacrifices to become invalid⁹¹.

footnotes: ⁷⁷ Tosephta Nazir ⁸³ As required in the purification ritual for the sufferer from skin disease, Lev. ⁸⁴ The healed person has to bring three sacrifices (Lev. ⁸⁵ A log ⁸⁶ This text cannot be accepted; it makes no sense and contradicts the last statement in the Halakhah. The text should be replaced by the corresponding one in the Tosephta: וְאִם לָאו הֲרֵי זֶה שַׁלְמֵי נְדָבָה "otherwise, it should be a voluntary well-being offering". It is impossible to bring a reparation offering except for an obligation but a well-being offering is voluntary in almost all cases. ⁸⁷ Since a reparation offering is “most holy”, it must be slaughtered to the North of the altar (Lev. ⁸⁸ Blood of the sacrifice and oil from the flask have to be put on the convalescent’s right earlobe, right thumb, and right great toe (Lev. ⁸⁹ Any place within the Temple precinct; Lev. ⁹⁰ Text of the Tosephta, required by the context. ⁹¹ Well-being sacrifices may be eaten by all pure Israelites for two days and the intervening night, reparation sacrifices only by priests and only for a day and half a night. There is a likelyhood that some of the meat of the reparation sacrifice will become invalid after midnight; it has to be burned outside the Temple precinct. This is an alienation from the original purpose and has to be avoided.

⁷⁷ 6:1. (Cf. Tosaphot Zebaḥim 76a, Menaḥot 105a, Niddah 70a, all s.v. למחרת.) He cannot bring an animal as purification sacrifice since he does not have the right to an animal purification sacrifice⁹². He cannot bring a bird as purification sacrifice⁹³ 14:22. since a rich person who brought the sacrifices prescribed for a poor person did not fulfill his obligation⁹⁴ 14:12.. What can he do? He shall write his property over to another person⁹⁵ and bring the sacrifices prescribed for a poor person; this enables the rich person to bring a bird as a purification sacrifice. He stipulates and says: If I was impure, that is my obligation. Otherwise, this is in doubt⁷ 7:6)..

footnotes: ⁷⁷ Tosephta Nazir ⁹² The Tosephta is more explicit: “Because an animal purification sacrifice cannot be offered in case of doubt.” ⁹³ The offering of the poor person healed from skin disease, Lev. ⁹⁴ Mishnah Nega‘im ⁹⁵ Then he is poor. ⁷ The sacrifice of impurity consists of two birds. The one offered as elevation sacrifice can be given as obligation, if there was impurity, or as voluntary gift, if there was none. The bird offered as purification sacrifice cannot be eaten by the priests; after its blood was used, it has to be burned outside the Temple precinct (Mishnah Temurah

⁷⁷ 6:1. (Cf. Tosaphot Zebaḥim 76a, Menaḥot 105a, Niddah 70a, all s.v. למחרת.) He may eat sacrificial meat immediately. He cannot drink wine or defile himself for the dead since his nezirut is not counted during the days of his [impurity of] skin disease⁷⁴ (Halakhah 7:3), which he has to keep for another 30 days. He cannot drink wine after 90 days since he might have been both definitively sick and impure from the impurity of the dead; his three shavings take care of the impurities both of skin disease and of the impure nazir; he has satisfied his obligations after 120 days and four shavings. The details of the required procedures and sacrifices are explained in the Halakhah..

footnotes: ⁷⁷ Tosephta Nazir ⁷⁴ He cannot drink wine after 60 days since he might have been definitively sick but pure from the impurity of the dead; the period of his impurity as a sufferer from skin disease is not counted for his nezirut

He counts another 30 days and brings all his sacrifices, stipulates, and says: If I was impure, the first elevation offering was obligatory and this one is voluntary. But if I was pure, the first elevation offering was voluntary and this one is obligatory. The purification offering is in doubt. He shaves his head, beard, and eyebrows, etc.⁹⁶ before 120 days, as explained in Note 74. In addition, since an impure nazir has to bring a bird as elevation offering, rather than a four-legged animal, it is clear that after 120 days the declaration must read: “If I was impure, the first elevation offering was voluntary and this one is obligatory. But if I was pure, the first elevation offering was obligatory and this one is voluntary.” It seems that a paragraph is missing, describing the offering after 90 days (which is parallel to the one after 30 days for the person who might have been impure by the impurity of the dead, Mishnah 3) and that the duly corrected present paragraph describes the sacrifices after 120 days..

footnotes: ⁹⁶ It is difficult to make sense of this text (which has no parallel in the Tosephta). The last sentence is certainly out of place since the ceremonies at the end of 60 days disposed of all possible impurities of the sufferer from skin disease. He cannot bring the entire set of sacrifices of the pure nazir

⁹⁷? He counts 30 days, brings an animal elevation offering and shaves¹ 76a, it is assumed that he already cleansed himself from the impurity of the dead by sprinkling. This shaving is valid if he was not impure from skin disease; it is useless if he was impure from skin disease since then it was not done in the correct framework and nezirut is not counted during his skin disease impurity., a bird as purification offering², stipulates, and says: “If I was impure, the purification offering is for my obligation and the elevation offering is voluntary. If I was pure, the elevation offering is for my obligation and the purification offering is in doubt.” Then he counts 30 days, brings the completion of his sacrifices³. He cannot bring the animal purification offering since this may not be offered in cases of doubt. Naturally, he also shaves for this sacrifice, and he has to stipulate that all sacrifices are either voluntary or in doubt in case he was already completely purified by the prior shavings and an animal elevation offering, stipulates, and says: ⁴. The Erfurt ms. reads “If I was impure, the prior purification offering was obligatory, the present one is voluntary, and the bird purification offering is obligatory. If I was pure, the prior elevation offering was voluntary and the present one obligatory; the purification offering is in doubt.” It seems that the two texts are not variations of one another (which would make the Erfurt text obviously erroneous) but residues of two different paragraphs of the original four-part text. “If I was impure, the prior purification offering was voluntary, the present one is obligatory, and the bird purification offering is obligatory. If I was pure, the prior elevation offering was obligatory and the present one voluntary; the purification offering is in doubt.” ⁵ He immediately drinks wine and defiles himself for the dead. When had this been said? If the vow of nazir was for 30 days. But if his vow was for 12 months, he eats sacrificial meat after two years, drinks wine, and defiles himself for the dead after four years. How does one treat him according to Ben Zoma? He brings an animal elevation offering and shaves for it, a bird as purification offering, stipulates, and says: “If I was impure, the purification offering is for my obligation and the elevation offering is voluntary. If I was pure, the elevation offering is for my obligation and the purification offering is in doubt.” He shaves his head, beard, and eyebrows, etc.⁹⁸

footnotes: ⁹⁷ This text is hopelessly garbled. It seems that the original text was close to the Tosephta:כֵּיצַד תַּעֲשֶׂה לוֹ כְדִבְרֵי בֶּן זוֹמָא. סוֹפֵר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וּמֵבִיא עוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה וּמְגַלֵּחַ וּמֵבִיא חַטַּאת הָעוֹף וּמַתְנֶה עָלֶיהָ וְאוֹמֵר אִם טָמֵא אֲנִי חַטָּאת מֵחוֹבָתִי וְעוֹלָה נְדָבָה אִם טָהוֹר אֲנִי עוֹלָה מֵחוֹבָתִי וְחַטָּאת סָפֵק. וְסוֹפֵר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וּמֵבִיא קָרְבְּנוֹתָיו שְׁלֵמִים וּמֵבִיא עוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה וּמַתְנֶה עָלֶיהָ וְאָמַר אִם טָמֵא אֲנִי עוֹלָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה חוֹבָה וְזוֹ נְדָבָה וְחַטַּאת הָעוֹף מֵחוֹבָתוֹ. אִם טָהוֹר אֲנִי עוֹלָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה נְדָבָה וְזוֹ חוֹבָה וְחַטַּאת הָעוֹף סְפֵיקִי וְשׁוֹתֶה יַיִן וּמִטַּמֵּא לַמֵּתִים מִיָּד. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּזְמַן שֶׁנָּזַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אֲבָל נָזַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ אוֹכֵל בַּקֳּדָשִׁים לְאַחַר שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים. וְשׁוֹתֶה יַיִן וּמִיטַּמֵּא לַמֵּתִים אַחַר אַרְבַּע שָׁנִים.How does one treat him according to Ben ZomaaBen Zoma disagrees with R. Simeon and holds that the healed sufferer from skin disease can cleanse himself by the bird purification sacrifice of the poor, without a reparation sacrifice. The Tosephta text also is defective, since Ben Zoma also agrees that complete purification is possible only after four periods. The original statement also must have contained four parts, not two as in the current text. ¹ As Tosaphot explains in Zebaḥim ² After another 30 days. ³ The well-being offering of the pure nazir ⁴ This text is from the Vienna ms. and the editio princeps ⁵ The forth period; its sacrifices and declarations are missing. ⁹⁸ This sentence is out of place here.

He may drink wine and defile himself for the dead immediately⁹⁹. When has this been said? If he made the vow of nazir as a nazir, but if he made the vow of nazir as a sufferer from skin disease he might eat sacrificial meat after two years, drink wine, and defile himself for the dead after four years¹? He counts 30 days, brings an animal elevation offering and shaves² 76a, it is assumed that he already cleansed himself from the impurity of the dead by sprinkling. This shaving is valid if he was not impure from skin disease; it is useless if he was impure from skin disease since then it was not done in the correct framework and nezirut is not counted during his skin disease impurity., a bird as purification offering³, stipulates, and says: “If I was impure, the purification offering is for my obligation and the elevation offering is voluntary. If I was pure, the elevation offering is for my obligation and the purification offering is in doubt.” Then he counts 30 days, brings the completion of his sacrifices⁴. He cannot bring the animal purification offering since this may not be offered in cases of doubt. Naturally, he also shaves for this sacrifice, and he has to stipulate that all sacrifices are either voluntary or in doubt in case he was already completely purified by the prior shavings and an animal elevation offering, stipulates, and says: ⁵. The Erfurt ms. reads “If I was impure, the prior purification offering was obligatory, the present one is voluntary, and the bird purification offering is obligatory. If I was pure, the prior elevation offering was voluntary and the present one obligatory; the purification offering is in doubt.” It seems that the two texts are not variations of one another (which would make the Erfurt text obviously erroneous) but residues of two different paragraphs of the original four-part text. “If I was impure, the prior purification offering was voluntary, the present one is obligatory, and the bird purification offering is obligatory. If I was pure, the prior elevation offering was obligatory and the present one voluntary; the purification offering is in doubt.” ⁶ He immediately drinks wine and defiles himself for the dead. When had this been said? If the vow of nazir was for 30 days. But if his vow was for 12 months, he eats sacrificial meat after two years, drinks wine, and defiles himself for the dead after four years.⁹⁹.

footnotes: ⁹⁹ There is a possibility that the original text underlying the Halakhah was not that of the Tosephta but referred to the situation mentioned by R. Ze‘ira in the next Halakhah. ¹ This text is hopelessly garbled. It seems that the original text was close to the Tosephta:כֵּיצַד תַּעֲשֶׂה לוֹ כְדִבְרֵי בֶּן זוֹמָא. סוֹפֵר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וּמֵבִיא עוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה וּמְגַלֵּחַ וּמֵבִיא חַטַּאת הָעוֹף וּמַתְנֶה עָלֶיהָ וְאוֹמֵר אִם טָמֵא אֲנִי חַטָּאת מֵחוֹבָתִי וְעוֹלָה נְדָבָה אִם טָהוֹר אֲנִי עוֹלָה מֵחוֹבָתִי וְחַטָּאת סָפֵק. וְסוֹפֵר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וּמֵבִיא קָרְבְּנוֹתָיו שְׁלֵמִים וּמֵבִיא עוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה וּמַתְנֶה עָלֶיהָ וְאָמַר אִם טָמֵא אֲנִי עוֹלָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה חוֹבָה וְזוֹ נְדָבָה וְחַטַּאת הָעוֹף מֵחוֹבָתוֹ. אִם טָהוֹר אֲנִי עוֹלָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה נְדָבָה וְזוֹ חוֹבָה וְחַטַּאת הָעוֹף סְפֵיקִי וְשׁוֹתֶה יַיִן וּמִטַּמֵּא לַמֵּתִים מִיָּד. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּזְמַן שֶׁנָּזַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אֲבָל נָזַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ אוֹכֵל בַּקֳּדָשִׁים לְאַחַר שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים. וְשׁוֹתֶה יַיִן וּמִיטַּמֵּא לַמֵּתִים אַחַר אַרְבַּע שָׁנִים.How does one treat him according to Ben ZomaaBen Zoma disagrees with R. Simeon and holds that the healed sufferer from skin disease can cleanse himself by the bird purification sacrifice of the poor, without a reparation sacrifice. The Tosephta text also is defective, since Ben Zoma also agrees that complete purification is possible only after four periods. The original statement also must have contained four parts, not two as in the current text. ² As Tosaphot explains in Zebaḥim ³ After another 30 days. ⁴ The well-being offering of the pure nazir ⁵ This text is from the Vienna ms. and the editio princeps ⁶ The forth period; its sacrifices and declarations are missing. ⁹⁹ There is a possibility that the original text underlying the Halakhah was not that of the Tosephta but referred to the situation mentioned by R. Ze‘ira in the next Halakhah.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are Ben Zoma’s words, but the words of the Sages: Forever is he definitively [impure] until he heave¹⁰⁰ 14:12,24. the reparation sacrifice¹⁰¹ 14:11.. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Why is he definitively [impure] until he heave the reparation sacrifice¹⁰² who may be impure from the dead and may be definitively impure from skin disease can never cleanse himself for sacrificial meat since R. Simeon’s approach was rejected. The purification of the convalescent in all other respects only depends on the ceremonies described in Lev. 14:1–9, which do not require any sacrifice (Mishnah Nega‘im 14:3; Maimonides Tum’at Ṣara‘at 11:2).? Rebbi Yose said to him, why not? We find several reparation sacrifices which are pushed aside because of doubts! As we have stated there¹⁰³ 8:3. The animals should be put out to graze until they develop a blemish, when they can be sold and the money used for new sacrifices. In the meantime, the owners of the sacrifices can fulfill their obligations only by offering substitute animals.: “If a reparation sacrifice was mixed up with a well-being sacrifice, Rebbi Simeon says that both should be slaughtered in the North and eaten following the more restrictive rules. They said to him, one does not cause sacrifices to become invalid⁹¹.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁰ Lev. ¹⁰¹ The entire purification of the convalescent from skin disease is by the blood of the reparation sacrifice and the olive oil; the other sacrifices are dependent on the reparation sacrifice; cf. Mishnah Nega‘im ¹⁰² This would imply that the nazir ¹⁰³ Mishnah Zebaḥim ⁹¹ Well-being sacrifices may be eaten by all pure Israelites for two days and the intervening night, reparation sacrifices only by priests and only for a day and half a night. There is a likelyhood that some of the meat of the reparation sacrifice will become invalid after midnight; it has to be burned outside the Temple precinct. This is an alienation from the original purpose and has to be avoided.

Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked before Rebbi Yose: Could they not arrange something for his wine¹⁰⁴ have to wait until the problems arising from the skin disease are resolved, which in the best case takes 2 periods of nezirut and in the worst forever? Why can he not shave twice within eight days to remove the impurity of skin disease (for profane purposes and heave) and then proceed directly to resolve the problem of nezirut?? He said to him, “the nazir shaves at the gate of the Tent of Meeting¹⁰⁵ 6:18. The nazir cannot proceed to liquidate his vow as long as he is barred from holy places. (Cf. also Note 110).;” if he is able to appear at the gate of the Tent of Meeting. This excludes him who is unable to appear at the gate of the Tent of Meeting.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁴ Why does the nazir ¹⁰⁵ Num.

What is the status of his hair¹⁰⁶ are forbidden for usufruct; they must be burned within the Temple precinct (Num. 6:18). But nothing is prescribed for the shavings of the convalescent sufferer from skin disease; therefore, these are permitted for usufruct.? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. Rebbi Joḥanan said, his hair is forbidden; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, his hair is permitted. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: Do they disagree about a sufferer from skin disease who made a vow of nazir or do they disagree about a nazir who became a sufferer from skin disease? If you say that they disagree about a sufferer from skin disease who made a vow of nazir, then for a nazir who became a sufferer from skin disease everybody agrees that it is forbidden¹⁰⁷. If you say that they disagree about a nazir who became a sufferer from skin disease, then for a sufferer from skin disease who made a vow of nazir everybody agrees that it is permitted¹⁰⁸. For Rebbi Jeremiah it was obvious that they disagreed about a sufferer from skin disease who made a vow of nazir. Therefore, for a nazir who became a sufferer from skin disease everybody agrees that it is permitted¹⁰⁹

footnotes: ¹⁰⁶ The shavings of a nazir ¹⁰⁷ Since his hair was forbidden already before he contracted the disease. ¹⁰⁸ Any shavings for his convalescence are subject to the rules of skin disease. ¹⁰⁹ For consistency, one should read here: “forbidden.”

Does the obligatory shaving push aside the rules of voluntary shaving¹¹⁰ 19:27 forbids to “shear off the corners of your head and to destroy the corners of your beard.” The nazir must shave his entire head, including its corners; the sufferer from skin disease must shave off all his hair, including corners of head and beard. There is no question that a person certainly impure, either from a corpse in the case of the nazir, or being declared impure as a sufferer from skin disease, must shave as required. The problem is only how far a shaving because of doubt really pushes aside the general rules about forbidden shaving.? Let us hear from the following¹¹¹: “He shaves his head, his beard, and his eyebrows in the way sufferers from skin disease shave.” But there one could say, maybe it was an obligatory shaving. ¹¹² cannot begin counting for his vow unless he is able to enter the Temple precinct. He brings an additional proof from Mishnah 6:11, which notes that permission to drink wine is given to the nazir if and only if one of his sacrifices was offered in the Temple, whether he shaved or not. Therefore, his proceedings as nazir cannot be based on the shavings as a convalescent alone, disregarding his required sacrifice. There can be no shortcut. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Yudan: The Mishnah says so; “for Rebbi Simeon says, when one of the bloods was sprinkled, the nazir is permitted to drink wine and to defile himself with the dead.” Is he not forbidden because of “do not destroy”? Samuel bar Abba¹¹³ 19:27 does not apply. said, explain it if he was a eunuch¹¹⁴, there can be no question that he is entitled to shear “the corners of his head”; the only problem is to shave “the corners of his beard” when it is not clear that it is really required. If the person in question has no beard, there is no problem.. But did we not state “the beard”? How can you say, a eunuch? You have only what Rebbi Jacob said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he removed it from bottom to top it is forbidden¹¹⁵. Rebbi Yose bar Abin said, there is no difference between bottom to top or top to bottom¹¹⁶ 19:27 forbids to “shear off the corners of your head and to destroy the corners of your beard” but not to shave off all hair on the head and all hair on the chin in case of need..

footnotes: ¹¹⁰ Lev. ¹¹¹ Halakhah 4, speaking of a case of double doubt. ¹¹² It seems that this text does not belong here. It belongs to the paragraph before the last (Notes 102, 103), where R. Ze‘ira notes that the nazir ¹¹³ It seems that reference is made not to R. Samuel bar Abba, the student of R. Joḥanan, but to Samuel (bar Abba bar Abba) the Babylonian who in the Babli, 57b, restricts the applicability of the rules of shavings to women and minors, to whom Lev. ¹¹⁴ Since we are speaking of a person who certainly had made a vow of nazir ¹¹⁵ By implication it would not be forbidden if the head was shaved totally before the beard was. ¹¹⁶ The preceding statement is rejected. It follows that Lev.

¹¹⁷ days¹, drinks wine and defiles himself for the dead after 67 days² plus seven days of the sufferer from skin disease which do not count for his nezirut.. If he was certainly impure and doubtfully definitely [suffering from skin disease], he eats from sacrificial meat after 37 days³ in purity and shaves. This shaving certainly counts for the second shaving of the sufferer from skin disease; afterwards he may eat sacrificial meat. Since the thirty days would not count for his nezirut if he actually was a sufferer from skin disease, he keeps another 7 days for his impurity of the dead followed by 30 days of nezirut in purity, shaves, and is permitted wine., drinks wine and defiles himself for the dead after 74 days. If he was certainly impure and certainly definitely [suffering from skin disease], he eats from sacrificial meat after eight days¹, drinks wine and defiles himself for the dead after 44 days⁴.“If he was doubtfully impure and certainly definitely [suffering from skin disease], he eats from sacrificial meat after 60 days, drinks wine and defiles himself for the dead after 120 days. If he was certainly impure and doubtfully definitely [suffering from skin disease], he eats from sacrificial meat after 20 days, drinks wine and defiles himself for the dead after 44 days. If he was certainly impure and certainly definitely [suffering from skin disease], he eats from sacrificial meat after eight days, drinks wine and defiles himself for the dead after 44 days.”

footnotes: ¹¹⁷ Tosephta 6:1, Babli 60b. The text as it stands here is mostly unintelligible; the correct numbers are given in Tosephta 6/Babli:טָמֵא בְסָפֵק וּמוּחְלַט בְּוַדַּיי אוֹכֵל בַּקֳּדָשִׁים לְאַחַר שְׁמוֹנָה יָמִים שׁוֹתֶה יַיִן וּמִיטַּמֵּא לַמֵּתִים לְאַחַר שִׁשִּׁים וְשִׁבְעָה יוֹם. טָמֵא בְּוַדַּאי וּמוּחְלָט בְּסָפֵק אוֹכֵל בַּקֳּדָשִׁים לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים וְשִׁבְעָה יוֹם שׁוֹתֶה יַיִן וּמִטַּמֵּא לַמֵּתִים לְאַחַר שִׁבְעִים וְאַרְבַּע יוֹם. טָמֵא בְּוַדַּאי וּמוּחְלַט בְּוַדַּיי אוֹכֵל בַּקֳּדָשִׁים לְאַחַר שְׁמוֹנָה יָמִים וְשׁוֹתֶה בַּיַּיִן וּמִיטַּמֵּא לַמֵּתִים לְאַחַר ארְבָּעִים וְאַרְבָּעָה יוֹם.If he was doubtfully impure and certainly definitely [suffering from skin disease], he eats from sacrificial meat after 8 ¹ The eight days of purification of the sufferer from skin disease. ² The sixty days for two periods of nezirut ³ He waits 7 days and shaves, both for his impurity of the dead and since he might have been impure with skin disease. He then keeps 30 days of nezirut ¹ The eight days of purification of the sufferer from skin disease. ⁴ Seven days of the convalescent sufferer from skin disease, seven days of the person defiled by the impurity of the dead, and 30 days of pure nezirut.

Rebbi Abbamari, the brother of Rebbi Yose said, this shows that the shaving knife destroys seven for an impure nazir¹¹⁸..

footnotes: ¹¹⁸ This shows that the Tosephta/Babli text is also understood here. In no case are the seven days counting for the convalescent counted for the nazir