Nedarim 4a — the Talmud in English

Rav Aha bar Yaakov said:

There is a possible case in which one transgresses bal te'acher with regard to naziriteship,

such as when he vowed

to become a nazirite,

and he

was found at the time of accepting the naziriteship

in a cemetery,

where, while he is there, he does not become a nazirite, because a cemetery is a place forbidden for a nazirite to enter; and then it is possible for him to transgress bal te'acher if he does not immediately leave the cemetery, purify himself, and accept naziriteship.

And we refute this:

That works well according to the one who says

that one who accepts naziriteship upon himself while he is in a cemetery

does not have naziriteship take effect upon him immediately,

that he does not immediately become a nazirite while he is there; it is properly possible to apply the law of bal te'acher to a nazirite.

But according to the one who says that it takes effect upon him immediately,

that naziriteship takes effect while he is still in the cemetery, this is difficult:

Is there

indeed a possibility of transgressing

bal te'acher

with regard to naziriteship? But upon accepting it he becomes a nazirite!

And furthermore,

this is difficult:

Did not Mar bar Rav Ashi say:

According to everyone,

naziriteship takes effect upon him immediately

in the cemetery;

and when they disagree,

only

with regard to lashes do they disagree,

whether he is lashed while he is in the cemetery for eating grapes.

And since, according to everyone, naziriteship takes effect upon him, he does not transgress bal te'acher!

And we answer:

Even so,

although naziriteship takes effect upon him immediately, while he is still in the cemetery,

he stands as

one who transgresses

bal te'acher

if he does not leave the cemetery immediately,

because he is delaying

thereby the fulfillment of

pure naziriteship.

For this nazirite, who accepted naziriteship while he was impure, is obligated to become pure immediately, bring the offerings of a nazirite who became impure, and begin counting thirty days of pure naziriteship. And if he delays the fulfillment of pure naziriteship, he transgresses bal te'acher.

Rav Ashi said: Since this is so,

that even when naziriteship takes effect, if it takes effect in impurity, there is bal te'acher for delaying the conduct of pure naziriteship—

A nazirite who deliberately made himself impure

transgresses

thereby

because of bal te'acher of pure naziriteship.

Rav Aha, son of Rav Ika, said:

There is another possible case of bal te'acher with regard to naziriteship, in which he

transgresses bal te'acher

the mitzva of

his shaving.

For since he made himself impure, he cannot fulfill the mitzva of shaving of a pure nazirite at the conclusion of his naziriteship, in accordance with the law of a pure nazirite. Rather, he must shave the hair of his head once he has become impure, and this shaving does not constitute fulfillment of the mitzva of shaving of a pure nazirite; rather, this shaving is intended to end his impure naziriteship, in order to begin counting pure naziriteship anew.

And it is not necessary according to the one who says that the shaving

of a nazirite who became impure

prevents

the beginning of conducting pure naziriteship; according to him, it is obvious that he transgresses bal te'acher with regard to his shaving when he makes himself impure.

Rather, even according to the one who says that the shaving

of a nazirite who became impure

does not prevent

the beginning of conducting pure naziriteship, nevertheless,

the mitzva of shaving

of a pure nazirite

at least

he

does not fulfill,

and it is found that he actively delayed the fulfillment of the mitzva by actively making himself impure.

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said:

A nazirite who made himself impure

transgresses bal te'acher with regard to his offerings.

For he was obligated to bring, at the conclusion of his naziriteship, the offerings of a pure nazirite, and by making himself impure he delayed their bringing until he becomes pure and counts days of pure naziriteship. And the Gemara wondered:

And

why

from here

from the analogy of vows to naziriteship

does he derive

bal te'acher with regard to the offerings of a nazirite?

But

from there he derives it,

from that which is written concerning bal te'acher [Deuteronomy 23] “

For I will surely require it”—

these are sin offerings and guilt offerings!

And the offerings of a nazirite that include a sin offering and a guilt offering are also included among them.

And we answer: Nevertheless, the analogy of vows to naziriteship was needed, because

lest you say,

there would be room to say, had there been no analogy, that

it is a novelty that the Torah introduced with regard to a nazirite,

and therefore he does not transgress bal te'acher for not bringing the offerings of the nazirite; it teaches us by means of the analogy that even with regard to a nazirite he transgresses.

And we inquire about this:

What novelty

is there with regard to a nazirite?

If you say,

if it is said that the novelty is that

he cannot designate the sin offering of a nazirite through a vow,

that it is impossible to vow to bring a sin offering of a nazirite unless one becomes a nazirite, this is not a novelty, because—

Behold, the sin offering for forbidden fat [A0106]a regular sin offering is called “the sin offering for forbidden fat,” because it is the common sin offering, since a person mistakenly eats forbidden fat unwittingly,

a regular sin offering is called a “sin offering for eating forbidden fat,” because it is the common sin offering, brought when a person mistakenly eats forbidden fat],

which cannot be designated through a vow,

rather, one becomes obligated in it only if he unwittingly transgressed a grave prohibition [whose deliberate violation is punishable by karet],

and he transgresses

it

through bal te'acher!

And the Gemara explains:

Rather, what is its novelty

of a nazirite?—

For

it might enter your mind to say: Since, if one says, ‘I am a nazirite even from grape seeds’

alone, the Torah introduced that

he is a nazirite with regard to everything,

and since it is a novelty,

let us say that he should not transgress it because of bal te'acher—

it teaches us

the verse that there is bal te'acher also with regard to a nazirite.

But this answer does not apply according to everyone.

For

that works well according to the one who says that,

the one who says, “I am

a nazirite from grape seeds”

is a nazirite with regard to everything,

there is properly a novelty with regard to a nazirite.

But according to Rabbi Shimon, who says that he does not

become

a nazirite until he vows abstinence from all of them,

from all the matters of a nazirite—

what can be said?

And furthermore, this novelty

behold, the novelty

is stringency!

And since Scripture made the matter stringent for him, it is obvious that it should also be made stringent for him with regard to bal te'acher, and not made lenient for him with regard to bal te'acher because of the novelty in its stringency.

And we answer:

Rather, what is its novelty

of a nazirite, as a leniency, because of which Scripture had to say that even with regard to a nazirite there is bal te'acher—