Nedarim 4a (ד.) — the Talmud in English

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said:

there is a possible case in which one violates “Do not delay” with regard to naziriteship,

for example, if he vowed

to become a nazirite,

and he

was, at the time he accepted the naziriteship,

in a cemetery,

where, while he is there, he does not become a nazirite, because a cemetery is a place that a nazirite is forbidden to enter. In that case, he may violate “Do not delay” if he does not leave the cemetery immediately, purify himself, and accept naziriteship.

The Gemara challenges this:

This works according to the one who says

that one who accepts naziriteship upon himself while in a cemetery

does not immediately have naziriteship take effect upon him,

so that he does not immediately become a nazirite while there; accordingly, it is indeed possible to apply the law of “Do not delay” to a nazirite.

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

even while he is in the cemetery, this is difficult:

is there

is it possible to violate

“Do not delay”

with regard to naziriteship, when he becomes a nazirite as soon as he accepts it!?

Furthermore,

this is difficult:

Mar bar Rav Ashi said:

according to everyone,

naziriteship immediately takes effect upon him

in the cemetery,

and when they disagree,

it is only

with regard to lashes that they disagree,

whether he receives lashes while in the cemetery for eating grapes.

And since, according to everyone, naziriteship takes effect upon him, he does not violate “Do not delay”!

The Gemara answers:

Even so,

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

he stands as one who

violates

“Do not delay”

if he does not leave the cemetery immediately,

because he is delaying

thereby the fulfillment of

his pure naziriteship.

For this nazirite, who accepted naziriteship while impure, is obligated to purify himself immediately, bring the offerings of a nazirite who became impure, and begin counting thirty days of pure naziriteship. If he delays the fulfillment of his pure naziriteship, he violates “Do not delay.”

Rav Ashi said: Since this is so,

that even when naziriteship takes effect, if it takes effect in a state of impurity, there is a violation of “Do not delay” for delaying the conduct of pure naziriteship—

a nazirite who deliberately rendered himself impure—

violates

thereby

the prohibition of “Do not delay” with regard to pure naziriteship.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said:

there is another possible case of “Do not delay” with regard to naziriteship, in which he

violates “Do not delay”

the mitzva of

his shaving.

For since he rendered himself impure, he cannot fulfill the mitzva of shaving of a pure nazirite at the conclusion of his naziriteship, as is required of a pure nazirite. Rather, once he has become impure, he must shave the hair of his head, and this shaving does not fulfill the mitzva of shaving of a pure nazirite. It is intended only to conclude his impure naziriteship, so that he can begin counting a new period of pure naziriteship.

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

of a nazirite who became impure

prevents

the beginning of the conduct of pure naziriteship; according to him, it is obvious that when he renders himself impure, he violates “Do not delay” with regard to his shaving.

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

of a nazirite who became impure

does not prevent

the beginning of the conduct of pure naziriteship, nevertheless,

the mitzva of shaving

of a pure nazirite

at least

he

does not fulfill,

and it follows that he deliberately delayed the fulfillment of the mitzva by deliberately rendering himself impure.

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said:

a nazirite who rendered himself impure

violates “Do not delay” with regard to his offerings.

For he was required to bring the offerings of a pure nazirite at the conclusion of his naziriteship, and by rendering himself impure, he delayed bringing them until he purifies himself and counts days of pure naziriteship. The Gemara wonders:

And

is it

from here,

from the analogy between vows and naziriteship,

that he derives

the prohibition of “Do not delay” with regard to the nazirite’s offerings?

But

he derives it from there,

from that which is written concerning “Do not delay” [Deuteronomy 23],

“For He will surely require it”—

these are sin-offerings and guilt-offerings!

And the offerings of a nazirite, which include a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, are included among them.

The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, the analogy between vows and naziriteship was necessary, because

it might enter your mind to say,

there would have been room to say, had it not been for the analogy, that

the Torah introduced a novel stringency with regard to a nazirite,

and therefore he does not violate “Do not delay” for failing to bring the nazirite’s offerings; the analogy teaches us that a nazirite also violates it.

The Gemara analyzes this:

What novelty

is there with regard to a nazirite?

If you say

that the novelty is that

one cannot designate a nazirite’s sin-offering through a vow,

as one cannot vow to bring a nazirite’s sin-offering unless one becomes a nazirite, this is not a novelty, because—

there is the sin-offering for forbidden fat [חטאת רגילה נקראת "חטאת חלב", כי היא החטאת השכיחה, שטועה אדם ואוכל חלב בשגגה]a regular sin-offering is called “the sin-offering for forbidden fat,” because it is the common sin-offering, incurred when a person mistakenly eats forbidden fat,

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,

but in which one becomes obligated only if he unintentionally transgresses a serious prohibition [one whose deliberate violation is punishable by karet],

and he violates

it

through “Do not delay”!

The Gemara explains:

Rather, what is the novelty

of a nazirite?—

For

it might enter your mind to say: Since, if one says, “I am a nazirite, even with regard to grape seeds alone,”

the Torah introduced the law that

he is a nazirite with regard to everything,

according to his statement, and since this is a novelty,

say that he should not violate it through “Do not delay”—

the verse teaches us

that there is also “Do not delay” with regard to a nazirite.

However, this answer does not apply according to everyone.

For

this works according to the one who says that

one who says, “I am

a nazirite with regard to grape seeds”

is a nazirite with regard to everything,

so there is indeed 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 matters prohibited to a nazirite—

what can be said?

Furthermore, this novelty

is a novelty

in the direction of stringency!

And since the verse treated him stringently, it is obvious that he should likewise be treated stringently with regard to “Do not delay,” rather than being treated leniently with regard to “Do not delay” on account of the novel stringency that applies to him.

The Gemara answers:

Rather, what is the novelty

of a nazirite in the direction of leniency, on account of which the verse had to teach that even a nazirite is subject to “Do not delay”—