Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Thus if he drank wine for ten days in a thirty day nazirite period, he need not observe more than the thirty days.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 11.

I.e., the ruling is not dependent on his intent, but on the fact: Is the majority of his head shaven or not?

I.e., and growing such a mane of hair takes 30 days.

According to the Rambam, the same ruling applies whether the nazirite vow is for 30 days or longer.

See Halachah 11

I.e., the thirtieth day of an ordinary nazirite vow or the last day of a prolonged vow.

I.e., thus had he taken a prolonged nazirite vow, he will benefit from the observance of all the days beyond the minimum of thirty. The commentaries discuss whether the invalidation of the 30 days is a Sciptural requirement or a Rabbinic decree.

See Chapter 8, Halachah I.

For once the blood is sprinkled upon him, he is considered to have completed his nazirite vow (Nazir 46a; see also Chapter 8, Halachah 5).

I.e., the sacrifices other than the one whose bloo<l was sprinkled on him. They were disqualified because of the impurity he contracted.

For while a person is impure due to ritual impurity contracted from contact with a corpse, we do not offer any sacrifices for him (Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash).

E. g., after an ordinary nazirite vow on the thirty-second day or on the hundred and second day ifhe took a nazirite vow for 100 days (Meiri, Nazir 14b).

Our text reflects the version of the Mishneh Torah in authoritative manuscripts and early printings. The standard version of the text reads somewhat differently.

Even though he has neither shaved,. nor brought his sacrifices (Meiri, foe. cit.).

I.e., the sacrifices that must be brought when a nazirite becomes impure, as described in Halachah 11.

And he must observe the relevant prohibitions.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 17.

This is the requirement to be observed when emerging from the impurity associated with a human corpse, as described in Hilchot Parah Adumah 11:1. If the impure person has the ashes sprinkled upon him on the third day of his impurity, the second sprinkling must be performed four days afterwards.

As stated in the following halachah, such a person is not required to bring any sacrifices after emerging from impurity. Hence, he may begin counting from the seventh day when he becomes ritually pure. Since a nazirite who becomes impure is required to bring sacrifices on the eighth day (see Halachah 11), he does not begin counting the days of his nazirite vow until that day (Kessef Mishneh).

Even though he contracts impurity there, as stated in the previous halachah.

I.e., provided he remains there for the time it takes to prostrate oneself (Chapter 5, Halachah 19).

I.e., since he is not required to bring a sacrifice, he is not required to shave (Radbaz).

See Chapter 7, Halachot 2-6. The impurity imparted by the cemetery itself is never sufficient to warrant shaving as explained there.

Since he was not pure at the time he took the nazirite vow, he is not required to shave when he incurs impurity.

Without his consent. If he acted with his consent, he is liable, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 18.

From Chapter 5, Halachah 19, one might think that the nazirite would be liable, because he remained in the cemetery in a state of ritual impurity. Indeed, the Ra’avad argues that he should be held liable if he remains. Nevertheless, according to the Rambam’s understanding of Nazir 17b, it can be explained that possibly, a distinction can be made between a nazirite who took his vow outside the cemetery and one who took his vow inside the cemetery in such a situation. The rationale is that if he was a nazirite previously, entry into the cemetery in a closed container put him in a precarious position. Hence, he is liable if he remains there. In this instance, since he was not a nazirite previously, there is no difficulty with his entry. Hence he is not liable for remaining (Ma’aseh Roke’ach). The Radbaz does not accept this explanation and maintains that here, the nazirite is not liable only because he was not given a warning.

For although it is questionable whether he is liable according to Scriptural Law, he is definitely treating his nazirite vow lightly. Hence, he is given this punishment according to Rabbinic Law.

This is also speaking about a nazirite who accepted his nazirite vows in a cemetery.

Since he did not emerge from ritual impurity, even though he left the cemetery, the laws stated in Halachah 8 apply and he is not required to bring a sacrifice even if he certainly becomes impure in a manner which would ordinarily require a nazirite to bring a sacrifice upon his emergence from impurity.

I.e., performed the rites necessary to emerge from ritual impurity.

I.e., the days he counted before reentering the cemetery. The days he spent in the cemetery are not counted, as indicated by Chapter 7, Halachah 7. As evident from the continuation of the halachah, this applies in an instance when he is not certain that he contracted impurity for which he is liable according to Scriptural Law.

And he must count only 29 days afterwards rather than 30. In actual fact, he is a nazirite who was ritually pure and contracted impurity. Nevertheless, his counting begins on the seventh day and not the eighth (as one might think based on Halachah 7). The rationale is since he originally accepted his nazirite vow in a cemetery, he is governed by the laws that apply in such an instance (Radbaz).

Although he was impure previously, his contracting impurity in this manner is significant enough for him to be required to bring the required sacrifices.

He must, however, have waited at least two days outside the cemetery. For as the Rambam states in Halachah 6, only two or more days can be invalidated.

See Numbers 6:9.

See Hilchot Parah Adumah 11:1.

See Numbers 6:10.

A smaller, wild variety of the dove family. See Hilchot /ssurei Mizbeiach 3:2 for more particulars.

Ordinary domesticated doves.

After purifying himself on the seventh day (Kessef Mishneh).

As stated in Hilchot Shegagot 3:11, this is in contrast to all other guilt offerings required by the Torah.

I.e., even if he brings them on a later date, it is not significant.

Because until he immerses himself and waits until sunset, he is not pure and cannot bring his sacrifices.

For the sin offering is the primary factor leading to his emergence from impurity. See Halachah 15.

These acts are required for the shaving required after a nazirite completes his vow in purity. See Chapter 8, Halachah 2.

Numbers 6:11 describes his hair as “holy.” Implied is that it is forbidden to benefit from it (Radbaz).

See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:12-14.

I.e., on the Temple Mount. Alternatively, it could refer to someone who entered the Women’s Courtyard (where the nazirites perform the shaving associated with completing their vows in ritual purity).

I.e., he is seeking to emulate a nazirite who shaves after completing his vow in purity who casts his hair under the pot where his peace offering is being cooked. There is a difference of opinion among the Sages (Nazir, Tosefta 4:5) if it is desirable to emulate that act. The Rambam follows the view that at the outset, the hair should be buried and not destroyed by fire. Nevertheless, all authorities agree that after the fact, the shaving is acceptable if the hair is burnt.

As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 16, if a person receives a warning, he receives lashes for every time he contracts impurity. Nevertheless, these warnings have nothing to do with the concept of ritual impurity and have no effect upon it (Radbaz).

As evident from Halachah 13, bringing the sin offering is the determining factor in a nazirite’ s resumption of the counting of the days of his nazirite vows. Hence, if he has not brought that sacrifice, both the times he contracted ritual impurity can be covered by one sin offering.

As stated in Halachah 3. Since he was impure, the fact that he completed the observance of his nazirite vow is not significant.

See Halachah 18.

And he is considered to have completed his nazirite vow.

I.e., this is not a concept that can be derived through the principles of Biblical exegesis or through deductive logic. Instead, it is part of the Oral Tradition communicated to Moses at Sinai (the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Nazir 9:2).

Seemingly, this applies to any one of the sacrifices, not only the sin offering.

For until the blood is sprinkled upon him, he has not concluded his nazirite vow.

For this completes the observance of the nazirite vow. Afterwards, he may drink wine and become impure.

Just like mortal wisdom cannot fathom the extent of the depths, so, too, the existence of this corpse is not known to any mortal (Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura, Parah 3:2).

The Radbaz states that it must be apparent that the person was killed by another human and not an animal. It must be noted that the Ra’avad differs with the Rambam’s ruling, but the Radbaz supports the Rambam’s position.

For it is likely it was seen by others.

In all of these instances, it is highly possible that no other person knew about the impurity.

In these instances, though it is difficult for a person from the outside to see the corpse, since it is possible that he will, the impurity is considered to be public knowledge.

I.e., to conclude the process of emerging from ritual impurity.

Thus in this instance, since it is possible that he touched the corpse when immersing, we are not certain that he purified himself. In the previous halachot, leniency was granted, because the nazirite was ritually pure. Hence we presume that he continues in that state unless we know for certain that he became impure. In this instance, however, he already was impure. Hence we presume that he remains in this state until we know for certain that he has regained purity.

I.e., we follow the logic mentioned in the previous note with regard to the situation when a nazirite is ritually pure.

In Hilchot Sha ‘ar Avot HaTumah 14:3, the Rambam writes that if one is in doubt whether he touched a dead lizard floating on water, he is ritually pure, but concludes that this principle applies only with regard to impurity resulting from contact with a dead lizard and not to similar situations that apply with regard to other sources of impurity. The rationale is that we follow the principle: When a doubt concerning ritual impurity arises in a private place, we rule stringently. Since the corpse is floating and can be seen, we do not consider it an unknown source of impurity.

The Rambam explains these concepts in the following halachot.

In Hilchot Tuma ‘at Meit 3:3, the Rambam writes: “All ritual impurity resulting from a corpse for which a nazirite is not required to shave does not stem from Scriptural Law.” If this impurity were Rabbinic in origin, the Rambam would not have to explain why it does not invalidate the previous days; it would be obvious. A Rabbinic decree cannot supercede Scriptural Law and according to Scriptural Law, it is forbidden for a nazirite to shave.
As explained in the notes to Chapter 5, Halachah 15, there are times when the Rambam uses the term midivrei so/rim, which usually means “stemming from Rabbinic decree” to refer to matters that are of Scriptural origin, but derived by our Sages using the accepted principles of Biblical exegesis (see Hilchot /shut 1 :2; Se/er HaMitzvot, General Principle 2). Similarly, with regard to the contraction of ritual impurity in question: Although it is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah, it could be considered of Scriptural origin, because it was derived through the laws of Biblical exegesis. Hence, the Rambam needs a derivation from a Scriptural source to explain why shaving is not required.

I.e., a fetus in a preliminary stage of development.

Whether still soft or dried (Hilchot Tuma ‘at Meit 2:1).

The Rambam defines the term netzel at the conclusion of the halachah; see also Hilchot Tuma ‘at Meit 2:1.

More details concerning the impurity resulting from the bones of a corpse are discussed in Hilchot Tuma ‘at Meit 2:8-10.

A kav is a relatively small measure (1376 cc according to Shiurei Torah, 2400 cc according to Chazon Ish). Thus we are probably speaking of the bones of an infant or a fetus. See Halachah 4.

A person becomes impure even when he comes into contact with a fourth of a kav of bones (Hilchot Tuma ‘at Meit 2:9). Nevertheless, a nazirite is not required to shave unless there ·is a half a kav there. See Halachot 6-7.

For a limb that is cut off from a living body is considered as if it was cut off from a corpse (Hilchot Tum’at Meit 2:3).

Half a log is 172 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 300 cc according to Chazon lsh. One revi ‘it is sufficient to convey ritual impurity (Hilchot Tuma ‘at Meit 2:12). Nevertheless, for a nazirite to be required to shave, twice that amount is required. See also Halachah 6.

See the following halachah for a more detailed definition of the term rekev; see also Hilchot Tuma ‘at Meit 2:11.

For in such a situation, the decomposed mass contains nothing more than the corpse, for marble does not decompose. The same law would apply to a glass or stone coffin (Hilchot Tuma ‘at Meit 3:4).

For then its clothes would be mixed together with it.

For metal rusts and wood rots and thus the mass would contain something other than the corpse.

For the concept of rekev applies only when there is one corpse.

Since the hair and/or nails were separated, they are considered as separate entities.

For the fetus is considered a separate entity.

Or covers them with part of his body or part of his body is covered by them, as stated in the following halachah. As indicated by Halachah 6, the unresolved doubt applies only with regard to the impurity resulting from being in the same shelter as this amount of a corpse’s bones. If one touches a corpse, he becomes impure, no matter how small the quantity of bones he touches is.

In Halachah 2.

See Hilchot Tuma ‘at Meit I: 10-11.

See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 2:2).

Or a piece of a bone.

This is not a minimum measure; even a smaller portion of a bone is sufficient to make the nazirite impure (Radbaz).

The Rambam explains [Hilchot Tuma ‘at Meit 2:8; his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 1:8, 2:3)] that this concept is derived from the exegesis of Numbers 14:19: “When a person dies in a tent.... “Implied is that the object that conveys impurity must clearly indicate that it comes from a person and this is not true of a bone this small.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 2:3), the Rambani writes that in the Diaspora, people are not as careful with regard to burial and will bury a corpse anywhere. Accordingly, our Sages feared that perhaps a small portion of a bone would become mixed together with earth. Hence, they decreed that all earth from the Diaspora - even if brought to Eretz Yisrael - conveys ritual impurity. See also Hilchot Tuma’at Meit 2:16.
Based on Chapter 2, Halachot 21-22, we are forced to say that we are speaking about an instance where a nazirite from Eretz Yisrael came in contact with the earth of the Diaspora. If a nazirite vow is taken in the Diaspora, different laws apply as stated there (Radbaz).

For we fear that small pieces of the corpse’s bones were strewn over the field and that the nazirite came in contact with one (ibid.).

But not because of an ohel (shelter).

See Hilchot Tum’at Meit 13:1-2 where the Rambam writes that for a shelter to convey ritual impurity according to Scriptural Law, the shelter must be a handbreadth by a handbreadth.

I.e., protrusions less than a handbreadth by a handbreadth.

Our text follows the authentic manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text follows a different - and somewhat difficult to comprehend - version. See the conclusion of Hilchot Tuma ‘at Meit 19:6 where the Rambam discusses this issue and states that such impurity is midivrei sofrim, “from the words of the Sages.”

See the notes to Halachah 2.

As mentioned in the notes to Halachah 2, according to Scriptural Law, one is ritually impure. Nevertheless, the Oral Tradition teaches that a nazirite is not required to perform a shaving in this instance (Nazir 54a).

I.e., the stone laid over the corpse. See the definition of this and the following term in Hilchot Tum’at Meit 2:15.

Which serves as support for the gravestone.

I.e., enough flesh that would cause the flesh to regenerate as stated in Halachah 2. See Hilchot Tuma’at Meit 2:3.

The Radbaz maintains that this applies to utensils other than those made of metal. Touching metal utensils requires a person to have the ashes of the Red Heifer. According to the Rambam, however, it appears that there is no difference between metal utensils and those of other substances.

Since the utensil is touching the corpse, touching the utensil is considered equivalent to touching the corpse (Hilchot Tuma ‘at Meit 5:3).

Even though he must consider himself impure.

This expression indicates a ruling for which the Rambam does not have an explicit source in the previous Rabbinic literature, but instead derives through his own process of deduction.
The Rambam makes this deduction according to his interpretation of Nazir 7:3 which links these two matters with those mentioned in Halachah 6. The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’ s statement, maintaining that for this law to apply the utensils must be touching the corpse at the time he is touching the utensils. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam would also accept this contention and states that it appears to· be indicated by the Rambam’s wording here. Others, however, note that the Rambam’s wording in Hilchot Tuma ‘at Meit, loc. cit., does not lead to that conclusion.

Hilchot Tuma ‘at Meit, loc. cit.

Were the sprinkling of the ashes to be required, he would be required to shave. Hence, he would not be able to count them as part of his vow (Kessef Mishneh). This constitutes a difference between the subjects mentioned in this halachah and those mentioned in Halachah 6.

A skin affliction with symptoms similar to that of leprosy, but rather than being merely a physical condition is a sign of spiritual impurity.

I.e., the priest has declared that he is afflicted by tzara ‘at, as stated in Leviticus 13:11.

As Leviticus 14:5-8 describes, when a person who was afflicted with tzara'at is purged of that affliction, he must bring sacrifices and shave his hair. Afterwards, he may enter the camp of the Jewish people, but may not dwell within his own tent for seven days.

Which is perfonned after these seven days (ibid.:9).

See Halachah 15 which states that during these days, his hair is not “holy.” This state of ritual impurity does not, however, invalidate the days counted previously (the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Nazir 7:3).

I.e., the days prior to the determination of whether he truly is afflicted with tzara'at when we wait to evaluate whether a blemish that he possesses is tzara'at or not. See Leviticus 13:4-5; Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 7:2.

Since he is not required to shave his hair off after the conclusion of these days, they are counted as part of his nazirite vow (Kessef Mishneh).

A man becomes a zav when he has an emission from his urinary tract similar, but not identical to that which results from gonorrhea. A woman becomes a zavah when she experiences vaginal bleeding at times other than would be expected due to her menstrual cycle. In both cases, the individuals are ritually impure. See Leviticus, ch. 15.

Here also, since emerging from this impurity does not involve shaving, these days are counted as part of his nazirite vow (Radbaz).

E. g., he became impure due to contact with a dead lizard or because of the emission of semen, in which instance he is impure only for a day.

See the following halachah.

See Halachah 15.

I.e., he is commanded to fulfill his oath and prohibited against not fulfilling it.

Even one who has not taken a vow.

See Hilchot Shabbat 29:1, 6. There is a Scriptural obligation to recite these prayers, but the association with a cup of wine is Rabbinic in origin (Radbaz).

See Hilchot Eve! 3:8 which elaborates concerning this matter with regard to the prohibition incumbent on priests not to come in contact with ritual impurity. As it states:
When does the above apply? When the priest is alone and there is no one else with him; even when he calls out on the road, no one answers him. If, however, when he calls others answer, this is not considered an unattended corpse. Instead, he should call to the others and they should come and tend to [the corpse].

Even though it is a mitzvah for him to become impure and bury the corpse, he is obligated to shave and bring sacrifices. All the days of his nazirite vow which he observed previously are invalidated.

Who is also forbidden to become impure due to contract with a corpse, but is commanded to bury a corpse if there is no one else to do so, as cited in note 56.

I.e., limited to the span of his nazirite vow.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 11. Although such a person must observe the nazirite laws for all time, his state of holiness is not an intrinsic element of his being, but rather dependent on his desire to take the nazirite vow. Before he took the vow he was not obligated by these restrictions and he may have the vow absolved - and thus remove them. The holiness of a priest, by contrast, is an inherent element of his being, not dependent upon his choice or will (Lechem Mishneh; see also Radbaz, Hilchot Evel 3:9).

Even a span of time that he will never complete, e.g., 150 years, see Chapter 3, Halachah 12.

Even though shaving the hair on his head is forbidden.

See Hilchot Tuma ‘at Tzara ‘at 11:1.

And hence, the nazirite should shave his hair.

Halachah 9.

The Ra’avad accepts the Rambam’s ruling, but gives a different rationale: The commandments associated with the nazirite vow are considered as insubstantial, because the nazirite could appeal to have his nazirite vow absolved. Although the rationale given by the Ra’avad is mentioned in Yevamot 5a, the Rambam favors the reason he gave, for there are some nazirites who do not have the option of absolving their nazirite vows (see Chapter 3, Halachah 14).

Both the ewe and the lamb must be less than a year old (Numbers 6:14).

See Hilchot De’ot 3:1 where the Rambam quotes Ta ‘anit I la that states that a nazirite is required to bring a sin offering, because he abstained from drinking wine and elaborates on the negative aspects of an ascetic existence.

At least two years old.

Although the ewe is also fit to be brought as a peace offering, since it is the only one fit to be brought as a sin offering, we designate it for such and use the male lamb for the peace offering.

An isaron is equivalent to the size of 43.2 eggs. In modern measure, the size of an egg is 57.6 cc according to Shiurei Torah, and 99.5 cc according to Chazon Ish.

These loaves were made from a mixture of flour, water, and oil. The oil was added to the batter before they were baked (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 9:21).

These wafers were made with flour and water. After they were baked, oil was poured over them (ibid.:23).

Numbers 6:17 speaks of “the basket of matzot.”

The order of the rituals outlined by the Rambam follows the order in which they are mentioned in Numbers 6:15-18. This explanation may clarify the questions raised by the Kessef Mishneh.

Rav Avraham MinHaHer interprets this term as meaning boiling it with water alone, without spices.

Although Numbers 6:15 mentions the peace offering since it uses the word zevach, offering and that term can also be applied to the sin offering, putting the hair under the sin offering is acceptable (Nazir 45b).

The courtyard before the Temple itself. It was given this name, because women were allowed to congregate on balconies there at certain times, as explained in Hilchot Heit HaBechirah 5:7-9.

The sin offerings had to be cooked within the Temple Courtyard and the burnt offerings were placed on the fire of the altar.

We have translated the term mikdash as “Temple,” for that is the most apparent meaning and most authorities understand it being used in this context. The Radbaz, however, notes that in certain contexts (for example, the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Rosh HaShanah 4:1), the Rambam interprets the term mikdash as referring to the city of Jerusalem as a whole. And in his commentary to Ma ‘aser Sheni 3:4, he states that the term medinah (the term used in this halachah) refers to cities outside Jerusalem.

The Radbaz understands the Rambam as implying that even when one shaves outside Jerusalem, he should send his hair to have it cast under the fire in the Chamber of the N azirites. Not all authorities share this view.

The Hebrew words petach, “entrance,” and patuach, “open,” share the same root. Seemingly, the gate to the Temple building must also be open. See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 5:5.

The Chamber of the Nazirites where he would shave is, by contrast, a private place.

The Rambam is quoting Numbers 6:19-20. See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 9:9, where the Rambam writes that (because it is a peace offering) he must also wave the ram’s breast and thigh and the inner portions of the animal that were offered on the altar.

The priest puts his hand beneath the hand of the nazirite and moves these sacred articles up, down, and to each of the four compass directions. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 5:5).

To shave.

To wave the sacrifices.

The Radbaz states that this is understandable if he brings his offerings on the thirtieth day of his nazirite vow, for until he completes thirty days of observance, he is bound by the terms of the vow. He questions why, however, the sacrifice is itself is not sufficient if it is brought on the thirty-first day or afterwards.
The Or Sameach explains that on any day, until sunset, he is given the option of bringing his hair to the Chamber of the Nazirites and burning it there. From the evening onward, that option is no longer viable. Hence until he either burns his hair there or the evening arrives, he is not able to drink wine.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 93) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 377) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. The mitzvah includes both the shaving performed after the conclusion of the nazirite vow in purity and that performed after a nazirite emerges from impurity.

From the fact that Numbers 6:9 mentions a razor in the prohibition against a nazirite cutting his hair, Nazir 40a deducts that a razor should be used in the shaving process.

For in several halachic contexts, two hairs are considered as significant entities.

Since he let his hair grow back, he must shave his entire head, not merely the two hairs left initially. Note the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh who explain that the Rambam shares the approach of Tosafot with regard to the interpretation of Nazir 42a.

Before his hair started to grow back.

Since there were two hairs at the time he started shaving and ultimately, there were none remaining, he is considered to have fulfilled the mitzvah.

For at the time he began acting, the mitzvah of shaving no longer applied.

E. g., its blood was spilled before it was poured on the altar; alternatively, it came in contact with impurity· and was thus invalidated.

The rationale is that since he cut his hair off in an unacceptable manner, i.e., since the sacrifice was unacceptable, his shaving was unacceptable, the sacrifices he offers afterwards are also not acceptable.

But rather for the sake of another type of sacrifice. This disqualifies the sin offering (Pesulei Hamukdashim 15:1).

In such an instance, the sacrifices are acceptable (i.e., the appropriate portions can be offered on the altar and the others eaten), but the person who brings them is not considered to have fulfilled his obligation (ibid.). Accordingly, the nazirite is considered as having shaved his head before he was allowed to.

Since the shaving is unacceptable, the sin offering he brought afterwards is also unacceptable.

For as stated in Halachah 5, as long as one of the sacrifices was brought in an acceptable manner, he is considered to have concluded his nazirite vow.

Chapter 6, Halachah 1.

Shaving his hair again.

E. g., it was not offered for the sake of a peace offering or the ram was less than two years old.

The portions appropriate for the altar may be offered there and one may partake of the meat. They are considered as peace offerings that were offered voluntarily.

To fulfill the obligations of his nazirite vow, he must bring a different sacrifice.

As is the rule governing the peace offerings of a nazirite. Peace offerings that are brought voluntarily may be eaten for two days and the intervening night.

As is required for a peace offering of a nazirite (see Halachah 1).

As is required for a peace offering of a nazirite (see Halachah 4). This interpretation is based on the explanations of the Or Sameach. The Merkevet HaMishneh quotes the Drach Mishor who suggests amending the text so that it reads “they require presents” - i.e., the breast and the thigh that are given to a priest in connection with a voluntary peace offering - “but not the foreleg” - which is given to the priest in connection with a Nazirite’s peace offering.

I.e., the sacrificial animals may not have been consecrated previously and the bread may not come from terumah or the second tithe.

Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 16:15. The rationale is that since he is obligated to bring these offerings, they must be brought from resources that belong to him entirely (Radbaz).

The second tithe must be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there in a state of ritual purity. If a person lives outside Jerusalem, the Torah gives him the option of redeeming the second tithe with its worth and taking that money to Jerusalem to purchase food to be eaten there in a state of ritual purity. Although money with which the second tithe was redeemed may be used to purchase voluntary peace offerings, it may not be used to purchase the peace offerings of a nazirite, as indicated by the previous halachah.

The rationale is that as soon as he says: “I am becoming a nazirite,” he must observe the restrictions associated with a nazirite vow. The statement: “on the condition that.” does not take effect, because it was made after he become obligated to observe the nazirite restrictions (Rashi, Beitzah 20a). From this, Tosafot concludes that if he reverses the order of the clauses, saying: “On the condition that when I perform the shaving, I will be able to bring my sacrifices using [money exchanged for] the second tithe, I will become a nazirite,” he may bring his sacrifices from such funds.

This law applies when the nazirite is the sole heir, as stated at the conclusion of the halachah.

Even if she is her father’s sole heir (Nazir 30a).

I.e., he did not specify which coins should used to purchase a particular type of sacrifice. See Chapter 9, Halachot 3-4.

I.e., even though when he took the nazirite vow, he did not have the intent to use the money set aside by his father - because his father was alive at that time - he may use it for his vow.

Even if he was a nazirite himself (Radbaz).

Burnt offerings brought as an embellishment to the altar.

He must add the remainder of the costs of the sacrifices from his own funds.

As he does with regard to other aspects of the inheritance. It is -necessary to clarify this point, because one might think that since this money is not the son’s personal property, he would not be given this extra portion.

See Chapter 3, Halachot 11-12, which explain that a nazirite for all time performs a shaving once a year and brings three sacrifices at that time.

He may, however, use the funds to bring the sacrifices required when he becomes impure and emerges from impurity.

The commentaries raise questions regarding this ruling, because the unresolved doubt raises questions in either direction. For just as it is possible that he did not fulfill his obligation by bringing the sacrifices with the money set aside by his father, it is possible that he did. Hence, were he to bring sacrifices with his own funds, they would be unnecessary and he would be slaughtering ordinary animals in the Temple courtyard (a serious transgression). There is a way to avoid this difficulty: for him to offer his second set of sacrifices conditionally, i.e., making a stipulation: “If the first set of sacrifices were acceptable, then these are voluntarily offerings. If, however, the first set were unacceptable, then these are the offerings required” (Kessef Mishneh).
This approach is, however, still somewhat problematic, because a sin offering may not be brought as a voluntary offering. Therefore, the Lechem Mishneh (in his gloss to the conclusion of Chapter 10) states that he should bring only a sin offering of a fowl which is brought when there is a doubt (see Chapter 10, Halachah 8, and notes). And the
Lechem Mishneh continues, he need not bring a burnt offering and a peace offering at all. They are not of fundamental importance and the offerings he brought originally are sufficient for him.

We have chosen a translation that reflects more the halachic meaning of the person’s statements than the words’ literal meaning.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 8. The Ra’avad questions the Rambam’s ruling, but the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify it, based on the interpretation of Nazir 12b.

By bringing each other’s sacrifices, they fulfill their vows to provide for the shaving of another nazirite and fulfill their obligations for their own nazirite vows. If they do not do this, they must each bring the sacrifices for their own vows and the sacrifices for another nazirite.

This addition is made on the basis of the gloss of the Radbaz.