Nezirut - Chapter 6

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.