Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 8:1

משנה: שְׁנֵי נְזִירִין שֶׁאָמַר לָהֶן אֶחָד רָאִיתִי אֶחָד מִכֶּם שֶׁנִּיטְמָא וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵי זֶה מִכֶּם מְבִיאִין קָרְבַּן טוּמְאָה וְקָרְבַּן טַהֲרָה וְאוֹמֵר אִם אֲנִי הוּא הַטָּמֵא קָרְבַּן טוּמְאָה שֶׁלִּי וְקָרְבַּן טַהֲרָה שֶׁלָּךְ. וְאִם אֲנִי הוּא הַטָּהוֹר קָרְבַּן טַהֲרָה שֶׁלִּי וְקָרְבַּן טוּמְאָה שֶׁלָּךְ. וְסוֹפְרִין שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וּמְבִיאִין קָרְבַּן טַהֲרָה. וְאוֹמֵר אִם אֲנִי הוּא טָמֵא קָרְבַּן טוּמְאָה שֶׁלִּי וְקָרְבַּן טַהֲרָה שֶׁלָּךְ. וְזֶה קָרְבַּן טַהֲרָתִי. וְאִם אֲנִי הוּא הַטָּהוֹר קָרְבַּן טַהֲרָה שֶׁלִּי וְקָרְבַּן טוּמְאָה שֶׁלָּךְ. וְזֶה קָרְבַּן טַהֲרָתָךְ. מֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ יְבַקֵּשׁ אֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּק וְיִדּוֹר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ נָזִיר וְאוֹמֵר אִם טָמֵא הָיִיתִי הֲרֵי אַתָּה נָזִיר מִיָּד וְאִם טָהוֹר הָיִיתִי הֲרֵי אַתָּה נָזִיר אַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. וְסוֹפְרִים שֶׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וּמְבִיאִין קָרְבַּן טוּמְאָה וְקָרְבַּן טַהֲרָה. וְאוֹמֵר אִם אֲנִי הוּא הַטָּמֵא קָרְבַּן טוּמְאָה שֶׁלִּי וְקָרְבַּן טַהֲרָה שֶׁלָּךְ וְאִם אֲנִי הוּא הַטָּהוֹר קָרְבַּן טַהֲרָה שֶׁלִּי וְקָרְבַּן טוּמְאָה בְסָפֵק. וְסוֹפְרִים שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וּמְבִיאִין קָרְבַּן טַהֲרָה. וְאוֹמֵר אִם אֲנִי הוּא טָמֵא קָרְבַּן טוּמְאָה שֶׁלִּי וְקָרְבַּן טַהֲרָה שֶׁלָּךְ וְזֶה קָרְבַּן טַהֲרָתִי וְאִם אֲנִי הוּא טָהוֹר קָרְבַּן טַהֲרָה שֶׁלִּי וְקָרְבַּן טוּמְאָה בְסָפֵק וְזֶה קָרְבַּן טַהֲרָתָךְ. אָמַר לוֹ בֶּן זוֹמָא וּמִי שׁוֹמֵעַ לוֹ שֶׁיִּדּוֹר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ. אֵלָּא מֵבִיא חַטַּאת הָעוֹף וְעוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה וְאוֹמֵר אִם טָמֵא הָיִיתִי הַחַטָּאת מֵחוֹבָתִי וְהָעוֹלָה נְדָבָה. וְאִם טָהוֹר הָיִיתִי הָעוֹלָה מֵחוֹבָתִי וְהַחַטָּאת בְּסָפֵק וְסוֹפֵר שֶׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וּמֵבִיא קָרְבַּן טוּמְאָה וְקָרְבַּן קָרְבַּן טַהֲרָה. וְאוֹמֵר אִם טָמֵא הָיִיתִי הָעוֹלָה רִאשׁוֹנָה נְדָבָה וְזוֹ חוֹבָה. וְאִם טָהוֹר הָיִיתִי הָעוֹלָה רִאשׁוֹנָה חוֹבָה וְזוֹ נְדָבָה וְזֶה שְׁאָר קָרְבָּנִי. אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ נִמצָא זֶה מֵבִיא קָרְבְּנוֹתָיו חֲצָיִים. אֲבָל הוֹדוּ חֲכָמִים לְדִבְרֵי בֶן זוֹמָא. 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 bring¹They purify themselves from the impurity of the dead and at the end of their period of nezirut they shave and bring the sacrifices in common. one sacrifice of impurity²Two birds and a sheep. and one of purity³A male and a female sheep and a ram.. 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 days⁴Assuming that both had vowed the standard period of 30 days. Otherwise they would have to repeat the longer of the respective periods of nezirut. and bring one sacrifice of purity; (Nazir 8:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.8.1.1">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 died⁵Then the survivor is in danger of never being able to conclude his nezirut 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 immediately⁶And the sacrifice of purity will be yours., 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 questionable⁷The 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 (Temurah 7:6" href="/Mishnah_Temurah.7.6">Mishnah Temurah 7:6).. Then they count another thirty days, bring one sacrifice of purity (Nazir 8:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.8.1.1">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 obligation⁸While this offering is incomplete, it is sufficient to let him shave and restart his nezirut. and the elevation offering is voluntary⁹Of all kinds of offerings required from a pure or impure nazir, 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)¹⁰This clause in parenthesis is obviously false; it is missing in the Babli and the independent Mishnah mss. of purity³A male and a female sheep and a ram. (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 piecemeal¹¹If he was pure, he brings the first offering 30 days before the other two, but the verse (Numbers.6.14">Num. 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 Zoma¹²As the only reasonable solution to an intractable problem..

הלכה: שְׁנֵי נְזִירִין שֶׁאָמַר לָהֶן אֶחָד כול׳. וְלֹא סוֹף דָּבָר כְּשֶׁאָמַר לָהֶן אֶחָד. רָאִיתִי אֶת אֶחָד מִכֶּם שֶׁנִּיטְמָא וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵי זֶה מִכֶּם. אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ אָמַר לָהֶם. רָאִיתִי אֶחָד מִכֶּם שֶׁנָּזַר וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵי זֶה מִכֶּם. שְׁנֵיהֶן נוֹהֲגִין נְזִירוּת עַל פִּיו. בְּשֶׁאֵינָן מַכְחִישִׁין אוֹתוֹ. אֲבָל אִם מַכְחִישִׁין אוֹתוֹ לֹא בְדָא. הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם מַכְחִישִׁין. ייָבֹא כְהָדָא. עֵד אוֹמֵר. נִיטְמָא. וְהוּא אוֹמֵר. לֹא נִיטְמֵאתִי. טָהוֹר. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. נִיטְמֵאתָ. וְהוּא אוֹמֵר. לֹא נִיטְמֵאתִי. שְׁנֵיהֶן נֶאֱמָנִין מִמֶּנּוּ. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. הוּא נֶאֱמָן עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ. רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם רַב. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. רִבִּי מֵאִיר מְטַמֵּא. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה וַחֲכָמִים מְטָהֲרִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. רִבִּי מֵאִיר מְטַמֵּא וְרִבִּי יְהוּדָה מְטָהֵר. מִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין מְסַייְעִין לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי גּוּרְיוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. לֹא אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה אֶלָּא בְטוּמְאָה יְשָׁנָה. שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר. נִטְמֵאתִי וְטִהַרְתִּי. וְתַנֵּי. כֵּן הַדָּבָר עַל אֲכִילַת חֵלֶב. הוּא הַדָּבָר עַל בִּיאַת הַמִּקְדַּשׁ. וְיוֹדוּן לֵיהּ בְּטוּמְאָה. מִפְּנֵי טוּמְאַת נָזִיר. שֶׁאֵין אוֹמְרִים לוֹ. אֵיכָן הוּא קָרְבְּנָךְ שֶׁהֵבֵאתָ. וְיוֹדוּן לֵיהּ בִּתְרוּמָה. עַד כָּאן קַשִּׁי רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. 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,¹³In this case it can really happen that the witness knew of a “tent” impurity unknown to the nezirim.” 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 him¹⁴In matters of ritual law, the uncontested testimony of a single witness is valid.. But if they contradict him, this does not apply¹⁵A contested testimony of a single witness is worthless, not even admissible as supporting evidence.. If both of them¹⁶It seems that the text, שניהם, is an error for שְׁנַיִם, “two [witnesses].” The concurrent testimony of two witnesses must be believed by biblical standards. 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.¹⁷Mishnah Ṭaharot 5:9.” Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: So is the Mishnah: Rebbi Meïr declares impure, Rebbi Jehudah and the Sages declare pure¹⁸In this matter of the standing of two witnesses, the Sages fully accept the position of R. Jehudah.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, so is the Mishnah: Rebbi Meïr declares impure, Rebbi Jehudah declares pure¹⁹But 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.. 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 myself²⁰If 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., and we have stated: The same holds for eating suet; the same holds for entering the Sanctuary²¹A 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 (Keritot.12a">Babli Keritut 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 nazir²²The nazir 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 heave²³If 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 7:1).? So far the questions of Rebbi Ḥanina.

רִבִּי מָנָא שָׁמַע לָהּ מִן דְּבַתְרָהּ. אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ. אִם יִרְצֶה לוֹמַר. מֵזִיד הָיִיתִי. בְּשִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה מָה אִית לָךְ. שׁוֹגֵג חַייָב מֵזִיד חַייָב. שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ. הֵיעַרְתִּי אֲבָל לֹא גָמַרְתִּי. כַּיי דְּאָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. נֶאֱנַסְתִּי מִפְּנֵי כְשָׁפִים שֶׁעָשָׂת לִי. בִּנְזִירוּת מָה אִית לָךְ. שׁוֹגֵג חַייָב מֵזִיד חַייָב אָנוּס חַייָב. בְּפֶתַע לְרַבּוֹת הַשּׁוֹגֵג. בְּפֶתַע לְרַבּוֹת הַמֵּזִיד. תְּנַאי הָיָה בְלִיבִּי. לִכְשֶׁאֲטַמֵּא תִּיפְקַע נְזִירוּתִי מִמֶּנִּי תָחוּל עָלַי נְזִירוּת אֲחֶרֶת. מִכָּל־מָקוֹם לֹא נִתְחַייֵב בִּנְזִירוּת עַד עַכְשָׁיו. תְּנַיי הָיָה בְלִיבִּי. לִכְשֶׁאֲטַמֵּא תִּפְקַע נְזִירוּתִי מִמֶּנִּי תָחוּל עָלַי נְזִירוּת אֲחֶרֶת. בשביעית מָה אִית לָךְ. שׁוֹגֵג חַייָב מֵזִיד חַייָב. תְּנַי בִּדְבָרִים אֵין תְּנַיי בשביעית. וְאַתְייָא כֵּיי דָמַר רִבִּי בָּא רַב יְהוּדָה. בְּשׁוֹגֵג בְּקָרְבְּנָהּ וּבְמֵזִיד בְּקָרְבְּנָהּ. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר. סָבוּר הָיִיתִי שֶׁאֵין זוֹ שְׁבוּעָה. פָּטוּר. הָא כָּל־אִילֵּין מִילַּייָא לֹא מָצֵי תְנֵָייהּ. וָכָא מָצֵי תְנָיֵיהּ. Rebbi Mana understood it²⁵That the Sages and R. Jehudah do not agree about the weight of a person’s disclaimer as against two witnesses to his actions. from the following²⁶Keritot 3:1" href="/Mishnah_Keritot.3.1">Mishnah Keritut 3:1.: “They told him, if he wishes, he says that he did it intentionally.” What can he say for an assigned slave girl²⁷Leviticus.19.20-22">Lev. 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 error²⁸If in the dark he thought that she was his wife., he is obligated; intentionally²⁹This 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., he is obligated! He can tell him, I touched her but did not finish³⁰This is a first explanation: A sacrifice is due only if there was an ejaculation of semen (Leviticus.19.20">v. 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 me³¹He disclaims responsibility by reason of temporary insanity caused by the girl’s charms. This is enough to support his disclaimer against even two witnesses.. For a nazir³²Exposed to the impurity of the dead; the case of the Mishnah. 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 intentionally³³This is proof that the nazir must bring his sacrifices even if forced. The reference is to Numbers.6.9">Num. 6:9. In all other sources, Sifry Num. 28 [= Num. rabba 10(31)], Keritot.9a">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 now³⁴Since the vow of nezirut 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.)³⁵A case of dittography. What do you have in case of an oath³⁶If two witnesses tell a person that he owes a sacrifice because he has violated an oath imposed on him by other people (Leviticus.5.1">Lev. 5:1,Leviticus.5.4">4). How can he be believed if he denies the accusation?? In error, he is obligated; intentionally, he is obligated³⁷Keritot 2:2" href="/Mishnah_Keritot.2.2">Mishnah Keritut 2:2.! A condition may apply to words³⁸If 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.; 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 free³⁹Here, there may be a case in which no sacrifice can be demanded if the interested party denies their obligation.. Therefore, all these subjects cannot be stated, but the following can be stated⁴⁰In 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..

מַה דְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר. פְּלוֹנִי אָכַל חֵלֶב וְהִתְרֵיתִי בוֹ. אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. אָמַר לוֹ אֶחָד. נָזִיר. וְהָיָה נוֹהֵג בִּנְזִירוּת עַל פִּיו. וְשָׁתָה יַיִן וְנִיטְמָא לַמֵּתִים וְהִתְרוּ בוֹ שְׁנַיִם לוֹקֶה. עִיקָּר עֵידוּתוֹ לֹא בְעֵד אֶחָד הוּא. מַה דְרִבִּי מָנָא אָמַר. פְּלֹנִית כֹּהֶנֶת וְזִינָת וּבָא עָלֶיהָ בַּעֲלָהּ כֹּהֵן וְהִתְרֵיתִי בוֹ. אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. נִסְתְּרָה בִפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם. אָמַר אֶחָד מֵהֶם. אֲנִי רְאִיתִיהָ שֶׁנִּיטְמֵאת. וּבָא עָלֶיהָ בַעֲלָהּ. וְהִתְרוּ בוֹ שְׁנַיִם לוֹקֶה. וְעִיקָּר עֵדוּתוֹ לֹא בְעֵד אֶחָד. ⁴¹From Sotah 6:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.6.2">Soṭah 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?

וּמְבִיאִין קָרְבַּן טוּמְאָה וְקָרְבַּן טַהֲרָה. הָדָא בְּעוֹמֵד בְּסוֹף שְׁלשִׁים. אֲבָל בְּעוֹמֵד בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלשִׁים מַמֲתִּינִין לוֹ עַד שְׁלשִׁים. בְּשֶׁהָיָה זֶה נְזִיר שְׁלשִׁים וְזֶה נְזִיר שְׁלשִׁים. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה זֶה נְזִיר שְׁלשִׁים וְזֶה נְזִיר מֵאָה מַמְתִּינִין לוֹ עַד מֵאָה. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב דְּרוֹמָיָא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. נִיטְמָא בְאוֹתָן הַיָּמִים מָה הֵן. אָמַר לוֹ. כְּמִי שֶׁחֲבֵירוֹ מְבַקֵּשׁ לוֹ מֵאֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּק. “They bring one sacrifice of impurity and one of purity.” That is, if they are at the end of thirty days⁴²The Mishnah seems to indicate that immediately after being informed of the impurity, the nezirim 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 public⁴³The nazir 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 (Nazir 8:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.8.1.1">Mishnaiot 2–4)..

שָׁתָה יַיִן בְּתוֹךְ ל̇ יוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹנִים אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. בְּתוֹךְ ל̇ יוֹם הָאַחֲרוֹנִים לוֹקֶה. הַבָּא מִן הַשּׁוּק אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה לֹא עַל הַשְּׁנִייִם וְלֹא עַל הָאַחֲרוֹנִים. עַד כְּדוֹן בְּשֶׁהִתְרוּ בוֹ עַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְעַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. הִתְרוּ בוֹ עַל שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאֶחָד. פְּלוּגְתָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן בִּשְׁנֵי יָמִים טוֹבִים שֶׁלַּגָּלִיּוֹת. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מְקַבְּלִין הַתְרָייָה עַל סָפֵק. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. אֵין מְקַבְּלִין הַתְרָייָה עַל סָפֵק. If he drank wine within the first 30 days, he is (not) whipped; within the last 30 days, he is [] whipped⁴⁴Here 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 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 period⁴⁵Since his nezirut in both periods is conditional, the certainty of his crime is not provable.. So far, if he was warned separately for each period⁴⁶Even 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. Kilayim 8:1:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kilayim.8.1.4">Kilaim 8:1, Note 9.. If they warned him for both together⁴⁷It is clear that either the first or the second period of nezirut 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 disagreement⁴⁸פלוגתא is the Babylonian form for Galilean תפלוגתא. between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who disagreed about the two days of holiday in the diaspora⁴⁹Before 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 3:10 21c 1. 24; Beitzah.4b">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 doubt⁵⁰Yevamot 11:7:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.11.7.6">Yebamot 11:7 (Note 171), Pesachim 5:4:2-12" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.5.4.2-12">Pesaḥim 5:4 (32s 1. 5); Makkot.16a">Babli Makkot 16a..

נָזַרְתִּי וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מַה נָזַרְתִּי אִם לְעַכְשָׁיו אִם לְאַחַר זְמָן. אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ. זוֹ לְעַכְשָׁיו וְזוֹ לְאַחַר זְמָן. שָׁתָה יַיִן בְּתוֹךְ ל̇ יָמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים לוֹקֶה. בְּתוֹךְ ל̇ הָאַחֲרוֹנִים אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁמָּא הָרִאשׁוֹנִים בְּתוֹךְ נְזִירוּתוֹ וְהָאַחֲרוֹנִים לְאַחַר נְזִירוּתוֹ. כָּל יְמֵי נִזְרוֹ. לַעֲשׂוֹת יָמִים שֶׁלְּאַחַר מְלֹאת כִּבְתוֹךְ מְלֹאת לְיַיִן לְטוּמְאָה וּלְתִגְלַחַת. “I made a vow of nazir but I forgot whether it was for now or for a later date⁵¹From the context it seems that he vowed a standard 30 day nezirut 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) whipped⁵²Here 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.. 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 vow⁵³How 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)?? “All days of his status as nazir,⁵⁴Numbers.6.4">Num. 6:4. As spelled out in Numbers.6.20">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.

וְיָבִיא קָרְבְּנוֹתָיו חֶצְייָם. שֶׁלֹּא תִנְעוֹל תְּשׁוּבָה מִבֵּית הַװַעַד. Why can he not bring his sacrifices one by one? Not to preclude answers in the house of study⁵⁵This 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..

צִיבּוּר שֶׁנִּיטְמָא בִּסְפֵק רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד בַּפֶּסַח. רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה אָמַר. יִדְחֶה לַפֶּסַח שֵׁינִי. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מְשַׁלְּחִין אוֹתוֹ דֶּרֶךְ רְחוֹקָה. וְאַתְייָא כַּיי דְאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. נִּיטְמָא טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם מְשַׁלְּחִין אוֹתוֹ דֶּרֶךְ רְחוֹקָה. נָזִיר שֶׁנִּיטְמָא בִּסְפֵק רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד בַּפֶּסַח. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. יֵעָשֶׂה כִסְפֵיקָן. וְרִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה אָמַר. יֵעָשֶׂה בְטוּמְאָה. אַף רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה רַבָּה מוֹדֵי שֶׁיַּעֲשׂוּ בִּסְפֵיקָן. לֹא אָמַר רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה אָלָּא לְחוּמָרִין. ⁵⁶This paragraph presents textual difficulties. Since the following paragraph makes sense only in Pesachim 8:8:2-9" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.8.8.2-9">Pesaḥim 8:8, the present paragraph also must be parallel Pesachim 8:8:2-9" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.8.8.2-9">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 domain⁵⁷It 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. Sotah 1:2:5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.1.2.5">Soṭah 1:2, Note 88). The rule becomes ineffective if the doubt arises in a domain whose status is in doubt. on Passover⁵⁸The 14th of Nisan, the day on which the Pesaḥ sacrifice has to be slaughtered in the afternoon.. Rebbi Hoshaia said, he should be pushed to the Second Passover⁵⁹The 14th of Iyyar, instituted for someone who either was impure or “on a far journey” on the 14th of Nisan (Numbers.9.9-14">Num. 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 journey⁶⁰For 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.. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he became impure by the impurity of the abyss⁶¹In Pesaḥim, 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 Passover⁶²The Second Passover was instituted only for individuals; if the majority of the people were impure, the Passover sacrifice was offered in impurity (Pesachim 7:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.7.4.1">Mishnah Pesaḥim 7:4,Pesachim 7:8:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.7.8.1">6).. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it should be presented in their doubt; Rebbi Hoshaia said, it should be made in impurity⁶³Since 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.. The great Rebbi Hoshaia also agrees that it should be presented in their doubt; what Rebbi Hoshaia said referrred only to restrictions.

רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי בְּנָייָה. יִשְׂרָאֵל עָרֵל מַזִּין עָלָיו. שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ שֶׁקִּיבְּלוּ אֲבֹתֵינוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר הַזָּייַת עֲרֵלִים. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא. אַתְייָא כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. בְּי̇א̇ מָלוּ. בְּרַם כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. בָּעֲשִׂירִי מָלוּ. לֹא מָנוּ הַזָּייַת עֲרֵילִים. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. מִכָּל־מָקוֹם לֹא מָנוּ הַזָּייַת עֲרֵילִים. רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּכֹהֵן עָרֵל שֶׁהוּזָּה וְהוּכְשְׁרוּ הַזָּיוֹתָיו. תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֵּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר. אִיסְטְרָטִיּוֹת וְשׁוֹמְרֵי צִירִים הָיוּ בִירוּשָׁלַיִם וְטָֽבְלוּ וְאָֽכְלוּ פִּסְחֵיהֶם לָעֶרֶב. ⁶⁴The parallel text is in Pesachim 8:8:2-9" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.8.8.2-9">Pesaḥim 8:8 (36b, 1. 55ff.) It belongs there and has no direct connections with the topics discussed here. A parallel discussion is in the Yevamot.71b">Babli, Yebamot 71b. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Benaiah: One sprinkles on an uncircumcised Jew⁶⁵The 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 (Numbers.19">Num. 19). The uncircumcised is barred from the Passover sacrifice (Exodus.12.48">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 desert⁶⁶Not in the desert, but after crossing the Jordan on the 10^th of Nisan (Joshua.4.19">Jos. 4:19). They were then circumcised (Joshua.5.2-8">Jos. 5:2–8) and celebrated Passover on the 14^th (Joshua.5.10">Jos. 5:10). received sprinkling when uncircumcised. Rav Ḥisda said, following him who said that they circumcised on the eleventh⁶⁷If they were circumcised on the 11^th they had to be sprinkled on the 10^th, when they still were uncircumcised, in order to become pure on the 14^th.. 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 case⁶⁸Rav Ḥisda’s argument has to be rejected since if sprinkling on an uncircumcised person is ineffective, the underlying counting (of the third, seventh days) also must be ineffective. But for the Passover on the 14^th, the counting had to start on the 7^th, when according to the biblical text everybody (except Joshua, Caleb, and possibly Levites and/or Priests) were uncircumcised. He will hold that the first Passover in Canaan was held in impurity. This argument, represented in the Babli, loc.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 sprinkled⁶⁹In Pesaḥim: “he sprinkled” (active verb form). and the sprinklings were declared valid. It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, there were soldiers⁷⁰Greek στρατιώτης. and gate keepers in Jerusalem who immersed themselves and ate their Passover sacrifices in the evening⁷¹They were Gentiles who converted to Judaism, were circumcised on the 14th of Nisan, immersed themselves in a miqweh and participated in Passover, not needing cleansing by sprinkling following the House of Shammai (Pesachim 8:8:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.8.8.1">Mishnah Pesaḥim 8:8)..