הלכות נזירות

There are three matters that are forbidden to a nazirite: a) ritual impurity [resulting from contact with a human corpse], b) shaving [his hair], and c) [partaking of] products of the vine. [This applies] both to the fruit or the waste products of the fruit. Alcoholic beverages made from dates, figs, or the like are permitted to a nazirite. The shaichar forbidden to [a nazirite] by the Torah is an alcoholic beverage made from a mixture of wine.

What is meant by "products of the grape vine"? When a nazirite eats an olive-sized portion of the fruit [of the vine]: fresh grapes, raisins, or unripened grapes, or he eats an olive-sized portion of the waste products of the fruit which are the peels or the seeds, he is liable for lashes. Similarly, if he drank a revi'it. A revi'it is 86 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 150 cc according to Chazon Ish. of wine or ate an olive-sized portion of coagulated wine - this is considered as fruit - or drank a revi'it of vinegar - which is the waste products of the fruit - he is liable for lashes. Grape leaves, the tender shoots of the branches of the vine, grape sap, and grape buds are permitted to a nazirite, for they are neither fruit, nor the waste products of fruit, but rather are considered as parts of the tree.

All forbidden grape [products] can be combined together [to produce the minimum measure for which one is liable for lashes]. 4:16, "when a person takes a small amount of fat, a small amount of blood, a small amount of the meat of a non-kosher animal, a small amount of the meat of a nevelah, a small amount of the meat of a non-kosher fish, a small amount of the meat of a non-kosher fowl, or the like from other prohibited substances, although he collects an olive-sized portion from the entire mixture and partakes of it, he is not liable for lashes."
What is implied? One who mixed together fresh grapes with raisins, or with unripened grapes, pits, and peels, and ate an olive-sized portion of the mixture is liable for lashes. Similarly, if he ate them one after the other 14:8. until he ate an olive-sized portion of the entire group, he is liable for lashes. Similarly, he is liable for lashes if he drank a revi'it of a mixture of wine and vinegar.

A permitted substance is not included together with a forbidden substance [to produce the minimum measure] for which a nazirite [is liable for lashes]. 35b-37b). Although there is an opinion which maintains that with regard to a nazirite - in contrast to all the other prohibitions of the Torah - the permitted food should be counted as part of the forbidden measure, the Rambam does not accept this view as Halachah.
What is implied? Wine was mixed together with honey [producing a mixture] in which the flavor of wine [could be tasted in] its entirety and [a nazirite] drank the mixture. Raisins were pressed together with dried figs [producing a mixture] in which the flavor of raisins [could be tasted in] its entirety and [a nazirite] ate the mixture. He is not liable for lashes unless there will be an olive-sized portion of grape products in a portion of the mixture the size of three eggs, and he will eat a portion the size of three eggs, as is the law with regard to other prohibitions that are forbidden universally, as we explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot. 15:3.

Similarly, if a person soaked his bread in wine and there was a revi'it of wine within k'dei [achilat] p'ras of the bread and he ate a p'ras [of the bread], he will have consumed a revi'it of wine. 14:9 where the Rambam states that to be liable for lashes, one must drink a prohibited substance in the time it takes to drink a revi'it. Here, however, he mentions the time it takes to eat k'dei achilat p'ras. It is possible to explain that here, the person is "eating" the wine, i.e., ingesting it as it is absorbed in solid food. Hence, he uses a measure of time that involves eating. In Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, he speaks about drinking. Hence, he uses a measure of time that involves drinking. [Hence,] he is worthy of lashes. Concerning this and similar situations, the Torah [Numbers 6:3] states: "Anything that has been steeped in grape [wine] shall you not partake." This forbids an entity in which wine has been mixed and its flavor is the flavor of wine. 37a exemplifies this concept as follows: One soaked grapes in water and the flavor of the water became that of grape juice. [This applies] provided it has both the flavor and substance [of the wine] as is the case with regard to other prohibited foods. 15:3.

If wine or the like were mixed together with honey and the flavor of wine cannot be detected, it is permitted for a nazirite [to partake of the mixture]. [The nazirite prohibitions] should not be considered more severe than [those against] fat and blood. 15:1-2, if a prohibited substance becomes mixed into another entity, its presence is nullified if there is so much of the permitted entity that the flavor of the prohibited substance cannot be detected. (When it is impossible to have someone taste the mixture, we require 60 times the amount of the forbidden substance.)

If the mixture had the flavor of wine, but there is not a revi'it of wine within k'dei [achilat] p'ras, [the mixture] is prohibited according to Rabbinic decree, as we explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot. 15:2-3. There the Rambam states that if there was less than an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat in a portion the size of three eggs, it is considered as if the substance of the prohibited substance is not present. Hence, according to Scriptural Law, there is no prohibition, even if the flavor of the forbidden fat is detectable.
The Ra'avad differs and quotes authorities who maintain that although lashes are not given in such an instance, the prohibition is of Scriptural origin. If [a nazirite] partakes of it, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.

When a nazirite eats an olive-sized portion of grapes, an olive-sized portion of [grape] seeds, an olive-sized portion of [grape] peels, and an olive-sized portion of raisins, and drinks an olive-sized portion of wine - even if he squeezed a cluster of grapes and drank [their juice] - he receives five sets of lashes. For each [of the substances is forbidden] by a different prohibition. And he receives a sixth set of lashes for the violation of [the prohibition]: "He shall not desecrate his word" 1:5; see also Chapter 1, Halachah 2. that applies to all vows.
Similarly, if he ate an olive-sized portion of peels or an olive-sized portion of grapes, he receives two sets of lashes, one for the peels or one for the grapes, and he is given [an additional set of] lashes because of [the prohibition]: "He shall not desecrate his word." This law also applies to a nazirite who shaves [his hair] or becomes impure. He receives two sets of lashes: one because of the violation of the particular prohibition and one, because of the prohibition that applies to all vows: "He shall not desecrate his word."

When a nazirite drank a revi'it of wine and a revi'it of vinegar, he receives only one set of lashes. He is not liable for the wine and for the vinegar independently. [The rationale is that] the Torah does not say: "Do not drink wine" and "Do not drink vinegar." Instead, [it states, Numbers 6:3]: "[He shall abstain from wine or alcoholic beverages.] He shall not drink vinegar of wine or vinegar of alcoholic beverages," i.e., he should not drink wine or a beverage into which wine was mixed - [that is the meaning of the term,] "alcoholic beverages" [in the verse] - even if they have become vinegar. Since [the Torah] repeated only the term vinegar which is one term, he does not receive lashes for them both independently.

When a nazirite is drinking wine for the entire day, even though he is liable in God's eyes 6:4)]. for every revi'it, he receives only [two sets of] lashes, one for drinking wine and one for "desecrat[ing] his word," as we explained. If he was given a warning for every revi'it, i.e., he was told: "Do not drink," "Do not drink," and he, [nevertheless,] did drink, he is liable for each [revi'it].
According to Rabbinic decree, it is forbidden for a nazirite to abide amidst a gathering of people drinking wine. [Instead,] he should separate himself far from them, because they present a hurdle for him. Our Sages 59a. said: "Do not come close [even to] the area around the vineyard."

When a nazirite cuts off one hair, whether using a razor or a scissor, he is liable for lashes, provided he cuts it from its roots as a razor would. 12:1, that prohibition applies only to removal of one's hair with a razor. Similarly, if he pulls out [a hair] by hand, he is liable for lashes. Both [the nazirite] whose hair is cut:1), it would appear that the person whose hair is cut is not liable for lashes unless he assists the person doing the shaving by moving his head or the like. Otherwise, he will not performed a deed and one is liable for lashes only when his violation involves a deed. and the person who cuts his hair [are liable], as [indicated by Numbers 6:5]: "A razor will not pass over his head." If he left enough of [the hair] so that it could be bent over for its tip to touch its root, he does not receive lashes, 39b). because [cutting in this manner] is not [equivalent to shaving it] with a razor.

If a person applied a potion that removed hair to his head and in this way, removed his hair, he is not liable for lashes. He is, however, nullifying the observance of a positive commandment, as [Numbers 6:5] states: "He shall let the mane of the hair of his head grow."

When a nazirite is scrubbing his hair with his hands and scraping [his scalp] with his nails, he need not worry [about removing hairs accidentally], because his intent is not to remove hair and it is possible that he will not remove any. 1:6. He should not, however, comb his hair with a comb or scrape his head with earth, for [these activities] will certainly remove hair. If he does so, he is not liable for lashes.). The Shiurei HaKorban explains that since these activities do not produce a razor-clean shave, he is not liable for the violation of a negative commandment. According to the Radbaz who maintains that such a commandment is in fact involved, the question arises: Since it is inevitable (a p'sik reishah) that the hairs will be removed, why is he not liable.

When a nazirite becomes impure through contact with a human corpse in a manner that would require him to remain impure for seven days, he is liable for lashes. [This applies] with regard to ritual impurity for which he is required to shave, as will be explained, and for ritual impurity for which he is not required to shave. and other commentaries question the Rambam's ruling, noting that in Hilchot Tumat Meit 3:3, he writes: "All ritual impurity resulting from a corpse for which a nazirite is not required to shave does not stem from Scriptural Law." If the impurity does not stem from Scriptural Law, why is the nazirite punished by lashes?
The Ma'aseh Rokeach explains that there are times when the Rambam uses the term midivrei sofrim, 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 Ishut 1:2; Sefer 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. See also Chapter 7, Halachah 1, where this issue is discussed.

[When a nazirite] becomes impure through contact with a human corpse many times, even though in God's eyes, he is liable for lashes for each time, the court holds him liable for only one set of lashes. If he was given a warning concerning each time, and he, nevertheless, became impure, he is liable for lashes for every time he [became impure].

When does the above apply? When he became impure and then returned and touched, carried, or stood over [the corpse]. If, however, he was touching a corpse and while the corpse was still in his hand, he touched another corpse, he is liable only once even though he was warned for each time he touched it, for his [state of purity] has already been desecrated.

When a nazirite enters a home and remains there until a person dies or he enters a shelter in which a corpse is located while he is in a closed container, chest, or closet and a colleague came and opened the top of the chest with his consent, 3:5. he is liable for two sets of lashes: one, due to [the violation of] the prohibition [Numbers 6:6]: "He shall not approach a human corpse" and one, due to [the violation of] the prohibition [ibid.:7]: "He shall not become impure," for his impurity and his entry come about at the same time. If, however, he enters [such a shelter] in an ordinary manner, his becoming ritually impure precedes his entry. For from the time that his nose or his toes enter, he becomes ritually impure 1:11. and he does not become liable for entering [the shelter] until his entire [body] enters. 3:18.
In this instance, since he is already ritually impure, the prohibition against entering a place of ritual impurity does not apply to him (Nazir 43a).

When [a nazirite] enters a shelter where a corpse is located or a cemetery unintentionally and after he discovers this fact, he received a warning, but did not jump up and leave, but instead remained there, he is liable for lashes. explains that since he performed a deed when he entered in violation of the prohibition, he is liable when he remained afterwards in conscious violation of the prohibition. Others cite the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh to Hilchot Sechirut 13:2 which explains that whenever a transgression usually involves a deed - as a nazirite would usually perform a deed to contract ritual impurity - one is liable for lashes even when one violates the transgression without performing a deed. See also Hilchot Evel 3:4.[This applies] provided he remains there for the time it takes to prostrate oneself like a ritually impure person who enters the Temple. 3:21-24.

[The following rules apply when one] causes a nazirite to contract ritual impurity. If the nazirite acted intentionally, the nazirite is liable for lashes and the person who caused him to contract impurity violates the prohibition against placing a stumbling block in front of the blind. 12:14 which interprets this as a general prohibition, warning a person against causing a colleague to transgress. If the nazirite was not aware of the transgression and the person who caused him to contract impurity acted intentionally, neither of them are liable for lashes.
Why is the person who caused the nazirite to contract impurity not liable for lashes? 3:5 which states that in a parallel situation when a person causes a priest to become ritually impure, the person who causes him to incur the impurity is indeed, liable. For it is the person who causes him to incur impurity who violates the prohibition. And similarly, one who shaves a nazirite's head is liable (Halachah 11). Since [Numbers 6:9] states: "He defiles his Nazirite head," a person is only liable if he willfully causes his own self to incur impurity. 10:31 which comments on the apparent contradiction between that halachah and the ruling here.

When a nazirite who is in a state of ritual purity makes himself ritually impure, he is also liable for lashes for [the violation of the prohibition, Deuteronomy 23:22]: "Do not delay in paying it." 1:1; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 14:13, with regard to the nature of this prohibition. For he delayed the fulfillment of his nazirite vow in purity and performed a deed. Similarly, if he took a nazirite vow while in a cemetery, he is also liable for lashes for [the violation of the prohibition]: "Do not delay in paying it." 17a).
From this we learn, that a nazirite who made himself impure receives four sets of lashes:
a) because of the prohibition: "He shall not become impure,"
b) because of the prohibition: "He shall not desecrate his word,"
c) because of the prohibition: "Do not delay in paying it," and because of the prohibition: "He shall not approach..." if he entered and incurred ritual impurity at the same time, as we explained.