הלכות נזירות

[The following rules apply when a person] sets aside money for the sacrifices of nazirites, those sacrifices were offered, and there is money left over. He should bring sacrifices of other nazirites with those funds, for the remainder of money [set aside for] nazirite [offerings should be used] for nazirite [offerings]. If one set aside money for his own nazirite [offering] without specifying for which sacrifice it should be used and money was left over, the remaining funds should be used for freewill offerings. 2:5: "What is left over from a nazirite's [offerings] should go for the sake of that nazirite.

When a person set aside money that was designated for specific purposes for his nazirite offering and money was left over, the remainder of the funds set aside for the burnt offering should be used for a burnt offering. The remainder of the funds set aside for the sin offering should be brought to the Dead Sea. as referring to the Mediterranean Sea.
The rationale for this ruling is that once a person has received atonement, it is forbidden to benefit from any funds designated for his sin offering. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 4:1. The commentaries also note that in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 5:9, the Rambam writes that money left over from a sin offering should be used to purchase freewill offerings. The remainder of the funds set aside for the peace offering should be used for a peace offering. There is no need that the offering be accompanied by bread. It is eaten for one day.

[The following rules apply when a person] set aside money for [sacrifices for] his nazirite vow and died. If the money was not designated for specific sacrifices, it should be used for freewill offerings. If the money had been designated for specific sacrifices, the funds set aside for the burnt offering should be used for a burnt offering. The funds set aside for the sin offering should be brought to the Dead Sea. 4:1). The funds set aside for the peace offering should be used for a peace offering. It is eaten for one day. There is no need that the offering be accompanied by bread.

What is meant by money not designated for specific sacrifices? For example, [a nazirite] set aside money to use to bring his sacrifices and did not say anything. If, however, he said: "This is for my obligation," it is as if they have been designated for a specific purpose. Needless to say, that if he says: "This [money] is for my burnt offering, sin offering, and peace offering," the money is considered as set aside for a specific purpose.

When a person sets aside an animal with a blemish, chs. 1-2. [for his sacrifice], it is as if he set aside money without designating it for a specific purpose. Similarly, if he set aside a slab of silver or of gold or a utensil, it is as if he set aside money without designating it for a specific purpose. [This applies] even if he said: "This is for my burnt offering, sin offering, and peace offering."

When a person says: "These [funds] are for my sin offering and the remainder is for my nazirite offering" and dies or a woman made such statements and then her husband nullified her nazirite vow, the money for the sin offering should be brought to the Dead Sea. Half of the remainder of the money should be used for a burnt offering and half for a peace offering.

When a person thought that he was obligated in a nazirite vow and set aside his sacrifices and then inquired of a sage who told him that [his statements] do not constitute a vow and he is not obligated to be a nazirite, what should he do with the sacrifices that he set aside? They should go and pasture with the rest of the herd. For they were consecrated in error and that consecration is not binding, as will be explained in the appropriate place. 6:34.

[The following rules apply when] a woman takes a nazirite vow and set aside her sacrifices and afterwards, her husband nullified her vow. If the animal belonged to him, it should go out and pasture in the herd, for a person cannot consecrate an article that does not belong to him. 6:21, 24; Hilchot Temurah 1:3. If the [animals set aside for] sacrifices were hers and her husband did not own any part of them, e.g., they were given to her as a present on the condition that her husband have no authority over them, but instead, she could do whatever she wants with them, 22:27; Hilchot Nedarim 7:17; Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 3:13-14. the sin offering should be left to die, 4:1. the burnt offering should be sacrificed as a burnt offering, and the peace offering should be sacrificed as a peace offering. It is eaten for one day. There is no need that the offering be accompanied by bread.

If [a woman] set aside money that was not designated for specific sacrifices, it should be used to purchase freewill offerings. If it was designated for specific purposes, the funds set aside for the burnt offering should be used for a burnt offering. The funds set aside for the sin-offering should be brought to the Dead Sea. The funds set aside for the peace offering should be used for a peace offering. It is eaten for one day. There is no need that the offering be accompanied by bread.

When a woman took a nazirite vow and became ritually impure [due to contact with a corpse] in the midst of the days of her nazirite vow, and afterwards her husband heard of her vow and nullified it, she must [still] bring the sacrifices [required when a nazirite] becomes ritually impure. 13:2 (Radbaz).

When a father binds his son to a nazirite vow and set aside sacrifices, but the son did not desire this nazirite vow and he or his relatives objected or he shaved himself or his relatives shaved him,:15. the sin offering should be left to die, the burnt offering should be sacrificed as a burnt offering, and the peace offering should be sacrificed as a peace offering. It is eaten for one day. There is no need that the offering be accompanied by bread.
If he set aside money that was not designated for specific sacrifices, it should be used to purchase freewill offerings. If it was designated for specific purposes, the funds set aside for the burnt offering should be used for a burnt offering. The funds set aside for the sin-offering should be brought to the Dead Sea. The funds set aside for the peace offering should be used for a peace offering. It is eaten for one day. There is no need that the offering be accompanied by bread.

When a person says: "I will be a nazirite when a son is born to me," and sets aside a sacrifice, his wife miscarries 13a as applying when the events occurred in this order. Others interpret the Talmud as speaking about a situation where the sacrifices were set aside after the woman miscarried. According to the Radbaz, the Rambam would not argue with that view. Instead, he is stating that the law applies even in the instance mentioned. and then she gives birth, the status of the sacrifices is questionable. It is forbidden to shear them or perform labor with them. 1:7-8.

[A question arises when] there are two nazirites; one became ritually impure [due to contact with a corpse] and it is not known which of them became ritually impure. How should they bring their sacrifices?
They should bring the sacrifices [required when emerging from] impurity and the sacrifices [that mark the completion of a nazirite vow in] purity at the conclusion of the span of their nazirite vow. One of them then says: "If I was the one who became impure, the sacrifices [to emerge from] impurity are mine and the sacrifices [that mark the completion of a nazirite vow in] purity are yours. If I am the one who is ritually pure, the sacrifices [that mark the completion of a nazirite vow in] purity are mine and the sacrifices [to emerge from] impurity are yours."
After bringing these sacrifices, they [both] then count the full span of another nazirite vow and bring another [set of] sacrifices [that mark the completion of a nazirite vow in] purity. They then bring the sacrifices [that mark the completion of a nazirite vow in] purity and one says: "If I was the one who was ritually impure, the sacrifices [brought previously to mark the emergence from] impurity were mine and the sacrifices [brought to mark the completion of a nazirite vow in] purity were yours and these are the sacrifices [that mark my completion of a nazirite vow in] purity. If I was the one who was ritually pure, the sacrifices [brought previously to mark the completion of a nazirite vow in] purity were mine and those [brought to mark the emergence from] impurity were yours. And these are the sacrifices [that mark your completion of a nazirite vow in] purity." Thus neither one lost anything [in bringing] these sacrifices.

If one of them dies, [the other] must bring a fowl as a sin-offering 19:10). If he was impure, he will have discharged his responsibility by bringing this sacrifice, because after the fact, this is sufficient. The burnt offering and the peace offering are not absolute necessities. See Chapter 10, Halachah 5. and an animal as a burnt offering and say: "If I became impure, the sin offering fulfills my obligation and the burnt offering is a freewill offering. If I was pure, the burnt offering is my obligation and the fowl brought as a sin-offering is [because of] the doubt." He then counts the full span of another nazirite vow and brings the sacrifices [required when completing a nazirite vow in] purity. He should say: "If I was impure, the first burnt offering I brought is a freewill offering and this is the sacrifice that I am obligated to bring. If I was pure, then the first burnt offering was obligatory. This is a freewill offering and these are the remainder of my sacrifices."
[In these instances,] neither of them perform the shaving [to emerge from] ritual impurity unless they are minors or women. 12:5. [The rationale is that] these individuals should not shave their heads because of a doubt.

How could a doubt arise for them with regard to whether they contracted ritual impurity? For example, two nazirites were standing in a private domain where the ruling is that if a doubt concerning ritual purity arises in a private domain, the person is considered impure. 16:1. We assume that if the nazirite knew that he was ritually impure, he would not deny it, because we operate under the assumption that a person would not consciously avoid bringing a sin offering if he knew that he was liable (Keritot 12a). A person who was standing outside saw them and said: "I saw that one of you became impure, but I do not know which one it is."
If, however, this witness is together with them in the courtyard, they are both ritually pure. [The rationale is that] since there are three of them, they are considered as "many people." And when there are many people in a private domain, when a doubt arises concerning them, they are ritually pure like a doubt concerning ritual impurity in the public domain as will be explained in its place.. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning this principle. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam's view.

When does the above apply? When both nazirites remain silent or the matter is doubtful for them. If, however, one of them says: "I did not become ritually impure," even if two witnesses testify that he became impure, he does not bring a sacrifice because of their statements. His statement: "I did not become ritually impure," can be understood to mean: "I will not bring a sacrifice [because of] impurity, because I have already asked [a sage] to absolve my vow." Thus he is not contradicting the witnesses and a person's word is accepted with regard to his own person. 14:11. If, however, he remained silent or was in doubt concerning the matter, he should bring a sacrifice even when the cause is the testimony of one witness, as we explained [above]
Similarly, if a witness tells a person: "You took a nazirite vow in my presence" and that person disputes the matter, he is not liable for anything. If he does not dispute the matter, he must observe [the restrictions of] a nazirite vow because of his statements.
Even if [a person] told two others, "I saw one of you take a nazirite vow, but I do not know which of you it was," since [neither of them] dispute his statements, they both must observe a nazirite vow, because of his statements. If a person observed a nazirite vow because of the statements of one witness and drank wine or became impure [due to contact with a corpse] and two witnesses administered a warning, he is given lashes even though the fundamental dimension of the testimony is dependent on one witness.

When a corpse was lying across the breadth of a path and a nazirite walked by there, he is pure. [This applies] even if the only way to pass was [to step] over the corpse).
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning this issue, citing Nazir 63b as support. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh offer interpretations of the Talmud that support the Rambam's position. In that source, the Talmud differentiates between a corpse that is visible and a corpse whose existence is unknown, as explained in Chapter 6, Halachot 18-19. The Rambam maintains that the distinctions apply only after the fact, when the blood from the sacrifices has already been sprinkled on the person. Before then, the ruling depends on the principle: When there is a doubt concerning ritual impurity in the public domain, the person is considered pure. If such a doubt arises concerning a question in a private domain, he is considered as impure.
In explanation of the Rambam's position, the Kessef Mishneh states that we are speaking about an instance where it is possible for the nazirite, albeit with difficulty, to pass by the corpse without touching it or passing over it. If that is not the case, he is certainly impure. The Radbaz states that we are speaking about any instance where the person could have - and we presume he did - move off the path so as not to touch the corpse. or to touch it and even if it was a source of impurity that was known. [The rationale is that when there is] an unresolved doubt concerning ritual impurity in the public domain, [we consider the person] pure.

When does the above apply? When he was walking. If, however, he was riding or carrying a burden, he is impure. [The rationale is that] it is possible for a person who is walking on his feet not to touch the corpse, have his body pass over it, nor move it. When, by contrast, a person is carrying a burden or riding, it is impossible for him not to touch the corpse, have his body pass over it, nor move it, for the corpse is lying across the path.