Nedarim 7
R. Aha b. Jacob said: E.g., if one takes a nazirite vow whilst in a cemetery.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A nazir may not defile himself through the dead. Consequently the vow does not become immediately operative, but he must not delay to leave the cemetery so that it shall become binding. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
This agrees with the view that the naziriteship is not immediately binding. But on the view that it is immediately valid, is then, 'he shall not delay,' applicable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not, for he is an actual nazir, subject to all the provisions of a nazir. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
only on the question of flagellation? — Nevertheless he violates, 'thou shalt not delay,' because the [ritually] clean naziriteship is delayed. R. Ashi said: Since this is so, [it follows that] if a <i>nazir</i> intentionally defiles himself, he transgresses thou shalt not delay in respect to [the recommencement of] the clean naziriteship.
Now, this goes without saying according to the view that shaving is indispensable,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'hinders' — the offering of the sacrifices on the completion of naziriteship, hence delay in shaving involves a delay in sacrifices. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
but even on the view that the shaving is not a bar [to the sacrifices], nevertheless he does not observe the precept of shaving. Mar Zutra the son of R. Mari said: He might violate 'Thou shalt not delay' in respect to his sacrifices. Is this deduced from here; surely, it is rather inferred from elsewhere: [When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord, thou shalt not slack to pay it, for the Lord thy God] will surely require it of thee:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 22. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
this refers to sin-offerings and trespass-offerings?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this would cover the case of a nazirite. For what purpose then the application of the verse 'thou shalt not delay' to the nazirite? ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
— I might say that the Torah set up an anomaly<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a novelty' — as such it cannot be included in other general laws, as it is a principle of exegesis that an anomaly stands in a class by itself. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
What is the anomaly? Shall we say, the fact that a vow to bring the sin-offering of a <i>nazir</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By one who is not nazirite. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> is invalid: but a sin-offering for heleb<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Forbidden fat. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> cannot be made obligatory by a vow,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A vow to bring a sin-offering which is normally due for eating heleb is not binding if the vower is not actually liable. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> yet one transgresses, 'thou shalt not delay'? But the anomaly is this: I might have thought, since even if one says, 'I will be a <i>nazir</i> only with respect to the kernels of grapes,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Num. VI, 4. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> he is a <i>nazir</i> in all respects. I would think that he does not violate, Thou shalt not delay'; therefore we are told [otherwise].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the coupling of the nazirite vow with other vows in the same sentence. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> Now, this is well according to the opinion that a vow of naziriteship in respect of the kernels of grapes makes one a <i>nazir</i> in all respects; but on the view of R. Simeon, viz., that one is not a <i>nazir</i> unless he separates himself from all, what can be said? Moreover, this is an anomaly in the direction of greater stringency?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then would we think that the injunction does not apply, so that it is more lenient ');"><sup>16</sup></span> — But the anomaly is this: I might have thought, since