Nedarim 8

if he shaves himself for one [sacrifice] of the three, he fulfils his duty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A nazir at the termination of his vow is bound to bring three sacrifices, viz., a burnt-offering, a sin-offering, and a peace-offering. Yet if he shaves and brings only one, the prohibitions of a nazir, such as the drinking of wine, etc., are lifted. This is a unique law, and in the direction of greater leniency. ');">¹</span>

therefore he should not be subject to, 'Thou shalt not delay'; hence we are told [that it is not so]. An alternative answer is this: the anomaly is that it cannot be vowed; but as to your difficulty of the sin-offering for heleb,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 7, n. 10. ');">²</span>

— the sin-offering for heleb comes for atonement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence one violates the injunction by delaying to make atonement. ');">³</span>

but for what does the sin-offering of anal come?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though technically a sin-offering, it is, in fact, merely part of a larger vow. Hence it is an anomaly that it cannot be vowed separately. ');">⁴</span>

But the sin-offering of a woman who gave birth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XII, 6ff. ');">⁵</span>

which does not come for an atonement, yet one violates, 'thou shalt not delay' on account thereof? — That permits her to eat of sacrifices.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which may be an obligation. e.g., the eating of the Passover sacrifice. Hence 'thou shalt not delay' is applicable. ');">⁶</span>

The Master said: 'And just as in other vows, the father can annul those of his daughter and the husband those of his wife, so in the case of neziroth, the father can annul the neziroth of his daughter and the husband that of his wife'. But what need is there of analogy; let us infer it from VOWS by general similarity?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since naziriteship is a form of vow. [H] Lit., 'as we find concerning', a method of hermeneutics whereby an analogy is drawn from one case for one single similar case, as distinct from hekkesh (supra p. 4, n. 6) where the analogy is based on the close connection of the two subjects in one and the same context.] ');">⁷</span>

— Perhaps he can annul only in the case of other vows, because their duration is unlimited; but with respect to neziroth, the duration of which is limited — for an unspecified vow of neziroth is for thirty days, — I might say that it is not so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the vow will automatically lapse. ');">⁸</span>

Hence we are informed [otherwise].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the analogy. ');">⁹</span>

IF ONE SAYS TO HIS NEIGHBOUR, I AM DEBARRED FROM YOU BY A VOW' etc. Samuel said: In all these instances he must say, 'in respect of aught that I might eat of yours or that I might taste of yours'. An objection is raised: [If one says to his neighbour], 'I am debarred from you by a vow,' [or] 'I am separated from you.' [or] 'I am removed from you', he is forbidden [to derive any benefit from him]. [If he says,] 'That which I might eat or taste of yours' [shall be to me prohibited], he is forbidden!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first clause proves that the vow is valid without the addition. ');">¹⁰</span> — This is what is taught: When is this? If he adds 'in respect of aught that I might eat or taste of yours.' But the reverse was taught: [If one says to his neighbour,] 'That which I might eat or taste of yours' [shall be prohibited to me], he is forbidden; 'I am debarred from you by a vow', [or] 'I am separated from you', [or] 'I am removed from you,' he is [likewise] forbidden! — Read thus: Providing that he had first said, 'I am debarred from you, etc.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to this rendering, the bracketed 'shall be prohibited to me' must be deleted. ');">¹¹</span> If so, it is identical with the first [Baraitha]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then is the order reversed? This difficulty arises in any case. But if each clause is independent, it can be answered that the second Baraitha intentionally reverses the clauses, so as to make their independence obvious, since the interpretation 'providing that he had first said' is forced; whilst in the first Baraitha the assumption that the second clause is an addition to the first is quite feasible. ');">¹²</span> Moreover, why teach further, 'he is forbidden' twice?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that the whole refers to one vow. ');">¹³</span> — But this is what Samuel really said: Because he said, 'in respect of aught that I might eat of yours or that I might taste of yours', the maker of the vow alone is forbidden while his neighbour is permitted;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To benefit from him. ');">¹⁴</span>