nazirite

Regarding the two goats of Yom Hakippurim, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two lambs of Shavuot, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two loaves [that accompany the lambs] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two rows [of the showbread] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two dishes [of frankincense] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the rows and the dishes the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the: two kinds [of cakes] used in the offering of the nazirite, the three kinds used for the red cow, the four kinds [of cakes] used in the todah, the four kinds [of species] used for the lulav, and the four kinds used for the [purification of the] leper, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven sprinklings [of the blood] of the red cow the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven sprinklings between the staves of the ark, and of those towards the veil and upon the golden altar, the [absence of] one invalidates the others.

All menahot must be rubbed three hundred times and beaten five hundred times. The rubbing and the beating apply is performed with the grains of wheat. Rabbi Yose says: also to the dough. All menahot consist of ten cakes each, except the showbread and the griddle-cakes of the high priest, which consist of twelve cakes each, the words of Rabbi Judah. But Rabbi Meir says: they all consist of twelve cakes each, except the loaves of the todah and of the nazirite-offering, which consist of ten cakes each.

The consecration [minhah] consisted of matzah like the todah: cakes, wafers, and soaked cakes. The nazirite minhah consisted of two thirds of the matzah of the todah: cakes and wafers, but not soaked cakes. Thus there were ten kavs by Jerusalem measure, which are six tenths and something over. From each kind [the priest] took one tenth part as terumah, as it is said, “Out of this he shall offer one of each kind as a gift to the Lord” (Leviticus 7:1: “One:” that he may not take what is broken. “Out of each offering:” that each kind of offering shall be equal, [and] that he must not take [the terumah] from the one kind of offering on behalf of another. “It shall go to the priest who dashes the blood of the shelamim:” and the rest was consumed by the owner.

For what purpose did the quarter-log serve? [To measure] a quarter-log of water for the one with skin disease and a quarter-log of oil for the Nazirite. For what purpose did the half-log serve? [To measure] a half-log of water for the sotah and a half-log of oil for the todah. With the log one measured [the oil] for all the menahot. Even a minhah of sixty tenths required sixty logs [of oil]. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: even a minhah of sixty tenths required only one log [of oil], for it is written, “For a minhah, and for a log of oil” (Leviticus 14:21). Six [logs] were required for a bull, four for a ram, and three for a lamb; Three logs and a half for the menorah, a half-log for each lamp.

[If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah,” he must offer it in the Temple. And if he offered it in the Temple of Onias, he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah but I will offer it in the Temple of Onias,” he must offer it in the Temple, yet if he offered it in the Temple of Onias he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: this is not an olah. [If one said,] “I will be a nazirite,” he must bring his offerings and shave his hair in the Temple. And if he brought them and shaved his hair in the Temple of Onias he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If he said,] “I will be a nazirite but I will bring my offerings and shave my hair in the Temple of Onias,” he must bring them in the Temple, yet if he brought them and shaved his hair in the Temple of Onias he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: such a one is not a nazirite. The priests who served in the Temple of Onias may not serve in the Temple in Jerusalem; and needless to say [this is so of priests who served] something else; for it is said, “The priests of the shrines, however, did not ascend the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem. But they did eat unleavened bread along with their kinsmen” (II Kings 23:9). Thus they are like those that had a blemish: they are entitled to share and eat [of the holy things] but they are not permitted to offer sacrifices.

[If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah,” he must offer it in the Temple. And if he offered it in the Temple of Onias, he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah but I will offer it in the Temple of Onias,” he must offer it in the Temple, yet if he offered it in the Temple of Onias he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: this is not an olah. [If one said,] “I will be a nazirite,” he must bring his offerings and shave his hair in the Temple. And if he brought them and shaved his hair in the Temple of Onias he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If he said,] “I will be a nazirite but I will bring my offerings and shave my hair in the Temple of Onias,” he must bring them in the Temple, yet if he brought them and shaved his hair in the Temple of Onias he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: such a one is not a nazirite. The priests who served in the Temple of Onias may not serve in the Temple in Jerusalem; and needless to say [this is so of priests who served] something else; for it is said, “The priests of the shrines, however, did not ascend the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem. But they did eat unleavened bread along with their kinsmen” (II Kings 23:9). Thus they are like those that had a blemish: they are entitled to share and eat [of the holy things] but they are not permitted to offer sacrifices.

[If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah,” he must offer it in the Temple. And if he offered it in the Temple of Onias, he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah but I will offer it in the Temple of Onias,” he must offer it in the Temple, yet if he offered it in the Temple of Onias he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: this is not an olah. [If one said,] “I will be a nazirite,” he must bring his offerings and shave his hair in the Temple. And if he brought them and shaved his hair in the Temple of Onias he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If he said,] “I will be a nazirite but I will bring my offerings and shave my hair in the Temple of Onias,” he must bring them in the Temple, yet if he brought them and shaved his hair in the Temple of Onias he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: such a one is not a nazirite. The priests who served in the Temple of Onias may not serve in the Temple in Jerusalem; and needless to say [this is so of priests who served] something else; for it is said, “The priests of the shrines, however, did not ascend the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem. But they did eat unleavened bread along with their kinsmen” (II Kings 23:9). Thus they are like those that had a blemish: they are entitled to share and eat [of the holy things] but they are not permitted to offer sacrifices.

A convert who converted and owned a cow: If he slaughtered it before he converted, he is exempt from giving the gifts. If [he slaughtered it] after he converted, he is liable. If there was a doubt about it, he is exempt, for the burden of proof lies upon the claimant. What is ‘the shoulder’? From the joint up to the shoulder-socket of the forelimb, and this is the same for the nazirite. The corresponding part of the hind leg is called the thigh. Rabbi Judah says: the thigh extends from the joint up to the fleshy part of the leg. What counts as ‘the cheek? From the joint of the jaw to the last protrusion of the windpipe.

And the following are things which must be buried: A dedicated animal which had a miscarriage, [the miscarriage] must be buried. A dedicated animal which expelled a placenta, [the placenta] must be buried. An ox which was condemned to be stoned. The heifer whose neck was broken. The birds [brought in connection with the purification] of one with skin disease (metzora). The hair of a nazirite. The first-born of a donkey. [A mixture of] meat [cooked] in milk. And hullin which were slaughtered in the Temple court. Shimon says: hullin which were slaughtered in the Temple court must be burned. And similarly a wild animal killed in the Temple court [is also burned].

There are four persons who require a ceremony of atonement, and there are four who bring a sacrifice for willful as well as for inadvertent transgression. The following are those who require a ceremony of atonement: the zav, the zavah, the woman who gave birth and the metzora. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: also a convert is regarded as a person who still requires a ceremony of atonement until the blood has been sprinkled for him; the same applies to the nazirite with reference to wine, haircutting and uncleanness.

The following bring a sacrifice for willful as well as for inadvertent transgressions: One who has intercourse with a female slave, A nazirite who has become unclean, For a false oath concerning testimony; And for a false oath concerning a deposit.

There are five persons who bring one sacrifice for multiple transgressions, and five who bring a sacrifice of higher or lesser value. The following bring one sacrifice for multiple transgressions: One who has intercourse with a female slave several times, A nazirite who became unclean several times. One who warns his wife in regard to several men, And a metzora who has contracted skin disease several times. If he has offered the birds and then contracted the disease again, they do not count for him until he has offered his hatat. Rabbi Judah says: until he has offered his asham.

If one has set aside money for his nazirite offerings, it may not be used, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to it, as it may all be used for the shelamim. If he died and left money [for his nazirite offerings] If unspecified it shall go to the fund for voluntary offerings; If specified: The money designated for the hatats shall be taken to the Dead Sea; it may not be used, though the law of sacrilege does not apply to it. With the money designated for an olah they shall bring a olah; the law of sacrilege applies to it. With the money designated for the shelamim they shall bring a shelamim, and it has to be consumed within a day, but requires no bread offering.

If one has set aside money for his nazirite offerings, it may not be used, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to it, as it may all be used for the shelamim. If he died and left money [for his nazirite offerings] If unspecified it shall go to the fund for voluntary offerings; If specified: The money designated for the hatats shall be taken to the Dead Sea; it may not be used, though the law of sacrilege does not apply to it. With the money designated for an olah they shall bring a olah; the law of sacrilege applies to it. With the money designated for the shelamim they shall bring a shelamim, and it has to be consumed within a day, but requires no bread offering.

A kokhin field may neither be planted nor sown, but its earth is regarded as clean and ovens may be made of it for holy use. Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel agree that it [a bet peras in which a grave was plowed over] is examined for one who wished to perform the pesah sacrifice,but is not examined for one who wants to eat terumah. And as for a nazirite: Bet Shammai say: it is examined, But Bet Hillel say: it is not examined. How does he examine it? He brings earth that he can move, and places it into a sieve with fine meshes, and crumbles. If a bone of barley-corn size is found there [the person passing through the field] is deemed unclean.

There are three who must shave their hair, and their shaving of it is a commandment: the nazirite, the metzora, and the Levites. If any of these cut their hair but not with a razor, or if they left even two remaining hairs, their act is of no validity.

The sin-offerings of the congregation and their burnt-offerings, the sin-offering of an individual, the guilt-offering of a nazirite and the guilt-offering of a metzora are valid from the thirtieth day onwards, and also on the thirtieth day. If they were offered on the eighth day they are valid. Vow-offerings and freewill-offerings, firstlings and the tithe of cattle and the pesach are valid from the eighth day onwards, and also on the eighth day.

These are the cases of doubtful uncleanness that the sages declared to be clean: A doubt concerning drawn water for a mikveh, A doubt concerning an object of uncleanness that floated upon the water. A doubt concerning liquids as to whether they have contracted uncleanness it is deemed unclean, but if it was whether uncleanness has been conveyed it is deemed clean. A doubt concerning the hands as to whether they have contracted uncleanness, have conveyed uncleanness or have attained cleanness, they are deemed clean. A doubt that arose in a public domain; A doubt concerning an ordinance of the scribes; A doubt concerning non-sacred food; A doubt concerning a sheretz; A doubt concerning negaim; A doubt concerning a nazirite vow; A doubt concerning a first-born; A doubt concerning sacrifices.

"A condition of doubt concerning non-sacred food"--this refers to the cleanness practiced by Pharisees. "A condition of doubt concerning a sheretz" –according [to their condition at] the time they are found. "A condition of doubt concerning negaim" it is deemed clean in the beginning before it had been determined to be unclean, but after it had been determined to be unclean, a condition of doubt is deemed unclean. "A condition of doubt concerning a nazirite vow" [in such a condition of doubt he] is permitted [all that is forbidden to a nazirite]. "A condition of doubt concerning first-borns" whether they are human firstborn or firstborn of cattle, whether the firstborn of an unclean beast or a clean one, for the one who wishes to extract from his fellow bears the burden of proof.

"A condition of doubt concerning non-sacred food"--this refers to the cleanness practiced by Pharisees. "A condition of doubt concerning a sheretz" –according [to their condition at] the time they are found. "A condition of doubt concerning negaim" it is deemed clean in the beginning before it had been determined to be unclean, but after it had been determined to be unclean, a condition of doubt is deemed unclean. "A condition of doubt concerning a nazirite vow" [in such a condition of doubt he] is permitted [all that is forbidden to a nazirite]. "A condition of doubt concerning first-borns" whether they are human firstborn or firstborn of cattle, whether the firstborn of an unclean beast or a clean one, for the one who wishes to extract from his fellow bears the burden of proof.

"Vine" — it requires a fourth [of a Log] of wine for a Nazirite. "Fig-tree" — to carry as much as a dried fig [from a private to a public court or vice versa] constitutes a breach of the Sabbath. "Pomegranate" — as we have the Mishnaic teaching : The vessels of house-owners

There is a teaching : Rabbi says : Why does the section of the Nazirite adjoin the section of the woman suspected of adultery? To tell thee that whoever sees such a woman in her disgrace should separate himself from wine.

‘Vines’ [are an allusion to] the quarter of a log of wine [which is the minimum prohibited] to a Nazirite.

R. Eleazar says: He that fasts is called holy, for it is said (ib., 6. 5): "He shall be holy." Now, if this man (the Nazirite) who denied himself only the enjoyment of wine is called holy, all the more so one who denies himself all the enjoyments of life.

How does Samuel account for the fact that he (the Nazirite) is called holy? This term is applied to him only in view of his having purified himself (after the defilement). How does R. Eleazar account for the fact that he is also called sinner? This term is applied to him only in view of his having defiled himself (by contact with a dead body). But did R. Eleazar say so? Did he not say one should always consider oneself

Our Rabbis have taught: A king should have his hair trimmed every day, a high priest every Friday, an ordinary priest once a month. A king everyday—what is the reason? Said R. 'Abba b. Zabda in the name of Rab, because it is written (Is., 33. 17): "Thine eyes shall see the king in his beauty." A high priest every Friday—what is the reason? Said R. Samuel b. R. Isaac, because new divisions of priests come in every Saturday. An ordinary priest once a month—what is the reason? This rule is derived from the occurrence of the word pera' (lock) both in connection with the Nazirite and the priest, for it is written in one place (Ez., 44. 20): "Neither shall they (the priests) shave their heads nor suffer their locks to grow long," and it is written in another place (Num., 6. 5): "He (the Nazirite) shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long," which leads us to the analogy that just as there (in the instance of the Nazirite) the growing of the locks is meant for a period of thirty days, so also here (in the instance of the priests). But whence do you know it to be so in the case of the Nazirite himself? Scripture (ibid.) uses the word yihyeh (יהיה = he shall be), the numerical value of which is thirty. Said R. Papa to 'Abbayi: Is it not possible that the verse (in Ezekiel) means to say that they should not suffer their locks to grow at all? If it were written, Abbayi replied, "they shall not suffer locks to grow long," your interpretation might be correct, but since it is written, "the locks they shall not suffer to grow long", it indicates that they may have locks, but must not let them grow too long. If so, the law ought to apply also to the priests of the present time! No, the prohibition of growing the hair is analogous to that of drinking of wine, so that just as the latter applies only to the time when they enter the Temple for service, so also the former applies only to the time when they might enter the Temple, but when there is no Temple which they might enter, they may let the hair grow. But is it true that wine is permitted when there is no Temple to enter? Does not the following Baraita intimate the contrary? Rabbi says, I would say that a priest should never drink wine, but what can I do, seeing that his misfortune has turned out to be his benefit, whereupon 'Abbayi asked according to whose view the priests of our time drink wine

Our Rabbis have taught: A king should have his hair trimmed every day, a high priest every Friday, an ordinary priest once a month. A king everyday—what is the reason? Said R. 'Abba b. Zabda in the name of Rab, because it is written (Is., 33. 17): "Thine eyes shall see the king in his beauty." A high priest every Friday—what is the reason? Said R. Samuel b. R. Isaac, because new divisions of priests come in every Saturday. An ordinary priest once a month—what is the reason? This rule is derived from the occurrence of the word pera' (lock) both in connection with the Nazirite and the priest, for it is written in one place (Ez., 44. 20): "Neither shall they (the priests) shave their heads nor suffer their locks to grow long," and it is written in another place (Num., 6. 5): "He (the Nazirite) shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long," which leads us to the analogy that just as there (in the instance of the Nazirite) the growing of the locks is meant for a period of thirty days, so also here (in the instance of the priests). But whence do you know it to be so in the case of the Nazirite himself? Scripture (ibid.) uses the word yihyeh (יהיה = he shall be), the numerical value of which is thirty. Said R. Papa to 'Abbayi: Is it not possible that the verse (in Ezekiel) means to say that they should not suffer their locks to grow at all? If it were written, Abbayi replied, "they shall not suffer locks to grow long," your interpretation might be correct, but since it is written, "the locks they shall not suffer to grow long", it indicates that they may have locks, but must not let them grow too long. If so, the law ought to apply also to the priests of the present time! No, the prohibition of growing the hair is analogous to that of drinking of wine, so that just as the latter applies only to the time when they enter the Temple for service, so also the former applies only to the time when they might enter the Temple, but when there is no Temple which they might enter, they may let the hair grow. But is it true that wine is permitted when there is no Temple to enter? Does not the following Baraita intimate the contrary? Rabbi says, I would say that a priest should never drink wine, but what can I do, seeing that his misfortune has turned out to be his benefit, whereupon 'Abbayi asked according to whose view the priests of our time drink wine

Our Rabbis have taught: A king should have his hair trimmed every day, a high priest every Friday, an ordinary priest once a month. A king everyday—what is the reason? Said R. 'Abba b. Zabda in the name of Rab, because it is written (Is., 33. 17): "Thine eyes shall see the king in his beauty." A high priest every Friday—what is the reason? Said R. Samuel b. R. Isaac, because new divisions of priests come in every Saturday. An ordinary priest once a month—what is the reason? This rule is derived from the occurrence of the word pera' (lock) both in connection with the Nazirite and the priest, for it is written in one place (Ez., 44. 20): "Neither shall they (the priests) shave their heads nor suffer their locks to grow long," and it is written in another place (Num., 6. 5): "He (the Nazirite) shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long," which leads us to the analogy that just as there (in the instance of the Nazirite) the growing of the locks is meant for a period of thirty days, so also here (in the instance of the priests). But whence do you know it to be so in the case of the Nazirite himself? Scripture (ibid.) uses the word yihyeh (יהיה = he shall be), the numerical value of which is thirty. Said R. Papa to 'Abbayi: Is it not possible that the verse (in Ezekiel) means to say that they should not suffer their locks to grow at all? If it were written, Abbayi replied, "they shall not suffer locks to grow long," your interpretation might be correct, but since it is written, "the locks they shall not suffer to grow long", it indicates that they may have locks, but must not let them grow too long. If so, the law ought to apply also to the priests of the present time! No, the prohibition of growing the hair is analogous to that of drinking of wine, so that just as the latter applies only to the time when they enter the Temple for service, so also the former applies only to the time when they might enter the Temple, but when there is no Temple which they might enter, they may let the hair grow. But is it true that wine is permitted when there is no Temple to enter? Does not the following Baraita intimate the contrary? Rabbi says, I would say that a priest should never drink wine, but what can I do, seeing that his misfortune has turned out to be his benefit, whereupon 'Abbayi asked according to whose view the priests of our time drink wine

Our Rabbis have taught: A king should have his hair trimmed every day, a high priest every Friday, an ordinary priest once a month. A king everyday—what is the reason? Said R. 'Abba b. Zabda in the name of Rab, because it is written (Is., 33. 17): "Thine eyes shall see the king in his beauty." A high priest every Friday—what is the reason? Said R. Samuel b. R. Isaac, because new divisions of priests come in every Saturday. An ordinary priest once a month—what is the reason? This rule is derived from the occurrence of the word pera' (lock) both in connection with the Nazirite and the priest, for it is written in one place (Ez., 44. 20): "Neither shall they (the priests) shave their heads nor suffer their locks to grow long," and it is written in another place (Num., 6. 5): "He (the Nazirite) shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long," which leads us to the analogy that just as there (in the instance of the Nazirite) the growing of the locks is meant for a period of thirty days, so also here (in the instance of the priests). But whence do you know it to be so in the case of the Nazirite himself? Scripture (ibid.) uses the word yihyeh (יהיה = he shall be), the numerical value of which is thirty. Said R. Papa to 'Abbayi: Is it not possible that the verse (in Ezekiel) means to say that they should not suffer their locks to grow at all? If it were written, Abbayi replied, "they shall not suffer locks to grow long," your interpretation might be correct, but since it is written, "the locks they shall not suffer to grow long", it indicates that they may have locks, but must not let them grow too long. If so, the law ought to apply also to the priests of the present time! No, the prohibition of growing the hair is analogous to that of drinking of wine, so that just as the latter applies only to the time when they enter the Temple for service, so also the former applies only to the time when they might enter the Temple, but when there is no Temple which they might enter, they may let the hair grow. But is it true that wine is permitted when there is no Temple to enter? Does not the following Baraita intimate the contrary? Rabbi says, I would say that a priest should never drink wine, but what can I do, seeing that his misfortune has turned out to be his benefit, whereupon 'Abbayi asked according to whose view the priests of our time drink wine

But how could R. Jochanan have said this? For surely Hezekiah said, A Nazirite, if again polluted on the eighth day, must bring an additional offering, but if in the previous night, he need not bring it; but R. Jochanan said, Nay, in the latter case also he must bring it. R. Jeremiah said, A case of defilement is a different matter, for payments postponed from it are made at a second Passover. R. Papa objects to this and says, It will be all right according to him who says,

There is a Baraitha. R. Eliezer says, They have something upon which they may rest, for it is said, "when he shall separate," "when he shall separate," twice (Lev. xxvii. 2, Numb. vi. 2). One separation has to do with binding and one separation with dissolving. R. Joshua says, They have something upon which they may rest, for it is said, "Wherefore I sware in my wrath" (Ps. xcv. 11). In my wrath I sware, and I relented. R. Isaac says, They have something upon which they may rest, for it is said, "Whosoever is of a willing heart" (Exod. xxxv. 5). Chănaniah, nephew of R. Joshua, says, They have something on which they may rest, for it is said, "I have sworn and have fulfilled it, that I will observe thy righteous judgments" (Ps. cxix. 106). R. Jehudah said that R. Samuel said, If I had been there, I would have said to them, Mine is much better than yours, for it is said, "He shall not break his word" (Numb. xxx. 3, E.V. 2). He is not to break it, but afterwards it may be broken for him. Rabba said, There is an objection to all of them except Samuel's, for there is no objection to his. For if we take that of R. Eliezer, perhaps the truth rests with R. Jehudah, who said it in the name of R. Tarphon, for there is a Baraitha, R. Jehudah says in the name of R. Tarphon, I grant fully that neither of them is a Nazirite, for the state of a Nazirite is not given except on condition of separation. If we take the words of R. Joshua, perhaps the meaning is this, I sware in my wrath, and I will not relent. If we take the words of R. Isaac, perhaps it is to exclude the explanation of Samuel, for Samuel said, If a man has determined in his heart, it is further needful that he should utter it with his lips. Lo, we learn from this, that even though he has not uttered it with his lips, he is bound. If we take the words of Chănaniah, nephew of R. Joshua, perhaps it is as R. Gidel reported that Rab said; for R. Gidel said that Rab said, Whence do we find that an oath is meritorious? Because it is said, "I have sworn and have fulfilled it that I will observe thy righteous judgments" (Ps. cxix. 106). But the words of Samuel are open to no objection. Rabba said, or, if you like, R. Nachman bar Isaac said, This accords with the proverbial saying, Better is one grain of pepper than a basket full of dates.

There is a Baraitha. R. Eliezer says, They have something upon which they may rest, for it is said, "when he shall separate," "when he shall separate," twice (Lev. xxvii. 2, Numb. vi. 2). One separation has to do with binding and one separation with dissolving. R. Joshua says, They have something upon which they may rest, for it is said, "Wherefore I sware in my wrath" (Ps. xcv. 11). In my wrath I sware, and I relented. R. Isaac says, They have something upon which they may rest, for it is said, "Whosoever is of a willing heart" (Exod. xxxv. 5). Chănaniah, nephew of R. Joshua, says, They have something on which they may rest, for it is said, "I have sworn and have fulfilled it, that I will observe thy righteous judgments" (Ps. cxix. 106). R. Jehudah said that R. Samuel said, If I had been there, I would have said to them, Mine is much better than yours, for it is said, "He shall not break his word" (Numb. xxx. 3, E.V. 2). He is not to break it, but afterwards it may be broken for him. Rabba said, There is an objection to all of them except Samuel's, for there is no objection to his. For if we take that of R. Eliezer, perhaps the truth rests with R. Jehudah, who said it in the name of R. Tarphon, for there is a Baraitha, R. Jehudah says in the name of R. Tarphon, I grant fully that neither of them is a Nazirite, for the state of a Nazirite is not given except on condition of separation. If we take the words of R. Joshua, perhaps the meaning is this, I sware in my wrath, and I will not relent. If we take the words of R. Isaac, perhaps it is to exclude the explanation of Samuel, for Samuel said, If a man has determined in his heart, it is further needful that he should utter it with his lips. Lo, we learn from this, that even though he has not uttered it with his lips, he is bound. If we take the words of Chănaniah, nephew of R. Joshua, perhaps it is as R. Gidel reported that Rab said; for R. Gidel said that Rab said, Whence do we find that an oath is meritorious? Because it is said, "I have sworn and have fulfilled it that I will observe thy righteous judgments" (Ps. cxix. 106). But the words of Samuel are open to no objection. Rabba said, or, if you like, R. Nachman bar Isaac said, This accords with the proverbial saying, Better is one grain of pepper than a basket full of dates.