אֶלָּא כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּכְנַס בְּשִׁידָּה תֵּיבָה וּמִגְדָּל, וּבָא חֲבֵירוֹ וּפָרַע מֵעָלָיו מַעֲזִיבָה.

Rather, Rava’s question should be understood to refer to a case where one entered the cemetery in a chest, box, or cabinet, i.e., in large wooden containers that do not contract ritual impurity. One can enter a cemetery in such a container without becoming impure. If one was carried into a cemetery inside one of these containers, then took a vow of naziriteship, and another came and removed the top [ ma’aziva ] from above him, he would become ritually impure by virtue of being in the cemetery.

כִּי גְּמִירִין שְׁהִיָּיה – בְּבֵית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, אֲבָל אַבָּרָאי – לָא, אוֹ דִּלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא? תֵּיקוּ.

If he was then warned to leave the cemetery, the question is as follows: When we learned by tradition that one is liable to receive lashes for delaying his exit, does that apply only to the Temple, but outside the Temple, such as when a nazirite is in a cemetery, does the halakha not apply, so that he is liable to receive lashes even if he did not delay his exit? Or perhaps it is not different, and a nazirite in a cemetery is flogged only if he remains there for a specific period of time. The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

בָּעֵי רַב אַשִׁי: נָזַר וְהוּא בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת, טָעוּן גִּילּוּחַ אוֹ לֹא? כִּי בָּעֵי תִּגְלַחַת – טָהוֹר שֶׁנִּטְמָא, דְּקָא מְטַמֵּא לִנְזִירוּתֵיהּ, אֲבָל טָמֵא שֶׁנָּזַר – לָא, אוֹ דִּלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא?

§ Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: If one took a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery, is he required to shave upon becoming ritually pure, before starting his term of naziriteship, or not? The Gemara explains the two sides of the question: When a ritually impure nazirite is required to shave before starting his tally, does that refer only to a ritually pure nazirite who became impure, who has defiled his naziriteship? But a ritually impure person who only took a vow of naziriteship, and whose naziriteship has not yet begun, is he not obligated to shave? Or perhaps it is not different.

תָּא שְׁמַע: מִי שֶׁנָּזַר וְהוּא בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת, אֲפִילּוּ הָיָה שָׁם שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם – אֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן, וְאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קָרְבַּן טוּמְאָה. קָרְבַּן טוּמְאָה הוּא דְּלָא מַיְיתֵי, אֲבָל גַּלּוּחֵי – בָּעֵי! מַה טַּעַם קָאָמַר; מַה טַּעַם אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קָרְבַּן טוּמְאָה – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא בָּעֵי גַּלּוּחֵי.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: One who took a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery, even if he was there for a full thirty days without leaving, those days he spent in the cemetery do not count as part of his tally, since his naziriteship has not yet gone into effect, and he therefore does not bring the offerings of impurity. The Gemara infers from this: It is the offerings of impurity that he does not bring, but he is required to shave. The Gemara rejects this proof: It is possible that the mishna is saying: What is the reason, as follows: What is the reason that he does not bring the offerings of impurity? Because he does not require shaving. This indicates that the naziriteship has not yet begun, therefore, he does not bring the offerings either.

תָּא שְׁמַע: אֵין בֵּין טָמֵא שֶׁנָּזַר לְנָזִיר טָהוֹר שֶׁנִּטְמָא אֶלָּא: טָמֵא שֶׁנָּזַר – שְׁבִיעִי שֶׁלּוֹ עוֹלֶה לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן, וְנָזִיר טָהוֹר שֶׁנִּטְמָא – אֵין שְׁבִיעִי שֶׁלּוֹ עוֹלֶה לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן. מַאי לָאו, הָא לְתִגְלַחַת – זֶה וְזֶה שָׁוִין? לָא, הָא לְמַלְקוֹת זֶה וְזֶה שָׁוִין.

The Gemara suggests another proof. Come and hear a proof from another baraita : The difference between a ritually impure person who took a vow of naziriteship and a ritually pure nazirite who became impure is only the following halakha : With regard to an impure person who took a vow of naziriteship, his seventh day of purification counts as part of his tally of the term of naziriteship, but with regard to a pure nazirite who became impure, his seventh day of purification does not count as part of his tally. The Gemara infers: What, is it not so that with regard to shaving, this and that are equal, and he must shave in either case? The Gemara rejects this: No, there is a different inference: It is with regard to flogging that this and that are equal, but one who took a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery does not have to shave.

אֲבָל תִּגְלַחַת מַאי – זֶה מְגַלֵּחַ, וְזֶה אֵינוֹ מְגַלֵּחַ? לִיתְנִיֵּיהּ. תְּנָא שְׁבִיעִי שֶׁלּוֹ, וְכָל מִילֵּי.

The Gemara questions this answer: But what is the halakha concerning shaving? Does this one, who became ritually impure, shave, and that one, who vowed while in a cemetery, not shave? If so, let him teach this difference as well. The Gemara answers: The tanna taught: His seventh day, and all matters relevant to it, including the halakha of shaving. Once it says that the seventh day is part of the tally of the ritually impure nazirite who became pure, it can be inferred that he does not bring the offerings of impurity on the eighth day, and therefore he does not shave on the seventh day.

תָּא שְׁמַע: אֵין לִי אֶלָּא יְמֵי טוּמְאָתוֹ שֶׁאֵין עוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן, יְמֵי חִלּוּטוֹ מִנַּיִן? וְדִין הוּא: מַה יְּמֵי טוּמְאָתוֹ מְגַלֵּחַ וּמֵבִיא קָרְבָּן – אַף יְמֵי חִלּוּטוֹ מְגַלֵּחַ וּמֵבִיא קָרְבָּן, וּמַה יְּמֵי טוּמְאָתוֹ אֵין עוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן – אַף יְמֵי חִלּוּטוֹ אֵין עוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן!

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a proof from the following baraita : I have derived only that a nazirite’s days of ritual impurity do not count as part of his tally; from where do I derive that his days of confirmed leprosy, And it would seem that by right it should be so: Just as at the end of his days of ritual impurity the nazirite shaves and brings offerings, so too at the end of his days of confirmed leprosy the halakha is that he shaves and brings offerings for his leprosy. And this comparison can be extended: Just as the days of his ritual impurity do not count as part of his tally, so too his days of confirmed leprosy do not count as part of his tally.

לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִּימֵי טוּמְאָתוֹ – שֶׁכֵּן מְבַטֵּל בָּהֶן אֶת הַקּוֹדְמִין, לְפִיכָךְ אֵין עוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן, תֹּאמַר בִּימֵי חִלּוּטוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְבַטֵּל אֶת הַקּוֹדְמִין, לְפִיכָךְ עוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן.

The baraita continues: No, if you say so with regard to his days of ritual impurity, in that case it is because with them, the previous days of his naziriteship observed in ritual purity are negated. Therefore, those days do not count as part of his tally. But will you say the same with regard to his days of confirmed leprosy, which do not negate the previous days? therefore possible to argue that they do count as part of his tally.

אָמַרְתָּ: וּמַה נָּזִיר בַּקֶּבֶר, שֶׁשְּׂעָרוֹ רָאוּי לְתִגְלַחַת – אֵין עוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן, יְמֵי חִלּוּטוֹ שֶׁאֵין רָאוּי לְתִגְלַחַת – לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁאֵין עוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן?

The baraita continues: But you can say that just as with regard to a nazirite who was in the grave, i.e., a cemetery, whose hair is fit for shaving, those days spent in the cemetery do not count as part of his tally, his days of confirmed leprosy, which are not fit for counting as part of the tally required for the shaving, since he must first shave as part of the purification process for his leprosy, is it not all the more so that they do not count as part of his tally? This concludes the baraita .

מַאי לָאו תִּגְלַחַת טוּמְאָה? לָא, תִּגְלַחַת טָהֳרָה. הָכִי נַמִי מִסְתַּבְּרָא,

The Gemara now attempts to prove from the baraita that one who took a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery must shave at the close of his process of purification: What, is it not so that when the baraita mentions shaving, it is referring to the shaving of impurity, and it is teaching that one who took a vow of naziriteship in a cemetery must shave at the end of his purification process? The Gemara rejects this: No, it is referring to the shaving of purity, meaning the shaving done after one completes his term of naziriteship. He then will shave all of his hair, including that which grew during the time he was ritually impure due to his presence in the cemetery. The Gemara adds: So, too, it is reasonable to say that this is the correct interpretation,