דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר לָהּ כְּרַבִּי. דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אֵין זֶה מְגַלֵּחַ אַחַת לִשְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. וְאֵיזֶהוּ שֶׁמְּגַלֵּחַ אַחַת לִשְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם – הָאוֹמֵר ״[הֲרֵי] עָלַי נְזִירוֹת כִּשְׂעַר רֹאשִׁי״ וְ״כַּעֲפַר הָאָרֶץ״ וּ״כְּחוֹל הַיָּם״.

The Gemara answers: This is not possible, as Rabbi Yehuda holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as we learned in the mishna (8a) with regard to one who vows: I am hereby a nazirite like the hair of my head, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: This nazirite does not shave his hair once every thirty days, as he is considered to have accepted one long term of naziriteship. And who is the nazirite who has accepted distinct terms of naziriteship and therefore shaves his hair once every thirty days? One who says: It is incumbent upon me to observe naziriteships like the hair of my head, or: Like the dust of the earth, or: Like the sand of the sea. Since Rabbi Yehuda agrees with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, he holds that one who uses a formulation similar to that used in the first case in the mishna and says: I am hereby a nazirite according to the capacity of the basket, has accepted one long term of naziriteship.

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מִי סָבַר לָהּ כְּרַבִּי? וְהָתְנַן: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר כְּמִנְיַן יְמוֹת הַחַמָּה״ וכו׳, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מַעֲשֶׂה הָיָה וְכֵיוָן שֶׁהִשְׁלִים מֵת.

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? But didn’t we learn in the mishna that if one says: I am hereby a nazirite in accordance with the number of days in a solar year, he counts 365 consecutive naziriteships, in accordance with the number of days in a solar year. Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident where someone took this vow and observed 365 consecutive terms of naziriteship. Once he completed all these terms of naziriteship, he died.

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא נְזִירוֹת קָא מְקַבֵּל עֲלֵיהּ – הַיְינוּ טַעֲמָא דְּכֵיוָן דְּהִשְׁלִים מֵת. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ חֲדָא נְזִירוּת קִבֵּל עִילָּוֵיהּ – מִי הָוֵי הַשְׁלָמָה כְּלָל?

The Gemara explains its question: Granted, if you say that he accepts upon himself many naziriteships, that is the reason for his statement that once he completed all these terms of naziriteship he died. However, if you say that Rabbi Yehuda does not agree with the unattributed opinion of the mishna and holds that he accepted upon himself one term of naziriteship lasting 365 days, is there completion here at all? Rabbi Yehuda would not have used this terminology in reference to the mishna’s previous statement if he himself holds that the individual accepted only one term of naziriteship.

וְעוֹד, מִי סָבַר לָהּ כְּרַבִּי? וְהָא תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מִנְיַן הֶילְקְטֵי קַיִץ״ וּ״מִנְיַן שִׁבֳּלֵי שְׁמִיטָּה״ – מוֹנֶה נְזִירוֹת כְּמִנְיַן הֶילְקְטֵי קַיִץ, וּכְמִנְיַן שִׁבֳּלֵי שְׁמִיטָּה.

And furthermore, does Rabbi Yehuda hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: If one says: I am hereby a nazirite like the number of piles [ helketei ] of figs [ kayitz ] left to dry, or: Like the number of sheaves of the Sabbatical Year, he must count as many naziriteships as the number of piles of figs or as the number of sheaves of the Sabbatical Year? This proves that Rabbi Yehuda does not hold that the individual accepts only one long term of naziriteship.

״מִנְיָן״ שָׁאנֵי.

The Gemara responds: This does not prove that Rabbi Yehuda does not agree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, since one who specifies: Like the number, is different, as even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would agree that he is referring to distinct terms of naziriteship rather than one long term of naziriteship.

וּמִי שָׁאנֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי ״מִנְיָן״? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר כְּמִנְיַן יְמוֹת הַחַמָּה״ – מוֹנֶה נְזִירוֹת כְּמִנְיַן יְמוֹת הַחַמָּה: ״כִּימֵי הַלְּבָנָה״ – מוֹנֶה כִּימֵי הַלְּבָנָה, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר ״נְזִירוֹת עָלַי כְּמִנְיַן יְמוֹת הַחַמָּה״ וּ״כְּמִנְיַן יְמוֹת הַלְּבָנָה״!

The Gemara asks: And is the case of one who says: Like the number, different according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that if one says: I am hereby a nazirite like the number of days in a solar year, he counts naziriteships corresponding to the number of days in a solar year. If one says: Like the days in a lunar year, i.e., a year comprised of twelve lunar months, he counts terms of naziriteship corresponding to the days in a lunar year. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He is assumed to have accepted one term of naziriteship until he says: It is incumbent upon me to observe naziriteships like the number of days in a solar year, or: Like the number of days in a lunar year. This demonstrates that if one did not explicitly use the plural term naziriteships, he is assumed to have accepted a single term of naziriteship even if he said: Like the number.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר לָהּ כְּוָתֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא, וּפָלֵיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא, סָבַר לָהּ כְּוָתֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא – נְזִירוּת קַבֵּיל עִילָּוֵיהּ, וּפָלֵיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא – דְּאִילּוּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה שָׁנֵי לֵיהּ מוֹנֶה, וְרַבִּי לָא שָׁנֵי לֵיהּ מוֹנֶה.

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion in one case and disagrees with him in one case. He holds in accordance with his opinion in one case, as follows: If one says: I am hereby a nazirite like the hairs of my head, he has accepted upon himself one term of naziriteship for as many days as the number of hairs on his head. And he disagrees with him in one case, as according to Rabbi Yehuda, the case of one who counts is different from the previous case, and so one who states: Like the number of hairs of my head, is considered to have accepted many distinct terms of naziriteship. However, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, one who counts is not different. He is assumed to have accepted a single term of naziriteship unless he explicitly uses the plural term naziriteships.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר כָּל יְמֵי חַיַּי״, ״הֲרֵינִי נְזִיר עוֹלָם״ – הֲרֵי זֶה נְזִיר עוֹלָם, אֲפִילּוּ ״מֵאָה שָׁנָה״ אֲפִילּוּ ״אֶלֶף שָׁנִים״ – אֵין זֶה נְזִיר עוֹלָם אֶלָּא נָזִיר לְעוֹלָם.

§ The Sages taught: If one says: I am hereby a nazirite all the days of my life, or: I am hereby a permanent nazirite, he is a permanent nazirite and he trims his hair on a yearly basis like Absalom. However, in the case of one who accepts upon himself naziriteship for a fixed amount of time, even if he says: One hundred years or even: One thousand years, he is not the specific type of nazirite known as a permanent nazirite. Rather, he is a regular nazirite forever, and he may never cut his hair.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר וְאַחַת״ – מוֹנֶה שְׁתַּיִם. ״וְעוֹד״ – מוֹנֶה שָׁלֹשׁ. ״וְשׁוּב״ – מוֹנֶה אַרְבַּע. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: ״וְשׁוּב״ כִּי כּוּלְּהוּ, וְהָוְיָא לֵיהּ שִׁית, קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן דְּלָא.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita : If one said: I am hereby a nazirite and one, he counts two terms of naziriteship, since he first took a nazirite vow and then accepted an additional term of naziriteship. If one said: I am hereby a nazirite and one and more, he counts three terms of naziriteship. If he added to that statement: And again, he counts four. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this last halakha obvious? The Gemara answers: It is necessary to teach this halakha . Lest you say that the words and again are referring to terms of naziriteship equal in number to all the terms and he has therefore accepted six terms of naziriteship altogether, the baraita therefore teaches us that this is not the correct interpretation of his statement.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר״. סוּמָכוֹס אוֹמֵר: ״הֵן״ – אַחַת, ״דִּיגוֹן״ – שְׁתַּיִם, ״טְרִיגוֹן״ – שָׁלֹשׁ, ״טֶטְרָגוֹן״ – אַרְבַּע, ״פּוּנְטִיגוֹן״ חָמֵשׁ.

The Sages taught in a baraita : If one said: I am hereby a nazirite, Sumakhos says: If he then added the word hen , which means one in Greek, he has accepted one term of naziriteship. If one said: Digon , which means two sides in Hebraicized Greek, he must observe two terms of naziriteship. If one said: Trigon , which means triangle in Hebraicized Greek, then he has accepted three terms of naziriteship. If he said: Tetragon , quadrilateral in Hebraicized Greek, then he has accepted four terms, and if he said: Puntigon , pentagon in Hebraicized Greek, then he has accepted five terms of naziriteship.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בַּיִת עָגוֹל, דִּיגוֹן, טְרִיגוֹן, פּוּנְטִיגוֹן – אֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא בִּנְגָעִים. טֶטְרָגוֹן מִטַּמֵּא בִּנְגָעִים. מַאי טַעֲמָא? לְמַטָּה הוּא אוֹמֵר ״קִיר״ ״קִירוֹת״. לְמַעְלָה הוּא אוֹמֵר ״קִיר״ ״קִירוֹת״ – הֲרֵי כָּאן אַרְבַּע. הדרן עלך כל כינויי

The Gemara cites another baraita dealing with these same expressions: The Sages taught: A round house, a two-sided house, a triangle- shaped house, and a pentagon- shaped house cannot become impure with leprosy, whereas a house shaped like a quadrilateral can become impure with leprosy. What is the reason for this? In the verse below it states, when referring to a wall, the plural term walls: “And, behold, if the plague has spread in the walls of the house” (Leviticus 14:39). Additionally, in the verse above it states, when referring to a wall, the plural term walls: “And behold, if the plague be in the walls of the house” (Leviticus 14:37). These plural terms are unnecessary, and it is therefore understood that there are four walls mentioned here in order to indicate that a house can become impure through leprosy only if it has four sides.