Missionary Renegade

See Halachah 12. The Radbaz notes that the Mishnah (loc. cit.) refers to this person as being appointed over the flour. He explains that since flour would accompany the wine libation, the same person was appointed over both.

See Halachah 14.

See Halachah 15.

See Halachah 15.

See Halachah 15.

See Halachah 16.

See Halachah 15.

Actually, the announcement would be made slightly before the time for the sacrifice. For example, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 1:2; 3:8), the Rambam writes that this announcement was made at (or before) dawn.

Where they would stand to sing. Although they would not sing until the wine offering was brought and that was after the limbs of the sacrifice were offered (see Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 6:5), they would proceed to their posts at the same time as the priests.

At sunset.

At dawn.

A prolonged and drawn out blast.

A series of staccato blasts.

The priests would also stand watch in three places. The commentaries discuss why they are not mentioned.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 8:10 where the function of this officer is also mentioned.

As mentioned in Halachah 3.

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 6:5, 7.

And thus two different Musaf offerings are brought: one for the Sabbath and one for the festival or for Rosh Chodesh.

One for the Sabbath, one for Rosh HaShanah, and one for Rosh Chodesh.

I.e., a tekiah, teruah, tekiah series.

As explained in Hilchot Shabbat 5:18-20, these trumpet blasts were sounded beginning one and a quarter seasonal hours before sunset. The first three were not sounded together. On the contrary, each represented a further stage in the imminent approach of the Sabbath. The second set of three were sounded close to sunset as a unit of three.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:7 for a description of this courtyard.

See ibid. 5:5 for a description of this gate.

22 ½ cubits higher, as indicated by ibid. 6:2.

The water libation and these trumpet blasts are described in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim10:6-7.

This represents a reversal in the Rambam's thinking from his earlier views in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 3:8) where he states that it was the shofar that was sounded.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 3.

Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 4:1, 3.

The Rambam in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 5:1) notes that the most renown figure to fill this post was Mordechai, the hero of the Purim Megilah. The Radbaz, in his gloss to Halachah 13, feels it necessary to emphasize the extent to which our Sages cherished the service in the Temple. For Mordechai abandoned all the wealth and leisure of the of the Persian court to provide doves for pilgrims to the Temple.

A smaller, wild variety of the dove family. See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:2 for more particulars.

Ordinary domesticated doves.

Many different people would have to bring doves as a sacrifice (see examples inHilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:3). Hence, it was necessary that the Temple provide a source for them.

Note the explanation given by the Rambam with regard to the wine libations and meal offerings. In a similar manner, the Temple treasury would purchase doves and sell them to this officer. He would then sell them to those people required to bring them.

And suffer the loss from his own funds.

And the accompanying flour and oil offerings, as explained in the notes to the following halachah.

This referred to the wine libations brought when offering a bull, a half of a hin of wine. Together with the wine were brought threeesronim of flour and half a hin of oil.

This referred to the wine libations brought when offering a male ram, a third of a hin of wine. Together with the wine were brought two esronim of flour and third of a hin of oil.

This referred to the wine libations brought when offering a ewe, a fourth of a hin of wine. Together with the wine were brought one isaron of flour and fourth of a hin of oil.

This refers to the wine libations brought by a wealthy person afflicted by tzara'at (a mystic affliction similar to leprosy). He is called a sinner because the affliction was brought about by his sins [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 5:3), i.e., because tzara'at is brought about by gossip. (See the conclusion of Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at.)

Such a person would bring three animals as a sacrifice, accompanied by three revi'ot of wine, together with three esronim of flour and three revi'ot of oil (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 2:6).

If, however, a person afflicted with tzara'at is poor, he is only required to bring a ewe as an offering. Hence, he only purchases a "kid" seal.

We do not accept the claim that the officer's own money became mixed together with the money he received.

I.e., the prices of agricultural commodities fluctuate seasonally. Were it not for this safeguard, a person could purchase a seal in the summer (when the prices are relatively cheap, because it is the time of the harvest) and use it in the winter, when the prices had increased.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 5:4), the Rambam added another reason. Perhaps, the seal was lost and found by another person. The Radbaz states that the latter is an inferior rationale, because we do not usually take safeguards against such occurrences.

For as stated above, the Temple treasury is given the upper hand in all financial transactions.

Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 4:4), where he explains that the term kayitz refers to the time of the fig and grape harvest. These fruits are served as desert, after a person has eaten his major meal. Similarly, these offerings do not represent the fundamental "food" of the altar, but instead, are offered only when the altar is free.

54.

See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:4.

55.

While barefoot, so nothing would separate between their feet and the Temple's floor (Radbaz; see Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 5:17).

56.

See the Rambam's statements in Hilchot De'ot 4:9, where he lists certain types of meat as unhealthy food.

57.

As the Rambam mentions, this officer was in charge of healing all the priests' medical ailments. He singles out their digestive ailments here, because they were the most prevalent (Radbaz).

58.

The Radbaz continues explaining that their health situation would have been far more serious except that they were watched over by unique Divine providence.

59.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 5:1) explains that these officers had intimate knowledge of the earth and knew how to determine under which rocks there was a spring of cold water and where a spring of hot water could be found.

60.

As the Rambam explains in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 5:1), this person's activity was not confined to Jerusalem. Instead, he would dig wells throughout Eretz Yisrael so that water would be available to the pilgrims.

61.

These were the elders of the House of Garmu. The Jerusalem Talmud (loc. cit.) criticizes these priests, because they were unwilling to teach others their unique craft.

62.

These were the elders of the House of Avtinas. The Jerusalem Talmud (loc. cit.) explains that they also would not teach their craft to others. At first, the Sages considered this to be undesirable. Later, they discovered that the House of Avtinas refused to do so in order that the information not be used to prepare incense offerings for idols. The Sages then deemed their conduct praiseworthy.

63.

The Kessef Mishneh understands the Rambam's wording as implying that the embroidery was not part of the original weave of the curtain, but needle work done afterwards. Nevertheless, he quotes other sources that indicate that the designs were made within the pattern of the weave itself.

64.

Each year, new curtains were made, because the smoke from the incense offerings would discolor the old ones (Rabbenu Asher to Tamid 29b). See alsoHilchot Shekalim 4:2 which describes additional points concerning these curtains.

65.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:2 for an explanation regarding the use of these two curtains.

66.

I.e., each string had four strands and each strand had six threads. The Kessef Mishnehexplains that the term sheish, the word the Torah uses for linen implies a strand of six threads. See Chapter 8, Halachah 14. From this, we learn that the strings of the other three fabrics were made in a similar manner.

67.

3.5 centimeters in contemporary measure thick.

68.

For there were 72 strings used to weave it.

69.

For the Holy of Holies was 20 cubits wide and 40 cubits high.

70.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:4 for an explanation regarding the gates to the Temple Courtyard.

71.

The Entrance Porch did not have a gate (ibid. 4:8).

72.

The two mentioned in the previous halachah.

73.

See the notes to Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:2 for an explanation of this term.

74.

For it was necessary to make a distinction between the place of the Sanctuary and that of the Holy of Holies on the second storey as well (Rashi, Yoma 54a; see Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:13, 7:23).

75.

I.e., an entity that is not inherently impure, but rather contracted impurity because of contact with another impure entity. More specifically, the commentaries explain that the curtain came into contact with liquids that contracted impurity which render utensils impure (see Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah7:1-2). Also, it is speaking about a time when the curtain was not hanging in its place. For if it is hanging in its place, it is considered as part of the structure and it does not contract ritual impurity.

76.

It was immersed in "the Sea of Solomon," a large copper receptacle in the Temple Courtyard. That immersion was acceptable, because that receptacle received its water directly from underground springs.

77.

This type of impurity was instituted by Rabbinic decree and they did not imposed the stringency of waiting until sunset (seeHilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 9:1; 12:6).

78.

For an article that is ritually impure may not be brought within the Temple Courtyard (Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 3:17).

79.

The rampart surrounding the wall of the Temple Courtyard (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah5:3).

80.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:1.

81.

The Ra'avad maintains that this officer was in charge of dressing the priests (and not necessarily preparing their garments). In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 5:1), the Rambam writes that this officer would perform both functions.

82.

In the Temple Courtyard, next to the Gate of Nicanor. See Midot 1:4.

--------------------

• 3 Chapters: Nezirut Nezirut - Chapter 9, Nezirut Nezirut - Chapter 10, Arachim Vacharamim Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 1 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Nezirut - Chapter 9

Halacha 1

[The following rules apply when a person] sets aside money for the sacrifices of nazirites,1 those sacrifices were offered, and there is money left over. He should bring sacrifices of other nazirites with those funds,2 for the remainder of money [set aside for] nazirite [offerings should be used] for nazirite [offerings].3 If one set aside money for his own nazirite [offering] without specifying for which sacrifice it should be used4 and money was left over, the remaining funds should be used for freewill offerings.5

Halacha 2

When a person set aside money that was designated for specific purposes for his nazirite offering and money was left over, the remainder of the funds set aside for the burnt offering should be used for a burnt offering. The remainder of the funds set aside for the sin offering should be brought to the Dead Sea.6The remainder of the funds set aside for the peace offering should be used for a peace offering. There is no need that the offering be accompanied by bread.7 It is eaten for one day.8

Halacha 3

[The following rules apply when a person] set aside money for [sacrifices for] his nazirite vow and died. If the money was not designated for specific sacrifices, it should be used for freewill offerings.9 If the money had been designated for specific sacrifices, the funds set aside for the burnt offering should be used for a burnt offering. The funds set aside for the sin offering should be brought to the Dead Sea.10 The funds set aside for the peace offering should be used for a peace offering. It is eaten for one day. There is no need that the offering be accompanied by bread.

Halacha 4

What is meant by money not designated for specific sacrifices? For example, [a nazirite] set aside money to use to bring his sacrifices and did not say anything. If, however, he said: "This is for my obligation," it is as if they have been designated for a specific purpose.11 Needless to say, that if he says: "This [money] is for my burnt offering, sin offering, and peace offering," the money is considered as set aside for a specific purpose.

Halacha 5

When a person sets aside an animal with a blemish12 [for his sacrifice], it is as if he set aside money without designating it for a specific purpose. Similarly, if he set aside a slab of silver or of gold or a utensil, it is as if he set aside money without designating it for a specific purpose.13 [This applies] even if he said: "This is for my burnt offering, sin offering, and peace offering."

Halacha 6

When a person says: "These [funds] are for my sin offering and the remainder is for my nazirite offering" and dies or a woman made such statements and then her husband nullified her nazirite vow,14 the money for the sin offering should be brought to the Dead Sea. Half of the remainder of the money should be used for a burnt offering and half for a peace offering.

Halacha 7

If he says: "These [funds] are for my burnt offering and the remainder is for my nazirite offering" [and dies], the money for the burnt offering should be used for a burnt offering and the remainder should be used for freewill offerings.15

Halacha 8

When a person thought that he was obligated in a nazirite vow and set aside his sacrifices and then inquired of a sage who told him that [his statements] do not constitute a vow and he is not obligated to be a nazirite, what should he do with the sacrifices that he set aside? They should go and pasture with the rest of the herd.16 For they were consecrated in error and that consecration is not binding, as will be explained in the appropriate place.17

Halacha 9

[The following rules apply when] a woman takes a nazirite vow and set aside her sacrifices and afterwards, her husband nullified her vow. If the animal belonged to him, it should go out and pasture in the herd,18 for a person cannot consecrate an article that does not belong to him.19 If the [animals set aside for] sacrifices were hers and her husband did not own any part of them, e.g., they were given to her as a present on the condition that her husband have no authority over them, but instead, she could do whatever she wants with them,20 the sin offering should be left to die,21 the burnt offering should be sacrificed as a burnt offering, and the peace offering should be sacrificed as a peace offering. It is eaten for one day. There is no need that the offering be accompanied by bread.22

Halacha 10

If [a woman] set aside money that was not designated for specific sacrifices, it should be used to purchase freewill offerings. If it was designated for specific purposes, the funds set aside for the burnt offering should be used for a burnt offering. The funds set aside for the sin-offering should be brought to the Dead Sea. The funds set aside for the peace offering should be used for a peace offering. It is eaten for one day. There is no need that the offering be accompanied by bread.

Halacha 11

When a woman took a nazirite vow and became ritually impure [due to contact with a corpse] in the midst of the days of her nazirite vow, and afterwards her husband heard of her vow and nullified it, she must [still] bring the sacrifices [required when a nazirite] becomes ritually impure.23

Halacha 12

When a father binds his son to a nazirite vow24 and set aside sacrifices, but the son did not desire this nazirite vow and he or his relatives objected or he shaved himself or his relatives shaved him,25 the sin offering should be left to die, the burnt offering should be sacrificed as a burnt offering, and the peace offering should be sacrificed as a peace offering. It is eaten for one day. There is no need that the offering be accompanied by bread.26

If he set aside money that was not designated for specific sacrifices, it should be used to purchase freewill offerings. If it was designated for specific purposes, the funds set aside for the burnt offering should be used for a burnt offering. The funds set aside for the sin-offering should be brought to the Dead Sea. The funds set aside for the peace offering should be used for a peace offering. It is eaten for one day. There is no need that the offering be accompanied by bread.

Halacha 13

When a person says: "I will be a nazirite when a son is born to me," and sets aside a sacrifice, his wife miscarries27 and then she gives birth,28 the status of the sacrifices is questionable.29 It is forbidden to shear them or perform labor with them.30

Halacha 14

[A question arises when] there are two nazirites; one became ritually impure [due to contact with a corpse] and it is not known which of them became ritually impure.31 How should they bring their sacrifices?32

They should bring the sacrifices33 [required when emerging from] impurity and the sacrifices [that mark the completion of a nazirite vow in] purity at the conclusion of the span of their nazirite vow.34 One of them then says: "If I was the one who became impure, the sacrifices [to emerge from] impurity are mine and the sacrifices [that mark the completion of a nazirite vow in] purity are yours. If I am the one who is ritually pure, the sacrifices [that mark the completion of a nazirite vow in] purity are mine and the sacrifices [to emerge from] impurity are yours."35

After bringing these sacrifices, they [both] then count the full span of another nazirite vow36and bring another [set of] sacrifices [that mark the completion of a nazirite vow in] purity.37 They then bring38 the sacrifices [that mark the completion of a nazirite vow in] purity and one says: "If I was the one who was ritually impure, the sacrifices [brought previously to mark the emergence from] impurity were mine and the sacrifices [brought to mark the completion of a nazirite vow in] purity were yours and these are the sacrifices [that mark my completion of a nazirite vow in] purity. If I was the one who was ritually pure, the sacrifices [brought previously to mark the completion of a nazirite vow in] purity were mine and those [brought to mark the emergence from] impurity were yours. And these are the sacrifices [that mark your completion of a nazirite vow in] purity."39Thus neither one lost anything [in bringing] these sacrifices.40

Halacha 15

If one of them dies, [the other] must bring a fowl as a sin-offering41and an animal as a burnt offering42 and say: "If I became impure, the sin offering fulfills my obligation and the burnt offering is a freewill offering. If I was pure, the burnt offering is my obligation and the fowl brought as a sin-offering is [because of] the doubt." He then counts the full span of another nazirite vow43and brings the sacrifices44 [required when completing a nazirite vow in] purity. He should say: "If I was impure, the first burnt offering I brought is a freewill offering and this is the sacrifice that I am obligated to bring. If I was pure, then the first burnt offering was obligatory. This is a freewill offering and these are the remainder of my sacrifices."

[In these instances,] neither of them45 perform the shaving [to emerge from] ritual impurity unless they are minors or women.46 [The rationale is that] these individuals should not shave their heads because of a doubt.47

Halacha 16

How could a doubt arise for them with regard to whether they contracted ritual impurity? For example, two nazirites were standing in a private domain where the ruling is that if a doubt concerning ritual purity arises in a private domain, the person is considered impure.48 A person who was standing outside saw them and said: "I saw that one of you became impure, but I do not know which one it is."

If, however, this witness is together with them in the courtyard, they are both ritually pure. [The rationale is that] since there are three of them, they are considered as "many people." And when there are many people in a private domain, when a doubt arises concerning them, they are ritually pure like a doubt concerning ritual impurity in the public domain as will be explained in its place.49

Halacha 17

When does the above apply? When both nazirites remain silent or the matter is doubtful for them. If, however, one of them says: "I did not become ritually impure," even if two witnesses testify that he became impure, he does not bring a sacrifice because of their statements. His statement: "I did not become ritually impure," can be understood to mean: "I will not bring a sacrifice [because of] impurity, because I have already asked [a sage] to absolve my vow." Thus he is not contradicting the witnesses and a person's word is accepted with regard to his own person.50 If, however, he remained silent or was in doubt concerning the matter, he should bring a sacrifice even when the cause is the testimony of one witness, as we explained [above]

Similarly, if a witness tells a person: "You took a nazirite vow in my presence" and that person disputes the matter, he is not liable for anything.51 If he does not dispute the matter, he must observe [the restrictions of] a nazirite vow because of his statements.

Even if [a person] told two others, "I saw one of you take a nazirite vow, but I do not know which of you it was," since [neither of them] dispute his statements, they both must observe a nazirite vow, because of his statements. If a person observed a nazirite vow because of the statements of one witness and drank wine or became impure [due to contact with a corpse] and two witnesses administered a warning, he is given lashes even though the fundamental dimension of the testimony is dependent on one witness.52

Halacha 18

When a corpse was lying across the breadth of a path53 and a nazirite walked by there, he is pure. [This applies] even if the only way to pass was [to step] over the corpse54 or to touch it and even if it was a source of impurity that was known.55 [The rationale is that when there is] an unresolved doubt concerning ritual impurity in the public domain, [we consider the person] pure.

Halacha 19

When does the above apply? When he was walking. If, however, he was riding or carrying a burden, he is impure.56 [The rationale is that] it is possible for a person who is walking on his feet not to touch the corpse, have his body pass over it, nor move it. When, by contrast, a person is carrying a burden or riding, it is impossible for him not to touch the corpse, have his body pass over it, nor move it, for the corpse is lying across the path.57

FOOTNOTES

I.e., he set aside money to pay for the sacrifices of poor nazirites.

Even if there are not enough funds remaining to purchase an entire sacrifice, the remaining funds should be contributed toward the purchase of a sacrifice.

Since the money was set aside for that purpose, it should be used accordingly.

See Halachah 4 for more details concerning this concept.

Voluntary burnt offerings whose sacrifice embellishes the altar. Since the money was set aside for use for his own offerings, it should not be used for the offerings of another person. This is the meaning of the phrase Shekalim 2:5: "What is left over from a nazirite's [offerings] should go for the sake of that nazirite.

Brought to a place where it is impossible to benefit from it. It must be noted that at times the Rambam interprets the term Yam HaMelach as referring to the Mediterranean Sea.

The rationale for this ruling is that once a person has received atonement, it is forbidden to benefit from any funds designated for his sin offering. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 4:1. The commentaries also note that in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 5:9, the Rambam writes that money left over from a sin offering should be used to purchase freewill offerings.

As the nazirite's peace offering must be accompanied (see Chapter 8, Halachah 1).

Like the peace offering brought by a nazirite in contrast to an ordinary peace offering which may be eaten for two days and one night.

Although a certain amount of the funds would have been used for a sin offering, since they have not been designated for that purpose, it does not become prohibited to use them for other purposes.

As is the law when the owner of a sin offering dies (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim4:1).

Since it is known that he is required to bring these sacrifices, it is considered as an appropriate amount has been allotted for each offering. Hence the money set aside for the burnt offering and peace offering should be used for such sacrifices and the money set aside for the sin offering should be taken to the Dead Sea.

I.e., a blemish that disqualifies it as an offering. See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, chs. 1-2.

Since the animal is available for immediate sale, it is considered as if the owner has cash in hand.

In which case, she has no obligation to bring the sacrifices.

Although there are funds for a sin offering involved, since the purpose was not specified, they may be used for freewill offerings.

It is considered as an entirely ordinary animal, as if it had never been consecrated.

Hilchot Arachin 6:34.

It is considered as an entirely ordinary animal, as if it had never been consecrated.

This is a general principle, applicable in many contexts with regard to sacrifices. SeeHilchot Arachin 6:21, 24; Hilchot Temurah1:3.

Generally, all of a woman's property is placed in her husband's care during their marriage and all her earnings belong to him. How then can she have money or property that is entirely her own? When a person gives it to her as a present with the above stipulation. See Hilchot Ishut 22:27; Hilchot Nedarim 7:17; Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah3:13-14.

It is forbidden to benefit from the animal or to use it for any other purpose. Hence, it is left to die. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim4:1.

See Halachah 3.

The rationale is that when a husband nullifies a vow, his nullification does not uproot the vow from its source. Instead, his nullification affects only the future. Hence, she is liable for the repercussions of becoming impure and must bring a sacrifice. If, by contrast, she were to have had her vow nullified by a sage, it would have been nullified at its source and it would be as if she was never a nazirite. Hence she would not have to bring a sacrifice. See Hilchot Nedarim 13:2 (Radbaz).

See Chapter 2, Halachot 13-14.

See ibid.:15.

See Halachah 9.

The Radbaz explains that the Rambam interprets our Sages' statements in Nazir13a as applying when the events occurred in this order. Others interpret the Talmud as speaking about a situation where the sacrifices were set aside after the woman miscarried. According to the Radbaz, the Rambam would not argue with that view. Instead, he is stating that the law applies even in the instance mentioned.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 17.

Since he is not bound by his nazirite vow after the miscarriage as stated in the cited halachah, it is possible that the consecration of the sacrifices is nullified. On the other hand, that is not a definite fact. Hence our Sages debated this issue.

These prohibitions apply with regard to all consecrated animals. Since these prohibitions are Scriptural in origin, they must be observed because of the doubt regarding these animals' status. See Hilchot Me'ilah 1:7-8.

See Halachot 16-17 which describe how such a situation could arise.

As the Rambam proceeds to explain, the nazirite who completed his vow in ritual purity is obligated to bring one set of sacrifices, while the one who became impure must bring a different set. Since it is not known which of these individuals became impure, there is a question which sacrifices they should bring. Neither can bring the sacrifices required by the other as a freewill offering, because the guilt offering that is required when emerging from impurity may not be brought as a freewill offering, nor may the sin offering that is required after completing one's nazirite vow in a state of purity.

I.e., sharing the costs equally.

This applies when they both took a nazirite vow for the same number of days at the same time (Radbaz). If their nazirite vows conclude at different times, they must wait to the latest date.

The other makes similar statements and they both perform all of the rituals necessary in the bringing of the sacrifices. In this way, the one has fulfilled the obligation to bring the sacrifices required when emerging from impurity and the other, the obligation to bring the sacrifices that mark the completion of the nazirite vow.

In which they observe all the prohibitions incumbent on a nazirite.

In this way, the nazirite who became ritually impure has fulfilled the obligations incumbent on him at the conclusion of his nazirite vow.

I.e., sharing the costs equally.

The other one makes a similar statement and they each perform all the rites required when bringing these sacrifices.

More precisely, the person who was ritually pure was obligated to pay for half the sacrifices of the person who was ritually impure. Thus although no extra sacrifices were offered, he did suffer a slight loss. Nevertheless, this is obviously far preferential than for each one to have to bring the sacrifices required when emerging from ritual impurity on his own as stated in the following halachah.

This is the practice followed whenever there is a question whether one is obligated to bring a sin offering or not. This sacrifice is burnt and not eaten (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:10). If he was impure, he will have discharged his responsibility by bringing this sacrifice, because after the fact, this is sufficient. The burnt offering and the peace offering are not absolute necessities. See Chapter 10, Halachah 5.

This is for the sake of the offerings he is required to bring if he completed his nazirite vow in a state of purity. The peace offering and guilt offering are not absolute necessities. See Chapter 6, Halachah 12; Chapter 10, Halachah 8.

In which they observe all the prohibitions incumbent on a nazirite.

All three sacrifices, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

The nazirites who entered a situation in which a doubt arouse which of them was impure.

Who are not bound by the prohibition against shaving the corners of their heads. SeeHilchot Avodat Kochavim 12:5.

Although a nazirite who is ritually impure and one who completes his nazirite vow in purity is allowed to shave his head, that is permitted because there is a definite positive commandment which supercedes the prohibition. In these instances, however, we are unsure if there is a commandment obligated the nazirite to shave. Hence, no leniency is granted. The nazirite's failure to shave does not prevent him from bringing his sacrifices, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 5.

See Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTumah 16:1. We assume that if the nazirite knew that he was ritually impure, he would not deny it, because we operate under the assumption that a person would not consciously avoid bringing a sin offering if he knew that he was liable (Keritot 12a).

Ibid.. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning this principle. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam's view.

See Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTumah 14:11.

For the person's own word supercedes the testimony of one witness.

The rationale is that since, because of the doubt inspired by the testimony of the witness, the person willingly accepted the observance of the nazirite vow, he is obligated to observe it (Radbaz).

I.e., even if the corpse is in full public view.

54.

Thus he would contract ritual impurity by covering the corpse with his body (ohel).

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning this issue, citing Nazir 63b as support. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh offer interpretations of the Talmud that support the Rambam's position. In that source, the Talmud differentiates between a corpse that is visible and a corpse whose existence is unknown, as explained in Chapter 6, Halachot 18-19. The Rambam maintains that the distinctions apply only after the fact, when the blood from the sacrifices has already been sprinkled on the person. Before then, the ruling depends on the principle: When there is a doubt concerning ritual impurity in the public domain, the person is considered pure. If such a doubt arises concerning a question in a private domain, he is considered as impure.

In explanation of the Rambam's position, theKessef Mishneh states that we are speaking about an instance where it is possible for the nazirite, albeit with difficulty, to pass by the corpse without touching it or passing over it. If that is not the case, he is certainly impure. The Radbaz states that we are speaking about any instance where the person could have - and we presume he did - move off the path so as not to touch the corpse.

55.

In contrast, if it was not known that a corpse was located there, the nazirite is pure in the case of a doubt.

56.

Because, as the Rambam proceeds to explain, it is almost impossible for the person not to contract ritual impurity.

57.

And when riding or carrying a burden, the person will not be able to squeeze by.

Nezirut - Chapter 10

Halacha 1

A person cannot perform one shaving [that will fulfill the requirements for] his nazirite vow and [for the emergence from the state of ritual impurity associated with] tzara'at.1

When it is questionable whether a person was afflicted with tzara'at [and thus became a metzora], the shaving [associated with emerging from] tzara'atdoes not supercede his nazirite vow. 2 Therefore [the following rules apply] if a person took a nazirite vow for a year and throughout this year, there was a question whether he had been afflicted with tzara'at and a question whether he had contracted ritual impurity through contact with a human corpse3 or there was a question whether he had been afflicted with tzara'at and at the end of the year, a question arose whether he had contracted ritual impurity. He should count seven days, have [the ashes of the Red Heifer] sprinkled [upon him] on the third and seventh days,4 but he should not shave [his hair] on the seventh day. He may not drink wine or become impure due to contact with a human corpse until four years have passed.5 He may partake of consecrated food after two years have passed.6 [The rationale is] that he is required [because of the doubts concerning his status,] to shave [his head] four times: a) the shaving [required when he completes his nazirite vow in a state of] purity,7 b) the shaving [required for a nazirite to emerge from a state of] impurity, [for which he is obligated because of the doubt], and the two shavings required of a metzora, for there is a doubt whether he is a metzora.

Halacha 2

The first shaving should be performed after the conclusion of the first year.8He shaves his head, his beard,9 and his eyebrows and undergoes the purification process involving a cedar tree, a hyssop, and two wild birds10 like other metzoraim.11 If he was not impure due to contact with a corpse, nor ametzora, this is the shaving performed upon completion of his nazirite vow in purity. If he was indeed a metzora during the first year, this is the first shaving required of the metzora.

He then waits another year as is the span of his nazirite vow, and then performs the second shaving required of metzora. He may not shave after seven days like other metzoraim, for perhaps he was not a metzora, but instead had been impure because of contact with a corpse. [In that instance,] during this second year, he was a nazirite, who was forbidden to shave.12[Nevertheless,] after he performed these two shavings, he has completed the purification process required after tzara'at13 and he is permitted to partake of consecrated foods.

He then waits another year and afterwards, performs a third shaving, lest he had been definitely a metzora during the first year and not impure because of contact with a corpse. [The observance] of the first year was not of consequence for him because these were days when his status [as ametzora] was defined.14 [The observance] of the second year was not of consequence for him because these were the days when he was counting [as part of the purification process of a] metzora between the first shaving and the second shaving.15 Therefore he must wait a third year, [observing his] nazirite vow. [Afterwards,] he performs a third shaving for his nazirite vow. This shaving [is required to emerge from] purity.16 [Nevertheless,] perhaps he was definitely impure because of contact with a corpse and he was also definitely a metzora and one shaving cannot serve the purpose of his nazirite vow and [purification from] tzara'at. Thus the first and second shavings were [for purification] from tzara'at. The third shaving was [for the sake of purification from] ritual impurity. None of these three years count because the third shaving was to purify him from ritual impurity.17 Therefore he must wait a fourth year, [observing] his nazirite vow and perform a fourth shaving. After each of the times that he shaves because of the doubt,18 it is forbidden to benefit from his hair because of the doubt involved, because it is permitted to benefit from the hair of a nazirite who became afflicted with tzara'at.19

Halacha 3

Similar [rules apply if a person] took a nazirite vow for ten years and, in the midst, there arose a question whether he was a metzora and there also arose a question whether he contracted ritual impurity [through contact with a corpse] at the conclusion of this period. He may not drink wine for forty years and must perform four shavings, one at the conclusion of each decade. The first shaving comes because of the doubt concerning the days he must observe because of tzara'at. The second shaving [comes] because of the days a metzora [must count between his two shavings]. The third shaving is because of the doubt concerning his ritual impurity. And the fourth shaving is [the one required when completing a nazirite vow in] purity.20

Halacha 4

How should such a person bring the sacrifices required of him?21 If he was rich, he should sign over all of his property to another person.22 [The rationale is that] a wealthy metzora who brought a sacrifice befitting a poor one does not fulfill his obligation.23 Afterwards, he brings a fowl as a sin offering and an animal as a burnt offering for the first, second, and third shavings.24 No one should partake of any of the fowl brought as sin offerings, because of the doubt involved.25 For the fourth shaving, he brings the sacrifices required of a nazirite [who completes his vow in] purity, as we explained.26

Halacha 5

He brings three fowl as sin offerings for the following reasons: the first27is because of the doubt whether he is ritually impure,28the second because of the doubt whether he is afflicted by tzara'at, for a metzora brings a sacrifice only after his second shaving,29 the third because of the possibility that he was ritually impure. [The rationale is that] one shaving cannot fulfill the obligation for both one's nazirite vow and [purification from] tzara'at and perhaps he was definitely both a metzora and impure because of contact with a corpse. [In that instance,] the first and second shavings were to become purified from tzara'at, as explained.30 The third shaving is the shaving [required to emerge from] ritual impurity. Therefore he must bring the sacrifices [required when emerging from] impurity at that time.

Halacha 6

[The following principles apply with regard to] the three animals31[brought] as burnt offerings that accompany [the sin offerings]. He brings them conditionally. [When bringing] the first, he stipulates: "If I was pure, this is for my obligation."32 If I was impure, this is a freewill offering."33 He should make a similar stipulation for the second and third [shaving] as well.34

Halacha 7

For the fourth shaving, he brings the sacrifices [required when completing a nazirite vow in] purity35 and stipulates: "If I was impure, the first burnt offering was a freewill offering36 and this is my obligatory offering.37

"If I was definitely [afflicted with tzara'at], the first [burnt offering] was the one that I was obligated to bring as a metzora.38 This is the one that I was obligated to bring for my nazirite vow. And the two [brought] in between are freewill offerings.39

"If I was pure with regard to contact with a corpse, but I had been afflicted withtzara'at, the first and second [burnt offerings] were obligatory, the one for the obligation of a metzora40 and the one for the obligation of a nazirite. The third and the fourth are freewill offerings. The remainder [of the sacrifices] are the sacrifices [required when completing a nazirite vow in] purity.41

"If I was impure and afflicted with tzara'at the first burnt offering was the obligation of a metzora.42 The second and the third are freewill offerings43 and this is the sacrifice [required when] shaving [after completing a nazirite vow in] purity."

Halacha 8

The guilt offering and the burnt offering are not absolute requirements,44neither for the shaving [required for a nazirite to emerge from] ritual impurity, nor for [the purification afflicted with] tzara'at. 45 Thus if he had definitely been a metzora, but had not become impure because of contact with a corpse, he became pure when bringing the wild birds. The fowl brought as a sin offering serves as his sin offering.46 It should not be eaten because it was brought because of a doubt.47 And the [lamb] brought with it as a burnt offering is part of the requirement for shaving [after completing a nazirite vow in] purity, so that the shaving will be associated [with the sacrifice of] an animal.48 If he was ritually impure because of contact with a corpse, the [lamb] brought as a burnt offering is a freewill offering.49

If he had not been afflicted by tzara'at, but had been impure due to contact with a corpse, the fowl brought as a sin offering is the offering [required of] a nazirite who became impure and the [lamb] brought as an animal is a freewill offering. And ultimately,50 he will bring the sacrifices [required when a nazirite vow is completed in] purity.

If he was neither impure due to contact with a corpse nor a metzora, the [lamb] brought as a burnt offering for the first shaving is that required when shaving.51 The fowl brought as a sin offering is brought because of the doubt and it is not eaten.

Halacha 9

When do the above statements that a nazirite performs four shavings apply? When speaking of a minor52 or a woman.53 An adult male should not perform a shaving because of a doubt,54 neither a shaving because of ritual impurity or one because of tzara'at lest he have been ritually pure and thus he will be cutting off the corners of his hair when there is no mitzvah involved.55Therefore, [in such a situation,] an adult male should perform only the shaving [required when completing the nazirite vow in] purity. For these four shavings are not absolute requirements,56 they are only [the more complete way of performing] the mitzvah.

Halacha 10

How should a nazirite conduct himself if he is certain that he contractedtzara'at and is uncertain whether he contracted ritual impurity. After he is purified from his tzara'at,57 he should have [the ashes of the Red Heifer] sprinkled upon him on the third and seventh days.58 He performs the shaving [required when emerging from] ritual impurity59 and then begins to count the days of his nazirite vow in their entirety. For, due to the doubt that he became ritually impure, [the observance of] the first days is nullified. [After completing that vow,] he brings the sacrifices [required when completing a nazirite vow in] purity and [is permitted to] drink wine. After he brings the sacrifices [required after being purified from] tzara'at, he may partake of sacrificial food.

Halacha 11

[The following rules apply if] it is certain that he became impure [from contact with a corpse] and there is a question whether he was a metzora. After he is healed from his questionable status as a metzora, he should count the full amount of the days of his nazirite vow60 and afterwards61 perform the shaving [required for tzara'at]. [The rationale is that] shaving [because of tzara'at] that is questionable does not supercede his nazirite vow. Afterwards, he counts the seven days between the first shaving of a metzora and the second and performs that shaving. He should bring his sacrifices and may partake of sacrificial foods if he had [the ashes of the Red Heifer] sprinkled upon him on the third and seventh days.62 Afterwards, he counts seven more days [because of] the impurity associated with a corpse and performs the shaving [required to emerge from] ritual impurity. Afterwards, he counts the full term of his nazirite vow.

Halacha 12

Similarly, [the following rules apply if] he was certainly both ritually impure and a metzora. After he becomes healed from his tzara'at, he performs the first shaving [required to be purified from] tzara'at, has [the ashes of the Red Heifer] sprinkled upon him on the third and seventh [days],63and has his head and beard shaved on the seventh day. This is the second shaving [required to be purified from] tzara'at. He brings the sacrifices [associated with that purification] on the eighth day and may partake of sacrificial foods. He then counts seven days64 and performs the shaving [required to emerge from] ritual impurity. Afterwards, he counts the full term of his nazirite vow. He then brings the sacrifices [required when completing a nazirite vow in] ritual purity and [may then] drink wine.

Halacha 13

Why is it necessary for him to count seven [days before bringing the sacrifices required after emerging from ritual impurity]?65 [Because] the seven days of ritual impurity [associated with contact with a human corpse] are not counted during the seven days between the two shavings of a metzora.

Halacha 14

When a person says: "I will be a nazirite if I do this and this" or "...if I do not do [this or this]," he is a wicked man and a nazirite vow of this type is one of the nazirite vows taken by the wicked. If, however, a person takes a nazirite vow to God in a holy manner, this is delightful and praiseworthy66 and concerning this, [Numbers 6:7-8] states: "The diadem67 of his God is upon his head... He is holy unto God." And Scripture equates him with a prophet, as [Amos 2:11] states: "And from your sons, I will raise [some] as prophets, and from your youths, [some] as nazirites."

FOOTNOTES

As stated in Hilchot Tumat Tzara'at 11:1-3, after the signs of tzara'at have disappeared from a person's flesh, he must undergo a twofold purification process that involves shaving his hair on the first and seventh days. Neither of these shavings can be considered as the same shaving as the one performed by a nazirite. The rationale is that the first shaving of the purification fromtzara'at is for a different purpose than the shaving performed by a nazirite. For the intent of the shaving of a nazirite is to remove hair, while the intent of the first shaving performed by a person afflicted withtzara'at is to allow hair to grow (Nazir 60b, Radbaz). Similarly, the second shaving associated with tzara'at is not analogous to the shaving associated with the nazirite vow, for the shaving of a metzora is performed before the sprinkling of the blood and the shaving of a nazirite afterwards.

Which involves a prohibition against shaving. As stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 15, ordinarily, "When a nazirite contractstzara'at and becomes healed in the midst of the days of his nazirite vow, he should shave all of his hair. The rationale is that] by shaving, he fulfills a positive commandment. [And] when there is [a conflict between] a positive commandment and a negative commandment... the positive commandment supercedes the negative commandment." There is also a positive commandment for a nazirite to grow his hair long and a negative commandment does not override a negative commandment and a positive commandment. Nevertheless, when a nazirite contracts tzara'at, that there is no positive commandment involved in growing his hair. Since it is possible that this is not the situation prevailing in this instance, he should not shave (Radbaz).

In this instance, it is questionable whether he is required to shave to perform a shaving to emerge from ritual impurity (as explained at the beginning of Chapter 6) or not.

A person who seeks to emerge from the impurity associated from the state of ritual impurity associated with contact with a human corpse must have the ashes of a Red Heifer sprinkled upon him on the third and seventh days after he became ritually impure. He must also immerse himself in amikveh (Hilchot Parah Adumah 11:1).

For only then will he complete all the shavings required because of the doubts and complete his nazirite vow.

For then he will have performed both of the shavings required of a person who contracted tzara'at and will have had the ashes of the Red Heifer sprinkled upon him to purify him from the impurity associated with contact with a human corpse.

The Rambam mentions this shaving first, because this is the only definite obligation.

For until then he is forbidden to shave because perhaps he is not impure and his nazirite vow must be observed. The details regarding the sacrifices that must be offered when shaving his hair are explained in Halachot 4-5.

As stated in Halachah 9, this applies only to a minor or a woman who took nazirite vows. If the nazirite is an adult male, he may not shave his head, because of the doubt.

According to certain commentaries, this refers to a kosher species of sparrows, according to others to a jay. See the notes of the Living Torah to Leviticus 14:4.

See Hilchot Tumat Tzara'at, Chapter 11, where this purification process is described in detail.

The Ra'avad writes that the Rambam's statements are correct if he became ritually impure more than seven days before the end of his first year of nazirite observance. If, however, there is less than seven days left before the conclusion of the year, different rules apply, for he will have not fulfilled the seven days required before shaving to emerge from impurity. TheKessef Mishneh takes issue with the Ra'avad's statements.

Were he to have indeed been a metzora.

And as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 9, the days when a person's status is defined as ametzora are not included as part of the fulfillment of his nazirite vow.

He could not wait only seven days, because it is possible he was not a metzora in which instance, he would not be permitted to shave his hair within the time of his nazirite vow.

Our translation follows the understanding of the Radbaz and is supported by Halachah 5. The standard published text follows a slightly different version.

And until he is ritually pure, the days he observes for his nazirite vow are not of consequence. He may not, however, perform these shavings earlier, because he is not definitely impure or a metzora.

I.e., the first three shavings.

Ordinarily, it is forbidden to benefit from the hair of a nazirite (Chapter 8, Halachah 2), even if he became impure (Chapter 6, Halachah 14). Nevertheless, as the Rambam states in Chapter 7, Halachah 15, when a nazirite becomes afflicted withtzara'at, the holiness associated with his hair is nullified. Even with regard to the last shaving, his hair is not definitely forbidden, because it is possible that he already fulfilled his obligations with the first shavings (Radbaz).

This all follows the pattern explained in the notes to the previous halachah.

The full order of sacrifices that such a person would be required to bring were he in fact to have contracted ritual impurity and have been afflicted by tzara'at is the following:

a) because of tzara'at: on the eighth day of the purification process, he must bring a guilt offering, a sin offering, and a burnt offering;

b) because he became impure, he must bring a sin offering, a guilt offering, and a burnt offering; and

c) upon completion of his nazirite vow in purity, he brings a burnt offering, a peace offering, and a sin offering.

Because, as will be explained, it is possible to bring a fowl as a sacrifice when there is a doubt involved, but not an animal.

See Hilchot Mechusrai Kapparah 5:10;Hilchot Shegagot 10:13.

A wealthy metzora must bring a ewe as a sin offering, while a poor one may bring two sets of doves or turtledoves. If the rich man retains possession of his property, he will not be able to bring a sin offering, because an animal can never be brought as a sin offering because of doubt (Radbaz).

For all of these are brought because of the doubt involved.

See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:10.

Chapter 8, Halachah 1. The Rambam does not mention the wild birds that must be brought as part of the purification process for a metzora, for they were not sacrifices brought within the Temple.

I.e., the sin offering brought after the first shaving.

Because of contact with a corpse alone and not afflicted with tzara'at.

The wild birds brought after the first shaving are not considered sacrifices, because they are not brought within the Temple.

According to this possibility, it was not necessary for him to have brought the sin offering at the time of the first shaving. That first shaving cannot, however, serve two purposes as the Rambam explains.

See Halachah 2.

I.e., the lambs.

As required of a nazirite who completes his nazirite vow in purity.

For the burnt offering required when a nazirite completes his vow in purity is a lamb and that required from a nazirite emerging from ritual impurity is a dove or turtle dove.

I.e., for the second shaving, he should make the following stipulation: "If I was only ritually impure because of contact with a corpse, then the first sin offering was to emerge from ritual impurity and this is the sin offering required at the conclusion of the nazirite vow. If I had contracted tza'arat, this is for the sake of purification from that affliction. And if I was neither ritually impure nor had contracted tzara'at, this is a freewill offering."

For the third shaving, he should stipulate: "If I was both ritually impure and afflicted bytzara'at, the second sacrifice was to be purified from tzara'at and this is to emerge from the ritual impurity stemming from a corpse. If I had been afflicted by tzara'at, but not ritually impure, this is to complete the obligation of my nazirite vow. If I had not been afflicted by tzara'at, this is a freewill offering."

I.e., a burnt offering, a sin offering, and a peace offering.

For a nazirite who became impure should not bring a lamb as a burnt offering.

We do not say that the burnt offering brought after the second or third shaving was the required offering, because perhaps he had been afflicted with tzara'at in which instance, those shavings were necessary to purify him (Kessef Mishneh).

With regard to a sin offering, the Rambam wrote in Halachah 5 that a metzora should not bring his sacrifice until after the second shaving. For this reason, the Ra'avad protests the Rambam's statements. Nevertheless, as stated with regard to a related issue in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot18:9, a distinction can be made between a burnt offering and a sin offering, for the sin offering is the fundamental catalyst for atonement and the burnt offering is merely a present (Kessef Mishneh; Lechem Mishneh).

One of these burnt offerings was obviously a freewill offering, because only one burnt offering is required for the two shavings required to be purified from tzara'at. The other burnt offering is also a freewill offering, because the shaving is required lest he was also impure because of contact with a corpse. Nevertheless, the burnt offering required for such a shaving is not a lamb, but rather a dove or a turtle dove.

As explained above.

The fact that they are being brought much later than the burnt offering is not significant.

As explained above.

Hence they are not required in this complex situation.

See Chapter 6, Halachah 12, with regard to a nazirite and Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah1:5 with regard to a metzora. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the guilt offering is also an absolute requirement for the purification of a nazirite. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishnehsupport the Rambam's ruling.

The commentaries raise a difficulty with the Rambam's statement, noting that as explained in Halachah 5, the sin offering for a metzora is brought in association with the second shaving, not the first. The Merkevet HaMishneh states the intent is that the sacrifice is brought because of the question of impurity stemming from contact with a human corpse.

For it is not known whether he was ametzora or not.

For if he does not bring an animal as a sacrifice, the shaving is not acceptable and in violation of his nazirite vow.

After the fourth shaving.

The fact that the remainder of the sacrifices are not brought until a significantly later time, i.e., after the fourth shaving, is not significant.

As mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachah 13, a nazirite vow taken by a minor can be binding according to Scriptural Law.

For the prohibition against shaving the corners of the hair and the beard is not incumbent upon them (Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 12:5).

54.

I.e., the first three shavings described above.

55.

As explained above, when a mitzvah is involved in the shaving, we follow the principle: The performance of a positive commandment supercedes the observance of a prohibition. This applies, however, only when we are certain that the observance of a positive commandment is indeed involved.

56.

See Hilchot Tumat Tzara'at 11:4.

57.

Shaving and bringing the appropriate sacrifices. The sequence when the shavings are performed and sacrifices are brought is not explicitly mentioned by the Rambam. However, as reflected in the gloss of the Lechem Mishneh, seemingly he may perform the shaving immediately. Since he is definitely afflicted with tzara'at, there is no prohibition against his shaving during the term of his nazirite vow.

58.

This purifies him from the impurity associated with a human corpse. Unless he performs this act of purification, no sacrifices may be offered on his behalf (Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 2:12). The fact that he is still ritually impure because of tzara'atdoes not prevent him from purifying himself from the impurity associated with contact with a corpse (Hilchot Parah Adumah 11:3).

59.

After the completion of all the days of his nazirite vow. He is required to wait this amount of time, because perhaps he never became impure. Thus were he to perform the shaving earlier, he might be shaving in the midst of his nazirite vow.

60.

Any observance of his vow before then is disqualified. Nor can he bring the sacrifices required when emerging from ritual impurity until he first purifies himself from the possibility of having been afflicted withtzara'at.

61.

Since it is not certain that he has tzara'at, the shaving does not supercede his nazirite vow and thus he must wait until the observance of his nazirite vow is concluded.

62.

For otherwise, he is ritually impure and may not partake of sacrifices. Our translation reflects an emendation of the standard published text of the Mishneh Torah based on authoritative manuscripts.

63.

To be purified from the ritual impurity stemming from contact with a human corpse, so that sacrifices may be offered on his behalf, as explained above.

64.

For the reason explained in the following halachah.

65.

I.e., he is required to wait this amount of time as explained in Chapter 6, Halachah 7, but seemingly, he has already waited these days, in the process of his purification fromtzara'at.

66.

See ch. 13 of Hilchot Nedarim. Halachot 24 and 25 of that chapter focus on the negative dimension of taking vows that involve prohibitions, but Halachah 23 explains that there are situations, i.e., when one feels challenged by his material desires, when taking such vows are praiseworthy. See the incident from Nedarim 9b quoted in the notes to that halachah.

67.

This Hebrew term shares the same letters as the root of the word nazirite.

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 1

Halacha 1

Endowment valuations [arechim]1 are pledges included in the category of vows made to consecrate property,2 as [Leviticus] 27:2 states: "When a man will utter a vow, making an endowment evaluation concerning humans to God." Therefore [failure to fulfill them] makes one liable for the violation [of the prohibitions, Numbers 30:3:] "He shall not desecrate his word,"3 and [Deuteronomy 23:22]: "Do not delay in paying it,"4 and [the positive commandment, Numbers, loc. cit.]: "He shall act in accordance with all that he uttered with his mouth."5

Halacha 2

It is a positive commandment to render judgment concerning arechim as prescribed by the Torah.6 Whether one says: "I pledge my airech," "I pledge the airech of this person," or "I pledge the airech of so-and-so," he must pay the airech as prescribed according to the age of the person specified.7This is a fixed amount as dictated by the Torah, neither more, nor less.

Halacha 3

What is the airech [prescribed by the Torah]? If the person whose airech was donated was 30 days old or less,8 he has no airech. When one says: "I pledge the airech of this person," [and the person is 30 days old or less,] it is as if he said: "I pledge the airech of this utensil"9 and [the donor] is not liable at all.

If [the person whose airech was donated] was between 30 days old and a full five years,10 the airech of a male is five [silver] shekalim and of a female, three [silver] shekalim.11 From when one begins his or her sixth year until the completion of the twentieth year, the airech of a male is 20 [silver] shekalimand of a female, 10 [silver] shekalim. From when one begins his or her twenty-first year until the completion of the sixtieth year, the airech of a male is 50 [silver] shekalim and of a female, 30 [silver] shekalim..From when one begins his or her sixty-first year until the day of his or her death, [regardless of] the number of years [he or she lives,] theairech of a male is 15 [silver] shekalimand of a female, 10 [silver]shekalim..

Halacha 4

All of these years are calculated from day to day from the person's birthday.12All of the shekalim are holy shekalim, i.e., the weight in pure silver of 320 barley corns. [Our Sages] already added to the value [of this coin] and made it equivalent to a sela,13 as we explained in Hilchot Shekalim.14

Halacha 5

There is no airech for a tumtum15 or an androgynus,16 for the Torah prescribed an airech only for a male whose status is definite or a female whose status is definite. Therefore if a tumtum or an androgynus says: "I pledge my airech," or another person pledges their airech, their statements are of no consequence.17

Halacha 6

An airech may be pledged for a gentile, but the pledge of a gentile is of no consequence.18 What is implied? When a gentile says: "I pledge my airech," or "I pledge the airech of this Jew," his words are of no consequence. When, [by contrast,] a Jew says: "I pledge the airech of this gentile" or "I pledge theairech of so-and-so, the gentile," he must pay according to the age of the gentile whose airech he pledged. Similarly, if one pledges the airech of a deaf-mute or an intellectually or emotionally unstable person,19 he is obligated to pay according to that person's age.

Halacha 7

An airech may be pledged for a servant and he may pledge an airech like any member of the Jewish people.20 If he is redeemed21 and he has financial resources, he should pay the pledge that he vowed.

Halacha 8

Whether a person pledges the airech of an attractive, healthy person or one who is ugly and infirm, he must give the fixed amount specified by the Torah according to the age of that person.22 [This applies] even if that person has leprous blotches, is blind, lacking a limb, or possesses any type of blemish.

Halacha 9

Pledges for a person's worth are not like arechim. What is implied? When a person says: "I am responsible for my worth," "I am responsible for that person's worth," or "I am responsible for the worth of so-and-so," he must pay the worth of that person as if he were a servant sold in the marketplace,23whether it be a dinar or a thousand dinar.24 [This applies] even if that person is a minor one day old, a tumtum, an androgynus25 or a gentile.26

Halacha 10

Unless specified otherwise,27 all arechim and all pledges of worth are [dedicated to] physical improvements to the Temple.28 They are placed in a special chamber in the Temple which is prepared for [funds] consecrated for physical improvements to the Temple.

Halacha 11

When a gentile says: "I am responsible for my worth" or "I am responsible for the worth of so-and-so," he must pay according to his vow. [The money] is not, however, placed in the [abovementioned] chamber. For we do not accept pledges or vows from gentiles to make physical improvements in the Temple or in Jerusalem as [Ezra 4:3]: "It is not for you [together] with us to build [a house for our God]." And [Nechemiah] 2:20] states: "And you do not have a portion, a right, or a remembrance in Jerusalem."

Halacha 12

What should be done with [these gifts]? We should question the gentile regarding the intent he had when taking the vow. If he had the intent to give it according to the guidance of the Jewish people, the court may use it for anything they see fit29 except improvements to the Temple and Jerusalem. If he said: "I took the vow for the sake of Heaven," [his gift] should be entombed.30

Halacha 13

When a person is in his death throes,31 he has no airech,32nor has he any worth. Since most people in their death throes will die, he is considered as if he is [already] dead.33 Similarly, if a person was sentenced by a Jewish court to be executed because of a transgression that he committed34 and another person pledged his airech, he pledged his own airech, or he pledged his worth or another person pledged his worth, none of the above are liable for anything. For the person is considered as if he is already dead and a deceased person has no airech, nor any worth. With regard to this, [Leviticus 27:29] states: "Any condemned person who is condemned from mankind shall not be redeemed,"35i.e., there is no redemption for him and he is considered as if he is dead.

Halacha 14

If a person who is being led to his execution pledges the airech of other people, pledges their worth, or causes damage, he is obligated to pay. [The money owed] is collected from his estate.36

Halacha 15

Priests and Levites may pledge arechim and their airech may be pledged by others like other Israelites.37 When a minor reaches the age when his vows are of consequence,38 and pledges a person's airech or worth, he is obligated to pay,39 for his vows are of consequence, as we explained in Hilchot Nedarim.

Halacha 16

The arechim are fixed according to the age of the person who is the object of the pledge, not the age of the person making the pledge. What is implied? When a twenty year-old tells a sixty year-old, "I pledge your airech," he must give the airech of a sixty year-old. When a sixty year-old tells a twenty year-old, "I pledge your airech," he must give the airech of a twenty year-old. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

Halacha 17

The statements of the person pledging the airech must match his intent, as [is the law with regard] to other vows.40 One may appeal [to a sage] for the absolution of a pledge of an airech or one's worth, just as one may appeal for the absolution of other vows and consecrations.41

Halacha 18

When a person says: "I am responsible for the airech of these individuals," he must pay the combined airech of them all, each one of them according to his years. If he42 was poor, he should give one airech paid by a poor man43 for them all together. If he was wealthy, he should give the airech paid by a wealthy man44 for each one of them.

Halacha 19

When a person says: "I pledge my airech" and then repeats: "I pledge myairech" - even if he makes this statement several times - he must pay anairech for each pledge.45 If he says: "I pledge two of my arechim, he must pay two arechim. This also applies if he pledges four, or even 1000, arechim, he must pay the number that he pledged.

Halacha 20

When one says: "I pledge an airech" without identifying the person whoseairech he is pledging, but mentions an airech without any more particulars, he is liable to pay the lowest of all arechim, i.e., three shekalim.46

Halacha 21

When a person says: "I pledge my airech," but dies before standing before [a court for] appraisal,47 his heirs are not liable to pay, as [implied by Leviticus 27:8]: "And he shall be made to stand before the priests and the priest will evaluate him."48 If he stood before [a court for] appraisal and then died, the heirs must pay.49

Halacha 22

If, however, he says: "I pledge my worth," even if he stands before [a court for] appraisal, but dies before they establish a fixed amount and the judges say how much he is worth, his heirs are not obligated to pay.50 If, however, they affixed his worth and then he died, his heirs must pay.

Halacha 23

What is the difference between arechim and pledges of worth? [The amount required to be paid] for arechim is fixed by the Torah, while [the amount required to be paid] for a pledge of worth is not fixed.51

Similarly, when a person says: "I pledge the airech of so-and-so and both the person who made the pledge and the one whose airech was pledged died after the latter stood before [a court for] appraisal, the heirs [of the person who made the pledge] are obligated to pay.52 If the person whose airech was pledged died before standing before [a court for] appraisal, even though the person who made the pledge is alive, he is not liable. [The rationale is that] a deceased person does not have an airech and a person whose airech must stand before [a court for] appraisal [before the commitment becomes binding]. [Similarly,] if one said: "I pledge the worth of so-and-so" and that person stood for an appraisal, but died before an evaluation of his worth was established,53[the one who made the pledge] is not liable, for a deceased person has no worth.

FOOTNOTES

The translation "endowment evaluation" is used because the source of the word airechmeans "evaluate." Nevertheless, the term is not appropriate, because these endowments do not involve an evaluation of the worth of the person (house or field), but instead, a standard figure. It refers to a donation given to the Temple treasury of one's own free will to be used for improvements within the Temple or the like.

See Hilchot Nedarim 1:2. The Rambam makes this statement to explain why he discusses these mitzvot in Sefer Hafla'ah(Kessef Mishneh). They are mentioned last, because unlike the other subjects discussed in this book, they concern donations to the Temple rather than prohibitions one takes upon oneself (Radbaz).

See Hilchot Nedarim 1:5 with regard to this prohibition.

The Rambam describes this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah, but does not explain it in these halachot, but instead, in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot (in the introduction to those halachot and in Chapter 14, Halachah 13).

See Hilchot Nedarim 1:4 with regard to this positive commandment.

See Leviticus, ch. 27. Sefer HaMitzvot(positive commandment 114) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 350) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

I.e., the age of the person mentioned. The age of the donor is not significant.

Until an infant reaches his thirty-first day, we are concerned that he will not survive. See also Hilchot Bikkurim 11:17. Note, however, the contrast to Halachah 9.

For the Torah makes no mention of the construct of airachin with regard to utsensils.

I.e., he reached his sixth birthday.

A shekel is eight oz. of silver in contemporary measure.

With regard to the censuses taken in the desert, the person's age at the beginning of the year was important. In this context, by contrast, the reckoning is made for every person individually.

A coin widely used in the Second Temple era. It was somewhat larger than a shekel, weighing 384 barley corns of silver.

Hilchot Shekalim 1:2.

A person whose genital area is covered by flesh and thus it is impossible to determine his gender.

A person with both male and female genital organs. See Hilchot Nazirut 2:11 for a detailed description of such a person's halachic status. See also Hilchot Ishut 2:24.

If, however, a tumtum or androgynuspledges the airech of a man or a woman, the pledge is binding (Arachin 2a). If an operation is performed on a tumtum and it is revealed that he is a male or female, anairech may be given accordingly.

Arachin 5b derives this from Leviticus 27:2which introduces this mitzvah with the phrase: "Speak to the children of Israel," thus excluding gentiles from pledging endowment evaluations. Nevertheless, the verse includes the word ish, "man," seemingly unnecessarily, indicating that a pledge can be made concerning a gentile. This is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehudah derives the opposite concepts from the same verse.

The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that the halachah follows Rabbi Yehudah. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh support the Rambam's ruling, citingEzra 4:3 which states that the gentiles do not have a portion in building the Temple, the intent for which endowment evaluations are given. See also Halachah 11.

Who are not liable in the observance of the mitzvot themselves, because they are not in control of their intellectual faculties.

This applies even to a Canaanite servant, not only a Jewish servant (Arachin 2a).

For, otherwise, all of his financial resources are acquired by his master.

Note the contrast to the following halachah.

See Chapter 8, Halachah 2.

The person's age is of no consequence whatsoever.

An airech may not be pledged for these individuals (Halachot 3 and 5).

See Halachah 11.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 19.

The Rambam (and his sources) are borrowing the wording of II Kings 12:6.

I.e., for matters that are for the communal benefit (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Arachin 1:2).

For it becomes consecrated and it is forbidden to benefit from it. See Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 8:8; Hilchot Meilah 5:15.

Who is taking his last breathes (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah,Arachin 1:3, Rav Kappach's translation). Compare to Hilchot Gerushin 6:28.

Nor is an airech he takes binding (Arachin6b). Note the contrast to the following halachah and note the gloss of the Radbaz.

Note, however, Hilchot Evel 4:5.

Since the Torah has condemned such a person to death, the matter is not dependent on the will of mortals. If, by contrast, one is condemned to death by a mortal king, these laws do not apply, because it is possible that the king will retract his decree (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit.). Compare to Hilchot Gerushin 6:29.

Our translation follows the commentary of Rashi and others.

Even against the will of the heirs, for a binding obligation has been created on the estate. Just as an estate is liable for the loans taken by the testator when supported by a legal document, so too, it is liable for the obligations established by Torah Law (the Rambam' s Commentary to the Mishnah,Arachin 1:3).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Arachin1:1), the Rambam explains that since these individuals are not liable for the redemption of the firstborn, one might think that they are not liable in this context as well. Hence, it is necessary to emphasize that they are.

As explained in Hilchot Nedarim 11:1-3, when a twelve year old boy and an eleven year old girl are aware of the significance of their vows, their vows are binding according to Scriptural Law. Below this age, their vows are not binding.

When he comes of age and has money of his own.

See Hilchot Nedarim 2:2. Since Leviticus 27:2 uses the term vow when speaking of these pledges, they are bound by the laws applying to other vows.

See Hilchot Nedarim 4:5,7.

The person making the pledge.

See Chapter 3, Halachot 2-3, which states that the minimum amount of an airech is asela. The Lechem Mishneh rules that a selamust be given for each individual whoseairech he pledged.

I.e., the airech specified by the Torah.

For arechim are vows and one vow can take effect upon another (Radbaz).

We assume that his obligation was for the smallest amount possible.

See Chapter 8, Halachah 2.

I.e., the obligation takes effect only when he stands before the priest for appraisal (the Rambam' s Commentary to the Mishnah,Arachin 5:3). Since he did not do that, his heirs are under no obligation (Radbaz). The Ra'avad, however, differs with the Rambam and maintains that as soon as a person pledges an airech, he is liable for it and an obligation is created for his estate. Hence, he differs with the Rambam's ruling.

Apparently, the Rambam is saying that if a person pledges an airech, he must stand before a priest and state his age, so that the priest will establish his appraisal. TheMerkevat HaMishneh notes that the literal meaning of the verse is that if a person is too poor to pay the airech, the priests will evaluate how much he can pay.

For once an airech is established, a binding obligation is incurred and his estate is required to pay.

Until an appraisal is established by the courts, the obligation is not defined. Hence, when he dies, all liability is removed from the estate because a deceased person has no worth (Arachin 20a).

According to early printings and authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. This clause should be part of the previous halachah and the present halachah begins: "Similarly, when a person says: 'I pledge....'"

This is a direct extension of the concepts stated in Halachah 21.