רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר כְּגוֹן דִּנְדַר וְהוּא בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: The prohibition against delaying applies to a nazirite in a case where one vowed to become a nazirite while he was in a cemetery. Since it is prohibited for a nazirite to be in a cemetery, his term of naziriteship does not come into effect until he leaves the cemetery and ritually purifies himself. If he delays this process, he prevents the vow from taking effect and thereby transgresses the prohibition against delaying.
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לָא חָיְילָא עֲלֵיהּ נְזִירוּת מֵאַלְתַּר אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מֵאַלְתַּר חָיְילָא עֲלֵיהּ מִי אִיכָּא בַּל תְּאַחֵר וְעוֹד הָאָמַר מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי חָיְילָא נְזִירוּת עֲלֵיהּ מֵאַלְתַּר וְכִי פְּלִיגִי לְעִנְיַן מַלְקוֹת פְּלִיגִי The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that if one takes a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery the naziriteship does not apply to him immediately. However, according to the one who said that the naziriteship applies to him immediately, is there a violation of the prohibition: You shall not delay? And furthermore, didn’t Mar bar Rav Ashi say that all agree that the naziriteship applies to him immediately and he need not repeat his vow of naziriteship when he leaves, and when they disagree it is only with regard to the matter of flogging, and it’s only about this that they disagree, i.e., whether the nazirite is flogged if he drinks wine or otherwise violates the prohibitions of a nazirite.
אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי קָם לֵיהּ בְּבַל תְּאַחֵר מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא מְאַחַר נְזִירוּת דְּטָהֳרָה אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי הוֹאִיל וְכֵן נָזִיר שֶׁטִּימֵּא עַצְמוֹ בְּמֵזִיד עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם בַּל תְּאַחֵר דִּנְזִירוּת טָהֳרָה The Gemara answers: Even so, he is liable for violating the prohibition: You shall not delay, because by remaining in the cemetery he delays a naziriteship of ritual purity. Although the halakhot of naziriteship take effect upon him immediately, he is still obligated to fulfill a term of naziriteship in a state of ritual purity, and if he delays doing so, he violates the prohibition against delaying. Rav Ashi said: Since this is so, a nazirite who intentionally renders himself ritually impure violates the prohibition: You shall not delay, with regard to a naziriteship of ritual purity, as he thereby prevents himself from completing his naziriteship in a state of ritual purity on time.
רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא אָמַר עוֹבֵר בְּבַל תְּאַחֵר תִּגְלַחְתּוֹ Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, stated another explanation of how the prohibition against delaying applies with regard to naziriteship: The nazirite is commanded to shave his hair at the conclusion of his term, and if he causes this shaving to be delayed, he violates the prohibition: You shall not delay, with regard to his shaving.
וְלָא מִיבַּעְיָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר תִּגְלַחַת מְעַכֶּבֶת אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר תִּגְלַחַת אֵינָהּ מְעַכֶּבֶת מִצְוַת גִּילּוּחַ מִיהָא לָא מְיקַיֵּים The Gemara adds: And this explanation is not necessary to say, i.e., it is obvious, according to the one who says that shaving is indispensable for a nazirite and he is subject to all the prohibitions of a nazirite until he shaves, but even according to the one who says that shaving is not indispensable and the halakhot of naziriteship are terminated for him immediately after he brings his offerings, at least it can be said that he does not fulfill the mitzva of shaving until he actually shaves, and therefore if he delays, he violates the prohibition against delaying.
מָר זוּטְרָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מָרִי אָמַר עוֹבֵר בְּבַל תְּאַחֵר קָרְבְּנוֹתָיו Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, stated another explanation of how the prohibition against delaying applies to a nazirite vow: He transgresses the prohibition: You shall not delay, with regard to his offerings. When he completes his term as a nazirite he is obligated to bring certain offerings, and if he delays bringing them, he violates this prohibition.
וּמִן הָכָא נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵהָתָם נָפְקָא לֵיהּ כִּי דָרֹשׁ יִדְרְשֶׁנּוּ אֵלּוּ חַטָּאֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת The Gemara asks: Is this halakha, that the prohibition against delaying applies to a nazirite vow, derived from here, i.e., the juxtaposition of vows and naziriteship? It is derived from there, a different exposition based upon the verse: “When you shall take a vow…you shall not delay to pay it; for the Lord your God will surely require it of you” (Deuteronomy 23:22). Those items included in the phrase “will surely require it” are sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, including the sin-offering and guilt-offering of a nazirite.
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא חִידּוּשׁ הוּא שֶׁחִידְּשָׁה תּוֹרָה בְּנָזִיר The Gemara explains: The derivation based on the juxtaposition of vows and naziriteship is still necessary lest you say that these offerings are a novelty that the Torah innovated with regard to a nazirite and therefore their halakhot cannot be derived from halakhot of other offerings.
מַאי חִידּוּשׁ אִילֵּימָא דְּלָא מַתְפֵּיס לַיהּ לְחַטַּאת נָזִיר בְּנֶדֶר הֲרֵי חַטַּאת חֵלֶב שֶׁאֵין מַתְפִּיסָהּ בְּנֶדֶר וְעוֹבֵר בְּבַל תְּאַחֵר The Gemara asks: What is the novelty that the Torah introduced with regard to the nazirite? If we say it is that he cannot accept upon himself the sin-offering of a nazirite through a vow, i.e., if one who is not a nazirite says: I hereby vow to bring the sin-offering of a nazirite, his vow has no validity, this is not a unique halakha with regard to sin-offerings of a nazirite. There is also the case of the sin-offering of forbidden fat, i.e., a typical sin-offering that one brings when he inadvertently violates certain prohibitions, one of which is eating forbidden fat, which one cannot accept through a vow, as only one who has violated the prohibition may bring it; and nevertheless, one still transgresses the prohibition: You shall not delay, if he delays bringing the offering.
אֶלָּא מַאי חִידּוּשֵׁיהּ סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא הוֹאִיל וְאִם אָמַר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר אֲפִילּוּ מִן חַרְצָן הָוֵי נָזִיר לַכֹּל אֵימָא לָא לַיעֲבוֹר עֲלֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם בַּל תְּאַחֵר קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן Rather, what is its novelty that makes the juxtaposition between vows and naziriteship necessary? It might enter your mind to say that since if he said: I am hereby a nazirite, even if he accepted upon himself only one of the prohibitions of a nazirite, e.g., the requirement to abstain from grape seeds, he is nevertheless a nazirite with regard to all aspects of naziriteship, therefore say that he does not transgress the prohibition: You shall not delay. Since this halakha is a novelty, perhaps the principles of vows do not apply. The verse therefore teaches us through the juxtaposition of vows and naziriteship that the prohibition against delaying applies even in this case.
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר כִּי נָזִיר מִן חַרְצָן הָוֵי נָזִיר לַכֹּל אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר אֵין נָזִיר עַד שֶׁיַּזִּיר מִכּוּלָּן מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר וְעוֹד הַאי חִידּוּשׁ לְחוּמְרָא הוּא The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that when one vows to be a nazirite from grape seeds he is a nazirite in all respects. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said that he is not a nazirite unless he explicitly vows to be a nazirite in all respects, what is there to say? And furthermore, this novelty is stringent in that it renders the individual a nazirite even if he did not explicitly accept all of the halakhot of naziriteship. How could this novelty indicate that the prohibition against delaying does not apply in this case, which is a leniency, so that the juxtaposition would be necessary?
אֶלָּא מַאי חִידּוּשֵׁיהּ דְּסָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא הוֹאִיל Rather, what is its novelty that makes the juxtaposition between vows and naziriteship necessary? It might enter your mind to say that since