When Rabbi Meir said that one should abstain from making vows, he was referring only to a vow; he did not say it with regard to a gift offering. The Gemara asks: But it is taught in the mishna that if one said: Like the gift offerings of the virtuous, he has vowed with regard to becoming a nazirite or bringing an offering; this indicates that the virtuous vow to become nazirites and bring offerings. The Gemara answers: Teach the mishna in the following emended formulation: He has volunteered with regard to becoming a nazirite or bringing an offering. The Gemara asks: What is different about one who vows, i.e., one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring an offering, which is not proper to do due to the concern that perhaps he will encounter a stumbling block and not bring it promptly, thereby violating the prohibition against delaying? One should also not designate a particular animal as a gift offering due to the concern that perhaps he will encounter a stumbling block with it. Once the animal is consecrated, anyone who unwittingly benefits from it, e.g., by shearing it or working with it, transgresses the prohibition against misusing consecrated property. The Gemara answers: In the case of a gift offering, he can act like Hillel the Elder. As it is taught in a baraita: They said about Hillel the Elder that no person misused his burnt-offering in his lifetime. How did he ensure this? He was careful not to consecrate the animal in advance; rather, he would bring it when it was unconsecrated to the Temple courtyard and there he would consecrate it, and then immediately he would place his hand on its head and slaughter it. Consequently, there was no opportunity to misuse it. The Gemara asks: This works out well with regard to voluntary gifts in the context of offerings, but with regard to the voluntary acceptance of naziriteship, what is there to say? There is still room for concern that he will not fulfill the obligations incumbent upon him as a nazirite. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Meir holds in accordance with the opinion of Shimon HaTzaddik. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon HaTzaddik said: In all my days as a priest, I never ate the guilt-offering of a ritually impure nazirite except for one occasion. One time, a particular man who was a nazirite came from the South and I saw that he had beautiful eyes and was good looking, and the fringes of his hair were arranged in curls. I said to him: My son, what did you see that made you decide to destroy this beautiful hair of yours by becoming a nazirite? A nazirite must shave off his hair at the completion of his term. If he becomes impure before the completion of his term, he shaves off his hair and starts his term of naziriteship again. He said to me: I was a shepherd for my father in my city, and I went to draw water from the spring, and I looked at my reflection [babavua] in the water and my evil inclination quickly overcame me and sought to expel me from the world. I said to myself: Wicked one! Why do you pride yourself in a world that is not yours? Why are you proud of someone who will eventually be food in the grave for worms and maggots, i.e., your body? I swear by the Temple service that I shall shave you for the sake of Heaven. Shimon HaTzaddik continues the narrative: I immediately arose and kissed him on his head. I said to him: My son, may there be more who take vows of naziriteship like you among the Jewish people. About you the verse states: “When either a man or a woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lord” (Numbers 6:2). This is an example of voluntary acceptance of naziriteship, i.e., becoming a nazirite with entirely pure intentions rather than as a rash statement, e.g., while in a fit of anger. Rabbi Mani strongly objects to the statement of Shimon HaTzaddik. What is different about the guilt-offering of a ritually impure nazirite that Shimon HaTzaddik did not eat, because it came as a result of sin when the individual violated the terms of his naziriteship by becoming impure? Let him also not eat all other guilt-offerings, as they too come as a result of sin. Rabbi Yona said to him: This is the reason: When they regret their misdeeds they become nazirites, and when they become ritually impure and the days of their naziriteship are increased, as they must become pure and then begin their terms of naziriteship again, they regret having become nazirites. They will then turn out to be bringing non-sacred animals into the Temple courtyard. Since they do not wish to bring the offerings of a nazirite, their offerings are undesirable, and it is as though the animals are non-sacred. The Gemara asks: If so, then Shimon HaTzaddik should have abstained from eating even the offerings of a ritually pure nazirite as well for the same reason; perhaps he too regretted his decision to become a nazirite. The Gemara answers: In the case of a pure nazirite there is no concern because he assessed himself and realized that he was able to vow and to keep his vow for the term of his naziriteship. However, in the case of a ritually impure nazirite, where the naziriteship was extended for longer than he had estimated due to his contracting impurity, there is concern that he regrets having become a nazirite. The Gemara suggests a different answer to the question of the identity of the tanna whose opinion is expressed in the mishna. And if you wish, say:
