Why do I need the extra phrase ''on that day'' (Numbers 6:11)? This teaches that if it does not apply to the matter of the eighth day, since the verse is speaking of that day anyway, apply it to the matter of the seventh day, so that ''on that day'' means the day when he becomes ritually purified, even before he brings his offerings. The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also, isn’t it written ''on that day''? What halakha does he derive from these additional words? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi could have said to you: That verse comes for this purpose, to tell you that even though he did not yet bring his offerings, he starts counting his naziriteship of purity from the eighth day. This is derived from the verse’s emphasis of: ''And he shall sanctify his head on that day,'' indicating that it depends on the day itself, rather than the bringing of the offerings.

The Gemara asks: And what forced Rav Ḥisda to establish this mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? Let him establish it as referring to a case where one became impure by seeing, i.e., contracting, impurity on the night preceding the eighth day each time. Even according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the naziriteship of purity begins at the start of, presumably the night preceding, the eighth day. Therefore, this case will be one of a nazirite contracting ritual impurity many times. Nevertheless, the nazirite will be obligated to bring only one set of offerings for all of them, because each case of ritual impurity occurred at night, when he is unable to bring the offerings for his previous ritual impurity, as offerings can be brought only during the day. And therefore it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

The Gemara suggests: Since he did not establish it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in this way, shall we say that Rav Ḥisda holds that night is not considered premature? In other words, although he cannot in practice bring his offerings until the morning, as the Temple service was performed only in the daytime, the night is not considered a premature time, but rather it is viewed as part of the day in which it is appropriate to bring his offerings. Consequently, the halakha of one who becomes ritually impure on the night preceding the eighth day is the same as that of one who contracted ritual impurity on the eighth day itself, and they are both required to bring an additional set of offerings.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: This conclusion is incorrect, as even if Rav Ḥisda holds that the night is considered to be premature, he could not establish the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as the offerings and his new term of naziriteship depend on each other: If you say night is considered premature, when is he fit to bring his offerings? Only in the morning. Accordingly, naziriteship also does not take effect until the morning. And if you say night is not considered premature, and he is already obligated in his offerings at night, in that case naziriteship of purity takes effect from the evening, which means that the ritual impurity he suffered at night renders him obligated to bring an additional set of offerings. Consequently, the mishna does not follow the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, whether night is considered premature or not, and nothing can be inferred from here with regard to Rav Ḥisda’s opinion in that matter.

§ The Gemara cites a baraita (Tosefta 4:8) concerning the matter of a nazirite who contracted ritual impurity many times itself: If a nazirite became impure, and then became impure on the seventh day of his purification process, and again became impure on the following seventh day of his purification process, he brings only one set of offerings. If he became impure on the eighth day, and again became impure on the following eighth day, he brings a set of offerings for each and every time he became impure. Nevertheless, he begins counting his ritually pure naziriteship immediately on the eighth day, even if he has not yet brought his offerings. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

And the Rabbis say: If he had not yet brought his offerings on the eighth day when he became impure, it is considered one long period of ritual impurity, and he brings one set of offerings for all the times he became impure, until he has brought his sin-offering at the end of his period of ritual impurity. It is only then that he can begin counting his next term of naziriteship. Therefore, if he brought his sin-offering and then became impure, and again brought his sin-offering and then again became impure, he brings a set of offerings for each and every one. If he brought his sin-offering and did not yet bring his guilt-offering, he begins to count his term of naziriteship in ritual purity.

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: Just as not bringing his sin-offering precludes him from starting his naziriteship in ritual purity, so too, not bringing his guilt-offering precludes him from starting his naziriteship in ritual purity, and if he became impure again before he brought his guilt-offering, he only brings one set of offerings for all his impurities.

After having quoted the baraita, the Gemara proceeds to analyze the three opinions: Granted, according to Rabbi Eliezer, his reason is that the verse states: ''And he shall sanctify his head on that day'' (Numbers 6:11), which indicates: Even though he has not brought his offerings, the eighth day determines the start of his ritually pure naziriteship. And the Rabbis agree that the phrase ''on that day'' is extra, and it teaches that he begins counting from that day even though he has not brought his guilt-offering, but he does not begin counting until after bringing his sin-offering.

But according to Rabbi Yishmael, why do I need the phrase ''on that day''? According to his opinion the issue depends on the offerings, not the day. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yishmael could have said to you: The phrase ''on that day'' teaches that he can begin counting even though he has not brought his burnt-offering, as he agrees that not bringing the burnt-offering does not preclude him from counting his naziriteship. And the Rabbis respond to this: A burnt-offering does not require a limitation in the text to teach that its omission does not preclude the start of his naziriteship in ritual purity, since it is merely a gift and not part of his atonement process.

The Gemara explains: What is the reason of the Rabbis for ruling that only refraining from bringing his sin-offering precludes the start of his new count of naziriteship? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to a nazirite who became ritually impure: ''And he shall consecrate to the Lord the days of his naziriteship, and he shall bring a lamb in its first year for a guilt-offering'' (Numbers 6:12). What does this teach? Doesn’t he wait to begin the days of his naziriteship until after he has brought all of his offerings? Rather, since we have found that all guilt-offerings that are mentioned in the Torah are indispensable for atonement, and before he has brought his guilt-offering he is forbidden from partaking of any sacred offerings, one might have thought that not having brought this guilt-offering also precludes him from counting his ritually pure naziriteship,