but he does not bring the offering for impurity.

The Gemara comments: From the words: But if he becomes impure he does not bring an offering for impurity, one can infer that it is the offering that he does not bring. However, all of the prohibitions of naziriteship apply to him, and it is prohibited for him to become impure from a corpse.

This leads to the following question: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is not the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and not the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: A nazirite like Samson is permitted to become impure from a corpse ab initio, as we find with Samson that he became impure. Rabbi Shimon says: One who says he will be a nazirite like Samson has not said anything, since we do not find with Samson that an utterance of a vow of naziriteship left his mouth. Samson never took a vow to be a nazirite. He received his status from the angel’s instructions to his mother (see Judges 13:5). Consequently, Rabbi Shimon holds that one who vows to be a nazirite like Samson is not considered to have taken a nazirite vow.

The Gemara explains the question: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? If it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn’t he say that it is permitted for a nazirite of this kind to become impure from a corpse even ab initio, but the mishna teaches: If he becomes impure, which indicates that he is prohibited from doing so ab initio? However, if you say that the mishna is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, didn’t he say that naziriteship does not apply to him at all?

The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and a nazirite like Samson may become impure from a corpse even ab initio. And since it teaches with regard to a permanent nazirite: If he becomes impure, as it is prohibited for a permanent nazirite to become impure from a corpse ab initio, the tanna also taught the same expression with regard to a nazirite like Samson and used the expression: If he becomes impure.

§ The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between these tanna’im, as we learned in a baraita: If one says: This object is hereby forbidden to me like a firstborn, Rabbi Ya’akov prohibits the individual from deriving benefit from the object, as he holds that a vow of this sort is valid. And Rabbi Yosei permits it, because the sanctity of a firstborn is not the result of a vow or sanctification. Rather, it is sacred of its own accord, and therefore its forbidden status cannot be extended by means of a vow to other items.

What, is it not the case that Rabbi Yehuda holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya’akov, who said that in order for a vow to take effect, we do not require one to extend the forbidden status of an item rendered forbidden by means of a vow? Consequently, just as one can render an object forbidden by extending to it the sanctity of a firstborn animal, one can become a nazirite by accepting upon himself the status of Samson, whose prohibitions were not established by a vow. And Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that in order for a vow to take effect, we do require one to extend the forbidden status of an item rendered forbidden by means of a vow. Consequently, one cannot become a nazirite by accepting upon himself the status of Samson.

The Gemara responds: No, it can be explained that everyone agrees that we require one to extend the forbidden status of an item rendered forbidden by means of a vow. And according to Rabbi Ya’akov, the halakha is different with regard to a firstborn, as it is written about this in the verse pertaining to vows: ''When a man vows a vow to the Lord'' (Numbers 30:3). This comes to include the firstborn and teach that since the firstborn is consecrated, its status is comparable to animals designated as offerings by means of a vow, and one can extend its forbidden status to another item.

And Rabbi Yosei could have said to you in response that he needs that expression: ''To the Lord,'' to include a sin-offering and a guilt-offering. One may not obligate himself to bring these offerings by means of a vow. They are brought only when one becomes liable due to a transgression. Nevertheless, one can take a vow by extending to another item the forbidden status of a sin-offering or guilt-offering.

The Gemara questions Rabbi Yosei’s explanation: And what did you see that indicated to you to include a sin-offering and a guilt-offering and to exclude a firstborn? The Gemara answers: I include a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, as one grants consecrated status to the animals designated for these offerings by means of a vow, i.e., the act of designating specific animals for these offerings is comparable to taking a vow. And I exclude a firstborn, as one does not grant it consecrated status by means of a vow.

And Rabbi Ya’akov could have said to you in response: Also in the case of a firstborn, one grants it consecrated status by means of a vow, as it is taught in a baraita: The Sages of the house of our Rabbi, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said: From where is it derived that when a firstborn male animal is born in one’s herd, there is a mitzva for him to consecrate it, although it is consecrated from the time it is born? As it is stated: ''All firstborns males that are born to your herd and to your flock you shall sanctify'' (Deuteronomy 15:19).

And Rabbi Yosei could have said to you in response: Granted that there is a mitzva to consecrate it. But if he does not consecrate it, is it not consecrated of its own accord? Since a firstborn is forbidden principally because of its inherent sanctity and not because of a vow, one cannot express a vow by extending a firstborn’s forbidden status to another item.

The Gemara asks: Both Rabbi Ya’akov and Rabbi Yosei agree that the phrase ''to the Lord'' indicates that one can take a vow by associating the object of his vow with an item whose prohibition does not stem from a vow. With regard to a nazirite as well, isn’t it written: ''Shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lord'' (Numbers 6:2)? Why doesn’t Rabbi Shimon derive from this verse that one can become a nazirite by accepting the naziriteship of Samson, despite the fact that Samson did not accept his naziriteship by means of a vow?

The Gemara answers: That phrase is required by him for that which is taught in a baraita: Shimon HaTzaddik said: In all my days as a priest, I never ate the guilt-offering of a ritually impure nazirite, apart from the offering of one man who came to me from the South, who had beautiful eyes and a fine countenance, and his locks were arranged in curls. I said to him: My son, what did you see to become a nazirite, which would force you to destroy this beautiful hair, as a nazirite must cut off all his hair at the conclusion of his term?

He said to me: I was a shepherd for my father in my town, and I went to draw water from the spring, and I looked at my reflection in the water. And my evil inclination quickly rose against me and sought to drive me from the world. I said to my evil inclination: Empty one! For what reason are you proud in a world that is not yours, as your end is to be maggots and worms when you die. I swear by the Temple service that I will become a nazirite and shave you for the sake of Heaven.

Shimon HaTzaddik relates: When I heard his response, I arose and kissed him on his head, and said to him: May there be more nazirites like you in Israel, whose intentions are noble, and who would not regret their vow of naziriteship even if they became impure. With regard to 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). The verse speaks of a vow that is not undertaken out of anger or spite, but purely for the sake of God. The phrase ''to the Lord'' in this context means: For the sake of Heaven. It cannot be used to teach that if one declares his intention to become a nazirite like Samson, his statement constitutes a nazirite vow.

The Gemara challenges the assumption that Samson’s naziriteship was not accepted through a vow: And was Samson not a nazirite whose naziriteship was accepted by a vow? Isn’t it written: ''For the child shall be a nazirite of God from the womb'' (Judges 13:5)? The Gemara answers: There it was the angel who spoke. Samson’s nazirite status did not stem from a vow uttered by a human being.

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that Samson became impure from corpses? If we say it is from the fact that it is written: ''And Samson said: With the jawbone of an ass, I smote a thousand men'' (Judges 15:16), perhaps he thrust the jawbone at them but did not touch them, and he remained pure.

Rather, it is derived from here: ''And he smote thirty men of them, and took their garments'' (Judges 14:19). Since he stripped the clothes off the dead he must have come into contact with them. The Gemara counters: Perhaps he stripped them first and afterward killed them. The Gemara responds: It is written: ''And he smote…and took,'' in that order, indicating that first he killed them and then he took their clothing.

The Gemara asks: But perhaps he mortally wounded them and thereby caused them to be in the process of dying, and he then took their clothes before they died so that he would not touch their corpses. Rather, it must be concluded that it is learned as a tradition that Samson would become impure from corpses.

§ The Gemara clarifies a halakha taught in the mishna: And where is the concept of a permanent nazirite written? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Absalom was a permanent nazirite, as it is stated: ''And it came to pass at the end of forty years, that Absalom said to the king: I pray to you, let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed to the Lord, in Hebron'' (II Samuel 15:7). And he cut his hair once every twelve months, as it is stated: ''And when he polled his head, now it was at every year’s [yamim] end that he polled it; because the hair was heavy on him'' (II Samuel 14:26).