(Mishnah): If a Nazir drank wine all day, he is liable only once (one set of lashes). If they warned him 'don't drink, don't drink' and he drank, he is liable for each [warning].

If he was shaving all day, he is liable only once. If they warned him 'don't shave, don't shave' and he shaved, he is liable for each [warning].

If he was being Mitamei (exposing himself to Tum'as Mes) all day, he is liable only once. If they warned him 'don't be Mitamei, don't be Mitamei and he was Mitamei, he is liable for each.

(Gemara): If a Nazir was in a cemetery, R. Yochanan says, we warn him for wine and shaving (he is lashed for them).

(Reish Lakish): Since we do not warn him for Tum'ah, we do not warn him for wine [and shaving]. (NOTE: In the Vilna edition a note appears here saying that the rest of this Halachah was taught at the beginning of Perek 3 and is not repeated here. We have restored the full text, as it is printed in the Oz v'Hadar edition.)

Question: R. Yochanan contradicts himself! There (a Nazir who was becoming Tamei and drinking wine), he said that we warn him for wine, Tum'ah and shaving (even though he is already Tamei), and here he says so (we do not warn him for Tum'ah)?!

Answer (Rabanan of Kisarin): [Indeed,] they argue about everything. R. Yochanan says that we warn him for wine, Tum'ah and shaving. Reish Lakish says, since we do not warn him for Tum'ah, we do not warn him for wine and shaving.

If he remained there [in the cemetery], R. Yochanan says, we warn him for every amount of time in which he could have separated [from the Tum'ah], and he is lashed [for each warning];

R. Lazar says, he does not receive [warning - PNEI MOSHE] until he leaves and returns.

(R. Ba): So R. Yochanan challenged R. Elazar - it says "[Al Nefesh Mes] Lo Yavo; ... Lo Yitama." (The latter is extra! Rather, it teaches that one is lashed for Tum'ah even if he does not come to Tum'ah, rather, for staying in a place of Tum'ah.)

Rebuttal (R. Lazar, to R. Yochanan): No - it teaches that if they [can] warn him for Lo Yavo (i.e. now he is in a Tahor place), he is lashed. [If they could warn him only for] Lo Yitama, he is not lashed.

(R. Heila): R. Yochanan learns from bowing;

(Mishnah): If one [was Tamei in the Mikdash, b'Shogeg, and he] bowed or delayed [there] long enough to bow (he is Chayav Korban).

(R. Masniyah): We used to think that [R. Yochanan and R. Lazar] argue about lashes, but not Korban (all exempt. However,) since R. Heila said that R. Yochanan learns from bowing, this teaches that [they argue about] lashes and bowing.

Question (against R. Yochanan - Mishnah): [If a Nazir] was drinking wine the entire day, he is liable only once. (The Seifa says, if they warned him 'do not drink, do not drink', and he [begins to] drink, he is liable for each warning. We assume that he drank normally, with breaks in the middle. R. Yochanan obligates for each warning even if he transgressed continuously!)

NOTE: Above, it seems that R. Lazar learned from "Al Nefesh Mes Lo Yavo..." R. Yochanan assumes that he learns a Nazir's Isur of wine from his Isur of Tum'ah.

Answer: [R. Yochanan] explains that [this is even if] his gullet was not empty (he was drinking continuously).

Question (against R. Yochanan - Mishnah): [If a Nazir] was being Mitamei (exposing himself to Tum'as) Mes the entire day, he is liable only once. (The Seifa says, if they warned him 'do not become Tamei, do not become Tamei', and he [does an action to] become Tamei, he is liable for each warning. R. Yochanan obligates for each warning even if he transgressed continuously!)

Answer: [R. Yochanan] explains that [this is even if] he [merely] delayed. He is lashed for every [amount of time that suffices to] separate [from the Tum'ah. We explained this like KEHILAS YAKOV Nazir 18/19.]

Question (against R. Yochanan - Beraisa) Suggestion: If a Kohen was standing in a cemetery and they extended another Mes to him (other than his close relative, for whom he was allowed to become Tamei), perhaps he may receive it!

Rejection: "Lo Yitama Ba'al b'Amav."

Suggestion: If he received it, perhaps he is liable!

Rejection: [The verse concludes] "Lehechalo" - one who becomes more profaned. This excludes this case, in which he does not become more profaned. (Likewise, a Nazir who does not become more profaned should not be liable!)

Answer (R. Ze'ira citing R. Yochanan): "Lo Yitama Ba'al b'Amav" - he should not say, since I became Tamei for my father, I will gather Ploni's bones with my hand;

"Lehechalo" - at the time of death. Rebbi says, we learn this from "b'Mosan". (Rebbi holds that Lehechalo is extra, to exclude one who does not become more profaned. R. Yochanan holds like the first Tana, who uses it only to teach at the time of death.)

(R. Yochanan): [The Tana'im] argue about how to expound. (They do not argue about the Halachah; both exclude Goses.)

(Reish Lakish): They argue [about the Halachah. The first Tana holds that Lehechalo does not exclude Goses, which is at the time of death; Rebbi excludes Goses from b'Mosan.]

R. Shimon bar Va holds like Reish Lakish;

When Shimon bar Va was dying (Goses), he said 'this [Kohen Ploni] should leave [the house]. This [Kohen Almoni] should leave.'

NOTE: We explained this like OHR ZARU'A (2:426). Why didn't he tell all the Kohanim to leave at once? He himself was a Kohen (Rashi Kesuvos 23a), so his father, brother and sons were permitted. (PF) How can PNEI MOSHE explain that he commanded to remove Kelim from the house? Once he became Goses, all of them already became Tamei! If he commanded lest they become Tamei when he will die, this does not show that he holds like Reish Lakish!

If [a Kohen was Metamei for a relative, and] left and entered (was Metamei to other Mesim), R. Tarfon exempts and R. Akiva obligates. (We explained this like SEFER NIR);

Question (R. Tarfon): How does he become more profaned?

Answer (R. Akiva): When he was there, he is Tamei (and Metamei one who touches him) Tum'as Shiv'ah (he requires Haza'as Mei Chatas on days three and seven). When he separated, he is Tamei (to be Metamei one who touches him) Tum'as Erev (he immerses, and at night he is totally Tahor). If he left and returned, he [returns to be] Tamei Tum'as Shiv'ah.

R. Tarfon: Akiva, one who separates from you is like one who separates from his life!

(Rav): [The first Tana of our Mishnah means says that if one accepted Nezirus in a cemetery, and] he left, he counts Nezirus in Taharah. If he entered [the cemetery again], he brings Korban Tum'ah, [even if it is] on the same day [that he left];

[The Tana] R. Eliezer says, he does not [bring Korban Tum'ah if he returned] on that day.

Question (Kahana, to Rav): Does he not need Haza'ah on days three and seven (before counting Nezirus Taharah)?

Answer (Rav): The Torah called one who separated from a grave Tahor [even before Haza'ah] - "Acharei Taharaso Shiv'as Yamim Yisperu Lo."

(Shmuel): If he left, received Haza'as [on day three] and repeated [on day seven], immersed and entered the same day, he brings Korban Tum'ah the same day. R. Eliezer says, not on that day.

(Ula bar Yishmael): When does [R. Eliezer] argue? It is regarding a Nazir Tamei. Regarding a Nazir Tahor, even R. Eliezer agrees [that he brings Korban Tum'ah] even if there is no place for days to fall (he is not even on his second day).

Question (Shmuel bar Aba): Can one day of his Nezirus and one day of Nezirus Beno join [to two days, to bring Korban Tum'ah even according to R. Eliezer]?

NOTE: There is an implied question - what is the case that he asked about?

If his son was born today, and he entered [Ohel ha'Mes] tomorrow, there are two days to Nezirus Beno (they need not join)!

If his son was born tomorrow, there are two days to his Nezirus (they need not join)!

Answer #1 (R. Mana): The case is, [he was born] Bein ha'Shemashos (and the father became Tamei the next day).

NOTE: Perhaps we are concerned that he was born at the exact moment between day and night. Alternatively, even if we are not concerned for this, if they do not join, he cannot bring Korban Tum'ah, for it is a Safek which Nezirus had two days. (PF)

Answer #2 (R. Avin): You can even say [that he was born] at midday (and he became Tamei later that day). Do we not hold that the beginning of the day counts for him, and the end of the day counts for [Nezirus] Beno?! (If they join, it is considered that there were two days.)

(R. Yosi): About what [does Shmuel bar Aba] ask? It is regarding a Nazir Tahor. Regarding a Nazir Tamei, it is clear to him that they join. (This is unlike Ula bar Yishmael, who said that R. Eliezer argues about a Nazir Tamei, but no one requires two days for a Nazir Tahor who became Tamei.)

Question (R. Mana, to R. Yosi): Does a Kal v'Chomer not teach this? [Tamei] days that do not count for his Nezirus, and not for Nezirus Beno, you say that they join. [Tahor] days that count for his Nezirus, and not for Nezirus Beno, all the more so they should join!

Answer (R. Yosi): (This is not a Kal v'Chomer.) There, he is not proper to receive warning (for he is already Tamei, therefore nothing separates his Nezirus from Nezirus Beno). Here (when he is Tahor), he is proper to receive warning (for the Nezirus he observes, so they are separate; perhaps they do not join.)

Question (R. Bun bar Chiyah): Just like you say there according to R. Eliezer at the beginning, there must be [days] to fall, (if he became Tamei) at the end, [does he hold] even if there are no [remaining days] to fall?

Answer (R. Ze'ira, in front of R. Mana): Do we not learn this from our Mishnah? If he became Tamei on day 100, he canceled everything. R. Eliezer says, he canceled only 30. (We explained this like SEFER NIR.)

Rebuttal (R. Mana): We learn [from there] that he cancels. Do we learn [from there] that he brings Korban Tum'ah?!

If there were two flasks in front of him, one of water and one of wine, and he took and drank the one of water, and they told him 'know that what you drink [now] is of water. If you will drink the one of wine, there are 10 k'Zeisim in it, you will be liable 10 sets of lashes, this is not acceptance of Hasra'ah (for it is not at the time he transgresses);

However, if there was one flask of wine, and he began to drink it, and they told him 'know that if you will drink all of it, there are 10 k'Zeisim in it, you will be liable 10 sets of lashes, this is acceptance of Hasra'ah.

If there were two roasting spits in front of him, one of Shechutah (slaughtered meat) and one of Neveilah, and he took and ate the one of Shechutah, and they told him 'know that what you eat [now] is of Shechutah. If you will eat the one of Neveilah, there are 10 k'Zeisim in it, you will be liable 10 sets of lashes, this is not acceptance of Hasra'ah;

However, if there was one spit, and he began to eat it, and they told him 'know that if you will eat all of it, there are 10 k'Zeisim in it, you will be liable 10 sets of lashes, this is acceptance of Hasra'ah.