Talmud zu Makkot 3:21

HALAKHAH: “If a woman had made a vow of nazir,” etc. Biblical whippings are 39 lashes⁴³Mishnah Makkot 3:10.. One evaluates him; if he can stand it, one whips him, if not, one does not whip him. Blows of rebelliousness: one strikes him until he accepts⁴⁴To follow rabbinic rules. or until he dies.

MISHNAH: A nazir who was drinking wine all day long is guilty only once. If he was told “do not drink, do not drink” and he did drink, he is guilty for each single infraction¹⁷⁰If he was duly warned once by two witnesses, he can be prosecuted and punished for one offense.
If he was repeatedly warned and flouted each warning, he can be prosecuted for disregarding each warning separately. The same rules apply for all three prohibitions imposed on a nazir..
One who shaved all day long is guilty only once. If he was told “do not shave, do not shave” and he did shave, he is guilty for each single infraction.
One who defiled himself for the dead all day long is guilty only once. If he was told “do not defile yourself, do not defile yourself” and he did defile himself, he is guilty for each single infraction.

HALAKHAH: “An oath that I shall not drink,” etc. In this case⁴⁷In Mishnah 5., Rebbi Simeon declares not liable. Rebbi Simeon follows his own opinion, as we have stated there⁴⁸Mishnah Makkot3:2 Notes 27–32. Tevel is produce from which heave and the heave of tithe have not been removed, whose consumption except at harvest time is a deadly sin.: “How much does he have to eat from ṭevel to be liable? Rebbi Simeon says, anything⁴⁹In R. Simeon’s opinion, biblical prohibitions are absolute, but infringing on a prohibition in a minute amount, for edibles less than the size of an olive, does not trigger the obligation of a sacrifice. Babli 24a.; but the Sages say, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Simeon told them, do you not agree that one who eats an ant is liable? They told him, because it is a creature. He answered them, also a grain of wheat is a creature⁵⁰He does not defend his point of view but shows his opponents that even in their opinion a complete fruit or animal is biblically forbidden even if it is smaller than an olive but still visible with the naked eye. This is accepted as practice, cf. Berakhot6:1, Notes 14–18..” In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, why does Rebbi Simeon declare not liable? Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rebbi Simeon follows his own opinion. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: You shall deprive yourselves⁵¹Lev. 16:29., of what is permitted to you, not of what is forbidden to you⁵²Eating non-kosher food violates a simple prohibition; breaking the fast on the Day of Atonement is a severe sin subjecting the unrepentant sinner to extirpation. R. Simeon declares eating non-kosher food on the Day of Atonement as violation of a simple prohibition (which if committed inadvertently does not make the perpetrator liable for a sacrifice). If the stringent prohibition of the Day of Atonement does not include forbidden food then an oath which never can lead to extirpation cannot include forbidden food either..

HALAKHAH: “If somebody made a vow of nazir while he was in a cemetery,” etc. If he made the vow while he was among grave sites⁵⁸He is not in an open cemetery but in a graveyard consisting of burial caves. A cave forms a “tent”; the impurity of the dead is transmitted by the tent even without any touching (Num. 19:14). But in the open space before the caves, no impurity is transmitted; it is possible there to start a vow of nazir. It is assumed that the person making the vow participated in a burial and is impure at the moment of the vow., Rebbi Joḥanan said, one warns him about wine and shaving⁵⁹It is impossible to require that he be pure from the moment of the vow, since he is impure. R. Joḥanan holds that in all other respects the vow is valid immediately.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, since one cannot warn him because of impurity, one does not warn him about wine and shaving⁶⁰For him, the vow is suspended until the nazir has undergone the ritual of purification; once he is pure he can be punished for drinking wine or shaving.. The argument of Rebbi Joḥanan seems inverted. There⁶¹Halakhah 6:4. The text there consists simply of a referral to the present Halakhah. A nazir who does not observe the rules of nezirut has to be warned and can be punished for every infringement. There, R. Joḥanan requires that even a nazir who comes to drink wine has to be warned about wine, impurity, and shaving. Then it should be impossible to punish a nazir for infringing the rules of wine and shaving, if he is not punishable for impurity., he says, one warns him about wine, impurity, and shaving. And here, he says so? The rabbis from Caesarea: They disagree about the whole, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, one warns him about wine and shaving⁶²It is understood: because from the start one also warns him about impurity.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, since one cannot warn him because of impurity, one does not warn him either about wine or about shaving.

HALAKHAH: “Everybody who keeps one commandment they treat well,” etc. ⁶⁴⁹Mishnah Makkot 3:17.“Therefore anybody who is passive and refrains from sinning they reward like one who fulfills a commandment,” and you say so⁶⁵⁰Mishnah Makkot contradicts the Mishnah here since there one is rewarded for not sinning while here one is only rewarded for doing good.? But we hold with one who is 50–50⁶⁵¹In the Heavenly accounting, he collected as many merits as demerits. If he now collects one merit, he is one of the Just and takes his place in Paradise; if he sins once he is of the sinners and has lost his share in the Future Life. If he does not do anything, his fate remains suspended; cf. Babli 39b.. If he keeps one commandment, they treat him well and prolong his life; he will inherit the Land. But if he commits one sin, they do not treat him well, do not prolong his life, and he does not inherit the Land. There⁶⁴⁹Mishnah Makkot 3:17., we have stated: “Therefore anybody who is passive and refrains from sinning they reward like one who fulfills a commandement.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, one who had occasion to commit a possible sin and did not act⁶⁵²He refrained from acting out of religious scruple when there was a possibility that the intended act was permitted because possibly it was forbidden. His inaction is a very meritorious act.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one who chose one commandment which he never violated in his lifetime. What kind? Mar Uqban said, for example the honor of father and mother⁶⁵³Which is extremely difficult to keep at all times; cf. Halakhah 7.. Rebbi Mana said, “Happy are those on a straight path, who walk in the Eternal’s Torah⁶⁵⁴Ps. 119:1. If they walk in the Eternal’s Torah, they certainly are on the right path. The verse can only mean that somebody choosing the right path, even if he is far from being perfect, is considered walking totally in the Eternal’s Torah. This gives a biblical source for the Mishnah.,” as if they did walk in the Eternal’s Torah. Rebbi Abun said, “Also they did no evil, in His path they went,” as if they went in His path⁶⁵⁵Ps. 119:3. In order to be counted with those who walk in the Eternal’s way it is enough to refrain from evil; this explains the Mishnah in Makkot.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, what is written? “⁶⁵⁶Ps. 1:1. The argument is better in the Genizah text: “It does not say, ‘Happy the man who walks in the council of the just,’ but …” Happy the man who did not walk in the council of the wicked;” since he did not walk in the council of the wicked it is as if he walked in the council of the just.