Nazir

[You say that the nazirite like Samson] does not have to offer the sacrifice [prescribed] for defilement,  enabling me to infer that he is subject to the nazirite obligation [which forbids him to defile himself]. Who then is [the author of] our Mishnah, [seeing that] it can be neither R. Judah nor R. Simeon? For it has been taught: R. Judah said that a nazirite like Samson is permitted to defile himself [deliberately, by contact] with the dead, for Samson himself did so; R. Simeon says that if a man declares. '[I intend to be] a nazirite like Samson,' his statement is of no effect, since we are not aware that Samson personally ever pronounced a nazirite vow.  [We ask then:] Who [is the author of our Mishnah]? It cannot be R. Judah, for he says that [a nazirite like Samson] may even [defile himself] intentionally. whereas our Mishnah [merely] states [that no sacrifice need be offered] if he has become defiled [accidentally]; nor can it be R. Simeon since he says that the vow does not become operative at all! — Actually it is R. Judah [and the nazirite like Samson is permitted to defile himself] but because in referring to the life-nazirite,  the Mishnah uses the expression 'SHOULD HE BE [RITUALLY] DEFILED.' the same expression is used in referring to the nazirite like Samson. May we say that the difference [of R. Judah and R. Simeon] is essentially the same as that of the following Tannaim? For it has been taught: [If a man says.] 'This [food] shall be [as forbidden] for me as a firstling,'  R. Jacob says he may not eat it, but R. Jose says he may.  May we not say then that R. Judah agrees with R. Jacob in holding that the object [with which the comparison is made,]  need not itself be one forbidden as the result of a vow, whilst R. Simeon agrees with R. Jose in holding that the object [with which comparison is made] must be one forbidden as the result of a vow? — This is not so. Both [R. Judah and R. Simeon] are agreed that it is necessary for the object [with which comparison Is made] to be one forbidden as the result of a vow, but the case of the firstling is different, since in the verse, [When a man voweth a vow]  unto the Lord,  [the superfluous words 'unto the Lord'] include the firstling  [as a legitimate object of comparison]. What does R. Jose reply [to this argument]? — He will say that the expression 'unto the Lord' serves to include the sin-offering and the guilt-offering  [but not the firstling]. [We may ask him:] On what ground, then, are the sin-offering and the guilt-offering included rather than the firstling? — [He would reply:] The sin-offering and the guilt-offering are included because they have to be expressly dedicated,  but the firstling is excluded since it need not be expressly dedicated. And R. Jacob? — He can rejoin: Firstlings too, are expressly dedicated, for it has been taught: [The members] of our Teacher's household  used to say: How do we know that when a firstling is born in a man's flock, it is his duty to dedicate it expressly [for the altar]? Because it says, The males shalt thou dedicate.  And R. Jose? — He can reply: Granted that it is a religious duty to dedicate it [expressly], yet if he fails to do so, is it not nevertheless sacred? [It may be said:] In the case of the nazirite, too, is there not a phrase 'Into the Lord'?  — This is required for the purpose taught [in the following passage]: Simon the Just  said: In the whole of my life, I ate of the guilt-offering of a defiled nazirite [only once].  This man who came to me from the South country, had beauteous eyes and handsome features with his locks heaped into curls. I asked him: 'Why, my son, didst thou resolve to destroy such wonderful hair?' He answered: 'In my native town. I was my father's shepherd, and, on going down to draw water from the well, I used to gaze at my reflection [in its waters]. Then my evil inclination assailed me, seeking to compass my ruin,  and so I said to it, "Base wretch! Why dost thou plume thyself on a world that is not thine own, for thy latter end is with worms and maggots. I swear  I shall shear these locks to the glory of Heaven!"' Then I rose, and kissed him upon his head. and said to him: 'Like unto thee, may there be many nazirites in Israel. Of such as thou art, does the verse say, When a man shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite to consecrate himself unto the Lord.' But was not Samson a nazirite [in the ordinary sense]?  Surely the verse states, For the child shall be a nazirite into God from the womb!  — It was the angel who said this. How do we know that [Samson] did defile himself [by contact] with the dead? Shall I say, because it is written, With the jawbone of an ass have I smitten a thousand men,  but it is possible that he thrust it at them without touching them? But [we know it] again from the following. And smote thirty men of then and took their spoil.  But it is possible that he stripped them first and slew them afterwards? — It says clearly [first]. And he smote, [and then,] And took. But it is still possible that he [merely] wounded them mortally  [before stripping them]! — [We must say], therefore, that it was known by tradition [that he did come into contact with them]. Where does it state [in the Scriptures] that a life-nazirite [may thin his hair]? — It has been taught: Rabbi said that Absalom was a life-nazirite, for it says, And it came to pass at the end of forty years that Absalom said to the king: [pray thee, let me go and pay my vow which I have vowed unto the Lord in Hebron.  He used to cut his hair every twelve months, for it says. [And when he polled his head,] now it was at every year's [yamim] end [that he polled it],