Nazir

R. Hiyya taught [the following differences: The leper polls] before bathing, [the unclean nazirite] after bathing; the former before the sprinkling of the blood, the [clean nazirite] after the sprinkling of the blood. SINCE POLLING ON ACCOUNT OF [LEPROUS] DISEASE etc. Rami b. Hama propounded: Are the four pollings required  for carrying out a religious duty,  or whether they are merely in order to remove defiled hair?  The practical issue is whether this may be removed with nasha.  For if we say that they are a religious duty It would not be permitted to treat [the hair] with nasha, whereas if their purpose is simply the removal of defiled hair, treatment with nasha would be permitted. What, then, is the law? — Raba replied: Come and hear: And he is required to undergo four pollings.  Now if you assume that their purpose is simply the removal of defiled hair, three [pollings] alone should suffice.  Hence you may prove that they are [all] a religious duty. This proves It. MISHNAH. GENTILES HAVE NO [COMPETENCE FOR] NAZIRITESHIP,  BUT WOMEN AND SLAVES  HAVE. THE NAZIRITE VOW IS MORE STRINGENT IN THE CASE OF WOMEN THAN IN THE CASE OF SLAVES, FOR A MAN CAN COMPEL HIS SLAVE [TO BREAK HIS VOW]  BUT HE CANNOT COMPEL HIS WIFE [TO DO SO]. GEMARA. The Mishnah teaches that GENTILES HAVE NO [COMPETENCE FOR] NAZIRITESHIP [etc.]. How do we know this? — For our Rabbis taught: [Scripture says] Speak unto the children of Israel,  but not to Gentiles; and say unto them, thereby including slaves. But what need is there of a Verse,  Seeing that there is a principle that every precept incumbent on women is also incumbent on slaves?  — Raba replied: [Naziriteship] is different [from other laws]. For there is a verse, [When a man voweth a vow] to bind his soul with a bond,  which thus refers to one who is his own master  and excludes slaves who are not their own masters.  Now because [slaves] are not their own masters it might be thought that they are precluded from making nazirite-vows  and so we are told [this is not so]. The Master stated: 'Speak in to the children  of Israel but not to Gentiles.' But does the mention of Israel always exclude Gentiles?  Is there not written in connection with 'Arakin,  Speak unto the children of Israel,  and yet it has been taught: 'Israelites can vow 'Arakin but not Gentiles. It might be thought that [Gentiles] cannot be the subject of 'Arakin vows either,  but the verse says A man'?  — [Naziriteship] is different, for here there is a verse, He shall not make himself unclean for his father or his mother,  which shows that [the passage] is referring to such as have a [legal] father,  and thus excluding Gentiles who have no [legal] father. In what respect have Gentiles no father? Shall I say it is as regards inheritance?  Surely R. Hiyya b. Abin, citing R. Johanan has said that a Gentile inherits his father in Torah-law, for there is a verse, Because I have given Mount Seir to Esau for an [inheritance]!  — You must therefore mean that such as are bound to honour their fathers [are referred to].  But does it say Honour thy father in connection with nazirites?  — We must therefore say that the verse, 'He shall not make himself unclean for his father or his mother' shows that only those to whom [the laws of] defilement apply [can assume naziriteship]