Nedarim

R. Aha b. Jacob said: E.g., if one takes a nazirite vow whilst in a cemetery.  This agrees with the view that the naziriteship is not immediately binding. But on the view that it is immediately valid, is then, 'he shall not delay,' applicable?  Moreover, Mar, son of R. Ashi, said: The vow is immediately valid, and they differ  only on the question of flagellation? — Nevertheless he violates, 'thou shalt not delay,' because the [ritually] clean naziriteship is delayed. R. Ashi said: Since this is so, [it follows that] if a nazir intentionally defiles himself, he transgresses thou shalt not delay in respect to [the recommencement of] the clean naziriteship. R. Aha, the son of R. Ika, said: He  might transgress 'that shalt not delay' in respect to shaving.  Now, this goes without saying according to the view that shaving is indispensable,  but even on the view that the shaving is not a bar [to the sacrifices], nevertheless he does not observe the precept of shaving. Mar Zutra the son of R. Mari said: He might violate 'Thou shalt not delay' in respect to his sacrifices. Is this deduced from here; surely, it is rather inferred from elsewhere: [When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord, thou shalt not slack to pay it, for the Lord thy God] will surely require it of thee:  this refers to sin-offerings and trespass-offerings?  — I might say that the Torah set up an anomaly  in the case of nazir.  What is the anomaly? Shall we say, the fact that a vow to bring the sin-offering of a nazir  is invalid: but a sin-offering for heleb  cannot be made obligatory by a vow,  yet one transgresses, 'thou shalt not delay'? But the anomaly is this: I might have thought, since even if one says, 'I will be a nazir only with respect to the kernels of grapes,'  he is a nazir in all respects. I would think that he does not violate, Thou shalt not delay'; therefore we are told [otherwise].  Now, this is well according to the opinion that a vow of naziriteship in respect of the kernels of grapes makes one a nazir in all respects; but on the view of R. Simeon, viz., that one is not a nazir unless he separates himself from all, what can be said? Moreover, this is an anomaly in the direction of greater stringency?  — But the anomaly is this: I might have thought, since