The Gemara explains: Rabbi Eliezer holds that when anyone becomes ritually impure after the completion of his term of naziriteship, but before he brought his offerings, only seven days are negated, and the thirtieth day is after the completion of his term. The mishna then teaches that one who said: I am hereby a nazirite for thirty days, and became impure on the thirtieth day, it negates the entire tally. Rabbi Eliezer does not disagree in this case, since it is an instance where he explicitly said that he accepts naziriteship on himself for a full thirty days, and his ritual impurity therefore occurs during his naziriteship period.

The mishna also taught that if one said: I am hereby a nazirite for one hundred days, and he became impure on the one hundredth day, it negates the entire tally. Rabbi Eliezer says it negates only thirty. And this entire mishna should be explained as we discussed it, in accordance with the opinions of bar Padda and Rav Mattana earlier (5a–6b).

MISHNA: One who took a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery, even if he was there for a full thirty days without leaving, those days he spent in the cemetery do not count as part of his tally, since his naziriteship has not yet gone into effect. And he therefore does not bring the three offerings of impurity, brought by a nazirite when rendered ritually impure by contact with a corpse, despite having been in a cemetery. If he left the cemetery and entered it again, those days do count as part of his tally, meaning the naziriteship takes effect, and he does bring the offerings of impurity for reentering the cemetery.

Rabbi Eliezer says: This halakha does not apply to one who entered the cemetery on the very day that he left it, as it is stated with regard to the halakhot of a ritually impure nazirite: “But the first days shall be void” (Numbers 6:12), which indicates that he does not bring the offerings until he will have “first days” of purity, during which he observed his naziriteship.

GEMARA: It was stated that the amora’im disagree with regard to one who vowed to be a nazirite while in a cemetery. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Naziriteship takes effect for him, and Reish Lakish said: Naziriteship does not take effect for him. The Gemara clarifies their respective opinions: Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said naziriteship takes effect for him, holds that from the moment he accepts naziriteship upon himself it is pending, so that when it is found that he is in a state of ritual purity it takes immediate effect. The vow registers from when he states it, but it cannot take effect in practice as long as he stands in a ritually impure location. And Reish Lakish said that naziriteship does not take effect for him at all. Consequently, if he again said after leaving the cemetery that he accepts a vow of naziriteship, it takes effect for him; but if he does not repeat his vow, he is not a nazirite.

Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from the mishna: One who took a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery, even if he was there for a full thirty days without leaving, those days he spent in the cemetery do not count as part of the tally, since his naziriteship has not yet gone into effect. And he therefore does not bring the offerings of impurity despite having been in a cemetery. Rabbi Yoḥanan infers from this: It is the offerings of impurity that he does not bring, but as far as the issue of the naziriteship taking effect, it does take effect for him. Reish Lakish said to him: It means he is not included in the law of prohibited ritual impurity, and therefore he is not included in the law of the offerings. He is not a nazirite at all.

Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from what was taught in a baraita (Tosefta 2:14): One who was impure and took a vow of naziriteship must still observe the halakhot of a nazirite: He is prohibited from shaving, and from drinking wine, and from becoming impure from a corpse. And if he shaved, or if he drank wine, or if he became impure from a corpse, he incurs [sofeg] the forty lashes administered to one who actively transgresses a negative Torah prohibition. Rabbi Yoḥanan asks: Granted, if you say that naziriteship takes effect despite his ritual impurity, that is the reason that he incurs the forty lashes, similar to any nazirite who transgresses the prohibitions of naziriteship. But if you say the naziriteship does not take effect while he is ritually impure, why does he incur the forty lashes?