Nazir 29B

לא, אם אמרת בזכר ⁠— שכן איסור אחד, תאמר בנקבה ⁠— ששני איסורין.

No, you cannot make this claim, because if you say that this is true with regard to a male, when bringing his offering involves only one uncertain prohibition, i.e., that he might be bringing non-sacred animals into the Temple courtyard, should you also say that this is the case with regard to a female, whose case includes two prohibitions? This concludes the baraita.

מאי שני איסורין? לאו איסור נבילה וחולין בעזרה? מתקיף לה רב אחא בריה דרב איקא: ודילמא מיחייב עליה, משום דמיתחזי כתרין איסורין מדרבנן!

The Talmud asks: What are these two prohibitions? Are they not the prohibition against consuming an unslaughtered animal carcass by eating a bird killed by pinching, and the prohibition against bringing non-sacred animals into the Temple courtyard? This shows that the prohibition against bringing non-sacred animals into the Temple courtyard applies by Torah law according to the opinion of R' Yosei, son of R' Yehuda. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, objects to this: And perhaps one is not liable for these prohibitions by Torah law, rather, the baraita means that one is liable for this because it appears like two Torah prohibitions, although they actually apply only by rabbinic law.

לימא כתנאי: עד מתי מדיר את בנו בנזיר ⁠— עד שיביא שתי שערות, דברי רבי. רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר: עד שיגיע לעונת נדרים.

§ The Talmud returns to the question of whether the ruling that a man can impose naziriteship on his son is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai or whether it is part of the boy’s education. Let us say that this is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im. As it is taught: Until when can a father vow that his son should be a nazirite? It is until the son develops two pubic hairs; this is the statement of R' Yehuda HaNasi. R' Yosei, son of R' Yehuda, says: It is until he reaches the age of vows, usually approximately a year earlier, when he demonstrates an understanding of the nature of vows. If he vows at that age and comprehends the significance of his utterance, his vow is valid.