Nazir 4B

ואינו מביא קרבן טומאה.

but he does not bring the offering for impurity.

קרבן הוא דלא מייתי, אבל נזירות חיילא עליה.

The Talmud comments: From the words: But if he becomes impure he does not bring an offering for impurity, one can infer that it is the offering that he does not bring. However, all of the prohibitions of naziriteship apply to him, and it is prohibited for him to become impure from a corpse.

מני מתניתין? לא רבי יהודה, ולא רבי שמעון. דתניא, רבי יהודה אומר: נזיר שמשון ⁠— מותר ליטמא למתים, שכן מצינו בשמשון שנטמא. רבי שמעון אומר: האומר ״נזיר שמשון״⁠ — לא אמר כלום, שלא מצינו בשמשון שיצאת נזירות מפיו.

This leads to the following question: Whose opinion is expressed in the Mishnah? It is not the opinion of R' Yehuda and not the opinion of R' Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita: R' Yehuda says: A nazirite like Samson is permitted to become impure from a corpse ab initio, as we find with Samson that he became impure. R' Shimon says: One who says he will be a nazirite like Samson has not said anything, since we do not find with Samson that an utterance of a vow of naziriteship left his mouth. Samson never took a vow to be a nazirite. He received his status from the angel’s instructions to his mother (see Judges 13:5). Consequently, R' Shimon holds that one who vows to be a nazirite like Samson is not considered to have taken a nazirite vow.

מני? אי רבי יהודה ⁠— האמר אפילו לכתחילה, ומתניתין קתני ״אם נטמא״. אי רבי שמעון ⁠— האמר לא חיילא עליה נזירות כלל!

The Talmud explains the question: Whose opinion is expressed in the Mishnah? If it is the opinion of R' Yehuda, didn’t he say that it is permitted for a nazirite of this kind to become impure from a corpse even ab initio, but the Mishnah teaches: If he becomes impure, which indicates that he is prohibited from doing so ab initio? However, if you say that the Mishnah is according to the opinion of R' Shimon, didn’t he say that naziriteship does not apply to him at all?