5. 1. The School of Shammai say: If a thing is dedicated in error its dedication is binding.1 And the School of Hillel say: It is not binding. Thus if a man said, ‘The black ox that first comes out of my house shall be dedicated’, and a white one came out,2 the School of Shammai say: Its dedication is binding. And the School of Hillel say: It is not binding.
2. [If he said,] ‘The golden denar that first comes to my hand shall be dedicated’, and a silver denar came to his hand, the School of Shammai say: Its dedication is binding. And the School of Hillel say: It is not binding. [If he said,] ‘The jar of wine that first comes to my hand shall be dedicated’, and a jar of oil came to his hand, the School of Shammai sav: Its dedication is binding. And the School of Hillel say: It is not binding.
3. If a man vowed to be a Nazirite and he inquired of a Sage, and he declared the vow binding, he must count [the thirty days] from the time when he vowed. If he inquired of a Sage, and he declared it not binding, and he had cattle already assigned [for the three offerings], they may go forth and pasture with the flock. The School of Hillel said to the School of Shammai: Do ye not admit that here, although it is a thing dedicated in error, it should go forth and pasture with the flock? The School of Shammai answered: Do ye not admit that if a man erred and called the ninth [of the herd] the tenth, or the tenth the ninth, or the eleventh the tenth, its dedication is binding?3 The School of Hillel answered: It is not the rod that has dedicated them: what if he erred and laid the rod on the eighth or the twelfth: would he have done aught at all? — but, rather, the Scripture which declared ‘the tenth’ holy, has declared the ninth and the eleventh holy also.4 4. If a man vowed to be a Nazirite, and he went to bring his cattle and found that they had been stolen, and he had made his Nazirite-vow before they were stolen, his vow is binding: but if he had made his Nazirite-vow after they were stolen, his vow is not binding. A like error befell Nahum the Mede when Nazirites came up from the Exile [to Jerusalem] and found the Temple destroyed. Nahum the Mede said to them, Would ye have vowed to be Nazirites had ye knowrn that the Temple was destroyed? They answered, No. And Nahum the Mede released them from their vow. But when the matter came before the Sages they said to him: If any man vowed to be a Nazirite before the Temple was destroyed, h;s Nazirite- vow remains binding; but if he vowed after the Temple was destroyed, his Nazirite-vow is not binding.
5. If [six] persons were on a journey and another came towards them, and one of them said, ‘May I be a Nazirite if this is such-a-one!’ and 1 I.cv. 27'*. 2 And he dedicated this.
5 As the Tithe of Cattle. Lev. 2735. See Bckh. g7.
1 If they are, even in error, styled 'the tenth’.
another said, ‘May I be a Nazirite if this is not such-a-one!’ [and a third said], ‘May 1 be a Nazirite if one of you is a Nazirite!’ [and a fourth said,] ‘May I be a Nazirite if one of you is not a Nazirite!’ [and a fifth said,] . if ye both are Nazirites!’ [and a sixth said,]. if ye are all of you Nazirites!’ according to the School of Shammai they are all Nazirites; and according to the School of Hillel none of them is a Nazirite excepting him whose words are not1 confirmed. But R. Tarfon says: None of them is a Nazirite.
6. If he turned away suddenly, none of them is a Nazirite. R. Simeon says: [Each] one [of them] should say, If it was according to my words I will be a Nazirite in duty bound; but if not, I will be a Nazirite of free choice!’
7. If one man saw a koyz and said, ‘May I be a Nazirite if this is a wild animal!’ [and another said], ‘May I be a Nazirite if this is not a wild animal!’ [and a third said], ‘May I be a Nazirite if this is a tame beast!’ [and a fourth said], ‘May I be a Nazirite if this is not a tame beast!’ [and a fifth said,] ‘May I be a Nazirite if this is both a wild animal and a tame beast!’ [and a sixth said,] ‘May I be a Nazirite if this is neither a wild animal nor a tame beast!’ [and then one of another party said,] ‘May I be a Nazirite if one of you is a Nazirite!’ [and another said,] ‘May I be a Nazirite if none of you is a Nazirite!’ [and a third said,] ‘May I be a Nazirite if ye are all Nazirites!’ — then are they all Nazirites.
6. 1. Three things are forbidden to the Nazirite: uncleanness,3 cutting off the hair, and aught that comes from the vine. Whatsoever comes from the vine can be included together,4 and he is not culpable unless he eats an olive’s bulk of what comes from the grapes. The First Mishnah5 [taught]: ‘...unless he drinks a quarter-/og of wine’. R. Akiba says: Even if he soaks his bread in wine and there is enough to make up together an olive’s bulk he is culpable.
2. He may become culpable by reason of wine by itself, or grapes by themselves, or grape-stones ( hartzarmim ) by themselves, or grape-skins (zagim) by themselves. But R. Eleazar b. Azariah says: He does not become culpable unless he eats two grape-stones together with the skins. What is meant hyharthannim, and what is meant by zagim? Hartzarmim are what is outside ( hitzonim ), and zagim are what is inside. So R. Judah. But R. Jose says: That thou mayest not err — it is, rather, like the bell (zug) of cattle: what is outside is called the zug (the hood), and what is inside is called inbal (the clapper).
3. A Nazirite-vow that is vowed without a fixed duration is binding for thirty days. If he cut off his hair himself or if robbers cut it off, it makes the thirty days of none effect. If a Nazirite cut off his hair with shears or with a razor or pulled out any hair soever, he is culpable. A Nazirite may rub or scratch his hair but he may not comb it. R. Ishmael says: He may not rub it with earth since it makes the hair fall out.
4. If6 a Nazirite drank wine throughout the day he is liable only on one count. If they said to him [repeatedly], ‘Do not drink! Do not drink!’ and he nevertheless drank, he is liable on each count. If he cut off his 1 The course of the Mishnah’s discussion is so involved that it is disputed in the Gemara (33a) whether the ‘not’ is correct or not. 1 App. I. 19. Sec Bikk. 2*.
3 Contracted from a corpse.
4 To make up the total quantity of an olive’s bulk by eating which the Nazirite becomes liable to punishment by the Forty Stripes. 3 See p. 251, n. 4. 6 Makk. y.
THIRD DIVISION: NASHIM hair throughout the day, he is liable only on one count. If they said to him [repeatedly], ‘Do not cut it off! Do not cut it off!’ and he nevertheless cut it off, he is liable on each count. If he contracted uncleanness because of the dead throughout the day, he is liable only on one count. If they said to him [repeatedly], ‘Do not contract uncleanness! Do not contract uncleanness!’ and he nevertheless contracted uncleanness, he is liable on each count.
5. Three things are forbidden to the Nazirite: uncleanness, cutting off the hair, and aught that comes from the vine. Greater stringency applies to uncleanness and cutting off the hair than to what comes from the vine, in that uncleanness and cutting off the hair make [the days already ful¬ filled] of none effect, hut what comes from the vine does not make [the days already fulfilled] of none effect. Greater stringency applies to what comes from the vine than to uncleanness and cutting off the hair, in that for what comes from the vine no exception is permitted, but for unclean¬ ness and cutting off the hair exceptions are permitted, as when cutting off the hair1 or the burying of a corpse are enjoined in the Law.2 And greater stringency applies to uncleanness than to cutting off the hair, in that uncleanness makes the whole [of the days fulfilled] of none effect, and he is thereby made liable to an offering;2 whereas cutting off the hair makes only thirty days of none effect and he is not thereby made liable to an offering.
6. What was the rite prescribed for the cutting off of the hair after con¬ tracting uncleanness? He was sprinkled on the third and the seventh day,4 he cut off his hair on the seventh day and brought his offerings5 on the eighth day; but if he cut off his hair6 on the eighth day he brought his offerings on the same day. So R. Akiba. R. Tarfon said to him: How does he differ from the leper?7 He answered: His cleansing is suspended [only] until [the passing of] the days prescribed for him, while the cleansing of the leper is suspended until he cuts off his hair, and he may not bring the offering until he has awaited sunset.8 7. What was the rite prescribed for the cutting off of the hair [after the vow was fulfilled] in cleanness? He brought three beasts:9 a Sin-offering, a Whole-offering, and a Peace-offering; and he slaughtered the Peace¬ offering and thereupon cut off his hair. So R. Judah. R. Eliezer says: He cut off his hair only at [the time of] the Sin-offering, since the Sin- offering has always priority;10 but if he cut off his hair at [the time of] any of the three offerings he has fulfilled his obligation.
8. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: If he brought the three beasts but had not assigned [each to its purpose], what is fit for a Sin-offering is offered as a Sin-offering, and what is fit for a Whole-offering is offered as a Whole¬ offering, and what is fit for a Peace-offering is offered as a Peace-offering. Then he takes the hair of the head of his separation11 and casts it under the cauldron. But if he cut off his hair [outside the Temple] in the City12 he : If he was a leper, the cutting off of the hair (Lev. 14') overrides the observance of the Naairitc-vow. See below, 85.
z Lit. ‘a corpse of religious duty’ (meth nritzwah). If a corpse was found lying neglected with none to bury it (i.e. it was not among its people, Lev. 21 *) even a priest must contract uncleanness because of it and bury it. See below, 71. J Num. 6*' u.
4 With 'Sin-offering water’ (R.V. mg., water of expiation); Num. 19 ul. See tractate Parah. s Num. 6,,H. 6 Num. 6*. 7 Lev. 14**.
s Like all who must immerse themselves because of uncleanness; cf. Lev. it2*1.
does not1 cast it under the cauldron. This applies to the cutting off of the hair [after the vow wras fulfilled in) cleanness; but at the cutting off of the hair after contracting uncleanness, he does not cast the hair under the cauldron. R. Meir says: All cast their hair under the cauldron excepting him that was unclean [and cut off his hair outside the Temple] in the City.
9. When he had cooked or seethed the Peace-offering, the priest took the sodden shoulder of the ram and one unleavened cake out of the basket and one unleavened wafer and put them upon the hands of the Nazirite 2 and waved them. Thenceforth the Nazirite is permitted to drink wine and to contract uncleanness because of the dead. R. Simeon says: When once the blood of one of the offerings has been tossed for him [against the Altar] the Nazirite is permitted to drink wine and to contract uncleanness because of the dead.
10. If he cut off his hair after one of the offerings and this was found invalid, the cutting off of his hair also becomes invalid and his offerings are not reckoned to his credit. If he cut off his hair after a Sin-offering that had not been so assigned, and he then brought the other offerings each properly assigned, the cutting off of his hair is invalid and his offer¬ ings are not reckoned to his credit. If he cut off his hair after a Whole¬ offering or a Peace-offering that had not been so assigned, and he then brought his other offerings each properly assigned, the cutting off of his hair is invalid and his offerings are not reckoned to his credit. R. Simeon says: That single offering is not reckoned to his credit but the other offerings are reckoned to his credit. But if he cut off his hair after all of the three offerings and one [only] of them was found valid, the cutting off of his hair is valid, and he need but bring the other offerings afresh.
ix. If the blood of one of the offerings was tossed for him [against the Altar] and he contracted uncleanness, R. Eliezer says: This makes the whole of none effect. But the Sages say: He may bring the rest of the offerings when he is become clean. They said to him: It once happened to Miriam of Palmyra that the blood of one of the offerings was tossed for her [against the Altar], and certain came and told her that her daughter was in danger, and she went and found that she was dead, and the Sages said: Let her bring the rest of the offerings when she is become clean.
7, 1. A High Priest1 or a Nazirite4 may not contract uncleanness because of their [dead] kindred, but they may contract uncleanness because of a neglected corpse.5 If they were on a journey and found a neglected corpse, R. Eliezer says: The High Priest may contract uncleanness but the Nazirite may not contract uncleanness. But the Sages say: The Nazirite may contract uncleanness but the High Priest may not contract uncleanness. R. Eliezer said to them: Rather let the priest contract uncleanness for he needs not to bring an offering because of his uncleanness, and let not the Nazirite contract uncleanness for he must bring an offering because of his uncleanness.6 They answered: Rather let the Nazirite contract un- cleanness, for his sanctity is not a lifelong sanctity, and let not the priest contract uncleanness, for his sanctity is a lifelong sanctity.
2. Because of these7 uncleannesses must the Nazirite cut off his hair: < Some texts omit the negative. * Num. 6”. J Lev. 2 1". 4 Num. 6‘.
290 THIRD DIVISION: NASHIM [uncleanness contracted from] a corpse, or an olive’s bulk [of the flesh] of a corpse, or an olive’s bulk of corpse-dregs, or a ladleful of corpse- mould, or the backbone or the skull or any [severed] member of a corpse, or any [severed] member of a living man that still bears its proper flesh, or a hai f-kab1 of bones, or a hal f-log' of blood, whether [the uncleanness is contracted] from contact with them or carrying them or by over¬ shadowing;2 or [uncleanness contracted from] a barleycorn’s bulk of bone whether by contact or carrying. Because of these a Nazirite must cut off his hair and be sprinkled on the third and the seventh day;3 and it makes the preceding days of none effect and he may not begin to count afresh until he is become clean and has brought his offerings.
3. But because of [uncleanness contracted from over-shadowing] inter¬ laced foliage or projecting stones,4 or from a Grave-area,5 a land of the gentiles, a stone that seals a tomb and its buttressing stone,6 a quarter-/e>£ of blood, a ‘tent’7 [wherein lies a corpse], a quaner-kab of bones, or vessels that have touched a corpse; or because of his days of reckoning8 [after he has suffered leprosy] and the days during which he is certified unclean9 [with leprosy] — because of these [conditions of uncleanness] the Nazirite need not cut off his hair, but he is sprinkled on the third and the seventh day and the preceding days are not rendered of none effect; he may begin to count forthwith [the number of days that still remain] and he need not bring the offering.10 Rightly have they said:n the days of [the uncleanness of] a man or woman that have a flux12 and the days when the leper is shut up,13 these are reckoned to his credit.14 4. R. Eleazar said in the name of R. Joshua: For whatsoever uncleanness from a corpse a Nazirite must cut off his hair,15 for that, too, is a man culp¬ able if he enters into the Temple; and for whatsoever uncleanness from a corpse a Nazirite need not cut off his hair,’6 for that, too, is a man not culpable if he enters into the Temple. R. Meir said: Would there not thus be less stringency than [when uncleanness is contracted from] a creeping thing!17 R. Akiba said: I argued before R. Eliezer: If because of the contact or carrying of a barleycorn’s bulk of bone18 (which does not render a man unclean by overshadowing)19 a Nazirite must cut off his hair, how much more, then, aught he to cut off his hair because of the contact or carrying of a quarter-/o£ of blood20 (which renders a man unclean by overshadowing)! He said to me, What is this, Akiba? We cannot here argue from the less to the greater.21 But when I came and declared these words before R. Joshua, he said to me: Thou hast well spoken; but thus have they enjoined as Halakah,22 8. r. If a man said to two Nazirites, ‘I saw that one of you contracted uncleanness, but I do not know which of you it was’, they must [both] cut off their hair and must bring [together] one offering because of unclean- 2 Cf. Num. I9U#. Uncleanness is conveyed by (a) being under the same roof or ‘tent’ as the corpse (or portion of corpse), ( b ) being perpendicularly above it, or (c) being perpendicu¬ larly below it. See p. 649, n. 3: App. IV, 6. 3 See above, p. 288, n. 4.
* The seven days after the leper has been pronounced clean; Lev. 14*.
13 Lev. i34- *. ** If they befall within the time of a Nazirite-vow.
13 Detailed above, par. a. 14 Above, par. 3. 17 See Lev. 5*; Num. 19”.
'* See above, par. 2. 14 Ohol. 2*. 20 See above, par. 3.
** Since it is the accepted ruling. 22 App. I. 11.
ness1 and one offering [for a vow fulfilled] in cleanness;2 and each must say, ‘If it is I that became unclean let mine be the offering brought because of uncleanness, and thine the offering brought in cleanness; but if it is I that remained clean let mine be the offering brought in cleanness and thine the offering brought because of uncleanness’. And they must count3 [another] thirty days and bring one offering [for a vow fulfilled] in clean¬ ness; and [each] must say, 'If it is I that became unclean, the offering brought because of uncleanness was mine and thine the offering brought in cleanness, and this offering brought in cleanness is mine; but if it is I that remained clean, the offering brought in cleanness was mine, and thine the offering brought because of uncleanness, and this offering brought in cleanness is thine’. If one of them died, R. Joshua said: Let him ask one from the street to vow to be a Nazirite in the other’s stead and say to him, ‘If it was I that became unclean, be thou a Nazirite forthwith; but if it was I that remained clean be thou a Nazirite after thirty days’. They should then count thirty days and bring an offering because of uncleanness and an offering [for a vow fulfilled] in cleanness. Then he shall say, ‘If it is I that became unclean this is my offering brought because of uncleanness and thine the offering brought in cleanness; but if it is I that remained clean, the offering brought in cleanness is mine, and the offering brought because of uncleanness is in doubt’. They then count another thirty days and bring an offering [for a vow fulfilled] in cleanness, and he says, ‘If it is I that became unclean, the offering brought because of uncleanness was mine and thine the offering brought in cleanness, and this offering brought in cleanness is mine; but if it is I that remained clean, then the offering brought in cleanness was mine and the offering brought because of uncleanness was in doubt, and this offering brought in cleanness is thine.’ Ben Zoma said to him: But who will hearken to him to vow to be a Nazirite in the other’s stead! — but, rather, he should bring a bird as a Sin-offering and a beast as a Whole-offering and say, ‘If it was I that became unclean here is my Sin-offering brought in duty bound, and a Whole-offering brought of free choice; if it was I that remained clean here is my Whole-offering brought in duty bound and the Sin-offering is brought by reason of the doubt’. Then he should count thirty days and bring an offering in cleanness and say, ‘If it was I that became unclean the first Whole-offering was brought of free choice and this is brought in duty bound; but if it was I that remained clean the first Whole-offering was brought in duty bound, and this is offered of free choice, and here is the rest of my offering!’* R. Joshua said: He would then be bringing his offerings piecemeal. But the Sages agree with Ben Zoma.
2. If it is in doubt whether a Nazirite is unclean and whether signs of leprosy in him are unclean, he may eat of Hallowed Things after sixty days, and after one hundred and twenty days drink wine and contract unclean¬ ness because of the dead, since the cutting off of the hair because of leprosy overrides the cutting off of the hair because of the Nazirite-vow only when it is not in doubt; but when it is in doubt it does not override it.
9. 1. Gentiles may not vow the Nazirite-vow. Women and slaves may vow the Nazirite-vow. Greater stringency applies to women than to slaves, since one may compel his slave [to break the vow], but he cannot compel his 1 As prescribed in Num. 6’*.
4 THIRD DIVISION: NASHIM wife. Greater stringency applies to slaves than to women, since a man may revoke his wife’s vows1 but he cannot revoke those of his slave.2 If he re¬ voked his wife’s [Nazirite-]vow he has revoked it for all time; but if he revoked that of his slave and the slave was set free, he must complete his Nazirite-vow. If he escaped from his master, R. Meir says: He may not drink [wine]. But R. Jose says: He may drink.
2. If a Nazirite had cut off his hair and [before he brought his offerings] it became known to him that he had become unclean, if it was an unclean¬ ness that was known, it renders void [the whole of the days of his vow], but if it was an uncleanness from the deep,3 it does not render void [the whole of the days of his vow]; and if [his uncleanness was known to him] before he cut off his hair, in either case it renders them void. Thus if he had gone down to immerse himself in a cavern and a corpse was found floating at the mouth of the cavern, he becomes unclean; but if it was found sunk on the floor of the cavern and he had gone down [only] to cool himself [in the water], he is [still accounted] clean; but if he had gone down to be cleansed from corpse-uncleanness, he remains unclean; for he that was unclean is presumed to be still unclean, and he that was clean is presumed to be still clean, since there is proof whereon to rely.
3. If* for a first time a man found a corpse lying in usual fashion he may remove it and the soil about it [for burial elsewhere]; if he found two he may remove them and the soil about them. But if he found three and a space of four to eight cubits between them, then this must be accounted a graveyard, and he must examine the ground over a space of twenty cubits. If he found another corpse twenty cubits away he must examine yet another twenty cubits from that point, since there is proof whereon to rely [that this is indeed a graveyard]; although if for a first time a man found a corpse, he may remove it and the soil about it.
4. Any5 condition of doubt in the beginning in what concerns leprosy- signs is deemed clean if it has not already come within the bonds of un¬ cleanness; but if it had come within the bonds of uncleanness, its condition of doubt is deemed unclean. Along seven lines6 do they examine him that has a flux if he has not already come within the bonds of uncleanness as one that has a flux: concerning what he had eaten, what he had drunk, what he had carried, whether he had jumped, whether he had been sick, what he had seen, and whether he had had impure thoughts. After he has come within the bonds of uncleanness as one that has a flux they do not examine him; for any flux that he suffers from inadvertence, or a flux that is in doubt, or a discharge of semen, such are adjudged unclean, since there is proof whereon to rely. If a man struck7 his fellow and they considered him like to die, and he then grew better and afterward grew worse and died, he [that struck him] is culpable. R. Nehemiah declares him not culpable since there is proof whereon to rely [for belief that there was some other cause of death].
5. According to R. Nehorai, Samuel was a Nazirite, for it is written, And there shall no razor 8 come upon his head P Since it is said of Samson, And no razor shall come upon his head,10 and it is said also of Samuel, And no razor..., as the razor spoken of concerning Samson means that he was to 1 See Ned. 1 11, *. 2 Though he can compel him not to keep them.
J From a hitherto unknown grave. Cf. Par. 3*' *. * Ohol. 16*.
* Heb. morah. This word has also the meaning lordship’. * 1 Sam. i11. 10 Judg. 13*.
be a Nazirite so the razor spoken of concerning Samuel means that he was to he a Nazirite. R. Jose said: But is not [this word] morah 1 meant only of flesh and blood? R. Nehorai said to him: But was it not once said, And Samuel said, How can l go? If Saul hear it, he will kill me 2 — thus upon him there came once morah (the authority) of flesh and blood!3 1. 1. If a man would warn5 his wife, R. Eliezer says: He must warn her before two witnesses, and he may [then] make her drink6 on the evidence of one witness or on his own evidence.7 R. Joshua says: He must warn her I efore two witnesses, and he may make her drink [only] on the evidence of two witnesses.
2. How does he warn her? If he said to her before two witnesses, ‘Speak not with such-a-one’, and she spoke with him, she may still consort with her husband and she may eat of Heave-offering.8 If she went aside with him in secret and remained with him time enough to suffer defilement she may not consort with her husband and she may not eat of Heave-offering. If her husband died6 she must perform halitzahx<J and may not contract levirate marriage.1: 3. These may not eat of Heave-offering:12 she that says, ‘I am unclean to thee’,13 and she against whom witnesses havetestified that shewas unclean,14 and she that says, ‘I will not drink’, and she whose husband is not minded to make her drink, and she whose husband has connexion with her while on the way.15 How should he behave towards her? He should bring her to the court that is in that place16 and they appoint for him two disciples of the Sages17 lest he have connexion with her while on the way. R. Judah says: Her husband is accounted trustworthy concerning her.
4. They used to bring her up to the great court18 that was in Jerusalem and admonish her in like manner as they admonished witnesses in capital cases,19 and say to her, ‘My daughter, much [sin] is wrought by wine, much by light conduct, much by childishness, and much by evil neighbours; do thou behave for the sake of his great Name, written in holiness,20 that it be not blotted out through the water [of bitterness]’. And they speak before her words which neither she nor the family of her father’s house are worthy to hear.
5. If she said, ‘I am unclean’, she takes payment of her Ketubah 21 and is put away. But if she said, ‘I am clean’, they take her up to the Eastern Gate22 which is over against the entrance of the Nicanor Gate, where they give Suspected Adulteresses to drink [of the water of bitterness], purify women after childbirth,23 and purify lepers.24 A priest lays hold on her 1 Giving it the sense of ‘lordship’ or ‘human authority’. 1 1 Sam. i6".
3 Therefore morah in 1 Sam. iu cannot have been used in the sense of ‘fear', but only in the sense of ‘razor’.
4 ‘The water of bitterness that cause th the curse’; Num. 51*.
r That she had gone aside in secret with another.
* If her husband was a priest; Lev. zz11.
II If their husbands were priests. Since the test of the water of bitterness is not applied she must be divorced. 13 See Ned. n1*. >♦ Had committed adultery.
15 Up to Jerusalem. 16 Where they lived. 17 Cf. Makk. 2*.
ao See Num. «**. The sacred name was written together with the curse on the scroll whose writing was to be blotted out in the water of bitterness. 31 App. I. 16.
« Midd, 1*; z‘. Cf. Shek. 6*. « See Lev. 12'“. See Lev. i4'>.
THIRD DIVISION: NASHIM garments — if they are torn they are torn, if they are utterly rent they are utterly rent1 — so that he lays bare her bosom. Moreover he loosens her hair.1 R. Judah says: If her bosom was comely he did not lay it bare; if her hair was comely he did not loosen it.