He is already sworn and obligated about it from Mount Sinai, i.e., he is obligated by Torah law to keep the halakhot of naziriteship, and therefore it is obvious that he may not drink wine from kiddush or havdala, as drinking the wine is required by rabbinic law (Rambam).

Rather, it is like that which Rava said: If one said: I hereby take an oath that I will drink wine, and he then said: I am hereby a nazirite, the naziriteship comes and applies to the subject of his oath. Although drinking wine is a mitzva for him due to his oath, his naziriteship supersedes the previous oath and renders it prohibited for him to drink wine.

The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis also, isn’t the verse needed to prohibit to a nazirite wine that is consumed as a mitzva, just like wine whose consumption is optional? The Gemara answers: If that is so, let the verse say only “he shall abstain from wine” (Numbers 6:3). What is the purpose of the additional phrase “and strong drink”? Learn from it that the verse teaches two halakhot, that one is a full-fledged nazirite even if he accepted only one of the prohibitions of naziriteship, and that a nazirite is prohibited from drinking wine even when its consumption is a mitzva.

The Gemara explains: And Rabbi Shimon could respond to this argument as follows: This is the reason that the verse writes “strong drink”: It is to teach a verbal analogy between “strong drink” written here and “strong drink” written with regard to entering and performing service in the Temple, as it is written that Aaron the priest was commanded: “Do not drink wine or strong drink, you nor your sons with you, when you go into the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 10:9). This teaches: Just as with a nazirite, it is wine alone that is forbidden but other beverages are not forbidden, so too, with regard to the Temple, it is wine that is forbidden to priests, but other intoxicating beverages are not forbidden to them.

And this is to the exclusion of the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: If one ate a dried fig from Ke’ila, and similarly if one drank honey or if one drank milk, which can dull the senses, and entered the Temple, he is liable for violating the prohibition against strong drink.

The Gemara suggests a different reason for the inclusion of the term “strong drink,” according to Rabbi Shimon. If you wish, say instead that it is necessary because Rabbi Shimon does not generally accept the principle that a prohibition takes effect upon a preexisting prohibition.

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: One who eats an animal carcass on Yom Kippur is exempt from the punishment of karet for eating on Yom Kippur. It is prohibited to eat an animal carcass, and therefore the additional prohibition against eating on Yom Kippur does not take effect with regard to it. The inclusion of the term “strong drink” alludes to the fact that with regard to naziriteship, a second prohibition does take effect. Consequently, if one took an oath not to drink wine and afterward vowed to be a nazirite, both prohibitions apply.

The Gemara asks: And also according to the Rabbis, isn’t it written: “Anything that is made of the grapevine” (Numbers 6:4), which seems to indicate, as stated by Rabbi Shimon, that one becomes a nazirite only if he vows to accept all the prohibitions of a nazirite? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis could have said to you: There the verse taught that the prohibitions of a nazirite combine with each other. In other words, if a nazirite eats less than an olive-bulk of both grape skins and grape seeds, but together they amount to an olive-bulk, he receives lashes for transgressing a Torah prohibition.

The Gemara explains: And Rabbi Shimon does not interpret the verse in this manner because he does not hold that there is a need for the combination of quantities of different foods in order to render one liable to receive lashes, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: Even the smallest quantity of forbidden food is sufficient to render one liable to receive lashes. The Sages stated the measurement of an olive-bulk only with regard to the obligation to bring an offering. Consequently, in the case of a nazirite, who is not obligated to bring a sin-offering if he inadvertently eats grape products, there is no need for a special verse to teach that the different foods add up to the measurement of an olive-bulk. Therefore, the purpose of the verse must be to teach about the nature of a nazirite vow.

MISHNA: If one said: I am hereby like Samson, like the son of Manoah, like the husband of Delilah, like the one who tore off the doors of Gaza, like the one whose eyes were gouged out by the Philistines, he is a nazirite like Samson, whose halakhot are explained in the next mishna (see Judges, chapters 13–16).

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why do I need the tanna to teach all these cases? It should be enough to state only the halakha where one says: Like Samson. The Gemara answers: These specifications are necessary because if one said only: I am hereby like Samson, I would say he was referring to another Samson, and this is not a nazirite vow. The tanna therefore teaches us that he adds: Like the son of Manoah, which shows he is referring to the biblical Samson.

And if the tanna had taught that he said he would be: Like the son of Manoah, I would say there is some person who is called that name, Samson, son of Manoah, and this is not a reference to the biblical Samson and is not an acceptance of naziriteship. The tanna therefore teaches us that he adds: Like the husband of Delilah, or: Like the one who tore off the doors of Gaza, or: Like the one whose eyes were gouged out by the Philistines. It is therefore clear that he is referring to the biblical figure and that his statement is a vow of naziriteship.

MISHNA: What is the difference between a permanent nazirite and a nazirite like Samson, both of whom remain nazirites forever? In the case of a permanent nazirite, if his hair grows too heavy for him, he lightens it by cutting some hair with a razor, and he then brings three animals as a sin-offering, a burnt-offering, and a peace-offering, like one who completes his term of naziriteship. And if he becomes ritually impure, he brings the offering for impurity brought by a regular nazirite who became impure.

By contrast, in the case of a nazirite like Samson, if his hair grows heavy he may not lighten it, since he is entirely prohibited from cutting his hair. And if he becomes impure, he does not bring an offering for impurity.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Who mentioned anything about a permanent nazirite? Since the mishna has not yet mentioned this concept, how can it analyze the differences between it and a nazirite like Samson? The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: In the case of one who says: I am hereby a permanent nazirite, he is a permanent nazirite. What is the difference between a permanent nazirite and a nazirite like Samson? In the case of a permanent nazirite, if his hair grows too heavy for him, he lightens it with a razor and he then brings three animals for offerings. And if he becomes ritually impure, he brings the offering for impurity. In the case of a nazirite like Samson, if his hair grows heavy he may not lighten it with a razor,