## Nazir Daf 21a

###### Nazir 21a:1
[Nazir 21a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/21a:1)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: מִי שֶׁאָמַר ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר״, וְשָׁמַע חֲבֵירוֹ וְשָׁהָה כְּדֵי דִבּוּר, וְאָמַר ״וַאֲנִי״ — הוּא אָסוּר, וַחֲבֵירוֹ מוּתָּר. וְכַמָּה כְּדֵי דִבּוּר — כְּדֵי שְׁאֵילַת שָׁלוֹם תַּלְמִיד לָרַב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This is also taught** in a *baraita*: In the case of **one who said: I am hereby a nazirite, and another heard** him **and waited the time required for speaking** a short phrase **and** then **said: And I,** the first person **is bound** by his vow **and the other is permitted,** as too much time passed between their respective vows. **And how much** time is **the time required for speaking?** It is the time necessary **for a student** to **inquire** after **the welfare** of his **rabbi.**


###### Nazir 21a:2
[Nazir 21a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/21a:2)

לֵימָא מְסַיְּיעָא לֵיהּ: מִי שֶׁאָמַר ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר״, וְשָׁמַע חֲבֵירוֹ וְאָמַר ״וַאֲנִי״ ״וַאֲנִי״, וְתוּ לָא! תַּנָּא כִּי רוֹכְלָא לִיחְשֹׁיב וְלֵיזִיל?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Shall we say that** the mishna **supports** Reish Lakish’s opinion? As it is taught: In the case of **one who said: I am hereby a nazirite, and another heard him and said: And I,** and a third person heard him and said: **And I,** they are all nazirites. The mishna mentions: And I, twice **and no more,** which indicates that only two people can associate themselves with the vow of the first one. The reason for this must be because too much time has passed since the first person spoke. The Gemara rejects this argument: This is no proof, as **should the *tanna* have continued reckoning** cases **like a peddler,** who announces his wares over and over again, by repeating: And I, and I, over and over again?


###### Nazir 21a:3
[Nazir 21a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/21a:3)

וְלִיתְנֵי חַד וְלַשְׁמְעִינַן הָנֵי! הָכָא נָמֵי, וּמִשּׁוּם דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא הוּתַּר הָרִאשׁוֹן הוּתְּרוּ כּוּלָּן, הוּתַּר הָאַחֲרוֹן — הָאַחֲרוֹן מוּתָּר וְכוּלָּן אֲסוּרִין, מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא אֶמְצָעִי, וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי קָתָנֵי ״וַאֲנִי״ ״וַאֲנִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But** if the *tanna* wishes to be concise, **let him teach** only **one** example, **and teach us these** other cases of others who say: And I, by means of a single example. The Gemara answers: **Indeed,** this is in fact correct, **but because** the *tanna* **teaches in the latter clause:** If the vow of **the first was dissolved** by a halakhic authority then **they are all dissolved,** but if the vow of **the last** individual **was dissolved** by a halakhic authority then the vow of **the last** individual **is dissolved and all** the others remain **bound** by their vow, one may conclude **by inference that there is a middle** person between the first and the last. **And due to that** reason the *tanna* **teaches: And I, and I,** so that the case would include three people, but not because a fourth person is unable to associate himself with the vow of the first in the same manner.


###### Nazir 21a:4
[Nazir 21a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/21a:4)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: חַד בְּחַבְרֵיהּ מִיתְּפִיס, אוֹ דִּלְמָא בְּקַמָּא מִיתַּפְסִי? לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ — לְאִתְּפוֹסֵי וּמֵיזַל. אִי אָמְרַתְּ חַד בְּחַבְרֵיהּ מִתְּפִיס — מִתַּפְסִין וְאָזְלִין לְעוֹלָם. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ בְּקַמָּא מִתַּפְסִי — טְפֵי מִכְּדֵי דִבּוּר לָא מִתַּפְסִין. מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the same issue, **a dilemma was raised before** the Sages: Does each **one** take a vow by **associating** himself **with** the vow of **the other,** i.e., the individual who spoke immediately before him, **or perhaps they** all **associate** themselves **with** the vow of **the first** one? The Gemara asks: **What difference is there?** The Gemara answers that the difference is whether an unlimited number of people **can continue to associate** themselves with the vows. **If you say** that each **one associates** himself **with** the vow of **the other** who spoke immediately before him, others can **continue to associate** themselves with these vows **forever,** provided that they each do so immediately after the previous individual. **And if you say they** all **associate** themselves **with** the vow of **the first** one, **they may not associate** themselves with the vow if **more** time has elapsed **than** the time **required for speaking** a short phrase since the vow of the first individual. **What** is the answer to this dilemma?


###### Nazir 21a:5
[Nazir 21a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/21a:5)

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר״, וְשָׁמַע חֲבֵירוֹ וְאָמַר ״וַאֲנִי״ ״וַאֲנִי״, וְתוּ לָא מִידֵּי, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בְּקַמָּא הוּא דְּמִתַּפְסִי, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ חַד בְּחַבְרֵיהּ מִיתְּפִיס — לִיתְנֵי טוּבָא ״וַאֲנִי״! תַּנָּא כִּי רוֹכְלָא לִיחְשֹׁיב וְלֵיזִיל?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from the mishna: With regard to one who said: **I am hereby a nazirite, and another heard** this vow **and said: And I,** and a third person added: **And I,** they are all nazirites. The mishna mentions only two individuals who associated themselves with the initial vow, **and no more. Learn from this that they** all **associated** themselves **with** the vow of **the first** one, **as, if it should enter your mind** that each **one associates** himself **with** the vow of **the other** who came immediately before, **let** the mishna **teach: And I, many** times. The Gemara answers as before: This is no proof, as **should the *tanna* have continued reckoning** cases **like a peddler?** It was enough for him to state: And I, twice.


###### Nazir 21a:6
[Nazir 21a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/21a:6)

וְלִיתְנֵי חַד וְלַשְׁמְעִינַן כּוּלְּהוֹן! אַיְּידֵי דְּקָתָנֵי הוּתַּר הָרִאשׁוֹן — הוּתְּרוּ כּוּלָּן, הוּתַּר הָאַחֲרוֹן — הָאַחֲרוֹן מוּתָּר וְכוּלָּן אֲסוּרִין, מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא אֶמְצָעִי, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי קָתָנֵי ״וַאֲנִי״ ״וַאֲנִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if the *tanna* wished to avoid repeating: And I, so many times, **let him teach** it only **once, and we** would **learn** that **they** are **all** nazirites based on that example. The Gemara answers: **Since** the *tanna* **teaches** in the latter clause: If the vow of **the first was dissolved** by a halakhic authority then **they are all dissolved,** but if the vow of **the last** individual **was dissolved** by a halakhic authority then the vow of **the last** individual **is dissolved and all** the others remain **bound** by their vows, one may conclude **by inference that there is a middle** person between the first and the last. It is **due to that** reason that the *tanna* **teaches: And I, and I,** so that the case would include three people, but not because a fourth person is unable to associate himself with the vow of the first in the same manner.


###### Nazir 21a:7
[Nazir 21a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/21a:7)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הוּתַּר הָרִאשׁוֹן — הוּתְּרוּ כּוּלָּן. רִאשׁוֹן הוּא דִּשְׁרוּ, הָא אֶמְצָעִי לָא, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בְּקַמָּא מִתַּפְסִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from the mishna: If the vow of **the first** individual **was dissolved, they are all dissolved.** This indicates that **it is** only if the **first** one was **dissolved** that they are all considered dissolved. **However,** if the vow of the **middle** person was dissolved, **no,** the vows of the individuals following him are not considered dissolved. **Learn from this** that they all **associated** themselves **with** the vow of **the first** one.


###### Nazir 21a:8
[Nazir 21a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/21a:8)

אֵימָא לָךְ: לְעוֹלָם חַד בְּחַבְרֵיהּ מִתְּפִיס. וְאַיְּידֵי דְּבָעֵי מִיתְנֵא ״הוּתְּרוּ כּוּלָּן״, דְּאִי תְּנָא אֶמְצָעִי, אִיכָּא רִאשׁוֹן דְּלָא מִשְׁתְּרֵי, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי קָתָנֵי רִאשׁוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this argument: **I** could **say to you** that **actually, each associates** himself **with** the vow of **the other** who immediately preceded him, and therefore if the vow of the middle person was dissolved, the vows of all those who came after him are also dissolved. **But since** the *tanna* **wanted to teach: They are all dissolved,** and **had he taught** the case where the vow of **the middle** individual was dissolved, he would have had to state that **there is** still the vow of the **first** individual **that is not dissolved,** because his vow is not dependent on that of the middle one. **Due to that** reason the *tanna* **teaches** the case where the vow of the **first one** was dissolved. Consequently, no proof can be brought from here.


###### Nazir 21a:9
[Nazir 21a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/21a:9)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הוּתַּר הָאַחֲרוֹן — הָאַחֲרוֹן מוּתָּר וְכוּלָּן אֲסוּרִין. דְּלָא אִיכָּא אַחֲרִינָא בָּתְרֵיהּ, אֲבָל אֶמְצָעִי, דְּאִיכָּא אַחֲרִינָא בָּתְרֵיהּ — מִשְׁתְּרֵי. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ חַד בְּחַבְרֵיהּ מִתְּפִיס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests another proof from the mishna: **Come** and **hear:** If **the last was dissolved, the last is dissolved and they are all bound** by their vows. It can be inferred from here that only in that case is the vow of the last one alone dissolved, **as he is not followed by anyone. However,** if the dissolved vow was of the **middle one, who is followed by someone else,** the vow of the last one who comes after him **is** also **dissolved.** One can **learn from this** that each **one associates** himself **with** the vow of **the other** individual.


###### Nazir 21a:10
[Nazir 21a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/21a:10)

לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ: בְּקַמָּא מִיתַּפְסִין, וּמַאי ״אַחֲרוֹן״ דְּקָתָנֵי — אֶמְצָעִי, וְאַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא רִאשׁוֹן, תְּנָא אַחֲרוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this claim as well: **Actually, I** could **say to you that they** all **associate** themselves **with** the vow of **the first** one, **and what is** the meaning of: The **last one, that** the mishna **teaches?** It means **the middle** one, the dissolution of whose vow does not cause the vow of the person who followed him to be dissolved. **And** why is the middle one called the last one? **Since** the *tanna* earlier **taught: First,** here **he taught: Last,** despite the fact that he is referring to the middle one.


###### Nazir 21a:11
[Nazir 21a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/21a:11)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא בְּהֶדְיָא: הוּתַּר הָרִאשׁוֹן — הוּתְּרוּ כּוּלָּן, הוּתַּר הָאַחֲרוֹן — הָאַחֲרוֹן מוּתָּר וְכוּלָּן אֲסוּרִין, הוּתַּר אֶמְצָעִי — הֵימֶנּוּ וּלְמַטָּה מוּתָּר, הֵימֶנּוּ וּלְמַעְלָה — אָסוּר, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ חַד בְּחַבְרֵיהּ מִתְּפִיס, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further suggests: **Come** and **hear, as it is taught** in a *baraita* **explicitly:** If **the first** one **is dissolved, they are all dissolved;** if **the last** one **is dissolved, the last** one **is dissolved and they are all bound** by their vows. **If** the **middle** one **is dissolved,** the vows of anyone **from him and after** him **are dissolved;** those who vowed **from him and before** him are **bound** by their vows. One can **learn from this** that **each associates** himself with the vow of **the other** individual. The Gemara concludes: **Learn from this** that it is so.


###### Nazir 21a:12
[Nazir 21a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/21a:12)

״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר״, וְשָׁמַע חֲבֵירוֹ וְאָמַר ״פִּי כְּפִיו וּשְׂעָרִי כִּשְׂעָרוֹ וְכוּ׳״. מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמַר ״פִּי כְּפִיו וּשְׂעָרִי כִּשְׂעָרוֹ״ הֲרֵי נָזִיר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught that one stated: **I am hereby a nazirite, and** if **another heard and said, my mouth is like his mouth, and my hair is like his hair,** he is a nazirite. The Gemara asks: Just **because he said: My mouth is like his mouth and my hair is like his hair,** is **he a nazirite?**