## Nazir Daf 22b

###### Nazir 22b:1
[Nazir 22b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/22b:1)

מָר זוּטְרָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מָרִי אָמַר: הַאי, הַיְינוּ דְּרָמִי בַּר חָמָא. דְּבָעֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: ״הֲרֵי עָלַי כִּבְשַׂר זֶבַח שְׁלָמִים״, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said: This** problem, with regard to one who associated himself with the vow of a woman whose naziriteship was later nullified, **is** in essence the same as the dilemma **of Rami bar Ḥama** concerning a different issue. **As Rami bar Ḥama raises a dilemma:** If someone said about a certain object: **This** is forbidden **to me like the flesh of a peace-offering, what is** the *halakha*? Is this a vow or not?


###### Nazir 22b:2
[Nazir 22b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/22b:2)

כִּי מַתְפֵּיס אִינִישׁ, בְּעִיקָּרָא מַתְפֵּיס, אוֹ דִּלְמָא בִּצְנָנָא מַתְפֵּיס?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: **When a person associates** himself with a prohibition by means of another object, does he **associate** himself with it **by its fundamental state?** In this case, this would mean that he has associated himself with an article from which it is prohibited to benefit, as the flesh of a peace-offering is forbidden before its blood is sprinkled. Consequently, the vow would take effect. **Or perhaps** one **associates** himself with the item **by its** eventual **permitted state** [***bitzenana***], and as the flesh of a peace-offering may be eaten after the sprinkling of its blood, the vow is ineffective. This question is apparently analogous to the issue of the second woman’s vow: Is she referring to the fundamental, initial state of the first vow, before its nullification, or to its later, permitted state, after it has been dissolved?


###### Nazir 22b:3
[Nazir 22b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/22b:3)

מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי כִּבְשַׂר זֶבַח שְׁלָמִים״, אַף עַל גַּב דִּלְאַחַר שֶׁנִּזְרַק דָּמוֹ מָצֵי אָכֵיל לֵיהּ בַּחוּץ, מִיקְדָּשׁ קָדֵישׁ. אֲבָל הָכָא, אִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בִּצְנָנָא קָא מַתְפֵּיס — הָא הֵפֵר לָהּ בַּעְלָהּ! אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, הַיְינוּ דְּרָמֵי בַּר חָמָא וַדַּאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this argument: **Are** the two cases **comparable? There, since he said:** It **is** forbidden **to me like the flesh of a peace-offering, even though after its blood has been sprinkled it can be eaten outside** the courtyard, nevertheless it is **sacred** to a certain extent, which means that his vow is referring to a forbidden object. **However, here, if it should enter your mind** that the second woman **associates** herself with the object’s **permitted state, her husband has nullified her** vow, and therefore there is no vow at all, which renders the statement of the second woman meaningless. **Some say** that this last refutation is not accepted. In their opinion, the dilemma concerning two women who vowed **is certainly** similar to that **of Rami bar Ḥama.**


###### Nazir 22b:4
[Nazir 22b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/22b:4)

אָמְרָה לָהּ, ״הֲרֵינִי נְזִירָה בְּעִיקְבֵיךְ״, מַהוּ? ״הֲרֵינִי בְּעִיקְבֵיךְ״ — בְּכוֹלָּא מִילְּתָא, וְשַׁרְיָא. אוֹ דִלְמָא כְּמִיקַּמֵּי דְּלֵיפַר לַהּ בַּעְלַהּ, וַאֲסִירָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If the second woman **said to** the first who vowed naziriteship: **I am hereby a nazirite in your footsteps,** and the husband of the first woman subsequently nullified her vow, **what is** the *halakha* of the second woman? Again the Gemara clarifies the two sides of the question: Does the statement: **I am hereby** a nazirite **in your footsteps,** mean **in all matters, and** therefore her vow is **dissolved,** as the vow of the first woman was ultimately nullified; **or perhaps** this statement is referring **to** her status **before her husband nullified her** vow, **and** therefore the second woman is **bound** by her vow?


###### Nazir 22b:5
[Nazir 22b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/22b:5)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּדְרָה בְּנָזִיר, וְשָׁמַע בַּעְלָהּ וְאָמַר ״וַאֲנִי״ — אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ כִּי אֲמַר לַהּ ״הֲרֵינִי בְּעִיקְבֵיךְ״ — בְּעִיקָּרָא קָא מַתְפֵּיס, לֵיפַר לַהּ לְדִידַהּ וְלוֹקֵים דִּידֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** an answer to this question from the mishna: With regard to **a woman who vowed to be a nazirite and her husband heard and said: And I, he cannot nullify** her vow with which he associated himself, as he would thereby be canceling his own vow. **And if it should enter your mind** that **when he says to her: I am hereby** a nazirite **in your footsteps, he associates** himself with **the fundamental state** of the vow, and it does not mean that they should be linked throughout, in that case **let him nullify her** vow **and uphold his.** In this manner the husband remains bound by his own vow while nullifying his wife’s vow.


###### Nazir 22b:6
[Nazir 22b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/22b:6)

אֶלָּא לָאו, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בְּכוֹלָּא דְּמִילְּתָא מַתְפֵּיס, וְהִלְכָּךְ הוּא דְּלָא מָצֵי מֵיפַר. הָא אִשָּׁה דְּאָמְרָה ״הֲרֵינִי בְּעִיקְבֵיךְ״, הִיא נָמֵי מוּתֶּרֶת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** must one **not conclude from** it that he **associates** himself with **all matters** of the vow, **and therefore** in his case **he cannot nullify** her vow, as he would thereby be nullifying his own, **but** with regard to **a woman** who **said: I am hereby** a nazirite **in your footsteps, she is also permitted** by the nullification of the first vow?


###### Nazir 22b:7
[Nazir 22b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/22b:7)

לָא, לְעוֹלָם בְּעִיקָּרָא מַתְפֵּיס, וְהָכָא כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר לַהּ ״וַאֲנִי״ — כְּאוֹמֵר ״קַיָּים לִיכִי״ דָּמֵי. וְאִי מִתְּשִׁיל אַהֲקָמָתוֹ — מָצֵי מֵיפַר, וְאִי לָא — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this argument: **No; actually,** it is possible that one **associates** himself with **the fundamental state** of the vow, **and here,** in the case of a husband, there is a different reason that he cannot nullify the vow. **Since he says to her: And I, he is considered to have said:** It is **upheld for you,** as his own vow indicates his acceptance of hers. **And** therefore, **if** he **requests** from a halakhic authority the dissolution **of his upholding** of her vow, **he can nullify** her vow, **and if** he does **not** submit this request he **cannot** nullify his wife’s vow.


###### Nazir 22b:8
[Nazir 22b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/22b:8)

״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר וְאַתְּ״, וְאָמְרָה ״אָמֵן״ — מֵיפֵר אֶת שֶׁלָּהּ, וְשֶׁלּוֹ קַיָּים. וּרְמִינְהוּ: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר וְאַתְּ״, וְאָמְרָה ״אָמֵן״ — שְׁנֵיהֶם אֲסוּרִין, וְאִם לָאו — שְׁנֵיהֶם מוּתָּרִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁתָּלָה נִדְרוֹ בְּנִדְרָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if a husband said: **I am hereby a nazirite and you, and** his wife **said: Amen, he can nullify her** vow **and his** remains **intact. And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** to this from a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 3:5): With regard to one who said to his wife: **I am hereby a nazirite and you, and she said: Amen, they are both bound** by their vows; **and if** she did **not** answer: Amen, **they are both permitted, because he made his vow dependent on her vow.** In other words, he meant that he would be a nazirite on the condition that she too accept naziriteship upon herself. This *baraita* teaches that if she says: Amen, he cannot nullify her vow, which apparently contradicts the ruling of the mishna.


###### Nazir 22b:9
[Nazir 22b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/22b:9)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, תְּנִי: ״מֵיפֵר אֶת שֶׁלָּהּ וְשֶׁלּוֹ קַיָּים״. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא כִּדְקָתָנֵי, בָּרַיְיתָא כְּגוֹן דְּקָאָמַר לַהּ: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר וְאַתְּ״, דְּקָא תָּלֵי נִדְרוֹ בְּנִדְרָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda said: Teach** the *baraita* by emending it so that it reads: **He can nullify hers and his** remains **intact,** like the mishna, rather than: They are both bound by their vows. **Abaye said: You** can **even say** that the *baraita* should be read **as it teaches,** without emending it, as there is a difference between the two cases. The ***baraita*** is referring to a case **where he said to her** in a single clause: **I am hereby a nazirite and you, as he makes his vow dependent on her vow.** Consequently, if she is not a nazirite, his vow is also canceled.