Nazir 22b — the Talmud in English

The Master

Zutra son of Rav Mari said:

This

that we say in the beraita [according to the First Tanna], that if she said, “And I,” and her husband annulled the first one, then the second is forbidden—

this is [the resolution of] the matter of Rami bar Hama,

that is: from this you can resolve the problem of Rami bar Hama!

For Rami bar Hama asked:

One who says:

“It is incumbent upon me like the flesh of a peace-offering sacrifice”

that is standing before him and whose blood has not yet been sprinkled—and there is the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property in it, and a person can associate another object with it—and, for example, he said concerning another object: “This is upon me like that,”

what

is the law of the object that he prohibited to himself?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Does a person associate [the object] with the original state

[is a person’s intention to associate it with the present state of the flesh, while it is still forbidden], and if so, the object too is forbidden?

Or perhaps he associates with the cooling

[the expression means: cooling]

he associates,

his intention being to associate it with that flesh after the prohibition has cooled and departed?

And this uncertainty of Rami bar Hama can also be raised concerning one who associated herself with her fellow woman, the nazirite, whose husband can annul her nazirite status: was her intention to associate herself with her in her present state, or perhaps her intention was to associate herself with her only after her husband had cooled the prohibition through annulment—

and since we learned in the beraita that she is associated with nazirite status, learn from it: he associates with the original state, and Rami bar Hama’s problem is resolved.

And the Gemara rejects:

Are the cases comparable

[do the two matters indeed resemble one another]!?

There,

in Rami bar Hama’s problem,

since he said, “

It is incumbent upon me like the flesh of a peace-offering sacrifice,”

that is: he said, “This is upon me like this,” and the thing with which he associated was a peace-offering sacrifice; in this there is uncertainty, lest he intended to associate with it after the blood had been sprinkled, for he thought that it was possible to associate with it—

And because

even though after its blood has been sprinkled he can eat it,

and there is no misuse of consecrated property in it, nevertheless

outside it remains consecrated,

the flesh has sanctity with regard to this matter, that it is forbidden to eat it outside Jerusalem, and therefore he thought that he could associate [another object] with this sanctity.

But here,

concerning the woman, she certainly did not intend to associate herself with her after the annulment, for

if it enters your mind that she associates with the cooling, her husband has annulled it,

and she no longer has any nazirite status at all, and in what would her fellow woman have been mistaken by associating herself with her!? Necessarily, it was with her present state that she associated herself.

Some say: This is certainly [the resolution of] the matter of Rami bar Hama,

and there is no distinction between them.

The Gemara is uncertain: if

she said to her,

one woman to the nazirite: “

I am a nazirite at your heel,”

what

is the law of the woman who associated herself after her husband annulled the first woman’s [nazirite status]? Does “at your heel” mean: “at your end,” and if so, when she said, “

I am at your heel,”

it is in every matter

that she said, that is: her desire was to be like her fellow woman from beginning to end, and this woman’s intention in associating herself was that if, in the end, her husband would annul her fellow woman’s [nazirite status], then she too would not accept nazirite status upon herself at all, since her desire was to be like her fellow woman—

And

if so,

the second is permitted

when the husband of the first annuls the first woman’s [nazirite status].

Or perhaps: “At your heel” means: “Because of you,”

that is: “I am following you in accepting nazirite status,” as before her husband will annul it

[according to her status before her husband annulled it]—

то есть в том состоянии, в котором она была до отмены, —

And

if so, even if her husband annuls the first woman’s [nazirite status], this woman who associated herself with her still

remains forbidden

[she remains in her prohibition].

Come and hear

from our Mishna:

“A woman who vowed to be a nazirite, and her husband heard and said, ‘

And I,’

he cannot annul;

and it entered our minds that this is why he cannot annul: since if he were to annul her nazirite status, his nazirite status too would be nullified, and the Torah said: “He shall not profane his word,” so that he should not cause his word to be profaned.

And the reason that his nazirite status is nullified—according to the initial assumption of the Gemara—is that the matter depends upon him, whether to annul or not to annul, and he directs his mind toward permitting it; and it is as though he said, “I am at your heel.”

And if it enters your mind:

even

when he said to her

[the husband to his wife], “

I am at your heel,”

he associates with the original state,

before her nazirite status was annulled, if so, the husband too did not intend for her state at the end, but rather for her state now, before he annulled it.

And if so,

let him annul hers

and her nazirite status will be nullified,

and let his remain

[whereas his nazirite status will remain], and if so, why should he not annul it!?

Rather, does it not follow from here:

if he said to her, “I am at your heel,”

he associates himself in the entirety of the matter, and therefore

he,

the husband,

cannot annul,

because it is said: “He shall not profane his word”;

but a woman who said, “

I am at your heel,”

she too is permitted,

for she associated herself with her until her end.

And we reject:

No,

not as you proved, and

in all cases,

both he and a woman who said, “I am at your heel,”

associate themselves with the original state,

and the reason that the husband cannot annul is not that through this her nazirite status would be annulled—

But here,

in our Mishna, this is why he cannot annul:

since he said to her, “

And I,”

it is considered as though he said, “It is upheld for you,”

it is considered,

and he cannot annul a vow that he himself upheld.

And

therefore,

if he has himself released from his upholding

[if he asks about his upholding and nullifies it retroactively],

he can annul

because his upholding has been nullified;

and if not,

if he does not ask about his upholding,

he cannot

annul, for the nazirite status has been upheld.

We learned in the Mishna:

“I am a nazirite, and you,” and she said, “Amen”; he annuls hers, and his remains upheld:

And we raise a contradiction: “

I am a nazirite, and you,”

and she said, “Amen”—both are forbidden; but if not,

that she did not say “Amen,” then

both are permitted,

for this is what he said to her: “I am a nazirite if you are,” that is: if you will be a nazirite like me, then I will be a nazirite, and if you do not wish to be a nazirite, then I too am not a nazirite; and since she did not accept nazirite status upon herself, he too is not a nazirite.

But what we learned, “both are forbidden,” necessarily means that the beraita intends to say that “both are forbidden” even through annulment; for if not, what does it come to teach us? And the reason for the beraita is that “a husband uproots completely,” and since through his annulment his vow, which he made dependent upon her, is also uprooted, he thereby violates “He shall not profane his word.”

And this raises a difficulty against our Mishna, where we learned: “He annuls hers, and his remains upheld”!

Rav Yehuda said: Teach

in the beraita: “I am a nazirite, and you,” and she said, “Amen,”

he annuls hers, and his remains upheld,”

as we learned in our Mishna; and the reason is that “a husband cuts off [the vow in sections],” and her nazirite status is not uprooted retroactively, so that it could be said that through his annulment his nazirite status too is uprooted.

Abaye said: You may even say as it is taught

in the beraita, “both are forbidden,” and the beraita comes to teach us that he cannot annul hers, because “a husband uproots completely,” and consequently his nazirite status too is nullified, and he cannot profane his word because of “He shall not profane his word”

And as for what is difficult for you: if so, why did we learn in our Mishna, “he annuls hers, and his remains upheld”? I can say to you: the case in our Mishna is not comparable to the case in the beraita, because the

beraita

deals

with a case where he said to her

explicitly: “

I am a nazirite if

you,”

for he made his vow dependent upon her vow

[and if so, he explicitly made his vow dependent upon her vow].