Nazir 22b (כב:) — the Talmud in English

Mar

Zutra son of Rav Mari said:

This

that which we say in the beraita [according to the opinion of the first tanna], that if she said, “And I,” and her husband annulled the first woman’s vow, the second woman is forbidden

is the matter of Rami bar Ḥama,

meaning: from this you can resolve the problem raised by Rami bar Ḥama!

For Rami bar Ḥama asked:

One who says:

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

that is standing before him, whose blood has not yet been sprinkled—and which is subject to the prohibition of misuse and can serve as the object of an act of association—and, for example, he said about another object: “This is upon me like that,”

what

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

The sides of the question are:

Does a person associate himself with the original state [is a person’s intention to associate himself with the flesh’s present state, while it is still forbidden], in which case the other object is also forbidden

?

Or perhaps he associates himself with the cooling [literally: cooling off]

he associates,

meaning that his intention was to associate himself with that flesh after the prohibition had cooled and disappeared?

This question of Rami bar Ḥama can likewise be raised concerning one woman who associated herself with another woman’s nazirite vow, which her husband can annul: Was her intention to associate herself with the other woman’s present status, or did she intend to associate herself with it only after the husband had cooled the prohibition by annulling it—

and since we learned in the beraita that she is associated with the other woman’s nazirite vow, conclude from it that one associates himself with the original state, and Rami bar Ḥama’s problem is resolved.

The Gemara rejects this:

Are the matters comparable [are these two cases really similar]!?

There—

in Rami bar Ḥama’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 that,” and the object to which he associated himself was a peace-offering sacrifice. In this case, the question is whether he intended to associate himself with it after the blood had been sprinkled, since he thought that it was possible to associate oneself with it—

And because

although after its blood has been sprinkled one may eat it

and there is no prohibition of misuse involving it, nevertheless

outside it remains consecrated,

the flesh retains sanctity in that it is forbidden to eat it outside Jerusalem, he therefore thought that he could associate himself with this sanctity.

But here,

in the case of the woman, it is certain that she did not intend to associate herself with the other woman after the annulment, for

if it enters your mind that she associates herself with the cooling,

her husband has already annulled the vow for her, so she no longer has any nazirite status at all; and in what could the other woman have mistakenly associated herself with her? Necessarily, then, she associated herself with her present status.

Some say: This is certainly Rami bar Ḥama’s problem, and there is no distinction between the cases.

The Gemara raises a question: If

she said to her,

a woman to a nazirite: “

I am a nazirite following you,”

what

is the status of the woman who associated herself with the nazirite vow after the husband annulled the first woman’s vow? Does “following you” mean: “At your end,” and if so, when she said, “

I am following you,”

she spoke with regard to the entire matter,

meaning: She wanted to be like the other woman from beginning to end, and the intention of the woman who associated herself with her was that if, in the end, her husband annulled the other woman’s vow, then she too would not accept naziriteship upon herself, since her desire was to be like the other woman—

And

if so,

she is permitted,

the second woman, when the husband of the first woman annuls the first woman’s vow.

Or perhaps: “Following you” means: “Because of you,”

meaning: I follow you in accepting naziriteship

as you are before your husband annuls your vow [the status you had before he annulled your vow]—

And

if so, even if the husband annuls the first woman’s vow, the woman who associated herself with her remains

forbidden and remains subject to 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 her vow;

and it was initially understood that the reason he cannot annul her nazirite vow is that if her nazirite vow were annulled, his nazirite vow would also be nullified, and the Torah said: “He shall not profane his word,” meaning that he may not cause his own declaration to be profaned.

The reason that his nazirite vow is nullified—according to the hava amina of the Gemara—is that the matter depends on him, whether he will annul her vow or not, and he intends to permit it; it is therefore as though he said, “I am following you.”

And if it enters your mind:

even

when he says to her the husband to his wife, “

I am following you,”

he associates himself with the original state, before her nazirite vow was annulled,

then the husband’s intention, too, was not toward her status at the end, but toward her status now, before he annulled her vow.

And if so,

let him annul her vow

and her nazirite vow will be nullified,

and let his remain while his nazirite vow continues to exist. If so, why can he not annul her vow!?

Rather, learn from this:

If he says to her, “I am following you,”

he associates himself with the entire matter, and therefore

he

the husband

cannot annul

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

but a woman who says, “

I am following you,”

is also permitted,

since she associated herself with the other woman through the end of her nazirite status.

And we reject this:

No,

not as you proved, and

actually, both a husband and a woman who says, “I am following you,”

associate themselves with the original state,

and the reason that the husband cannot annul her vow is not that doing so would nullify his nazirite vow—

But here,

in our Mishna, this is why he cannot annul it:

since he said to her, “

And I,”

it is considered as though he said, “I uphold your vow,”

it is considered,

and he cannot annul a vow that he himself upheld.

And

therefore,

if he has his upholding annulled if he asks about his upholding and has it retroactively nullified,

he can annul

because his upholding has been nullified;

but if not,

if he does not ask about his upholding,

he cannot

annul her vow, since the nazirite vow remains upheld.

We learned in the Mishna:

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

And we raise a contradiction: “

I am a nazirite, and you,”

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

if she did not say “Amen,” then

both are permitted,

for this is what he said to her: “I am a nazirite if you are,” meaning: If you become a nazirite like me, then I will be a nazirite; but if you do not wish to become a nazirite, I too am not a nazirite. Since she did not accept naziriteship upon herself, he too is not a nazirite.

And regarding what we learned, “both are forbidden,” the beraita must necessarily mean that both are forbidden even through annulment; for otherwise, what is it teaching us? The reason for the beraita is that “a husband uproots [a vow] completely,” and since through his annulment his own vow, which he made dependent upon hers, is also uprooted, he violates “He shall not profane his word.”

This presents a difficulty against our Mishna, where we learned: “

He annuls hers, and his remains in force”! Rav Yehuda said: Teach

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

he annuls hers, and his remains in force,”

as we learned in our Mishna. The reason is that “a husband partially uproots [a vow],” and her nazirite vow is not uprooted retroactively, so that it could be said that through his annulment his own nazirite vow is also uprooted.

Abaye said: You may even say it is as it is taught

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

And if it is difficult for you: If so, why did we learn in our Mishna, “he annuls hers, and his remains in force”? I can say to you that 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 therefore explicitly made his vow dependent upon hers.