Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 4:1

משנה: מִי שֶׁאָמַר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר וְשָׁמַע חֲבֵירוֹ וְאָמַר וַאֲנִי וַאֲנִי וַאֲנִי כּוּלָּן נְזִירִין. הוּתַּר הָרִאשׁוֹן הוּתְּרוּ כוּלָּן הוּתַּר הָאַחֲרוֹן הָאַחֲרוֹן מוּתָּר וְכוּלָּן אֲסוּרִין. הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר וְשָׁמַע חֲבֵירוֹ וְאָמַר פִּי כְפִיו וּשְׂעָרִי כִשְׂעָרוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר. הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר וְשָֽׁמְעָה אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאָֽמְרָה וַאֲנִי מֵיפֵר אֶת שֶׁלָּהּ וְשֶׁלּוֹ קַייָם. הֲרֵינִי נְזִירָה וְשָׁמַע בַּעֲלָהּ וְאָמַר וַאֲנִי אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. MISHNAH: If somebody said “I am a nazir” and another person heard it and said, “and so am I”, “and so am I”, “and so am I”,¹A₁ declares to be a nazir, A₂ hears A₁ and says “so am I”, A₃ hears A₂ and says “so am I”, A₄ hears A₃ and says “so am I”. all of them are nezirim. If the first one was permitted, all are permitted²If the first went to an Elder who dissolved his vow, the others did refer to a non-existent vow; their vows are non-existent. Cf. Mishnah Nedarim 9:7.; if the last was permitted, the last is permitted and all others forbidden³In general, if A_i had his vow dissolved, automatically all vows of persons A_j, j > i, are dissolved.. “I am a nazir” and another person heard it and said, “my mouth is as his mouth and my hair as his hair,” he is a nazir. “I am a nazir” and his wife heard it and said, “and so am I”, he can dissolve hers⁴Even though the initiative is his, it does not limit his power to dissolve his wife’s vows (cf. Nedarim Chapter 10). but his vow remains. “I am a nezirah” and her husband heard it and said, “and so am I”, he cannot dissolve⁵Nobody can dissolve his own vow. If he could dissolve his wife’s vow, his own would be dissolved, as explained in the second sentence of this Mishnah..

הלכה: מִי שֶׁאָמַר. הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר. וְשָׁמַע חֲבֵירוֹ וְאָמַר. וַאֲנִי כול׳. כֵּן הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. וַאֲנִי וַאֲנִי. מָאן תַּנָּא וָוִים. רִבִּי יוּדָה. בְּרַם כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. אֲנִי אֲנִי. מַתְנִיתָא שֶׁהָיוּ כּוּלְּהֶם בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִיבּוּרוֹ שֶׁלָּרִאשׁוֹן. תַּנֵּי. הוּתַּר הָאֶמְצָעִי. מִמֶּנּוּ וּלְמַטָּן מוּתָּר. מִמֶּנּוּ וּלְמַעֲלָן אָסוּר. מַתְנִיתָא אֲפִילוּ אֵין כּוּלְּהֶם בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִיבּוּרוֹ שֶׁלָּרִאשׁוֹן אֶלָּא בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִּיבּוּרוֹ שֶׁלָּזֶה וְזֶה בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִּיבּוּרוֹ שֶׁלָּזֶה. כַּמָּה הוּא כְּדֵי דִיבּוּרוֹ. רִבִּי סִימוֹן בְּשֶׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. כְּדֵי שְׁאֵילַת שָׁלוֹם בֵּין אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ. אַבָּא בַּר בַּר חָנָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כְּדֵי שְׁאֵילַת שֵׁלוֹם בֵּין הָרַב לַתַּלְמִיד וְיֹאמֶר לוֹ. שָׁלוֹם עָלֶיךָ רִבִּי. HALAKHAH: “If somebody said ‘I am a nazir’ and another person heard it and said, ‘and so am I’,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “and so am I”, “and so am I”⁶This version has only two people responding, with most of the Babli and some Mishnah mss. The paragraph is discussed in detail by J. N. Epstein, ²מבוא לנוסח המשנה, p. 477–479.. Who is the Tanna of conjunctions? Rebbi Jehudah⁷He holds that there is a connection between the statements only if they are formulated as conjunctions; cf. Nazir 1:2:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.1.2.2">Chapter 1:2, Note 40, Gittin 9:6:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.9.6.2">Giṭṭin 9:7, Notes 85–101.. But following Rebbi Meïr, “I am,” “I am”. Does the Mishnah require that all of them follow immediately after the speaking of the first⁸If the number of additional nezirim is reduced to 2, is that because both A₂ and A₃ refer to the original vow, not that A₃ refers to that of A₂? In that case, there would not be time for three additional people to express their vow if the rule at the end of the paragraph be followed.? It was stated⁹The same baraita is quoted in the Nazir.21a">Babli, 21a, for the same conclusion.: If the middle one was permitted, all following him are permitted, all preceding him are forbidden¹⁰This is only possible if A_i+1 refers to A_i’s vow, not to A₁’s. Therefore, the original text of the Mishnah is correct and essential.. The Mishnah applies even if not all of them follow immediately after the speaking of the first, but each one follows immediately after the speaking of the preceding person¹¹This is explicit in Tosephta 3:2: “If somebody said ‘I am a nazir’ and another said ‘so am I’ but not immediately after him, the first is forbidden but the second is permitted.”. What means “to follow immediately after the speaking”? ¹²Berakhot 2:1:15" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Berakhot.2.1.15">Berakhot 2:1 (Notes 50–52), Moʻed qaṭan 3:7 (83c 1. 37). Nazir.20b">Babli 20b, Makkot.6a">Makkot 6a, Baba qama 73b, Shevuot.32a">Šebuot 32a. In the Babli, the longer version has an additional word: “peace upon you, my teacher and master.” Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The time needed for greeting between two people. Abba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The time needed for greeting between teacher and student, that he say to him, “peace upon you, my master.”

אֶחָד שֶׁאָמַר. הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מֵאָה יוֹם. וְשָׁמַע חֲבֵירוֹ וְאָמַר. וַאֲנִי מֵאָה יוֹם. וְחָזַר וְאָמַר. וַאֲנִי. נַעֲשֶׂה עִיקָּר טְפֵילָה. אֶחָד שֶׁאָמַר. הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר. וְאָמַר. אֲנִי. בְּתוֹךְ דִּיבּוּרוֹ שֶׁלָּרִאשׁוֹן. וְשָׁמַע חֲבֵירוֹ וְאָמַר. וַאֲנִי. בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִּיבּוּרוֹ שֶׁלַּשֵּׁינִי. הוּתַּר הָרִאשׁוֹן הוּתַּר הַשֵּׁנִי. הוּתַּר הַשֵּׁינִי לֹא הוּתַּר הַשְּׁלִישִּׁי. אֶחָד שֶׁאָמַר. הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שְׁתַּיִם. וְשָֽׁמְעוּ שְׁנַיִם וְאָֽמְרוּ. וְאָנוּ. נְזִירִין שְׁתַּיִם אוֹ כָּל־אֶחָד וְאֶחָד שְׁתַּיִם. הוּא הוּתַּר הוּתְּרוּ הֵן. לֹא הוּתַּר הוּא. שְׁנַיִם שֶׁאָֽמְרוּ. הֲרֵי אָנוּ נְזִירִין. וְשָׁמַע אֶחָד וְאָמַר. וַאֲנִי. תַּחַת שְׁנֵיהֶן נָזַר אוֹ תַחַת כָּל־אֶחָד וְאֶחָד נָזַר. הוּתְּרוּ הֵן היום הוּא. הוּתַּר הן לֹא הוּתְּרוּ הֵן. If one said, “I am a nazir for 100 days, and another heard it and said, “so am I for 100 days”, and repeated¹³It is not clear who is speaking, whether the second is making an additional vow or the first is repeating after the second. In the first case, if the first had his vow permitted, the second was not permitted; the “main vow”, his hitching on to the first person’s, becomes an accessory to the second vow which needs separate permission. In the second case, the first vow of the first person (the “main”) cannot become permitted unless the Elder also permits the secondary vow (the “accessory”.) and said, “so am I”, the main [statement] becomes an accessory. If one said, “I am a nazir;” somebody said “and I” following immediately the first, another heard it and said, “so am I” following immediately the second. If the first became permitted, so does the second¹⁴And the third.. If the second became permitted, the third was not permitted¹⁵The Tanna of this baraita disagrees with the argument of the preceding section and holds that, since the vow of the second is predicated on the first, the third also depends on the first but not on the third. Therefore, if the first vow is annulled, all are annulled; if any other vow is annulled, that alone is annulled but nothing else.. If one said, “I am a nazir twice,” and two people heard it and said, “so are we”, are they two nezirim or is each of them a nazir twice?¹⁶The question is not answered. The answer is obvious both for R. Jehudah and for R. Simeon (Nazir 2:8:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.2.8.2">Chapter 2, Note 100; Tosephta 2:8). If he was permitted, they were permitted. ¹⁷It seems that a sentence is missing: “If he was permitted, they did not become permitted.” He was not permitted. If two said, “we are nezirim,” another heard it and said, “so am I,” did he make a vow regarding both of them¹⁸Then he would have vowed two neziriot. or did he make a vow parallel to each of them?¹⁶The question is not answered. The answer is obvious both for R. Jehudah and for R. Simeon (Nazir 2:8:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.2.8.2">Chapter 2, Note 100; Tosephta 2:8). If they were permitted, [he]¹⁹Reading הוּתַּר “he was permitted” for incomprehensible הַיּוֹם “today”. was permitted; if [he]²⁰Reading הוּא “he” for הֵן “they”. was permitted, they were not permitted.

פִּי מִן הַיַּיִן. רֹאשִי מִן הַתִּגְלַחַת. יָדִי מִן הַטּוּמְאָה. רַגְלִי מִן הַטּוּמְאָה. רֹאשִׁי נָזִיר. כְּבֵידִי נְזִירָה. נָזִיר. הִילּוּכִי נָזִיר דִּיבּוּרִי נָזִיר. לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. לָמָּה. שֶׁהִתְפִּיס אֶת הַנֶּדֶר בְּדָבָר שֶׁהַנְּשָׁמָה תְלוּיָה בוֹ. נֶדֶר, נֶדֶר. מַה נֶדֶר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן דָּבָר שֶׁהַנְּשָׁמָה תְלוּיָה בוֹ. אַף נֶדֶר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן דָּבָר שֶׁהַנְּשָׁמָה תְלוּיָה בוֹ. “My mouth [shall be nazir] from wine²¹This refers to the Mishnah, where one person says “my mouth shall be like his mouth.” Somewhere it must have been mentioned that the mouth is the organ to which wine is forbidden. Similarly, if head or foot are mentioned, reference must be to the corresponding taboo imposed on the nazir. Then it is a valid vow of nazir by Nazir 1:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.1.2.1">Mishnah 1:2., my head from shaving, my hand from impurity, my foot from impurity; my head shall be nazir; my liver shall be nezirah,²²This is a separate set of rules. If somebody says, my x shall be nazir, he is a nazir as long as x is a body part necessary for survival (Nazir.21b">Babli 21b, Tosephta 3:3).” he is a nazir. “My walking shall be nazir; my talking shall be nazir”; he did not say anything. Why? Because he referred the vow to something on which life depends. “Vow, vow²³One invokes the rule of gezerah šawah, “equal cut” (cf. Berakhot 1:1:20" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Berakhot.1.1.20">Berakhot 1:1, Note 70; Nedarim 1:1:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.1.1.2">Nedarim 1:1, Note 18, 1:4, Note 159.) The nazir starts his obligation with a vow, mentioned “here” (Numbers.6.2">Num. 6:2). Another personal obligation accepted by a vow is that of paying “the valuation of living persons”, mentioned “there”, (Leviticus.27.2">Lev. 27:2). In a different formulation, the argument is in Sifra Beḥuqqotay Parašah 3(6)..” Just as “vow” mentioned there refers to something on which life depends, so “vow” mentioned here refers to something on which life depends.

הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר וְאַתּ כול׳. הוּתָּר הוּא הִיא הוּתְּרָה. הוּתְּרָה הִיא הוּא לֹא הוּתָּר. “ “I am a nazir, and you,” etc. If he was permitted, she is permitted²⁹This must refer to Nazir 4:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.4.1.1">Mishnah 1, the case that the wife says “and so am I”. Then her vow is dependent on his; if his vow is declared non-existent, so is hers. But in Nazir 4:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.4.2.1">Mishnah 2, saying “amen” makes her vow independent of his; if his vow were permitted, hers would still exist.. If she was permitted, he is not permitted.

מָה הֵן וַאֲנִי. מָה אַתְּ עֲבַד לָהּ. בְּאָמֵן וְקַייָם לָךְ. אוֹ יָפֶה עָשִׂית. דְּחִייָה רוֹבָה וְרִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה רוֹבָה. תַּנֵּי. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּֽזְרָה בַנָּזִיר וְשָׁמַע בַּעֲלָהּ וְאָמַר לָהּ. מָה רָאִית שֶׁתְּזוֹרִי. מַדּוּעַ עָשִׂית שֶׁנָּזַרְתְּ. וְלֹא הָיִיתִי רוֹצֶה שֶׁתְּזוֹרִי. אֵין כָּאן נֶדֶר אֵין כָּאן שְׁבוּעָה. לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר. יָפֶה עָשִׂית שֶׁנָּזַרְתְּ. וְכָךְ הָיִיתִי רוֹצֶה שֶׁתְּזוֹרִי. וְאִילּוּ לֹא נָזַרְתְּ הָיִיתִי מַזִּירָךְ. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה. כּוּלְּהֶם אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. כּוּלְּהֶם יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר בְּאָמֵן וְקַייָם לִיךְ עוֹד אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. What about, “and so am I³⁰The last case in Nazir 4:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.4.1.1">Mishnah 1, if the husband says “so am I” to his wife’s vow.,” how do you treat this? As “amen, it is confirmed for you,³¹Then he confirmed his wife’s vow. The confirmation of a wife’s vow by her husband is irrevocable.” or “you did well³²This is talk, not confirmation.”? The elder [Rebbi] Ḥiyya and the elder Rebbi Hoshaia. It is stated: If a woman made a vow to be anazir; her husband heard and said to her, “why did you make a vow of nazir? What did you do to make a vow of nazir? I would not like that you made a vow of nazir! There is neither vow nor oath here;” he did not say anything³³The only language which the husband is empowered to use is that of dissolution, הפרה. Any other language is invalid; cf. Nedarim 10:8:5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.10.8.5">Nedarim 10:10, Note 95 (Nedarim.77b">Babli Nedarim 77b).. But if he said, “you did well that you did make a vow of nazir; I liked that you did make a vow of nazir; if you had not made a vow of nazir I would have told you to make one”, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated on this, in all of these cases he cannot dissolve³⁴In his opinion, confirmation of a vow is not restrictedr to a fixed formula, but dissolution would be.. But Rebbi Hoshaia stated: In all these cases, he can dissolve unless he said “amen” or “it is confirmed for you”, then he can no longer dissolve.