משנה: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּֽדְרָה בַנָּזִיר וְהָֽיְתָה שׁוֹתָה בַיַּיִן וּמִיטַּמָּא לַמֵּתִים הֲרֵי זוֹ סוֹפֶגֶת אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים. הֵיפֵר לָהּ בַעֲלָהּ וְהִיא לֹא יָֽדְעָה שֶׁהֵיפֵר לָהּ בַעֲלָהּ וְהָֽיְתָה שׁוֹתָה בַיַּיִן וּמִיטַּמָּא לַמֵּתִים אֵינָהּ סוֹפֶגֶת אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אִם אֵינָהּ סוֹפֶגֶת אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים תִּסְפּוֹג מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. MISHNAH: If a woman had made a vow of nazir but drank wine or defiled herself for the dead, she receives forty [lashes]39Since she violates biblical prohibitions, is duly warned by two witnesses, and persists in her action, she is subject to the biblical punishment of at most 39 lashes.. If her husband had dissolved her vow but she did not know that he had dissolved her vow40Since the husband can dissolve his wife’s vows in her absence. when she drank wine or defiled herself for the dead, she does not receive forty [lashes]41While there was criminal intent, there was no crime committed. The husband had legitimized her actions.. Rebbi Jehudah said, if she does not receive forty, let her receive blows of rebelliousness42Rabbinic punishment, usually reserved for transgression of rabbinic rules..
הלכה: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּֽדְרָה בַנָּזִיר כול׳. מַלְקוּת תּוֹרָה אַרְבָּעִים חָסֵר אַחַת. אוֹמְדִין אוֹתוֹ. אִם יֵשׁ מַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ וְאִם לָאו אֵין מַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ. מַכּוֹת מַרְדּוּת חוֹבְטִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶיְּקַבֵּל אוֹ עַד שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשׁוֹ. HALAKHAH: “If a woman had made a vow of nazir,” etc. Biblical whippings are 39 lashes43Makkot 3:7:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Makkot.3.7.1">Mishnah Makkot 3:10.. One evaluates him; if he can stand it, one whips him, if not, one does not whip him. Blows of rebelliousness: one strikes him until he accepts44To follow rabbinic rules. or until he dies.
כְּתִיב וַיי֨ יִסְלַח לָהּ. מַגִּיד שֶׁטְּעוּנָה סְלִיחָה. כְּשֶׁהָיָה רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב מַגִּיעַ לְפָסוּק זֶה הָיָה אוֹמֵר. מִי שֶׁנִּתְכַּװֵן שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה בְיָדוֹ בְּשַׂר חֲזִיר וְעָלָה בְיָדוֹ בְּשַׂר כְּשֵׁירָה צָרִיךְ כַּפָּרָה. הַמִּתְכַּוֵּין שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה בְיָדוֹ בְּשַׂר חֲזִיר וְעָלָה בְיָדוֹ בְּשַׂר חֲזִיר עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. It is written: “The Eternal will forgive her45Numbers.30.6">Num. 30:6,Numbers.30.9">9,Numbers.30.13">13. The verses refer to girls or women whose vows are dissolved by father or husband. The verses assume that they felt impelled to make vows for some hidden guilt. In the Nazir.23a">Babli, 23a, the verse is interpreted to refer only to the case of the woman violating her vow, not knowing that it had been dissolved. The speaker there and in Tosephta 3:14 is R. Aqiba..” This tells that she needs forgiveness. When Rebbi Jacob came to this verse, he used to say: If somebody needs atonement having intended to get pig’s meat but happened to get kosher [animal’s] meat, so much more one who had the intent to get pig’s meat and got pig’s meat.
תַּנֵּי. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּֽדְרָה בַנָּזִיר וְשָֽׁמְעָה חֲבֵירָתָהּ וְאָֽמְרָה. וַאֲנִי. וְשָׁמַע בַּעֲלָהּ שֶׁלָּרִאשׁוֹנָה וְאָמַר. מוּתָּר לֵיךְ. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מוּתֶּרֶת וְהַשְּׁנִייָה אֲסוּרָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. אִם אָֽמְרָה. לֹא נִתְכַּװַנְתִּי אֶלָּא לִהְיוֹת כְּמוֹתָהּ וּכְיוֹצֵא בָהּ. אַף הִשְּׁנִייָה מוּתֶּרֶת. It was stated46Tosephta 3:10; Babl1 22a.: “A woman made a vow as nazir and her friend heard it and said, ‘so am I;’ if the first’s husband heard and told her, ‘it is permitted to you,’ the first one is permitted but the second forbidden47The Babli explains that in contrast to an Elder, who has the power to retroactively annul a vow from the start, the husband can only annul his wife’s vow from the moment he heard about it. Therefore, for the second woman, the reference was to a valid vow and she is a nezirah.. Rebbi Simeon says, if she said, my intention was only to be like her, in her state, the second also is permitted.”
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אוֹמֵר. עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר שְׁבוּעָה בָאַחֲרוֹנָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר שְׁבוּעָה עַל כַּל־אַחַת וְאַחַת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. נִמְצָא שֶׁאֵין בְּיָדוֹ חִטִּים פָּטוּר עַל הַשְּׁאָר. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא. אוֹף רִבִּי יוּדָה מוֹדֶה בָהּ. נִמְצָא שֶׁאֵין בְּיָדוֹ חִיטִּין מָהוּ שֶׁתָּחוּל עָלָיו שְׁאָר הַמִּינִין. חֲבֵרַייָא אָֽמְרִין. לֹא חָלָה. רִבִּי זְעִירָא אָמַר. חָלָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייְעָא לַחֲבֵרַייָא. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּֽדְרָה בַנָּזִיר וְשָֽׁמְעָה חֲבֵירָתָהּ וְאָֽמְרָה. וַאֲנִי. וְשָׁמַע בַּעֲל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְהֵיפֵר לָהּ. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מוּתֶּרֶת וְהַשְּׁנִייָה אֲסוּרָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. אִם אָֽמְרָה. לֹא נִתְכַּװַנְתִּי אֶלָּא לִהְיוֹת כְּמוֹתָהּ וּכְיוֹצֵא בָהּ. אַף הִשְּׁנִייָה מוּתֶּרֶת. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָֽמְרָה. לִהְיוֹת כְּמוֹתָהּ וּכְיוֹצֵא בָהּ. הָא אִם לֹא אָֽמְרָה. לִהְיוֹת כְּמוֹתָהּ וּכְיוֹצֵא בָהּ. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מוּתֶּרֶת וְהַשְּׁנִייָה אֲסוּרָה. מָה אִם תַּמָּן שֶׁאֵין שָׁם עִיקַּר נְזִירוּת אַתְּ אוֹמֵר. חָלָה. כָּאן שֶׁיֵּשׁ כָּאן עִיקַּר שְׁבוּעָה לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן. מָהוּ דְאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן נִמְצָא שֶׁאֵין בְּיָדוֹ חִיטִּין וּפָטוּר עַל הַשְּׁאָר. בְּמַתְפִּישׂ. בְּאוֹמֵר. שְׂעוֹרִין יְהוּ כְּחִיטִּין. כּוּסֲמִין יְהוּ כְּחִיטִּין. There, we have stated48Mishnah Šebuot 5:3: “If 5 people claim a deposit which he holds for them and he swears that he holds nothing of theirs, and this was false, he can be prosecuted for one perjury. But if he said, an oath that I hold nothing of yours, and of yours, etc. (using the singular in each case), he can be prosecuted for 5 perjuries. R. Eleazer says, [he can be prosecuted for 5 perjuries] only if he mentioned ‘oath’ at the end (to make it clear that he meant an oath for each of them singly.) R. Simeon says, only if he mentioned an oath in every case,” i. e., an oath that I hold nothing of yours, and an oath that I hold nothing of yours, etc.
The following Nazir 5:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.5.2.1">Mishnah 5:4 deals with the case that one claimant demands from him wheat, barley, and spelt which he holds, and he swears falsely that he holds nothing, he is prosecuted for one perjury. But if he swears that he holds neither wheat, nor barley, nor spelt, he is prosecuted for each item separately; R. Meïr says, even if he swore that he did not have wheat, barley, spelt. For this part of the Mishnah, cf. Ketubot 13:4:2-3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.13.4.2-3">Ketubot 13:4, Notes 79–86.: “Rebbi Eleazar says, only if he mentions ‘oath’ at the end. Rebbi Simeon says, only if he mentions ‘oath’ for every item.” 49From here to the end of the Halakhah, a parallel text is in Šebuot 5:4 (36b 1. 46). Rebbi Joḥanan said, [Rebbi Simeon implies]50The parallel text and the quote later in this paragraph show that the text in parentheses belongs here. if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is not prosecutable for the rest51Since in the preceding Mishnah, R. Simeon held that the “oath” only referred to the first item on the list; if there was no perjury for the first item, there was no perjury. (The Menachot.103a">Babli agrees, Menaḥot 103a.) As long as he did not say, “an oath for barley, and an oath for spelt”, he cannot be prosecuted for lying about these items.. Rebbi Abba said, even Rebbi Jehudah will agree with this52It is established in Šebuot that R. Jehudah is the anonymous Tanna of these Mishnaiot. He agrees that no prosecution is possible if the oath regarding the first item of the list was true.. If it turns out that he had no wheat, does [the oath] refer to the other kinds? The colleagues said, it does not53When she said, “so am I”, she only referred to the first woman in her present state, as nezirah, without further thought. This supports the colleagues’ interpretation.; Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it does. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, the baraita supports the colleagues: “A woman made a vow as nazir and her friend heard it and said, ‘so am I;’ if the first’s husband heard and told her, ‘it is permitted to you,’ the first one is permitted and the second forbidden. Rebbi Simeon says, if she said, my intention was only to be like her, in her state, the second also is permitted.” Because she said “to be like her, in her state;” therefore, if she did not say “to be like her, in her state,” the first is permitted and the second forbidden54Interpreting R. Simeon’s opinion, they hold that any vow or oath only refers to the item mentioned as its object.. Since there, where there was no original nezirut, you say it applies, here, where there was an original oath, not so much more55The argument of R. Jacob bar Aḥa is rejected. If an accessory vow is interpreted maximally, an original oath cannot be intepreted minimally.? When Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon implies that if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is not prosecutable for the rest, if he attaches56He explicitly attaches the second and third items to the first. Then it is clear that he cannot be prosecuted for perjury if he swore correctly on the first item.: If he says, [my obligation for] barley shall be like that for wheat; [my obligation for] spelt shall be like that for wheat.
פְּשִׁיטָא דָא מִילְּתָא. לֹא הֵיפֵר לָהּ בַּעֲלָהּ שֶׁלָּרִאשׁוֹנָה וְעָֽבְרָה עַל נִדְרָהּ לוֹקָה. שְׁנִייָה מָהוּ שֶׁתִּלְקֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. מֵאַחַר שֶׁזּוֹ לוֹקָה זוֹ לוֹקָה. אָמַר רִבִּי לָא. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. וְתֵיעָשֶׂה שְׁנִייָה כְּאוֹמֶרֶת. הֲרֵינִי נְזִירָה לְאַחַר עֶשְׂרִים יוֹם. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר. שֶׁלֹּא נִתְנַדֵּב כְּדֶרֶךְ הַמִּתְנַדְּבִין. The following is obvious: If her husband did not dissolve for the first [woman] and she transgressed her vow, she is whipped. Can the second be whipped57If the second woman stated that “my intention was only to be like her, in her state,” and the first violated her vow and now cannot be a nezirah while she undergoes the purification rite, when the second also violated her vow.? Rebbi Yose said, since one is whipped, the other also is whipped. Rebbi La said, this58R. Yose’s statement. follows Rebbi Simeon. Can the second not be considered like one who said, I am a nezirah after twenty days59That the vow should count again after the first woman was purified.? Rebbi Simeon follows his own opinion; for Rebbi Simeon declares him free, because his offering was not according to the custom of offerers.60Menachot 12:3" href="/Mishnah_Menachot.12.3">Mishnah Menaḥot 12:3 (formulated in the masculine), cf. Nazir 2:4:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.2.4.3">Halakhah 2:4, Note 66. There does not exist an intermittent vow of nazir; if the second woman’s vow was valid, it remains valid.