Nazir - Daf 21

• If each is connecting to the one before him, or to the first

The Gemara inquires regarding the case where a line of people declare, “And I,” one after the other: חד בחבריה מיתפיס, או דלמא בקמא מיתפסי – Does each one connect to his friend (i.e., the who said, “And I” just before him), or does he connect to the first [nazir]? A practical difference is that if each connects to the one before him, מתפסין ואזלין לעולם – they can continuously connect indefinitely, by each one saying, “And I,” within תוך כדי דיבור of the one before him, but if they all connect to the first one’s nezirus, only those who respond within the original תוך כדי דיבור are nezirim. The Gemara attempts to deduce from our Mishnah who would become permitted through a middle nazir’s heter, but those deductions are deflected. Finally, a Baraisa is quoted which teaches that if a middle nazir becomes permitted, הימנו ולמטה מותר, הימנו ולמעלה אסור – those after him are permitted, and those before him are still forbidden. This proves that each nazir is connecting to the one immediately before him, so those who follow the permitted nazir are likewise permitted.

• If a husband’s hafarah voids his wife’s nedarim retroactively

The Gemara inquires: בעל מיעקר עקר, או דלמא מיגז גייז – Does a husband uproot his wife’s nedarim retroactively, or does he “cut them off,” i.e., void them going forward? A practical difference is if a woman declared nezirus, and another woman said, “And I,” and then the husband of the first was meifir her nezirus. If it is voided retroactively, the second woman’s declaration is ineffective. The Gemara attempts a resolution from our Mishnah, which taught that if a woman who declared nezirus, and her husband said, “And I,” he can no longer be meifir hers. The Gemara assumes the reason for this is that he cannot cause his own nezirus to become permitted, which would happen through his hafarah. This seems to show that hafarah retroactively voids her nezirus, for otherwise,ליפר לאשתו והוא ליתסר - let him be meifir his wife’s [nezirus] and he will remain forbidden, since it was in force at the time of his declaration. The Gemara responds that the husband cannot be meifir for an entirely different reason: כיון דאמר לה ואני כמאן דאמר קיים ליכי דמי – Since he has said to her, “And I,” he has in effect said, “Your nezirus is confirmed,” making him unable to be meifir.

• The halachah of a chatas of a nezirah whose husband was meifir

The Gemara attempts another resolution from a Mishnah: האשה שנדרה בנזיר והפרישה את בהמתה – A woman who vowed nezirus and designated her animal [for her korban], ואחר כך הפר לה בעלה – and then her husband revoked [the nezirus], if the animal was his property, the designation is void and it is chullin. His obligation to provide her with korbanos is only inasmuch as they are eventually needed; if not, they are not hers to designate. If the animal was her personal property, the chatas is left to die, because it cannot be used. The Gemara reasons that if hafarah revokes her nezirus retroactively, the chatas should revert to chullin, since she was never a nezirah with a chatas obligation. Since the Mishnah teaches that it is left to die, it seems that hafarah only voids going forward. The Gemara answers that even if hafarah is retroactive, the chatas must die, because: כיון דלא צריכה כפרה – since she does not need an atonement anymore, הות כחטאת שמתו בעליה – it is akin to a chatas whose owners have died, וגמירי דחטאת שמתו בעליה תמות – and we have learned [from a הלכה למשה מסיני] that a chatas whose owners have died is left to die. Since at the time her designation was made (before the hafarah), she was still obligated in a chatas, her designation was not made in error, and is valid.