Nazir - Daf 22
- Proof to מיעקר עקר from korbanos of a nezirus of tumah which was revoked
The Gemara presents a Baraisa which teaches that a nezirah who became tamei [and designated korbanos] and her husband subsequently revoked her nezirus, brings her chatas-bird, but does not bring her olah-bird. The Gemara asks: ואי ס"ד בעל מיגז גייז, תייתי נמי עולת העוף – If you think that the husband “cuts it off,” meaning ends the nezirus going forward only, she should bring the olah bird as well, since she became obligated in these korbanos. The Gemara responds, that if her nezirus is uprooted retroactively with hafarah, she should not bring the chatas either, since the entire nezirus was voided! The Gemara concludes that although other korbanos are not brought, because hafarah is retroactive, the chatas is brought because he holds like Rebbe Elazar Hakappar that a nazir is called a sinner because he deprived himself of wine. This sin is sufficient to require her to bring the chatas she already designated, although her nezirus was voided retroactively. Rishonim add that the halachah allows for bringing a chatas-bird in circumstances that other korbanos are not brought, such as a case of doubt. Here too, she may bring the chatas-bird despite not actually having been a nezirah.
- Proof to מיגז גייז from a second nezirus connecting to a nezirus that was revoked
The Gemara then proves the reverse, that hafarah only voids going forward, from a Baraisa: האשה שנדרה בנזיר – A woman who vowed nezirus, ושמעה חבירתה ואמרה ואני – and her friend heard and said, “And I,” ובא בעלה של ראשונה והפר לה – and the first one’s husband was meifir her [nezirus],היא מותרת וחבירתה אסורה – she is permitted, and her friend remains forbidden. שמע מינה בעל מיגז גייז – Learn from this that the husband “cuts off” for the future with hafarah, because if it voids nezirus retroactively, the second declaration would not be valid, since it was made based on the first. Apparently, these two Baraisos disagree about whether a husband’s hafarah is retroactive or not. The Baraisa concludes with a statement from Rebbe Shimon: אם אמרה לה הריני כמותיך – If [the second woman] said, “I am like you,” שתיהן מותרות – they are both permitted through the first one’s hafarah, because her nezirus was made dependent on the first one’s nezirus remaining in force.
- הרי עלי כבשר זבח שלמים מהו
Mar Zutra the son of Rav Mari said that the above Baraisa resolves the inquiry of Rami Bar Chama, who asked: הרי עלי כבשר זבח שלמים מהו – If one says, “This is hereby forbidden to me like meat of a shelamim,” what is the halachah? כי מתפיס איניש בעיקרא מתפיס – Does a person link with the initial (forbidden) state, או דלמא בצננא מתפיס – or does he link with its final (lit. cold) permitted state? The Gemara here understands the case to be before the blood was sprinkled, and the meat was not yet permitted. If the vower means to reference its initial (forbidden) state, the neder would be valid, but if he means to reference its final (permitted) state, it would not. The Baraisa above taught that the second woman’s nezirus is valid, although it was made through linking with the first woman’s nezirus, which was later revoked. Although she was aware that the first nezirus could later be revoked, her reference was to the current (forbidden) state of her friend’s nezirus. Here, too, it is the initial state of the shelamim to which a vower refers. The Gemara says that the cases are not analogous, because a shelamim remains kadosh even in its final permitted state, so one may (mistakenly) think it can be used for a neder, whereas the woman’s nezirus is completely void after hafarah, so her friend certainly referenced her initial state. Others say the comparison is correct.
