מִי שֶׁאָמַר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר, וְשָׁמַע חֲבֵרוֹ וְאָמַר וָאָנִי, וָאָנִי, כֻּלָּם נְזִירִין. הֻתַּר הָרִאשׁוֹן, הֻתְּרוּ כֻלָּן. הֻתַּר הָאַחֲרוֹן, הָאַחֲרוֹן מֻתָּר וְכֻלָּם אֲסוּרִין. אָמַר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר, וְשָׁמַע חֲבֵרוֹ וְאָמַר, פִּי כְפִיו וּשְׂעָרִי כִשְׂעָרוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר. הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר, וְשָׁמְעָה אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאָמְרָה, וָאָנִי, מֵפֵר אֶת שֶׁלָּהּ, וְשֶׁלּוֹ קַיָּם. הֲרֵינִי נְזִירָה, וְשָׁמַע בַּעְלָהּ וְאָמַר, וָאָנִי, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר: With regard to one who said: I am hereby a nazirite, and another heard this vow and said: And I, and a third person added: And I, they are all nazirites. If the vow of the first was dissolved by a halakhic authority, they are all dissolved. However, if the vow of the last individual was dissolved by a halakhic authority, the vow of the last individual alone is dissolved, and all the others remain bound by their nazirite vows. If someone said: I am hereby a nazirite, and another heard and said: My mouth is like his mouth and my hair is like his hair, he is a nazirite. If one said: I am hereby a nazirite, and his wife heard him and said: And I, he can nullify her vow of naziriteship if he so chooses (see Numbers 30:7–16). But his vow remains intact, as his naziriteship is not dependent on hers. However, if the wife said: I am hereby a nazirite, and her husband heard and said: And I, he cannot nullify her vow of naziriteship, as he would thereby be nullifying his own vow, which he made dependent on hers, and he does not have the ability to nullify his own vow.
הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר, וָאַתְּ, וְאָמְרָה אָמֵן, מֵפֵר אֶת שֶׁלָּהּ, וְשֶׁלּוֹ קַיָּם. הֲרֵינִי נְזִירָה, וָאָתָּה, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר: If he said to his wife: I am hereby a nazirite, and you, i.e., you shall be a nazirite as well, and she said: Amen, in acceptance of this vow, he can nullify her vow, and his vow remains intact. However, if the wife said: I am hereby a nazirite, and you, and he said: Amen, he cannot nullify her vow.
הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּדְרָה בְנָזִיר, וְהָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה בְיַיִן וּמִטַּמְּאָה לְמֵתִים, הֲרֵי זוֹ סוֹפֶגֶת אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים. הֵפֵר לָהּ בַּעְלָהּ וְהִיא לֹא יָדְעָה שֶׁהֵפֵר לָהּ בַּעְלָהּ, וְהָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה בְיַיִן וּמִטַּמְּאָה לְמֵתִים, אֵינָהּ סוֹפֶגֶת אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם אֵינָהּ סוֹפֶגֶת אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים, תִּסְפֹּג מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת: With regard to a woman who vowed to be a nazirite, and she transgressed her vow since she was drinking wine and rendering herself ritually impure by contact with the dead, she incurs the forty lashes for each of the Torah prohibitions she transgressed. If her husband nullified her vow, and she did not know that her husband had nullified her vow, and she was drinking wine and rendering herself impure by contact with the dead, she does not incur the forty lashes, as she is no longer a nazirite. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if she does not incur the forty lashes by Torah law, she should incur lashes for rebelliousness [makat mardut], an extrajudicial punishment imposed by the Sages, for her intention to commit a transgression, since she believed that it was prohibited to her.
הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּדְרָה בְנָזִיר וְהִפְרִישָׁה אֶת בְּהֶמְתָּהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הֵפֵר לָהּ בַּעְלָהּ, אִם שֶׁלּוֹ הָיְתָה בְהֶמְתָּהּ, תֵּצֵא וְתִרְעֶה בָעֵדֶר. וְאִם שֶׁלָּהּ הָיְתָה בְהֶמְתָּהּ, הַחַטָּאת תָּמוּת, וְעוֹלָה תִּקְרַב עוֹלָה, וְהַשְּׁלָמִים יִקְרְבוּ שְׁלָמִים, וְנֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד, וְאֵינָן טְעוּנִין לָחֶם. הָיוּ לָהּ מָעוֹת סְתוּמִים, יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. מָעוֹת מְפֹרָשִׁים, דְּמֵי חַטָּאת, יֵלְכוּ לְיַם הַמֶּלַח, לֹא נֶהֱנִים וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִים בָּהֶן. דְּמֵי עוֹלָה, יָבִיאוּ עוֹלָה, וּמוֹעֲלִים בָּהֶן. דְּמֵי שְׁלָמִים, יָבִיאוּ שְׁלָמִים, וְנֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד, וְאֵינָן טְעוּנִין לָחֶם: With regard to a woman who vowed to be a nazirite and separated her animals for her offerings of purity at the end of her term, and afterward her husband nullified her vow, which means that she is not in fact a nazirite, what becomes of these animals? If the animal was his, it shall go out and graze among the flock until it becomes blemished, like regular non-consecrated animals. And if the animal was hers, different halakhot apply to the various offerings: The animal she set aside as a sin-offering must be left to die by being shut in an enclosed area and deprived of food and water, as will be explained in the Gemara. And the animal separated for a burnt-offering is sacrificed on the altar as a burnt-offering, as in any case one may bring a voluntary burnt-offering. As for the one designated for a peace-offering, it is sacrificed as a voluntary peace-offering. And this peace-offering is eaten for only one day, in accordance with the halakha of the nazirite’s peace-offering, despite the fact that regular peace-offerings may be eaten for two days. But the offering does not require bread, i.e., loaves and wafers, unlike that of a nazirite. If she had unallocated funds, i.e., she had separated money for her offerings but had not stated which coins were designated for which offering, all the money will be earmarked for communal gift offerings. If she had allocated funds, i.e., she had decided which coins were for the payment of each offering, even if she had not yet purchased the animals, the money for the sin-offering is taken and cast into the Dead Sea, i.e., it must be destroyed, either by being thrown into the sea or by some other means. One may not benefit from it, as it possesses a measure of sanctity, but one also does not misuse property consecrated to the Temple with it. In other words, if one did derive benefit from this money he is not liable to bring an offering for misusing consecrated property. As for the money for the burnt-offering, a burnt-offering is brought with those coins, and one who benefits from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property, as it is sacred since it can be used toward the purchase of a gift offering. Similarly, with regard to the money for a peace-offering, a peace-offering is brought with those coins, and it is eaten for one day and does not require bread.
נִזְרַק עָלֶיהָ אֶחָד מִן הַדָּמִים, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ נִשְׁחֲטָה עָלֶיהָ אַחַת מִכָּל הַבְּהֵמוֹת, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, בְּתִגְלַחַת הַטָּהֳרָה. אֲבָל בְּתִגְלַחַת הַטֻּמְאָה, יָפֵר, שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לוֹמַר אִי אֶפְשִׁי בְאִשָּׁה מְנֻוָּלֶת. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, אַף בְּתִגְלַחַת הַטָּהֳרָה יָפֵר, שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לוֹמַר אִי אֶפְשִׁי בְּאִשָּׁה מְגֻלָּחַת: The previous mishna discussed the case of a husband who nullified his wife’s vow after she separated her offerings of naziriteship. This mishna deals with a husband who nullified his wife’s naziriteship after she had completed her term and brought her offerings to the Temple. If the blood from one of her naziriteship offerings was sprinkled on the altar on her behalf, the husband cannot nullify her vow at this point. Rabbi Akiva says: Even before the sprinkling of the blood, he cannot nullify the vow as soon as any one of the animals for her offerings has been slaughtered on her behalf. The mishna continues: In what case is this statement, that he can no longer nullify the vow, said? It is when she is bringing the offerings for her shaving of ritual purity, when she has completed her term of naziriteship without becoming ritually impure (see Numbers 6:18). However, if she is sacrificing the offerings for her shaving of impurity, when she became ritually impure during her term of naziriteship, after which she restarts her naziriteship (see Numbers 6:9), her husband can nullify her vow. The reason is that he can say: I do not want a downcast [menuvvelet] wife, who does not drink wine. She would have to refrain from wine for a lengthy period if she were to begin her naziriteship anew. Rabbi Meir says: He can nullify her vow even at the stage of her shaving of purity, after she has begun sacrificing her offerings, as he can say: I do not want a shaven wife, and a nazirite is obligated to shave after bringing his or her offerings.
הָאִישׁ מַדִּיר אֶת בְּנוֹ בְנָזִיר, וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה מַדֶּרֶת אֶת בְּנָהּ בְּנָזִיר. כֵּיצַד, גִּלַּח אוֹ שֶׁגִּלְּחוּהוּ קְרוֹבָיו, מִחָה אוֹ שֶׁמִּחוּ קְרוֹבָיו, הָיְתָה לוֹ בְהֵמָה מֻפְרֶשֶׁת, הַחַטָּאת תָּמוּת וְעוֹלָה תִּקְרַב עוֹלָה וְהַשְּׁלָמִים יִקְרְבוּ שְׁלָמִים, וְנֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד, וְאֵינָן טְעוּנִין לָחֶם. הָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת סְתוּמִין, יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. מָעוֹת מְפֹרָשִׁין, דְּמֵי חַטָּאת יֵלְכוּ לְיָם הַמֶּלַח, לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין. דְּמֵי עוֹלָה, יָבִיאוּ עוֹלָה וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן. דְּמֵי שְׁלָמִים, יָבִיאוּ שְׁלָמִים, וְנֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד, וְאֵינָן טְעוּנִין לָחֶם: A man can vow that his minor son should be a nazirite, i.e., a father can declare his son a nazirite, but a woman cannot vow that her son should be a nazirite. How so; what are the details of this naziriteship? If the son shaved his hair, thereby demonstrating his rejection of the vow imposed by his father; or if his relatives shaved him; or if the son objected by saying that he has no desire for this naziriteship; or if his relatives objected on his behalf, the naziriteship is canceled. If this son who canceled the naziriteship had animals separated for his offerings, the one set aside for the sin-offering must die, and the burnt-offering is sacrificed as a burnt-offering, and the peace-offering is sacrificed as a peace-offering. And the peace-offering is eaten for one day, like the peace-offering of a nazirite, rather than the two days of a regular peace-offering, and it does not require bread, i.e., the loaves that accompany a nazirite’s peace-offering. If he had unallocated funds, they will be allocated for communal gift offerings. If he had allocated funds for his offerings, the money for the sin-offering is taken and cast into the Dead Sea, as one may not benefit from it ab initio, but if he benefits from it, he is not liable to bring an offering for misuse of consecrated property. With the money for the burnt-offering they bring a burnt-offering; it is prohibited to derive benefit from those coins and if he benefits from it, he is liable to bring an offering for misuse of consecrated property. With the money for the peace-offering they bring a peace-offering, and it is eaten for one day and does not require bread.
הָאִישׁ מְגַלֵּחַ עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיו וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה מְגַלַּחַת עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיהָ. כֵּיצַד. מִי שֶׁהָיָה אָבִיו נָזִיר וְהִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת סְתוּמִים עַל נְזִירוּתוֹ וּמֵת, וְאָמַר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֲגַלַּח עַל מְעוֹת אַבָּא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה, אֵין זֶה מְגַלֵּחַ עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיו. אֵיזֶהוּ שֶׁמְּגַלֵּחַ עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיו, מִי שֶׁהָיָה הוּא וְאָבִיו נְזִירִים וְהִפְרִישׁ אָבִיו מָעוֹת סְתוּמִים לִנְזִירוּתוֹ וּמֵת, זֶהוּ שֶׁמְּגַלֵּחַ עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיו: A man can shave, i.e., bring the offerings at the close of his term of naziriteship, by using offerings originally designated for his father’s naziriteship, but a woman cannot shave by means of the offerings for her father’s naziriteship. How so; how is this halakha applied? It applies to one whose father was a nazirite and separated unallocated money for his naziriteship, i.e., he did not state which coins were for which of his offerings, and he died before buying the animals, and the son said after his father’s death: I am hereby a nazirite on the condition that I will shave by means of the money that my father set aside. Rabbi Yosei said: In that case these coins are allocated for communal gift offerings, and the son may not use them, as this is not the case of the halakha that a son can shave by using his father’s naziriteship. Rather, who is the son who can shave by using his father’s naziriteship? This is referring to a son and his father who were both nazirites during his father’s lifetime, and his father separated unallocated money for his naziriteship and died; this is the one who may shave by using his father’s naziriteship.