רֵישָׁא כְּגוֹן דִּנְזַר מֵחֲדָא לְרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי דַּאֲפִילּוּ לֹא נָזַר אֶלָּא מֵאַחַת מֵהֶן הָוֵי נָזִיר וְאָסוּר לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר עַד שֶׁיַּזִּיר מִכּוּלָּם מוּתָּר in the earlier clause, where one said: I did not know that a nazirite is prohibited from drinking wine, that is a case where he vowed naziriteship with regard to only one of the prohibitions. The difference of opinion is as follows: According to the Rabbis, who say that even if he vowed naziriteship with regard to only one of the prohibitions of naziriteship he is nevertheless a nazirite, in that case he is prohibited by all of them, despite not knowing about the prohibition against consuming wine. According to Rabbi Shimon who said he is not a nazirite unless he takes a vow of naziriteship with regard to all of them, he is permitted.
סֵיפָא דִּנְדַר מִכּוּלְּהוּ וְאִיתְּשִׁיל מֵחֲדָא Conversely, the last clause addresses one who vowed naziriteship with regard to all of them, thereby accepting upon himself all the halakhot of naziriteship, and now wishes to request dissolution of one of the prohibitions, thinking that a halakhic authority can dissolve one aspect of his naziriteship.
לְרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי אֲפִילּוּ לֹא נָזַר אֶלָּא מֵאַחַת מֵהֶן הָוֵי נָזִיר כִּי מִתְּשִׁיל מֵחֲדָא מִינַּיְיהוּ אִישְׁתְּרִי לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר עַד שֶׁיַּזִּיר מִכּוּלָּם כִּי מִתְּשִׁיל נָמֵי מֵהָהוּא עַד דְּמִתְּשִׁיל מִכּוּלְּהוּ מִשּׁוּם הָכִי קָתָנֵי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹסֵר The Gemara explains: According to the Rabbis, who say that even if he vowed naziriteship with regard to only one of the prohibitions of naziriteship he is nevertheless a nazirite, in that case too, when he requests of a halakhic authority to dissolve one of them, he is permitted to engage in all of the behaviors forbidden to a nazirite. Just as the acceptance of one part of naziriteship causes one to be bound by all the halakhot of naziriteship, dissolution of one element of naziriteship nullifies the entire naziriteship. According to Rabbi Shimon, who said that he is not a nazirite unless he takes a vow of naziriteship with regard to all of them, when he requests dissolution of that prohibition, none of the prohibitions are permitted until he requests dissolution of all of the prohibitions of nazirite-ship. Due to this the mishna teaches: And Rabbi Shimon prohibits him.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּנִדְרֵי אוֹנָסִין קָא מִיפַּלְגִי וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל וְרַב אַסִּי דִּתְנַן אַרְבָּעָה נְדָרִים הִתִּירוּ חֲכָמִים נִדְרֵי זֵירוּזִין נִדְרֵי הֲבַאי נִדְרֵי שְׁגָגוֹת נִדְרֵי אוֹנָסִין And if you wish, say instead: The Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon disagree with regard to vows impeded by circumstances beyond one’s control, and their disagreement is in the dispute between Shmuel and Rav Asi. As we learned in a mishna (Nedarim 20b): The Sages dissolved four types of vows without the requirement of a request to a halakhic authority. The first category is vows of exhortation, where one employs a vow to urge another to perform some action. The second category is vows of exaggeration [havai], where one utters a vow that is dependent upon some outlandish claim, such as: I should be bound by a vow if I did not see a square snake. Since he knows that there are no square snakes, it is evident that he is not serious in taking his vow. The third category is vows that are unintentional, where one vows for a particular reason and later discovers he was mistaken with regard to the facts; and the fourth is vows whose fulfillment are impeded by circumstances beyond one’s control.
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב אַסִּי אַרְבָּעָה נְדָרִים הַלָּלוּ צְרִיכִין שְׁאֵלָה לַחֲכָמִים כִּי אַמְרִיתַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר לִי תַּנָּא קָתָנֵי הִתִּירוּ חֲכָמִים וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ צְרִיכִין שְׁאֵלָה לַחֲכָמִים The Gemara relates the dispute between Shmuel and Rav Asi: And Rav Yehuda said that Rav Asi said: These four vows require a request made to the halakhic authorities to dissolve them, and the vows are not dissolved unless one does so. Rav Yehuda related: When I stated this halakha of Rav Asi before Shmuel, he said to me: The tanna teaches that the Sages dissolved them, and you say they require a request made to the halakhic authorities? Shmuel holds that they are dissolved automatically.
רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי כִּשְׁמוּאֵל וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן כְּרַב אַסִּי: The Gemara continues its explanation: The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon in the last clause of the mishna is also with regard to this halakha. This case is referring to a kind of a vow impeded by circumstances beyond one’s control, as he claims that he has no choice but to drink wine or contract impurity from corpses. The Rabbis hold in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, and therefore the vow is dissolved automatically, without the need to request dissolution from a halakhic authority; and Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Asi that one must make a request to a halakhic authority to dissolve the vow, and he remains a nazirite until he does so.
מַתְנִי׳ הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר וְעָלַי לְגַלֵּחַ נָזִיר וְשָׁמַע חֲבֵירוֹ וְאָמַר וַאֲנִי וְעָלַי לְגַלֵּחַ נָזִיר אִם הָיוּ פִּקְחִים מְגַלְּחִין זֶה אֶת זֶה וְאִם לָאו מְגַלְּחִין נְזִירִים אֲחֵרִים: MISHNA: If one says: I am hereby a nazirite and it is incumbent upon me to shave a nazirite, meaning he will also pay for the offerings that a nazirite brings when he cuts his hair; and another heard and said: And I too am a nazirite and it is incumbent upon me to shave a nazirite, the other is also a nazirite and is obligated to pay for the offerings of a nazirite. If they were perspicacious and wish to limit their expenses, they shave each other. They may each pay for the other’s offerings, so that their additional vows will not cost them anything. And if not, if this arrangement did not occur to them and each brought his own offerings, they shave other nazirites, i.e., they must pay for the offerings of other nazirites.
גְּמָ׳ אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ שָׁמַע חֲבֵירוֹ וְאָמַר וַאֲנִי מַהוּ וַאֲנִי אַכּוּלֵּיהּ דִּיבּוּרָא מַשְׁמַע אוֹ דִלְמָא אַפַּלְגֵיהּ דְּדִיבּוּרָא מַשְׁמַע אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר אַפַּלְגֵיהּ דְּדִיבּוּרָא מַשְׁמַע אַרֵישָׁא אוֹ אַסֵּיפָא GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages. If one said: I am hereby a nazirite and it is incumbent upon me to shave a nazirite as well, and another heard and said only: And I, what is the halakha? Do we say that: And I, indicates acceptance of the entire statement of the first one, which would mean he is both a nazirite and must shave a nazirite, or perhaps it indicates acceptance of only half the statement of the first speaker? If you say it indicates acceptance of only half the statement, does it indicate acceptance of the first clause, i.e., I am hereby a nazirite, or the last clause, i.e., it is incumbent upon me to shave a nazirite?
תָּא שְׁמַע וַאֲנִי וְעָלַי לְגַלֵּחַ נָזִיר אִם הָיוּ פִּקְחִים מְגַלְּחִין זֶה אֶת זֶה מִדְּקָאָמַר וַאֲנִי וְעָלַי שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ וַאֲנִי אַפַּלְגֵיהּ דְּדִיבּוּרָא אָמְרִי אִין אַפַּלְגֵיהּ דְּדִיבּוּרָא מַשְׁמַע מִיהוּ אַרֵישָׁא אוֹ אַסֵּיפָא מִינָּה מִדְּקָאָמַר וְעָלַי לְגַלֵּחַ שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ וַאֲנִי עַל תְּחִילַּת דִּיבּוּרָא מַשְׁמַע The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna. If a second person said: And I, and it is incumbent upon me to shave a nazirite, then if they are perspicacious they shave each other. From the fact that it says: And I, and it is incumbent upon me, you can learn from this that: And I, indicates acceptance of only half the statement, as otherwise he would not need to add the second part. The Sages say in response to this attempted proof: Yes, this proves that it indicates acceptance of only half the statement. However, the other question still has not been answered: Is he referring to the first part of the original statement or to the last part? The Gemara answers: This can be learned from the mishna itself. From the fact that it says: And it is incumbent upon me to shave a nazirite, one can learn from this that: And I, indicates acceptance of the beginning of the statement to become a nazirite, which is why one has to add that he must also pay for the offerings of a nazirite.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְרָבָא מִמַּאי דְּהָכִי לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ וַאֲנִי אַכּוּלֵּיהּ דְּדִיבּוּרָא וְאִי מִשּׁוּם וְעָלַי מַאי קָאָמַר וְעָלַי בְּהָא מִילְּתָא דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא הֲרֵי עָלַי לְגַלֵּחַ חֲצִי נָזִיר וְשָׁמַע חֲבֵירוֹ וְאָמַר וַאֲנִי עָלַי לְגַלֵּחַ חֲצִי נָזִיר הָתָם מִי אִיכָּא תַּרְתֵּין מִילֵּי אֶלָּא מַאי קָאָמַר עָלַי בְּהָא מִילְּתָא הָכָא נָמֵי כִּי קָאָמַר עָלַי בְּהָא מִילְּתָא Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rava: From where do you know that it is so that the words: And I, are referring to the first part of the statement? Actually, I will say to you that: And I, is referring to the entire statement, and if you claim otherwise because he added: And it is incumbent upon me, the explanation of what he is saying is: And it is incumbent on me to do this matter. He was merely clarifying what his intention was when he said: And I. As, if you do not say so, then with regard to that which is taught in the last clause, in the following mishna, that if one said: It is incumbent upon me to shave half a nazirite, and another heard that and said: And I, it is incumbent upon me to shave half a nazirite, then there, are there two statements? That mishna is addressing only a single vow. Rather, what is he saying by using the words: It is incumbent upon me? He is referring to that whole matter; here too, in this mishna, when he says: And it is incumbent upon me, he is referring to that whole matter.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא רֵישָׁא צְרִיכָא סֵיפָא לָא צְרִיכָא תָּנֵי סֵיפָא דְּלָא צְרִיכָא מִשּׁוּם רֵישָׁא דִּצְרִיכָא אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ רֵישָׁא לָא צְרִיכָא סֵיפָא לָא צְרִיכָא תָּנֵי רֵישָׁא דְּלָא צְרִיכָא וְתָנֵי סֵיפָא דְּלָא צְרִיכָא Rava said to him: How can these cases be compared? Granted, if you say that in the first clause it is necessary to teach both parts of the statement and in the latter clause it is not necessary to teach both parts of the statement, then it can be said that he taught the unnecessary latter clause due to the necessary first clause, as it is typical for a mishna to phrase both of its sections in the same style. But if you say that it is not necessary to teach both parts of the statement in the first clause and it is also not necessary to teach both parts of the statement in the latter clause, as one has accepted the other’s entire statement by saying: And I, would the tanna teach an unnecessary first clause and teach an unnecessary latter clause? Since the addition of: And it is incumbent upon me, is not required in the latter mishna, it must be necessary in this mishna, so the inference of Rava is correct.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָאוֹמֵר לִשְׁלוּחוֹ § After analyzing the mishna itself, the Gemara turns to a related issue. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One who says to his agent: