הָא בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ דַּאֲבוּהּ קָאֵים אֶלָּא דְּאָמַר אֱהֵא בִּשְׁבִיל אַבָּא אֱהֵא בִּשְׁבִיל עַצְמִי After all, he still remains under his father’s authority with regard to naziriteship, as he has yet to develop two pubic hairs. Rather, one must explain that he said the following: I shall be a nazirite due to my father; I shall be a nazirite due to my own vow. In other words, he did not link his statement to the question of whether he was old enough to vow but to the issue of his father’s authority with regard to naziriteship, i.e., whether he had developed two hairs.
אִי אַיְיתִי שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת מֵעִיקָּרָא קָאֵים בִּנְזִירוּת דִּילֵיהּ וּלְבַסּוֹף קָאֵים בִּנְזִירוּת דַּאֲבוּהּ וְאִי אַיְיתִי בְּמִצְעֵי מַאי The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, if he had developed two pubic hairs from the outset, i.e., before his father vowed, he would stand bound by his own naziriteship, and if he reached physical maturity at the end, i.e., after the vow ended, he would stand bound by his father’s vow of naziriteship. But if he developed two hairs in the middle of his naziriteship term, of what use would the son’s vow be?
הָנִיחָא לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לְעוֹנַת נְדָרִים The Gemara clarifies: This works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that a father can vow on behalf of his son until he reaches the age of vows. The reason is that this stage is by rabbinic law, and therefore the fact that the son has reached this stage does not automatically cancel the father’s vow. The son would complete his term and bring his offerings.
אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי דְּאָמַר עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר אָמְרִי לְרַבִּי לֵיכָּא תַּקַּנְתָּא עַד דְּיָתֵיב דִּילֵיהּ וְיָתֵיב דַּאֲבוּהִי: However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said that a father can vow for his son only until he develops two pubic hairs, what can be said? If he grew two hairs during his father’s naziriteship it is no longer in effect, as by Torah law he is no longer under his father’s authority, so what is the halakha in that case? The Sages say in response: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, this child has no rectification until he sits for his term of naziriteship and also sits for the naziriteship of his father, i.e., he must be a nazirite for sixty days, to ensure that he completes a full term of thirty days, either for his own naziriteship or for that of his father.
מַתְנִי׳ 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 שֶׁאֲגַלֵּחַ עַל מְעוֹת אַבָּא MISHNA: 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה אֵין זֶה מְגַלֵּחַ עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיו אֵיזֶהוּ שֶׁמְּגַלֵּח עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיו מִי שֶׁהָיָה הוּא וְאָבִיו נְזִירִים וְהִפְרִישׁ אָבִיו מָעוֹת סְתוּמִים לִנְזִירוּתוֹ וּמֵת זֶה הוּא שֶׁמְּגַלֵּחַ עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיו: 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.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הֲלָכָה הִיא בְּנָזִיר פְּשִׁיטָא מַאי לְמֵימְרָא דְּבֵן יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אָבִיו בַּת לָא GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this difference between a man and a woman? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai with regard to a nazirite. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is so, even without this halakha. What is the purpose of stating this? Is Rabbi Yoḥanan coming to say that a son inherits from his father whereas a daughter does not, and therefore only a son who inherits from his father can use his animals, but not a daughter? This is obvious, as it is stated in the Torah that a daughter does not inherit from her father if he has a son (see Numbers 27:8).
לָא צְרִיכָא דְּלֵית לֵיהּ אֶלָּא בַּת מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא יוֹרְשִׁין גְּמִירִין לָהּ The Gemara answers: No, this halakha is necessary in a case when he has only a daughter, who does inherit from him. Lest you say that we learned this halakha with regard to heirs, i.e., that the halakha is that all heirs, including a daughter, can shave by means of their father’s offerings,