Study Nazir folio 21A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
תניא נמי הכי: מי שאמר ״הריני נזיר״, ושמע חבירו ושהה כדי דבור, ואמר ״ואני״ — הוא אסור, וחבירו מותר. וכמה כדי דבור — כדי שאילת שלום תלמיד לרב.
This is also taught in a baraita: In the case of one who said: I am hereby a nazirite, and another heard him and waited the time required for speaking a short phrase and then said: And I, the first person is bound by his vow and the other is permitted, as too much time passed between their respective vows. And how much time is the time required for speaking? It is the time necessary for a student to inquire after the welfare of his rabbi.
לימא מסייעא ליה: מי שאמר ״הריני נזיר״, ושמע חבירו ואמר ״ואני״ ״ואני״, ותו לא! תנא כי רוכלא ליחשיב וליזיל?!
The Talmud suggests: should we say that the Mishnah supports Reish Lakish’s opinion? As it is taught: In the case of one who said: I am hereby a nazirite, and another heard him and said: And I, and a third person heard him and said: And I, they are all nazirites. The Mishnah mentions: And I, twice and no more, which indicates that only two people can associate themselves with the vow of the first one. The reason for this must be because too much time has passed since the first person spoke. The Talmud rejects this argument: This is no proof, as should the tanna have continued reckoning cases like a peddler, who announces his wares over and over again, by repeating: And I, and I, over and over again?
וליתני חד ולשמעינן הני! הכא נמי, ומשום דקתני סיפא הותר הראשון הותרו כולן, הותר האחרון — האחרון מותר וכולן אסורין, מכלל דאיכא אמצעי, ומשום הכי קתני ״ואני״ ״ואני״.
The Talmud raises a difficulty: But if the tanna wishes to be concise, let him teach only one example, and teach us these other cases of others who say: And I, by means of a single example. The Talmud answers: Indeed, this is in fact correct, but because the tanna teaches in the latter clause: If the vow of the first was dissolved by a halakhic authority then they are all dissolved, but if the vow of the last individual was dissolved by a halakhic authority then the vow of the last individual is dissolved and all the others remain bound by their vow, one may conclude by inference that there is a middle person between the first and the last. And due to that reason the tanna teaches: And I, and I, so that the case would include 3 people, but not because a 4th person is unable to associate himself with the vow of the first in the same manner.