Explanation: The Beraisa supports Reish Lakish.

Explanation: He delayed precisely Kedei Dibur, but no longer, and said immediately va'Ani. He is forbidden, i.e. the first who vowed to be a Nazir, and his friend is permitted.

Inference: One can be Matfis only when all of them are Toch Kedei Dibur, but the fourth, who delayed after Kedei Dibur, cannot, like Reish Lakish.

Explanation: This is our Mishnah, and it teaches "va'Ani", and no more. According to R. Yehudah Nesi'ah, it could have taught va'Ani va'Ani four times!

Question: Also according to Reish Lakish, [we can ask that] it could have taught va'Ani va'Ani three times!

Answer: It means as follows. Granted, according to Reish Lakish, it needed to teach va'Ani only twice to teach that also the second is Matfis in the first, for he is Toch Kedei Dibur, and even though the middle one interrupted with his utterance between the first and the third;

Similarly, also the third who will say va'Ani will be Matfis in the first. There is no reason to distinguish between the second and the third, for both of them are Toch Kedei Dibur.

Distinction: However, according to R. Yehudah Nesi'ah, if it were true that a fourth can be Matfis in the first, this should be taught, for surely this is a Chidush;

[The Tana] needs to teach us that even though they already delayed Kedei Dibur, since it is immediately after Kedei Dibur [Hatfasah works].

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara answers the Tana is not a peddler. I.e. even though he could have taught four times va'Ani, he was not concerned to list everything he could list.

Question: This itself we can ask! It should teach one "va'Ani", and in the Seifa teach "if the first was permitted, the second is permitted. If the second was permitted, the first is not permitted!

Answer: According to the opinion that one is Matfis in his friend (the one who spoke before him), it mentioned (two who were Matfis) to infer that the last is one who has no one after him. However, the middle, who has someone after him, the one after him is permitted, like we infer below.

According to the opinion that they are Matfis in the first, the middle was taught to infer like below, that the first permits the one after him, but the middle one does not permit the one after him, for he was Matfis in the first.

Explanation: Each is Matfis in the one next to (just before) him, and Toch Kedei Dibur of his friend;

Or, perhaps all are Matfis in the first, who said Hareini Nazir.

Explanation: Even 100 [can be Matfis]. If they are all Matfis in the first, more than Kedei Dibur could not be Matfis, according to Reish Lakish like he holds;

According to R. Yehudah Nesi'ah, even four [can be Matfis], since [the fourth] is immediately after Kedei Dibur.

Explanation: If you will say that one is Matfis in his friend, it should teach more times "va'Ani va'Ani."

Explanation: This is in order to infer that there is a middle person, [and his law is] like we proceed to deduce from our Mishnah in two [opposite] ways.

Explanation: [The first] permits those after him. This teaches that they are Matfis in the first, since it did not teach that if the middle was permitted, the last is permitted.

Explanation: Therefore, when he is permitted, all [the others] are forbidden. However, the middle, who has someone after him, we could not teach that when he is permitted, all are forbidden, for also the last is permitted!

Explanation: Since it did not teach that if the middle was permitted, he is permitted and all [others] are forbidden, [this shows that one is Matfis in the one who spoke before him].

We reject this. "Last" means the middle. Since [above] the Tana taught first, here he taught last. Also, he is last with respect to the first.

Explanation: If the middle was permitted, from him and below are permitted. This shows that one is Matfis in his friend [who spoke before him].

Explanation: Our Mishnah is different. Since his friend vowed, surely he said so regarding the Isur of wine;

However, in the Beraisa, he says by himself, without hearing that his friend is a Nazir. His words have no effect, since he mentioned a part of the body not vital to life.

Explanation (cont.): "My mouth is like his mouth from wine" helps even according to R. Shimon, who said above (3b) that one must vow to refrain from all [three Isurei Nezirus]. Here he agrees, for this is no worse than a Yad;

Similarly, when he said 'I will curl my hair' or 'I will grow hair' (2a), he is a Nazir.

Question: Also when he said "my hand is a Nazir", we should say that he means "my hand is like his hand from becoming Tamei to Mesim", and ["my foot is a Nazir" means] "my foot is like his foot from going to a cemetery"!

Answer: Indeed, this is correct! If he heard that his friend vowed to be a Nazir, and he said "my hand is like his hand", it helps!

Source: A Tosefta (3:3) teaches explicitly in the Reisha, that if he said "my hand is like his hand", or "my foot is like his foot", he is a Nazir.

Explanation: The same applies in our Mishnah. If he did not say "my mouth is like his mouth", rather, "my mouth is a Nazir" or "my hair is a Nazir", his words have no effect, for these are not vital to life.

Explanation: [He uproots] the vow from its source. It is as if it never took effect, just like a Chacham who uproots the vow from its source.

Or, perhaps he cuts it off. It is Batel from Hafarah and onwards. Until Hafarah, it existed.

Explanation: [If he uproots it, also her friend is permitted, for] it is as if the vow never took effect;

If we say that he cuts, she is permitted and her friend is forbidden, for the first [who vowed] had all laws of Nezirus until Hafarah, and the second made proper Hatfasah in her. Hafarah of the first does not help for the second.

Granted, regarding [Heter through] a Chacham, if the first was permitted, all of them are permitted, for a Chacham uproots the vow from its source. It is as if it never took effect;

However, a husband annuls without regret. He does not uproot the vow from its source, rather, he cuts off. It is as if it never took effect;

Observation: We could have said that this affects if she drank wine, became Tamei or shaved b'Mezid, and afterwards he annulled her. If he uproots, she is not lashed. If he cuts, she is lashed.

Observation: Similarly, this affects if she became Tamei [even] b'Shogeg, and afterwards he annulled her. If he uproots, she does not bring Olas ha'Of and Asham. If he cuts, she brings Olas ha'Of and Asham, for Nezirus took effect until now.

Note: Tosfos did not mention Chatas ha'Of, for we said (19a) that R. Yishmael holds that he uproots, and even so she brings Chatas ha'Of.

Explanation: Through her Heter, he is permitted like her, for her vow never took effect. Therefore, he cannot annul, for he cannot annul for himself. Rather, others permit him.

Question: This is unlike others [who cannot annul for themselves - Orach Mishur], since he is allowed to annul his wife!

Answer (R. Eliyahu): The Gemara means that if you will say that he uproots, we understand why he cannot annul. It is obvious that he was Mekayem her [vow]. If he was not Mekayem, his words [Hatfasah in her] mean nothing;

However, if you will say that he cuts off, [her Nezirus] does not depend on his words [of Hatfasah in them. It is valid even if he annuls afterwards]. Since it does not depend on his words, he can annul. (Birkas Rosh - R. Eliyahu explains that the Gemara rejects that even so, since he wanted to her vow to be Kayam for a moment, this is like Kiyum.)

Explanation: This is as if he said [your vow] is affirmed for you. The truth is, one can permit Kiyum through She'elah, for R. Yochanan said so in Nedarim (69a).

Explanation: [She separated] a Chatas, Olah and Shelamim. If it was his, i.e. from her husband's animals, it grazes with the flock, i.e. it is Chulin, since her husband annulled her;

This is like we explain below (24a) that her husband is Makneh to her what she needs, i.e. if he does not annul her, she needs Korbanos Nazir;

Something she does not need, e.g. if her husband annuls her, and she does not need Korbanos Nazir, he is not Makneh to her.

Explanation: He uprooted the vow from its source. The vow never took effect.

This is like one who separates an animal for Nezirus, and asked a Chacham and permitted it. A Mishnah (below, 31a) says that it becomes Chulin.

Explanation: [She needs Kaparah] for paining herself [through refraining] from wine, like R. Elazar Hakapar, who says that a Nazir is a sinner. It is like a Chatas whose owner died;

Even though he annulled her regarding Isur, the animal has the status of a Chatas if it was her animal, for she resolved to be Makdish it.

Explanation: [If her husband did not annul her] at all, need we teach that she is lashed?! She is a Nezirah. Obviously she is lashed!

Rather, obviously her husband annulled her after she became Tamei and after she drank, and even so she is lashed, for at the time she drank wine she was a Nezirah. This shows that a husband cuts off.

Explanation: [Really, he uproots.] The case is, he did not annul;

Implied question: You said that there is no need to teach this!

Answer: Because the Seifa needs to teach that she is not lashed, for parallel structure the Reisha teaches that she is lashed.

The Seifa needs to teach [that she is not lashed] to teach unlike R. Yehudah, who says that even when he annulled her and she drank wine, she is lashed mid'Rabanan.

Question: Why do we discuss when he annulled her, and afterwards she drank? Let it teach us when she drank and became Tamei, and afterwards he annulled her, that she is not lashed, because he uproots!

Answer: [It discusses this case] due to R. Yehudah. Even when he annulled, and afterwards she drank, she is lashed mid'Rabanan, even though he already annulled, because she intended for Isur.