Explanation: The same applies to Asham; she must bring it;

It mentions Olas ha'Of because Chatas ha'Of and Olas ha'Of are written in one verse [yet their laws are different].

Explanation: Really, he uproots. This is why she does not bring Olas ha'Of;

She brings Chatas ha'Of because it comes amidst Safek. It says so in Nedarim (10a). Now we conclude that a husband uproots.

Question: Why here, we bring the entire teaching of R. Elazar Hakapar, but above (21b, regarding one who separated her Korbanos) we did not bring it?

Citation (21b): Really, he uproots. Since she needs Kaparah, it is...

Answer #1: Therefore, it seems that the text [above] says "since she does not need Kaparah, it is like a Chatas whose owner died.

Explanation: Really, he uproots. In any case, since she was Makdish it, it does not become Chulin. When he annuls her, it is like a Chatas whose owner died.

Answer #2: Also the text in Seforim (she needs Kaparah) is fine. Above, we do not do totally like R. Elazar [Hakapar], for we do not offer it;

However, here we offer it. We properly bring R. Elazar's teaching, for [this Beraisa] is totally like him.

Question: Above, we resolved from the law that she brings a Chatas but not an Olah, that he uproots. Now we seek to resolve that he cuts. This is unlike the way of the Gemara! (Rather, we should challenge the resolution from this Beraisa.)

Answer: We establish that (the Beraisa above) like R. Elazar Hakapar, and this Beraisa like Rabanan. We bring this Beraisa to show that Tana'im argue about this;

R. Shimon says that if she said "I am like you", both of them are permitted, for [this] connotes "I am like you in all your ways. When you are permitted, also I am permitted."

Question: Since she accepted Nezirus, and it took effect on her, how is she permitted through her friend's Heter, since [a husband] cuts off?

There is no partial Nezirus. If someone said "I am a Nazir today, and tomorrow I am not a Nazir", he is a Nazir for 30 days, for there is no Nazir for less than 30 days, like the Mishnah above (5a) teaches.

Answer (Ri): The Tosefta (3:10) says [if she said] "I intended to be only like you", both of them are permitted if she said so;

R. Shimon understands that she said "if in the end you will be permitted, Nezirus should not take effect on me at all."

Opinion #1: R. Shimon does not come to argue with the first Tana's teaching, rather, to add to it. Also the first Tana agrees with him.

Opinion #2 (R. Peretz): According to R. Shimon, even if she said only "va'Ani", it is as if she explicitly said "I intended to be only like you." R. Shimon and Rabanan argue about this.

Observation: In Nedarim (11b) it connotes that Rami bar Chama asked about where there is meat of Shelamim after Zerikah, and he said "this loaf is Alai like this Shelamim meat";

Meat of Shelamim is forbidden to eat before Zerikah, and permitted to eat after Zerikah;

He asks, when he said "like this Shelamim meat", does the Noder mean to say like meat of Shelamim was initially, before Zerikah, and this loaf is forbidden?

Or, does he intend like meat of Shelamim now, after Zerikah, which is permitted, and also the loaf will be permitted?

Opinion #1: In our Sugya, some explain that Mar Zutra brei d'Rav Mari wants to reject the Gemara's resolution from the Beraisa, which explicitly says that she is permitted and her friend is forbidden. The Gemara resolved that a husband cuts;

Mar Zutra rejects this. Really, he uproots, like we concluded from the Beraisa (22a) "she brings Chatas ha'Of, but does not bring Olas ha'Of";

Her friend is forbidden because she is Matfis in the initial status. I.e. she is Matfis herself to be like her (the first Noderes) before her husband annulled her, when she was forbidden;

She intends to vow in that Isur and remain in it, even if [the first's] husband will annul her and uproot her vow retroactively, like we find that Rami bar Chama asked about this, whether we say that he is Matfis like the initial status.

Rejection: This Perush is very difficult.

Objection #1: Rami bar Chama did not resolve that he is Matfis in the initial status. (Rather than retract our resolution, we should settle his question!)

Objection #2: There, in Rami bar Chama's question, Zerikah permits the meat only from Zerikah and onwards, but not retroactively. There, surely if we say that he is Matfis like the initial status, he is forbidden;

However, regarding a husband's Hafarah, if he uproots, even if you will say that she was Matfis like the initial status, her friend should be permitted, for it is as if the vow never took effect.

Objection #3: Why is this different than our Mishnah, which teaches that if the first was permitted, also all of them are permitted, because a Chacham uproots the vow from its source?

Here we want to say that even if a husband uproots the vow from its source, her friend is forbidden!

Poor answer (to Objection #3): A Chacham permits only with a Pesach [reason to consider the vow a mistake] and regret. He makes the vow as if it was a mistake from the beginning;

Therefore, when the first is permitted, it is as if this vow never was at all. Therefore, all of them are permitted;

However, a husband annuls without a Pesach or regret, due to a Gezeras ha'Kasuv. Therefore, even if he uproots, it is considered as if the vow remains on her a little, and her friend is forbidden. This is difficult.

Objection #4: Now, Mar Zutra wants to say that even if a husband uproots, her friend is forbidden;

Above, the Gemara said simply that a consequence [of whether a husband uproots or cuts] is a woman who vowed to be a Nazir, and her friend heard and said va'Ani. If you will say that he uproots, also she (the latter) is permitted.

It turns out that Mar Zutra contradicts that Sugya!

Objection #5: Afterwards, we reject [Mar Zutra's words, and say] "these are different! There, since he said "it is Alai like meat of Shelamim [even though after Zerikah it is permitted in Yerushalayim, it still has Kedushah. Here, he annulled her!]

According to Opinion #1, this is not a proper rejection, for the reason is opposite! (If regarding Shelamim, one is Matfis in the initial state, even though it is feasible to attempt Hatfasah in the final Kedushah, all the more so the woman was Matfis in the initial state, since after Hafarah there is nothing to attempt Hatfasah on!)

Answer (to Objection #5): It means [as if it says] "u'Mi Dami" (with a Vov). Mar Zutra said all of this. The wording in Maseches Nazir is different [than the rest of Shas].

I.e. even though there [regarding Shelamim], the question is not simple, surely here we can say that simply that one is Matfis in the initial state. This is a poor answer.

Objection #6: Why should we bring the question of Rami bar Chama? Even without the question, we can say that one is Matfis in the initial state, like the Gemara proceeds to explain!

Poor answer (to Objection #6): We brought the question to teach the reasoning that one is Matfis in the initial state. Had we not heard this reasoning elsewhere, we would not say it here that one is Matfis in the initial state.

Objection #7: The wording "a Beraisa explicitly teaches" connotes that the resolution [from this Beraisa, that a husband cuts] stands, like we brought also above (21a) "a Beraisa explicitly teaches" (that when people say va'Ani, each is Matfis in the previous one), and the resolution stands.

Opinion #2 (Maharam): Mar Zutra does not reject the resolution. Rather, it stands, that a husband cuts;

Mar Zutra says "this is like [the question of] Rami bar Chama", i.e. from this Beraisa we can resolve Rami bar Chama's question;

Just like we say that her friend is forbidden when she said va'Ani - this shows that one is Matfis in the initial state, even though her friend knows that this woman can become permitted through her husband's Hafarah...

Rather, we say that va'Ani means like the initial state, just like she is forbidden now, also I will be;

Also here, we should say that when he said this loaf is like meat of Shelamim, he wants to say like before Zerikah.

Question: These are different! Surely, regarding a woman, we say that she intends for the initial state, because she vowed at the time that her friend is forbidden, and she said va'Ani;

However, Rami bar Chama [asked about] one who vows at a time of Heter, after Zerikah. Why should we say that he intends for the initial state?

Answer #1: We must say that the Sugya here holds that also Rami bar Chama discusses such a case [when it is forbidden now], that he said "this loaf is Alai like Shelamim meat", before Zerikah;

Regarding this our Sugya argues with the Sugya in Nedarim. There [Rami explicitly asked about one who] said "it is Alai like Shelamim meat after Zerikah."

Comment - Answer #2: We can say that "after Zerikah" in the Gemara there is not from Rami's words. Rami bar Chama said only 'if one said "it is Alai like Shelamim meat", what is the law?';

About this, the Gemara explains after Zerikah, i.e. he is Matfis after Zerikah.

It is possible that [really, Rami] asked about before Zerikah, and our Sugya holds like this.

Support #1: Similarly, we explain the question about whether a craftsman acquires improvements to a Kli;

The Gemara in Bava Metzi'a (112a) explains [the question to be] whether or not [the owner] transgresses 'Bal Talin' (not paying a worker the same day), and differently in Bava Kama (99a) (if the craftsman improved a Kli, and later ruined it, is he exempt like one who damaged his own property?)

Support #2: Similarly, in Bava Kama (19a), regarding the question of a Shinuy in Tzeroros (an animal that kicked [e.g.] pebbles, in an abnormal way, and they damaged), the Gemara explains it in various ways regarding how it was asked in the Beis Midrash in early days.

Comment - Explanation: The Gemara rejects that we cannot resolve [Rami's question] from this Beraisa, for it is different;

There, since he said "it is Alai like Shelamim meat", even though after Zerikah he can eat it, outside it is Kadosh;

I.e. there is still Kedushah in the meat, regarding the Isur to eat outside Yerushalayim.

Observation: We could have said that it has Kedushah regarding Tum'as ha'Guf. One may not eat Shelamim meat when he is Tamei. Similarly, [it has Kedushah regarding] Chutz li'Zmano (it become forbidden from nightfall of the day after it was offered). The Gemara mentioned one of them (the ways in which it is still Kadosh).

I.e. there, we can have a doubt if he is Matfis in the initial state before Zerikah, or after Zerikah;

Since a person errs to say that since there is Kedushah in the meat also after Zerikah, regarding outside [Yerushalayim], it is possible to be Matfis in it. (Really, one cannot be Matfis in this Isur, since it is not Davar ha'Nadur. I.e. his vow did not forbid it outside Yerushalayim at Zerikah, rather, the Torah did.) Therefore, we can be unsure whether he intends for the initial state, or after Zerikah;

Distinction: However, here, this woman said va'Ani. We should say that surely, she intends for the initial state to be Matfis and become forbidden before [the first's] husband annuls her.

If you would say that she is Matfis in Tzinena (cold, this is unreasonable). Her husband already annulled her!

"Tzinena" means after Hafarah, after the Isur cooled off and went away. Therefore, we should say that she was Matfis in the initial state, before her husband annulled her.

If she was Matfis in Tzinena, there is no Isur at all. How did she err to be Matfis after Hafarah?!

However, regarding Shelamim, he errs to be Matfis also after Zerikah, because there is Kedushah also in meat after Zerikah, regarding outside [Yerushalayim] and several matters that I explained.

Explanation: The woman vowed to be a Nazir, and her friend heard her and said "I am in your footsteps." It is as if she said "I am in back of you";

"Ikvech" is [from the word heel,] like it says "v'Atah Teshufenu Akev." I.e. at the end of your way. If you will be permitted, also I will be permitted. I will not accept on myself Nezirus, and it will not take effect on me;

Or, perhaps [she means] before her husband annuls her, and she is forbidden [even after Hafarah]. We can explain "Ikvech" [to mean due to you,] like "Ekev Asher Shama Avraham b'Koli";

Even if the first woman is permitted, the second is forbidden, for she intended to be like her initial state, before her husband annulled her;

When she said "b'Ikvech", it is as if she said va'Ani. We said above in a Beraisa that [in such a case, the first woman] is permitted and her friend the second) is forbidden;

Since Nezirus took effect on her, it is not uprooted through Heter of the first, because a husband cuts off.

Explanation: [We ask, if you will say that when she said "b'Ikvech", she is Matfis in the initial state, and] even if the first woman is permitted, the second is forbidden...

If so, also in our Mishnah [when her husband said va'Ani], why can't he annul her? He can annul her, and his [Nezirus] will endure!

Inference: Rather, this shows that one is Matfis is the entire matter. Also the one who said "b'Ikvech" is permitted. It is mere wordiness. (Birkas Rosh - in the question, we already said that if that one is Matfis is the entire matter, she is permitted!)

Similarly, also the husband, when he said va'Ani, he intends for the entire matter. If she is permitted, also he will be permitted, and [his Nezirus] will not take effect. Therefore he cannot annul, for he would transgress "Lo Yachel Devaro."

Question: In our Mishnah, he said only va'Ani! (How can we learn from one who said "b'Ikvech"?)

Answer: We compare them as follows. Just like a woman who said "Hareini b'Ikvech" [intends for] the entire matter, also a husband intends to be Matfis in the entire matter.

Distinction: A regular man who says "va'Ani" intends for the initial state, because he cannot permit and does not think about permitting;

However, a husband, who can permit, he intends to permit more than others who are Matfis. It is as if he said Hareini b'Ikvech.

We reject this. Really, one is Matfis in the initial state, and even so, here he cannot annul. Since he said va'Ani, it is as if he said "it is affirmed for you." If he permits his Kiyum through She'elah, he can annul, but if not, he cannot.

Explanation: He holds that a husband uproots. If he annuls her, also his [vow] is permitted, and he transgresses "Lo Yachel";

The Tana of the Beraisa holds that he means "I am a Nazir if you [will be, also]", even if he did not say "if".

Therefore, if she said Amen, both of them are forbidden. This was the question against our Mishnah, which taught that when he said to her "I am a Nazir. And you?", he can annul her [Nezirus], and his endures;

If not, i.e. she did not answer Amen, both of them are permitted, because he made his vow dependent on her vow, and he did not want to be a Nazir unless also she will be a Nezirah.

Explanation: [Add to the text of the Beraisa, so it says] in the Reisha that he [can] annul hers, and his endures, like our Mishnah. The Reisha teaches that both of them are forbidden, i.e. until he annuls;

This is unlike we thought initially, that he cannot annul hers.

Implied question: The Seifa connotes that he made his vow dependent on her vow. It says "if not, both of them are forbidden";

Note: In our texts, the Seifa explicitly says so.

Answer: Even so, he can annul hers, because this Tana holds that a husband cuts off. This is the Chidush that he comes to teach.

However, the Reisha teaches that they are forbidden as long as he did not annul. This is no Chidush. Obviously both are forbidden until he annuls! (Rather, the Chidush is that he can annul hers, and his endures.)

Explanation: The Beraisa discusses when he said to her "I am a Nazir if you." He made his vow dependent on her vow. I.e. if you are a Nezirah, also my Nezirus will take effect;

Therefore both of them are forbidden and he can annul, like the wording [of the Beraisa] "both are forbidden" connotes;

This is because he made his vow dependent on her vow, and if he annuls hers, also his is Batel, and he transgressed "Lo Yachel." [The Tana] holds that a husband uproots.

Distinction: The Mishnah teaches "I am a Nazir. And you?" I.e. he does not make his vow dependent on her vow. Rather, he accepts on himself in any case;

"And you?" that he said, he asks her if also she can accept Nezirus on herself.

"And you?" that he said was a question to her. I.e. do you want to vow also?