(Mishnah): If a woman accepted Nezirus, and drank wine or became Teme'ah, she receives 40 lashes.

If her husband annulled her Nezirus, and she did not know this, and drank wine or became Teme'ah, she does not receive 40 lashes;

R. Yehudah says, if she does not receive 40 lashes, she receives lashes mid'Rabanan.

(Gemara): Torah lashes are 39. We assess him. If he has [ability to survive them], we lash him [all of them]. If not, we do not lash him [more than he can survive].

Lashes mid'Rabanan, we beat him until he accepts [to follow Torah law], or until he dies.

[It says about a woman who did not know that her husband already annulled her vow, and transgressed it] "va'Shem Yislach Lah" teaches that she requires forgiveness;

When R. Yakov would reach this verse, he would say 'one who intended to eat pork, and (unknowingly) ate Kosher meat, he requires atonement. One who intended to eat pork, and ate pork, how much more so!

(Beraisa): If a woman vowed to be a Nazir, and her friend heard and said 'and I', and the first's husband said to her 'it is annulled for you', the first is permitted and the second is forbidden. (This is because a husband annuls only from now and onwards. The vow was intact at the time that the second said 'and I.')

Note: Our text (Mutar Leich) is astounding. This is the normal text that a Chacham uses! The Mishnah (Chagigah 1:8) and the Yerushalmi (Yevamos 13:1, Sotah 8:5) call a Chacham's permission 'Hataras' or 'Heter' Nedarim, and above (Sof Halachah 2), we said that expressions that work for a Chacham do not work for a husband! The Sifri (Matos 153 DH Zeh ha'Davar) says 'Chacham Matir, v'Ein Ba'al Matir.' The NIMUKEI YOSEF (Nedarim 24b DH Amar R. Yochanan) cites the Yerushalmi (Nedarim 10:8) to say that a husband permits through 'Mutar Lach', but it seems that also this is a printing mistake. (Our text of the Yerushalmi there says 'Mufar Leich.')

R. Shimon says, if the second said 'I intended only to be like her' (to be forbidden as long as she is forbidden) or similar to this, also the second is permitted.

(Mishnah): (If five partners claimed a deposit, and said "give to us our deposit in your hands", and he swore 'you do not have a deposit by me, not you and not you and not you... ', he is liable for each one.) R. Eliezer says, [he is liable for each] only if he said 'Shevu'ah' at the end;

R. Shimon says, it is only if he said 'Shevu'ah' to each.

(R. Yochanan): (If one said 'give to me my wheat, barley and spelt', and he said 'Shevu'ah that I do not have of yours wheat and barley and spelt', he is liable for each one.) According to R. Shimon, if it turns out that he does not have wheat, he is exempt for the rest.

(R. Ba): Even R. Yehudah (the first Tana) agrees about this.

Question: If it turns out that he does not have wheat, does the Shevu'ah take effect on the other species? (Perhaps we say that his Shevu'ah was only about the first matter, which is true, and his other words are not part of his Shevu'ah!)

Answer #1 (Talmidim): It takes effect.

Answer #2 (R. Zeira): It does not take effect.

Support (for Talmidim - R. Yakov bar Acha - Beraisa): If a woman vowed to be a Nazir, and her friend heard and said 'and I', and the first's husband said to her 'you are permitted', the first is permitted and the second is forbidden. ;

R. Shimon says, if the second said 'I intended only to be like her' (to be forbidden as long as she is forbidden) or similar to this, also the second is permitted.

Inference: This is because she said 'to be like her' or similar to this, but if she did not say 'to be like her' or similar to this, the first is permitted and the second is forbidden!

Culmination of Support: There, there is no primary Nezirus (it was annulled), and you say that [what was attributed to the first Nezirus] takes effect - here there is a primary Shevu'ah, all the more so [what was appended to it] should take effect!

Question: Why did R. Yochanan say that according to R. Shimon, if it turns out that he does not have wheat, he is exempt for the rest? (We just proved that the Shevu'ah takes effect on the rest! All the more so this is difficult for R. Ba!)

Answer: [This is when] he was Matfis. He said that barley should be like wheat, and spelt should be like wheat (if he is exempt for wheat, he will be exempt for them).

Question: Obviously, before the first's husband annulled her, if she transgressed her vow, she is lashed. What is the second's law [if she was warned and transgressed, and afterwards the first' husband annulled her? (Perhaps she intended to be a Nazir only if the first will complete her Nezirus without Hafarah!)

Answer (R. Yosah): Since the first is lashed, the second is lashed. (The second did not intend to be more lenient than the first.)

(R. La): [R. Yosah's teaching] is like R. Shimon.

Question: The second should be like one who said 'I am a Nazir for 20 days' (i.e. until Hafarah! Since she began Nezirus, she must complete 30 days of Nezirus!)

Answer: R. Shimon holds like he taught elsewhere. R. Shimon exempts [one who vowed to bring a Minchah of barley], for he did not volunteer the way people volunteer. (Likewise, one who vowed Nezirus for 20 days; it is as if she vowed to observe the Isurim for this time, but she is not a Nazir and does not bring Korbanos. We explained this like SEFER NIR.)