Nazir

The same principle  is taught in the following passage: If a man says, 'I intend to be a nazirite' and his companion overhear and delay long enough to make a break in conversation and then add, 'I too,' he himself is bound [by his vow], but his companion is free. The length of a break in conversation is the time taken by a disciple to greet his master. May we say that the following [passage] corroborates [Resh Lakish's statement]? [For the Mishnah says:] SHOULD A MAN SAY, I INTEND TO BE A NAZIRITE, AND HIS COMPANION OVERHEAR AND ADD 'I TOO,' [AND THE NEXT REPEAT] 'I TOO,' [ALL BECOME NAZIRITES];  and carries the series no further?  — Do you expect the Tanna to string together a list like a pedlar [crying his wares]?  Then why should he not mention ['I too'] once only and leave us to infer the rest?  — He could very well have done so, but because in the clause that follows he says: IF THE FIRST IS RELEASED [FROM HIS VOW] ALL ARE [AUTOMATICALLY] RELEASED, BUT IF THE LAST ONE IS RELEASED, HE ALONE BECOMES FREE, THE OTHERS REMAINING BOUND [BY THEIR VOWS], thus [using a phrasing which] implies that there is a person [or persons] in between, he mentions 'I too,' twice [in the opening clause]. The question was propounded: Does each link up with his immediate predecessor, or do they all link up with [the utterance of] the first? The practical issue involved is whether the process can be continued indefinitely. If each links up with his immediate predecessor, then it would be possible to continue indefinitely,  but if they all link up with the first one, the process could not continue for longer than the space of a break in conversation.  What then is the law? — Come and hear: SHOULD A MAN SAY, I INTEND TO BE A NAZIRITE,' AND HIS COMPANION OVERHEAR AND ADD 'I TOO,' [AND THE NEXT REPEAT] 'I TOO'; without going further; and so we can infer that they all link up with the first,  for if it be the case that each links up with his immediate predecessor, why should not the phrase 'I too' be repeated many more times? — Do you expect the Tanna to string together a list like a pedlar [crying his wares]? Then let him mention ['I too'] once, and indicate all the rest in this manner?  — Since he continues: IF THE FIRST IS RELEASED [FROM HIS VOW] ALL ARE [AUTOMATICALLY] RELEASED, BUT IF THE LAST ONE IS RELEASED, HE ALONE BECOMES FREE, THE OTHERS REMAINING BOUND [BY THEIR VOWS; thus using a phrasing] which implies that there are persons in between, he therefore mentions 'I too' twice [in the first clause]. Come and hear: IF THE FIRST IS RELEASED [FROM HIS VOW] ALL ARE RELEASED; [it follows that] only [on the release of] the first are the others released, but not [on the release of] an intermediate one, and so we can infer that they all link up with the first one!  — I can reply that actually each links up with his immediate predecessor, and the reason [why the first is mentioned] is that [the Tanna] desired to say that 'ALL ARE RELEASED', and if he had stated this in connection with the intermediate one there would have remained the first one unreleased; therefore he preferred to mention in this connection the first. Come and hear: IF THE LAST ONE IS RELEASED, HE ALONE BECOMES FREE, THE OTHERS REMAINING BOUND [BY THEIR VOWS]. [Now the reason for this is presumably because] there are no others following him,  but if the second one, who is followed by others, [were released,] these would also become free,  and so we can infer that each links up with his immediate predecessor! — In point of fact, I can argue that they all link up with the first, and that the expression 'THE LAST' [as used by the Tanna] refers to those in between [also], but because he speaks [in the preceding clause] of 'THE FIRST', he refers to the others as THE LAST. Come and hear [the following passage] where it is taught explicitly: If the first is released they all become free; if the last is released he alone becomes free, the rest remaining bound; if an intermediate one is released, those following him also become free, but those preceding him remain bound. This shows conclusively that each links up with his immediate predecessor. [IF HE SAYS,] 'I INTEND TO BE A NAZIRITE' AND HIS COMPANION OVERHEARS AND ADDS, 'LET MY MOUTH BE AS HIS MOUTH AND MY HAIR AS HIS HAIR,' [HE ALSO BECOMES A NAZIRITE]: Simply because he says, 'LET MY MOUTH BE AS HIS MOUTH AND MY HAIR AS HIS HAIR,' does he become a nazirite?