Nazir

Mar Zutra, the son of Rab Mari said: The same problem is raised here as was raised by Rami b. Hama.  For Rami b. Hama wished to know the effect of saying, 'Let these [victuals] be, as far as I am concerned, as the flesh of [this] peace-offering.'  Does a man, in thus linking one thing with another, refer to the original state [of the subject of comparison],  or to its ultimate state? But surely [the two cases] do not bear comparison?  For when he says in that case, 'Let these [victuals], as far as I am concerned, be as the flesh of this peace-offering,' [the fact remains that] even though once the blood is sprinkled, this may be eaten outside [the Temple precincts, yet it] is still sacred.  In our case, on the other hand, if we suppose that she has the ultimate state in mind, then the husband [of the first woman] has declared [the vow] void! Some consider that our problem and that of Rami b. Hama are undoubtedly identical. If [a woman] says to her [companion], 'I intend to be a nazirite in your wake,'  what would the law be? Does 'in your wake' [mean,] 'I intend to follow in your wake in every respect,' so that she becomes free, or does it refer to her [companion's] condition before her husband declared [the naziriteship] void, so that she remains bound? Come and hear: If a woman vows to be a nazirite and her husband overhears and adds, 'I too',  he cannot declare [her vow] void. Now should you assume that when he says, 'I intend to follow in your wake,'  he has in mind the original situation,  why should he not be able to declare her [vow] void, whilst allowing his own to remain? Does it not follow, therefore, that what he refers to is the situation with all its developments, and so [it is only when] he himself [is involved that he] cannot declare [the vow] void,  but where [another] woman says, 'I intend to follow in your wake,' she would also be freed?  — This is not the case. In point of fact, he may be referring to the original situation, but in this case, when he says, 'I too,' it is as though he says. 'I confirm it for you,' and so if he consults [a wise man] in order to have his ratification upset, he will be able to declare [her vow] void, but not otherwise. [IF HE SHOULD SAY IN CONVERSATION WITH HIS WIFE,] 'I INTEND TO BE A NAZIRITE, WHAT ABOUT YOU'  AND SHE ANSWER' AMEN,' HE CAN DECLARE HER [VOW] VOID, BUT HIS OWN REMAINS BINDING: The following passage seems to contradict this statement. [If a man says to his wife,] 'I intend to be a nazirite. What about you?'  if she answers 'Amen,' both become bound [to their vows],  but otherwise both are free, because he made his vow contingent on hers?  — Rab Judah replied: You should [emend the Baraitha to] read, He can declare her [vow] void, but his own remains binding. Abaye said: It is even possible to leave the reading intact. The Baraitha supposes him to say to her, 'I intend to be a nazirite with you,' thus making his vow contingent on her vow;