אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִי מַשְׁכַּחְנָא דְּהָוֵי נָזִיר – אֲגַלְּחֵיהּ. הָכָא נַמִי הָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ: אִי מַשְׁכַּחַת דְּמִיגַּרְשָׁה – קַדֵּישׁ לִי.

Rather, it can be explained that this is what he is saying: If I find someone who becomes a nazirite, I will shave him. Here too, in the case of betrothal, this is what the one who appointed the agent is saying to the agent: Even if the woman you find is married at this moment but when you come to her you discover that she has been divorced in the meantime, betroth her to me. If so, he would be prohibited from marrying her sister, contrary to the ruling of Rava.

אָמְרִי: לָא מְשַׁוֵּי אִינִישׁ שָׁלִיחַ אֶלָּא בְּמִילְּתָא דְּמָצֵי עָבֵיד הָשְׁתָּא, בְּמִילְּתָא דְּלָא מָצֵי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ הָשְׁתָּא – לָא מְשַׁוֵּי.

The Gemara rejects this comparison: The Sages say that there is a distinction between the two cases: A person appoints an agent only for a matter that he himself can perform now, at the time of the appointment, but for a matter that he cannot perform now, he does not appoint an agent. Consequently, the agent cannot betroth a woman who was married at the time of his appointment. The one who appointed the agent may therefore marry the sister of the recently divorced woman, as stated by Rava.

וְלָא? תָּא שְׁמַע: הָאוֹמֵר לָאַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס שֶׁלּוֹ ״כָּל נְדָרִים שֶׁתִּדּוֹר אִשְׁתִּי מִכָּאן עַד שֶׁאָבוֹא מִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי הָפֵר לָהּ״ וְהֵפֵר לָהּ, יָכוֹל יְהוּ מוּפָרִין – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִישָׁהּ יְקִימֶנּוּ וְאִישָׁהּ יְפֵרֶנּוּ״ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה, וְרַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אוֹמֵר: מָצִינוּ בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁשְּׁלוּחוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם כְּמוֹתוֹ.

The Gemara asks another question on the ruling of Rava: And can one not appoint an agent to betroth a woman in this manner? Come and hear a baraita that indicates the contrary: One who says to the steward [ apotropos ] of his affairs: All vows that my wife will vow from now until I come from such and such a place, nullify for her, and the steward nullified them for her, one might have thought they are nullified. Therefore, the verse states: “Her husband sustains the vow and her husband nullifies the vow” (Numbers 30:14); this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. The repetition of “husband” teaches that it is the husband alone who may nullify his wife’s vows. And Rabbi Yonatan says: We have found in all places that the legal status of a person’s agent is like that of himself. Therefore, a steward, who serves as the husband’s agent, may nullify the wife’s vows.

טַעֲמָא דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא ״אִישָׁהּ יְקִימֶנּוּ וְאִישָׁהּ יְפִירֶנּוּ״. הָא לָאו הָכִי – אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס מֵיפֵר. וְאִילּוּ גַּבֵּי דִּידֵיהּ תַּנְיָא: הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ ״כָּל נְדָרִים שֶׁתִּדּוֹרִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שֶׁאָבֹא מִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי יְהוּ קַיָּימִין״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. ״הֲרֵי הֵן מוּפָרִין״. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: מוּפָר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ מוּפָר.

Even according to Rabbi Yoshiya, who maintains that the steward cannot nullify her vows, the reason is that the Merciful One states in the Torah: “Her husband sustains the vow and her husband nullifies the vow,” but if it were not so, the steward could nullify even the future vows of the wife. However, with regard to the husband himself it is taught in a mishna ( Nedarim 75a): One who says to his wife: All vows that you will vow from now until I come from such and such a place shall be ratified, he has not said anything. However, if a husband says: All vows that you will vow from now until I come from such and such a place, they are hereby nullified, Rabbi Eliezer says: It is nullified, and the Rabbis say: It is not nullified.

קָא סָלְקָא דַּעֲתִּין: כִּי אֲמַר רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה – אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי: לָא מָצֵי מֵיפֵר. וְאִי לָאו דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא ״אִישָׁהּ יְקִימֶנּוּ וְאִישָׁהּ יְפִירֶנּוּ״ – אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס הֲוָה מֵיפֵר!

The Gemara finishes the question: It enters our mind to say that when Rabbi Yoshiya said that the steward cannot nullify the vows, he spoke in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that the husband is not able to nullify her vows ahead of time, and yet, even according to their approach, if the Merciful One had not stated in the Torah: “Her husband sustains the vow and her husband nullifies the vow” the steward would be able to nullify such vows. This proves that one can appoint an agent for something he himself cannot do at the time, which contradicts the statement of Rava.

וְדִלְמָא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דְּאָמַר: מָצֵי מֵיפֵר. אִי הָכִי לָמָּה לִי לְשַׁוּוּיֵי שָׁלִיחַ? לֵיפֵר לָהּ אִיהוּ! קָסָבַר: דִּלְמָא מִשְׁתַּלֵּינָא, אוֹ רָתַחְנָא, אוֹ מִיטַּרִידְנָא.

The Gemara rejects this: And perhaps Rabbi Yoshiya spoke in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says the husband can nullify the vows ahead of time, and it is for this reason that he can appoint the steward to do the same. The Gemara rejects this: If so, why do I need to make him into an agent; let him nullify the future vows for her before he sets out on his journey. The Gemara answers: He thinks, perhaps I will forget, or become angry, or be occupied with other matters when I am about to set out on my journey. This is why he appoints an agent to nullify the vows on his behalf, and no proof can be derived from this baraita .

מתני׳ ״הֲרֵי עָלַי לְגַלֵּחַ חֲצִי נָזִיר״. וְשָׁמַע חֲבֵירוֹ וְאָמַר ״וַאֲנִי עָלַי לְגַלֵּחַ חֲצִי נָזִיר״ – זֶה מְגַלֵּחַ נָזִיר שָׁלֵם, וְזֶה מְגַלֵּחַ נָזִיר שָׁלֵם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: זֶה מְגַלֵּחַ חֲצִי נָזִיר, וְזֶה מְגַלֵּחַ חֲצִי נָזִיר.

If one says: It is incumbent upon me to shave half a nazirite, i.e., he is vowing to pay half the costs of a nazirite’s offerings, and another heard and said: And I, it is incumbent upon me to shave half a nazirite, this one shaves a whole nazirite and that one shaves a whole nazirite, i.e., each pays the full cost of a nazirite’s offerings; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir, since there is no such entity as half a nazirite. And the Rabbis say: This one shaves half a nazirite and that one shaves half a nazirite; they may join together to pay for the offerings of one nazirite.

גמ׳ אֲמַר רָבָא: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים כָּל הֵיכָא דַּאֲמַר ״חֲצִי קָרְבְּנוֹת נָזִיר עָלַי״ – חֲצִי קָרְבָּן מָיְיתֵי: ״קָרְבְּנוֹת חֲצִי נָזִיר עָלַי״ – כּוּלֵּיהּ קָרְבָּן בָּעֵי אִיתּוּיֵי; מַאי טַעֲמָא – דְּהָא לָא אַשְׁכַּחַן נְזִירוּת לְפַלְגָּא.

With regard to this dispute, Rava said: All concede that whenever one said: Half of the offerings of a nazirite are incumbent upon me, he brings half of the offerings, since he vowed to pay only that amount. Also, everyone agrees that if he said: The offerings of half a nazirite are incumbent upon me, he needs to bring all of the offerings of a nazirite. What is the reason that he must bring all of the offerings of a nazirite? It is that we have not found such an entity as half a naziriteship. If one vowed to be half a nazirite, he is a full nazirite.

וְכִי פְּלִיגִי – בְּלִישָּׁנָא דְּמַתְנִיתִין פְּלִיגִי, רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דַּאֲמַר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי״ – אִיחַיַּיב אַכּוּלֵּיּה קָרְבַּן נְזִירוּת, וְכִי קָאָמַר חֲצִי נְזִירוּת – לָאו כָּל כְּמִינֵיהּ. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: נֶדֶר וּפֶתַח עִמּוֹ הוּא.

And when they disagree, it is only in a case of one who used the precise wording of the mishna. Rabbi Meir holds that once he said: It is incumbent upon me, he is obligated in all of the naziriteship offerings, and when he later says: Half a naziriteship, it is not in his power to uproot his first obligation. And the Rabbis hold that it is a vow with its inherent opening. By saying he had only half the offerings of a nazirite in mind from the outset, he has nullified his own vow.

מתני׳ ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר לִכְשֶׁיִּהְיֶה לִי בֵּן״ וְנוֹלַד לוֹ בֵּן – הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר. נוֹלַד לוֹ בַּת, טוּמְטוּם, וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס – אֵינוֹ נָזִיר. אִם אָמַר ״כְּשֶׁיִּהְיֶה לִי וָלָד״ – אֲפִילּוּ נוֹלַד לוֹ בַּת, טוּמְטוּם, וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס – הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר.

If one said: I am hereby a nazirite when I will have a son, and a son was born to him, he is a nazirite. If a daughter, a tumtum , or a hermaphrodite [ androginos ] is born to him, he is not a nazirite, since a son was not born to him. However, if he says: I am hereby a nazirite when I will have a child, then even if a daughter, a tumtum , or a hermaphrodite is born to him, he is a nazirite.