About this episode
This week's learning is sponsored by Ruth Rotenberg "in commemoration of our daughter, Tanielle Gavre'ea Margalit's yahrzeit. Hard to believe it is 18 years. You continue to live within us and inspire us and so many others. Thank you to Rabbanit Farber for your tireless and inspired teaching and leadership." Two more sources (altogether five. including the sources on Nazir 21) are brought to answer the question - when a husband nullifies his wife's vow - is it uprooted from when she took the vow or only from the moment of the nullification. The fourth source proves that it is nullified from the beginning but the last source clearly shows that it is only nullified from the moment of nullification. Mar Zutra tried to argue that one could derive from here an answer to a question Rami bar Hama raised about one who forbids an item by connecting it to a piece of meat of a peace offering. Just as the woman's status changes when the husband nullifies her vow (first she is prohibited then permitted), so does the status of the meat change as it is forbidden at first and is permitted to be eaten once the blood is sprinkled. However, there are differing opinions about whether this is an accurate comparison as the meat still maintains a certain level of sanctity, while the woman does not. In the braita previously quoted, Rabbi Shimon differentiated between two cases - one where a woman's friend said "and me" and one where she said, "I will be like you." The Gemara asks what would be the halacha if the friend said " b'ikvayich , in your footsteps?" They try to answer the question from a case in our Mishna where the woman says she will be a nazir and her husband says "and me" (which is equated to "in your footsteps" according to Tosafot as the power to nullify it is in his hands), he cannot nullify it, as if he nullifies, it will cancel his own vow, thus proving that " b'ikvayich, in your footsteps" would cause the second person's vow to be nullified as well. This proof is rejected as it is possible to understand why he can't nullify because when he says "and me" he is ratifying her vow. A difficulty is raised on the case in our Mishna where the husband says "I am a nazir and you?" - if the woman answers yes and he nullifies her vow, he is still a nazir. However, in a braita it says the opposite. This is resolved in two ways.