Question: One should be able to force his wife [to transgress her vow]! Did not R. Huna say, [if one told her husband] 'benefit from me is forbidden to you', he forces her and she has Bi'ah with him. If she told him 'benefit from you is forbidden to me', he annuls it. (The Makshan understood our Mishnah to mean that a husband can never force his wife to transgress her vow.)

Answer: [The first case of R. Huna] is different, for it is his benefit and her benefit. (She is obligated to him, so she cannot forbid herself to him. This does not apply when she forbids to herself. We explained this like PNEI MOSHE.)

Question: One should be not able to force his slave! (His Nezirus forbids only to himself. He should be like a woman who forbade to herself; her husband cannot force her. We explained this based on SEFER NIR.)

Answer: This is different, for it says "Ki Nezer Elokav Al Rosho" - one who has no other master. This excludes a slave, who has another master. (Another verse includes slaves, i.e. when his master does not protest. The exclusion is when his master protests. - PNEI MOSHE)

If he was [strong, and] able to protest against his master's word, one tells him 'the Halachah is, heed your master's words.'

Question: If his master forced him [to drink wine, but he did not drink] and he became Tamei, does he bring Korban Tum'ah?

Answer: (Surely he does not!) Is he a Nazir?! (Since he must heed his master, surely he is not a Nazir.)

Did you not decree about him that he become Tamei [if his master forces him to become Tamei] - will you say that he brings Korban Tum'ah?! (Surely he does not, for his Nezirus is Batel as long as he is a slave.) And here [also when he forced him to drink, his Nezirus is Batel]. Does he bring Korban Tum'ah?!

Question: If his master forced him [to drink] and he became Tamei, does he cancel [the previous days]?

Answer: (Surely he does not!) Is he a Nazir?

Did you not decree about him that he become Tamei [if his master forces him to become Tamei] - will you say that he cancels?! (Surely he does not.) And here [when he forced him to drink, his Nezirus is Batel]. Does he cancel?!

The following is obvious. If he became Tamei and afterwards was freed, he brings Korban Tum'ah.

Question: What is the case - is it when his master forced him, or when his master did not force him?

If you will say that it is when he forced him, does he bring Korban Tum'ah [even after freedom?! A Tosefta teaches that he does not cancel. Surely he does not bring Korban Tum'ah!]

If you will say that it is when his master did not force him, he fulfills (he is a full Nazir) the entire time that he is under his master! (Surely he brings Korban Tum'ah when he is freed. However, before freedom he does not bring, for he does not have his own money, and we do not obligate his master to bring Korbanos for him.)

Answer (R. Yosi): It is when his master forced him. Do not say that since he was freed, Nezirus b'Tum'ah was uprooted (his Nezirus begins only when he become Tahor after freedom). Therefore, it needs to say that he counts Nezirus b'Tum'ah (once he is free, he is like a Tamei who accepted Nezirus; he brings Korban Tum'ah, and then fulfills Nezirus b'Taharah).

(R. Yosi): If a slave said 'I will be a Nazir when I go free', his master can force him to [transgress his] Nezirus. (We explained this like MERKEVES HA'MISHNEH, Hilchos Nezirus 2:19.)

A slave - his master can force him to [transgress his] Nezirus, but he cannot force him to [transgress] Nedarim or Shevu'os. (If the Nedarim or Shevu'os afflict him or inhibit work, they did not take effect at all. If they do not afflict him or inhibit work, the master has no authority to make him transgress. - PNEI MOSHE)

Question (R. Yirmeyah, to R. Ze'ira): If his master forced him [to become Tamei] and [afterwards, on his own volition] he became Tamei, is he lashed? Or, perhaps it is only Halachah (this will be explained)?

Question: What is the [status of his Nezirus, and the master's Heter to force him]?

Answer #1 (to both questions): If his Nezirus is a Halachah (tradition from Sinai), and a Halachah [teaches that the master] can force him, he is lashed;

If both [his Nezirus and the Heter to force him] are mid'Rabanan, he is not lashed!

Rejection (R. Mana): Is one lashed for a Halachah?!

Answer #2: Rather, if his Nezirus] is [expounded from the] Torah, and a Halachah [teaches that] he can force him, he is lashed. If both are mid'Rabanan, he is not lashed. (We explained this like OHR YAKOV. He asks (note 240) why we can't say also that the Heter to force is expounded from "Nezer Elokav" - one who has no other master.)

Question: If his master forced him for one matter (one of the three Isurei Nazir, do we assume that) he forces him for all the matters (and he need not observe any of them)?

Answer: R. Meir and R. Yosi argue about this. R. Meir says, if he fled, he may not drink. R. Yosi says, he drinks.

Question: What is the case?

If [his master] said, 'both in front of me and not in front of me, drink', even R. Meir agrees (he may drink even after he fled);

If he said, 'in front of me drink; not in front of me, do not drink', even R. Yosi agrees (he may drink not after he fled)!

Answer: The case is, he said [Stam] 'drink'. R. Meir says, [it is as if he said] 'in front of me drink; not in front of me, do not drink.' R. Yosi says, it is as if he said 'both in front of me and not in front of me, drink.'