And the mishna is referring to a case where he said to her in the form of a question: I am hereby a nazirite, and what about you? This indicates that he himself has completely accepted his naziriteship, and he is simply asking his wife if she would like to join him. Due to that reason, as he did not link his vow to hers, he may nullify hers and his is intact.

MISHNA: With regard to a woman who vowed to be a nazirite, and she transgressed her vow since she was drinking wine and rendering herself ritually impure by contact with the dead, she incurs the forty lashes for each of the Torah prohibitions she transgressed. If her husband nullified her vow, and she did not know that her husband had nullified her vow, and she was drinking wine and rendering herself impure by contact with the dead, she does not incur the forty lashes, as she is no longer a nazirite. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if she does not incur the forty lashes by Torah law, she should incur lashes for rebelliousness [makat mardut], an extrajudicial punishment imposed by the Sages, for her intention to commit a transgression, since she believed that it was prohibited to her.

GEMARA: The Sages taught with regard to a verse in the section discussing vows: “Her husband has nullified them, and the Lord will forgive her” (Numbers 30:13), that the verse is speaking of a woman whose husband nullified her vow and she did not know that he had done so. It teaches that if she performs the actions prohibited by the vow she requires atonement and forgiveness.

And when Rabbi Akiva would reach this verse he would cry, saying: And if one who intended to pick up pork in his hand and eat it, and in fact he picked up the meat of a lamb in his hand and ate it, so that he did not in fact commit a transgression, like this woman who tried to sin and was unaware that her husband had nullified her vow, nevertheless requires atonement and forgiveness, then with regard to one who intends to pick up pork in his hand and in fact picked up pork in his hand, all the more so does he require atonement.

On a similar note, you can say and quote the following verse with regard to one who is liable to bring an uncertain guilt-offering, which is brought for a possible transgression: “Though he does not know it yet he is guilty, and shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:17).

This verse teaches: And if in a case similar to one who intended to pick up the meat of a lamb in his hand and eat it, which is permitted, and he picked up pork in his hand and ate it, thereby sinning unintentionally, for example, where one took a piece of meat with regard to which it is uncertain whether it is permitted fat and uncertain whether it is forbidden fat, and he ate it, rendering him liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering, the verse states: “And shall bear his iniquity,” indicating that he requires atonement via an offering; then with regard to one who intends to pick up pork in his hand and in fact picked up pork in his hand, all the more so he requires atonement.

Isi ben Yehuda says that this verse: “Though he does not know it yet he is guilty, and shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:17), should be explained in a slightly different manner: And if in a case similar to one who intended to pick up the meat of a lamb in his hand and he picked up pork in his hand, e.g., where there were two pieces before him, one of forbidden fat and one of permitted fat, and he picked up one and ate it without knowing which of them was forbidden, it states with regard to him: “And shall bear his iniquity,” i.e., he is obligated to bring an offering; then with regard to one who intends to pick up pork in his hand and picked up pork in his hand, all the more so is he in need of atonement.

The Gemara adds: And with regard to this matter, those who suffer should suffer, i.e., one can see from here the extent to which one requires atonement and forgiveness.

The Gemara asks: And why do I need all these examples for the same idea? The Gemara answers: All of them are necessary, as had we taught this idea only with regard to the case of a woman, one might have said that it is there that she requires atonement and forgiveness because at the outset her intention was to sin. However, in the case of one who took a piece with regard to which it was uncertain whether it was permitted fat and uncertain whether it was forbidden fat, who intended to eat permitted food, one might have said that he does not require atonement and forgiveness.

And had this case concerning one who eats a piece that might be forbidden been stated alone, one could say that atonement is required in this situation, as there is possibly a prohibition present before him. However, with regard to a woman whose husband nullified her vow, where she was in fact permitted to perform the actions she performed, perhaps she does not require atonement and forgiveness.

And had only these two cases been stated, I would say: It is in these two cases in which atonement and forgiveness are enough for them, as the prohibition is not established; even one who ate the piece that was possibly forbidden fat has not necessarily committed a sin. However, if there were two pieces, one of forbidden fat and one of permitted fat, where the prohibition is established, as there was definitely a forbidden piece before him and nevertheless he proceeded to eat one of them, one might have said that atonement and forgiveness should not suffice for him. Isi ben Yehuda therefore teaches us that there, it is no different, as even this individual is included in the verse: “And he shall be forgiven” (Leviticus 5:18).

§ Rabba bar bar Ḥanna said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For the paths of the Lord are right, and the just walk in them, but transgressors stumble over them” (Hosea 14:10)? How can the same path lead to such different outcomes? This is comparable to two people who roasted their Paschal offerings on Passover eve, in the proper manner. One ate it for the sake of the mitzva, and one ate it for the sake of excessive eating. This one, who ate it for the sake of the mitzva, has fulfilled: “And the just walk in them,” while that one, who ate it for the sake of excessive eating, is described by the end of the verse: “But transgressors stumble over them.”

Reish Lakish said to Rabba bar bar Ḥanna: You call this individual wicked? Even though he had not performed the mitzva in the optimal manner when he eats this Paschal offering, he has at least performed the mitzva of the Paschal offering. Rather, this is comparable to two people; this one has his wife and sister in the same house with him, and that one has his wife and sister with him. Each husband arrives home and engages in sexual intercourse with one of the women. This one happened upon his wife, and that one happened upon his sister. This one, who happened upon his wife, is described by the phrase “And the just walk in them,” and that one, who happened upon his sister, is described by the phrase “But transgressors stumble over them.”

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is it comparable? We said one path; i.e., two people follow the same path by performing the very same action with two different outcomes; whereas here there are two paths. Each person engaged in sexual intercourse with a different relative and therefore they cannot be said to have followed the same path. Rather, it is comparable to Lot and his two daughters, who were with him. They, who intended to engage in sexual intercourse with him for the sake of a mitzva, as they thought that the entire world was destroyed and wished to preserve the human race, are described in the first part of the verse: “And the just walk in them.” He who intended to act for the sake of a transgression is described by the last part: “But transgressors stumble over them.”

The Gemara asks: And perhaps Lot too intended that his actions should be for the sake of a mitzva? The Gemara answers: This was not the case, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said with regard to Lot: This entire verse: “And Lot lifted up his eyes, and saw all the plain of the Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere” (Genesis 13:10), is stated with regard to the sin of licentiousness. Since this verse teaches that Lot was a lustful man, it can therefore be assumed he meant to sin with his daughters as well.

Rabbi Yoḥanan explains: “And Lot lifted up his eyes” employs the same expression as a verse that refers to Joseph’s temptation: “That his master’s wife lifted up her eyes” (Genesis 39:7), which is clearly referring to sin. The phrase used in reference to Lot, “his eyes,” is stated similarly to Samson’s appraisal of the Philistine girl he sought to marry: “For she is pleasing in my eyes” (Judges 14:3).

Rabbi Yoḥanan continues to interpret the verse as a series of references to licentiousness. The phrase “and saw” is reminiscent of the verse dealing with Jacob’s daughter Dinah: “And Shechem, the son of Hamor the Hivite, saw her and he took her, and lay with her” (Genesis 34:2). The verse continues: “All the plain [kikar] of the Jordan,” which alludes to the verse: “For on account of a harlot a man is brought to a loaf [kikar] of bread” (Proverbs 6:26). The last part of the verse: “That it was well watered everywhere,” recalls: “I will go after my lovers, who give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink” (Hosea 2:7).

The Gemara asks: But Lot was forced to participate in the sexual intercourse, as he was asleep at the time; how can he be considered a sinner? The Gemara answers that this is as a Sage taught in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Rav Ḥoni: Why is there a dot in a Torah scroll over the letter vav of the word “uvekumah,” with regard to Lot’s elder daughter, in the verse: “And he did not know when she lay down and when she arose [uvekumah]” (Genesis 19:33)? This dot serves to say that when she lay down he did not know; however, when she arose he knew what she had done, as he later understood what had happened.

The Gemara asks: And what could he have done about it? What has happened has happened; i.e., Lot could not change the past. The Gemara answers: The difference is that on the other, following, night, he should not have drunk wine again. By allowing himself to get drunk a second time, he showed that the end result, engaging in sexual intercourse with his younger daughter, was something he desired.

§ Rava interpreted a verse homiletically with regard to Lot: What is the meaning of that which is written: “A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city,