If one said 'I am a Nazir 100 days', and his friend heard and said 'and I 100 days', and the first said 'and I', the primary became secondary. (The first accepted an additional Nezirus of 30 days, for we said above (2:5) that 'and I' is only for part of his words. His extra Nezirus depends on the one who accepted after him. - KEREN ORAH 21a, OHR SOMAYACH Hilchos Nezirus 2:4)

If one said 'I am a Nazir', and his friend heard and said 'and I' Toch Kedei Dibur of the first, and also his friend said 'and I' Toch Kedei Dibur of the first, if the first was permitted, the second and third are permitted. If the second was permitted, the third is not permitted. (The third attributed his Nezirus to the first.)

Question: If one said 'I am a Nazir twice', and two friends heard and said 'and we' - are they Nezirim twice (in all, i.e. one each), or is each one a Nazir twice?

If he (the first) was permitted, they are permitted. If one of them (the latter two) was permitted, he (the other of the latter two) is not permitted. (Even though he said 'we', do not say that he accepted only if both of them will be Nezirim. - MEICHAL HA'MAYIM)

Question: If two said 'we are Nezirim', and one heard and said 'and I' - is he a Nazir corresponding to both of them? (I.e. he is a Nazir only if both of them are Nezirim.) Or, did he accept Nezirus corresponding to each of them?

[If we say the latter way,] if they were [both] permitted, he is permitted. If one of them was permitted, he (that one) is permitted, but they are not permitted. (The other of the first two is a Nazir; we do not say that he accepted only if both of them will be Nezirim, like above. The third is a Nazir once, corresponding to the one whose Nezirus persists. (According to the first side of the question, even if one of the first two was permitted, also the third is totally permitted. We explained that this line of Gemara explains the latter side of the question. Alternatively, it is the answer, that we hold like the latter side. We explained based on MEICHAL HA'MAYIM, but unlike he explained 'corresponding to both of them.')

'My mouth is [a Nazir] from wine', 'the hair of my head from shaving', 'my hands from Tum'ah', 'my legs from Tum'ah', 'my head is a Nazir', 'my liver is a Nazir', he is a Nazir. 'My hands are a Nazir', 'my legs are a Nazir', it has no effect.

Why [do 'my head is a Nazir' and 'my liver is a Nazir' take effect, but 'my hands are a Nazir' and 'my legs are a Nazir' do not? In the former cases,] he attributed the vow to a part of the body that is vital to life.

[We learn Nazir from Erchin, through a Gezeirah Shavah] "Neder-Neder" - just like Neder said there (if one accepted the Erech of a limb, he is obligated only if it is) vital to life, also Neder said here [must be] a part vital to life. (OHR YAKOV)

[When one said 'I am a Nazir'; and his wife said 'and I',] if he was permitted, she is permitted. If she was permitted, he is not permitted.

Question: [When she said 'I am a Nezirah', and her husband said 'and I',] how do you judge 'and I'? Is it like one who affirmed her vow, or like one who said 'you did nicely'?

(R. Chiyah Ruba and R. Hoshayah - Beraisa): If a woman vowed to be a Nezirah, and her husband heard and said 'why did you deem it proper to accept Nezirus?' What did you do, that you accept Nezirus?' 'I did not want you to accept Nezirus!' 'There is no Neder here', or 'there is no Shevu'ah here', it has no effect (this is not Hafarah (annulment));

However, if he said 'you did nicely that you accepted Nezirus', 'so I wanted that you accept Nezirus', 'had you not accepted Nezirus, I would have imposed Nezirus on you' - R. Chiyah taught, in all these cases he cannot annul (this is Kiyum). R. Hoshayah taught, in all these cases he can annul, unless he says 'Amen' or 'it is affirmed for you.' Then, he cannot annul.