Nazir 22a (כב.) — the Talmud in English

Therefore,

the tanna also taught the first clause:

“she receives forty lashes”

“,” even though this is obvious.

Come and hear

from a beraita—which was cited above, on page 19a—that the husband uproots the vow entirely:

“If a woman took a nazirite vow and became impure

and designated for her impurity offering two doves, one as a sin-offering and one as a burnt-offering, and also a lamb as a guilt-offering,

and afterward her husband annulled her vow

she

brings

the

bird sin-offering

that she had designated,

but she does not bring

the

bird burnt-offering

and likewise she does not bring her guilt-offering,” as the Gemara will explain the reason.

The Gemara demonstrates:

And if it enters your mind that the husband severs the vow, she should also bring

[she should also bring]

the bird burnt-offering

and likewise the guilt-offering!? And we challenge this:

But rather, what is the alternative? He uproots the vow entirely!?

If so,

she should not bring the bird sin-offering either

[she should not bring even the sin-offering], since it is as though she had never been a nazirite!?

And we answer:

It is indeed so

that since the husband uproots the vow entirely, she should not have had to bring even the bird sin-offering.

And

the reason that she brings it is that

who is this

—this beraita—

Rabbi Elazar HaKappar

who holds that a nazirite is a sinner because he afflicted himself by abstaining from wine, and the offerings are brought for that reason. It follows that although her husband annulled the vow and retroactively uprooted the naziriteship, and according to the strict law there was certainly no reason to obligate her to bring a sin-offering, nevertheless she does have a slight reason to bring one, since in the end she did afflict herself by abstaining from wine. Therefore:

The bird sin-offering, which we find is brought even when there is no fully sufficient reason to bring it, since at times it is brought even in a case of uncertainty, is brought even when the naziriteship was retroactively uprooted, since there is some reason for it: she did afflict herself by abstaining from wine—

but she does not bring the bird burnt-offering or the guilt-offering, since the naziriteship was retroactively uprooted.

As it is taught in a beraita:

Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Great

[great in his generation]

says:

What is the meaning of the verse

concerning an impure nazirite:

“And he shall make atonement for him for the sin that he committed against the person”

and the expression “against the person” indicates that he sinned against a human life,

But against which person

human

did he commit this sin!?

Rather, because he afflicted himself by abstaining from wine, he is called a sinner.

And are these not matters subject to a kal va-homer: Just as this

nazirite

who afflicted himself only by abstaining from wine is called a sinner

as it is stated, “for the sin that he committed,”

one who afflicts himself by abstaining from everything

and sits in fasting

all the more so

is called a “sinner.”

Come and hear

that the husband severs the vow:

as it is explicitly taught in a beraita:

“If a woman took a nazirite vow, and her friend heard and said

‘And I,’

and the husband of the first woman came and annulled her vow, she

the first woman

is permitted

since her husband annulled her vow,

but her friend is prohibited

since the annulment does not uproot the naziriteship retroactively.

Rabbi

Shimon says:

If she said to her

‘I am like you,’

both are permitted.

That is, if at the time of the vow she merely said, “And I,” and afterward clarified her words, saying that she did not intend to accept naziriteship upon herself unless her friend’s naziriteship would not be annulled, she too is permitted.

Conclude from this: The husband severs the vow!