Nazir 22a — the Talmud in English

Therefore

the tanna also taught the first clause:

she receives

the forty lashes,” although this is obvious.

Come and hear

from a beraita—which was brought above, on 19a—that the husband “uproots [the vow] from its beginning”:

A woman who vowed to be a Nazirite and became impure

and set aside for her impurity-offering two turtledoves, one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering, and likewise a lamb for a guilt-offering,

and afterward her husband annulled [the vow] for her,

she

brings

the

bird sin-offering

that she had set aside,

but does not bring

the

bird burnt-offering, and likewise she does not bring her guilt-offering, as the reason will be explained in the Gemara.

The Gemara proves from this:

And the Gemara proves:

And if it enters your mind that the husband cuts off [the vow], she should also bring

[she should also bring] the

bird burnt-offering,

and likewise the guilt-offering!? And we raise an objection:

But rather, what [do you say]? He uproots [the vow] from its beginning!?

If so,

she should not bring the bird sin-offering either

[she should not bring even the sin-offering], for it is as though she had never been a Nazirite at all!?

And we answer:

It is indeed so,

indeed, this is the law: since he “uproots [the vow] from its beginning,” she should not have needed to bring even the bird sin-offering.

And

the reason that she brings it is because

whose view is this -

this beraita—

[it is the view of] Rabbi Elazar ha-Kappar,

who holds that the Nazirite is a sinner because he afflicted himself by abstaining from wine, and for this reason the offerings come. It follows that although her husband annulled [the vow] for her and uprooted the Nazirut retroactively, and according to the strict law it is certainly not fitting to obligate her to bring a sin-offering, nevertheless she has a weak reason to bring it, since in the end she afflicted herself by abstaining from wine. Therefore:

The bird sin-offering, which we find is brought even when there is no complete reason to bring it—for it sometimes comes even in a case of uncertainty—is brought even when the Nazirut was uprooted retroactively, since there is some reason, after all, for she afflicted herself by abstaining from wine—

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

As it was taught:

Rabbi Elazar ha-Kappar the Great

[great in his generation]

says:

What does Scripture come to teach

with regard to an impure Nazirite: “

And he shall make atonement for him for what he sinned regarding the soul,”

and the expression “regarding the soul” implies that he sinned against a human soul,

and against which soul

of a

person did this one sin!?

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

And is this not a kal va-chomer: Just as this

Nazirite

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

as it is stated, “what he sinned,”

one who afflicts himself with every matter

and sits in a fast

all the more so

is called a “sinner.”

Come and hear

that the husband “cuts off [the vow]”:

for it was explicitly taught:

A woman who vowed to be a Nazirite, and her fellow heard and said “

And I,”

and the husband of the first one came and annulled [the vow] for her, she

the first one

is permitted,

for her husband annulled [the vow] for her,

but her fellow is prohibited,

since the annulment does not uproot the Nazirut 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 simply said “And I,” and afterward explained her words, that she did not intend to accept Nazirut upon herself unless her fellow’s Nazirut would not be annulled, she too is permitted.

Learn from it: The husband cuts off [the vow]!