Nedarim 83a (פג.) — the Talmud in English

She receives forty lashes.

Her husband annulled for her

the naziriteship,

and she did not know that he had annulled it, and she drank wine and became impure through contact with the dead,

even though she did not know that her husband had annulled it and believed that she was transgressing the prohibition of naziriteship—

she does not receive forty lashes.

For even an annulment performed without her knowledge is considered an annulment.

And if you say, “He annuls for a matter that causes her suffering, but he does not annul for a matter that does not cause her suffering,”

then although she prohibited both loaves together, he cannot annul the entire vow for her, but only the part of her vow concerning the loaf whose absence causes her suffering—

perhaps

only

he annulled for her the prohibition of wine, which causes her suffering.

Since abstaining from drinking wine causes her suffering, he can therefore annul it for her, as is the law with vows involving affliction of the soul.

But

he did not annul for her the prohibitions of grape seeds and grape skins, since they do not cause her suffering!

Abstaining from eating grape skins and seeds does not cause her suffering, and his annulment does not apply to them.

and she receives forty lashes,

since the laws of naziriteship concerning grape seeds and grape skins still remain in force for her.

Why did the Mishna choose to teach us that the husband’s annulment applies to wine, so that if she drank wine she does not receive lashes, when this is obvious? On the contrary, the tanna should have taught us the greater novelty: that even if he explicitly annulled for her the prohibition against grape seeds and grape skins as well, his annulment does not apply, since with regard to this matter it is not an affliction of the soul, and she therefore receives forty lashes for eating them!

Rav Yosef said,

to resolve Rav Asi’s objection to Rabbi Yohanan from our Mishna:

There is no partial naziriteship!

It is impossible for a person to be a nazirite while being prohibited only in grape skins and seeds but permitted to drink wine, because there is no partial naziriteship. Necessarily, we regard all the prohibitions of a nazirite as “one vow.”

Therefore, although according to the laws of annulment of vows it is possible to annul even part of a vow, and he could annul only the part involving affliction of the soul, since according to the laws of naziriteship the annulment of only half the naziriteship is impossible, and if he does not annul all the laws of naziriteship his annulment does not apply at all, he can consequently annul the entire vow of naziriteship.

But when she vowed concerning two loaves, Rabbi Yohanan holds that since, by the nature of the vow, the two vows have no connection to one another, he can annul only the part of the vow that involves affliction of the soul.

And he raises an objection:

Abaye said to him,

as it is implied from Rav Yosef’s wording—he stated, “There is no partial naziriteship,” rather than, “There is no partiality in naziriteship”—that the deficiency lies in naziriteship itself , but—

But there is an offering for partial naziriteship.

If she accepted upon herself thirty days of naziriteship, fifteen days passed, and afterward her husband annulled it—for the law is that the naziriteship is nullified only with regard to the ensuing days, but is not nullified retroactively—she would bring a nazirite offering only for half the naziriteship. Yet surely this is not the halakha.

Rather, Abaye said: There is no partial naziriteship, and there is no offering for partial naziriteship.

Not only is there no partial naziriteship, but one also does not bring an offering for partial naziriteship, for the Torah stated that a nazirite offering is to be brought only for complete naziriteship.

The following beraita raises an objection

from a beraita in which we learned:

A nazirite who completed the days of his naziriteship must bring three animal offerings for his purification: a sin-offering, a burnt-offering, and a peace-offering.

But if he became impure during the days of his naziriteship, he must bring three offerings for the impurity of his naziriteship: an animal for a guilt-offering, a bird sin-offering, and a bird burnt-offering; afterward, he begins counting a period of pure naziriteship.

A woman who vowed to be a nazirite

and became impure during the days of her naziriteship,

and set aside her animal

for a guilt-offering, as required of a nazirite who became impure during the days of naziriteship.

and afterward her husband annulled it for her,

and the naziriteship was nullified, so she cannot bring the nazirite offerings, even the guilt-offering that she had already set aside, since the naziriteship had already been nullified—

she brings a bird sin-offering,

as is the law for a nazirite who became impure, who brings a bird sin-offering for the days of his naziriteship until he became impure; likewise, she brings a bird sin-offering for her impurity during the days of naziriteship that she observed before her husband annulled it for her.

but she does not bring a bird burnt-offering,

since the naziriteship was nullified through the annulment.

From here the Gemara raises an objection to Abaye:

And if you say that there is no offering for partial naziriteship,

as Abaye said—

why does she bring a bird sin-offering!?

Since the naziriteship was nullified in the middle through the husband’s annulment, even the days that she counted before the annulment should have been nullified, because there is no partial naziriteship. Why, then, must she bring a sin-offering for having become impure during the days of her naziriteship?

The Gemara rejects the objection:

Rather, what

you wish to say is that

there is an offering for partial naziriteship,

and therefore she brings a bird sin-offering for the portion of naziriteship preceding the annulment? If so, there is a difficulty—

she should have to bring three animals,

she should have to bring

a sin-offering, a burnt-offering, and a peace-offering!

For if she had not become impure, she would have had to bring three animals—a sin-offering, a burnt-offering, and a peace-offering. Now that she became impure, she should have to bring an animal for a guilt-offering, a bird burnt-offering, and a bird sin-offering.

Furthermore, even if she became impure, she should have to bring another three animals, as does a pure nazirite. Since the husband does not uproot the vow retroactively, but only from that point forward, it follows that the half of the period of naziriteship that she counted until now in purity remains valid. And since there is an offering for partial naziriteship, she should initially have brought the impurity offerings, and after becoming pure she should have brought another three animals as the offerings of a pure nazirite, for the half of the naziriteship, as in the case of a nazirite who became impure after thirty days.

Rather, it must be that there is no offering for partial naziriteship. If so, the question returns: Why must she bring a bird sin-offering?

Rather, in fact there is no offering for partial naziriteship

and therefore she does not bring three offerings.

And the reason she brings a bird sin-offering

and concerning what we asked—if so, why must she bring a bird sin-offering, since the naziriteship was nullified—

is that it is a sin-offering brought in a case of uncertainty.

Since we find that a bird sin-offering is a less stringent offering, a woman who gives birth to a stillborn and does not know whether she gave birth to a fetus or merely discharged fluid brings a bird sin-offering because of the uncertainty. And since we find this leniency with a bird sin-offering, that it is brought in a case of uncertainty, it is likewise brought for partial naziriteship.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Yohanan:

He raised an objection to him:

we learned in a beraita—

A woman who vowed to be a nazirite and became impure—

and afterward her husband annulled it for her,

and all the laws of naziriteship were nullified.

she brings a bird sin-offering—

but she does not bring a bird burnt-offering,

because since the law of naziriteship is nullified from that point forward, one does not bring an offering for partial naziriteship.

And if you say—

he annuls for a matter that causes her suffering, but he does not annul for a matter that does not cause her suffering,

as Rabbi Yohanan stated above.