Nedarim 83a — the Talmud in English

This one receives the forty lashes.

Her husband annulled for her

the naziriteship,

and she did not know that he had annulled it for her, and she was drinking wine and becoming impure through the dead,

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

she does not receive the forty lashes.

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

And if you say, “He annuls for one who is afflicted, but he does not annul for one who is not afflicted,”

and even though she prohibited the two loaves together, he cannot annul the entire vow for her, but only her vow regarding the loaf by which she is afflicted—

perhaps —

only

the wine, which causes her distress, he annulled for her.

Since abstention from drinking wine causes her affliction, he can therefore annul it for her, in accordance with the law of vows of affliction of the soul.

But

the grape seeds and the grape skin, he did not annul for her, for they do not cause her distress!

For abstention from eating the grape skin and the grape seeds does not cause affliction, and his annulment does not take effect with regard to them.

And she will receive the forty lashes,

since the laws of naziriteship with regard to the grape seeds and the grape skin still remain upon her.

And why did the Mishna choose to teach us that the husband’s annulment takes effect with regard to wine, so that if she drank wine she is not lashed, which is an obvious matter? On the contrary, the tannaitic teacher should have taught us a great novelty: that even if he explicitly annulled for her also the prohibition of the grape seeds and the grape skin, his annulment does not take effect, since with regard to this detail it is not affliction of the soul, and therefore she is lashed forty lashes for eating them!?

Rav Yosef said,

to answer Rav Asi’s difficulty against Rabbi Yohanan from our Mishna:

There is no partial naziriteship!

It is not possible for a person to be a nazirite and to be prohibited only in the grape skin and the grape seeds while being permitted in wine, for there is no partial naziriteship; necessarily, we regard all the prohibitions of a nazirite as “one vow.”

Therefore, even though according to the laws of vow annulment it is possible to annul even part of the vow, and he can annul only the part in which there is affliction of the soul, since according to the laws of naziriteship an annulment of only half of the naziriteship is not possible, and if he does not annul all the laws of naziriteship his annulment does not take effect at all, he can therefore annul the entire vow of naziriteship.

But when she vowed with regard to two loaves, Rabbi Yohanan holds that since by the nature of the vow there is no connection between the two vows, he can therefore annul only the part of the vow in which there is affliction of the soul.

And he challenges:

Abaye said to him

—for it is implied from Rav Yosef’s wording, who stated “there is no partial naziriteship” and did not say “there is no partiality in naziriteship,” that the entire deficiency is in naziriteship itself — but—

But there is an offering for partial naziriteship

and if she accepted upon herself to observe naziriteship for thirty days, and fifteen days passed, and afterward her husband annulled it for her—for the law is that the naziriteship is nullified only with regard to the days that follow, but the naziriteship is not nullified retroactively—she should bring an offering of naziriteship only for half of the naziriteship, and surely the law is not so .

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

And not only is there no partial naziriteship, but one does not bring an offering for partial naziriteship either, for the Torah said to bring an offering of naziriteship only for complete naziriteship.

It challenges

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 peace-offerings.

But if he became impure during the days of 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, and afterward he counts a period of pure naziriteship.

The woman who vowed to be a nazirite,

and became impure during the days of naziriteship,

and set aside her animal

for a guilt-offering, in accordance with the law of a nazirite who became impure during the days of naziriteship.

And afterward her husband annulled it for her,

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

she brings a bird sin-offering,

in accordance with the law of 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.

And from here the Gemara challenges 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, then even the days that she counted until the annulment were nullified, since there is no partial naziriteship; why then does she need to bring a bird sin-offering for what made her impure during the days of naziriteship?

The Gemara rejects the challenge:

Rather, what

you wish to say is that

there is an offering for partial naziriteship,

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

She needs to bring three animals,

she must bring

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

For if she had not become impure, she would have to bring three animals—a sin-offering, a burnt-offering, and peace-offerings; 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 onward, it follows that half of the count of naziriteship that she counted until today in purity is still alive and existing. And since there is an offering for partial naziriteship, she should initially have brought the offerings of impurity, and after she becomes pure she should bring another three animals as the offerings of a pure nazirite, for half of the naziriteship, as with a nazirite who became impure after thirty days.

Rather, necessarily there is no offering for partial naziriteship; if so, the question returns: why does she need to bring a bird sin-offering?

Rather, in truth there is no offering for partial naziriteship

and therefore she does not bring three offerings.

And the bird sin-offering that she brings,

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

is because it is a sin-offering brought because of uncertainty.

Since we find that a bird sin-offering is a lenient offering, and therefore a woman who gave birth and miscarried, but does not know whether she miscarried a nonviable fetus or wind, brings a bird sin-offering because of uncertainty; and since we find this leniency with a bird sin-offering, that it is brought because of uncertainty, it is therefore also brought for partial naziriteship.

And he challenges Rabbi Yohanan:

He challenged him

we learned in a beraita—

The 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

since from that point onward the law of naziriteship was nullified, one does not bring an offering for partial naziriteship.

And if you say—

he annuls for one who is afflicted, but he does not annul for one who is not afflicted,

as Rabbi Yohanan held above.