Nedarim 165

Chapter 165

א הרי זו סופגת את הארבעים הפר לה בעלה והיא לא ידעה שהפר לה והיתה שותה יין ומיטמאה למתים אינה סופגת את הארבעים
1 she receives forty [lashes].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The usual punishment for violating a negative injunction. Actually only thirty-nine lashes were given. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב ואי אמרת מפר למתענה ואין מפר לשאין מתענה דלמא מן יין דאית לה צערא הפר לה מן חרצן ומן זג לא הפר לה דהא לא אית לה צערא ותספוג את הארבעים
2 If her husband disallowed her and she did not know that he disallowed her, and she drank wine and defiled herself through the dead, she does not receive forty [lashes]. But if you maintain, He can annul [only] in respect of that which causes self-denial, but not in respect of that which does not, perhaps he annulled her vow only in respect of wine, since [abstention therefrom] is a deprivation, but not of the kernels or husks [of grapes], abstention from which is no deprivation; hence let her receive forty?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For 'she goes unpunished' implies for no matter which injunction of a nazirite she transgresses. By 'perhaps' etc., 'surely can annul only' is meant. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג אמר רב יוסף אין נזירות לחצאין
3 — R. Joseph replied: There is [no state of] semi-neziruth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One is either completely a nazirite or not at all. But the vow to abstain from two loaves is divisible. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד א"ל אביי הא קרבן לחצי נזירות איכא אלא אמר אביי אין נזירות לחצאין ואין קרבן לחצאין
4 Said Abaye to him: Does that imply that there is a sacrifice for semi-neziruth?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not! Since R. Joseph replied that there is no state of semi-neziruth, it follows that there may be a sacrifice for semi-neziruth. E.g., if a woman vowed to become a nazirite, whose duration, if unspecified, is thirty days, and after fifteen her husband learnt of her vow and annulled it. Now, his annulment cancels the following fifteen days, but not the previous, and Abaye expresses his surprise that, as is implied in R. Joseph's answer, the sacrifices are to be offered for half the period of neziruth. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ה מיתיבי האשה שנדרה בנזיר והפרישה בהמתה ואח"כ הפר לה בעלה מביאה חטאת העוף ואינה מביאה עולת העוף ואי אמרת אין קרבן לחצי נזירות אמאי מביאה חטאת העוף
5 But, said Abaye, there is no semi-neziruth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that some provisions of neziruth shall apply whilst others do not. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ו ואלא מאי יש קרבן לחצי נזירות שלש בהמות בעי לאתויי חטאת עולה ושלמים אלא לעולם אין קרבן לחצי נזירות וחטאת העוף דמתיא משום דחטאת על הספק
6 nor is there a sacrifice for semi-neziruth.
ז איתיביה האשה שנדרה בנזיר ונטמאת ואחר כך הפר לה בעלה מביאה חטאת העוף ואין מביאה עולת העוף ואי אמרת מפר למתענה ואין מפר לשאין מתענה
7 An objection is raised: If a woman made a vow of neziruth, set aside an animal, and then her husband disallowed her: she must bring the sin-offering of a bird, but not burnt-offering of a bird.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the expiration of the neziruth, three sacrifices are due, a burnt-offering, a sin-offering, and a peace-offering; Num. VI, 14. If, however, a nazir comes defiled through the dead within his period he must bring one animal as guilt-offering and two turtle-doves or young pigeons, one as a sin-offering and the other as a burnt-offering, and then recommence the full period afresh; ibid. 10f. Now, this is the meaning of the Baraitha. If a woman made the vow of a nazirite, and separated the animal for a guilt-offering, became defiled, and then had the vow annulled, she must offer only the pigeon sin-offering, but not the pigeon burnt-offering. Tosaf. and Asheri both question the purpose of the clause 'and set aside her animal,' which is apparently irrelevant, and leave the difficulty unresolved. Ran explains that its purpose is to shew that even if she had gone so far as to dedicate her guilt-offering, annulment cancels the neziruth retrospectively. ');"><sup>6</sup></span> But if you say, a sacrifice is not incurred for half [the period of] neziruth, why must she bring the sin-offering of a bird? — What then: a sacrifice is incurred for half [the period of] neziruth — then she should bring three animals, [viz.,] a sin-offering, a burnt offering and a peace-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the annulment by the husband is not retrospective (v. supra p. 244, n. 1) the short period in which she practised neziruth stands and is for her regarded as the whole, at the termination of which the three animals enumerated above are due. Cf. Num. VI, 13: And this is the law of the nazirite, when the days of his separation are fulfilled etc. Since her husband annulled the vow, her days are fulfilled by whatever period she observed. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> But after all no sacrifice is incurred for half neziruth; whilst, as for the sin-offering of a bird which she must bring, that is because such is due even in case of doubt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if a pregnant woman miscarried, and it is unknown whether the fetus had attained viability, in which case the sacrifices of childbirth are due, or not, she must bring a fowl sin-offering. Since this sacrifice is brought even for a doubtful liability, she must also bring it here for the sin of having vowed to be a nazirite; cf. 10a. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> He [further] objected: If a woman made a vow of a nazirite and became defiled, and then her husband disallowed her, she must bring the sin-offering of a bird, but not the burnt-offering of a bird. But if you rule, he can annul [only] in respect of what involves self-denial, but cannot annul that which involves no self-denial,