VOWS THAT INCLUDE AFFLICTION (cont.)
Question (Mishnah): If a woman vowed to be a Nezirah, and drank wine and became Temei'ah, she receives 40 lashes;
If her husband annulled the vow, but she did not know and drank or became Temei'ah, she does not receive 40 lashes.
If he can annul only the part that pains her, he annulled only the Isur of wine, which pains her, but not the Isur to eat grape pits or peels. If so, the Mishnah should teach that she gets 40 lashes if she eats grape pits or skins!
Answer #1 (Rav Yosef): Nezirus cannot be partial (so it is totally annulled).
Objection (Abaye): Your words imply that there is a Korban for partial Nezirus (e.g. if her husband annulled it after 15 days. The Chazon Ish (YD 136:7) asks how this is implied. He answers based on the question (Nazir 14b) of whether the Isurim after finishing Nezirus but before bringing Korbanos are a continuation of Isurei Nezirus, or new Isurim. If they are new, they are due to a Chiyuv to bring a Korban for having been a Nazir for even a short time. They are not due to her vow, therefore they cannot be annulled.)
Answer #2 (Abaye): Nezirus cannot be partial, and there is no Korban for partial Nezirus.
Question (against Abaye - Mishnah): If a woman vowed to be a Nezirah, and separated an animal (for the Korban), and her husband annulled her Nezirus, she brings Chatas ha'Of (a bird for a Chatas, i.e. if she became Temei'ah), but not Olas ha'Of.
If there is no Korban for partial Nezirus, why does she bring Chatas ha'Of?
Counter-question: If there is a Korban for partial Nezirus, she should bring all three animals, a Chatas, Olah and Shelamim (if she was Tehorah, and Chatas ha'Of and Olas ha'Of if she became Temei'ah)!
Answer: Really, there is no Korban for partial Nezirus;
She brings Chatas ha'Of (if she became Temei'ah), since the Torah allows one who is usual whether or not he is liable to bring it (and she needs atonement, according to the opinion that a Nazir is a sinner).
Question (against R. Yochanan - Mishnah): If a woman vowed to be a Nezirah, and became Temei'ah, and afterwards her husband annulled her Nezirus, she brings Chatas ha'Of.
If annulment only takes effect on the part of the vow that is affliction, perhaps the annulment only works regarding wine, from which abstinence is affliction, but not regarding Tum'ah, which is not affliction!
Answer: Refraining from becoming Tamei is also an affliction. (Since she cannot bury others, no one will bury her);
(Beraisa - R. Meir): "The living will take it to heart" - one who eulogizes will be eulogized. If one cries over a Mes, others will cry over him. One who buries others will be buried.
A VOW FROM ALL PEOPLE
(Mishnah): If a wife vowed that she will not benefit from the creations (i.e. people), her husband cannot annul this. She can take Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah (sheaves that drop or were forgotten during harvesting, and a corner of the field left unharvested, which are left for the poor);
If a man vowed that Kohanim and Leviyim will not benefit from him, they may take (tithes and gifts due to them) against his will;
If he forbade only certain Kohanim and Leviyim, others take the tithes and gifts.
(Gemara) Inference: She may benefit from her husband (if not, he would be able to annul). This shows that 'creations' excludes her husband.
Question (Seifa): She can take Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah.
Inference: She may not benefit from her husband! (If she could, she would not be considered poor.)
Answer #1 (Ula): Really, 'creations' excludes her husband. (Therefore, it is not a vow between them.) It is not a vow of affliction, because(even if her husband is poor and cannot feed her,) she can take Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah. Therefore, he cannot annul.
Answer #2 (Rava): Really, 'creations' includes her husband. The Mishnah explains the reason for the law.
He cannot annul at a time when she can take Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah (they are available).
Answer #3 (Rav Nachman): Really, 'creations' excludes her husband. The Seifa teaches a new law:
If she was later divorced, she can take Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah. (This is not considered benefit from others, since the farmer must leave them for the poor to take themselves.)