Explanation: The Gemara in Nazir (21b) explains that this was taught due to the Seifa. (It itself is no Chidush.)

Gemara: Perhaps from [abstaining from] wine, which pains her, he annulled her!

Explanation: 'perhaps' is not precise. Even if he explicitly annulled her from grape pits and peels, according to R. Yochanan, who holds that he cannot annul for the loaf that she is not pained about, it does not help, for the reason that I wrote (DH v'Rav Asi).

Gemara: She receives 40 lashes.

Explanation: If it is true [that he can annul only for what pains her], the Tana should have taught this Chidush, that even if he annulled her, she is lashed, and even for grape pits and peels!

Gemara: Rav Yosef said, there is no partial Nezirus.

Explanation: Since we do not find Nezirus that does not take effect on pits and peels, when the Torah said that he can annul, which implies totally, you are forced to say that it is even for pits and peels.

Explanation: This is said in astonishment. Since [Rav Yosef] said "there is no Nezirus half-way", and he did not say "there is no half-way in Nezirus", this implies that in Nezirus itself there is no half-way, but there is a Korban for half Nezirus;

E.g. if she vowed and counted 15 days, and her husband annulled her [vow], and it turns out that he was Mevatel the 15 coming days, but the 15 days that she already counted were not uprooted;

This is because we hold in Nazir (22a) that a husband cuts [off the vow from now and onwards. He does not uproot it from the beginning];

Abaye asks how she can bring a Korban for a partial count [of Nezirus].

Explanation: Just like there is no half-Nezirus, for he cannot annul half, i.e. [to permit what pained her, i.e.] wine, and she is still forbidden grape pits and peels...

Likewise, there is no Korban half-way. Whenever her husband annulled her during the count of Nezirus, and the count of the coming days is Batel, she does not bring a Korban for the partial Nezirus that she already counted;

The Torah did not say to bring a Korban for a half-Nezirus, only for a full count of Nezirus.

Explanation: She already became Teme'ah before she separated the animal;

Since it taught that she brings Chatas ha'Of, automatically it implies that she became Teme'ah, for a Nazir brings Chatas ha'Of only for Tum'ah;

It says that she separated her animal, i.e. her Asham, for a Nazir Tamei brings an animal for an Asham.

It taught this for a bigger Chidush. Even though she separated her animal before Hafarah, even so she does not bring Olas ha'Of after Hafarah.

Gemara: If you will say that there is no Korban for the half-Nezirus.

Explanation: That she counted already, since she did not complete a full count, even what she counted is not important, and it is not called Nezirus;

If so, why does she bring Chatas ha'Of for Tum'ah that occurred to her? [What she counted] is not called Nezirus at all!

Explanation #1: [She should bring three animals] if she did not become Teme'ah, i.e. Chatas, Olah and Shelamim;

Now that she became Teme'ah, she should bring Asham, Olas ha'Of and Chatas ha'Of.

Explanation #2: Even if she became Teme'ah, she needs to bring three animals;

Since a husband does not uproot [a vow] from the beginning, rather, he cuts it off from Hafarah and onwards, it turns out that half the count of Nezirus that she counted stands in its place;

If you will say that there is a Korban for half Nezirus, she should bring Korbanos of Nezirus Taharah after she becomes Tehorah, like we say about one who became Teme'ah after the full term [of Nezirus].

Gemara: Because Chatas ha'Of is brought amidst Safek.

Explanation: Since it is so lenient, that it comes even amidst Safek, and it is not eaten, it comes also for partial Nezirus.

Gemara: He challenged this.

Explanation: He challenged R. Yochanan, who said that he cannot annul for [the loaf] that does not pain her.

Gemara: If a woman vowed to be a Nezirah, and became Temei'ah, and afterwards her husband annulled her Nezirus, she does not bring Olas ha'Of.

Explanation: This is because there is no Korban for a partial count of Nezirus. Since he annulled her, all the laws of Nezirus are Batel from now and onwards.

Gemara: From Tum'as Mes, which is not pain for her, he did not annul her.

Explanation: It turns out even after Hafarah, she is commanded about Tum'ah. If so, regarding Tum'ah this is not called a partial count of Nezirus, for she must complete the entire count of Nezirus in Taharah;

Rather, surely it implies that amidst that he annuls for wine, about which she is pained, he annuls for Tum'ah, which does not pain her.

Implied question: Why do we answer like this, and not that there is no half-Nezirus, like we said above?

Answer #1: It is because Tum'ah does not depend on Nezirus, for we find that Nezirus without [an Isur] Tum'ah, for wine is forbidden to a Nazir Shimshon, but he may become Tamei Mes, like it says in Nazir 4b;

Since Tum'ah does not depend on Nezirus, it is possible to have an Isur Tum'ah without the other laws of Nezirus.

Answer #2: We come to answer the truth, unlike we initially thought, that there is no pain in [the Isur of Tum'as Mes]. This is wrong. She has pain!

Consequence: If she vowed not to go to Beis ha'Evel, her husband can annul, due to Inuy Nefesh.

Mishnah: Konam that I will benefit [from] creations.

Explanation: What I benefit from creations is forbidden to me like Konam (a Korban).

Mishnah: He cannot annul.

Implied question: Shmuel said 'Hana'ah Ploni is Alai', he can annul!

Answer: We concluded that Shmuel holds like Rabanan, who are lenient about Inuy Nefesh, and our entire Perek is R. Yosi.

Mishnah: And she can benefit from Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah.

Explanation: Since an extra "Ta'azov" is written about them, and it is not written Nesinah (giving), the owner has no Tovas Hana'ah (right to choose to whom to give them).

Therefore, when she takes Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah, she is not benefiting from people. The Gemara explains our Mishnah.

Explanation: We are thinking that the Seifa, which taught "she may benefit from Leket, Shichchah and Pe'ah", is not the conclusion of the Reisha, and the reason for the Reisha;

[It does not mean that] the reason he cannot annul is because she may benefit from Leket, Shichchah and Pe'ah.

Source #1: If so (it were the reason for the Reisha), it should have taught "because she may benefit..."!

Source #2: Also, if the husband were included in Briyos (people, so she may not benefit from him, and she must rely on Leket...), why did it teach that because she may benefit from Leket, Shichchah and Pe'ah, he cannot annul?

Are her husband and all people worse than a grocer who was his only source of provisions? We said above that [in such a case] he can annul!

Explanation (cont.): Rather, surely, when it taught "he cannot annul", the reason is because her husband may feed her. He is not included in "people". Therefore, this is not called Inuy Nefesh, and he cannot annul.

Question: Still, this is difficult! Surely, her husband's only source of provisions is from people. "People" are like a grocer who is his only source of provisions. We said that in such a case he can annul!

Answer: This is not difficult. There, she forbade to herself the grocer's Peros, even if her husband will bring them to her, like we concluded above. Therefore, he can annul;

However, here she did not forbid to herself all people's Peros, rather, Hana'ah from people;

Therefore, whenever her husband buys them, they are permitted to her. She does not benefit from [other] people, rather, from her husband.

Gemara: Consider the Seifa - she may benefit from Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah.

Explanation: However, she does not eat from the husband, for if she eats from her husband, how is she permitted Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah? She is not an Oni!

Explanation: Really, her husband is not included in "people". Therefore, he cannot annul, for she is fed from the husband;

Further, even if her husband is poor, he cannot annul, for she may benefit from Leket, Shichchah and Pe'ah, and also from her husband she is not forbidden;

If she were forbidden from her husband, just because she may benefit from Leket, Shichchah and Pe'ah, we would not say that he cannot annul;

People and her husband are no worse than a grocer who is [her husband's] only source of provisions. We hold that [in such a case] he can annul.

Explanation: [The Seifa] gives the reason [for the Reisha]. Why can't he annul? Because she may benefit from Leket, Shichchah and Pe'ah.

Rava holds that even though it did not teach "because she may benefit", automatically we understand that this gives the reason.

Question: This is very difficult. According to Rava, are people and her husband worse than Peros of a grocer who is [her husband's] only source of provisions, about which we taught that he can annul due to Inuy Nefesh, and even according to R. Yosi?!

Answer (R. Moshe bar Shni'ur, of blessed memory): Here, the case is that she gathered Leket, Shichchah and Pe'ah, and she can benefit from it, like it taught "she may benefit from Leket, Shichchah and Pe'ah." Therefore, he cannot annul;

Above, she vowed during the winter, when it is impossible for her to gather. Therefore, he can annul.

Explanation: Therefore, he cannot annul. If she could not benefit from her husband, even though she may benefit from Leket, Shichchah and Pe'ah, this would be Inuy Nefesh, and he could annul.

The Mishnah means that if she was divorced, she can benefit from Leket, Shichchah and Pe'ah, which do not have Tovas Hana'ah, since it says about them "Azivah" (the owner leaves them for Aniyim to take);

[The Mishnah] teaches that when she is divorced, her [ex-]husband returns to be among the Isur of people, and she can benefit only from Leket, Shichchah and Pe'ah.

Support: The Rishonim explained like this, and so says Chidushei ha'Rashba citing the Tosefta.

Citation (Yerushalmi): If one vowed [Hana'ah] from seafarers after 30 days, and at the time of his vow Ploni was a seafarer, and afterwards, before 30 days, he became a landlubber...