הרי זו סופגת את הארבעים הפר לה בעלה והיא לא ידעה שהפר לה והיתה שותה יין ומיטמאה למתים אינה סופגת את הארבעים

she incurs [sofeget] the forty lashes, the penalty for one who transgresses a Torah prohibition, as she violated the terms of her nazirite vow. If her husband nullified the vow for her, but she did not know that he nullified it for her, and she drank wine or became impure through contact with the dead, she does not incur the forty lashes. She did not commit a transgression, as her nazirite vow was nullified.

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

And if you say that the husband can nullify the vow with regard to the loaf that would cause her to deprive herself, but he cannot nullify the vow with regard to the loaf that would not cause her to deprive herself, the same reasoning should apply to a nazirite vow: Perhaps the husband nullified for her the vow that rendered wine forbidden to her, as she suffers pain when she refrains from drinking it. But as for her vow that rendered grape seeds and grape skins forbidden to her, he did not nullify it for her, as she suffers no pain when she abstains from them. And since even grape seeds and grape skins are forbidden to a nazirite, if the woman ate of them, she should receive the forty lashes, even if her husband nullified her vow.

אמר רב יוסף אין נזירות לחצאין

Rav Yosef said: Here it is different, as naziriteship cannot take effect partially. Since one cannot be a nazirite and accept only some of the prohibitions of naziriteship, the husband’s nullification cancels the entire vow. In the case of an ordinary vow, on the other hand, the husband can nullify only the part that causes his wife suffering.

אמר ליה אביי הא קרבן לחצי נזירות איכא אלא אמר אביי אין נזירות לחצאין ואין קרבן לחצאין

Abaye said to him: The wording of your statement suggests that naziriteship cannot take effect partially, but that an offering is brought for partial observance of naziriteship. Rather, Abaye said that one should say as follows: Naziriteship cannot take effect partially, and no offering is brought for partial observance of naziriteship.

מיתיבי האשה שנדרה בנזיר והפרישה בהמתה ואחר כך הפר לה בעלה מביאה חטאת העוף ואינה מביאה עולת העוף ואי אמרת אין קרבן לחצי נזירות אמאי מביאה חטאת העוף

The Gemara raises an objection from the following statement: With regard to a woman who vowed to be a nazirite and she designated her animal for her nazirite offering, and afterward her husband nullified her vow for her, she must bring a bird sin-offering but she does not bring a bird burnt-offering. And if you say that no offering is brought for partial observance of naziriteship, why must she bring a bird sin-offering?

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

The Gemara rejects this argument: But rather, what will you say? That an offering is brought for partial observance of naziriteship? If so, she should be required to bring three animals as offerings, a sin-offering, a burnt-offering, and a peace-offering, in accordance with the halakha governing a nazirite who has completed the period of his vow. Rather, say as follows: Actually, no offering is brought for partial observance of naziriteship, and as for the bird sin-offering that she must bring, this is because a bird sin-offering can be brought in a case of uncertainty. She must therefore bring a sin-offering for the partial naziriteship that she observed.

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

Rav Asi raised an objection against the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan from the following baraita: With regard to a woman who vowed to be a nazirite and she became ritually impure through contact with the dead, and afterward her husband nullified her vow for her, she must bring a bird sin-offering but does not bring a bird burnt-offering. And if you say that the husband can nullify the vow with regard to the loaf that would cause her to deprive herself, but he cannot nullify the vow with regard to the loaf that would not cause her to deprive herself, the same reasoning should apply here: