תַנָּא דִּידָן סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּאִיזְדְּרִיק עֲלָהּ דָּם – לְאַלְתַּר שַׁרְיָא בְּחַמְרָא, וְהָא לֵית לָהּ נִיוּוּל. וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר אֲפִילּוּ אִישְׁתְּחִיטַת בְּהֵמָה – אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר, מִשּׁוּם הֶפְסֵד קָדָשִׁים.

The tanna of our mishna holds: Once the blood has been sprinkled on her behalf she is immediately permitted to drink wine, and therefore she is not downcast. Consequently, the husband has no right to nullify her naziriteship vow at that point, as her vow does not affect him. And Rabbi Akiva holds: Even if the blood has yet to be sprinkled and wine remains forbidden to her, as soon as an animal is slaughtered for one of her offerings the husband can no longer nullify the vow, due to the loss of consecrated property. If he were to nullify her vow she would have no further need of the offerings, and it is prohibited to waste Sanctuary property.

מַתְקִיף לָהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא: וְאַמַּאי? לִזְרוֹק דָּמָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, וְיַתִּיר בָּשָׂר בַּאֲכִילָה! מִי לָא תַּנְיָא: כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, אוֹ שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן לִפְנֵי זְמַנָּן, אוֹ לְאַחַר זְמַנָּן – הַדָּם יִזָּרֵק, וְהַבָּשָׂר יֵאָכֵל.

Rabbi Zeira objects to this: And why should the result be a loss to the Sanctuary? He can avoid this by sprinkling their blood not for the sake of the offerings and he will thereby permit the meat of the offering to be eaten, and the consecrated animal will not go to waste. Isn’t it taught in a baraita : With regard to the communal peace-offering of two sheep that accompanies the two loaves on Shavuot , if one slaughtered them not for the sake of that offering, or slaughtered them before their time, on the eve of the Festival, or after their time, after the Festival, the blood shall be sprinkled, although not for the sake of that offering, as it is no longer fit for that purpose, and the meat is eaten.

וְאִם הָיְתָה שַׁבָּת – לֹא יִזָּרֵק, וְאִם זָרַק – הוּרְצָה לְהַקְטִיר אֵימוּרִין לָעֶרֶב!

And if it was a Shabbat, the blood may not be sprinkled. Since the meat cannot be eaten on that day, sprinkling the blood is considered a form of unnecessary labor on Shabbat. And if he sprinkled the blood on Shabbat anyway, the offering is accepted, and he must wait to burn its sacrificial parts on the altar in the evening, after the conclusion of Shabbat. In any case, this shows that it is permitted to sprinkle the blood of an offering not for its own sake ab initio so that its flesh can be eaten.

אָמְרִי: אִי דְּשָׁחַט עוֹלָה אוֹ שְׁלָמִים – הָכִי נַמִי. אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁשָּׁחַט חַטָּאת בְּרֵישָׁא.

The Sages say in response: If he had slaughtered only the woman’s naziriteship offerings of the burnt-offering or the peace-offering, so too, he may certainly proceed to sprinkle the blood not for the sake of that offering, to avoid the loss of a consecrated animal. In that case Rabbi Akiva would agree that the husband can still nullify her vow. However, with what are we dealing here? It is with a case where he slaughtered the sin-offering first. Since a sin-offering whose blood was sprinkled not for its sake is invalid, if the husband were to nullify her vow this would cause a loss of consecrated property.

כְּדִתְנַן: אִם גִּילֵּחַ עַל אַחַת מִשְּׁלָשְׁתָּן יָצָא.

The Gemara cites the source that the order of a nazirite’s offerings may be changed and the sin-offering may be sacrificed first. As we learned in a mishna (45a): If he shaved after the sacrifice of one of the three nazirite offerings, either the burnt-offering, the peace-offering, or the sin-offering, he has fulfilled his obligation.

״בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּתִגְלַחַת טָהֳרָה, אֲבָל בְּתִגְלַחַת טוּמְאָה יָפֵר (מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר: אִי אֶפְשִׁי בְּאִשָּׁה מְנוּוֶּלֶת), וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ בְּתִגְלַחַת טָהֳרָה יָפֵר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר: אִי אֶפְשִׁי בְּאִשָּׁה מְגֻלַּחַת״.

§ The mishna taught: In what case is this statement, that a husband cannot nullify his wife’s vow, said? It is with regard to a shaving of ritual purity; however, with regard to a shaving of impurity the husband can nullify it if he wishes. And Rabbi Meir says: He may even nullify the vow at her shaving of purity because he can say: I do not want a shaven wife.

וְתַנָא קַמָּא אָמַר לָךְ: אֶפְשָׁר בְּפֵאָה נָכְרִית. וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: בְּפֵאָה נָכְרִית, אַיְּידֵי דְּזוּהֲמָא – לָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ.

The Gemara analyzes these opinions: And the first tanna could have said to you in response to Rabbi Meir’s argument: It is possible for her to compensate by wearing a wig, and therefore she would not appear shaven, and her husband would have no cause for complaint. And Rabbi Meir holds: As for compensating by wearing a wig, since it is dirty he is not amenable to this solution, and he may therefore nullify her vow.

מתני׳ הָאִישׁ מַדִּיר אֶת בְּנוֹ בְּנָזִיר, וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה מַדֶּרֶת אֶת בְּנָהּ בְּנָזִיר. כֵּיצַד? גִּילֵּחַ, אוֹ שֶׁגִּילְחוּהוּ קְרוֹבָיו, מִיחָה אוֹ שֶׁמִּיחוּ קְרוֹבָיו;

A man can vow that his minor son should be a nazirite, i.e., a father can declare his son a nazirite, but a woman cannot vow that her son should be a nazirite. How so; what are the details of this naziriteship? If the son shaved his hair, thereby demonstrating his rejection of the vow imposed by his father; or if his relatives shaved him; or if the son objected by saying that he has no desire for this naziriteship; or if his relatives objected on his behalf, the naziriteship is canceled.

הָיְתָה לוֹ בְּהֵמָה מוּפְרֶשֶׁת – הַחַטָּאת תָּמוּת, וְהָעוֹלָה תִּקְרַב עוֹלָה, וּשְׁלָמִים יִקְרְבוּ שְׁלָמִים, וְנֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד, וְאֵינָן טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם.

If this son who canceled the naziriteship had animals separated for his offerings, the one set aside for the sin-offering must die, and the burnt-offering is sacrificed as a burnt-offering, and the peace-offering is sacrificed as a peace-offering. And the peace-offering is eaten for one day, like the peace-offering of a nazirite, rather than the two days of a regular peace-offering, and it does not require bread, i.e., the loaves that accompany a nazirite’s peace-offering.

הָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת סְתוּמִין – יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. מָעוֹת מְפוֹרָשִׁים; דְּמֵי חַטָּאת – יֵלְכוּ לְיַם הַמֶּלַח, לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין. דְּמֵי עוֹלָה – יָבִיאוּ עוֹלָה, וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן; דְּמֵי שְׁלָמִים – יָבִיאוּ שְׁלָמִים וְנֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד, וְאֵינָן טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם.

If he had unallocated funds, they will be allocated for communal gift offerings. If he had allocated funds for his offerings, the money for the sin-offering is taken and cast into the Dead Sea, as one may not benefit from it ab initio , but if he benefits from it, he is not liable to bring an offering for misuse of consecrated property. With the money for the burnt-offering they bring a burnt-offering; it is prohibited to derive benefit from those coins and if he benefits from it, he is liable to bring an offering for misuse of consecrated property. With the money for the peace-offering they bring a peace-offering, and it is eaten for one day and does not require bread.

גמ׳ אִישׁ – אִין, אֲבָל אִשָּׁה – לָא. מַאי טַעֲמָא? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: הֲלָכָה הִיא בְּנָזִיר. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא

The mishna taught that a man can vow that his son should be a nazirite, but a woman cannot do so. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai with regard to a nazirite. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina,