Nazir 22A

תנא נמי רישא סופגת.

For this reason the tanna also taught: She incurs, in the first clause, despite the fact that this teaches no novelty.

תא שמע: האשה שנדרה בנזיר ונטמאת, ואחר כך הפר לה בעלה ⁠— מביאה חטאת העוף, ואינה מביאה עולת העוף. ואי סלקא דעתך בעל מיגז גייז ⁠— תייתי נמי עולת העוף!

The Talmud further suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: With regard to a woman who vowed to be a nazirite and she became ritually impure, and afterward her husband nullified her vow, she brings the bird sin-offering, and she does not bring the bird burnt-offering. And if it should enter your mind that the husband severs her vow, let her also bring the bird burnt-offering, to complete the atonement for becoming ritually impure when she was a nazirite. This indicates that the husband uproots the vow, which is why she is not required to bring the bird burnt-offering.

ואלא מאי, מיעקר עקר? חטאת העוף נמי לא תייתי! הכי נמי, והא מני ⁠— רבי אלעזר הקפר היא.

The Talmud refutes this proof: Rather, what then? Will you say that the husband uproots the vow entirely? If so, she should also not bring the bird sin-offering. The Talmud answers: So too, she should not have to bring the bird sin-offering either, but in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is the opinion of R' Elazar HaKappar.

דתניא, רבי אלעזר הקפר (בר רבי) אומר: מה תלמוד לומר ״מאשר חטא על הנפש״? וכי באיזו נפש חטא זה? אלא מפני שציער עצמו מן היין נקרא חוטא. והלא דברים קל וחומר: ומה זה שלא ציער עצמו אלא מן היין נקרא חוטא, המצער עצמו מכל דבר ⁠— על אחת כמה וכמה.

As it is taught in a baraita that R' Elazar HaKappar the esteemed says: What is the meaning when the verse states: “And make atonement for him, for that he sinned by reason of the soul” (Numbers 6:11)? And with which soul did this nazirite sin? Rather, because he deprived himself of wine he is therefore called a sinner. And are not these matters inferred a fortiori: And if this one, who deprived himself only of wine, is nevertheless called a sinner, in the case of one who deprives himself of everything by fasting or other acts of mortification, all the more so is he labeled a sinner. According to this opinion, she brings a sin-offering to atone for uttering the vow itself, despite the fact that her husband later uprooted it entirely.