תְּנָא נָמֵי רֵישָׁא סוֹפֶגֶת For this reason the tanna also taught: She incurs, in the first clause, despite the fact that this teaches no novelty.
תָּא שְׁמַע הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּדְרָה בְּנָזִיר וְנִטְמֵאת וְאַחַר כָּךְ הֵפֵר לָהּ בַּעֲלָהּ מְבִיאָה חַטַּאת הָעוֹף וְאֵינָהּ מְבִיאָה עוֹלַת הָעוֹף וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בַּעַל מִיגָּז גָּיֵיז תַּיְיתֵי נָמֵי עוֹלַת הָעוֹף The Gemara 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.
וְאֶלָּא מַאי מִיעְקָר עָקַר חַטַּאת הָעוֹף נָמֵי לָא תַּיְיתֵי הָכִי נָמֵי וְהָא מַנִּי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר הִיא The Gemara 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 Gemara 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 Rabbi Elazar HaKappar.
דְּתַנְיָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר (בַּר רַבִּי) אוֹמֵר מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מֵאֲשֶׁר חָטָא עַל הַנָּפֶשׁ וְכִי בְּאֵיזוֹ נֶפֶשׁ חָטָא זֶה אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁצִּיעֵר עַצְמוֹ מִן הַיַּיִן נִקְרָא חוֹטֵא וַהֲלֹא דְּבָרִים קַל וָחוֹמֶר וּמָה זֶה שֶׁלֹּא צִיעֵר עַצְמוֹ אֶלָּא מִן הַיַּיִן נִקְרָא חוֹטֵא הַמְצַעֵר עַצְמוֹ מִכׇּל דָּבָר עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi 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.
תָּא שְׁמַע דְּתַנְיָא בְּהֶדְיָא הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּדְרָה בְּנָזִיר וְשָׁמְעָה חֲבֶירְתָּהּ וְאָמְרָה וַאֲנִי וּבָא בַּעְלָהּ שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹנָה וְהֵפֵר לָהּ הִיא מוּתֶּרֶת וַחֲבֶירְתָּהּ אֲסוּרָה שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בַּעַל מִיגָּז גָּיֵיז The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 3:10) explicitly: With regard to a woman who vowed to be a nazirite, and another woman heard her and said: And I, and the husband of the first one came and nullified her vow, she is permitted and the other woman is prohibited. One can learn from this that the husband severs the vow rather than uproots it.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר אִם אָמְרָה לָהּ הֲרֵינִי כְּמוֹתֵיךְ שְׁתֵּיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon says that if the second woman said to her, after hearing her vow of naziriteship: I am hereby like you, in that case they are both permitted. Since the second woman made her naziriteship entirely dependent on that of the first, the nullification of the first woman’s vow cancels the second naziriteship as well.