Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

February 16, 2023 | 讻状讛 讘砖讘讟 转砖驻状讙

  • Masechet Nazir is sponsored by the family of Rabbi Howard Alpert, HaRav Tzvi Lipa ben Hillel, in honor of his first yahrzeit.

Nazir 24

Today’s daf is sponsored by Savta Becki Goldstein in honor of her two eldest grandsons chayalim Eitan Efrayim and Gilad Yoel on their twentieth birthdays. “With gratitude to Hashem for the z’chut of reaching this milestone with them. Our wishes for briut and simcha and hatzlacha in their endeavors and may Hashem keep them safe and all our chayalim. Amen.”

A woman who was a nazir and separated animals for her sacrifice and then her husband nullified the vow, what happens to those animals? It depends on whether the money used to purchase the animals was her husband’s money or her own. If it was his, the animals are no longer sanctified. If it was her own money, the one designated for the sin offering is left to die, the burnt and peace offerings are offered as voluntary offerings. But the peace offering has unique laws – it can only be eaten for one day, like the nazirite peace offering but is not eaten with loaves of unleavened bread that usually accompany the nazirite offering. If she had just designated money for the animals, all that money is used to purchase voluntary offerings. If she had designated money and specified what would be purchased with the money, the same concept applies as before – the money for the sin offering is sent to the Dead Sea as it cannot be used for anything, the money for the burnt and peace offerings are used to buy voluntary burnt and peace offerings as per the details in the earlier case. There is a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis about whether a husband is obligated to pay for his wife’s sacrifices by a commitment written in the ketuba. Which one of these opinions fits in with our Mishna regarding the husband who gave money to his wife for sacrifices? Two different versions are brought of a debate regarding this issue between Rav Chisda and Rava. What would be a scenario where she would have her own money to purchase the sacrifices? Avuha bar Ihi listed four cases in which a nazir peace offering is brought without the accompanying loaves. What are the four cases? Are there not more? What about a nazir sacrifice that was slaughtered incorrectly (either not for the sake of the right sacrifice or it was a an animal in its first year, instead of its second year of life.

讝讻转讛 讜拽讚诪讛 讗专讘注讛 讚讜专讜转 讘讬砖专讗诇 诇诪诇讻讜转:


she merited to precede the younger daughter by four generations to the monarchy of the Jewish people. The descendants of Ruth the Moabite ruled over the Jewish people for four generations: Obed, Yishai, David, and Solomon, before the reign of Solomon鈥檚 son Rehoboam, whose mother was Naamah the Ammonite.


诪转谞讬壮 讛讗砖讛 砖谞讚专讛 讘谞讝讬专 讜讛驻专讬砖讛 讗转 讘讛诪转讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛讬驻专 诇讛 讘注诇讛 讗诐 砖诇讜 讛讬转讛 讛讘讛诪讛 转爪讗 讜转专注讛 讘注讚专


MISHNA: With regard to a woman who vowed to be a nazirite and separated her animals for her offerings of purity at the end of her term, and afterward her husband nullified her vow, which means that she is not in fact a nazirite, what becomes of these animals? If the animal was his, it shall go out and graze among the flock until it becomes blemished, like regular non-consecrated animals.


讜讗诐 砖诇讛 讛讬转讛 讛讘讛诪讛 讛讞讟讗转 转诪讜转 讜注讜诇讛 转拽专讘 注讜诇讛 砖诇诪讬诐 转拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 讜谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讗讬谞谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诇讞诐


And if the animal was hers, different halakhot apply to the various offerings: The animal she set aside as a sin-offering must be left to die by being shut in an enclosed area and deprived of food and water, as will be explained in the Gemara. And the animal separated for a burnt-offering is sacrificed on the altar as a burnt-offering, as in any case one may bring a voluntary burnt-offering. As for the one designated for a peace-offering, it is sacrificed as a voluntary peace-offering. And this peace-offering is eaten for only one day, in accordance with the halakha of the nazirite鈥檚 peace-offering, despite the fact that regular peace-offerings may be eaten for two days. But the offering does not require bread, i.e., loaves and wafers, unlike that of a nazirite.


讛讬讜 诇讛 诪注讜转 住转讜诪讬谉 讬驻诇讜 诇谞讚讘讛 诪注讜转 诪驻讜专砖讬谉 讚诪讬 讞讟讗转 讬诇讻讜 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 诇讗 谞讛谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉


If she had unallocated funds, i.e., she had separated money for her offerings but had not stated which coins were designated for which offering, all the money will be earmarked for communal gift offerings. If she had allocated funds, i.e., she had decided which coins were for the payment of each offering, even if she had not yet purchased the animals, the money for the sin-offering is taken and cast into the Dead Sea, i.e., it must be destroyed, either by being thrown into the sea or by some other means. One may not benefit from it, as it possesses a measure of sanctity, but one also does not misuse property consecrated to the Temple with it. In other words, if one did derive benefit from this money he is not liable to bring an offering for misusing consecrated property.


讚诪讬 注讜诇讛 讬讘讬讗讜 注讜诇讛 讜诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 讚诪讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讬讘讬讗讜 砖诇诪讬诐 讜谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诇讞诐:


As for the money for the burnt-offering, a burnt-offering is brought with those coins, and one who benefits from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property, as it is sacred since it can be used toward the purchase of a gift offering. Similarly, with regard to the money for a peace-offering, a peace-offering is brought with those coins, and it is eaten for one day and does not require bread.


讙诪壮 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚讘注诇 诇讗 诪砖转注讘讚 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讗诪讗讬 转爪讗 讜转专注讛 讘注讚专 讛讗 诪砖转注讘讚 诇讛


GEMARA: The Gemara inquires: Who is the tanna who taught that a husband is not indebted to his wife, i.e., he is not required to provide her with her obligatory offerings? It is evident that the tanna of the mishna maintains that this is the case, as he rules that the animal does not remain sacred if it belonged to her husband. Rav 岣sda said: It is the opinion of the Rabbis. As, if it should enter your mind that it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, why should an animal that belonged to the husband go out and graze among the flock until it becomes blemished? After all, the husband is indebted and required to give her the offerings she requires, which means that her consecration is valid even if she used his animals.


讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讚诐 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注砖讬专 注诇 讗砖转讜


The Gemara provides the source for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: A person brings the offering of a rich man on behalf of his wife. If a wife is obligated to bring an offering that is different depending on whether she is wealthy or poor, e.g., the offering of a childbearing woman, then even if she herself does not own enough to be considered wealthy, if her husband can afford it he must bring the offering of a rich person on her behalf.


讜讻谉 讻诇 拽专讘谞讜转讬讛 砖讛讬讗 讞讬讬讘转 砖讻讱 讻转讘 诇讛 讻诇 讗讞专讬讜转 讚讗讬转 诇讬讱 注诇讬 诪谉 拽讚诪转 讚谞讗


And similarly, he brings all her offerings that she is obligated to bring, even those whose obligation preceded their marriage. The reason is that he wrote to her in her marriage contract like this: I accept upon myself all claims of guarantee that you have upon me from beforehand. These obligations include her offerings.


专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讬 诪砖注讘讚 诇讛 讘诪讬诇转讗 讚爪专讬讻讗 诇讛 讘诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇讛 诇讗


Rava said: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and nevertheless the husband is under no obligation if he nullified her vow. The reason is as follows: When is he obligated to bring her offerings? It is only in the case of a matter that is necessary for her to bring. However, in the case of a matter that is not necessary for her to bring, he is under no such obligation. Here, too, once he has nullified her naziriteship, she is no longer in need of this offering.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讻讬 诪砖注讘讚 诇讛 讘诪讬诇转讗 讚爪专讬讻讗 诇讛 讘诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇讛 诇讗 讚讗讬 专讘谞谉 诇讗 诪砖注讘讚 诇讛 讻诇诇


Some say a different version of this discussion: Who is the tanna who taught that only a husband who nullified his wife鈥檚 vow is exempt from providing her offerings? Rav 岣sda said that it is Rabbi Yehuda, and his opinion is as follows: When is he indebted to fund her offerings? It is in the case of a matter that is necessary for her to bring, but in the case of a matter that is not necessary for her to bring, he is under no such obligation. As, if it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, he is not mortgaged to her in this regard at all.


讗诇讗 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚诪砖注讘讚 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讗拽谞讬讬讛 诇讛 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗拽谞讬 诇讛 讛讜讛 讚谞驻砖讛


Rather, what are the circumstances in which he is obligated to provide her offering, according to the opinion of the Rabbis? For example, if he transferred the animal to her possession. But in that case, since he has transferred it to her, it is her own, which means that she has effectively separated the offering from her own property. The mishna cannot be referring to this situation, as the animal does not revert to a non-sacred state in a case of this kind. Evidently, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.


专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讻讬 诪拽谞讬 诇讛 谞诪讬 讘诪诇转讗 讚爪专讬讻讗 诇讛 讘诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇讛 诇讗 诪拽谞讬 诇讛:


Rava said: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and the reason the animal loses its sanctity is that even when he transfers it to her, he does so for a matter that is necessary for her to bring, but for a matter that is not necessary for her to bring, he does not transfer it to her.


讗诐 砖诇讛 讛讬转讛 讘讛诪转讛 讞讟讗转 转诪讜转 讜注讜诇讛 转拽专讘: 讛讬讗 诪谞讗 诇讛 讛讗诪专转 诪讛 砖拽谞转讛 讗砖讛 拽谞讛 讘注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖拽诪爪转讛 诪注讬住转讛 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讗拽谞讬 诇讛 讗讞专 讜讗诪专 诇讛 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 诇讘注诇讬讱 专砖讜转 讘讛谉:


搂 The mishna teaches: If the animal was hers, the sin-offering must be left to die and the burnt-offering is sacrificed. The Gemara asks: She, this married woman, from where does she have her own property? Haven鈥檛 you said as a principle that with regard to any item that a woman acquires, her husband automatically acquires it from her? Rav Pappa said: This is referring to a case where she saved it from her dough, i.e., she was able to buy the animal with the money she saved by eating less. And if you wish, say instead that another person transferred the property to her, and he said to her that he is doing so on the condition that your husband has no rights to it. In that case the wife is the exclusive owner of the animal.


讛注讜诇讛 转拽专讘 注讜诇讛 讜讛砖诇诪讬诐 转拽专讘 讻讜壮: 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗讘讜讛 讘专 讗讬讛讬 诇讗 转讬转讬讘 注诇 讻专注讬讱 注讚 讚讗诪专转 诇讬 讛讚讗 诪讬诇转讗 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讗专讘注讛 讗讬诇讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诇讞诐 砖诇讜 讜砖诇讛 讜砖诇讗讞专 讛诪讬转讛 讜砖诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛


搂 The mishna taught that the burnt-offering is sacrificed as a burnt-offering and the peace-offering is sacrificed as a peace-offering. Shmuel said to Avuh bar Ihi: You shall not sit on your feet until you say and explain to me this matter taught in a baraita: And these are the four rams of the nazirite鈥檚 offering that do not require bread to be brought with them, in contrast to the usual practice: His, hers, the one brought after death, and the one brought after the nazirite has gained atonement by means of a different offering.


砖诇讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 砖诇讜 讚转谞谉 讛讗讬砖 诪讚讬专 讗转 讘谞讜 讘谞讝讬专 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 诪讚专转 讗转 讘谞讛 讘谞讝讬专 讙讬诇讞 讗讜 砖讙讬诇讞讜讛讜 拽专讜讘讬诐 诪讬讞讛 讗讜 砖诪讬讞讜讛讜 拽专讜讘讬诐


The Gemara clarifies this statement: Hers, this is that which we just said, the offering of a woman who separated an animal of her own before her husband proceeded to nullify her vow. His, as we learned in a mishna (28b): A man can vow his son to become a nazirite, i.e., he can apply a vow of naziriteship to his minor son, but a woman cannot vow her son to become a nazirite. If the son objects, either of his own initiative or at the behest of others, his father鈥檚 vow is canceled. Consequently, if the boy shaved his hair during the period of naziriteship, thereby demonstrating his desire not to be a nazirite, or if relatives shaved him, or even if the minor performed no action at all but simply objected, or if his relatives made him object, his naziriteship is canceled.


讛讬讜 诇讜 诪注讜转 住转讜诪讬谉 讬驻诇讜 诇谞讚讘讛 诪注讜转 诪驻讜专砖讬谉 讚诪讬 讞讟讗转 讬诇讻讜 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 讚诪讬 注讜诇讛 讬讘讬讗讜 注讜诇讛 讜诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 讚诪讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讬讘讬讗讜 砖诇诪讬诐 讜谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讗讬谞谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诇讞诐


In that case, if he had unallocated funds, which had been consecrated for the child鈥檚 offerings but not designated for any particular offering, all the money will be earmarked for communal gift offerings. If he had allocated funds designated for a particular offering, the money for a sin-offering is taken and cast into the Dead Sea; the money for a burnt-offering is brought as a burnt-offering, and one who benefits from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property; and the money for a peace-offering is brought as a peace-offering and it is eaten for one day and does not require bread.


砖诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪驻专讬砖 诪注讜转 诇谞讝讬专讜转讜 诇讗 谞讛谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 专讗讜讬讬谉 诇讛讘讬讗 讘讻讜诇谉 砖诇诪讬诐


With regard to a ram that is after its owner鈥檚 death, from where do we derive that this offering requires no bread? As it is taught in a mishna (Me鈥檌la 18a): With regard to one who separates money for his naziriteship without specifying an offering, he may not derive benefit from them, but one who benefits from it is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. Why is he not liable to bring an offering for misuse of consecrated property? It is because the money is fit to bring peace-offerings with all of it, and no misuse is effected by deriving benefit from a peace-offering until after its blood has been sprinkled.


诪转 讜讛讬讜 诇讜 诪注讜转 住转讜诪讬诐 讬驻诇讜 诇谞讚讘讛 诪注讜转 诪驻讜专砖讬谉 讚诪讬 讞讟讗转 讬讜诇讬讱 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 诇讗 谞讛谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉 讚诪讬 注讜诇讛 讬讘讬讗讜 注讜诇讛 讜诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 讚诪讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讬讘讬讗讜 砖诇诪讬诐 讜谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讗讬谞谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诇讞诐


The mishna continues: If the one who set aside the money died and he had unallocated funds, they are all allocated for communal gift offerings. If he left behind allocated funds, with regard to the money for a sin-offering, one must take it and cast it into the Dead Sea; one may not derive benefit from it but one who benefits from it is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. The money for a burnt-offering is brought as a burnt-offering, and one who benefits from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property. The money for a peace-offering is brought as a peace-offering, and it is eaten for one day and does not require bread. This is the case of a ram after its owner鈥檚 death that does not require bread.


砖诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 住讘专讗 讛讜讗 砖诇讗讞专 讛诪讬转讛 诪讗讬 讟注诐 讚诇讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讻驻专讛 砖诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 谞诪讬 讛讗 诇讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讻驻专讛


As for the ram that is after atonement, whose owner has used a different offering to achieve atonement, the halakha that this offering does not require bread is not taught explicitly. Rather, it is based on logical reasoning: What is the reason that no bread is brought in the case of a ram that is sacrificed after the death of its owner? It is that this offering is not fit for atonement, as no atonement is granted to the dead through offerings. With regard to a ram that is sacrificed after atonement too, it is no longer fit for atonement, as the owner has already gained atonement by means of a different animal.


讜转讜 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讜砖讗专 讻诇 砖诇诪讬 谞讝讬专 砖砖讞讟谉 砖诇讗 讻诪爪讜转谉 讻砖专讬诐 讜诇讗 注讜诇讬谉 诇讘注诇讬诐 诇砖讜诐 讞讜讘讛 讜谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讗讬谞谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诇讗 诇讞诐 讜诇讗 讝专讜注


The Gemara asks: And is there nothing else? Are there no other instances of a peace-offering of a nazirite that does not require bread, apart from the aforementioned cases? But isn鈥檛 there the following halakha: And with regard to all the other peace-offerings of a nazirite that were slaughtered not in accordance with their mitzva, e.g., if the ram was not of the proper age, they are fit offerings and may be eaten, but they do not count toward the owner鈥檚 obligation, i.e., he must bring another offering. The baraita continues: And these offerings are eaten for one day, like regular peace-offerings of a nazirite, and they require neither bread nor the foreleg, unlike the peace-offering of a nazirite. This is another example of a nazirite鈥檚 peace-offering that does not require bread.


讻诪爪讜转谉 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 砖诇讗 讻诪爪讜转谉 诇讗 拽讗 讞砖讬讘:


The Gemara answers: In the above list the tanna includes only offerings that were sacrificed in accordance with their mitzva; he does not include animals that were sacrificed not in accordance with their mitzva.


讛讬讜 诇讜 诪注讜转 住转讜诪讬诐 讬驻诇讜 诇谞讚讘讛:


搂 It was stated above, with regard to one who separated money for his naziriteship and then died, that if he had unallocated funds, they are all allocated for communal gift offerings.


  • Masechet Nazir is sponsored by the family of Rabbi Howard Alpert, HaRav Tzvi Lipa ben Hillel, in honor of his first yahrzeit.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Nazir: 23-29 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about a woman who takes on the vow of Nazir and then her husband revokes...
talking talmud_square

Nazir 24: Interrupting a Woman’s Nezirut

A woman's vow of nezirut can be revoked by her husband up until the time that she brings the post-nezirut...
salt

Dead or Alive?

The Mishna on daf 24 deals with a case where money has been set aside for a Nazir offering that...

Nazir 24

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 24

讝讻转讛 讜拽讚诪讛 讗专讘注讛 讚讜专讜转 讘讬砖专讗诇 诇诪诇讻讜转:


she merited to precede the younger daughter by four generations to the monarchy of the Jewish people. The descendants of Ruth the Moabite ruled over the Jewish people for four generations: Obed, Yishai, David, and Solomon, before the reign of Solomon鈥檚 son Rehoboam, whose mother was Naamah the Ammonite.


诪转谞讬壮 讛讗砖讛 砖谞讚专讛 讘谞讝讬专 讜讛驻专讬砖讛 讗转 讘讛诪转讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛讬驻专 诇讛 讘注诇讛 讗诐 砖诇讜 讛讬转讛 讛讘讛诪讛 转爪讗 讜转专注讛 讘注讚专


MISHNA: With regard to a woman who vowed to be a nazirite and separated her animals for her offerings of purity at the end of her term, and afterward her husband nullified her vow, which means that she is not in fact a nazirite, what becomes of these animals? If the animal was his, it shall go out and graze among the flock until it becomes blemished, like regular non-consecrated animals.


讜讗诐 砖诇讛 讛讬转讛 讛讘讛诪讛 讛讞讟讗转 转诪讜转 讜注讜诇讛 转拽专讘 注讜诇讛 砖诇诪讬诐 转拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 讜谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讗讬谞谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诇讞诐


And if the animal was hers, different halakhot apply to the various offerings: The animal she set aside as a sin-offering must be left to die by being shut in an enclosed area and deprived of food and water, as will be explained in the Gemara. And the animal separated for a burnt-offering is sacrificed on the altar as a burnt-offering, as in any case one may bring a voluntary burnt-offering. As for the one designated for a peace-offering, it is sacrificed as a voluntary peace-offering. And this peace-offering is eaten for only one day, in accordance with the halakha of the nazirite鈥檚 peace-offering, despite the fact that regular peace-offerings may be eaten for two days. But the offering does not require bread, i.e., loaves and wafers, unlike that of a nazirite.


讛讬讜 诇讛 诪注讜转 住转讜诪讬谉 讬驻诇讜 诇谞讚讘讛 诪注讜转 诪驻讜专砖讬谉 讚诪讬 讞讟讗转 讬诇讻讜 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 诇讗 谞讛谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉


If she had unallocated funds, i.e., she had separated money for her offerings but had not stated which coins were designated for which offering, all the money will be earmarked for communal gift offerings. If she had allocated funds, i.e., she had decided which coins were for the payment of each offering, even if she had not yet purchased the animals, the money for the sin-offering is taken and cast into the Dead Sea, i.e., it must be destroyed, either by being thrown into the sea or by some other means. One may not benefit from it, as it possesses a measure of sanctity, but one also does not misuse property consecrated to the Temple with it. In other words, if one did derive benefit from this money he is not liable to bring an offering for misusing consecrated property.


讚诪讬 注讜诇讛 讬讘讬讗讜 注讜诇讛 讜诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 讚诪讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讬讘讬讗讜 砖诇诪讬诐 讜谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诇讞诐:


As for the money for the burnt-offering, a burnt-offering is brought with those coins, and one who benefits from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property, as it is sacred since it can be used toward the purchase of a gift offering. Similarly, with regard to the money for a peace-offering, a peace-offering is brought with those coins, and it is eaten for one day and does not require bread.


讙诪壮 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚讘注诇 诇讗 诪砖转注讘讚 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讗诪讗讬 转爪讗 讜转专注讛 讘注讚专 讛讗 诪砖转注讘讚 诇讛


GEMARA: The Gemara inquires: Who is the tanna who taught that a husband is not indebted to his wife, i.e., he is not required to provide her with her obligatory offerings? It is evident that the tanna of the mishna maintains that this is the case, as he rules that the animal does not remain sacred if it belonged to her husband. Rav 岣sda said: It is the opinion of the Rabbis. As, if it should enter your mind that it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, why should an animal that belonged to the husband go out and graze among the flock until it becomes blemished? After all, the husband is indebted and required to give her the offerings she requires, which means that her consecration is valid even if she used his animals.


讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讚诐 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注砖讬专 注诇 讗砖转讜


The Gemara provides the source for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: A person brings the offering of a rich man on behalf of his wife. If a wife is obligated to bring an offering that is different depending on whether she is wealthy or poor, e.g., the offering of a childbearing woman, then even if she herself does not own enough to be considered wealthy, if her husband can afford it he must bring the offering of a rich person on her behalf.


讜讻谉 讻诇 拽专讘谞讜转讬讛 砖讛讬讗 讞讬讬讘转 砖讻讱 讻转讘 诇讛 讻诇 讗讞专讬讜转 讚讗讬转 诇讬讱 注诇讬 诪谉 拽讚诪转 讚谞讗


And similarly, he brings all her offerings that she is obligated to bring, even those whose obligation preceded their marriage. The reason is that he wrote to her in her marriage contract like this: I accept upon myself all claims of guarantee that you have upon me from beforehand. These obligations include her offerings.


专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讬 诪砖注讘讚 诇讛 讘诪讬诇转讗 讚爪专讬讻讗 诇讛 讘诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇讛 诇讗


Rava said: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and nevertheless the husband is under no obligation if he nullified her vow. The reason is as follows: When is he obligated to bring her offerings? It is only in the case of a matter that is necessary for her to bring. However, in the case of a matter that is not necessary for her to bring, he is under no such obligation. Here, too, once he has nullified her naziriteship, she is no longer in need of this offering.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讻讬 诪砖注讘讚 诇讛 讘诪讬诇转讗 讚爪专讬讻讗 诇讛 讘诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇讛 诇讗 讚讗讬 专讘谞谉 诇讗 诪砖注讘讚 诇讛 讻诇诇


Some say a different version of this discussion: Who is the tanna who taught that only a husband who nullified his wife鈥檚 vow is exempt from providing her offerings? Rav 岣sda said that it is Rabbi Yehuda, and his opinion is as follows: When is he indebted to fund her offerings? It is in the case of a matter that is necessary for her to bring, but in the case of a matter that is not necessary for her to bring, he is under no such obligation. As, if it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, he is not mortgaged to her in this regard at all.


讗诇讗 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚诪砖注讘讚 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讗拽谞讬讬讛 诇讛 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗拽谞讬 诇讛 讛讜讛 讚谞驻砖讛


Rather, what are the circumstances in which he is obligated to provide her offering, according to the opinion of the Rabbis? For example, if he transferred the animal to her possession. But in that case, since he has transferred it to her, it is her own, which means that she has effectively separated the offering from her own property. The mishna cannot be referring to this situation, as the animal does not revert to a non-sacred state in a case of this kind. Evidently, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.


专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讻讬 诪拽谞讬 诇讛 谞诪讬 讘诪诇转讗 讚爪专讬讻讗 诇讛 讘诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇讛 诇讗 诪拽谞讬 诇讛:


Rava said: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and the reason the animal loses its sanctity is that even when he transfers it to her, he does so for a matter that is necessary for her to bring, but for a matter that is not necessary for her to bring, he does not transfer it to her.


讗诐 砖诇讛 讛讬转讛 讘讛诪转讛 讞讟讗转 转诪讜转 讜注讜诇讛 转拽专讘: 讛讬讗 诪谞讗 诇讛 讛讗诪专转 诪讛 砖拽谞转讛 讗砖讛 拽谞讛 讘注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖拽诪爪转讛 诪注讬住转讛 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讗拽谞讬 诇讛 讗讞专 讜讗诪专 诇讛 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 诇讘注诇讬讱 专砖讜转 讘讛谉:


搂 The mishna teaches: If the animal was hers, the sin-offering must be left to die and the burnt-offering is sacrificed. The Gemara asks: She, this married woman, from where does she have her own property? Haven鈥檛 you said as a principle that with regard to any item that a woman acquires, her husband automatically acquires it from her? Rav Pappa said: This is referring to a case where she saved it from her dough, i.e., she was able to buy the animal with the money she saved by eating less. And if you wish, say instead that another person transferred the property to her, and he said to her that he is doing so on the condition that your husband has no rights to it. In that case the wife is the exclusive owner of the animal.


讛注讜诇讛 转拽专讘 注讜诇讛 讜讛砖诇诪讬诐 转拽专讘 讻讜壮: 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗讘讜讛 讘专 讗讬讛讬 诇讗 转讬转讬讘 注诇 讻专注讬讱 注讚 讚讗诪专转 诇讬 讛讚讗 诪讬诇转讗 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讗专讘注讛 讗讬诇讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诇讞诐 砖诇讜 讜砖诇讛 讜砖诇讗讞专 讛诪讬转讛 讜砖诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛


搂 The mishna taught that the burnt-offering is sacrificed as a burnt-offering and the peace-offering is sacrificed as a peace-offering. Shmuel said to Avuh bar Ihi: You shall not sit on your feet until you say and explain to me this matter taught in a baraita: And these are the four rams of the nazirite鈥檚 offering that do not require bread to be brought with them, in contrast to the usual practice: His, hers, the one brought after death, and the one brought after the nazirite has gained atonement by means of a different offering.


砖诇讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 砖诇讜 讚转谞谉 讛讗讬砖 诪讚讬专 讗转 讘谞讜 讘谞讝讬专 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 诪讚专转 讗转 讘谞讛 讘谞讝讬专 讙讬诇讞 讗讜 砖讙讬诇讞讜讛讜 拽专讜讘讬诐 诪讬讞讛 讗讜 砖诪讬讞讜讛讜 拽专讜讘讬诐


The Gemara clarifies this statement: Hers, this is that which we just said, the offering of a woman who separated an animal of her own before her husband proceeded to nullify her vow. His, as we learned in a mishna (28b): A man can vow his son to become a nazirite, i.e., he can apply a vow of naziriteship to his minor son, but a woman cannot vow her son to become a nazirite. If the son objects, either of his own initiative or at the behest of others, his father鈥檚 vow is canceled. Consequently, if the boy shaved his hair during the period of naziriteship, thereby demonstrating his desire not to be a nazirite, or if relatives shaved him, or even if the minor performed no action at all but simply objected, or if his relatives made him object, his naziriteship is canceled.


讛讬讜 诇讜 诪注讜转 住转讜诪讬谉 讬驻诇讜 诇谞讚讘讛 诪注讜转 诪驻讜专砖讬谉 讚诪讬 讞讟讗转 讬诇讻讜 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 讚诪讬 注讜诇讛 讬讘讬讗讜 注讜诇讛 讜诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 讚诪讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讬讘讬讗讜 砖诇诪讬诐 讜谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讗讬谞谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诇讞诐


In that case, if he had unallocated funds, which had been consecrated for the child鈥檚 offerings but not designated for any particular offering, all the money will be earmarked for communal gift offerings. If he had allocated funds designated for a particular offering, the money for a sin-offering is taken and cast into the Dead Sea; the money for a burnt-offering is brought as a burnt-offering, and one who benefits from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property; and the money for a peace-offering is brought as a peace-offering and it is eaten for one day and does not require bread.


砖诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪驻专讬砖 诪注讜转 诇谞讝讬专讜转讜 诇讗 谞讛谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 专讗讜讬讬谉 诇讛讘讬讗 讘讻讜诇谉 砖诇诪讬诐


With regard to a ram that is after its owner鈥檚 death, from where do we derive that this offering requires no bread? As it is taught in a mishna (Me鈥檌la 18a): With regard to one who separates money for his naziriteship without specifying an offering, he may not derive benefit from them, but one who benefits from it is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. Why is he not liable to bring an offering for misuse of consecrated property? It is because the money is fit to bring peace-offerings with all of it, and no misuse is effected by deriving benefit from a peace-offering until after its blood has been sprinkled.


诪转 讜讛讬讜 诇讜 诪注讜转 住转讜诪讬诐 讬驻诇讜 诇谞讚讘讛 诪注讜转 诪驻讜专砖讬谉 讚诪讬 讞讟讗转 讬讜诇讬讱 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 诇讗 谞讛谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉 讚诪讬 注讜诇讛 讬讘讬讗讜 注讜诇讛 讜诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 讚诪讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讬讘讬讗讜 砖诇诪讬诐 讜谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讗讬谞谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诇讞诐


The mishna continues: If the one who set aside the money died and he had unallocated funds, they are all allocated for communal gift offerings. If he left behind allocated funds, with regard to the money for a sin-offering, one must take it and cast it into the Dead Sea; one may not derive benefit from it but one who benefits from it is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. The money for a burnt-offering is brought as a burnt-offering, and one who benefits from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property. The money for a peace-offering is brought as a peace-offering, and it is eaten for one day and does not require bread. This is the case of a ram after its owner鈥檚 death that does not require bread.


砖诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 住讘专讗 讛讜讗 砖诇讗讞专 讛诪讬转讛 诪讗讬 讟注诐 讚诇讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讻驻专讛 砖诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 谞诪讬 讛讗 诇讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讻驻专讛


As for the ram that is after atonement, whose owner has used a different offering to achieve atonement, the halakha that this offering does not require bread is not taught explicitly. Rather, it is based on logical reasoning: What is the reason that no bread is brought in the case of a ram that is sacrificed after the death of its owner? It is that this offering is not fit for atonement, as no atonement is granted to the dead through offerings. With regard to a ram that is sacrificed after atonement too, it is no longer fit for atonement, as the owner has already gained atonement by means of a different animal.


讜转讜 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讜砖讗专 讻诇 砖诇诪讬 谞讝讬专 砖砖讞讟谉 砖诇讗 讻诪爪讜转谉 讻砖专讬诐 讜诇讗 注讜诇讬谉 诇讘注诇讬诐 诇砖讜诐 讞讜讘讛 讜谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讗讬谞谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诇讗 诇讞诐 讜诇讗 讝专讜注


The Gemara asks: And is there nothing else? Are there no other instances of a peace-offering of a nazirite that does not require bread, apart from the aforementioned cases? But isn鈥檛 there the following halakha: And with regard to all the other peace-offerings of a nazirite that were slaughtered not in accordance with their mitzva, e.g., if the ram was not of the proper age, they are fit offerings and may be eaten, but they do not count toward the owner鈥檚 obligation, i.e., he must bring another offering. The baraita continues: And these offerings are eaten for one day, like regular peace-offerings of a nazirite, and they require neither bread nor the foreleg, unlike the peace-offering of a nazirite. This is another example of a nazirite鈥檚 peace-offering that does not require bread.


讻诪爪讜转谉 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 砖诇讗 讻诪爪讜转谉 诇讗 拽讗 讞砖讬讘:


The Gemara answers: In the above list the tanna includes only offerings that were sacrificed in accordance with their mitzva; he does not include animals that were sacrificed not in accordance with their mitzva.


讛讬讜 诇讜 诪注讜转 住转讜诪讬诐 讬驻诇讜 诇谞讚讘讛:


搂 It was stated above, with regard to one who separated money for his naziriteship and then died, that if he had unallocated funds, they are all allocated for communal gift offerings.


Scroll To Top