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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 17, 2015 | 讚壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Nazir 26

砖讛驻专讬砖讜 诪注讜转 诇拽讬谞讬讛诐 专爪讛 诇讛讘讬讗 讘讛谉 讞讟讗转 讘讛诪讛 讬讘讬讗 注讜诇转 讘讛诪讛 讬讘讬讗 诪转 讜讛讬讜 诇讜 诪注讜转 住转讜诪讬谉 讬驻诇讜 诇谞讚讘讛

who separated money for their nests and then became wealthy, if the owner wishes to change their designation and to bring an animal sin-offering with them, he may bring a sin-offering with them. If he wishes to use them to buy an animal burnt-offering he may bring it, supplementing the required amount with other money.If the owner died and he had unallocated funds, they all will be allocated for communal gift offerings, including the value of the sin-offering. This shows that the halakha that unallocated funds are used for gift offerings applies in cases other than that of a nazirite.

转谞讗 谞讝讬专 讜讞讬讬讘讬 拽讬谞讬谉 讚讚诪讜 诇讬讛 讜诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 诪讞讜讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讜讗诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 注讜诇讛 讜讛驻专讬砖 诪注讜转 讜讗诪专 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诇讞讜讘转讬

The Gemara answers: He taught the case of a nazirite and also the case of those obligated to bring nests, which is similar to that of a nazirite and is therefore treated identically with regard to its halakha. This serves to exclude that case which is taught in a baraita. The situation discussed in the baraita involves one who was obligated to bring a sin-offering for a transgression he committed, and he also said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a gift burnt-offering, and he separated money and said: These are hereby for my obligatory offering. Since he might have meant either his obligation of the sin-offering or his burnt-offering for the new vow, the question arises as to what should be done with the money.

专爪讛 诇讛讘讬讗 讘讛谉 讞讟讗转 讘讛诪讛 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 注讜诇转 讘讛诪讛 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 诪转 讜讛讬讜 诇讜 诪注讜转 住转讜诪讬诐 讬诇讻讜 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞

The baraita explains that if he wishes to bring an animal sin-offering with it, he may not bring one; if he wishes to use it to purchase an animal burnt-offering, he may not bring it either. If he died and had unallocated funds, one must take them and cast them into the Dead Sea. Since the two offerings are not part of the same obligation, the unallocated funds may not be used for gift offerings.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专转 诪驻讜专砖讬谉 诇讗 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 讗诇讜 诇讞讟讗转讬 讜讗诇讜 诇注讜诇转讬 讜讗诇讜 诇砖诇诪讬 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专 讗诇讜 诇讞讟讗转讬 讜诇注讜诇转讬 讜诇砖诇诪讬 诪驻讜专砖讬谉 讛谉

Rav Ashi said: That which you said with regard to a nazirite who had allocated money, that he may not use it all for gift offerings because the value of the sin-offering must be taken and cast into the Dead Sea, do not say that this is referring only to a case where he explicitly said: These are for my sin-offering, and these are for my burnt-offering, and these are for my peace-offering, each one separately. Rather, even if he said: These are for my sin-offering and for my burnt-offering and for my peace-offering, they are considered allocated for the purposes of this halakha, despite the fact that he did not designate the money for particular offerings.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 注讚 讚讗诪专 讗诇讜 诇讞讟讗转讬 讜诇注讜诇转讬 讜诇砖诇诪讬 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专 讗诇讜 诇讞讜讘转讬 讛专讬 讛谉 讻诪驻讜专砖讬谉

And some say a different version of this statement. Rav Ashi said: Do not say they are deemed allocated only if he says: These are for my sin-offering and for my burnt-offering and for my peace-offering; rather, even if he said it in broader terms: These are for my obligation, they are considered as allocated.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 诪注讜转 住转讜诪讬谉 讬驻诇讜 诇谞讚讘讛 讗诐 谞驻诇讛 讚诪讬 讞讟讗转 诪讘讬谞讬讛谉 讛专讬 讛谉 讻诪驻讜专砖讬谉

Rava said: That which we said, that if one had unallocated funds they will be allocated for communal gift offerings, applies only if the money for all of the offerings was mixed together. However, if the money for the sin-offering fell and was separated from the others, all the remaining money is now considered as allocated. This means that instead of the entire sum being used for a gift burnt-offering, part of it is used for a peace-offering, which is eaten for one day and does not require bread.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诇讜 诇讞讟讗转讬 讜讛砖讗专 诇砖讗专 谞讝讬专讜转讬 讚诪讬 讞讟讗转 讬诇讻讜 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 讜讛砖讗专 讬讘讬讗 讞爪讬讜 诇注讜诇讛 讜讞爪讬讜 诇砖诇诪讬诐 讜诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讻讜诇谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘诪拽爪转谉

The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: If one said: This money is for my sin-offering and the rest is for the rest of my obligations of naziriteship, and he died, the money for the sin-offering is taken and cast into the Dead Sea, and as for the rest, he brings a burnt-offering with half of it, and half of it goes for a peace-offering. And one who benefits from all of it is liable for misuse of consecrated property, due to the value of a burnt-offering that is included in the money. But one is not liable for misuse of consecrated property if he benefits from some of the money, as the money he took is possibly that of the peace-offering, to which the prohibition against misuse does not apply.

讗诇讜 诇注讜诇转讬 讜讛砖讗专 诇砖讗专 谞讝讬专讜转讬 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 讜讛砖讗专 讬驻诇讜 诇谞讚讘讛 讜诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讻讜诇谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘诪拽爪转谉

If one said: This money is for my burnt-offering and the rest is for the rest of my obligations of naziriteship, the money for the burnt-offering goes for a burnt-offering, and one who benefits from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property. And the rest is allocated for communal gift offerings, as the sum includes the value of a sin-offering. And one who benefits from all of it is liable for misuse of consecrated property, due to the value of a sin-offering included in it, but one is not liable for misuse of consecrated property if he benefits from some of the money, as he might have taken the money for a peace-offering, as stated above.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诪注讜转 讗讘诇 讘讛诪讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻诪驻讜专砖转

Rav Huna said that Rav said: They taught only that there is a difference between unallocated and allocated money of a nazirite with regard to money designated for the purchase of offerings. However, if one designated an animal it is treated as allocated. A nazirite is obligated to bring three types of animals, a female sheep for a sin-offering, a male sheep for a burnt-offering, and a ram in its second year for a peace-offering. It is therefore evident which offering he had in mind when designating a particular animal. Consequently, if the owner died each offering is treated in the appropriate manner: The sin-offering must be left to die, like all sin-offerings whose owners have died; the burnt-offering is sacrificed as a burnt-offering; and the peace-offering is brought as a peace-offering, although it must be eaten in one day and does not require bread.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘讛诪讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻诪驻讜专砖转 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 转诪讬诪讛 讗讘诇 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻住转讜诪讛 讗讘诇 谞住讻讗 诇讗

Rav Na岣an said: When they say that if one designates an animal it is considered as allocated, they taught this only if it is unblemished and is fit to be sacrificed itself. However, if one separated a blemished animal, even if he set aside the three required types, a female sheep, a male sheep, and a ram in its second year, each one is considered as unallocated. This is because one will not sacrifice the animals themselves but will sell them and use the money. However, this is not the case with regard to a bar of silver [naskha]. If one separated three silver bars they are considered allocated, as each is a distinct item, designated for a particular offering.

讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 谞住讻讗 讗讘诇 住讜讗专 砖诇 拽讜专讜转 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 诇专讘 驻驻讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 诪注讜转 讜诇讗 讘讛诪讛 讜诇讗 谞住讻讗 诪注讜转 讜诇讗 住讜讜专讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诪注讜转 讜诇讗 注讜驻讜转

And Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Even a silver bar is considered unallocated; however, a pile [sevar] of beams is not. If he set aside three piles of construction beams for his offerings, they are treated as allocated money. Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to Rav Pappa: What is the reasoning of the Rabbis, i.e., Rav, Rav Na岣an, and Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k, who say: Money and not an animal, and not a silver bar; and similarly, money and not a pile? Do they maintain that the halakha of unallocated funds applies only to money and not to other items? However, if that is so, one should likewise say that it applies to money and not birds.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬谉 讛拽讬谞讬谉 诪转驻专砖讜转 讗诇讗 讗讬 讘诇拽讬讞转 讘注诇讬诐 讗讬 讘注砖讬讬转 讻讛谉

And if you would say: So too, this is in fact the case, and birds cannot be considered allocated, but what about this statement that Rav 岣sda said: Nests, i.e., a pair of turtle doves or pigeons, one for a burnt-offering and the other for a sin-offering, are considered allocated only by either the acquisition of the owner, if the owner designates each bird for a particular offering upon their purchase, or by the actions of the priest who decides which bird is for which offering when he sacrifices them. This clearly indicates that the birds are considered unallocated beforehand.

讗诪讗讬 讛讗 诪注讜转 讙诪讬专讬谉 诇讛

Therefore, the question arises: Why is this so? Didn鈥檛 we learn this halakha only with regard to money, whereas Rav 岣sda鈥檚 statement indicates that birds are also considered unallocated? If Rav 岣sda鈥檚 opinion is accepted, the same halakhot should also apply to animals, bars, and piles of beams.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Nazir 26

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 26

砖讛驻专讬砖讜 诪注讜转 诇拽讬谞讬讛诐 专爪讛 诇讛讘讬讗 讘讛谉 讞讟讗转 讘讛诪讛 讬讘讬讗 注讜诇转 讘讛诪讛 讬讘讬讗 诪转 讜讛讬讜 诇讜 诪注讜转 住转讜诪讬谉 讬驻诇讜 诇谞讚讘讛

who separated money for their nests and then became wealthy, if the owner wishes to change their designation and to bring an animal sin-offering with them, he may bring a sin-offering with them. If he wishes to use them to buy an animal burnt-offering he may bring it, supplementing the required amount with other money.If the owner died and he had unallocated funds, they all will be allocated for communal gift offerings, including the value of the sin-offering. This shows that the halakha that unallocated funds are used for gift offerings applies in cases other than that of a nazirite.

转谞讗 谞讝讬专 讜讞讬讬讘讬 拽讬谞讬谉 讚讚诪讜 诇讬讛 讜诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 诪讞讜讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讜讗诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 注讜诇讛 讜讛驻专讬砖 诪注讜转 讜讗诪专 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诇讞讜讘转讬

The Gemara answers: He taught the case of a nazirite and also the case of those obligated to bring nests, which is similar to that of a nazirite and is therefore treated identically with regard to its halakha. This serves to exclude that case which is taught in a baraita. The situation discussed in the baraita involves one who was obligated to bring a sin-offering for a transgression he committed, and he also said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a gift burnt-offering, and he separated money and said: These are hereby for my obligatory offering. Since he might have meant either his obligation of the sin-offering or his burnt-offering for the new vow, the question arises as to what should be done with the money.

专爪讛 诇讛讘讬讗 讘讛谉 讞讟讗转 讘讛诪讛 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 注讜诇转 讘讛诪讛 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 诪转 讜讛讬讜 诇讜 诪注讜转 住转讜诪讬诐 讬诇讻讜 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞

The baraita explains that if he wishes to bring an animal sin-offering with it, he may not bring one; if he wishes to use it to purchase an animal burnt-offering, he may not bring it either. If he died and had unallocated funds, one must take them and cast them into the Dead Sea. Since the two offerings are not part of the same obligation, the unallocated funds may not be used for gift offerings.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专转 诪驻讜专砖讬谉 诇讗 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 讗诇讜 诇讞讟讗转讬 讜讗诇讜 诇注讜诇转讬 讜讗诇讜 诇砖诇诪讬 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专 讗诇讜 诇讞讟讗转讬 讜诇注讜诇转讬 讜诇砖诇诪讬 诪驻讜专砖讬谉 讛谉

Rav Ashi said: That which you said with regard to a nazirite who had allocated money, that he may not use it all for gift offerings because the value of the sin-offering must be taken and cast into the Dead Sea, do not say that this is referring only to a case where he explicitly said: These are for my sin-offering, and these are for my burnt-offering, and these are for my peace-offering, each one separately. Rather, even if he said: These are for my sin-offering and for my burnt-offering and for my peace-offering, they are considered allocated for the purposes of this halakha, despite the fact that he did not designate the money for particular offerings.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 注讚 讚讗诪专 讗诇讜 诇讞讟讗转讬 讜诇注讜诇转讬 讜诇砖诇诪讬 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专 讗诇讜 诇讞讜讘转讬 讛专讬 讛谉 讻诪驻讜专砖讬谉

And some say a different version of this statement. Rav Ashi said: Do not say they are deemed allocated only if he says: These are for my sin-offering and for my burnt-offering and for my peace-offering; rather, even if he said it in broader terms: These are for my obligation, they are considered as allocated.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 诪注讜转 住转讜诪讬谉 讬驻诇讜 诇谞讚讘讛 讗诐 谞驻诇讛 讚诪讬 讞讟讗转 诪讘讬谞讬讛谉 讛专讬 讛谉 讻诪驻讜专砖讬谉

Rava said: That which we said, that if one had unallocated funds they will be allocated for communal gift offerings, applies only if the money for all of the offerings was mixed together. However, if the money for the sin-offering fell and was separated from the others, all the remaining money is now considered as allocated. This means that instead of the entire sum being used for a gift burnt-offering, part of it is used for a peace-offering, which is eaten for one day and does not require bread.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诇讜 诇讞讟讗转讬 讜讛砖讗专 诇砖讗专 谞讝讬专讜转讬 讚诪讬 讞讟讗转 讬诇讻讜 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 讜讛砖讗专 讬讘讬讗 讞爪讬讜 诇注讜诇讛 讜讞爪讬讜 诇砖诇诪讬诐 讜诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讻讜诇谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘诪拽爪转谉

The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: If one said: This money is for my sin-offering and the rest is for the rest of my obligations of naziriteship, and he died, the money for the sin-offering is taken and cast into the Dead Sea, and as for the rest, he brings a burnt-offering with half of it, and half of it goes for a peace-offering. And one who benefits from all of it is liable for misuse of consecrated property, due to the value of a burnt-offering that is included in the money. But one is not liable for misuse of consecrated property if he benefits from some of the money, as the money he took is possibly that of the peace-offering, to which the prohibition against misuse does not apply.

讗诇讜 诇注讜诇转讬 讜讛砖讗专 诇砖讗专 谞讝讬专讜转讬 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 讜讛砖讗专 讬驻诇讜 诇谞讚讘讛 讜诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讻讜诇谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘诪拽爪转谉

If one said: This money is for my burnt-offering and the rest is for the rest of my obligations of naziriteship, the money for the burnt-offering goes for a burnt-offering, and one who benefits from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property. And the rest is allocated for communal gift offerings, as the sum includes the value of a sin-offering. And one who benefits from all of it is liable for misuse of consecrated property, due to the value of a sin-offering included in it, but one is not liable for misuse of consecrated property if he benefits from some of the money, as he might have taken the money for a peace-offering, as stated above.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诪注讜转 讗讘诇 讘讛诪讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻诪驻讜专砖转

Rav Huna said that Rav said: They taught only that there is a difference between unallocated and allocated money of a nazirite with regard to money designated for the purchase of offerings. However, if one designated an animal it is treated as allocated. A nazirite is obligated to bring three types of animals, a female sheep for a sin-offering, a male sheep for a burnt-offering, and a ram in its second year for a peace-offering. It is therefore evident which offering he had in mind when designating a particular animal. Consequently, if the owner died each offering is treated in the appropriate manner: The sin-offering must be left to die, like all sin-offerings whose owners have died; the burnt-offering is sacrificed as a burnt-offering; and the peace-offering is brought as a peace-offering, although it must be eaten in one day and does not require bread.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘讛诪讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻诪驻讜专砖转 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 转诪讬诪讛 讗讘诇 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻住转讜诪讛 讗讘诇 谞住讻讗 诇讗

Rav Na岣an said: When they say that if one designates an animal it is considered as allocated, they taught this only if it is unblemished and is fit to be sacrificed itself. However, if one separated a blemished animal, even if he set aside the three required types, a female sheep, a male sheep, and a ram in its second year, each one is considered as unallocated. This is because one will not sacrifice the animals themselves but will sell them and use the money. However, this is not the case with regard to a bar of silver [naskha]. If one separated three silver bars they are considered allocated, as each is a distinct item, designated for a particular offering.

讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 谞住讻讗 讗讘诇 住讜讗专 砖诇 拽讜专讜转 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 诇专讘 驻驻讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 诪注讜转 讜诇讗 讘讛诪讛 讜诇讗 谞住讻讗 诪注讜转 讜诇讗 住讜讜专讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诪注讜转 讜诇讗 注讜驻讜转

And Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Even a silver bar is considered unallocated; however, a pile [sevar] of beams is not. If he set aside three piles of construction beams for his offerings, they are treated as allocated money. Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to Rav Pappa: What is the reasoning of the Rabbis, i.e., Rav, Rav Na岣an, and Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k, who say: Money and not an animal, and not a silver bar; and similarly, money and not a pile? Do they maintain that the halakha of unallocated funds applies only to money and not to other items? However, if that is so, one should likewise say that it applies to money and not birds.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬谉 讛拽讬谞讬谉 诪转驻专砖讜转 讗诇讗 讗讬 讘诇拽讬讞转 讘注诇讬诐 讗讬 讘注砖讬讬转 讻讛谉

And if you would say: So too, this is in fact the case, and birds cannot be considered allocated, but what about this statement that Rav 岣sda said: Nests, i.e., a pair of turtle doves or pigeons, one for a burnt-offering and the other for a sin-offering, are considered allocated only by either the acquisition of the owner, if the owner designates each bird for a particular offering upon their purchase, or by the actions of the priest who decides which bird is for which offering when he sacrifices them. This clearly indicates that the birds are considered unallocated beforehand.

讗诪讗讬 讛讗 诪注讜转 讙诪讬专讬谉 诇讛

Therefore, the question arises: Why is this so? Didn鈥檛 we learn this halakha only with regard to money, whereas Rav 岣sda鈥檚 statement indicates that birds are also considered unallocated? If Rav 岣sda鈥檚 opinion is accepted, the same halakhot should also apply to animals, bars, and piles of beams.

Scroll To Top