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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 18, 2015 | 讛壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Nazir 27

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讛讗 讚转谞谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛讘讬讗 砖诇砖 讘讛诪讜转 讜诇讗 驻讬专砖 讛专讗讜讬讛 诇讞讟讗转 转拽专讘 讞讟讗转 诇注讜诇讛 转拽专讘 注讜诇讛 诇砖诇诪讬诐 转拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 讗诪讗讬 讛讗 讗诪专转 讘讛诪讛 诇讗讜 讻诪驻讜专砖转 讚诪讬讗

Rav Pappa said to him: And according to your reasoning, which leads to the conclusion that all items can have the status of unallocated funds, consider that which we learned in a mishna (45a): Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If one brought three different animals for his naziriteship and did not specify which was for which offering, that which is fit for a sin-offering, a ewe, is sacrificed as a sin-offering; the animal suitable for a burnt-offering, a male sheep or bull, is sacrificed as a burnt-offering; and the animal fit for a peace-offering, any other male or female, is sacrificed as a peace-offering. But according to your opinion, why is this so? Didn鈥檛 you say that an animal is not considered as allocated, but is instead like unallocated funds; how can one decide which animal to use for each offering?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讜诇拽讞 讜注砖讛

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to him: As for the case of birds, this is an exception, as there is an explicit verse to this effect there: It states with regard to the owner of a bird offering: 鈥淎nd he shall take one he-lamb for a guilt-offering to be waved, to make atonement for him, and one tenth part of an ephah of fine flour mingled with oil for a meal-offering, and a log of oil; and two turtledoves or two young pigeons, such as his means suffice for, and the one shall be a sin-offering and the other a burnt-offering鈥 (Leviticus 14:21鈥22), and it later states with regard to the priest: 鈥淎nd he shall sacrifice one of the turtledoves, or of the young pigeons, such as his means suffice for; even such as his means suffice for, the one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering鈥 (Leviticus 14:30鈥31).

讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗讬 讘诇拽讬讞转 讘注诇讬诐 讗讬 讘注砖讬讬转 讻讛谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬

The Merciful One thereby states that the birds are allocated and designated for their offering either by the acquisition of the owner, by designating each bird for a particular offering upon their purchase, or by the action of the priest. With regard to the ruling of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, it presents no difficulty either, as it is a special case as well. Here too, when one separates these particular animals for his naziriteship offerings,

诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讛讚讬谉 讚讞讟讗转 转拽专讘 注讜诇讛 讛讻讗 谞拽讘讛 讛讻讗 讝讻专

how can you say that this one that is for the sin-offering shall be sacrificed as a burnt-offering? Here, only a female may be sacrificed as a sin-offering, whereas here, in the case of a burnt-offering, it must be male. Therefore, it is as though he allocated each animal for a specific offering. Consequently, you cannot compare this case to that of items that are not inherently designated for a particular purpose, e.g., a blemished animal or a silver bar, as they have the status of unallocated funds.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讜诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讘讛诪讛 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 讻住转讜诪讛 讚诪讬讗 转讗 砖诪注 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专讜 讛讗讬砖 诪讙诇讞 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讘讬讜 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讛 讛讜讗 讜讗讘讬讜 谞讝讬专讬诐 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讘讬讜 诪注讜转 诇谞讝讬专讜转讜 讜诪转 讜讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讙诇讞 注诇 诪注讜转 讗讘讗

Rav Hamnuna raised an objection against Rav Na岣an鈥檚 statement: And do we say that a blemished animal is considered like unallocated funds? Come and hear a proof to the contrary from the following baraita, which begins: How, in what case, did the Sages say that a man shaves, i.e., bring the offerings sacrificed at the end of a term of naziriteship, for his father鈥檚 naziriteship? The Gemara cites a part of that baraita which records a case where the son does not bring the offerings for his father鈥檚 naziriteship: When he and his father were both nazirites, and his father separated money for the offerings of his naziriteship and died, and the son said: I am hereby a nazirite on the condition that I will shave, i.e., bring my offerings, through the money my father set aside, in that case he cannot shave for his father鈥檚 naziriteship.

讛讬讜 诇讜 诪注讜转 住转讜诪讜转 讬驻诇讜 诇谞讚讘讛 讛讬转讛 诇讜 讘讛诪讛 诪讜驻专砖转 讞讟讗转 转诪讜转 注讜诇讛 转拽专讘 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讬拽专讘讜 砖诇诪讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注诇转 诪讜诐

Consequently, if the father had unallocated funds, they are allocated for communal gift offerings. If he had allocated animals, that which is for a sin-offering must be left to die, like any sin-offering whose owner has died; the animal for a burnt-offering is sacrificed as a burnt-offering, and the animal for a peace-offering is sacrificed as a peace-offering. What, is it not referring even to the case of a blemished animal, as the baraita differentiated only between money and animals? This indicates that a blemished animal is also considered allocated, which contradicts Rav Na岣an鈥檚 ruling.

诇讗 转诪讬诪讛 讗讘诇 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 讻住转讜诪讛 讚诪讬讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诪注讜转 诇讬诪讗 讛讬转讛 诇讜 讘讛诪讛 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 讬驻诇讜 诇谞讚讘讛

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No; it is referring only to an unblemished animal, which is considered allocated because it is suitable for an offering itself. The Gemara asks: However, if that is so, is a blemished animal considered like unallocated funds? In that case, why does the baraita specifically distinguish between animals and unallocated funds? Let the baraita say as follows: If he had a blemished animal its money is allocated for communal gift offerings. The baraita would thereby distinguish between two similar cases that involve animals, from which one could infer the halakha of unallocated funds.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 诇诪讗讬 拽讚讬砖讗 诇讚诪讬 讚诪讬 讛讬讬谞讜 诪注讜转

The Gemara answers: So too, this is the meaning of the baraita, and there is no difference between a blemished animal and money. The Gemara clarifies this claim: For what purpose is a blemished animal consecrated? It is for the value of its sale, and this value is provided in money. Consequently, this baraita does not refute Rav Na岣an鈥檚 opinion that the halakha of a blemished animal is like that of unallocated funds.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 拽专讘谞讜 讘拽专讘谞讜 讛讜讗 讬讜爪讗 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讗 讘拽专讘谉 讗讘讬讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬爪讗 讘拽专讘谞讜 砖诇 讗讘讬讜 砖讛驻专讬砖 诪谉 讛拽诇讛 注诇 讛讞诪讜专讛 讗讜 诪谉 讛讞诪讜专讛 注诇 讛拽诇讛

Rava also raises an objection against Rav Na岣an鈥檚 opinion, from a baraita that deals with sin-offerings. The Torah states: 鈥淎nd he shall bring for his offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:23), which indicates: He fulfills his obligation with his own offering, but he does not fulfill his obligation with his father鈥檚 offering, if his father was obligated to bring a sin-offering and died after separating an animal for this purpose. One might have thought that one does not fulfill his obligation with an offering that his father separated only in a case where the son鈥檚 transgression is not equal in severity to that of his father鈥檚 sin, e.g., sacrificing his offering from animals that his father designated to atone for a minor transgression to atone for his own major transgression, or from animals that his father designated to atone for a major transgression, to atone for his own minor transgression.

讗讘诇 讬讜爪讗 讘拽专讘谉 砖讛驻专讬砖 讗讘讬讜 诪谉 讛拽诇讛 注诇 讛拽诇讛 讗讜 诪谉 讛讞诪讜专讛 注诇 讛讞诪讜专讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 拽专讘谞讜 拽专讘谞讜 讘拽专讘谞讜 讛讜讗 讬讜爪讗 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讗 讘拽专讘谞讜 砖诇 讗讘讬讜

However, one might have thought that he does fulfill his obligation with an offering that his father separated if it is from animals his father set aside to atone for a minor transgression and the son atones for his own minor one, or from animals the father set aside to atone for a major transgression and the son atones for his own major one. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淗is offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:23), and it repeats: 鈥淗is offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:28), to emphasize that he fulfills his obligation with his own offering, and he does not fulfill his obligation with his father鈥檚 offering even for similar transgressions.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬爪讗 讘拽专讘谉 讗讘讬讜 讘讘讛诪讛 砖讛驻专讬砖 讗驻讬诇讜 诪谉 讛拽诇讛 注诇 讛拽诇讛 诪谉 讛讞诪讜专讛 注诇 讛讞诪讜专讛 砖讛专讬 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讙诇讞 注诇 讘讛诪转 讗讘讬讜 讘谞讝讬专讜转 讗讘诇 讬讜爪讗 讘诪注讜转 砖讛驻专讬砖 讗讘讬讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诪谉 讛讞诪讜专讛 注诇 讛拽诇讛 讗讜 诪谉 讛拽诇讛 注诇 讛讞诪讜专讛 砖讛专讬 讗讚诐 诪讙诇讞 注诇 诪注讜转 讗讘讬讜 讘谞讝讬专讜转

The baraita continues: One might have thought that a son does not fulfill his obligation with his father鈥檚 offering, i.e., with an animal that his father separated, even from animals that his father designated to atone for a minor transgression, to atone for the son鈥檚 minor one, or from animals the father set aside to atone for a major transgression, to atone for the son鈥檚 major one, as stated above, as a person cannot shave, i.e., bring an offering, for naziriteship with his father鈥檚 animal. Consequently, the halakhot of inheritance do not apply to this animal. However, it is nevertheless possible that a son can fulfill his obligation by purchasing a sin-offering with money that his father separated for his own sin-offering, even from money the father set aside to atone for a major transgression in a case where the son is atoning for a minor transgression, or from money the father set aside to atone for a minor transgression in a case where the son is atoning for a major one, as a person can shave, i.e., purchase an offering, with the money his father set aside for naziriteship,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 27

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 27

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讛讗 讚转谞谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛讘讬讗 砖诇砖 讘讛诪讜转 讜诇讗 驻讬专砖 讛专讗讜讬讛 诇讞讟讗转 转拽专讘 讞讟讗转 诇注讜诇讛 转拽专讘 注讜诇讛 诇砖诇诪讬诐 转拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 讗诪讗讬 讛讗 讗诪专转 讘讛诪讛 诇讗讜 讻诪驻讜专砖转 讚诪讬讗

Rav Pappa said to him: And according to your reasoning, which leads to the conclusion that all items can have the status of unallocated funds, consider that which we learned in a mishna (45a): Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If one brought three different animals for his naziriteship and did not specify which was for which offering, that which is fit for a sin-offering, a ewe, is sacrificed as a sin-offering; the animal suitable for a burnt-offering, a male sheep or bull, is sacrificed as a burnt-offering; and the animal fit for a peace-offering, any other male or female, is sacrificed as a peace-offering. But according to your opinion, why is this so? Didn鈥檛 you say that an animal is not considered as allocated, but is instead like unallocated funds; how can one decide which animal to use for each offering?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讜诇拽讞 讜注砖讛

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to him: As for the case of birds, this is an exception, as there is an explicit verse to this effect there: It states with regard to the owner of a bird offering: 鈥淎nd he shall take one he-lamb for a guilt-offering to be waved, to make atonement for him, and one tenth part of an ephah of fine flour mingled with oil for a meal-offering, and a log of oil; and two turtledoves or two young pigeons, such as his means suffice for, and the one shall be a sin-offering and the other a burnt-offering鈥 (Leviticus 14:21鈥22), and it later states with regard to the priest: 鈥淎nd he shall sacrifice one of the turtledoves, or of the young pigeons, such as his means suffice for; even such as his means suffice for, the one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering鈥 (Leviticus 14:30鈥31).

讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗讬 讘诇拽讬讞转 讘注诇讬诐 讗讬 讘注砖讬讬转 讻讛谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬

The Merciful One thereby states that the birds are allocated and designated for their offering either by the acquisition of the owner, by designating each bird for a particular offering upon their purchase, or by the action of the priest. With regard to the ruling of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, it presents no difficulty either, as it is a special case as well. Here too, when one separates these particular animals for his naziriteship offerings,

诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讛讚讬谉 讚讞讟讗转 转拽专讘 注讜诇讛 讛讻讗 谞拽讘讛 讛讻讗 讝讻专

how can you say that this one that is for the sin-offering shall be sacrificed as a burnt-offering? Here, only a female may be sacrificed as a sin-offering, whereas here, in the case of a burnt-offering, it must be male. Therefore, it is as though he allocated each animal for a specific offering. Consequently, you cannot compare this case to that of items that are not inherently designated for a particular purpose, e.g., a blemished animal or a silver bar, as they have the status of unallocated funds.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讜诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讘讛诪讛 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 讻住转讜诪讛 讚诪讬讗 转讗 砖诪注 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专讜 讛讗讬砖 诪讙诇讞 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讘讬讜 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讛 讛讜讗 讜讗讘讬讜 谞讝讬专讬诐 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讘讬讜 诪注讜转 诇谞讝讬专讜转讜 讜诪转 讜讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讙诇讞 注诇 诪注讜转 讗讘讗

Rav Hamnuna raised an objection against Rav Na岣an鈥檚 statement: And do we say that a blemished animal is considered like unallocated funds? Come and hear a proof to the contrary from the following baraita, which begins: How, in what case, did the Sages say that a man shaves, i.e., bring the offerings sacrificed at the end of a term of naziriteship, for his father鈥檚 naziriteship? The Gemara cites a part of that baraita which records a case where the son does not bring the offerings for his father鈥檚 naziriteship: When he and his father were both nazirites, and his father separated money for the offerings of his naziriteship and died, and the son said: I am hereby a nazirite on the condition that I will shave, i.e., bring my offerings, through the money my father set aside, in that case he cannot shave for his father鈥檚 naziriteship.

讛讬讜 诇讜 诪注讜转 住转讜诪讜转 讬驻诇讜 诇谞讚讘讛 讛讬转讛 诇讜 讘讛诪讛 诪讜驻专砖转 讞讟讗转 转诪讜转 注讜诇讛 转拽专讘 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讬拽专讘讜 砖诇诪讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注诇转 诪讜诐

Consequently, if the father had unallocated funds, they are allocated for communal gift offerings. If he had allocated animals, that which is for a sin-offering must be left to die, like any sin-offering whose owner has died; the animal for a burnt-offering is sacrificed as a burnt-offering, and the animal for a peace-offering is sacrificed as a peace-offering. What, is it not referring even to the case of a blemished animal, as the baraita differentiated only between money and animals? This indicates that a blemished animal is also considered allocated, which contradicts Rav Na岣an鈥檚 ruling.

诇讗 转诪讬诪讛 讗讘诇 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 讻住转讜诪讛 讚诪讬讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诪注讜转 诇讬诪讗 讛讬转讛 诇讜 讘讛诪讛 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 讬驻诇讜 诇谞讚讘讛

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No; it is referring only to an unblemished animal, which is considered allocated because it is suitable for an offering itself. The Gemara asks: However, if that is so, is a blemished animal considered like unallocated funds? In that case, why does the baraita specifically distinguish between animals and unallocated funds? Let the baraita say as follows: If he had a blemished animal its money is allocated for communal gift offerings. The baraita would thereby distinguish between two similar cases that involve animals, from which one could infer the halakha of unallocated funds.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 诇诪讗讬 拽讚讬砖讗 诇讚诪讬 讚诪讬 讛讬讬谞讜 诪注讜转

The Gemara answers: So too, this is the meaning of the baraita, and there is no difference between a blemished animal and money. The Gemara clarifies this claim: For what purpose is a blemished animal consecrated? It is for the value of its sale, and this value is provided in money. Consequently, this baraita does not refute Rav Na岣an鈥檚 opinion that the halakha of a blemished animal is like that of unallocated funds.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 拽专讘谞讜 讘拽专讘谞讜 讛讜讗 讬讜爪讗 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讗 讘拽专讘谉 讗讘讬讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬爪讗 讘拽专讘谞讜 砖诇 讗讘讬讜 砖讛驻专讬砖 诪谉 讛拽诇讛 注诇 讛讞诪讜专讛 讗讜 诪谉 讛讞诪讜专讛 注诇 讛拽诇讛

Rava also raises an objection against Rav Na岣an鈥檚 opinion, from a baraita that deals with sin-offerings. The Torah states: 鈥淎nd he shall bring for his offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:23), which indicates: He fulfills his obligation with his own offering, but he does not fulfill his obligation with his father鈥檚 offering, if his father was obligated to bring a sin-offering and died after separating an animal for this purpose. One might have thought that one does not fulfill his obligation with an offering that his father separated only in a case where the son鈥檚 transgression is not equal in severity to that of his father鈥檚 sin, e.g., sacrificing his offering from animals that his father designated to atone for a minor transgression to atone for his own major transgression, or from animals that his father designated to atone for a major transgression, to atone for his own minor transgression.

讗讘诇 讬讜爪讗 讘拽专讘谉 砖讛驻专讬砖 讗讘讬讜 诪谉 讛拽诇讛 注诇 讛拽诇讛 讗讜 诪谉 讛讞诪讜专讛 注诇 讛讞诪讜专讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 拽专讘谞讜 拽专讘谞讜 讘拽专讘谞讜 讛讜讗 讬讜爪讗 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讗 讘拽专讘谞讜 砖诇 讗讘讬讜

However, one might have thought that he does fulfill his obligation with an offering that his father separated if it is from animals his father set aside to atone for a minor transgression and the son atones for his own minor one, or from animals the father set aside to atone for a major transgression and the son atones for his own major one. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淗is offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:23), and it repeats: 鈥淗is offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:28), to emphasize that he fulfills his obligation with his own offering, and he does not fulfill his obligation with his father鈥檚 offering even for similar transgressions.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬爪讗 讘拽专讘谉 讗讘讬讜 讘讘讛诪讛 砖讛驻专讬砖 讗驻讬诇讜 诪谉 讛拽诇讛 注诇 讛拽诇讛 诪谉 讛讞诪讜专讛 注诇 讛讞诪讜专讛 砖讛专讬 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讙诇讞 注诇 讘讛诪转 讗讘讬讜 讘谞讝讬专讜转 讗讘诇 讬讜爪讗 讘诪注讜转 砖讛驻专讬砖 讗讘讬讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诪谉 讛讞诪讜专讛 注诇 讛拽诇讛 讗讜 诪谉 讛拽诇讛 注诇 讛讞诪讜专讛 砖讛专讬 讗讚诐 诪讙诇讞 注诇 诪注讜转 讗讘讬讜 讘谞讝讬专讜转

The baraita continues: One might have thought that a son does not fulfill his obligation with his father鈥檚 offering, i.e., with an animal that his father separated, even from animals that his father designated to atone for a minor transgression, to atone for the son鈥檚 minor one, or from animals the father set aside to atone for a major transgression, to atone for the son鈥檚 major one, as stated above, as a person cannot shave, i.e., bring an offering, for naziriteship with his father鈥檚 animal. Consequently, the halakhot of inheritance do not apply to this animal. However, it is nevertheless possible that a son can fulfill his obligation by purchasing a sin-offering with money that his father separated for his own sin-offering, even from money the father set aside to atone for a major transgression in a case where the son is atoning for a minor transgression, or from money the father set aside to atone for a minor transgression in a case where the son is atoning for a major one, as a person can shave, i.e., purchase an offering, with the money his father set aside for naziriteship,

Scroll To Top