Rava brings a long braita to raise a difficulty with Rav Nachman who differentiated between blemished and unblemished animals – if so, the braita should have mentioned that as well. The Gemara answers the question in the same way they answered Rav Hamnuna’s question that preceded Rava’s question. There is a debate between three – tanna kama, Rabbi Akiva and Rebbi (or Rabbi Meir). The Gemara even brings a fourth opinion. Is it until the blood is sprinkled, as that permits the woman to drink wine and therefore the husband can no longer claim that it is in the category of vows he can nullify? Or is it until the animal is slaughtered as it will cause the animal to be left to burn and we don’t like to destroy sanctified items? Or is it until she shaves as he can claim shaving her head will be disgusting and therefore it is in the category of vows he can nullify? Or is it until shaving for a different reason as the shaving permits her to drink wine, not the sacrifices? A question is asked about destroying the sacrifice as sacrifices slaughtered for the wrong reason can be brought on the altar? It is resolved by saying they were referring to the sin offering which cannot be offered. The debate about shaving her hair being disgusting to her husband is based on a debate about how one perceives wearing a wig – is that a good alternative or not? A father can make his son into a nazir but a mother cannot. Why? What happens when a father makes his son a nazir and the son or relatives protest? What happens to money or animals that were already set aside for the sacrifice?
Nazir 28
Share this shiur:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in memory of Irving “Poppy” Mauskopf, Yechezkel ben Rachel and Avraham. “A man that exemplified complete emuna. He greeted everyone with a smile. We were all very privileged to have him in our lives. May his neshama have an aliya.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in memory of Irving “Poppy” Mauskopf, Yechezkel ben Rachel and Avraham. “A man that exemplified complete emuna. He greeted everyone with a smile. We were all very privileged to have him in our lives. May his neshama have an aliya.”
Nazir 28
בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן סְתוּמִין וְלֹא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן מְפוֹרָשִׁין — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״. בְּקׇרְבָּנוֹ הוּא יוֹצֵא, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא בְּקׇרְבַּן אָבִיו.
when they are unallocated and not when they are allocated. Consequently, the same should apply to one whose father separated money for a regular sin-offering, i.e., he should be able to use them for his own sin-offering. Therefore, the verse states: “His offering” (Leviticus 4:32), which serves to emphasize: He fulfills his obligation with his own offering, but he does not fulfill his obligation with the money separated for his father’s offering.
יָכוֹל לֹא יֵצֵא בְּמָעוֹת שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ אֲפִילּוּ מִן הַקַּלָּה עַל הַקַּלָּה, מִן הַחֲמוּרָה עַל הַחֲמוּרָה, אֲבָל יוֹצֵא בְּקׇרְבָּן שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ לְעַצְמוֹ מִן הַקַּלָּה עַל הַחֲמוּרָה, מִן הַחֲמוּרָה עַל הַקַּלָּה — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ … עַל חַטָּאתוֹ״, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא קׇרְבָּנוֹ לְשׁוּם חֶטְאוֹ.
The baraita continues this line of argument: One might have thought that he does not fulfill his obligation with the money that his father separated if it is from money the father set aside to atone for a minor transgression and the son atones for a minor one, or from money the father set aside to atone for a major transgression and the son atones for a major one. However, the son may fulfill his obligation with the offering he separated for himself. From animals he set aside to atone for a minor transgression, he may atone for a major one, or from animals he set aside to atone for a major transgression he may atone for a minor one. Therefore, the verse states: “Then he shall bring for his offering a goat, a female without blemish, for his sin” (Leviticus 4:28), which indicates that he does not fulfill his obligation unless his offering is for the sake of his particular sin, not for some other transgression.
יָכוֹל לֹא יֵצֵא בִּבְהֵמָה שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ לְעַצְמוֹ מִן הַקַּלָּה עַל הַקַּלָּה אוֹ מִן הַחֲמוּרָה עַל הַחֲמוּרָה, אֲפִילּוּ מִן הַקַּלָּה עַל הַחֲמוּרָה אוֹ מִן הַחֲמוּרָה עַל הַקַּלָּה,
One might have thought that he does not fulfill his obligation with the animal he separated for himself, from animals he set aside to atone for a minor transgression to atone for a minor one; or from animals he set aside to atone for a major transgression, to atone for a major one; or even when from animals he set aside to atone for a minor transgression to atone for a major one; or from animals he set aside to atone for a major transgression to atone for a minor one.
שֶׁכֵּן אִם הִפְרִישׁ בְּהֵמָה עַל הַחֵלֶב וְהֵבִיא עַל הַדָּם, אוֹ עַל הַדָּם וְהֵבִיא עַל הַחֵלֶב — שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא מָעַל וְלֹא כִּיפֵּר,
The reason is that if he separated an animal to bring as an offering for unintentionally eating forbidden fat and he instead brought that sin-offering for unintentionally consuming blood, or if he separated an animal to bring as an offering to atone for blood and instead brought it for eating forbidden fat, in that case he has not misused consecrated property, as the animal cannot lose its consecrated status. And just as it cannot lose its consecrated status, so too it cannot be redesignated to atone for a different sin, and therefore this animal also does not atone for him.
אֲבָל יוֹצֵא בְּמָעוֹת שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ לְעַצְמוֹ מִן הַקַּלָּה לַקַּלָּה, וּמִן הַחֲמוּרָה לַחֲמוּרָה, מִן הַחֲמוּרָה לַקַּלָּה, וּמִן הַקַּלָּה לַחֲמוּרָה,
However, one might think that he fulfills his obligation with the money he separated for himself, from money he set aside to atone for a minor transgression to atone for a different minor transgression; or from money he set aside to atone for a major transgression to atone for a different major transgression; or from money he set aside to atone for a major transgression to atone for a minor one; or from money he set aside to atone for a minor transgression to atone for a major one.
שֶׁכֵּן אִם הִפְרִישׁ לְעַצְמוֹ מָעוֹת מִן הַחֵלֶב וְהֵבִיא עַל הַדָּם, עַל הַדָּם וְהֵבִיא עַל הַחֵלֶב, שֶׁהֲרֵי מָעַל וְכִיפֵּר —
The reason is that if he separated money for himself to purchase a sin-offering to atone for unintentionally eating forbidden fat and he instead brought a sin-offering with that money for unintentionally consuming blood, or if he separated money to purchase a sin-offering to atone for consuming blood and with that money he instead brought a sin-offering for unintentionally eating forbidden fat, in that case he has misused consecrated property if he uses that money for a non-sacred purpose, as money can lose its sacred status when misappropriated. And just as it can lose its consecrated status, it can be redesignated to atone for a different sin; therefore this money atones for him if it was used to purchase an offering for a different transgression.
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עַל חַטָּאתוֹ״ — עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא קׇרְבָּנוֹ לְשֵׁם חֶטְאוֹ.
Therefore, the verse states: “For his sin” (Leviticus 4:35), which indicates that he does not fulfill his obligation unless his offering is for the sake of his particular sin, and he is not permitted to use money he consecrated for one type of sin to atone for a different sin. This concludes the baraita.
קָתָנֵי מִיהַת בְּהֵמָה, מַאי לָאו אֲפִילּוּ בַּעֲלַת מוּם? לָא, תְּמִימָה.
Rava now asks his question: In any event, the baraita teaches that a son may not use an animal separated by his father for his naziriteship offering. What, is it not referring even to a blemished animal? The fact that the baraita does not differentiate between types of animals indicates that a blemished animal has the status of allocated funds, as opposed to Rav Naḥman’s ruling that this animal is like his father’s unallocated funds, which the son himself may use. The Gemara rejects this: No; the baraita refers solely to an unblemished animal that is fit to be sacrificed; only an animal of this kind is considered allocated.
אֲבָל בַּעֲלַת מוּם מַאי — כִּסְתוּמָה דָּמְיָא? מַאי אִירְיָא דְּקָתָנֵי מָעוֹת שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ אָבִיו? לִיתְנֵי בַּעֲלַת מוּם! הָכִי נָמֵי, דִּלְמַאי חַזְיָא — לִדְמֵי, דְּמֵי הַיְינוּ מָעוֹת.
The Gemara asks: However, according to this explanation, what is the halakha of a blemished animal? Is it considered like an unallocated animal? If so, why does the baraita specifically teach that one may purchase an offering with the unallocated funds that his father separated? Let the baraita teach this halakha with regard to a blemished animal, and one would infer that the same applies to money. The Gemara answers as above: So too, this is the case; there is no difference between the two. The reason is that what is a blemished animal fit for? It is fit for its value, and this value is essentially money. Consequently, this baraita does not contradict Rav Naḥman’s opinion that a blemished animal has the status of unallocated funds.
מַתְנִי׳ נִזְרַק עָלֶיהָ אֶחָד מִן הַדָּמִים, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ נִשְׁחֲטָה עָלֶיהָ אַחַת מִכׇּל הַבְּהֵמוֹת — אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר.
MISHNA: The previous mishna discussed the case of a husband who nullified his wife’s vow after she separated her offerings of naziriteship. This mishna deals with a husband who nullified his wife’s naziriteship after she had completed her term and brought her offerings to the Temple. If the blood from one of her naziriteship offerings was sprinkled on the altar on her behalf, the husband cannot nullify her vow at this point. Rabbi Akiva says: Even before the sprinkling of the blood, he cannot nullify the vow as soon as any one of the animals for her offerings has been slaughtered on her behalf.
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּתִגְלַחַת הַטׇּהֳרָה, אֲבָל בְּתִגְלַחַת הַטּוּמְאָה — יָפֵר, שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לוֹמַר: אִי אֶפְשִׁי בְּאִשָּׁה מְנֻוֶּולֶת. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אַף בְּתִגְלַחַת הַטׇּהֳרָה יָפֵר, שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לוֹמַר: אִי אֶפְשִׁי בְּאִשָּׁה מְגַלַּחַת.
The mishna continues: In what case is this statement, that he can no longer nullify the vow, said? It is when she is bringing the offerings for her shaving of ritual purity, when she has completed her term of naziriteship without becoming ritually impure (see Numbers 6:18). However, if she is sacrificing the offerings for her shaving of impurity, when she became ritually impure during her term of naziriteship, after which she restarts her naziriteship (see Numbers 6:9), her husband can nullify her vow. The reason is that he can say: I do not want a downcast [menuvvelet] wife, who does not drink wine. She would have to refrain from wine for a lengthy period if she were to begin her naziriteship anew. Rabbi Meir says: He can nullify her vow even at the stage of her shaving of purity, after she has begun sacrificing her offerings, as he can say: I do not want a shaven wife, and a nazirite is obligated to shave after bringing his or her offerings.
גְּמָ׳ מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דְּאִי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הָאָמַר: תִּגְלַחַת מְעַכֶּבֶת. וְכֵיוָן דְּלָא גִּילְּחָה — אֲסִירָה בְּחַמְרָא. וְכֵיוָן דְּאִית לַהּ נִיוּוּל — מָצֵי מֵיפַר (וּבְהָא פְּלִיגִי),
GEMARA: The Gemara comments: The mishna, which rules that a husband cannot nullify his wife’s naziriteship after the blood of her offering has been sprinkled at the end of the naziriteship term, is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. As, if it followed the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer, didn’t he say that shaving is indispensable for the end of a nazirite’s term, i.e., a nazirite at the end of his naziriteship is prohibited from drinking wine and becoming impure from the dead until he actually shaves? And in this case, since she has not yet shaved, she remains prohibited from drinking wine. And since she becomes downcast through her abstinence from wine, evidently the husband can nullify her vow even after the sprinkling of the blood of her offerings of purity.
תַּנָּא דִידַן סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּאִיזְדְּרִיק עֲלַהּ דָּם, לְאַלְתַּר שַׁרְיָא בְּחַמְרָא, וְהָא לֵית לַהּ נִיוּוּל. וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: אֲפִילּוּ אִישְׁתְּחִיטַת בְּהֵמָה — אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר, מִשּׁוּם הֶפְסֵד קָדָשִׁים.
The tanna of our mishna holds: Once the blood has been sprinkled on her behalf she is immediately permitted to drink wine, and therefore she is not downcast. Consequently, the husband has no right to nullify her naziriteship vow at that point, as her vow does not affect him. And Rabbi Akiva holds: Even if the blood has yet to be sprinkled and wine remains forbidden to her, as soon as an animal is slaughtered for one of her offerings the husband can no longer nullify the vow, due to the loss of consecrated property. If he were to nullify her vow she would have no further need of the offerings, and it is prohibited to waste Sanctuary property.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא: וְאַמַּאי? לִזְרוֹק דָּמָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, וְיַתִּיר בָּשָׂר בַּאֲכִילָה! מִי לָא תַּנְיָא: כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, אוֹ שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן לִפְנֵי זְמַנָּן אוֹ לְאַחַר זְמַנָּן — הַדָּם יִזָּרֵק וְהַבָּשָׂר יֵאָכֵל.
Rabbi Zeira objects to this: And why should the result be a loss to the Sanctuary? He can avoid this by sprinkling their blood not for the sake of the offerings of a nazirite, and he will thereby permit the meat of the offering to be eaten, and the consecrated animal will not go to waste. Isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to the communal peace-offering of two sheep that accompanies the two loaves on Shavuot, if one slaughtered them not for the sake of that offering, or slaughtered them before their time, on the eve of the Festival, or after their time, after the Festival, the blood shall be sprinkled, although not for the sake of that offering, as it is no longer fit for that purpose, and the meat is eaten.
וְאִם הָיְתָה שַׁבָּת — לֹא יִזָּרֵק. וְאִם זָרַק — הוּרְצָה, לְהַקְטִיר אֵימוּרִין לָעֶרֶב!
And if it was a Shabbat, the blood may not be sprinkled. Since the meat cannot be eaten on that day, sprinkling the blood is considered a form of unnecessary labor on Shabbat. And if he sprinkled the blood on Shabbat anyway, the offering is accepted, and he must wait to burn its sacrificial parts on the altar in the evening, after the conclusion of Shabbat. In any case, this shows that it is permitted to sprinkle the blood of an offering not for its own sake ab initio so that its flesh can be eaten.
אָמְרִי: אִי דִּשְׁחַט עוֹלָה אוֹ שְׁלָמִים — הָכִי נָמֵי. אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, כְּגוֹן שֶׁשָּׁחַט חַטָּאת בְּרֵישָׁא.
The Sages say in response: If he had slaughtered only the woman’s naziriteship offerings of the burnt-offering or the peace-offering, so too, he may certainly proceed to sprinkle the blood not for the sake of that offering, to avoid the loss of a consecrated animal. In that case Rabbi Akiva would agree that the husband can still nullify her vow. However, with what are we dealing here? It is with a case where he slaughtered the sin-offering first. Since a sin-offering whose blood was sprinkled not for its sake is invalid, if the husband were to nullify her vow this would cause a loss of consecrated property.
כְּדִתְנַן: אִם גִּילַּח עַל אַחַת מִשְּׁלׇשְׁתָּן — יָצָא.
The Gemara cites the source that the order of a nazirite’s offerings may be changed and the sin-offering may be sacrificed first. As we learned in a mishna (45a): If he shaved after the sacrifice of one of the three nazirite offerings, either the burnt-offering, the peace-offering, or the sin-offering, he has fulfilled his obligation.
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּתִגְלַחַת טׇהֳרָה. אֲבָל בְּתִגְלַחַת טוּמְאָה — יָפֵר (מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר: אִי אֶפְשִׁי בְּאִשָּׁה מְנֻוֶּולֶת). וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ בְּתִגְלַחַת טׇהֳרָה — יָפֵר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר: אִי אֶפְשִׁי בְּאִשָּׁה מְגַלַּחַת.
§ The mishna taught: In what case is this statement, that a husband cannot nullify his wife’s vow, said? It is with regard to a shaving of ritual purity; however, with regard to a shaving of impurity the husband can nullify it if he wishes. And Rabbi Meir says: He may even nullify the vow at her shaving of purity because he can say: I do not want a shaven wife.
וְתַנָּא קַמָּא אָמַר לָךְ: אֶפְשָׁר בְּפֵאָה נׇכְרִית. וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: בְּפֵאָה נׇכְרִית, אַיְּידֵי דְּזוּהֲמָא — לָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ.
The Gemara analyzes these opinions: And the first tanna could have said to you in response to Rabbi Meir’s argument: It is possible for her to compensate by wearing a wig, and therefore she would not appear shaven, and her husband would have no cause for complaint. And Rabbi Meir holds: As for compensating by wearing a wig, since it is dirty he is not amenable to this solution, and he may therefore nullify her vow.
מַתְנִי׳ הָאִישׁ מַדִּיר אֶת בְּנוֹ בְּנָזִיר, וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה מַדֶּרֶת אֶת בְּנָהּ בְּנָזִיר. כֵּיצַד? גִּילַּח, אוֹ שֶׁגִּילְּחוּהוּ קְרוֹבָיו. מִיחָה, אוֹ שֶׁמִּיחוּ קְרוֹבָיו.
MISHNA: A man can vow that his minor son should be a nazirite, i.e., a father can declare his son a nazirite, but a woman cannot vow that her son should be a nazirite. How so; what are the details of this naziriteship? If the son shaved his hair, thereby demonstrating his rejection of the vow imposed by his father; or if his relatives shaved him; or if the son objected by saying that he has no desire for this naziriteship; or if his relatives objected on his behalf, the naziriteship is canceled.
הָיְתָה לוֹ בְּהֵמָה מוּפְרֶשֶׁת, הַחַטָּאת — תָּמוּת, וְהָעוֹלָה — תִּקְרַב עוֹלָה. וּשְׁלָמִים — יִקְרְבוּ שְׁלָמִים, וְנֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד, וְאֵינָן טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם.
If this son who canceled the naziriteship had animals separated for his offerings, the one set aside for the sin-offering must die, and the burnt-offering is sacrificed as a burnt-offering, and the peace-offering is sacrificed as a peace-offering. And the peace-offering is eaten for one day, like the peace-offering of a nazirite, rather than the two days of a regular peace-offering, and it does not require bread, i.e., the loaves that accompany a nazirite’s peace-offering.
הָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת סְתוּמִין — יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. מָעוֹת מְפוֹרָשִׁים, דְּמֵי חַטָּאת — יֵלְכוּ לְיָם הַמֶּלַח, לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין. דְּמֵי עוֹלָה — יָבִיאוּ עוֹלָה, וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, דְּמֵי שְׁלָמִים — יָבִיאוּ שְׁלָמִים וְנֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד, וְאֵינָן טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם.
If he had unallocated funds, they will be allocated for communal gift offerings. If he had allocated funds for his offerings, the money for the sin-offering is taken and cast into the Dead Sea, as one may not benefit from it ab initio, but if he benefits from it, he is not liable to bring an offering for misuse of consecrated property. With the money for the burnt-offering they bring a burnt-offering; it is prohibited to derive benefit from those coins and if he benefits from it, he is liable to bring an offering for misuse of consecrated property. With the money for the peace-offering they bring a peace-offering, and it is eaten for one day and does not require bread.
גְּמָ׳ אִישׁ — אִין, אֲבָל אִשָּׁה — לָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: הֲלָכָה הִיא בְּנָזִיר. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא
GEMARA: The mishna taught that a man can vow that his son should be a nazirite, but a woman cannot do so. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai with regard to a nazirite. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina,
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Jerusalem, Israel
Blacksburg, United States
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
אפרת, Israel
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
London, United Kingdom
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Yad Binyamin, Israel
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
Jerusalem, Israel
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Karmiel, Israel
Nazir 28
בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן סְתוּמִין וְלֹא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן מְפוֹרָשִׁין — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״. בְּקׇרְבָּנוֹ הוּא יוֹצֵא, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא בְּקׇרְבַּן אָבִיו.
when they are unallocated and not when they are allocated. Consequently, the same should apply to one whose father separated money for a regular sin-offering, i.e., he should be able to use them for his own sin-offering. Therefore, the verse states: “His offering” (Leviticus 4:32), which serves to emphasize: He fulfills his obligation with his own offering, but he does not fulfill his obligation with the money separated for his father’s offering.
יָכוֹל לֹא יֵצֵא בְּמָעוֹת שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ אֲפִילּוּ מִן הַקַּלָּה עַל הַקַּלָּה, מִן הַחֲמוּרָה עַל הַחֲמוּרָה, אֲבָל יוֹצֵא בְּקׇרְבָּן שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ לְעַצְמוֹ מִן הַקַּלָּה עַל הַחֲמוּרָה, מִן הַחֲמוּרָה עַל הַקַּלָּה — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ … עַל חַטָּאתוֹ״, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא קׇרְבָּנוֹ לְשׁוּם חֶטְאוֹ.
The baraita continues this line of argument: One might have thought that he does not fulfill his obligation with the money that his father separated if it is from money the father set aside to atone for a minor transgression and the son atones for a minor one, or from money the father set aside to atone for a major transgression and the son atones for a major one. However, the son may fulfill his obligation with the offering he separated for himself. From animals he set aside to atone for a minor transgression, he may atone for a major one, or from animals he set aside to atone for a major transgression he may atone for a minor one. Therefore, the verse states: “Then he shall bring for his offering a goat, a female without blemish, for his sin” (Leviticus 4:28), which indicates that he does not fulfill his obligation unless his offering is for the sake of his particular sin, not for some other transgression.
יָכוֹל לֹא יֵצֵא בִּבְהֵמָה שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ לְעַצְמוֹ מִן הַקַּלָּה עַל הַקַּלָּה אוֹ מִן הַחֲמוּרָה עַל הַחֲמוּרָה, אֲפִילּוּ מִן הַקַּלָּה עַל הַחֲמוּרָה אוֹ מִן הַחֲמוּרָה עַל הַקַּלָּה,
One might have thought that he does not fulfill his obligation with the animal he separated for himself, from animals he set aside to atone for a minor transgression to atone for a minor one; or from animals he set aside to atone for a major transgression, to atone for a major one; or even when from animals he set aside to atone for a minor transgression to atone for a major one; or from animals he set aside to atone for a major transgression to atone for a minor one.
שֶׁכֵּן אִם הִפְרִישׁ בְּהֵמָה עַל הַחֵלֶב וְהֵבִיא עַל הַדָּם, אוֹ עַל הַדָּם וְהֵבִיא עַל הַחֵלֶב — שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא מָעַל וְלֹא כִּיפֵּר,
The reason is that if he separated an animal to bring as an offering for unintentionally eating forbidden fat and he instead brought that sin-offering for unintentionally consuming blood, or if he separated an animal to bring as an offering to atone for blood and instead brought it for eating forbidden fat, in that case he has not misused consecrated property, as the animal cannot lose its consecrated status. And just as it cannot lose its consecrated status, so too it cannot be redesignated to atone for a different sin, and therefore this animal also does not atone for him.
אֲבָל יוֹצֵא בְּמָעוֹת שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ לְעַצְמוֹ מִן הַקַּלָּה לַקַּלָּה, וּמִן הַחֲמוּרָה לַחֲמוּרָה, מִן הַחֲמוּרָה לַקַּלָּה, וּמִן הַקַּלָּה לַחֲמוּרָה,
However, one might think that he fulfills his obligation with the money he separated for himself, from money he set aside to atone for a minor transgression to atone for a different minor transgression; or from money he set aside to atone for a major transgression to atone for a different major transgression; or from money he set aside to atone for a major transgression to atone for a minor one; or from money he set aside to atone for a minor transgression to atone for a major one.
שֶׁכֵּן אִם הִפְרִישׁ לְעַצְמוֹ מָעוֹת מִן הַחֵלֶב וְהֵבִיא עַל הַדָּם, עַל הַדָּם וְהֵבִיא עַל הַחֵלֶב, שֶׁהֲרֵי מָעַל וְכִיפֵּר —
The reason is that if he separated money for himself to purchase a sin-offering to atone for unintentionally eating forbidden fat and he instead brought a sin-offering with that money for unintentionally consuming blood, or if he separated money to purchase a sin-offering to atone for consuming blood and with that money he instead brought a sin-offering for unintentionally eating forbidden fat, in that case he has misused consecrated property if he uses that money for a non-sacred purpose, as money can lose its sacred status when misappropriated. And just as it can lose its consecrated status, it can be redesignated to atone for a different sin; therefore this money atones for him if it was used to purchase an offering for a different transgression.
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עַל חַטָּאתוֹ״ — עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא קׇרְבָּנוֹ לְשֵׁם חֶטְאוֹ.
Therefore, the verse states: “For his sin” (Leviticus 4:35), which indicates that he does not fulfill his obligation unless his offering is for the sake of his particular sin, and he is not permitted to use money he consecrated for one type of sin to atone for a different sin. This concludes the baraita.
קָתָנֵי מִיהַת בְּהֵמָה, מַאי לָאו אֲפִילּוּ בַּעֲלַת מוּם? לָא, תְּמִימָה.
Rava now asks his question: In any event, the baraita teaches that a son may not use an animal separated by his father for his naziriteship offering. What, is it not referring even to a blemished animal? The fact that the baraita does not differentiate between types of animals indicates that a blemished animal has the status of allocated funds, as opposed to Rav Naḥman’s ruling that this animal is like his father’s unallocated funds, which the son himself may use. The Gemara rejects this: No; the baraita refers solely to an unblemished animal that is fit to be sacrificed; only an animal of this kind is considered allocated.
אֲבָל בַּעֲלַת מוּם מַאי — כִּסְתוּמָה דָּמְיָא? מַאי אִירְיָא דְּקָתָנֵי מָעוֹת שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ אָבִיו? לִיתְנֵי בַּעֲלַת מוּם! הָכִי נָמֵי, דִּלְמַאי חַזְיָא — לִדְמֵי, דְּמֵי הַיְינוּ מָעוֹת.
The Gemara asks: However, according to this explanation, what is the halakha of a blemished animal? Is it considered like an unallocated animal? If so, why does the baraita specifically teach that one may purchase an offering with the unallocated funds that his father separated? Let the baraita teach this halakha with regard to a blemished animal, and one would infer that the same applies to money. The Gemara answers as above: So too, this is the case; there is no difference between the two. The reason is that what is a blemished animal fit for? It is fit for its value, and this value is essentially money. Consequently, this baraita does not contradict Rav Naḥman’s opinion that a blemished animal has the status of unallocated funds.
מַתְנִי׳ נִזְרַק עָלֶיהָ אֶחָד מִן הַדָּמִים, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ נִשְׁחֲטָה עָלֶיהָ אַחַת מִכׇּל הַבְּהֵמוֹת — אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר.
MISHNA: The previous mishna discussed the case of a husband who nullified his wife’s vow after she separated her offerings of naziriteship. This mishna deals with a husband who nullified his wife’s naziriteship after she had completed her term and brought her offerings to the Temple. If the blood from one of her naziriteship offerings was sprinkled on the altar on her behalf, the husband cannot nullify her vow at this point. Rabbi Akiva says: Even before the sprinkling of the blood, he cannot nullify the vow as soon as any one of the animals for her offerings has been slaughtered on her behalf.
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּתִגְלַחַת הַטׇּהֳרָה, אֲבָל בְּתִגְלַחַת הַטּוּמְאָה — יָפֵר, שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לוֹמַר: אִי אֶפְשִׁי בְּאִשָּׁה מְנֻוֶּולֶת. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אַף בְּתִגְלַחַת הַטׇּהֳרָה יָפֵר, שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לוֹמַר: אִי אֶפְשִׁי בְּאִשָּׁה מְגַלַּחַת.
The mishna continues: In what case is this statement, that he can no longer nullify the vow, said? It is when she is bringing the offerings for her shaving of ritual purity, when she has completed her term of naziriteship without becoming ritually impure (see Numbers 6:18). However, if she is sacrificing the offerings for her shaving of impurity, when she became ritually impure during her term of naziriteship, after which she restarts her naziriteship (see Numbers 6:9), her husband can nullify her vow. The reason is that he can say: I do not want a downcast [menuvvelet] wife, who does not drink wine. She would have to refrain from wine for a lengthy period if she were to begin her naziriteship anew. Rabbi Meir says: He can nullify her vow even at the stage of her shaving of purity, after she has begun sacrificing her offerings, as he can say: I do not want a shaven wife, and a nazirite is obligated to shave after bringing his or her offerings.
גְּמָ׳ מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דְּאִי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הָאָמַר: תִּגְלַחַת מְעַכֶּבֶת. וְכֵיוָן דְּלָא גִּילְּחָה — אֲסִירָה בְּחַמְרָא. וְכֵיוָן דְּאִית לַהּ נִיוּוּל — מָצֵי מֵיפַר (וּבְהָא פְּלִיגִי),
GEMARA: The Gemara comments: The mishna, which rules that a husband cannot nullify his wife’s naziriteship after the blood of her offering has been sprinkled at the end of the naziriteship term, is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. As, if it followed the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer, didn’t he say that shaving is indispensable for the end of a nazirite’s term, i.e., a nazirite at the end of his naziriteship is prohibited from drinking wine and becoming impure from the dead until he actually shaves? And in this case, since she has not yet shaved, she remains prohibited from drinking wine. And since she becomes downcast through her abstinence from wine, evidently the husband can nullify her vow even after the sprinkling of the blood of her offerings of purity.
תַּנָּא דִידַן סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּאִיזְדְּרִיק עֲלַהּ דָּם, לְאַלְתַּר שַׁרְיָא בְּחַמְרָא, וְהָא לֵית לַהּ נִיוּוּל. וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: אֲפִילּוּ אִישְׁתְּחִיטַת בְּהֵמָה — אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר, מִשּׁוּם הֶפְסֵד קָדָשִׁים.
The tanna of our mishna holds: Once the blood has been sprinkled on her behalf she is immediately permitted to drink wine, and therefore she is not downcast. Consequently, the husband has no right to nullify her naziriteship vow at that point, as her vow does not affect him. And Rabbi Akiva holds: Even if the blood has yet to be sprinkled and wine remains forbidden to her, as soon as an animal is slaughtered for one of her offerings the husband can no longer nullify the vow, due to the loss of consecrated property. If he were to nullify her vow she would have no further need of the offerings, and it is prohibited to waste Sanctuary property.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא: וְאַמַּאי? לִזְרוֹק דָּמָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, וְיַתִּיר בָּשָׂר בַּאֲכִילָה! מִי לָא תַּנְיָא: כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, אוֹ שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן לִפְנֵי זְמַנָּן אוֹ לְאַחַר זְמַנָּן — הַדָּם יִזָּרֵק וְהַבָּשָׂר יֵאָכֵל.
Rabbi Zeira objects to this: And why should the result be a loss to the Sanctuary? He can avoid this by sprinkling their blood not for the sake of the offerings of a nazirite, and he will thereby permit the meat of the offering to be eaten, and the consecrated animal will not go to waste. Isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to the communal peace-offering of two sheep that accompanies the two loaves on Shavuot, if one slaughtered them not for the sake of that offering, or slaughtered them before their time, on the eve of the Festival, or after their time, after the Festival, the blood shall be sprinkled, although not for the sake of that offering, as it is no longer fit for that purpose, and the meat is eaten.
וְאִם הָיְתָה שַׁבָּת — לֹא יִזָּרֵק. וְאִם זָרַק — הוּרְצָה, לְהַקְטִיר אֵימוּרִין לָעֶרֶב!
And if it was a Shabbat, the blood may not be sprinkled. Since the meat cannot be eaten on that day, sprinkling the blood is considered a form of unnecessary labor on Shabbat. And if he sprinkled the blood on Shabbat anyway, the offering is accepted, and he must wait to burn its sacrificial parts on the altar in the evening, after the conclusion of Shabbat. In any case, this shows that it is permitted to sprinkle the blood of an offering not for its own sake ab initio so that its flesh can be eaten.
אָמְרִי: אִי דִּשְׁחַט עוֹלָה אוֹ שְׁלָמִים — הָכִי נָמֵי. אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, כְּגוֹן שֶׁשָּׁחַט חַטָּאת בְּרֵישָׁא.
The Sages say in response: If he had slaughtered only the woman’s naziriteship offerings of the burnt-offering or the peace-offering, so too, he may certainly proceed to sprinkle the blood not for the sake of that offering, to avoid the loss of a consecrated animal. In that case Rabbi Akiva would agree that the husband can still nullify her vow. However, with what are we dealing here? It is with a case where he slaughtered the sin-offering first. Since a sin-offering whose blood was sprinkled not for its sake is invalid, if the husband were to nullify her vow this would cause a loss of consecrated property.
כְּדִתְנַן: אִם גִּילַּח עַל אַחַת מִשְּׁלׇשְׁתָּן — יָצָא.
The Gemara cites the source that the order of a nazirite’s offerings may be changed and the sin-offering may be sacrificed first. As we learned in a mishna (45a): If he shaved after the sacrifice of one of the three nazirite offerings, either the burnt-offering, the peace-offering, or the sin-offering, he has fulfilled his obligation.
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּתִגְלַחַת טׇהֳרָה. אֲבָל בְּתִגְלַחַת טוּמְאָה — יָפֵר (מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר: אִי אֶפְשִׁי בְּאִשָּׁה מְנֻוֶּולֶת). וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ בְּתִגְלַחַת טׇהֳרָה — יָפֵר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר: אִי אֶפְשִׁי בְּאִשָּׁה מְגַלַּחַת.
§ The mishna taught: In what case is this statement, that a husband cannot nullify his wife’s vow, said? It is with regard to a shaving of ritual purity; however, with regard to a shaving of impurity the husband can nullify it if he wishes. And Rabbi Meir says: He may even nullify the vow at her shaving of purity because he can say: I do not want a shaven wife.
וְתַנָּא קַמָּא אָמַר לָךְ: אֶפְשָׁר בְּפֵאָה נׇכְרִית. וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: בְּפֵאָה נׇכְרִית, אַיְּידֵי דְּזוּהֲמָא — לָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ.
The Gemara analyzes these opinions: And the first tanna could have said to you in response to Rabbi Meir’s argument: It is possible for her to compensate by wearing a wig, and therefore she would not appear shaven, and her husband would have no cause for complaint. And Rabbi Meir holds: As for compensating by wearing a wig, since it is dirty he is not amenable to this solution, and he may therefore nullify her vow.
מַתְנִי׳ הָאִישׁ מַדִּיר אֶת בְּנוֹ בְּנָזִיר, וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה מַדֶּרֶת אֶת בְּנָהּ בְּנָזִיר. כֵּיצַד? גִּילַּח, אוֹ שֶׁגִּילְּחוּהוּ קְרוֹבָיו. מִיחָה, אוֹ שֶׁמִּיחוּ קְרוֹבָיו.
MISHNA: A man can vow that his minor son should be a nazirite, i.e., a father can declare his son a nazirite, but a woman cannot vow that her son should be a nazirite. How so; what are the details of this naziriteship? If the son shaved his hair, thereby demonstrating his rejection of the vow imposed by his father; or if his relatives shaved him; or if the son objected by saying that he has no desire for this naziriteship; or if his relatives objected on his behalf, the naziriteship is canceled.
הָיְתָה לוֹ בְּהֵמָה מוּפְרֶשֶׁת, הַחַטָּאת — תָּמוּת, וְהָעוֹלָה — תִּקְרַב עוֹלָה. וּשְׁלָמִים — יִקְרְבוּ שְׁלָמִים, וְנֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד, וְאֵינָן טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם.
If this son who canceled the naziriteship had animals separated for his offerings, the one set aside for the sin-offering must die, and the burnt-offering is sacrificed as a burnt-offering, and the peace-offering is sacrificed as a peace-offering. And the peace-offering is eaten for one day, like the peace-offering of a nazirite, rather than the two days of a regular peace-offering, and it does not require bread, i.e., the loaves that accompany a nazirite’s peace-offering.
הָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת סְתוּמִין — יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. מָעוֹת מְפוֹרָשִׁים, דְּמֵי חַטָּאת — יֵלְכוּ לְיָם הַמֶּלַח, לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין. דְּמֵי עוֹלָה — יָבִיאוּ עוֹלָה, וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, דְּמֵי שְׁלָמִים — יָבִיאוּ שְׁלָמִים וְנֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד, וְאֵינָן טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם.
If he had unallocated funds, they will be allocated for communal gift offerings. If he had allocated funds for his offerings, the money for the sin-offering is taken and cast into the Dead Sea, as one may not benefit from it ab initio, but if he benefits from it, he is not liable to bring an offering for misuse of consecrated property. With the money for the burnt-offering they bring a burnt-offering; it is prohibited to derive benefit from those coins and if he benefits from it, he is liable to bring an offering for misuse of consecrated property. With the money for the peace-offering they bring a peace-offering, and it is eaten for one day and does not require bread.
גְּמָ׳ אִישׁ — אִין, אֲבָל אִשָּׁה — לָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: הֲלָכָה הִיא בְּנָזִיר. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא
GEMARA: The mishna taught that a man can vow that his son should be a nazirite, but a woman cannot do so. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai with regard to a nazirite. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina,
