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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 20, 2023 | 讻状讟 讘砖讘讟 转砖驻状讙

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

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

Nazir 28

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Carol Robinson and Arthur Gould in memory of Carol鈥檚 mother, Irma Robinson, Hudda Bat Moshe, z鈥漧. Today is her 8th yahrtzeit. 鈥淚rma moved from New Haven to Chicago to marry Lou and build a rich life there including lifelong friends, work she loved at a nearby high school library, and active participation in her synagogue. She lived with Alzheimer鈥檚 for seven years with dignity and strength and never forgot Carol or her sister. She would be proud of Carol studying daf yomi.鈥

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?

讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 住转讜诪讬谉 讜诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 诪驻讜专砖讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 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


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: 鈥淗is offering鈥 (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鈥檚 offering.


讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬爪讗 讘诪注讜转 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 讗讘诇 讬讜爪讗 讘拽专讘谉 砖讛驻专讬砖 诇注爪诪讜 诪谉 讛拽诇讛 注诇 讛讞诪讜专讛 诪谉 讛讞诪讜专讛 注诇 讛拽诇讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 拽专讘谞讜 注诇 讞讟讗转讜 注讚 砖讬讛讗 拽专讘谞讜 诇砖讜诐 讞讟讗讜


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: 鈥淭hen he shall bring for his offering a goat, a female without blemish, for his sin鈥 (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.


讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬爪讗 讘讘讛诪讛 砖讛驻专讬砖 诇注爪诪讜 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 讗驻讬诇讜 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


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.


砖讻谉 讗诐 讛驻专讬砖 讘讛诪讛 注诇 讛讞诇讘 讜讛讘讬讗 注诇 讛讚诐 讗讜 注诇 讛讚诐 讜讛讘讬讗 注诇 讛讞诇讘 砖讛专讬 诇讗 诪注诇 讜诇讗 讻讬驻专


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.


讗讘诇 讬讜爪讗 讘诪注讜转 砖讛驻专讬砖 诇注爪诪讜 诪谉 讛拽诇讛 诇拽诇讛 讜诪谉 讛讞诪讜专讛 诇讞诪讜专讛 诪谉 讛讞诪讜专讛 诇拽诇讛 讜诪谉 讛拽诇讛 诇讞诪讜专讛


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.


砖讻谉 讗诐 讛驻专讬砖 诇注爪诪讜 诪注讜转 诪谉 讛讞诇讘 讜讛讘讬讗 注诇 讛讚诐 注诇 讛讚诐 讜讛讘讬讗 注诇 讛讞诇讘 砖讛专讬 诪注诇 讜讻讬驻专


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.


转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注诇 讞讟讗转讜 注讚 砖讬讛讗 拽专讘谞讜 诇砖诐 讞讟讗讜


Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淔or his sin鈥 (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.


拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讘讛诪讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 诇讗 转诪讬诪讛


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 Na岣an鈥檚 ruling that this animal is like his father鈥檚 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.


讗讘诇 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 诪讗讬 讻住转讜诪讛 讚诪讬讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚拽转谞讬 诪注讜转 砖讛驻专讬砖 讗讘讬讜 诇讬转谞讬 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬讗 诇讚诪讬 讚诪讬 讛讬讬谞讜 诪注讜转:


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 Na岣an鈥檚 opinion that a blemished animal has the status of unallocated funds.


诪转谞讬壮 谞讝专拽 注诇讬讛 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讚诪讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 谞砖讞讟讛 注诇讬讛 讗讞转 诪讻诇 讛讘讛诪讜转 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专


MISHNA: The previous mishna discussed the case of a husband who nullified his wife鈥檚 vow after she separated her offerings of naziriteship. This mishna deals with a husband who nullified his wife鈥檚 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.


讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘转讙诇讞转 讛讟讛专讛 讗讘诇 讘转讙诇讞转 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讬驻专 砖讛讜讗 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 讘讗砖讛 诪谞讜讜诇转 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘转讙诇讞转 讛讟讛专讛 讬驻专 砖讛讜讗 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 讘讗砖讛 诪讙诇讞转:


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.


讙诪壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗诪专 转讙诇讞转 诪注讻讘转 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讙讬诇讞讛 讗住讬专讛 讘讞诪专讗 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讛 谞讬讜讜诇 诪爪讬 诪讬驻专 (讜讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬)


GEMARA: The Gemara comments: The mishna, which rules that a husband cannot nullify his wife鈥檚 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鈥檛 he say that shaving is indispensable for the end of a nazirite鈥檚 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.


转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讝讚专讬拽 注诇讛 讚诐 诇讗诇转专 砖专讬讗 讘讞诪专讗 讜讛讗 诇讬转 诇讛 谞讬讜讜诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬砖转讞讬讟转 讘讛诪讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 诪砖讜诐 讛驻住讚 拽讚砖讬诐


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.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讝专讜拽 讚诪谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 讜讬转讬专 讘砖专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 诪讬 诇讗 转谞讬讗 讻讘砖讬 注爪专转 砖砖讞讟谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 讗讜 砖砖讞讟谉 诇驻谞讬 讝诪谞谉 讗讜 诇讗讞专 讝诪谞谉 讛讚诐 讬讝专拽 讜讛讘砖专 讬讗讻诇


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鈥檛 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.


讜讗诐 讛讬转讛 砖讘转 诇讗 讬讝专拽 讜讗诐 讝专拽 讛讜专爪讛 诇讛拽讟讬专 讗讬诪讜专讬谉 诇注专讘


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.


讗诪专讬 讗讬 讚砖讞讟 注讜诇讛 讗讜 砖诇诪讬诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖砖讞讟 讞讟讗转 讘专讬砖讗


The Sages say in response: If he had slaughtered only the woman鈥檚 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.


讻讚转谞谉 讗诐 讙讬诇讞 注诇 讗讞转 诪砖诇砖转谉 讬爪讗:


The Gemara cites the source that the order of a nazirite鈥檚 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.


讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘转讙诇讞转 讟讛专讛 讗讘诇 讘转讙诇讞转 讟讜诪讗讛 讬驻专 (诪驻谞讬 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 讘讗砖讛 诪谞讜讜诇转) 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转讙诇讞转 讟讛专讛 讬驻专 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 讘讗砖讛 诪讙诇讞转:


搂 The mishna taught: In what case is this statement, that a husband cannot nullify his wife鈥檚 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.


讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诪专 诇讱 讗驻砖专 讘驻讗讛 谞讻专讬转 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讘驻讗讛 谞讻专讬转 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讝讜讛诪讗 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛:


The Gemara analyzes these opinions: And the first tanna could have said to you in response to Rabbi Meir鈥檚 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.


诪转谞讬壮 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 讻讬爪讚 讙讬诇讞 讗讜 砖讙讬诇讞讜讛讜 拽专讜讘讬讜 诪讬讞讛 讗讜 砖诪讬讞讜 拽专讜讘讬讜


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.


讛讬转讛 诇讜 讘讛诪讛 诪讜驻专砖转 讛讞讟讗转 转诪讜转 讜讛注讜诇讛 转拽专讘 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讬拽专讘讜 砖诇诪讬诐 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


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鈥檚 peace-offering.


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 诪驻讜专砖讬诐 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 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:


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.


讙诪壮 讗讬砖 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 讗砖讛 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讘谞讝讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗


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 Yo岣nan said: It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai with regard to a nazirite. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina,

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

  • 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 28: Revoking a Wife’s Vow and Making a Vow for a Son

A new mishnah: Can a husband still revoke his wife's vow of nezirut at the time that she's bringing the...

Nazir 28

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 28

讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 住转讜诪讬谉 讜诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 诪驻讜专砖讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 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


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: 鈥淗is offering鈥 (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鈥檚 offering.


讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬爪讗 讘诪注讜转 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 讗讘诇 讬讜爪讗 讘拽专讘谉 砖讛驻专讬砖 诇注爪诪讜 诪谉 讛拽诇讛 注诇 讛讞诪讜专讛 诪谉 讛讞诪讜专讛 注诇 讛拽诇讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 拽专讘谞讜 注诇 讞讟讗转讜 注讚 砖讬讛讗 拽专讘谞讜 诇砖讜诐 讞讟讗讜


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: 鈥淭hen he shall bring for his offering a goat, a female without blemish, for his sin鈥 (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.


讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬爪讗 讘讘讛诪讛 砖讛驻专讬砖 诇注爪诪讜 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 讗驻讬诇讜 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


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.


砖讻谉 讗诐 讛驻专讬砖 讘讛诪讛 注诇 讛讞诇讘 讜讛讘讬讗 注诇 讛讚诐 讗讜 注诇 讛讚诐 讜讛讘讬讗 注诇 讛讞诇讘 砖讛专讬 诇讗 诪注诇 讜诇讗 讻讬驻专


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.


讗讘诇 讬讜爪讗 讘诪注讜转 砖讛驻专讬砖 诇注爪诪讜 诪谉 讛拽诇讛 诇拽诇讛 讜诪谉 讛讞诪讜专讛 诇讞诪讜专讛 诪谉 讛讞诪讜专讛 诇拽诇讛 讜诪谉 讛拽诇讛 诇讞诪讜专讛


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.


砖讻谉 讗诐 讛驻专讬砖 诇注爪诪讜 诪注讜转 诪谉 讛讞诇讘 讜讛讘讬讗 注诇 讛讚诐 注诇 讛讚诐 讜讛讘讬讗 注诇 讛讞诇讘 砖讛专讬 诪注诇 讜讻讬驻专


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.


转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注诇 讞讟讗转讜 注讚 砖讬讛讗 拽专讘谞讜 诇砖诐 讞讟讗讜


Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淔or his sin鈥 (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.


拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讘讛诪讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 诇讗 转诪讬诪讛


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 Na岣an鈥檚 ruling that this animal is like his father鈥檚 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.


讗讘诇 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 诪讗讬 讻住转讜诪讛 讚诪讬讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚拽转谞讬 诪注讜转 砖讛驻专讬砖 讗讘讬讜 诇讬转谞讬 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬讗 诇讚诪讬 讚诪讬 讛讬讬谞讜 诪注讜转:


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 Na岣an鈥檚 opinion that a blemished animal has the status of unallocated funds.


诪转谞讬壮 谞讝专拽 注诇讬讛 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讚诪讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 谞砖讞讟讛 注诇讬讛 讗讞转 诪讻诇 讛讘讛诪讜转 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专


MISHNA: The previous mishna discussed the case of a husband who nullified his wife鈥檚 vow after she separated her offerings of naziriteship. This mishna deals with a husband who nullified his wife鈥檚 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.


讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘转讙诇讞转 讛讟讛专讛 讗讘诇 讘转讙诇讞转 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讬驻专 砖讛讜讗 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 讘讗砖讛 诪谞讜讜诇转 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘转讙诇讞转 讛讟讛专讛 讬驻专 砖讛讜讗 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 讘讗砖讛 诪讙诇讞转:


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.


讙诪壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗诪专 转讙诇讞转 诪注讻讘转 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讙讬诇讞讛 讗住讬专讛 讘讞诪专讗 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讛 谞讬讜讜诇 诪爪讬 诪讬驻专 (讜讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬)


GEMARA: The Gemara comments: The mishna, which rules that a husband cannot nullify his wife鈥檚 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鈥檛 he say that shaving is indispensable for the end of a nazirite鈥檚 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.


转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讝讚专讬拽 注诇讛 讚诐 诇讗诇转专 砖专讬讗 讘讞诪专讗 讜讛讗 诇讬转 诇讛 谞讬讜讜诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬砖转讞讬讟转 讘讛诪讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 诪砖讜诐 讛驻住讚 拽讚砖讬诐


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.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讝专讜拽 讚诪谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 讜讬转讬专 讘砖专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 诪讬 诇讗 转谞讬讗 讻讘砖讬 注爪专转 砖砖讞讟谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 讗讜 砖砖讞讟谉 诇驻谞讬 讝诪谞谉 讗讜 诇讗讞专 讝诪谞谉 讛讚诐 讬讝专拽 讜讛讘砖专 讬讗讻诇


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鈥檛 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.


讜讗诐 讛讬转讛 砖讘转 诇讗 讬讝专拽 讜讗诐 讝专拽 讛讜专爪讛 诇讛拽讟讬专 讗讬诪讜专讬谉 诇注专讘


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.


讗诪专讬 讗讬 讚砖讞讟 注讜诇讛 讗讜 砖诇诪讬诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖砖讞讟 讞讟讗转 讘专讬砖讗


The Sages say in response: If he had slaughtered only the woman鈥檚 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.


讻讚转谞谉 讗诐 讙讬诇讞 注诇 讗讞转 诪砖诇砖转谉 讬爪讗:


The Gemara cites the source that the order of a nazirite鈥檚 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.


讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘转讙诇讞转 讟讛专讛 讗讘诇 讘转讙诇讞转 讟讜诪讗讛 讬驻专 (诪驻谞讬 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 讘讗砖讛 诪谞讜讜诇转) 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转讙诇讞转 讟讛专讛 讬驻专 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 讘讗砖讛 诪讙诇讞转:


搂 The mishna taught: In what case is this statement, that a husband cannot nullify his wife鈥檚 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.


讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诪专 诇讱 讗驻砖专 讘驻讗讛 谞讻专讬转 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讘驻讗讛 谞讻专讬转 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讝讜讛诪讗 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛:


The Gemara analyzes these opinions: And the first tanna could have said to you in response to Rabbi Meir鈥檚 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.


诪转谞讬壮 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 讻讬爪讚 讙讬诇讞 讗讜 砖讙讬诇讞讜讛讜 拽专讜讘讬讜 诪讬讞讛 讗讜 砖诪讬讞讜 拽专讜讘讬讜


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.


讛讬转讛 诇讜 讘讛诪讛 诪讜驻专砖转 讛讞讟讗转 转诪讜转 讜讛注讜诇讛 转拽专讘 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讬拽专讘讜 砖诇诪讬诐 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


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鈥檚 peace-offering.


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 诪驻讜专砖讬诐 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 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:


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.


讙诪壮 讗讬砖 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 讗砖讛 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讘谞讝讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗


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 Yo岣nan said: It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai with regard to a nazirite. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina,

Scroll To Top