In what situation can a child take the money his father set aside for nazir offerings and use it for his own nazir sacrifices? Rabbi Yosi says it is only when following the father’s death the son decided to become a nazir and use his father’s money, but not if the father and son were both nazirs before the father’s death. This rule applies only to sons and not to daughters. According to Rabbi Yochanan it is a halacha l’Moshe m’Sinai. Why does Rabbi Yochanan need to explain this, isn’t it obvious that this halacha relates to sons and not to daughters as sons can inherit and daughters do not? It is necessary to apply the law in a case when a man only had daughters to teach that it is not based on inheritance laws but on halacha l’Moshe m’Sinai. Do the rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yosi? A source is brought to prove that they disagree and permit both scenarios. Are these laws connected to inheritance in some way? If two sons both want to take on being a nazir, do they share the money or does the first one to become a nazir and say he will use the money get exclusive rights? If one is a firstborn does he get a double portion? Do these laws only apply to a regular type of nazir or is it also applicable to one who takes on a nazir olam? If the father set aside the money for the completion of his nazirite term before he died and the son became an impure nazir and wanted to use it for the sacrifices brought for a nazir who became impure or vice-versa, could he? All these questions remain unanswered.
Nazir 30
Share this shiur:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
Nazir 30
הָא בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ דַּאֲבוּהּ קָאֵים! אֶלָּא דְּאָמַר: אֱהֵא בִּשְׁבִיל אַבָּא, אֱהֵא בִּשְׁבִיל עַצְמִי.
After all, he still remains under his father’s authority with regard to naziriteship, as he has yet to develop two pubic hairs. Rather, one must explain that he said the following: I shall be a nazirite due to my father; I shall be a nazirite due to my own vow. In other words, he did not link his statement to the question of whether he was old enough to vow but to the issue of his father’s authority with regard to naziriteship, i.e., whether he had developed two hairs.
אִי אַיְיתִי שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת מֵעִיקָּרָא — קָאֵים בִּנְזִירוּת דִּילֵיהּ, וּלְבַסּוֹף — קָאֵים בִּנְזִירוּת דַּאֲבוּהּ. וְאִי אַיְיתִי בְּמִצְעֵי מַאי?
The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, if he had developed two pubic hairs from the outset, i.e., before his father vowed, he would stand bound by his own naziriteship, and if he reached physical maturity at the end, i.e., after the vow ended, he would stand bound by his father’s vow of naziriteship. But if he developed two hairs in the middle of his naziriteship term, of what use would the son’s vow be?
הָנִיחָא לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר: עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לְעוֹנַת נְדָרִים.
The Gemara clarifies: This works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that a father can vow on behalf of his son until he reaches the age of vows. The reason is that this stage is by rabbinic law, and therefore the fact that the son has reached this stage does not automatically cancel the father’s vow. The son would complete his term and bring his offerings.
אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי דְּאָמַר: עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אָמְרִי: לְרַבִּי לֵיכָּא תַּקַּנְתָּא עַד דְּיָתֵיב דִּילֵיהּ וְיָתֵיב דַּאֲבוּהִי.
However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said that a father can vow for his son only until he develops two pubic hairs, what can be said? If he grew two hairs during his father’s naziriteship it is no longer in effect, as by Torah law he is no longer under his father’s authority, so what is the halakha in that case? The Sages say in response: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, this child has no rectification until he sits for his term of naziriteship and also sits for the naziriteship of his father, i.e., he must be a nazirite for sixty days, to ensure that he completes a full term of thirty days, either for his own naziriteship or for that of his father.
מַתְנִי׳ הָאִישׁ מְגַלֵּחַ עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיו, וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה מְגַלַּחַת עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיהָ. כֵּיצַד? מִי שֶׁהָיָה אָבִיו נָזִיר, וְהִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת סְתוּמִים עַל נְזִירוּתוֹ וָמֵת, וְאָמַר: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֲגַלֵּחַ עַל מְעוֹת אַבָּא״.
MISHNA: A man can shave, i.e., bring the offerings at the close of his term of naziriteship, by using offerings originally designated for his father’s naziriteship, but a woman cannot shave by means of the offerings for her father’s naziriteship. How so; how is this halakha applied? It applies to one whose father was a nazirite and separated unallocated money for his naziriteship, i.e., he did not state which coins were for which of his offerings, and he died before buying the animals, and the son said after his father’s death: I am hereby a nazirite on the condition that I will shave by means of the money that my father set aside.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה, אֵין זֶה מְגַלֵּחַ עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיו. אֵיזֶהוּ שֶׁמְּגַלֵּח עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיו? מִי שֶׁהָיָה הוּא וְאָבִיו נְזִירִים, וְהִפְרִישׁ אָבִיו מָעוֹת סְתוּמִים לִנְזִירוּתוֹ וָמֵת — זֶה הוּא שֶׁמְּגַלֵּחַ עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיו.
Rabbi Yosei said: In that case these coins are allocated for communal gift offerings, and the son may not use them, as this is not the case of the halakha that a son can shave by using his father’s naziriteship. Rather, who is the son who can shave by using his father’s naziriteship? This is referring to a son and his father who were both nazirites during his father’s lifetime, and his father separated unallocated money for his naziriteship and died; this is the one who may shave by using his father’s naziriteship.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה הִיא בְּנָזִיר. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַאי לְמֵימְרָא: דְּבֵן יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אָבִיו, בַּת לָא?
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this difference between a man and a woman? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai with regard to a nazirite. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is so, even without this halakha. What is the purpose of stating this? Is Rabbi Yoḥanan coming to say that a son inherits from his father whereas a daughter does not, and therefore only a son who inherits from his father can use his animals, but not a daughter? This is obvious, as it is stated in the Torah that a daughter does not inherit from her father if he has a son (see Numbers 27:8).
לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ אֶלָּא בַּת. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: יוֹרְשִׁין גְּמִירִין לָהּ,
The Gemara answers: No, this halakha is necessary in a case when he has only a daughter, who does inherit from him. Lest you say that we learned this halakha with regard to heirs, i.e., that the halakha is that all heirs, including a daughter, can shave by means of their father’s offerings,
קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן הֲלָכָה.
the mishna therefore teaches us that it is a halakha that is unrelated to inheritance; there is simply a tradition that a son can use the offerings for his father’s naziriteship while a daughter cannot.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, אוֹ לָא פְּלִיגִי? וְאִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר פְּלִיגִי, אַרֵישָׁא אוֹ אַסֵּיפָא? תָּא שְׁמַע: כֵּיצַד אָמְרוּ הָאִישׁ מְגַלֵּחַ עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיו?
§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yosei, or do they not disagree? If you say they disagree, do they take issue with the first clause or with the latter clause of his halakha? The Gemara suggests an answer: Come and hear the following baraita: How did the Sages say that a man can shave by using his father’s naziriteship?
מִי שֶׁהָיָה אָבִיו נָזִיר, וְהִפְרִישׁ אָבִיו מָעוֹת לִנְזִירוּתוֹ וָמֵת, וְאָמַר: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֲגַלֵּחַ עַל מְעוֹת אַבָּא״ — זֶהוּ שֶׁמְּגַלֵּחַ עַל מְעוֹת אָבִיו. אֲבָל מִי שֶׁהָיָה הוּא וְאָבִיו נְזִירִים, וְהִפְרִישׁ אָבִיו מָעוֹת לִנְזִירוּתוֹ וָמֵת — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי.
With regard to one whose father was a nazirite and his father separated money for his naziriteship and died, and the son said: I am hereby a nazirite on the condition that I can shave by using my father’s money, this is the one who can shave by means of his father’s money. However, if a son and his father were both nazirites, and his father separated money for his own naziriteship and died, this money is allocated for communal gift offerings. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמְרוּ: זֶה הוּא שֶׁמְּגַלֵּחַ עַל מְעוֹת אָבִיו.
Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Yehuda said: This is the one who can shave by using his father’s money. Their emphasis of: This is the one, indicates that they disagree with Rabbi Yosei entirely. In other words, where Rabbi Yosei rules that one can use his father’s money, they maintain that he cannot do so; and conversely, in a case where Rabbi Yosei says that one cannot spend his father’s money for his nazirite offerings, the Rabbis rule that he can do so.
בָּעֵי רַבָּה: יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי בָנִים נְזִירִים, מַהוּ? הִילְכְתָא גְּמִירִין לַהּ: כֹּל דִּקְדֵים גַּלַּח — גַּלַּח, אוֹ דִילְמָא: יְרוּשָּׁה גְּמִירִין לַהּ, וּפַלְגָא הָוֵי?
§ Rabba raised a dilemma: If a father has two nazirite sons, what is the halakha? The Gemara clarifies the sides of the dilemma: Does one say that we learned it as a halakha that a son can shave using money left for his father’s naziriteship, and therefore any son who precedes his brother and shaves using his father’s money has shaved and gained the entire sum? Or perhaps we learned this halakha from the case of inheritance, and consequently, each receives a half?
בָּעֵי רָבָא: בְּכוֹר וּפָשׁוּט, מַאי? הִילְכְתָא גְּמִירִין לַהּ, וְהִילְכָּךְ לָא בָּעֵי גַּלּוֹחֵי לְפוּם מַאי דְּשָׁקֵיל. אוֹ דִילְמָא: יְרוּשָּׁה הִיא, וְכִי הֵיכִי דְּשָׁקֵיל פִּי שְׁנַיִם, הָכִי מְגַלַּח?
Similarly, Rava raised a dilemma: If one has two nazirite sons, a firstborn and a regular son, what is the halakha? Does one say that we learned it as a halakha that a son may shave using money left for his father’s naziriteship, and this ruling is unconnected to inheritance, and therefore he does not need to shave only in accordance with what he receives as an inheritance? Instead, either each son receives half the money, or whoever precedes the other receives the entire sum. Or perhaps it is an inheritance, and just as the firstborn takes a double portion of the estate, so too he shaves with a double portion of this money?
וְאִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר: יְרוּשָּׁה הִיא, וּלְפוּם דְּשָׁקֵיל מְגַלַּח, וּבְחוּלִּין הוּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ פִּי שְׁנַיִם, אֲבָל בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ לָא. אוֹ דִילְמָא: כֵּיוָן דְּקָנֵי לֵיהּ לְגִלּוּחַ, לָא שְׁנָא?
And if you say it is an inheritance and he shaves in accordance with the portion he receives, it is still possible that it is only with regard to non-sacred matters that a firstborn has a double portion, but with regard to consecrated property this halakha does not apply. Or perhaps, since he acquires that money, although he uses it for the purpose of shaving it is no different, i.e., it does not matter that the money is for a sacred matter.
אָבִיו נְזִיר עוֹלָם וְהוּא נָזִיר סְתָם, אָבִיו נָזִיר סְתָם וְהוּא נְזִיר עוֹלָם, מַאי? כִּי גְּמִירִין הִילְכְתָא, בִּסְתָם נְזִירוּת, אוֹ דִילְמָא לָא שְׁנָא?
The Gemara raises another dilemma: If his father was a permanent nazirite and he was an unspecified nazirite, or if his father was an unspecified nazirite and he was a permanent nazirite, what is the halakha? Can this son shave using money left for his father’s naziriteship? Does one say that when we learned the halakha that a son can shave using money left for his father’s naziriteship, this applies only in a case where they are both unspecified nazirites, or perhaps it is no different, and the same halakha applies even if their naziriteships are of two different kinds?
וְאִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר: הָכָא אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי, נְזִירוּת טׇהֳרָה, בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: אָבִיו נָזִיר טָמֵא, וְהוּא נָזִיר טָהוֹר. אָבִיו נָזִיר טָהוֹר, וְהוּא נָזִיר טָמֵא, מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.
And if you say: Here, both cases are at least similar in that they involve ritually pure naziriteship, and therefore the son can make use of his father’s money, then Rav Ashi raises a different dilemma: If his father was an impure nazirite and he was a pure nazirite, or if his father was a pure nazirite and he was an impure nazirite, what is the halakha? Can the son shave using money left for his father’s naziriteship or not? No answer was found for any of these dilemmas, and the Gemara says that they shall stand unresolved.
הַדְרָן עֲלָךְ מִי שֶׁאָמַר
בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: הֶקְדֵּשׁ טָעוּת — הֶקְדֵּשׁ,
MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: Consecration that one performs in error nevertheless renders property consecrated,
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.
New York, United States
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, United States
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
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
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
See video
Raanana, Israel
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Hashmonaim, Israel
Minnesota, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
Philadelphia, United States
Nazir 30
הָא בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ דַּאֲבוּהּ קָאֵים! אֶלָּא דְּאָמַר: אֱהֵא בִּשְׁבִיל אַבָּא, אֱהֵא בִּשְׁבִיל עַצְמִי.
After all, he still remains under his father’s authority with regard to naziriteship, as he has yet to develop two pubic hairs. Rather, one must explain that he said the following: I shall be a nazirite due to my father; I shall be a nazirite due to my own vow. In other words, he did not link his statement to the question of whether he was old enough to vow but to the issue of his father’s authority with regard to naziriteship, i.e., whether he had developed two hairs.
אִי אַיְיתִי שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת מֵעִיקָּרָא — קָאֵים בִּנְזִירוּת דִּילֵיהּ, וּלְבַסּוֹף — קָאֵים בִּנְזִירוּת דַּאֲבוּהּ. וְאִי אַיְיתִי בְּמִצְעֵי מַאי?
The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, if he had developed two pubic hairs from the outset, i.e., before his father vowed, he would stand bound by his own naziriteship, and if he reached physical maturity at the end, i.e., after the vow ended, he would stand bound by his father’s vow of naziriteship. But if he developed two hairs in the middle of his naziriteship term, of what use would the son’s vow be?
הָנִיחָא לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר: עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לְעוֹנַת נְדָרִים.
The Gemara clarifies: This works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that a father can vow on behalf of his son until he reaches the age of vows. The reason is that this stage is by rabbinic law, and therefore the fact that the son has reached this stage does not automatically cancel the father’s vow. The son would complete his term and bring his offerings.
אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי דְּאָמַר: עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אָמְרִי: לְרַבִּי לֵיכָּא תַּקַּנְתָּא עַד דְּיָתֵיב דִּילֵיהּ וְיָתֵיב דַּאֲבוּהִי.
However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said that a father can vow for his son only until he develops two pubic hairs, what can be said? If he grew two hairs during his father’s naziriteship it is no longer in effect, as by Torah law he is no longer under his father’s authority, so what is the halakha in that case? The Sages say in response: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, this child has no rectification until he sits for his term of naziriteship and also sits for the naziriteship of his father, i.e., he must be a nazirite for sixty days, to ensure that he completes a full term of thirty days, either for his own naziriteship or for that of his father.
מַתְנִי׳ הָאִישׁ מְגַלֵּחַ עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיו, וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה מְגַלַּחַת עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיהָ. כֵּיצַד? מִי שֶׁהָיָה אָבִיו נָזִיר, וְהִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת סְתוּמִים עַל נְזִירוּתוֹ וָמֵת, וְאָמַר: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֲגַלֵּחַ עַל מְעוֹת אַבָּא״.
MISHNA: A man can shave, i.e., bring the offerings at the close of his term of naziriteship, by using offerings originally designated for his father’s naziriteship, but a woman cannot shave by means of the offerings for her father’s naziriteship. How so; how is this halakha applied? It applies to one whose father was a nazirite and separated unallocated money for his naziriteship, i.e., he did not state which coins were for which of his offerings, and he died before buying the animals, and the son said after his father’s death: I am hereby a nazirite on the condition that I will shave by means of the money that my father set aside.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה, אֵין זֶה מְגַלֵּחַ עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיו. אֵיזֶהוּ שֶׁמְּגַלֵּח עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיו? מִי שֶׁהָיָה הוּא וְאָבִיו נְזִירִים, וְהִפְרִישׁ אָבִיו מָעוֹת סְתוּמִים לִנְזִירוּתוֹ וָמֵת — זֶה הוּא שֶׁמְּגַלֵּחַ עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיו.
Rabbi Yosei said: In that case these coins are allocated for communal gift offerings, and the son may not use them, as this is not the case of the halakha that a son can shave by using his father’s naziriteship. Rather, who is the son who can shave by using his father’s naziriteship? This is referring to a son and his father who were both nazirites during his father’s lifetime, and his father separated unallocated money for his naziriteship and died; this is the one who may shave by using his father’s naziriteship.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה הִיא בְּנָזִיר. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַאי לְמֵימְרָא: דְּבֵן יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אָבִיו, בַּת לָא?
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this difference between a man and a woman? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai with regard to a nazirite. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is so, even without this halakha. What is the purpose of stating this? Is Rabbi Yoḥanan coming to say that a son inherits from his father whereas a daughter does not, and therefore only a son who inherits from his father can use his animals, but not a daughter? This is obvious, as it is stated in the Torah that a daughter does not inherit from her father if he has a son (see Numbers 27:8).
לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ אֶלָּא בַּת. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: יוֹרְשִׁין גְּמִירִין לָהּ,
The Gemara answers: No, this halakha is necessary in a case when he has only a daughter, who does inherit from him. Lest you say that we learned this halakha with regard to heirs, i.e., that the halakha is that all heirs, including a daughter, can shave by means of their father’s offerings,
קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן הֲלָכָה.
the mishna therefore teaches us that it is a halakha that is unrelated to inheritance; there is simply a tradition that a son can use the offerings for his father’s naziriteship while a daughter cannot.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, אוֹ לָא פְּלִיגִי? וְאִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר פְּלִיגִי, אַרֵישָׁא אוֹ אַסֵּיפָא? תָּא שְׁמַע: כֵּיצַד אָמְרוּ הָאִישׁ מְגַלֵּחַ עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיו?
§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yosei, or do they not disagree? If you say they disagree, do they take issue with the first clause or with the latter clause of his halakha? The Gemara suggests an answer: Come and hear the following baraita: How did the Sages say that a man can shave by using his father’s naziriteship?
מִי שֶׁהָיָה אָבִיו נָזִיר, וְהִפְרִישׁ אָבִיו מָעוֹת לִנְזִירוּתוֹ וָמֵת, וְאָמַר: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֲגַלֵּחַ עַל מְעוֹת אַבָּא״ — זֶהוּ שֶׁמְּגַלֵּחַ עַל מְעוֹת אָבִיו. אֲבָל מִי שֶׁהָיָה הוּא וְאָבִיו נְזִירִים, וְהִפְרִישׁ אָבִיו מָעוֹת לִנְזִירוּתוֹ וָמֵת — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי.
With regard to one whose father was a nazirite and his father separated money for his naziriteship and died, and the son said: I am hereby a nazirite on the condition that I can shave by using my father’s money, this is the one who can shave by means of his father’s money. However, if a son and his father were both nazirites, and his father separated money for his own naziriteship and died, this money is allocated for communal gift offerings. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמְרוּ: זֶה הוּא שֶׁמְּגַלֵּחַ עַל מְעוֹת אָבִיו.
Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Yehuda said: This is the one who can shave by using his father’s money. Their emphasis of: This is the one, indicates that they disagree with Rabbi Yosei entirely. In other words, where Rabbi Yosei rules that one can use his father’s money, they maintain that he cannot do so; and conversely, in a case where Rabbi Yosei says that one cannot spend his father’s money for his nazirite offerings, the Rabbis rule that he can do so.
בָּעֵי רַבָּה: יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי בָנִים נְזִירִים, מַהוּ? הִילְכְתָא גְּמִירִין לַהּ: כֹּל דִּקְדֵים גַּלַּח — גַּלַּח, אוֹ דִילְמָא: יְרוּשָּׁה גְּמִירִין לַהּ, וּפַלְגָא הָוֵי?
§ Rabba raised a dilemma: If a father has two nazirite sons, what is the halakha? The Gemara clarifies the sides of the dilemma: Does one say that we learned it as a halakha that a son can shave using money left for his father’s naziriteship, and therefore any son who precedes his brother and shaves using his father’s money has shaved and gained the entire sum? Or perhaps we learned this halakha from the case of inheritance, and consequently, each receives a half?
בָּעֵי רָבָא: בְּכוֹר וּפָשׁוּט, מַאי? הִילְכְתָא גְּמִירִין לַהּ, וְהִילְכָּךְ לָא בָּעֵי גַּלּוֹחֵי לְפוּם מַאי דְּשָׁקֵיל. אוֹ דִילְמָא: יְרוּשָּׁה הִיא, וְכִי הֵיכִי דְּשָׁקֵיל פִּי שְׁנַיִם, הָכִי מְגַלַּח?
Similarly, Rava raised a dilemma: If one has two nazirite sons, a firstborn and a regular son, what is the halakha? Does one say that we learned it as a halakha that a son may shave using money left for his father’s naziriteship, and this ruling is unconnected to inheritance, and therefore he does not need to shave only in accordance with what he receives as an inheritance? Instead, either each son receives half the money, or whoever precedes the other receives the entire sum. Or perhaps it is an inheritance, and just as the firstborn takes a double portion of the estate, so too he shaves with a double portion of this money?
וְאִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר: יְרוּשָּׁה הִיא, וּלְפוּם דְּשָׁקֵיל מְגַלַּח, וּבְחוּלִּין הוּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ פִּי שְׁנַיִם, אֲבָל בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ לָא. אוֹ דִילְמָא: כֵּיוָן דְּקָנֵי לֵיהּ לְגִלּוּחַ, לָא שְׁנָא?
And if you say it is an inheritance and he shaves in accordance with the portion he receives, it is still possible that it is only with regard to non-sacred matters that a firstborn has a double portion, but with regard to consecrated property this halakha does not apply. Or perhaps, since he acquires that money, although he uses it for the purpose of shaving it is no different, i.e., it does not matter that the money is for a sacred matter.
אָבִיו נְזִיר עוֹלָם וְהוּא נָזִיר סְתָם, אָבִיו נָזִיר סְתָם וְהוּא נְזִיר עוֹלָם, מַאי? כִּי גְּמִירִין הִילְכְתָא, בִּסְתָם נְזִירוּת, אוֹ דִילְמָא לָא שְׁנָא?
The Gemara raises another dilemma: If his father was a permanent nazirite and he was an unspecified nazirite, or if his father was an unspecified nazirite and he was a permanent nazirite, what is the halakha? Can this son shave using money left for his father’s naziriteship? Does one say that when we learned the halakha that a son can shave using money left for his father’s naziriteship, this applies only in a case where they are both unspecified nazirites, or perhaps it is no different, and the same halakha applies even if their naziriteships are of two different kinds?
וְאִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר: הָכָא אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי, נְזִירוּת טׇהֳרָה, בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: אָבִיו נָזִיר טָמֵא, וְהוּא נָזִיר טָהוֹר. אָבִיו נָזִיר טָהוֹר, וְהוּא נָזִיר טָמֵא, מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.
And if you say: Here, both cases are at least similar in that they involve ritually pure naziriteship, and therefore the son can make use of his father’s money, then Rav Ashi raises a different dilemma: If his father was an impure nazirite and he was a pure nazirite, or if his father was a pure nazirite and he was an impure nazirite, what is the halakha? Can the son shave using money left for his father’s naziriteship or not? No answer was found for any of these dilemmas, and the Gemara says that they shall stand unresolved.
הַדְרָן עֲלָךְ מִי שֶׁאָמַר
בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: הֶקְדֵּשׁ טָעוּת — הֶקְדֵּשׁ,
MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: Consecration that one performs in error nevertheless renders property consecrated,
