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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 21, 2015 | 讞壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讜

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

Nazir 30

讛讗 讘专砖讜转讬讛 讚讗讘讜讛 拽讗讬诐 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 讗讛讗 讘砖讘讬诇 讗讘讗 讗讛讗 讘砖讘讬诇 注爪诪讬

After all, he still remains under his father鈥檚 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鈥檚 authority with regard to naziriteship, i.e., whether he had developed two hairs.

讗讬 讗讬讬转讬 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 诪注讬拽专讗 拽讗讬诐 讘谞讝讬专讜转 讚讬诇讬讛 讜诇讘住讜祝 拽讗讬诐 讘谞讝讬专讜转 讚讗讘讜讛 讜讗讬 讗讬讬转讬 讘诪爪注讬 诪讗讬

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鈥檚 vow of naziriteship. But if he developed two hairs in the middle of his naziriteship term, of what use would the son鈥檚 vow be?

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 注讚 砖讬讙讬注 诇注讜谞转 谞讚专讬诐

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鈥檚 vow. The son would complete his term and bring his offerings.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讚讗诪专 注讚 砖讬讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专讬 诇专讘讬 诇讬讻讗 转拽谞转讗 注讚 讚讬转讬讘 讚讬诇讬讛 讜讬转讬讘 讚讗讘讜讛讬

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 If he grew two hairs during his father鈥檚 naziriteship it is no longer in effect, as by Torah law he is no longer under his father鈥檚 authority, so what is the halakha in that case?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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讬砖 诪讙诇讞 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 诪讙诇讞转 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讘讬讛 讻讬爪讚 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 讗讘讬讜 谞讝讬专 讜讛驻专讬砖 诪注讜转 住转讜诪讬诐 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转讜 讜诪转 讜讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讙诇讞 注诇 诪注讜转 讗讘讗

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鈥檚 naziriteship, but a woman cannot shave by means of the offerings for her father鈥檚 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鈥檚 death: I am hereby a nazirite on the condition that I will shave by means of the money that my father set aside.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬驻诇讜 诇谞讚讘讛 讗讬谉 讝讛 诪讙诇讞 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讘讬讜 讗讬讝讛讜 砖诪讙诇讞 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讘讬讜 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 讛讜讗 讜讗讘讬讜 谞讝讬专讬诐 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讘讬讜 诪注讜转 住转讜诪讬诐 诇谞讝讬专讜转讜 讜诪转 讝讛 讛讜讗 砖诪讙诇讞 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讘讬讜

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鈥檚 naziriteship. Rather, who is the son who can shave by using his father鈥檚 naziriteship? This is referring to a son and his father who were both nazirites during his father鈥檚 lifetime, and his father separated unallocated money for his naziriteship and died; this is the one who may shave by using his father鈥檚 naziriteship.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讘谞讝讬专 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讘谉 讬讜专砖 讗转 讗讘讬讜 讘转 诇讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this difference between a man and a woman? Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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).

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讘转 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讬讜专砖讬谉 讙诪讬专讬谉 诇讛

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鈥檚 offerings,

拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛诇讻讛

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鈥檚 naziriteship while a daughter cannot.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 驻诇讬讙讬 讗专讬砖讗 讗讜 讗住讬驻讗 转讗 砖诪注 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专讜 讛讗讬砖 诪讙诇讞 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讘讬讜

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鈥檚 naziriteship?

诪讬 砖讛讬讛 讗讘讬讜 谞讝讬专 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讘讬讜 诪注讜转 诇谞讝讬专讜转讜 讜诪转 讜讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讙诇讞 注诇 诪注讜转 讗讘讗 讝讛讜 砖诪讙诇讞 注诇 诪注讜转 讗讘讬讜 讗讘诇 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 讛讜讗 讜讗讘讬讜 谞讝讬专讬诐 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讘讬讜 诪注讜转 诇谞讝讬专讜转讜 讜诪转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬驻诇讜 诇谞讚讘讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

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鈥檚 money, this is the one who can shave by means of his father鈥檚 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.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专讜 讝讛 讛讜讗 砖诪讙诇讞 注诇 诪注讜转 讗讘讬讜

Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Yehuda said: This is the one who can shave by using his father鈥檚 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鈥檚 money, they maintain that he cannot do so; and conversely, in a case where Rabbi Yosei says that one cannot spend his father鈥檚 money for his nazirite offerings, the Rabbis rule that he can do so.

讘注讬 专讘讛 讬砖 诇讜 砖谞讬 讘谞讬诐 谞讝讬专讬诐 诪讛讜 讛讬诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬谉 诇讛 讻诇 讚拽讚讬诐 讙诇讞 讙诇讞 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讬专讜砖讛 讙诪讬专讬谉 诇讛 讜驻诇讙讗 讛讜讬

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鈥檚 naziriteship, and therefore any son who precedes his brother and shaves using his father鈥檚 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?

讘注讬 专讘讗 讘讻讜专 讜驻砖讜讟 诪讗讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬谉 诇讛 讜讛讬诇讻讱 诇讗 讘注讬 讙诇讜讞讬 诇驻讜诐 诪讗讬 讚砖拽讬诇 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讬专讜砖讛 讛讬讗 讜讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚砖拽讬诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讛讻讬 诪讙诇讞

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鈥檚 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?

讜讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讬专讜砖讛 讛讬讗 讜诇驻讜诐 讚砖拽讬诇 诪讙诇讞 讜讘讞讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讘讛拽讚砖 诇讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽谞讬 诇讬讛 诇讙诇讜讞 诇讗 砖谞讗

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.

讗讘讬讜 谞讝讬专 注讜诇诐 讜讛讜讗 谞讝讬专 住转诐 讗讘讬讜 谞讝讬专 住转诐 讜讛讜讗 谞讝讬专 注讜诇诐 诪讗讬 讻讬 讙诪讬专讬谉 讛讬诇讻转讗 讘住转诐 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗

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鈥檚 naziriteship? Does one say that when we learned the halakha that a son can shave using money left for his father鈥檚 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?

讜讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讛讻讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 谞讝讬专讜转 讟讛专讛 讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讘讬讜 谞讝讬专 讟诪讗 讜讛讜讗 谞讝讬专 讟讛讜专 讗讘讬讜 谞讝讬专 讟讛讜专 讜讛讜讗 谞讝讬专 讟诪讗 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 naziriteship or not? No answer was found for any of these dilemmas, and the Gemara says that they shall stand unresolved.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 诪讬 砖讗诪专

 

诪转谞讬壮 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛拽讚砖 讟注讜转 讛拽讚砖

MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: Consecration that one performs in error nevertheless renders property consecrated,

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Nazir 30

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 30

讛讗 讘专砖讜转讬讛 讚讗讘讜讛 拽讗讬诐 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 讗讛讗 讘砖讘讬诇 讗讘讗 讗讛讗 讘砖讘讬诇 注爪诪讬

After all, he still remains under his father鈥檚 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鈥檚 authority with regard to naziriteship, i.e., whether he had developed two hairs.

讗讬 讗讬讬转讬 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 诪注讬拽专讗 拽讗讬诐 讘谞讝讬专讜转 讚讬诇讬讛 讜诇讘住讜祝 拽讗讬诐 讘谞讝讬专讜转 讚讗讘讜讛 讜讗讬 讗讬讬转讬 讘诪爪注讬 诪讗讬

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鈥檚 vow of naziriteship. But if he developed two hairs in the middle of his naziriteship term, of what use would the son鈥檚 vow be?

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 注讚 砖讬讙讬注 诇注讜谞转 谞讚专讬诐

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鈥檚 vow. The son would complete his term and bring his offerings.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讚讗诪专 注讚 砖讬讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专讬 诇专讘讬 诇讬讻讗 转拽谞转讗 注讚 讚讬转讬讘 讚讬诇讬讛 讜讬转讬讘 讚讗讘讜讛讬

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鈥檚 naziriteship it is no longer in effect, as by Torah law he is no longer under his father鈥檚 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讬砖 诪讙诇讞 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 诪讙诇讞转 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讘讬讛 讻讬爪讚 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 讗讘讬讜 谞讝讬专 讜讛驻专讬砖 诪注讜转 住转讜诪讬诐 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转讜 讜诪转 讜讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讙诇讞 注诇 诪注讜转 讗讘讗

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鈥檚 naziriteship, but a woman cannot shave by means of the offerings for her father鈥檚 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鈥檚 death: I am hereby a nazirite on the condition that I will shave by means of the money that my father set aside.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬驻诇讜 诇谞讚讘讛 讗讬谉 讝讛 诪讙诇讞 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讘讬讜 讗讬讝讛讜 砖诪讙诇讞 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讘讬讜 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 讛讜讗 讜讗讘讬讜 谞讝讬专讬诐 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讘讬讜 诪注讜转 住转讜诪讬诐 诇谞讝讬专讜转讜 讜诪转 讝讛 讛讜讗 砖诪讙诇讞 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讘讬讜

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鈥檚 naziriteship. Rather, who is the son who can shave by using his father鈥檚 naziriteship? This is referring to a son and his father who were both nazirites during his father鈥檚 lifetime, and his father separated unallocated money for his naziriteship and died; this is the one who may shave by using his father鈥檚 naziriteship.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讘谞讝讬专 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讘谉 讬讜专砖 讗转 讗讘讬讜 讘转 诇讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this difference between a man and a woman? Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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).

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讘转 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讬讜专砖讬谉 讙诪讬专讬谉 诇讛

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鈥檚 offerings,

拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛诇讻讛

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鈥檚 naziriteship while a daughter cannot.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 驻诇讬讙讬 讗专讬砖讗 讗讜 讗住讬驻讗 转讗 砖诪注 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专讜 讛讗讬砖 诪讙诇讞 注诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讘讬讜

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鈥檚 naziriteship?

诪讬 砖讛讬讛 讗讘讬讜 谞讝讬专 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讘讬讜 诪注讜转 诇谞讝讬专讜转讜 讜诪转 讜讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讙诇讞 注诇 诪注讜转 讗讘讗 讝讛讜 砖诪讙诇讞 注诇 诪注讜转 讗讘讬讜 讗讘诇 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 讛讜讗 讜讗讘讬讜 谞讝讬专讬诐 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讘讬讜 诪注讜转 诇谞讝讬专讜转讜 讜诪转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬驻诇讜 诇谞讚讘讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

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鈥檚 money, this is the one who can shave by means of his father鈥檚 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.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专讜 讝讛 讛讜讗 砖诪讙诇讞 注诇 诪注讜转 讗讘讬讜

Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Yehuda said: This is the one who can shave by using his father鈥檚 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鈥檚 money, they maintain that he cannot do so; and conversely, in a case where Rabbi Yosei says that one cannot spend his father鈥檚 money for his nazirite offerings, the Rabbis rule that he can do so.

讘注讬 专讘讛 讬砖 诇讜 砖谞讬 讘谞讬诐 谞讝讬专讬诐 诪讛讜 讛讬诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬谉 诇讛 讻诇 讚拽讚讬诐 讙诇讞 讙诇讞 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讬专讜砖讛 讙诪讬专讬谉 诇讛 讜驻诇讙讗 讛讜讬

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鈥檚 naziriteship, and therefore any son who precedes his brother and shaves using his father鈥檚 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?

讘注讬 专讘讗 讘讻讜专 讜驻砖讜讟 诪讗讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬谉 诇讛 讜讛讬诇讻讱 诇讗 讘注讬 讙诇讜讞讬 诇驻讜诐 诪讗讬 讚砖拽讬诇 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讬专讜砖讛 讛讬讗 讜讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚砖拽讬诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讛讻讬 诪讙诇讞

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鈥檚 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?

讜讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讬专讜砖讛 讛讬讗 讜诇驻讜诐 讚砖拽讬诇 诪讙诇讞 讜讘讞讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讘讛拽讚砖 诇讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽谞讬 诇讬讛 诇讙诇讜讞 诇讗 砖谞讗

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.

讗讘讬讜 谞讝讬专 注讜诇诐 讜讛讜讗 谞讝讬专 住转诐 讗讘讬讜 谞讝讬专 住转诐 讜讛讜讗 谞讝讬专 注讜诇诐 诪讗讬 讻讬 讙诪讬专讬谉 讛讬诇讻转讗 讘住转诐 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗

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鈥檚 naziriteship? Does one say that when we learned the halakha that a son can shave using money left for his father鈥檚 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?

讜讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讛讻讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 谞讝讬专讜转 讟讛专讛 讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讘讬讜 谞讝讬专 讟诪讗 讜讛讜讗 谞讝讬专 讟讛讜专 讗讘讬讜 谞讝讬专 讟讛讜专 讜讛讜讗 谞讝讬专 讟诪讗 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 naziriteship or not? No answer was found for any of these dilemmas, and the Gemara says that they shall stand unresolved.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 诪讬 砖讗诪专

 

诪转谞讬壮 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛拽讚砖 讟注讜转 讛拽讚砖

MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: Consecration that one performs in error nevertheless renders property consecrated,

Scroll To Top