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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 28, 2015 | 讬状讗 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讛

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

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

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

Nedarim 35

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讜 讛砖讗讬诇谞讬 驻专转讱 讗诪专 诇讜 拽讜谞诐 驻专讛 砖讗谞讬 拽谞讜讬 诇讱 谞讻住讬 注诇讬讱 讗诐 讬砖 诇讬 驻专讛 讗诇讗 讝讜 讛砖讗讬诇谞讬 拽专讚讜诪讱 讗诪专 诇讜 拽讜谞诐 拽专讚讜诐 砖讬砖 诇讬 砖讗谞讬 拽谞讜讬 谞讻住讬 注诇讬 讗诐 讬砖 诇讬 拽专讚讜诐 讗诇讗 讝讛 讜谞诪爪讗 砖讬砖 诇讜 讘讞讬讬讜 讗住讜专 诪转 讗讜 砖谞转谞讛 诇讜 讘诪转谞讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜转专

The Gemara raised an objection to Rava. If another person said to him: Lend me your cow, and the owner answered and said to him: Every cow that I purchased other than this one, which I need, is konam for you; or if he said: My property is forbidden to you if I have a cow other than this one, and in fact, he owns other cows; or if another said to him: Lend me your spade, and the owner of the spade said to him: Every spade that I have that I purchased is konam for you; or if he said: My property is forbidden to me if I have a spade other than this one, and it is discovered that he has another spade and the konam takes effect, then during the life of the one who vowed, the cow or the spade is forbidden to the subject of the vow. If the one who vowed died or if the cow or the spade was given to the subject of the vow as a gift, it is permitted. Apparently, the konam is in effect only as long as the property is in his possession.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 砖谞讬转谞讛 诇讜 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专

Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, said: It is referring to a case where it was given to the subject of the vow by another person. The one who vowed did not give him the gift directly. He sold or transferred the item to a third party, who gave it to the subject of the vow as a present. Since the property left the possession of its owner before it was given to the subject of the vow, the prohibition does not take effect upon it.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 砖谞讬转谞讛 诇讜 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 砖谞转谞讛 诇讜

The Gemara states that Rav Ashi said: The language is also precise, as it teaches: That was given to him, and it is not taught: That he gave it to him. This indicates that this halakha applies specifically to a gift that was given to him by a third party, but not by the one who vowed.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 讬砖 诪注讬诇讛 讘拽讜谞诪讜转 讗讜 诇讗

Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Na岣an: Is there liability for misuse of consecrated property in cases of konamot or not? Since the legal status of an item that was rendered a konam is like that of consecrated property in that it is forbidden to the one who one vowed, is it like consecrated property in every sense, including liability for misuse of consecrated property?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讜讟诇讬谉 注诇讬讛 砖讻专 转讬驻讜诇 讛谞讗讛 诇讛拽讚砖 诇诪讬诪专讗 讻讬 讛拽讚砖 诪讛 讛拽讚砖 讬砖 讘讜 诪注讬诇讛 讗祝 拽讜谞诪讜转 讬砖 讘讛谉 诪注讬诇讛

Rav Na岣an said to him: You learned this halakha from a mishna (33a): In a place where one takes payment for returning a lost item, that benefit that he receives for returning the item should fall into the category of consecrated Temple property. That is to say, an item forbidden by a konam is like consecrated property. Just as with regard to consecrated property there is liability for misuse, so too with regard to konamot there is liability for misuse.

讻转谞讗讬 拽讜谞诐 讻讻专 讝讜 讛拽讚砖 讜讗讻诇讛 讘讬谉 讛讜讗 讜讘讬谉 讞讘讬专讜 诪注诇 诇驻讬讻讱 讬砖 诇讛 驻讚讬讜谉 讻讻专 讝讜 注诇讬 诇讛拽讚砖 讜讗讻诇讛 讛讜讗 诪注诇 讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 诪注诇 诇驻讬讻讱 讗讬谉 诇讛 驻讚讬讜谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara comments on this. This dilemma is like a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. If one said: This loaf is konam to all like consecrated property, and he ate it, then, whether he ate it or whether another ate it, the one who ate it misused consecrated property. Therefore, since its status is that of consecrated property, it has the possibility of desanctification through redemption. If one said: This loaf is konam for me like consecrated property and he eats it, he misused consecrated property. If another eats it, he did not misuse consecrated property, as he said: To me. Therefore, it does not have the possibility of desanctification through redemption, since its status is not that of full-fledged consecrated property. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 诇讗 诪注诇 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪注讬诇讛 讘拽讜谞诪讜转

And the Rabbis say: In the case of both vows taken in this manner and vows taken in that manner, no one misused consecrated property because there is no liability for misuse of consecrated objects in cases of konamot. Rabbi Meir disagrees and holds that there is liability for misuse in konamot.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讜讬讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讻讻专讬 注诇讬讱 讜谞转谞讛 诇讜 讘诪转谞讛 诪讬 诪注诇 诇诪注讜诇 谞讜转谉 讛讗 诇讗 讗住讬专讗 注诇讬讛 诇诪注讜诇 诪拽讘诇 讬讻讜诇 讚讗诪专 讛讬转讬专讗 讘注讬转讬 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 讘注讬转讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪拽讘诇 诪注诇 诇讻砖讬讜爪讬讗 砖讻诇 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪注讜转 讛拽讚砖 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讻住讘讜专 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗 诪讜注诇 讗祝 讝讛 诪讜注诇

Rav A岣, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: If one said to another: My loaf is konam for you, and he then gave it to him as a gift, which of them misused consecrated property? If you say: Let the one who gives the loaf be liable for misuse, why would he be liable; the loaf is not forbidden to him? If you say: Let the one who receives the loaf be liable for misuse, he can say: I wanted to receive a permitted item; I did not want to receive a forbidden item. Since the loaf is forbidden, if I accepted it from you, it was not my intention to do so. Rav Ashi said to him: The one who receives the loaf is liable for misuse when he utilizes the loaf, as the principle with regard to misuse is that anyone who utilizes consecrated money for non-sacred purposes, when he is under the impression that it is non-sacred, misuses consecrated property. This person who received the loaf also misuses consecrated property.

诪转谞讬壮 讜转讜专诐 讗转 转专讜诪转讜 讜诪注砖专讜转讬讜 诇讚注转讜 讜诪拽专讬讘 注诇讬讜 拽讬谞讬 讝讘讬谉 拽讬谞讬 讝讘讜转 拽讬谞讬 讬讜诇讚讜转 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗砖诪讜转 讜诪诇诪讚讜 诪讚专砖 讛诇讻讜转 讜讗讙讚讜转 讗讘诇 诇讗 讬诇诪讚谞讜 诪拽专讗 讗讘诇 诪诇诪讚 讛讜讗 讗转 讘谞讬讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜转讬讜 诪拽专讗

MISHNA: The mishna proceeds to list other tasks that one may perform for someone who is prohibited by vow from benefiting from him. And he separates his teruma and his tithes, provided that it is with the knowledge and consent of the owner of the produce. And he sacrifices for him the bird nests, i.e., pairs of birds, pigeons and turtledoves, of zavin (see Leviticus 15:13鈥15); the bird nests of zavot (see Leviticus 15:28鈥30); the bird nests of women after childbirth (see Leviticus 12:6鈥8); sin-offerings; and guilt-offerings. And he teaches him midrash, halakhot, and aggadot, but he may not teach him Bible. However, he may teach his sons and daughters Bible.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛谞讬 讻讛谞讬 砖诇讜讞讬 讚讬讚谉 讛讜讜 讗讜 砖诇讜讞讬 讚砖诪讬讗 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讚砖诇讜讞讬 讚讬讚谉 讛讜讜 讛讗 诪讛谞讬 诇讬讛 讜讗住讜专 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 砖诇讜讞讬 讚砖诪讬讗 砖专讬 诪讗讬

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Are these priests our agents or agents of Heaven when they perform the Temple service? The Gemara elaborates: What is the practical difference whether they are our agents or God鈥檚 agents? The Gemara answers: The difference is with regard to one prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from another. If you say that the priests are our agents, don鈥檛 the priests provide benefit for the one for whom benefit is forbidden by vow, and therefore, sacrificing that person鈥檚 offering is prohibited? And if you say that they are agents of Heaven, it is permitted. What is the status of priests?

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞谉 诪拽专讬讘 注诇讬讜 拽讬谞讬 讝讘讬谉 讻讜壮 讗讬 讗诪专转 砖诇讜讞讬 讚讬讚谉 拽讗 诪讛谞讬 诇讬讛

Come and hear proof to resolve the dilemma, as we learned in the mishna: And he sacrifices for him the bird nests of zavin, etc. The Gemara infers: If you say that the priests are our agents, the priests would thereby provide benefit to one for whom benefit from them is forbidden. Based on the ruling in the mishna, apparently, priests are agents of Heaven.

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 诇讬转谞讬 诪拽专讬讘 注诇讬讜 拽专讘谞讜转 讗诇讗 诪讞讜住专讬 讻驻专讛 砖讗谞讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻诇 爪专讬讻讬谉 讚注转 讞讜抓 诪诪讞讜住专讬 讻驻专讛 砖讛专讬 讗讚诐 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 讘谞讬讜 讜注诇 讘谞讜转讬讜 讛拽讟谞讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讝讗转 转讜专转 讛讝讘 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讬谉 拽讟谉

The Gemara rejects the proof: And according to your reasoning, that the mishna holds that priests are agents of Heaven, let the mishna teach in general: He sacrifices for him offerings. Why did the mishna list these particular offerings? Rather, perforce, offerings brought by those lacking atonement are different from other offerings, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Everyone who brings an offering requires knowledge and intent in order to bring the offering, except for those lacking atonement, who bring the offering in order to complete their purification. This can be proven from the fact that a person brings a purification offering for his minor sons and daughters, although they lack halakhic intelligence, as it is stated: 鈥淭his is the law of the zav (Leviticus 15:32). This apparently superfluous verse comes to teach that the halakhot of the zav apply to both an adult and a minor.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝讗转 转讜专转 讛讬诇讚转 讜讙讜壮 讘讬谉 拽讟谞讛 讜讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇讛 拽讟谞讛 讘转 诇讬讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讛讗 转谞讬 专讘 讘讬讘讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖诇砖 谞砖讬诐 诪砖诪砖讜转 讘诪讜讱 拽讟谞讛 讜诪注讜讘专转 讜诪谞讬拽讛 拽讟谞讛 砖诪讗 转转注讘专 讜转诪讜转

The Gemara asks: However, if that is so according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, with regard to that which is written: 鈥淭his is the law of a woman after childbirth鈥 (Leviticus 12:7), would he interpret that the halakhot of a woman after childbirth apply to both an adult and a minor? Is a minor capable of giving birth? But didn鈥檛 Rav Beivai teach a baraita before Rav Na岣an: It is permitted for three women to engage in intercourse with a contraceptive resorbent: A minor, and a pregnant woman, and a nursing woman; a minor may do so lest she conceive and die. Apparently, a minor is incapable of giving birth, as she would die first.

讛讛讬讗 讝讗转 转讜专转 讛讬诇讚转 讘讬谉 驻拽讞转 讘讬谉 砖讜讟讛 砖讻谉 讗讚诐 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 讗砖转讜 砖讜讟讛

The Gemara explains: That verse: 鈥淭his is the law of a woman after childbirth,鈥 does not come to include a minor. Rather, it comes to teach that the halakhot of a woman after childbirth apply to both a halakhically competent woman and a woman who is an imbecile, as a man brings an offering for his wife who is an imbecile.

讻讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讚诐 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注砖讬专 注诇 讗砖转讜 讜讻诇 拽专讘谞讜转 砖讞讬讬讘转

This halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: A man brings the offering of a wealthy person for his wife, as well as all offerings that she is obligated to bring. A wealthy woman after childbirth brings a lamb as a burnt-offering and a dove or turtledove as a sin-offering. A poor woman brings two turtledoves or two pigeons, one as a burnt-offering and one as a sin-offering. Even if the woman is poor, and based on her usufruct property, she would bring the offering of the poor; if her husband is wealthy, he brings the offering of a wealthy person on her behalf. And he must bring on her behalf all the offerings for which she is obligated.

砖讻讱 讻讜转讘 诇讛 讜讗讞专讬讜转 讚讗讬转 诇讬讱 注诇讬 诪谉 拽讚诪转 讚谞讗

The fact that he is obligated to bring a wealthy person鈥檚 offering on her behalf is due to the fact that this is what he writes in her marriage contract: And responsibility to pay any financial obligations that you have incurred before this moment is incumbent upon me. Offerings that she is obligated to bring are included in those obligations, irrespective of her degree of halakhic competence. The offering of a woman after childbirth is one of the offerings brought by those lacking atonement. Therefore, even if priests are our agents, they may sacrifice the offering on behalf of the woman; since they may do so without her knowledge and intent, no agency is required. Therefore, there is no proof from the mishna that priests are agents of Heaven.

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

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

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Nedarim: 29-35 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will continue discussing the power of the spoken word. When someone makes a vow against benefiting from...
talking talmud_square

Nedarim 35: What Is the Role of a Kohen?

A dilemma posed to R. Nachman: when one swears off property, does that make the use of that property its...

Nedarim 35

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 35

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讜 讛砖讗讬诇谞讬 驻专转讱 讗诪专 诇讜 拽讜谞诐 驻专讛 砖讗谞讬 拽谞讜讬 诇讱 谞讻住讬 注诇讬讱 讗诐 讬砖 诇讬 驻专讛 讗诇讗 讝讜 讛砖讗讬诇谞讬 拽专讚讜诪讱 讗诪专 诇讜 拽讜谞诐 拽专讚讜诐 砖讬砖 诇讬 砖讗谞讬 拽谞讜讬 谞讻住讬 注诇讬 讗诐 讬砖 诇讬 拽专讚讜诐 讗诇讗 讝讛 讜谞诪爪讗 砖讬砖 诇讜 讘讞讬讬讜 讗住讜专 诪转 讗讜 砖谞转谞讛 诇讜 讘诪转谞讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜转专

The Gemara raised an objection to Rava. If another person said to him: Lend me your cow, and the owner answered and said to him: Every cow that I purchased other than this one, which I need, is konam for you; or if he said: My property is forbidden to you if I have a cow other than this one, and in fact, he owns other cows; or if another said to him: Lend me your spade, and the owner of the spade said to him: Every spade that I have that I purchased is konam for you; or if he said: My property is forbidden to me if I have a spade other than this one, and it is discovered that he has another spade and the konam takes effect, then during the life of the one who vowed, the cow or the spade is forbidden to the subject of the vow. If the one who vowed died or if the cow or the spade was given to the subject of the vow as a gift, it is permitted. Apparently, the konam is in effect only as long as the property is in his possession.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 砖谞讬转谞讛 诇讜 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专

Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, said: It is referring to a case where it was given to the subject of the vow by another person. The one who vowed did not give him the gift directly. He sold or transferred the item to a third party, who gave it to the subject of the vow as a present. Since the property left the possession of its owner before it was given to the subject of the vow, the prohibition does not take effect upon it.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 砖谞讬转谞讛 诇讜 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 砖谞转谞讛 诇讜

The Gemara states that Rav Ashi said: The language is also precise, as it teaches: That was given to him, and it is not taught: That he gave it to him. This indicates that this halakha applies specifically to a gift that was given to him by a third party, but not by the one who vowed.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 讬砖 诪注讬诇讛 讘拽讜谞诪讜转 讗讜 诇讗

Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Na岣an: Is there liability for misuse of consecrated property in cases of konamot or not? Since the legal status of an item that was rendered a konam is like that of consecrated property in that it is forbidden to the one who one vowed, is it like consecrated property in every sense, including liability for misuse of consecrated property?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讜讟诇讬谉 注诇讬讛 砖讻专 转讬驻讜诇 讛谞讗讛 诇讛拽讚砖 诇诪讬诪专讗 讻讬 讛拽讚砖 诪讛 讛拽讚砖 讬砖 讘讜 诪注讬诇讛 讗祝 拽讜谞诪讜转 讬砖 讘讛谉 诪注讬诇讛

Rav Na岣an said to him: You learned this halakha from a mishna (33a): In a place where one takes payment for returning a lost item, that benefit that he receives for returning the item should fall into the category of consecrated Temple property. That is to say, an item forbidden by a konam is like consecrated property. Just as with regard to consecrated property there is liability for misuse, so too with regard to konamot there is liability for misuse.

讻转谞讗讬 拽讜谞诐 讻讻专 讝讜 讛拽讚砖 讜讗讻诇讛 讘讬谉 讛讜讗 讜讘讬谉 讞讘讬专讜 诪注诇 诇驻讬讻讱 讬砖 诇讛 驻讚讬讜谉 讻讻专 讝讜 注诇讬 诇讛拽讚砖 讜讗讻诇讛 讛讜讗 诪注诇 讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 诪注诇 诇驻讬讻讱 讗讬谉 诇讛 驻讚讬讜谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara comments on this. This dilemma is like a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. If one said: This loaf is konam to all like consecrated property, and he ate it, then, whether he ate it or whether another ate it, the one who ate it misused consecrated property. Therefore, since its status is that of consecrated property, it has the possibility of desanctification through redemption. If one said: This loaf is konam for me like consecrated property and he eats it, he misused consecrated property. If another eats it, he did not misuse consecrated property, as he said: To me. Therefore, it does not have the possibility of desanctification through redemption, since its status is not that of full-fledged consecrated property. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 诇讗 诪注诇 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪注讬诇讛 讘拽讜谞诪讜转

And the Rabbis say: In the case of both vows taken in this manner and vows taken in that manner, no one misused consecrated property because there is no liability for misuse of consecrated objects in cases of konamot. Rabbi Meir disagrees and holds that there is liability for misuse in konamot.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讜讬讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讻讻专讬 注诇讬讱 讜谞转谞讛 诇讜 讘诪转谞讛 诪讬 诪注诇 诇诪注讜诇 谞讜转谉 讛讗 诇讗 讗住讬专讗 注诇讬讛 诇诪注讜诇 诪拽讘诇 讬讻讜诇 讚讗诪专 讛讬转讬专讗 讘注讬转讬 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 讘注讬转讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪拽讘诇 诪注诇 诇讻砖讬讜爪讬讗 砖讻诇 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪注讜转 讛拽讚砖 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讻住讘讜专 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗 诪讜注诇 讗祝 讝讛 诪讜注诇

Rav A岣, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: If one said to another: My loaf is konam for you, and he then gave it to him as a gift, which of them misused consecrated property? If you say: Let the one who gives the loaf be liable for misuse, why would he be liable; the loaf is not forbidden to him? If you say: Let the one who receives the loaf be liable for misuse, he can say: I wanted to receive a permitted item; I did not want to receive a forbidden item. Since the loaf is forbidden, if I accepted it from you, it was not my intention to do so. Rav Ashi said to him: The one who receives the loaf is liable for misuse when he utilizes the loaf, as the principle with regard to misuse is that anyone who utilizes consecrated money for non-sacred purposes, when he is under the impression that it is non-sacred, misuses consecrated property. This person who received the loaf also misuses consecrated property.

诪转谞讬壮 讜转讜专诐 讗转 转专讜诪转讜 讜诪注砖专讜转讬讜 诇讚注转讜 讜诪拽专讬讘 注诇讬讜 拽讬谞讬 讝讘讬谉 拽讬谞讬 讝讘讜转 拽讬谞讬 讬讜诇讚讜转 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗砖诪讜转 讜诪诇诪讚讜 诪讚专砖 讛诇讻讜转 讜讗讙讚讜转 讗讘诇 诇讗 讬诇诪讚谞讜 诪拽专讗 讗讘诇 诪诇诪讚 讛讜讗 讗转 讘谞讬讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜转讬讜 诪拽专讗

MISHNA: The mishna proceeds to list other tasks that one may perform for someone who is prohibited by vow from benefiting from him. And he separates his teruma and his tithes, provided that it is with the knowledge and consent of the owner of the produce. And he sacrifices for him the bird nests, i.e., pairs of birds, pigeons and turtledoves, of zavin (see Leviticus 15:13鈥15); the bird nests of zavot (see Leviticus 15:28鈥30); the bird nests of women after childbirth (see Leviticus 12:6鈥8); sin-offerings; and guilt-offerings. And he teaches him midrash, halakhot, and aggadot, but he may not teach him Bible. However, he may teach his sons and daughters Bible.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛谞讬 讻讛谞讬 砖诇讜讞讬 讚讬讚谉 讛讜讜 讗讜 砖诇讜讞讬 讚砖诪讬讗 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讚砖诇讜讞讬 讚讬讚谉 讛讜讜 讛讗 诪讛谞讬 诇讬讛 讜讗住讜专 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 砖诇讜讞讬 讚砖诪讬讗 砖专讬 诪讗讬

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Are these priests our agents or agents of Heaven when they perform the Temple service? The Gemara elaborates: What is the practical difference whether they are our agents or God鈥檚 agents? The Gemara answers: The difference is with regard to one prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from another. If you say that the priests are our agents, don鈥檛 the priests provide benefit for the one for whom benefit is forbidden by vow, and therefore, sacrificing that person鈥檚 offering is prohibited? And if you say that they are agents of Heaven, it is permitted. What is the status of priests?

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞谉 诪拽专讬讘 注诇讬讜 拽讬谞讬 讝讘讬谉 讻讜壮 讗讬 讗诪专转 砖诇讜讞讬 讚讬讚谉 拽讗 诪讛谞讬 诇讬讛

Come and hear proof to resolve the dilemma, as we learned in the mishna: And he sacrifices for him the bird nests of zavin, etc. The Gemara infers: If you say that the priests are our agents, the priests would thereby provide benefit to one for whom benefit from them is forbidden. Based on the ruling in the mishna, apparently, priests are agents of Heaven.

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 诇讬转谞讬 诪拽专讬讘 注诇讬讜 拽专讘谞讜转 讗诇讗 诪讞讜住专讬 讻驻专讛 砖讗谞讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻诇 爪专讬讻讬谉 讚注转 讞讜抓 诪诪讞讜住专讬 讻驻专讛 砖讛专讬 讗讚诐 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 讘谞讬讜 讜注诇 讘谞讜转讬讜 讛拽讟谞讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讝讗转 转讜专转 讛讝讘 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讬谉 拽讟谉

The Gemara rejects the proof: And according to your reasoning, that the mishna holds that priests are agents of Heaven, let the mishna teach in general: He sacrifices for him offerings. Why did the mishna list these particular offerings? Rather, perforce, offerings brought by those lacking atonement are different from other offerings, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Everyone who brings an offering requires knowledge and intent in order to bring the offering, except for those lacking atonement, who bring the offering in order to complete their purification. This can be proven from the fact that a person brings a purification offering for his minor sons and daughters, although they lack halakhic intelligence, as it is stated: 鈥淭his is the law of the zav (Leviticus 15:32). This apparently superfluous verse comes to teach that the halakhot of the zav apply to both an adult and a minor.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝讗转 转讜专转 讛讬诇讚转 讜讙讜壮 讘讬谉 拽讟谞讛 讜讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇讛 拽讟谞讛 讘转 诇讬讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讛讗 转谞讬 专讘 讘讬讘讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖诇砖 谞砖讬诐 诪砖诪砖讜转 讘诪讜讱 拽讟谞讛 讜诪注讜讘专转 讜诪谞讬拽讛 拽讟谞讛 砖诪讗 转转注讘专 讜转诪讜转

The Gemara asks: However, if that is so according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, with regard to that which is written: 鈥淭his is the law of a woman after childbirth鈥 (Leviticus 12:7), would he interpret that the halakhot of a woman after childbirth apply to both an adult and a minor? Is a minor capable of giving birth? But didn鈥檛 Rav Beivai teach a baraita before Rav Na岣an: It is permitted for three women to engage in intercourse with a contraceptive resorbent: A minor, and a pregnant woman, and a nursing woman; a minor may do so lest she conceive and die. Apparently, a minor is incapable of giving birth, as she would die first.

讛讛讬讗 讝讗转 转讜专转 讛讬诇讚转 讘讬谉 驻拽讞转 讘讬谉 砖讜讟讛 砖讻谉 讗讚诐 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 讗砖转讜 砖讜讟讛

The Gemara explains: That verse: 鈥淭his is the law of a woman after childbirth,鈥 does not come to include a minor. Rather, it comes to teach that the halakhot of a woman after childbirth apply to both a halakhically competent woman and a woman who is an imbecile, as a man brings an offering for his wife who is an imbecile.

讻讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讚诐 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注砖讬专 注诇 讗砖转讜 讜讻诇 拽专讘谞讜转 砖讞讬讬讘转

This halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: A man brings the offering of a wealthy person for his wife, as well as all offerings that she is obligated to bring. A wealthy woman after childbirth brings a lamb as a burnt-offering and a dove or turtledove as a sin-offering. A poor woman brings two turtledoves or two pigeons, one as a burnt-offering and one as a sin-offering. Even if the woman is poor, and based on her usufruct property, she would bring the offering of the poor; if her husband is wealthy, he brings the offering of a wealthy person on her behalf. And he must bring on her behalf all the offerings for which she is obligated.

砖讻讱 讻讜转讘 诇讛 讜讗讞专讬讜转 讚讗讬转 诇讬讱 注诇讬 诪谉 拽讚诪转 讚谞讗

The fact that he is obligated to bring a wealthy person鈥檚 offering on her behalf is due to the fact that this is what he writes in her marriage contract: And responsibility to pay any financial obligations that you have incurred before this moment is incumbent upon me. Offerings that she is obligated to bring are included in those obligations, irrespective of her degree of halakhic competence. The offering of a woman after childbirth is one of the offerings brought by those lacking atonement. Therefore, even if priests are our agents, they may sacrifice the offering on behalf of the woman; since they may do so without her knowledge and intent, no agency is required. Therefore, there is no proof from the mishna that priests are agents of Heaven.

Scroll To Top