|  |  | Previous Folio / Nazir Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nazir ### Folio 24a was privileged to appear in the genealogical record of the royal house of Israel, four generations1 earlier. MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN MAKES A NAZIRITE VOW AND SETS ASIDE THE REQUISITE ANIMAL [FOR THE SACRIFICE] AND HER HUSBAND SUBSEQUENTLY DECLARES [THE VOW] VOID, THEN, IF THE ANIMAL WAS ONE OF HIS OWN, IT CAN BE PUT TO PASTURE WITH THE HERD,2 BUT IF IT WAS ONE OF HERS, THE SIN-OFFERING IS TO BE LEFT TO DIE, THE BURNT-OFFERING IS TO BE OFFERED AS AN [ORDINARY] BURNT-OFFERING, AND THE PEACE-OFFERING IS TO BE OFFERED AS AN [ORDINARY] PEACE-OFFERING. THIS [LAST], HOWEVER, MAY BE EATEN FOR ONE DAY [ONLY],3 AND REQUIRES NO LOAVES.4 IF SHE HAS A LUMP SUM OF MONEY5 [SET ASIDE FOR THE PURCHASE OF SACRIFICES]. IT IS TO BE USED FOR FREE-WILL OFFERINGS;6 IF EARMARKED MONEY,7 THE PRICE OF THE SIN-OFFERING IS TO BE TAKEN TO THE DEAD SEA;8 THE USE OF IT IS FORBIDDEN, BUT INVOLVES NO MALAPPROPRIATION;9 FOR THE SUM SET ASIDE FOR THE BURNT-OFFERING, A BURNT-OFFERING IS TO BE PROVIDED, THE USE OF WHICH INVOLVES MALAPPROPRIATION;10 WHILST FOR THE SUM SET ASIDE FOR THE PEACE-OFFERING, A PEACE-OFFERING IS TO BE PROVIDED, WHICH MAY BE EATEN FOR ONE DAY [ONLY] AND REQUIRES NO LOAVES.11 GEMARA. Who is the Tanna [of our Mishnah, who intimates] that the husband is not liable for the wife's [sacrifices]?12 — R. Hisda said: It is the Rabbis, for if you suppose it is R. Judah [then since he is liable,] why should [the animals] be sent to pasture with the herd?13 For it has been taught: R. Judah says: A man [who can afford to do so] must offer the rich man's sacrifice14 on his wife's behalf, as well as all other sacrifices for which she may be liable. For thus does he write to her [in the marriage settlement, viz.: I shall pay] every claim you may have against me from before up to now.15 Raba said: It may even be R. Judah. [The reply to R. Hisda's objection being that the husband] is liable only for something which she needs, but not for something which she does not need.16 Another version [of the above discussion is as follows]. Who is the Tanna [of our Mishnah]? — R. Hisda said: It is R. Judah,17 [the husband, however,] being liable only for something that she needs, but not for something that she does not need.18 For if it were the Rabbis [do they not say that] he is not liable for her [sacrifices] at all?19 The only possible interpretation of the liability [implicit in the Mishnah]20 would be that he transferred [the animals] to her, but on transference it becomes her own property.21 To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Obed, Jesse, David and Solomon through Ruth; while Rehoboam was a son of Naamah, the Ammonitess. I.e., it ceases to be sacred and may be returned to the fold. Until midnight, the period allowed for a nazirite offering (v. Zeb. V, 6); whereas an ordinary peace-offering could be eaten for two days and a night. (V. Ibid. V, 7). Whereas a nazirite offering does require them. V. Num. VI, 15. I.e., if the sums to be spent on the separate sacrifices were still unspecified. Burnt-offerings, whose hides became the perquisite of the priests. I.e., divided into portions for the separate sacrifices. 'Taken to the Dead Sea' is the usual Talmudic mode of saying, 'not applied to any useful purpose.' I.e., there is no penalty. For the rules regarding the unauthorised use of sacred property. v. Lev. V, 15. Heb. me'ilah, the diversion of sacred or priestly things to secular or lay uses. E.V. uses 'trespass', but 'mal-appropriate' expresses better the sense of the Hebrew word (cf. N.E.D.). Thus earmarked money is treated in the manner prescribed for sacrifices. By declaring that if she sets aside his animals without his consent, they do not remain sacred at all. They ought to remain sacred, because she had the right to take them. Where the kind of sacrifice to be offered depends upon a man's means. e.g., Lev. V, 7. This clause is taken as referring to sacrifices for which she may have become liable after the betrothal. This shows that in R. Judah's opinion the husband is liable. Other versions read instead of the last sentence: For thus does she write (in the receipt for her marriage-settlement when she claims it after divorce): And every claim that I may have had against you before now (is hereby discharged). And his annulment of her vow shows that there was no need for her sacrifice, which thereby loses its sanctity. Who says that a man must offer a rich man's sacrifice for his wife. And therefore when the husband declares the vow void, the animals lose their sanctity. What need therefore for the rule? She cannot make his animal sacred at all. Which in saying that the animals are sent to pasture only if the husband declares her vow void, implies that if he does not declare it void, they become sacred. And this ease is considered in the second clause of the Mishnah: 'BUT IF IT WAS ONE OF HERS. Thus this interpretation on the view of the Rabbis is impossible. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Nazir 24b Raba said: It may even be the Rabbis, for even when he transfers it to her [his intention is] to provide something which she needs, but he does not transfer it to provide something she does not need.1 IF IT WAS ONE OF HERS, THE SIN-OFFERING IS TO BE LEFT TO DIE, THE BURNT-OFFERING IS TO BE OFFERED: Where did she get it from, seeing that it has been affirmed that whatever a woman acquires becomes her husband's? — R. Papa replied: She saved it out of her housekeeping money.2 Another possibility is that it was given to her by a third person with the proviso that her husband should have no control over it. THE BURNT-OFFERING IS TO BE OFFERED AS AN [ORDINARY] BURNT-OFFERING, AND THE PEACE-OFFERING IS TO BE OFFERED [etc.]. Samuel said to Abbahu b. Ihi: 'You are not to sit down3 until you explain to me the following dictum: 'The four rams that do not require loaves [as an adjunct of the sacrifice] are the following: — his, hers, and those after death and after atonement!'4 — [He explained as follows:] 'Hers' is the one referred to [in our Mishnah]. 'His' is referred to in the following [Mishnah]: For we learnt: A man is able to impose a nazirite vow on his son, whereas a woman cannot impose a nazirite vow on her son. Consequently, if [the lad] polls himself [within the period of his naziriteship] or is polled by his relatives, or if he protests5 or his relatives protest on his behalf, then if a lump sum was set aside, it is to be used to provide free-will offerings, and if earmarked monies, the price of the sin-offering is to be taken to the Dead Sea, [the use of it is forbidden, but involves no malappropriation];6 for the price of the burnt-offering, a burnt-offering is to be provided and this can involve malappropriation, whilst for the price of the peace-offering, a peace-offering is to be provided which may be eaten for one day only and requires no loaves.7 Whence do we know [this of] 'the one after death'? — For we have learnt: Should a man set aside money for his nazirite offerings, the use of it is forbidden but involves no malappropriation since it may all be expended on the purchase of a peace-offering.8 If he should die, monies not earmarked are to be used for providing freewill-offerings, whilst with regard to earmarked monies, the price of the sin-offering is to be taken to the Dead Sea, the use of it is forbidden but involves no malappropriation; for the price of the burnt-offering, a burnt-offering is to be provided, and this does involve malappropriation; whilst for the price of the peace-offering, a peace-offering is to be provided, which may be eaten for one day [only] and requires no loaves.9 [That] 'the one after atonement' [requires no loaves] we learn by a process of reasoning. For the reason that the 'one after death' does not [require loaves] is because it is not eligible for the purposes of atonement,10 but then neither is the 'one after atonement' eligible for the purpose.11 But are there no more? What of the following [passage that Levi taught]:12 All other peace-offerings of a nazirite, not slaughtered in the prescribed manner13 are fit [for the altar], but they do not count as fulfilment of their owner's obligation;14 they may however be eaten for one day [only],15 and do not require loaves or [the gift of] the shoulder16 [to the priest]?17 — The enumeration [of Samuel] includes [animals offered] in the prescribed manner but omits those not [offered] in the prescribed manner. ['If he should die,] and have a lump sum of money it is to be used for providing free-will offerings'.18 - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files The transference is thus provisional, and this case is not the same as that of the second clause. Lit., 'scraped it off her dough.' [Lit., 'sit on your legs.' with reference to their custom of sitting on the ground with the legs crossed under them, v. Orah Mishor, a.l.] 'After atonement' means an animal that was lost and replaced and then found. The others are explained below. Even if be does not poll. Added with R. Akiba Eger (d. 1837) from the Mishnah text infra 28b. Infra 28b. For the various terms used see our Mishnah (24a) and notes. A peaceoffering could not be malappropriated until after the ritual sprinkling of its blood, v. Me'il, 6b. For the other offerings extra money could be provided. Me'il III, 2. For the owner is dead and no further atonement is necessary. Because the atonement has already been made, and so here too loaves are not required. So BaH, cf. Men. 48b. The prescribed peace-offering for a nazirite is a ram of the second year. And he must offer another beast. V. supra p. 85, n. 10. V. Num. VI, 19. V. Tosef. Naz. IV. Quoted from Mishnah Me'il, cited above. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |