Nazir 24a — the Talmud in English

She gained precedence by four generations in Israel.

That is: the elder woman’s descendants became part of Israel four generations before those of her sister. For from Ruth the “Moabite” was born Oved; he fathered Jesse; Jesse fathered David; David fathered Solomon; and Solomon married Naama the “Ammonite.” Thus she preceded her by four generations: Oved, Jesse, David, and Solomon.

Mishna:

Earlier, on page 21b, the Gemara left unresolved whether a husband’s annulment uproots the vow entirely or cuts away only its remaining effect. The Gemara concluded that a husband cuts away only its remaining effect; therefore, our Mishna will be explained according to this view.

A woman who took a vow to become a nazir and set aside her animals

namely, three animals: a female sheep for a sin-offering, a male sheep for a burnt-offering, and a ram for a peace-offering—for the offerings of a nazir who completed the period in ritual purity,

and afterward her husband annulled her vow—

what is to be done with the offerings that she set aside?

If the animal was his

that she had set aside,

it is released—

all the animals—

and grazes with the herd.

That is: it has no sanctity at all. Her husband transferred an animal to her for an offering only if she would need it. But once her vow was annulled and she no longer needs an offering, it is assumed that he did not transfer the offering to her with this possibility in mind. Therefore, the animal has no sanctity at all. The Gemara will explain this further.

But if the animal was hers:

The sin-offering must die,

because she is no longer a nazir, since her husband annulled her vow, and she is therefore like one whose owners “died.” A sin-offering whose owners died must be left to die; this is a law transmitted to Moses at Sinai.

And

if the animal that she set aside for a

burnt-offering—

it is brought as a

burnt-offering,

and the

animal that she set aside for a

peace-offering is brought as a peace-offering.

And

the peace-offering

may not be eaten

except

for one day

alone, in accordance with the stringency applying to the peace-offering of a nazir, and not like other peace-offerings, which are eaten for two days and one night.

And they—

the peace-offerings—

do not require bread,

because the Torah states, concerning the waving of the bread, that it is “on the palms of the nazir,” and there is no nazir here, since her husband annulled her vow.

And if she had

money

that she set aside for the offerings of a nazir who completed the period in purity, and the money was

unassigned—

that is, she did not specify which money was for the sin-offering and which was for the burnt-offering and peace-offering, but simply said, “This money shall be for my nazir offerings”—

all of it falls

the entire sum

to voluntary offerings

for the “summer of the altar,” for this is a novel law. In the Gemara, the amoraim dispute whether it is a law transmitted to Moses at Sinai or whether this rule is derived through interpretation of the biblical verses.

And if she had

assigned money

that she set aside as three groups of money, specifying that this money was for the sin-offering, that money for the burnt-offering, and that money for the peace-offering:

The money for the

sin-offering must be cast into the Dead Sea,

to be destroyed, because if the animal itself were before us, it would have to be left to die, by a law transmitted to Moses at Sinai.

One may not derive benefit

from this money by rabbinic law,

but there is no misuse of consecrated property

that is, one is not liable to bring an offering for misuse, because since this money is not destined to be sacrificed, it is not included in “property of the Most High,” for which one is liable to bring an offering for misuse.

The money for the burnt-offering shall be used

with it to bring a

burnt-offering,

and there is misuse of consecrated property with it.

The money for the peace-offering shall be used

with it to bring a

peace-offering.

And they are eaten,

the peace-offerings brought with this money,

for one day,

in accordance with the stringency applying to the peace-offering of a nazir, since they were set aside for the peace-offering of a nazir,

and they do not require bread,

as was explained above in the Mishna concerning an animal peace-offering that she set aside.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: If the animal was his, it is released and grazes with the herd; but if the animal was hers, the sin-offering must die, the burnt-offering is brought as a burnt-offering, and the peace-offering is brought as a peace-offering:

The reason for the law—as the Gemara currently understands it—is that the husband gave her an animal from his own property only if she would need it. Since in the end the woman did not need an offering, he did not give it to her with that possibility in mind. Therefore, the Gemara asks: It must be that a husband is not obligated to provide offerings for his wife. For if he were obligated to do so, there would be no basis for distinguishing between an animal that was his and an animal that was hers. Since he is obligated to her by virtue of the conditions of the marriage contract, he should be obligated even if in the end she does not need an offering —

If so,

which tanna

is the tanna who holds this view and taught our Mishna,

that a husband is not obligated to her

by virtue of the conditions of the marriage contract to bring her offerings for her?

Rav Hisda said: It is the Rabbis—

those who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda in the beraita cited below—

that is so!

For if you should think

that our Mishna is

that of Rabbi Yehuda, why

did we learn: If the animal was his,

it is released and grazes with the herd,

and

the husband is obligated

to her

?!

For it was taught in a beraita:

A woman who gives birth is obligated to bring an offering. There is a distinction between a wealthy woman and a poor woman: a wealthy woman brings a sheep for a burnt-offering and a pigeon or dove for a sin-offering, whereas a poor woman brings only two doves or two pigeons, one for a burnt-offering and one for a sin-offering. We find further offerings in which there is a distinction between a wealthy person and a poor person, such as the offering brought by a person with a skin disease for his purification, and a sin-offering brought for defiling the Sanctuary or consecrated property, and for an oath of utterance, and for an oath concerning testimony.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

A person—

a husband who was wealthy—

brings a wealthy person’s offering for his wife

who is obligated to bring an offering for which there is a distinction between wealthy and poor. He may not say: “Since she owns nothing, let her bring a poor person’s offering.”

And likewise

he brings

all the offerings for which she is obligated—

For

this is what

she writes

to her husband when he divorces her: “

All responsibility”—

that is, responsibility for the offerings—

that I have against you from before”

[that is, all responsibility that I have against you from earlier, namely, from the time of the marriage]. That is: When the woman is divorced and receives her marriage settlement, she writes to her husband: “I have received my marriage settlement, and I have waived all responsibility that I had against you from before [even though I have not yet brought the offerings].” Thus, the husband is responsible for her offerings; otherwise, she would not need to waive this responsibility.

Rava said: Even you may say

that our

Mishna is Rabbi Yehuda, and nevertheless, if the animal was his, it shall go out and graze among the herd.

, and nevertheless, if the animal was his, she should release it and let it graze with the herd.

And because

he obligates her

the husband to his wife only

in a matter that she needs [

in a matter in which she will ultimately be in need], but

in a matter that she does not need

ultimately—

not

does he obligate her, and if so, the consecration is automatically nullified.

There are those who say

that Rav Hisda and Rava disagreed in another manner: according to Rav Hisda, on the contrary, our Mishna is better understood according to Rabbi Yehuda, whereas according to Rava, our Mishna can even be according to the Rabbanan—

Who is the tanna

of our Mishna?

Rav Hisda said:

specifically

it is Rabbi Yehuda, and

the reason that the animal is not sacred, even though he was obligated to her to bring her offerings, is because

when he obligates her in a matter that she needs,

but

in a matter that she does not need, he does not.

And since he is not obligated to her for such a matter, the offering is automatically not sacred if in the end the woman did not need the offering.

For if

you say that our Mishna is

the Rabbanan,

it is difficult:

he does not obligate her at all

to bring her offerings for her,

but in what manner does he obligate her!?

That is to say: how is it possible that the animal should be his, although he is not obligated to her!? It must necessarily be:

such as he transferred ownership to her

that he gave her the animal as a gift so that she would designate it for her offering—

And

if so,

since he transferred ownership to her

it became hers

because he gave her the animal, it is like an animal of hers, and by law the animal should have been brought even though he annulled it for her, as the law of an animal of hers.