Nazir 24b (כד:) — the Talmud in English

Rava said: You can even say that

our Mishna

is the opinion of the Rabbis, and the consecration of the animal is because he transferred ownership of it to her; nevertheless:

Even when he transfers ownership of it to her

for something that she needs,

but

for something that she does not need, he does not transfer ownership of it to her,

and consequently the consecration is retroactively nullified.

We learned in the Mishna:

If the animal was hers, the sin-offering shall die, and the burnt-offering shall be sacrificed

etc.:

The Gemara raises an objection concerning what we learned: “If it was hers,” meaning that the animal was hers. But

from where did she get it [

meaning, from where does she have an animal]?

You have said [

for the Sages said]:

“Whatever a woman acquires, her husband acquires”!

Rav Pappa said:

For example,

she saved from her dough,

meaning that her husband gave her money for her sustenance, and she economized on her food and did not eat until she was satiated; with the money that remained, she purchased an animal for her offerings.

If you wish, say instead:

It is possible for her to have an animal without the husband acquiring it, for example:

if another person transferred ownership of it to her [

another person gave her an animal],

and said to her,

the donor said to the woman: It is yours

on the condition that your husband has no authority over it,

for in this manner the husband does not acquire what is hers.

The burnt-offering shall be sacrificed as a burnt-offering, and the peace-offering shall be sacrificed

as a peace-offering, and they are eaten for one day and do not require loaves:

Shmuel said to Avuh bar Ihi:

Do not sit on your knees until you tell me

the explanation of

this matter [

Do not sit; rather, stand on your feet until you explain this teaching to me]:

These are the four rams

of the nazirite’s peace-offerings

that do not require loaves:

A ram

of his own, and

a ram

of hers, and

a ram

of one after the death

of the nazirite,

and

a ram

of one after atonement

of the nazirite.

Shmuel added an explanation of the teaching, and ultimately posed his question to Avuh bar Ihi:

a. A ram

“of hers”

that does not require loaves:

This refers to

that which we said

in our Mishna: If she set aside an animal “from hers” for her nazirite offerings, and her husband dissolved her vow, she does not bring loaves with the peace-offering that she set aside; and likewise, if she set aside designated money, the peace-offering that she purchases with the money does not require loaves.

b. A ram

“of his own”

that does not require loaves:

This refers to that

which we learned

below, on 28b:

A father can make his son

a minor

a nazirite,

but a woman cannot make her son a nazirite—

The son’s or the relatives’ protest is effective to nullify the naziriteship; and if

the son shaved

himself

or the relatives shaved him,

thereby protesting against the son’s naziriteship, or if

the son protested

or

the relatives protested against him, in all these cases the naziriteship is nullified. What should they do with the money set aside for his offerings?

If he had

the son

undesignated money, it is allocated for communal offerings.

If he had

designated money: the money for the sin-offering shall be taken to the Dead Sea; the money for the burnt-offering shall be used to bring a burnt-offering, and one is liable for misuse of it; the money for the peace-offering shall be used to bring a peace-offering, and

those peace-offerings

are eaten for one day and do not require loaves,

because the status of his offerings is like that of the offerings of a woman whose husband dissolved her vow and thereby nullified her naziriteship.

And this is the ram “of his own” that does not require loaves.

c. A ram

“of one after the death”

of the nazirite, which he set aside during his lifetime and which does not require loaves

from where do we know this?

This refers to that

which was taught in a beraita: One who sets aside money for his naziriteship,

saying, “This money is for my naziriteship,”

one may not derive benefit from it

by rabbinic law,

but

nevertheless

one is not liable for misuse of it

by Torah law,

because all of it is suitable to be used to bring peace-offerings,

and there is no liability for misuse of peace-offerings until their blood has been sprinkled.

And if

the nazirite dies

and

he had undesignated money,

meaning that he said: This money is “for my offerings” of naziriteship,

it is allocated

all of it

for communal offerings,

as is the money allocated for communal offerings in the case of “his own” and “hers.”

And if he dies and he has

designated money: the money for the sin-offering shall be taken to the Dead Sea,

in accordance with the law governing money for a sin-offering whose owner has died;

one may not derive benefit

from it by rabbinic law,

but

nevertheless

one is not liable for misuse

of it by Torah law—

The money for the burnt-offering shall be used

with it

to bring a burnt-offering, and one is liable for misuse of it—

The money for the peace-offering shall be used

with it

to bring a peace-offering, and they are eaten

those peace-offerings

for one day, and do not require loaves,

because with regard to the waving, the Torah said: “And the priest shall take, etc., and one unleavened loaf, etc., and place them on the palms of the nazirite”; but here there is no nazirite.

d. A ram

“of one after atonement,”

that is, the nazirite set aside a ram for his peace-offering, it was lost, and he achieved atonement with another one, and then the first was found. This is not a statement of a Mishna or a beraita; rather,

it is a logical inference!

For: “

Of one after the death,”

what is the reason

that it does not require loaves? Because

it is not fit for the nazirite’s atonement

and “on the palms of the nazirite” is not fulfilled. “

Of one after atonement,”

also, is it not fit for the nazirite’s atonement

and here too there is no “palm of a nazirite.”

After Shmuel explained the teaching, he posed the following question to Avuh bar Ihi:

And is there no other one [

Is there no other nazirite ram that does not require loaves]!?

But there is

that which

Levi taught

in a beraita: “

And all other nazirite peace-offerings that one slaughtered not in accordance with their prescribed manner

[ meaning, not for their own sake], are

valid, but they do not fulfill the owners’ obligation, and they are eaten for one day and require neither loaves nor a foreleg.”

If so, we have found another nazirite ram that does not require loaves!?

And we answer: Those were performed

in accordance with their prescribed manner—that is what he counted [

he counted only those mentioned by the author of the teaching]; but those performed

not in accordance with their prescribed manner, he did not count.

We learned in a beraita: One who sets aside money for his naziriteship, etc.

If he dies and has undesignated money, it is allocated for communal offerings: