Nazir 24b — the Talmud in English

Rava said: Even if you say

our Mishna

is that of the Rabbis,

and the animal-sacrifice consecration is because he transferred ownership of it to her, in any event:

When he transfers ownership of it to her also

with regard to something that she needs,

but

with regard to 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 it was her animal, the sin-offering shall die, and the burnt-offering shall be sacrificed

etc.:

The Gemara challenges what we learned: “If it was hers,” the animal: But

from where does she have it [ [A0017]from where does she have] an animal

meaning, from where does she have an animal]?

you have said [ [A0019]and surely the Sages said]:

for the Sages said]:

Whatever a woman acquires, her husband acquires!?

Rav Pappa said:

For example,

she saved from her dough,

meaning that the husband gave her money for her sustenance, and she saved from her food and did not eat to satiety, and with the money that remained for her she purchased an animal for her offerings.

If you wish, say:

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

that another transferred ownership of it to her [ [A0029]another transferred ownership of an animal to her],

another person gave her an animal],

and he 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.

We learned in the Mishna: And if it was her animal, etc.

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 bread:

Shmuel said to Avuha bar Ihi:

You may not sit on your feet until you tell me

the explanation of

this matter [ [A0043]do not sit, but stand on your feet, until you explain this teaching to me]:

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 bread:

A ram

his, and

a ram

hers, and

a ram

of one after death

of the nazirite,

and

a ram

of one after atonement

of the nazirite.

And Shmuel added to explain the teaching, and ultimately presented his difficulty to Avuha bar Ihi:

A. A ram “

hers”

that does not require bread:

That is

that which we said

in our Mishna, that if she designated her animal “from hers” for her nazirite offerings, and her husband annulled her vow, she does not bring bread with the peace-offering that she designated; and likewise, if she designated explicitly specified money, the peace-offering that she purchases with the money does not require bread.

B. A ram “

his”

that does not require bread:

That is

that which we learned

below, on page 28b:

The father imposes nazirite status on his son

who is a minor

as a nazirite,

but the woman does not impose nazirite status on her son—

And the protest of the son or of the relatives is effective to nullify the nazirite status; and if

the son shaved

himself

or relatives shaved him

and thereby protested against imposing nazirite status on the son, or

the son protested

himself

or relatives caused him to protest, in all these cases the nazirite status is nullified; what shall they do with the money designated for his offerings:

Если у него были

If he had

the son

sealed money, it shall go to voluntary offerings.

If he had

explicitly designated money: the money for the sin-offering shall go to the Dead Sea, the money for the burnt-offering shall be used to bring a burnt-offering, and one who misuses them is liable,

and those peace-offerings

are eaten for one day and do not require bread,

because the law of his offerings is like the law of the offerings of a woman whose husband annulled her vow and whose nazirite status was nullified.

And this is the ram “his” that does not require bread.

C. A ram “

of one after death”

of the nazirite, which he designated while alive, that does not require bread [

from where do we know it]?

That is

that which was taught in a beraita: One who designates money for his nazirite status

who said, “This money is for my nazirite status,”

one may not benefit

from it by rabbinic law,

and

however

one who misuses it is not liable

by Torah law,

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

and one is not liable for misuse of peace-offerings until their blood is sprinkled.

And if

the nazirite died

and

he had sealed money,

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

it shall fall

all of it

to voluntary offerings,

as money “his” and “hers” falls to voluntary offerings.

And if he died and had

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

as is the law concerning sin-offering money whose owners died,

one may not benefit

from it by rabbinic law

and

however

one who misuses it is not liable

by Torah law—

The money for the burnt-offering shall be used

with it

to bring a burnt-offering, and one who misuses it is liable—

The money for the peace-offering shall be used

with it

to bring peace-offerings, and they shall be eaten

those peace-offerings

for one day, and do not require bread,

because with regard to the waving the Torah said, “And the priest shall take, etc., and one unleavened cake, etc., and place it upon the palms of the nazirite,” and here there is no nazirite.

D. A ram “

of one after atonement,”

meaning that the nazirite designated a ram for his peace-offerings, and it was lost, and he attained atonement with another, and afterward they found the first one, is not [mentioned in] a Mishna or a beraita, but

it is a logical inference!

For: “

Of one after death”

what is the reason

that it does not require bread? Because

it is not fit for the nazirite’s atonement

and “upon the palms of the nazirite” is not fulfilled; “

of one after atonement”

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

and here there are no “palms of a nazirite.”

And after Shmuel explained the teaching, he challenged Avuha bar Ihi:

And is there no more [ [A0170]Is there no other nazirite ram that does not require bread]!?

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

But there is

that

which Levi taught

in a beraita: “

And all the other nazirite peace-offerings that one slaughtered not in accordance with their prescribed manner” [ [A0176]not for their sake],

they are

valid, but they do not discharge the owners’ obligation, and they are eaten for one day, and they require neither bread nor foreleg.

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

And we answer: Those were made

in accordance with their prescribed manner he counts,

meaning, he counted only those mentioned by the author of the teaching; but those made

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

We learned in a beraita: One who designates money for his nazirite status, etc.

He died, and he had sealed money; it shall fall to voluntary offerings: