Nazir 28a — the Talmud in English

Therefore

Text missing (Chavruta)

when they are unspecified, but not when they are specified.

The verse says: “

his offering”

also with regard to a female sheep, in order to teach:

by his offering he fulfills his obligation, but he does not fulfill it by his father’s offering

and even by his father’s money.

One might have thought that he does not fulfill his obligation

even with

money

that

his father

set aside,

and even from the lesser to the lesser

or

from the more severe to the more severe—

But a person does fulfill his obligation even

“with an

offering”

that he set aside

for himself

for a different transgression, and even

from the lesser to the more severe

or

from the more severe to the lesser—

The verse says: “

And he shall bring

his offering

an unblemished female goat]

for his sin,”

until his offering is for the sake of his sin

and not one that he set aside for another sin.

a. The continuation of the beraita is explained according to the Gemara in Keritot and Rashi there.

b. One who misuses consecrated property causes the consecrated property to leave its consecrated status through his misuse, and it is then his, to do with as he wishes.

c. All this applies only to monetary sanctity—for example, when he set aside money for the value of an offering—and unintentionally; but not to bodily sanctity, or when he did so intentionally.

d. One who takes money that was set aside for a particular offering and unintentionally uses it for another offering, for which by law he may not use it, has misused consecrated money, since the money was not designated for this purpose. Since he misused it and the money thereby left its consecrated status, the offering is valid, for this is like one who took unconsecrated money and purchased an offering with it.

One might have thought that the Torah said that

a person

does not fulfill his obligation with what was set aside for another sin of his—

but specifically

“

with an animal”

that is, with the offering itself]

that he set aside for himself

for another sin, and with this he does not fulfill his obligation

even from the lesser to the lesser or from the more severe to the more severe,

or

from the lesser to the more severe or from the more severe to the lesser—

For

if he does not attain atonement for eating blood with an offering that he set aside for eating forbidden fat, he does not fulfill his obligation even unintentionally—

for

if he set aside an animal

for an offering

for forbidden fat, and

he went and “unintentionally”

brought

it

for blood, or

he set aside an animal

for blood and brought

it unintentionally

for forbidden fat, for

as: behold]

he did not misuse it,

because there is no misuse with bodily sanctity, and it does not leave its consecrated status through his changing its designation,

and

since it did not leave its consecrated status,

he did not attain atonement

unintentionally—

And since he did not attain atonement even unintentionally, therefore if he did so intentionally, he does not attain atonement with it.

But

we may still say:

a person does fulfill his obligation

with

money

that he set aside

for himself

for another sin

from the lesser to the lesser and from the more severe to the more severe,

or even

from the more severe to the lesser and from the lesser to the more severe—

For

even if you say that intentionally he does not fulfill his obligation with it, nevertheless:

if he set aside money for himself—

which has monetary sanctity—

for forbidden fat, and brought

it unintentionally

for blood, or he set aside money

for blood

and brought

it unintentionally

for forbidden fat, for

as: behold]

he misused it

and the money left its consecrated status,

and

certainly

he attained atonement—

And since there is no doubt that unintentionally he attained atonement, perhaps we should say: even intentionally he attained atonement, for a person may change money from one offering to another.

Therefore the verse says: “And if he brings a female sheep as his sin-offering, etc.,” and it says at the end of the passage, “and the koen shall atone for him

for his sin,”

to teach:

until his offering is for the sake of his sin,

and he does not fulfill his obligation even with money that he set aside for another offering of his.

только если его жертва предназначена для его вины,

After the Gemara finished bringing the entire beraita, the Gemara returned to explain the proof from this beraita that an animal, even one with a blemish, does not have the status of “unspecified money,” both with regard to the son not shaving on account of it and with regard to its money not falling to a donation:

In any event, it teaches an animal, for we learned in the beraita: “One might have thought that he does not fulfill his obligation with an animal that [his father] set aside, etc., for a person does not shave on his father’s ‘animal’ in naziriteship”—

and

is it not

the intention of the beraita to say that

even

an

animal

with a blemish

a person does not shave on account of it, because the law of “unspecified money” was stated with regard to the son’s shaving only for “money” and not for an animal; and likewise we shall say with regard to the halakha that “unspecified money” falls to a donation, that the Torah said this only with regard to money and not with regard to an animal!?

If so, this is difficult for Rav Naḥman, who holds that an animal with a blemish does have the status of “unspecified money”!

And we answer:

No,

the beraita was not speaking of an animal with a blemish, but of

an unblemished one,

and only on account of that one does the son not shave, but on an animal with a blemish he does shave, and its value also falls to a donation.

And we raise an objection:

But as for an animal with a blemish, what

do you say about it? That it

is considered like unspecified [money]!?

But if so, the latter clause is difficult:

Why specifically does it teach:

but a person fulfills his obligation with “

money”

that his father set aside, etc., for a person does shave on his father’s money in naziriteship!?

It should teach:

but a person fulfills his obligation with “an animal

with a blemish that his father set aside,” for according to your words, a person also shaves on account of an animal with a blemish in naziriteship!?

And we answer:

This too is so, for

an animal with a blemish

what is it fit for?

It is fit

for its value,

and the value is money, as was explained above, on page b, concerning the previous beraita.

a. A husband may annul for his wife vows that are “affliction of the soul” for her, including that he may annul her naziriteship, because abstaining from wine is affliction of the soul for her; and likewise a husband may annul vows “between him and her,” including naziriteship on account of which she becomes repulsive to him.

b. In the beraita brought below, 46a, we learned: “The Sages taught: ‘And afterward the nazirite shall drink wine,’ after all the acts [that is, after the nazirite offers all three of his offerings upon the completion of the days of his naziriteship, shaves the purification shaving, and waves what requires waving from the peace-offerings together with the bread that requires waving], the words of Rabbi Eliezer; and the Sages say: ‘after one act’ [that is, once one of the bloods of the offerings has been sprinkled upon him, the nazirite is already permitted from all the prohibitions of a nazirite].”

c. Tosafot wrote below, 45b, that the tannaim also dispute this matter in the Mishna below, 45b: according to the first tanna, he is not permitted to drink wine and become impure through the dead until after all the acts, whereas according to Rabbi Shimon in that Mishna, “once one of the bloods has been sprinkled upon him, the nazirite is permitted to drink wine and become impure through the dead.”

Mishna:

Since

one of the bloods was sprinkled upon her

upon a woman who is a nazirite]

from the offerings of purification,

her husband

can no longer

annul

for her, for she has already been permitted to drink wine, and there is no longer here “affliction of the soul” that would enable the husband to annul.

отменить

ей назирейство, поскольку ей уже разрешено вино и теперь здесь нет «страдания», на основании которого муж мог бы отменить обет.

Rabbi Akiva says: even if one of all the animals was slaughtered for her

and its blood has still not been sprinkled, he

can no longer annul, because of the loss of sacred property, for he will no longer be able to sprinkle its blood and the sacred property will be rendered unfit; this will be explained further in the Gemara.

In what case are these words said? With regard to the purification shaving.

But with regard to the impurity shaving, he shall annul even though the bloods of all the impurity offerings have been sprinkled, because he can say, “I do not want a disheveled woman” who is suffering through abstention from wine]— That is, since she still needs to count a purification naziriteship, and during all this time she will be prohibited from wine, this is included in “affliction of the soul,” which the husband can annul for his wife.

даже если была окроплена кровь всех жертв, связанных с осквернением, поскольку

Rabbi Meir says: even with regard to the purification shaving—

when the bloods of the offerings have been sprinkled and she has not yet shaved—

he shall annul

for her, if the husband wishes.

And because

he can say: since she still needs to shave,

“

I do not want a woman who shaves,”

and if so, this is a vow “between him and her,” and he can annul it; the position of the first tanna will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara: We learned in the Mishna: “Once one of the bloods has been sprinkled upon her, he cannot annul.” The Gemara explains that

our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer

our Mishna does not follow the position of Rabbi Eliezer] below, in the beraita, 47a

! For if it is Rabbi Eliezer,

if our Mishna follows Rabbi Eliezer,

does he not say:

“Shaving prevents”

the nazirite’s being permitted to drink wine,

and

if so, even though one of the bloods has been sprinkled upon her,

since she has not shaved, she is prohibited from wine

until she shaves she has not been permitted to drink wine]—

and

if so,

since she has affliction

suffering],

that she is prohibited from drinking wine until she shaves,

he can annul

he can annul] on account of “affliction of the soul”;

and necessarily our Mishna does not follow the position of Rabbi Eliezer.

[страдание],

то есть она запрещена пить вино до бритья,

—

он может отменить

[может отменить обет] из-за «страдания»;

а значит,

необходимо заключить, что наша Мишна не соответствует мнению рабби Элиэзера.

[может отменить её обет] из-за «страдания»; а значит, необходимо заключить, что наша Мишна не соответствует мнению рабби Элиэзера.