Nazir 28b (כח:) — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara explains the reason for the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Akiva in our Mishna as to whether he may annul the naziriteship after slaughter and before the sprinkling:

The tanna of our Mishna holds:

he may annul it as long as she is forbidden to drink wine. Therefore:

Only once one of the bloods has been sprinkled upon her may he no longer annul it, because

once blood has been sprinkled upon her, she immediately becomes permitted to drink wine [

since one of the bloods has been sprinkled upon her, she immediately becomes permitted to drink wine]

and she no longer suffers degradation [

and her affliction has then ended]. Therefore, the law depends on the sprinkling of the blood, and not on the slaughter.

And Rabbi Akiva holds:

Even

only

if it has been slaughtered [

it was slaughtered] the

animal,

nevertheless

he may no longer annul it, because of the loss of sacred offerings,

for if he were to annul her naziriteship before the blood was sprinkled, he would then be unable to sprinkle the blood, as the Gemara proceeds to explain; the offerings would consequently have to be taken to the place of burning, since without the sprinkling of the blood the meat is not permitted to be eaten. Rabbi Zeira understood that the reason he could not sprinkle the blood after the annulment was that, after the annulment, he could not sprinkle the blood for the sake of the nazirite peace-offerings, since they were no longer nazirite peace-offerings but voluntary peace-offerings; and it is forbidden to sprinkle blood for the sake of an offering for which the animals had not been designated before slaughter. And therefore:

Rabbi Zeira had understood that the reason he could not sprinkle the blood after the annulment was that after the annulment he could not sprinkle it for the purpose of the nazirite's peace offerings. For they were no longer the nazirite's peace offerings, but voluntary peace offerings, and it is forbidden to sprinkle blood for an offering for which the animals had not been designated before slaughter. And therefore:

Rabbi Zeira raised an objection to this: But why? That is to say: What difference does it make that the offerings had not been designated as voluntary peace-offerings before slaughter? Is it because of this forbidden to sprinkle the blood!?

That is, what difference does it make that the offerings had not been designated as voluntary peace offerings before slaughter? Is it forbidden to sprinkle the blood for that reason!?

Let him sprinkle their blood,

of the slaughtered animal,

not for their designated purpose [

not for the sake of nazirite peace-offerings],

and thereby permit the meat to be eaten,

and the sacred offerings will not be lost!?

Was it not taught [

did we not learn in a beraita that he may sprinkle the blood]:

The Shavuot lambs,

which come with the two loaves,

which one slaughtered

not for their designated purpose,

that is, for the sake of voluntary peace-offerings, and consequently they do not fulfill the obligation of the “Shavuot lambs,” just as offerings slaughtered not for their designated purpose do not count for their owners as fulfillment of their obligation.

Or if one slaughtered them before their time,

on the eve of Shavuot,

or after their time,

on the evening after Shavuot, thereby removing from them the status of “Shavuot lambs,”

the blood may be sprinkled and the meat may be eaten.

And when one slaughtered them on a Festival not for their designated purpose, he must sprinkle the blood on the Festival [so that it will not become disqualified through remaining overnight], and he need not be concerned about the prohibition of “making a repair,”

but if it was Shabbat, he may not sprinkle it,

because this is like repairing the meat, which is rabbinically prohibited,

but if he did sprinkle it

on Shabbat,

it renders the offering acceptable for burning the sacrificial fats that evening.

It is therefore proven that it is permissible to sprinkle the blood for the sake of voluntary peace-offerings, since he must necessarily sprinkle it for the sake of a voluntary offering, as that is what they now stand for, even though the lambs had not been designated for this before slaughter.

The members of the academy said

to answer:

If he slaughtered the burnt-offering or the peace-offering, it is indeed so,

indeed, if before annulling her naziriteship only the burnt-offering or the peace-offering had been slaughtered, he could annul it, since there would be no loss of sacred offerings, as he could sprinkle the blood.

But with what are we dealing here,

in our Mishna:

For example, where he slaughtered the sin-offering first [

he slaughtered the sin-offering first], since there is no remedy for the sin-offering through sprinkling its blood not for its designated purpose, for a sin-offering is disqualified when offered for the sake of voluntary peace-offerings, since a sin-offering cannot be brought as a voluntary offering.

And if you say: If so, since he slaughtered the sin-offering first, how did the first tanna say that he may not annul her naziriteship because the woman has already become permitted to drink wine? We have heard only that a nazirite becomes permitted to drink wine after a single act performed with the peace-offering, namely, after the sprinkling of its blood, because it is stated: “And the nazirite shall shave at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,” and the Gemara below, on page 45a, explains that this refers to the peace-offering—

This is not so, for

as we learned

in the Mishna below, on page 45a: “

If he shaved after [the offering of] one of the three” —

after any one of the three offerings —

he has fulfilled his obligation.”

We learned in the Mishna:

In what context is this statement said? With regard to the shaving of purity. But with regard to the shaving of impurity, he may annul her naziriteship. And Rabbi Meir says: Even with regard to the shaving of purity, he may annul her naziriteship, because he can say: I do not want a wife who shaves.

The Gemara explains the reason of the first tanna, who does not hold that he may annul her naziriteship because of the shaving:

And the first tanna could say to you:

Even though she shaves, what concern is that of her husband? For

it is possible

for her

to wear a wig,

and she will not become unattractive in his eyes.

And Rabbi Meir holds: With a wig—

since

it contains

dirt

and is not part of her body, she becomes unattractive to her husband, and

he is not pleased

with this.

Mishna:

A man can impose naziriteship upon his son,

who is a minor,

by making him a nazirite,

for if the father says concerning his son, “My son shall be a nazirite,” he becomes a nazirite, even if the son does not know that his father made him a nazirite.

But a woman cannot impose naziriteship upon her son.

All this applies when the son or his relatives did not protest. But if

the son shaved

the son,

or his relatives shaved him

for there can be no greater protest than this, and likewise if

the son protested

the son,

or his relatives protested,

the naziriteship is annulled.

If he had an animal that had been designated

for the offerings of naziriteship in purity, and afterward the naziriteship was annulled through a protest, the law governing the offerings he designated is the same as the law governing the offerings of a woman who was a nazirite, whose husband annulled her naziriteship after she had designated her offerings.

An

An animal that was designated for a

sin-offering must die,

in accordance with the law of “a sin-offering whose owners died,” which is sent to its death by a halakha transmitted to Moses at Sinai.

And

if

the

animal designated for a

burnt offering is brought as a burnt offering, and the peace offerings are brought as peace offerings—

And they are eaten

the peace offerings

for one day

only, in accordance with the stringency governing a nazirite’s peace offerings, and not like other peace offerings, which are eaten for two days and one night.

And they do not require loaves

like other nazirite peace offerings, for with regard to the waving of the loaves it is stated: “upon the palms of the nazirite,” and here there is no nazirite.

If he had money

that he had set aside and consecrated for his nazirite offerings, but it was

unspecified

[as he had not specified which money would go toward the sin offering, which toward the burnt offering, and which toward the peace offerings, but had merely said: “This money shall be for my nazirite offerings,”]

all of it falls

entirely

to voluntary offerings

for the purchase of offerings for the altar.

And if he had

specified money

[having specified which of the money would be for the sin offering, which for the burnt offering, and which for the peace offerings]:

the value of the sin offering shall be cast into the Dead Sea

to be lost, since, had the animal been before us, it would have been sent to death—

one may not derive benefit

from it by rabbinic decree,

but one is not liable for misuse

[one does not bring a misuse offering for it], since it is not designated to be sacrificed and is not “sacred property of Hashem.”

The value of the burnt offering shall be used to bring

with it a

burnt offering, and one is liable for misuse of it.

The value of the peace offerings shall be used to bring

with it

peace offerings, and

those peace offerings

are eaten for one day

only,

and they do not require loaves

as is the law with regard to a peace-offering animal that was designated.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: A man may impose naziriteship on his son, but a woman may not impose naziriteship on her son:

A man may

indeed impose naziriteship on his son,

but a woman may not

impose naziriteship on her son, as we learned in the Mishna.

What is the reason

that is, what is the fundamental reason that a father may impose naziriteship on his son, from which it will also become clear why a mother may not impose naziriteship on her son?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is a halakha

transmitted to Moses from Sinai

with regard to naziriteship

that a father may impose naziriteship on his son. And this is how the halakha was transmitted: A father may impose naziriteship on his son, but a mother may not impose naziriteship on her son.

And Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Ḥanina:

Thus the recension of the Tosafot is corroborated according to the method of Rabbenu Tam in Tosafot 29a.