Nedarim 35b — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

And he separates

the one who imposed the vow

his teruma and tithes of

the one forbidden by vow to derive benefit

with his knowledge [

and in the Gemara below [36b] it will be explained: with whose knowledge].

And he offers on his behalf,

that is, for the needs of the one forbidden by vow to derive benefit,

the nests of zavim, the nests of zavot, the nests of women who have given birth [

these offerings are called nests because they bring two turtledoves]

, sin-offerings and guilt-offerings.

And he teaches him Midrash, halakhot

and aggadot [

the words of the Sages that they associated with the verses], since mitzvot were not given for benefit.

But he may not teach him Scripture [

and in the Gemara the reason will be explained].

But he teaches Scripture to his sons and his daughters .

Gemara:

They raised a dilemma before them: These priests [

the priests], when they offer sacrifices on our behalf,

are they our agents [

are they considered our agents],

or agents of Heaven

are they?

What practical difference is there?

With regard

to the matter of

one forbidden by vow to derive benefit.

That is, if an Israelite is forbidden by vow to derive benefit from the priest.

If you say that they are our agents, he benefits from this

the priest benefits the Israelite by offering his sacrifices, for he performs his agency,

and

if so,

it is forbidden

for him to offer his sacrifices.

And if you say that they are agents of Heaven

they are—

it is permitted.

Although through the priest’s service he becomes permitted to eat sacrificial food, since it is merely the causing of benefit.

What is the ruling?

Come and hear

from our Mishna.

For we learned: He offers on his behalf the nests of zavim, etc.

And

if you say

that the priests

are our agents,

they are, then

he benefits him

the priest benefits the one forbidden by vow to derive benefit by offering his sacrifices, and why is he permitted to offer on his behalf?

Rather, it is necessarily so that they are agents of Heaven, and therefore it is permitted for the priest to offer on behalf of the one forbidden by vow to derive benefit.

And we reject this:

But according to your reasoning,

according to you, who wish to resolve from our Mishna that they are agents of Heaven, why did the tanna teach that he sacrifices specific offerings on his behalf, such as the bird offerings of those who experienced a discharge?

let him teach

merely:

“He offers sacrifices on his behalf,”

for if the priests are agents of the Merciful One, they are permitted to offer every sacrifice on his behalf!

Rather,

you must say that the tanna specifically mentioned these offerings because they are

lacking atonement,

that is, a zav and a zava, a woman who has given birth, and a leper [they are called “lacking atonement” because they are forbidden to enter the Temple and to eat sacrificial food until they bring their atonement]—

it is different [

the matter is different], and it is specifically on their behalf that it is permitted for the priest to offer.

For Rabbi Yohanan said: All [

all sacrifices]

require the knowledge

of the owners —

except for those lacking atonement.

And the proof of the matter is,

for a person brings a sacrifice on behalf of his minor sons and daughters,

even though this is not considered with their knowledge, since a minor has no understanding.

As it is stated: “This is the law of the zav,”

“law” is a generalization, and it comes to include,

whether

he is

an adult,

or

whether

he is

a minor.

If so, the same law applies that a person can bring a sacrifice on behalf of another person without his knowledge when the sacrifice is not for a sin, like the sacrifices in our Mishna; but a sacrifice for a sin requires the knowledge of the owners [Ran].

If so, on the contrary, from the fact that the tanna specifically taught these offerings, one can resolve that the kohanim are our agents. Therefore, he sacrifices on his behalf specifically offerings for those lacking atonement, and not other offerings.

And we raise an objection:

But from now, according to Rabbi Yohanan,

who expounded from what is written “This is the law of the zav,” that this means whether an adult or a minor, shall we expound likewise from what is written

“This is the law of the woman who gives birth, etc.,”

that the meaning is

whether a minor or whether an adult?

But it is impossible to say this! Is

a minor capable of giving birth?!

And Rav Bibi taught before Rav Naḥman: Three women engage in intercourse with a wad of absorbent material [

they are obligated to engage in intercourse while placing an absorbent wad in that place, so that they will not become pregnant, because pregnancy is dangerous for them]:

a minor, a pregnant woman, and a nursing woman.

And the reason that a

minor

engages in intercourse with an absorbent wad is—

lest she become pregnant and die!

And it is demonstrated that a minor cannot give birth, and if so, it is impossible to expound this from Scripture!

And we answer:

That

what was stated,

“This is the law of the woman who gives birth,”

the verse did not come to use “law” to include a minor, but to teach us that a person brings the sacrifice of his wife,

whether

she is

of sound mind,

or

whether

she is

insane. For

indeed, this is the law, that

a person brings a sacrifice on behalf of his insane wife, in accordance with the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

For it was taught in a beraita, Rabbi Yehuda says:

with regard to an ascending-and-descending sacrifice, that is, a sacrifice whose law differs between a wealthy person and a poor person, in that a wealthy person brings an expensive sacrifice, while one whose means are insufficient brings a less expensive sacrifice, the law is that although a married woman is never considered wealthy, since whatever a woman acquires her husband acquires, nevertheless,

a person

who is wealthy

brings a wealthy person’s sacrifice on behalf of his wife .

And

he brings

all the sacrifices for which she is liable. [

But he is not obligated to bring on her behalf vows and freewill offerings for which she made herself liable ].

Because

this is what he writes for her

in her marriage contract:

“And the responsibility that you have against me from before.”