Talmud Nazir (E)

(14) 
vnak
 ‘for its own sake’.
(15) An example of this occurs below.
(16) Jud. V, 24.
(17) The word ‘tent’ occurs in connection with each of these (Tosaf.). Rashi omits Rebecca and says that the reference is
to the fact that each of the other three gage their handmaidens to their husbands with ulterior motive.
(18) The words ‘he sunk’, ‘he fell’, occur three times each, and the words ‘he lay’ once. Jud. V. 27.
(19) Var. lec., R. Johanan said R. Simon b. Yohai said (Hor. 10b).
(20) Gen. XXXI, 29.
(21) On the occasion of Balaam's attempt to curse Israel. V. Num. XXIII-XXIV.
(22) Lit., ‘the granddaughter of’, cf. Tosaf.
(23) Inserted from Hor. 10b.
(24) Lit., ‘of my father’.
(25) Inserted from Hor. 10b.
(26) Deut. II, 9.
(27) Lit., ‘son of my people’. A less shameless appellation.
(28) Deut. II, 19.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 24a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 24a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 24a
was privileged to appear in the genealogical record of the royal house of Israel, four generations
1
earlier.
 
    MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN MAKES A NAZIRITE VOW AND SETS ASIDE THE REQUISITE
ANIMAL [FOR THE SACRIFICE] AND HER HUSBAND SUBSEQUENTLY DECLARES [THE
VOW] VOID, THEN, IF THE ANIMAL WAS ONE OF HIS OWN, IT CAN BE PUT TO
PASTURE WITH THE HERD,
2
 BUT IF IT WAS ONE OF HERS, THE SIN-OFFERING IS TO BE
LEFT TO DIE, THE BURNTOFFERING IS TO BE OFFERED AS AN [ORDINARY]
BURNTOFFERING, AND THE PEACE-OFFERING IS TO BE OFFERED AS AN [ORDINARY]
PEACE-OFFERING. THIS [LAST], HOWEVER, MAY BE EATEN FOR ONE DAY [ONLY],
3
AND REQUIRES NO LOAVES.
4
 IF SHE HAS A LUMP SUM OF MONEY
5
 [SET ASIDE FOR
THE PURCHASE OF SACRIFICES]. IT IS TO BE USED FOR FREE-WILL OFFERINGS;
6
 IF
EARMARKED MONEY,
7
 THE PRICE OF THE SIN-OFFERING IS TO BE TAKEN TO THE
DEAD SEA;
8
 THE USE OF IT IS FORBIDDEN, BUT INVOLVES NO MALAPPROPRIATION;
9
FOR THE SUM SET ASIDE FOR THE BURNT-OFFERING, A BURNT-OFFERING IS TO BE
PROVIDED, THE USE OF WHICH INVOLVES MALAPPROPRIATION;
10
 WHILST FOR THE
SUM SET ASIDE FOR THE PEACE-OFFERING, A PEACE-OFFERING IS TO BE PROVIDED,
WHICH MAY BE EATEN FOR ONE DAY [ONLY] AND REQUIRES NO LOAVES.
11
 
    GEMARA. Who is the Tanna [of our Mishnah, who intimates] that the husband is not liable for
the wife's [sacrifices]?
12
 — R. Hisda said: It is the Rabbis, for if you suppose it is R. Judah [then
since he is liable,] why should [the animals] be sent to pasture with the herd?
13
 For it has been
taught: R. Judah says: A man [who can afford to do so] must offer the rich man's sacrifice
14
 on his
wife's behalf, as well as all other sacrifices for which she may be liable. For thus does he write to her
[in the marriage settlement, viz.: I shall pay] every claim you may have against me from before up to
now.
15
 
    Raba said: It may even be R. Judah. [The reply to R. Hisda's objection being that the husband] is
liable only for something which she needs, but not for something which she does not need.
16
Another version [of the above discussion is as follows]. Who is the Tanna [of our Mishnah]? — R.
Hisda said: It is R. Judah,
17
 [the husband, however,] being liable only for something that she needs,
but not for something that she does not need.
18
 For if it were the Rabbis [do they not say that] he is
not liable for her [sacrifices] at all?
19
 The only possible interpretation of the liability [implicit in the

---

Mishnah]
20
 would be that he transferred [the animals] to her, but on transference it becomes her own
property.
21
____________________
(1) Obed, Jesse, David and Solomon through Ruth; while Rehoboam was a son of Naamah, the Ammonitess.
(2) I.e., it ceases to be sacred and may be returned to the fold.
(3) Until midnight, the period allowed for a nazirite offering (v. Zeb. V, 6); whereas an ordinary peace-offering could be
eaten for two days and a night. (V. Ibid. V, 7).
(4) Whereas a nazirite offering does require them. V. Num. VI, 15.
(5) I.e., if the sums to be spent on the separate sacrifices were still unspecified.
(6) Burnt-offerings, whose hides became the perquisite of the priests.
(7) I.e., divided into portions for the separate sacrifices.
(8) ‘Taken to the Dead Sea’ is the usual Talmudic mode of saying, ‘not applied to any useful purpose.’
(9) I.e., there is no penalty. For the rules regarding the unauthorised use of sacred property. v. Lev. V, 15.
(10)  Heb. me'ilah, the diversion of sacred or priestly things to secular or lay uses. E.V. uses ‘trespass’, but
‘mal-appropriate’ expresses better the sense of the Hebrew word (cf. N.E.D.).
(11) Thus earmarked money is treated in the manner prescribed for sacrifices.
(12) By declaring that if she sets aside his animals without his consent, they do not remain sacred at all.
(13) They ought to remain sacred, because she had the right to take them.
(14) Where the kind of sacrifice to be offered depends upon a man's means. e.g., Lev. V, 7.
(15) This clause is taken as referring to sacrifices for which she may have become liable after the betrothal. This shows
that in R. Judah's opinion the husband is liable. Other versions read instead of the last sentence: For thus does she write
(in the receipt for her marriage-settlement when she claims it after divorce): And every claim that I may have had against
you before now (is hereby discharged).
(16) And his annulment of her vow shows that there was no need for her sacrifice, which thereby loses its sanctity.
(17) Who says that a man must offer a rich man's sacrifice for his wife.
(18) And therefore when the husband declares the vow void, the animals lose their sanctity.
(19) What need therefore for the rule? She cannot make his animal sacred at all.
(20) Which in saying that the animals are sent to pasture only if the husband declares her vow void, implies that if he
does not declare it void, they become sacred.
(21)  And this ease is considered in the second clause of the Mishnah: ‘BUT IF IT WAS ONE OF HERS. Thus this
interpretation on the view of the Rabbis is impossible.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 24b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 24b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 24b
Raba said: It may even be the Rabbis, for even when he transfers it to her [his intention is] to provide
something which she needs, but he does not transfer it to provide something she does not need.
1
 
    IF IT WAS ONE OF HERS, THE SIN-OFFERING IS TO BE LEFT TO DIE, THE
BURNT-OFFERING IS TO BE OFFERED: Where did she get it from, seeing that it has been
affirmed that whatever a woman acquires becomes her husband's? — R. Papa replied: She saved it
out of her housekeeping money.
2
 Another possibility is that it was given to her by a third person with
the proviso that her husband should have no control over it.
 
    THE BURNT-OFFERING IS TO BE OFFERED AS AN [ORDINARY] BURNT-OFFERING,
AND THE PEACE-OFFERING IS TO BE OFFERED [etc.]. Samuel said to Abbahu b. Ihi: ‘You are
not to sit down
3
 until you explain to me the following dictum: ‘The four rams that do not require
loaves [as an adjunct of the sacrifice] are the following: — his, hers, and those after death and after
atonement!’
4
 — [He explained as follows:] ‘Hers’ is the one referred to [in our Mishnah]. ‘His’ is
referred to in the following [Mishnah]: For we learnt: A man is able to impose a nazirite vow on his
son, whereas a woman cannot impose a nazirite vow on her son. Consequently, if [the lad] polls
himself [within the period of his naziriteship] or is polled by his relatives, or if he protests
5
 or his
relatives protest on his behalf, then if a lump sum was set aside, it is to be used to provide free-will

---