## Nazir Daf 24a

###### Nazir 24a:1
[Nazir 24a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/24a:1)

זָכְתָה וְקָדְמָה אַרְבָּעָה דּוֹרוֹת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לַמַּלְכוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**she merited to precede** the younger daughter by **four generations to the monarchy of the Jewish people.** The descendants of Ruth the Moabite ruled over the Jewish people for four generations: Obed, Yishai, David, and Solomon, before the reign of Solomon’s son Rehoboam, whose mother was Naamah the Ammonite.


###### Nazir 24a:2
[Nazir 24a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/24a:2)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּדְרָה בְּנָזִיר, וְהִפְרִישָׁה אֶת בְּהֶמְתָּהּ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ הֵיפֵר לָהּ בַּעֲלָהּ. אִם שֶׁלּוֹ הָיְתָה הַבְּהֵמָה — תֵּצֵא וְתִרְעֶה בָּעֵדֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **a woman who vowed to be a nazirite and separated her animals** for her offerings of purity at the end of her term, **and afterward her husband nullified her vow,** which means that she is not in fact a nazirite, what becomes of these animals? **If the animal was his, it shall go out and graze among** the **flock** until it becomes blemished, like regular non-consecrated animals.


###### Nazir 24a:3
[Nazir 24a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/24a:3)

וְאִם שֶׁלָּהּ הָיְתָה הַבְּהֵמָה, הַחַטָּאת — תָּמוּת, וְעוֹלָה — תִּקְרַב עוֹלָה, שְׁלָמִים — תִּקְרַב שְׁלָמִים, וְנֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד, וְאֵינָן טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if the animal was hers,** different *halakhot* apply to the various offerings: **The** animal she set aside as **a sin-offering must** be left to **die** by being shut in an enclosed area and deprived of food and water, as will be explained in the Gemara. **And** the animal separated for **a burnt-offering is sacrificed** on the altar as **a burnt-offering,** as in any case one may bring a voluntary burnt-offering. As for the one designated for **a peace-offering,** it is **sacrificed** as a voluntary **peace-offering. And** this peace-offering **is eaten for** only **one day,** in accordance with the *halakha* of the nazirite’s peace-offering, despite the fact that regular peace-offerings may be eaten for two days. **But** the offering **does not require bread,** i.e., loaves and wafers, unlike that of a nazirite.


###### Nazir 24a:4
[Nazir 24a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/24a:4)

הָיוּ לָהּ מָעוֹת סְתוּמִין — יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. מָעוֹת מְפוֹרָשִׁין, דְּמֵי חַטָּאת — יֵלְכוּ לְיָם הַמֶּלַח. לֹא נֶהֱנִין, וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **she had unallocated funds,** i.e., she had separated money for her offerings but had not stated which coins were designated for which offering, all the money **will be earmarked for** communal **gift** offerings. If she had **allocated funds,** i.e., she had decided which coins were for the payment of each offering, even if she had not yet purchased the animals, **the money for the sin-offering** is **taken** and cast **into the Dead Sea,** i.e., it must be destroyed, either by being thrown into the sea or by some other means. One may **not benefit** from it, as it possesses a measure of sanctity, **but** one also does **not misuse** property consecrated to the Temple **with it.** In other words, if one did derive benefit from this money he is not liable to bring an offering for misusing consecrated property.


###### Nazir 24a:5
[Nazir 24a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/24a:5)

דְּמֵי עוֹלָה — יָבִיאוּ עוֹלָה, וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן. דְּמֵי שְׁלָמִים — יָבִיאוּ שְׁלָמִים, וְנֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד, וְאֵין טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
As for **the money for the burnt-offering, a burnt-offering is brought** with those coins, **and** one who benefits **from it** is liable for **misuse** of consecrated property, as it is sacred since it can be used toward the purchase of a gift offering. Similarly, with regard to **the money for a peace-offering, a peace-offering is brought** with those coins, **and** it **is eaten for one day and does not require bread.**


###### Nazir 24a:6
[Nazir 24a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/24a:6)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאן תְּנָא דְּבַעַל לָא מִשְׁתַּעְבַּד לַהּ? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: רַבָּנַן הִיא. דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, אַמַּאי תֵּצֵא וְתִרְעֶה בָּעֵדֶר? הָא מִשְׁתַּעְבַּד לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara inquires: **Who** is the *tanna* who **taught that a husband is not indebted to** his wife, i.e., he is not required to provide her with her obligatory offerings? It is evident that the *tanna* of the mishna maintains that this is the case, as he rules that the animal does not remain sacred if it belonged to her husband. **Rav Ḥisda said: It is** the opinion of **the Rabbis. As, if it should enter your mind** that **it is** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, why** should an animal that belonged to the husband **go out and graze among** the **flock** until it becomes blemished? After all, the husband is **indebted** and required **to** give **her** the offerings she requires, which means that her consecration is valid even if she used his animals.


###### Nazir 24a:7
[Nazir 24a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/24a:7)

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אָדָם מֵבִיא קׇרְבַּן עָשִׁיר עַל אִשְׁתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara provides the source for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda: **As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yehuda says: A person brings the offering of a rich** man **on behalf of his wife.** If a wife is obligated to bring an offering that is different depending on whether she is wealthy or poor, e.g., the offering of a childbearing woman, then even if she herself does not own enough to be considered wealthy, if her husband can afford it he must bring the offering of a rich person on her behalf.


###### Nazir 24a:8
[Nazir 24a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/24a:8)

וְכֵן כׇּל קׇרְבְּנוֹתֶיהָ שֶׁהִיא חַיֶּיבֶת, שֶׁכָּךְ כָּתַב לָהּ: ״כׇּל אַחְרָיוּת דְּאִית לִיךְ עֲלַי מִן קַדְמַת דְּנָא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And similarly,** he brings **all her offerings that she is obligated** to bring, even those whose obligation preceded their marriage. The reason is **that he wrote to her** in her marriage contract **like this:** I accept upon myself **all** claims of **guarantee that you have upon me from beforehand.** These obligations include her offerings.


###### Nazir 24a:9
[Nazir 24a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/24a:9)

רָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, כִּי מְשַׁעְבַּד לַהּ — בְּמִילְּתָא דִּצְרִיכָא לַהּ, בְּמִילְּתָא דְּלָא צְרִיכָא לַהּ — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: You** can **even say** that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** and nevertheless the husband is under no obligation if he nullified her vow. The reason is as follows: **When** is **he obligated** to bring **her** offerings? It is only **in** the case of **a matter that is necessary for her** to bring. However, **in** the case of **a matter that is not necessary for her** to bring, he is under **no** such obligation. Here, too, once he has nullified her naziriteship, she is no longer in need of this offering.


###### Nazir 24a:10
[Nazir 24a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/24a:10)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא. וְכִי מְשַׁעְבַּד לַהּ — בְּמִילְּתָא דִּצְרִיכָא לַהּ, בְּמִילְּתָא דְּלָא צְרִיכָא לָהּ — לָא. דְּאִי רַבָּנַן — לָא מְשַׁעְבַּד לַהּ כְּלָל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Some say** a different version of this discussion: **Who** is the *tanna* who **taught** that only a husband who nullified his wife’s vow is exempt from providing her offerings? **Rav Ḥisda said** that **it is Rabbi Yehuda, and** his opinion is as follows: **When** is **he indebted** to fund **her** offerings? It is **in** the case of **a matter that is necessary for her** to bring, but **in** the case of **a matter that is not necessary for her** to bring, he is under **no** such obligation. **As,** if it is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis, he is not mortgaged to her** in this regard **at all.**


###### Nazir 24a:11
[Nazir 24a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/24a:11)

אֶלָּא הֵיכִי דָּמֵי דִּמְשַׁעְבַּד לַהּ — כְּגוֹן דְּאַקְנְיַיהּ לַהּ, וְכֵיוָן דְּאַקְנֵי לַהּ — הָוֵה דְּנַפְשַׁהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, what are the circumstances** in which **he is obligated to** provide **her** offering, according to the opinion of the Rabbis? **For example, if he transferred** the animal **to her** possession. **But** in that case, **since he has transferred it to her, it is her own,** which means that she has effectively separated the offering from her own property. The mishna cannot be referring to this situation, as the animal does not revert to a non-sacred state in a case of this kind. Evidently, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.