## Nazir Daf 24b

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

רָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, כִּי מַקְנֵי לַהּ — נָמֵי בְּמִלְּתָא דִּצְרִיכָא לַהּ, בְּמִילְּתָא דְּלָא צְרִיכָא לַהּ — לָא מַקְנֵי לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: You** can **even say** that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis,** and the reason the animal loses its sanctity is that **even when he transfers it to her,** he does so **for a matter that is necessary for her** to bring, but **for a matter** that **is not necessary for her** to bring, **he does not transfer it to her.**


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

אִם שֶׁלָּהּ הָיְתָה בְּהֶמְתָּהּ, חַטָּאת — תָּמוּת, וְעוֹלָה — תִּקְרַב. הִיא מְנָא לַהּ? הָאָמְרַתְּ: מַה שֶּׁקָּנְתָה אִשָּׁה קָנָה בַּעְלָהּ! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: שֶׁקִּמְּצַתָּה מֵעִיסָּתָהּ. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּאַקְנִי לַהּ אַחֵר, וַאֲמַר לַהּ: ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין לְבַעְלֵיךְ רְשׁוּת בָּהֶן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **If the animal was hers, the sin-offering must** be left to **die and the burnt-offering is sacrificed.** The Gemara asks: **She,** this married woman, **from where** does she have **her** own property? **Haven’t you said** as a principle that with regard to any item **that a woman acquires, her husband** automatically **acquires** it from her? **Rav Pappa said:** This is referring to a case **where she saved it from her dough,** i.e., she was able to buy the animal with the money she saved by eating less. And **if you wish, say** instead **that another** person **transferred** the property **to her, and** he **said to her** that he is doing so **on the condition that your husband has no rights to it.** In that case the wife is the exclusive owner of the animal.


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

הָעוֹלָה — תִּקְרַב עוֹלָה, וְהַשְּׁלָמִים — תִּקְרַב כּוּ׳. אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לַאֲבוּהּ בַּר אִיהִי: לָא תִּיתֵּיב עַל כַּרְעָיךְ עַד דְּאָמְרַתְּ לִי הָדָא מִילְּתָא: וְאֵלּוּ הֵן אַרְבָּעָה אֵילִים שֶׁאֵינָן טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם: שֶׁלּוֹ, וְשֶׁלָּהּ, וְשֶׁלְּאַחַר הַמִּיתָה, וְשֶׁלְּאַחַר כַּפָּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught that **the burnt-offering is sacrificed as a burnt-offering and the peace-offering is sacrificed** as a peace-offering. **Shmuel said to Avuh bar Ihi: You shall not sit on your feet until you say** and explain **to me this matter** taught in a *baraita*: **And these are** the **four rams** of the nazirite’s offering **that do not require bread** to be brought with them, in contrast to the usual practice: **His, hers, the one** brought **after death, and the one** brought **after** the nazirite has gained **atonement** by means of a different offering.


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

שֶׁלָּהּ — הָא דַּאֲמַרַן. שֶׁלּוֹ — דִּתְנַן: הָאִישׁ מַדִּיר אֶת בְּנוֹ בְּנָזִיר, וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה מַדֶּרֶת אֶת בְּנָהּ בְּנָזִיר. גִּילַּח, אוֹ שֶׁגִּילְּחוּהוּ קְרוֹבִים, מִיחָה, אוֹ שֶׁמִּיחוּהוּ קְרוֹבִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies this statement: **Hers,** this is **that** which **we** just **said,** the offering of a woman who separated an animal of her own before her husband proceeded to nullify her vow. **His, as we learned** in a mishna (28b): **A man can vow his son to** become **a nazirite,** i.e., he can apply a vow of naziriteship to his minor son, **but a woman cannot vow her son to** become **a nazirite.** If the son objects, either of his own initiative or at the behest of others, his father’s vow is canceled. Consequently, if the boy **shaved** his hair during the period of naziriteship, thereby demonstrating his desire not to be a nazirite, **or if relatives shaved him,** or even if the minor performed no action at all but simply **objected, or if** his **relatives made him object,** his naziriteship is canceled.


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

הָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת סְתוּמִין — יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. מָעוֹת מְפוֹרָשִׁין, דְּמֵי חַטָּאת — יֵלְכוּ לְיָם הַמֶּלַח, דְּמֵי עוֹלָה — יָבִיאוּ עוֹלָה, וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן. דְּמֵי שְׁלָמִים — יָבִיאוּ שְׁלָמִים, וְנֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד, וְאֵינָן טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In that case, if **he had unallocated funds,** which had been consecrated for the child’s offerings but not designated for any particular offering, all the money **will be earmarked for** communal **gift offerings.** If he had **allocated funds** designated for a particular offering, **the money for a sin-offering** is **taken** and cast **into the Dead Sea; the money for a burnt-offering is brought** as **a burnt-offering, and** one who benefits **from it** is liable for **misuse** of consecrated property; and **the money for a peace-offering is brought** as **a peace-offering and it is eaten for one day and does not require bread.**


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

שֶׁלְּאַחַר מִיתָה מְנָלַן, דְּתַנְיָא: הַמַּפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לִנְזִירוּתוֹ — לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן רְאוּיִין לְהָבִיא בְּכוּלָּן שְׁלָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to a ram **that is after** its owner’s **death, from where do we** derive that this offering requires no bread? **As it is taught** in a mishna (*Me’ila* 18a): With regard to **one who separates money for his naziriteship** without specifying an offering, he may **not derive benefit** from them, **but** one who benefits **from it** is **not** liable for **misuse** of consecrated property. Why is he not liable to bring an offering for misuse of consecrated property? It is **because** the money **is fit to bring peace-offerings with all of it,** and no misuse is effected by deriving benefit from a peace-offering until after its blood has been sprinkled.


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

מֵת, וְהָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת סְתוּמִים — יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. מָעוֹת מְפוֹרָשִׁין, דְּמֵי חַטָּאת — יוֹלִיךְ לְיָם הַמֶּלַח, לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין. דְּמֵי עוֹלָה — יָבִיאוּ עוֹלָה, וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן. דְּמֵי שְׁלָמִים — יָבִיאוּ שְׁלָמִים, וְנֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד, וְאֵינָן טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: If the one who set aside the money **died and he had unallocated funds, they are** all **allocated for** communal **gift** offerings. If he left behind **allocated funds,** with regard to **the money for a sin-offering,** one must **take** it and cast it **into the Dead Sea;** one may **not derive benefit** from it **but** one who benefits **from it** is **not** liable for **misuse** of consecrated property. **The money for a burnt-offering is brought** as **a burnt-offering, and** one who benefits **from it** is liable for **misuse** of consecrated property. **The money for a peace-offering is brought** as **a peace-offering, and it is eaten for one day and does not require bread.** This is the case of a ram after its owner’s death that does not require bread.


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

שֶׁלְּאַחַר כַּפָּרָה — סְבָרָא הוּא, שֶׁלְּאַחַר הַמִּיתָה מַאי טַעַם — דְּלָא חַזְיָא לְכַפָּרָה, שֶׁלְּאַחַר כַּפָּרָה נָמֵי — הָא לָא חַזְיָא לְכַפָּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
As for the ram **that is after atonement,** whose owner has used a different offering to achieve atonement, the *halakha* that this offering does not require bread is not taught explicitly. Rather, it **is** based on **logical reasoning: What is the reason** that no bread is brought in the case of a ram **that is** sacrificed **after the death** of its owner? It is that this offering is **not fit for atonement,** as no atonement is granted to the dead through offerings. With regard to a ram **that is** sacrificed **after atonement too, it is no** longer **fit for atonement,** as the owner has already gained atonement by means of a different animal.


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

וְתוּ לֵיכָּא? וְהָאִיכָּא: וּשְׁאָר כׇּל שַׁלְמֵי נָזִיר שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא כְּמִצְוָתָן — כְּשֵׁרִים, וְלֹא עוֹלִין לַבְּעָלִים לְשׁוּם חוֹבָה, וְנֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד, וְאֵינָן טְעוּנִין לֹא לֶחֶם וְלֹא זְרוֹעַ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And is there nothing else?** Are there no other instances of a peace-offering of a nazirite that does not require bread, apart from the aforementioned cases? **But isn’t there** the following *halakha*: **And** with regard to **all the other peace-offerings of a nazirite that were slaughtered not in accordance with their mitzva,** e.g., if the ram was not of the proper age, they are **fit** offerings and may be eaten, **but they do not count toward the owner’s obligation,** i.e., he must bring another offering. The *baraita* continues: **And** these offerings **are eaten for one day,** like regular peace-offerings of a nazirite, **and they require neither bread nor** the **foreleg,** unlike the peace-offering of a nazirite. This is another example of a nazirite’s peace-offering that does not require bread.


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

כְּמִצְוָתָן קָא חָשֵׁיב, שֶׁלֹּא כְּמִצְוָתָן לָא קָא חָשֵׁיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: In the above list the *tanna* **includes** only offerings that were sacrificed **in accordance with their mitzva; he does not include** animals that were sacrificed **not in accordance with their mitzva.**


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

הָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת סְתוּמִים — יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It was stated above, with regard to one who separated money for his naziriteship and then died, that if **he had unallocated funds, they are** all **allocated for** communal **gift** offerings.