## Nazir Daf 28a

###### Nazir 28a:1
[Nazir 28a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/28a:1)

בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן סְתוּמִין וְלֹא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן מְפוֹרָשִׁין — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״. בְּקׇרְבָּנוֹ הוּא יוֹצֵא, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא בְּקׇרְבַּן אָבִיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**when they are unallocated and not when they are allocated.** Consequently, the same should apply to one whose father separated money for a regular sin-offering, i.e., he should be able to use them for his own sin-offering. Therefore, **the verse states: “His offering”** (Leviticus 4:32), which serves to emphasize: **He fulfills** his obligation **with his** own **offering, but he does not fulfill** his obligation **with** the money separated for **his father’s offering.**


###### Nazir 28a:2
[Nazir 28a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/28a:2)

יָכוֹל לֹא יֵצֵא בְּמָעוֹת שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ אֲפִילּוּ מִן הַקַּלָּה עַל הַקַּלָּה, מִן הַחֲמוּרָה עַל הַחֲמוּרָה, אֲבָל יוֹצֵא בְּקׇרְבָּן שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ לְעַצְמוֹ מִן הַקַּלָּה עַל הַחֲמוּרָה, מִן הַחֲמוּרָה עַל הַקַּלָּה — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ ... עַל חַטָּאתוֹ״, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא קׇרְבָּנוֹ לְשׁוּם חֶטְאוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues this line of argument: One **might** have thought that **he does not fulfill** his obligation **with the money that** his father **separated** if it is **from** money the father set aside to atone for **a minor** transgression and the son atones **for a minor** one, **or from** money the father set aside to atone for **a major** transgression and the son atones **for a major** one. **However,** the son may **fulfill** his obligation **with the offering he separated for himself. From** animals he set aside to atone for **a minor** transgression, he may atone **for a major** one, **or from** animals he set aside to atone for **a major** transgression he may atone **for a minor** one. Therefore, **the verse states:** “Then he shall bring for **his offering** a goat, a female without blemish, **for his sin”** (Leviticus 4:28), which indicates that he does not fulfill his obligation **unless his offering is for the sake of his** particular **sin,** not for some other transgression.


###### Nazir 28a:3
[Nazir 28a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/28a:3)

יָכוֹל לֹא יֵצֵא בִּבְהֵמָה שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ לְעַצְמוֹ מִן הַקַּלָּה עַל הַקַּלָּה אוֹ מִן הַחֲמוּרָה עַל הַחֲמוּרָה, אֲפִילּוּ מִן הַקַּלָּה עַל הַחֲמוּרָה אוֹ מִן הַחֲמוּרָה עַל הַקַּלָּה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **might** have thought that he **does not fulfill** his obligation **with the animal he separated for himself, from** animals he set aside to atone for **a minor** transgression to atone **for a minor** one; **or from** animals he set aside to atone for **a major** transgression, to atone **for a major** one; or **even** when **from** animals he set aside to atone for **a minor** transgression to atone **for a major** one; **or from** animals he set aside to atone for **a major** transgression to atone **for a minor** one.


###### Nazir 28a:4
[Nazir 28a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/28a:4)

שֶׁכֵּן אִם הִפְרִישׁ בְּהֵמָה עַל הַחֵלֶב וְהֵבִיא עַל הַדָּם, אוֹ עַל הַדָּם וְהֵבִיא עַל הַחֵלֶב — שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא מָעַל וְלֹא כִּיפֵּר,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The reason is **that if he separated an animal** to bring as an offering **for** unintentionally eating forbidden **fat and he** instead **brought** that sin-offering **for** unintentionally consuming **blood, or** if he separated an animal to bring as an offering to atone **for blood and** instead **brought** it **for** eating forbidden **fat,** in that case he **has not misused** consecrated property, as the animal cannot lose its consecrated status. **And** just as it cannot lose its consecrated status, so too it cannot be redesignated to atone for a different sin, and therefore this animal also **does not atone** for him.


###### Nazir 28a:5
[Nazir 28a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/28a:5)

אֲבָל יוֹצֵא בְּמָעוֹת שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ לְעַצְמוֹ מִן הַקַּלָּה לַקַּלָּה, וּמִן הַחֲמוּרָה לַחֲמוּרָה, מִן הַחֲמוּרָה לַקַּלָּה, וּמִן הַקַּלָּה לַחֲמוּרָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However,** one might think that he **fulfills** his obligation **with the money he separated for himself, from** money he set aside to atone for **a minor** transgression **to** atone for a different **minor** transgression; **or from** money he set aside to atone for **a major** transgression **to** atone for a different **major** transgression; or **from** money he set aside to atone for **a major** transgression **to** atone for **a minor one; or from** money he set aside to atone for **a minor** transgression **to** atone for **a major** one.


###### Nazir 28a:6
[Nazir 28a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/28a:6)

שֶׁכֵּן אִם הִפְרִישׁ לְעַצְמוֹ מָעוֹת מִן הַחֵלֶב וְהֵבִיא עַל הַדָּם, עַל הַדָּם וְהֵבִיא עַל הַחֵלֶב, שֶׁהֲרֵי מָעַל וְכִיפֵּר —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The reason is **that if he separated money for himself** to purchase a sin-offering to atone **for** unintentionally eating forbidden **fat and he** instead **brought** a sin-offering with that money **for** unintentionally consuming **blood, or** if he separated money to purchase a sin-offering to atone **for** consuming **blood and** with that money he instead **brought** a sin-offering **for** unintentionally eating forbidden **fat,** in that case he **has misused** consecrated property if he uses that money for a non-sacred purpose, as money can lose its sacred status when misappropriated. **And** just as it can lose its consecrated status, it can be redesignated to atone for a different sin; therefore this money **atones** for him if it was used to purchase an offering for a different transgression.


###### Nazir 28a:7
[Nazir 28a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/28a:7)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עַל חַטָּאתוֹ״ — עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא קׇרְבָּנוֹ לְשֵׁם חֶטְאוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, **the verse states: “For his sin”** (Leviticus 4:35), which indicates that he does not fulfill his obligation **unless his offering is for the sake of his** particular **sin,** and he is not permitted to use money he consecrated for one type of sin to atone for a different sin. This concludes the *baraita*.


###### Nazir 28a:8
[Nazir 28a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/28a:8)

קָתָנֵי מִיהַת בְּהֵמָה, מַאי לָאו אֲפִילּוּ בַּעֲלַת מוּם? לָא, תְּמִימָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava now asks his question: **In any event,** the *baraita* **teaches** that a son may not use **an animal** separated by his father for his naziriteship offering. **What, is it not** referring **even** to **a blemished** animal? The fact that the *baraita* does not differentiate between types of animals indicates that a blemished animal has the status of allocated funds, as opposed to Rav Naḥman’s ruling that this animal is like his father’s unallocated funds, which the son himself may use. The Gemara rejects this: **No;** the *baraita* refers solely to **an unblemished** animal that is fit to be sacrificed; only an animal of this kind is considered allocated.


###### Nazir 28a:9
[Nazir 28a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/28a:9)

אֲבָל בַּעֲלַת מוּם מַאי — כִּסְתוּמָה דָּמְיָא? מַאי אִירְיָא דְּקָתָנֵי מָעוֹת שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ אָבִיו? לִיתְנֵי בַּעֲלַת מוּם! הָכִי נָמֵי, דִּלְמַאי חַזְיָא — לִדְמֵי, דְּמֵי הַיְינוּ מָעוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **However,** according to this explanation, **what** is the *halakha* of **a blemished** animal? Is it **considered like an unallocated** animal? If so, **why** does the *baraita* **specifically teach** that one may purchase an offering with the unallocated **funds that his father separated? Let** the *baraita* **teach** this *halakha* with regard to **a blemished** animal, and one would infer that the same applies to money. The Gemara answers as above: **So too,** this is the case; there is no difference between the two. The reason is **that what is** a blemished animal **fit for?** It is fit **for** its **value,** and this **value is** essentially **money.** Consequently, this *baraita* does not contradict Rav Naḥman’s opinion that a blemished animal has the status of unallocated funds.


###### Nazir 28a:10
[Nazir 28a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/28a:10)

**מַתְנִי׳** נִזְרַק עָלֶיהָ אֶחָד מִן הַדָּמִים, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ נִשְׁחֲטָה עָלֶיהָ אַחַת מִכׇּל הַבְּהֵמוֹת — אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** The previous mishna discussed the case of a husband who nullified his wife’s vow after she separated her offerings of naziriteship. This mishna deals with a husband who nullified his wife’s naziriteship after she had completed her term and brought her offerings to the Temple. If **the blood** from **one of** her naziriteship offerings **was sprinkled** on the altar **on her behalf,** the husband **cannot nullify** her vow at this point. **Rabbi Akiva says: Even** before the sprinkling of the blood, **he cannot nullify** the vow as soon as **any one of the animals** for her offerings **has been slaughtered on her behalf.**


###### Nazir 28a:11
[Nazir 28a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/28a:11)

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּתִגְלַחַת הַטׇּהֳרָה, אֲבָל בְּתִגְלַחַת הַטּוּמְאָה — יָפֵר, שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לוֹמַר: אִי אֶפְשִׁי בְּאִשָּׁה מְנֻוֶּולֶת. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אַף בְּתִגְלַחַת הַטׇּהֳרָה יָפֵר, שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לוֹמַר: אִי אֶפְשִׁי בְּאִשָּׁה מְגַלַּחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: **In what** case **is this statement,** that he can no longer nullify the vow, **said?** It is when she is bringing the offerings **for** her **shaving of ritual purity,** when she has completed her term of naziriteship without becoming ritually impure (see Numbers 6:18). **However,** if she is sacrificing the offerings **for** her **shaving of impurity,** when she became ritually impure during her term of naziriteship, after which she restarts her naziriteship (see Numbers 6:9), her husband **can nullify** her vow. The reason is **that he can say: I do not want a downcast [*menuvvelet*] wife,** who does not drink wine. She would have to refrain from wine for a lengthy period if she were to begin her naziriteship anew. **Rabbi Meir says: He can nullify** her vow **even** at the stage **of** her **shaving of purity,** after she has begun sacrificing her offerings, **as he can say: I do not want a shaven wife,** and a nazirite is obligated to shave after bringing his or her offerings.


###### Nazir 28a:12
[Nazir 28a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/28a:12)

**גְּמָ׳** מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דְּאִי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הָאָמַר: תִּגְלַחַת מְעַכֶּבֶת. וְכֵיוָן דְּלָא גִּילְּחָה — אֲסִירָה בְּחַמְרָא. וְכֵיוָן דְּאִית לַהּ נִיוּוּל — מָצֵי מֵיפַר (וּבְהָא פְּלִיגִי),

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara comments: **The mishna,** which rules that a husband cannot nullify his wife’s naziriteship after the blood of her offering has been sprinkled at the end of the naziriteship term, **is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer. As, if** it followed the ruling of **Rabbi Eliezer, didn’t he say** that **shaving is indispensable** for the end of a nazirite’s term, i.e., a nazirite at the end of his naziriteship is prohibited from drinking wine and becoming impure from the dead until he actually shaves? **And** in this case, **since she has not** yet **shaved, she** remains **prohibited from** drinking **wine. And since she becomes downcast** through her abstinence from wine, evidently the husband **can nullify** her vow even after the sprinkling of the blood of her offerings of purity.