## Nedarim Daf 36a

###### Nedarim 36a:1
[Nedarim 36a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/36a:1)

מֵתִיב רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אַבָּא: אִם הָיָה כֹּהֵן, יִזְרוֹק עָלָיו דַּם חַטָּאתוֹ וְדַם אֲשָׁמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Shimi bar Abba raised an objection** from the *Tosefta* (2:7): **If** the one who vowed to prohibit another from benefiting from him **was a priest, he may sprinkle the blood of his sin-offering and the blood of his guilt-offering on** the other’s behalf. Apparently, the priest may perform all sacrificial rites for one prohibited from benefiting from him, even those that require knowledge of the one for whom the offering atones.


###### Nedarim 36a:2
[Nedarim 36a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/36a:2)

דַּם חַטָּאתוֹ שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע וְדַם אֲשָׁמוֹ שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע. דִּכְתִיב: ״זֹאת תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת הַמְּצֹרָע״, בֵּין גָּדוֹל וּבֵין קָטָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers. The reference is to **blood of the sin-offering of a leper and blood of the guilt-offering of a leper.** These are offerings brought by a leper who is lacking atonement, in order to complete his purification process, **as it is written: “This is the law of the leper”** (Leviticus 14:2). And the verse comes to teach that the *halakhot* of a leper apply to **both an adult and a minor.** This offering, too, does not require the knowledge of the one for whom the offering atones.


###### Nedarim 36a:3
[Nedarim 36a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/36a:3)

תְּנַן: הַכֹּהֲנִים שֶׁפִּיגְּלוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, מְזִידִין — חַיָּיבִין. הָא שׁוֹגְגִין — פְּטוּרִין, אֶלָּא שֶׁפִּיגּוּלָן פִּיגּוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites another proof to resolve the dilemma with regard to the nature of the agency of a priest. **We learned** in a mishna: In the case of **priests who rendered** an offering ***piggul* in the Temple,** i.e., they sacrificed an offering intending to consume it after its appointed time, if **they did** so **intentionally,** i.e., with full awareness of the period during which the offering may be consumed, **they are obligated** to pay. The Gemara infers: If **they did** so **unwittingly, they are exempt** from payment. **However,** in any event, when **they** rendered the offering ***piggul*,** it acquired the status of ***piggul*** and is disqualified.


###### Nedarim 36a:4
[Nedarim 36a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/36a:4)

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא שְׁלוּחֵי דִשְׁמַיָּא הָווּ, הַיְינוּ שֶׁפִּיגּוּלָן פִּיגּוּל. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ שְׁלוּחֵי דִידַן הָווּ, אַמַּאי פִּיגּוּלָן פִּיגּוּל? לֵימָא לֵיהּ: שְׁלִיחָא שַׁוֵּיתָיךְ לְתַקּוֹנֵי וְלָא לְעַוּוֹתֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted, if you say** that the priests **are agents of Heaven, this is** why when **their** actions cause ***piggul*** it is ***piggul*;** their actions are independent of the one bringing the offering. **However, if you say** that the priests **are our agents, why** when **their** actions cause ***piggul*** is it ***piggul*? Let** the one bringing the offering **say to** the priest: **I designated you an agent to perform** the task **properly but not to perform** the task **improperly.**


###### Nedarim 36a:5
[Nedarim 36a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/36a:5)

אָמְרִי: שָׁאנֵי גַּבֵּי פִּיגּוּל, דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״לֹא יֵחָשֵׁב לוֹ״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say** in response: It **is different with regard to *piggul*, as** in its regard **the verse states** and emphasizes: “He who offered it, **it will not be imputed to him”** (Leviticus 7:18). This implies that it is *piggul* **in any case,** e.g., even if one’s actions cause the offering to be *piggul* without the consent of the owner. Therefore, there is no proof with regard to the nature of the agency of the priest.


###### Nedarim 36a:6
[Nedarim 36a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/36a:6)

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַכֹּל צְרִיכִין דַּעַת חוּץ מִמְּחוּסַּר כַּפָּרָה, שֶׁהֲרֵי אָדָם מֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן עַל בָּנָיו וְעַל בְּנוֹתָיו הַקְּטַנִּים. אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה יָבִיא אָדָם חַטַּאת חֵלֶב עַל חֲבֵירוֹ, שֶׁכֵּן אָדָם מֵבִיא עַל אִשְׁתּוֹ שׁוֹטָה, כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אַלְּמָה אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הִפְרִישׁ חַטַּאת חֵלֶב עַל חֲבֵירוֹ — לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to **the** matter **itself, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Everyone** who brings an offering **requires knowledge, except for** those offerings brought by **those lacking atonement;** this can be proven from the fact **that a person brings** a purification **offering for his minor sons and daughters.** The Gemara asks: **However, if that is so, let a person bring a sin-offering on** behalf of **another who unwittingly ate** forbidden **fat** without his knowledge, **just as a man brings** an offering **for his wife who is an imbecile, in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda. Why** then **did Rabbi Elazar say:** One who **separated a sin-offering on** behalf of **another** who unwittingly ate forbidden **fat has done nothing?**


###### Nedarim 36a:7
[Nedarim 36a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/36a:7)

אִשְׁתּוֹ שׁוֹטָה הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּאָכְלָה כְּשֶׁהִיא שׁוֹטָה — לָאו בַּת קׇרְבָּן הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes the analogy between the cases. **What are the circumstances of** the case of **his wife who is an imbecile? If she ate** the forbidden **fat when she was an imbecile, she is not subject** to liability to bring **an offering,** as one lacking halakhic competence is exempt from punishment and needs no atonement.


###### Nedarim 36a:8
[Nedarim 36a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/36a:8)

וְאִי דְּאָכְלָה כְּשֶׁהִיא פִּקַּחַת, וְנִשְׁתַּטֵּית — הָא אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָכַל חֵלֶב וְהִפְרִישׁ קׇרְבָּן, וְנִשְׁתַּטָּה וְחָזַר וְנִשְׁתַּפָּה — פָּסוּל, הוֹאִיל וְנִדְחָה — יִדָּחֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if she ate** the forbidden fat **when she was** halakhically **competent and** then **became an imbecile, didn’t Rabbi Yirmeya say** that **Rabbi Abbahu said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** If **one ate** forbidden **fat** unwittingly, **and separated an offering, and became an imbecile, and became competent again, the offering is disqualified. Since it was disqualified** when he was demented, **it will be disqualified** forever. It is clear, therefore, that the sin-offering that one brings for his wife who is an imbecile is not a sin-offering for eating forbidden fat, as that would require halakhic intelligence. It is merely for completion of the purification process, e.g., a woman after childbirth, for which halakhic competence is not required. Therefore, no proof may be cited from the case of one’s wife who is an imbecile to the case of bringing a sin-offering on behalf of another who ate fat.


###### Nedarim 36a:9
[Nedarim 36a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/36a:9)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה יָבִיא אָדָם פֶּסַח עַל חֲבֵירוֹ, שֶׁכֵּן אָדָם מֵבִיא עַל בָּנָיו וְעַל בְּנוֹתָיו הַקְּטַנִּים. אַלְּמָה אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הִפְרִישׁ פֶּסַח עַל חֲבֵירוֹ לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **However, if that is so, let a person bring a Paschal lamb on** behalf of **another** without his knowledge, **just as a person brings** a Paschal lamb **for his minor sons and daughters. Why** then **did Rabbi Elazar say:** One who **separated a Paschal lamb on** behalf of **another has done nothing?**


###### Nedarim 36a:10
[Nedarim 36a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/36a:10)

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: ״שֶׂה לְבֵית אָבֹת״ לָאו דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira said:** The verse states: **“A lamb for each father’s house,** a lamb for the household” (Exodus 12:3). From here it is derived that all members of a household, including minor sons and daughters, are registered to the group eating a Paschal lamb. However, this is a custom; it **is not by Torah law.**


###### Nedarim 36a:11
[Nedarim 36a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/36a:11)

וּמִמַּאי — מִדִּתְנַן: הָאוֹמֵר לְבָנָיו: הֲרֵינִי שׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַפֶּסַח עַל מִי שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה מִכֶּם רִאשׁוֹן לִירוּשָׁלַיִם, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִכְנִיס רִאשׁוֹן רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ — זָכָה בְּחֶלְקוֹ, וּמְזַכֶּה אֶת אֶחָיו עִמּוֹ. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ ״שֶׂה לְבֵית״ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, עַל בִּישְׂרָא קָאֵי וּמְזַכֵּי לְהוּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And from where** is this *halakha* learned? It is **from that which we learned** in a mishna (*Pesaḥim* 89a): With regard to **one who says to his** minor **sons: I am hereby slaughtering the Paschal lamb on** behalf of **the one of you who will ascend to Jerusalem first,** and he will be privileged to eat from that lamb, then **once the first** of his children **introduces his head and most** of his body into Jerusalem, **he acquires his portion and acquires** portions **on behalf of his brothers with him. And if you say** that the *halakha* derived from the phrase **“a lamb for the household” is by Torah law,** and the minors are obligated to register for the Paschal lamb, although the son who reached Jerusalem first acquired his portion based on the stipulation of his father, how can **he stand over the meat** of the Paschal lamb after it was slaughtered **and acquire it on behalf of** his brothers? Apparently, minors are not required by Torah law to register as members of the group eating the Paschal lamb.


###### Nedarim 36a:12
[Nedarim 36a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/36a:12)

אֶלָּא לְמָה לְהוּ דְּאָמַר לְהוֹן אֲבוּהוֹן? כְּדֵי לְזָרְזָן בְּמִצְוֹת. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: מַעֲשֶׂה הָיָה וְקָדְמוּ בָּנוֹת לַבָּנִים, וְנִמְצְאוּ בָּנוֹת זְרִיזוֹת וּבָנִים שְׁפָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **However, why do they** require **that their father say to them:** The one of you who will ascend to Jerusalem first will be privileged to eat from that lamb, when no actual acquisition takes place? It is **in order to motivate them in** the performance of **mitzvot. This is also taught** in a *baraita*: **There was an incident** that transpired where a father said to his sons and daughters that they should compete to see who reaches the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb first, **and the daughters preceded the sons, and the daughters were found** to be **motivated and the sons** to be **lazy [*shefalim*].** Since the *baraita* did not say that the result was that daughters acquired their portion, apparently the father’s statement was merely motivational.


###### Nedarim 36a:13
[Nedarim 36a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/36a:13)

וְתוֹרֵם אֶת תְּרוּמָתוֹ כּוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ We learned in the mishna that among the tasks that one may perform for someone who is prohibited by vow from benefiting from him is: **And he separates his *teruma*.**