Torah Community Connections

Week 76 - Monday - 7 May 2001

NAZIR: CHAPTER 4: MISHNAH 6

A man may impose nezirut on his son, and a woman may not impose nezirut on her son: How? He shaved or his relatives shaved him, he objected or his relatives objected: if he had a designated animal - the hatat must be left to die, and the olah shall be offered as an olah; and the shelamim shall be offered as shelamim, and is eaten on one day, and it does not require bread. If he had unspecified money: it falls for a nedavah; specified money: the money of the hatat - will go to the Dead Sea, one may not derive benefit and it is not subject to the law of me'ilah; the money of the olah - they must bring an olah, and it is subject to the law of me'ilah; the money of the shelamim - they bring shelamim, and it is eaten for one day, and does not require bread.

Kehati

After having learned in the two preceding mishnayot about the nezirut of a woman which is discontinued by the revocation of her husband, this mishnah continues to teach a similar law regarding discontinued nezirut.

As long as his son is a minor, until he shows signs of puberty having reached the age of thirteen years and one day, a man may impose nezirut on his son - if he said, "My son so-and-so is a nazir," or if he said to his son, "You are a nazir," then he is a nazir, and is subject to a/l the laws of nezirut. This is an oral law received by Moshe at Sinai. This only applies to nezirut vow, but not to other vows, and a woman may not impose a nezirut vow on her son - if a woman said, regarding her minor son, that he is a nazir, it is not effective, because the halakhah speaks only of the father. And the father may impose a nezirut on his son only if his son remained silent and did not protest, nor did his relatives protest; but if the son protested and did not adopt nezirut, or his relatives protested, then he is not a nazir.

How - does the father act, if- He - the son, shaved - the hair of his head, thus demonstrating that he did not undertake to be a nazir, or his relatives shaved him - by this act they demonstrated their protest against the nezirut vow of the son; or if he - the son, objected - saying, I do not want to undertake nezirut vow, or his relatives objected - and it thereby follows that the nezirut of the son is revoked, as was mentioned above, but if he - the father, already - had a designated animal - animals which he had designated for the nezirut sacrifices of his son, how does the father act with these sacrifices? the - animal fit to be the - hatat must be left to die - food is withheld from it until it dies, because there is no way in which its status can be corrected, and the - animal fit to be the - olah shall be offered as an -voluntary - olah; and the - animal fit to be the - shelamim shall be offered as - freewill - shelamim, and it - the shelamim, is eaten on one day - one day and one night, as is the law regarding the shelamim of the nazir, and it does not require bread - the shelamim of a nazir require bread, but these do not require bread, for the reason which was explained in mishnah 4, above.

If he had unspecified money - if he did not designate animals, but rather money, with which to purchase the sacrifices of the nazir, and he did not specify: "This is for this sacrifice, and this is for this sacrifice," it - the money, falls for a nedavah - into the collection chest in the Temple, the money from which was used to purchase voluntary olot which were offered. If he had specified money - "This is for the hatat, this is for the olah, and this is for the shelamim," - the money of the hatat - will go to the Dead Sea - i.e., to a place from which it cannot be retrieved, one may not derive benefit - it is prohibited, lekhathillah, to derive benefit from this money, and - but if they derived benefit from it, it is not subject to the law of me'ilah - they are exempt from bringing a me'ilah sacrifice; the money of the olah - they must bring an -voluntary - olah, and it is subject to the law of me'ilah - whoever derives benefit is obligated to bring a me'ilah sacrifice; the money of the shelamim - they bring -freewill - shelamim, and it is eaten on one day, and does not require bread - as was explained above.

NAZIR: CHAPTER 4: MISHNAH 7

A man may shave for his father's nezirut, but a woman may not shave for her father's nezirut. How is it? If one's father was a nazir and he set aside unspecified money for his nezirut and he died, and he said, "I am a nazir on condition that I will shave with Father's money" - Rabbi Yose said, This will fall for a nedavah, this one may not shave for his father's nezirut! Who is the one who shaves for his father's nezirut? He whose father - when he and his father were nezirirn - set aside unspecified money for his nezirut and he died - this one may shave with his father's nezirut.

Kehati

A man may shave for his father's nezirut - the son may bring his sacrifices on the day of his tiglahat from the money which his father had designated for the sacrifices of his (the father's) nezirut, before he had died, as will be explained below, but a woman may not shave for her father's nezirut - a daughter may not bring the sacrifices of her tiglahat from this money designated for her dead father's nezirut, even if she inherits her father's property. This law (like the law which was taught above) is based on a tradition handed down from Sinai.

How is it - how does the son shave for his father's nezirut? If one's father was a nazir and he set aside unspecified money for - the sacrifices of - his nezirut - and he did not specify, "This is for the hatat, this is for the olah, and this is for the shelamim," and he - the father, died - before he completed his period of nezirut, and he - the son, said, "Behold, I am a nazir on condition that I will shave with Father's money" - he undertook to be a nazir after his father's death, on condition that he would be permitted to bring his sacrifices on the day of his tiglahat from this money from his father's period of nezirut. Rabbi Yose said, This - money, which the father had designated for his nezirut, and then died, will fall for a nedavah - will be given over to the Temple, so that voluntary olot will be offered from it; since the son undertook nezirut after his father's death on condition that he will use his father's money, this one may not shave for his father's nezirut - he is not permitted to do so; but -Who is the one who shaves for his father's nezirut? He whose father - when he and his father were nezirim - i.e., the son undertook nezirut while his father was still alive, set aside unspecified money for his nezirut vow - as was explained above, and he died - prior to completing his period of nezirut, in such a case, this one - the son, may shave - may bring the sacrifices of his tiglahat, with his father's nezirut - with this money.

We have explained this mishnah as the Gemara implies, that all of it was taught by Rabbi Yose. The Sages, however (in the Tosefta which is quoted in the Gemara), disagree with Rabbi Yose, and they hold as follows: regardless of whether the son undertook nezirut after the death of his father, who was a nazir, on condition that he will bring the sacrifices with the money which had been designated by his father for the sacrifices of his own nezirut, or both he and his father were nezirim, and the father designated unspecified money for his nezirut and died, the son may shave from the money of his father's nezirut. The law is in accordance with the Sages (Rambam, Hil nezirut 8:15).

There is a variant version of this mishnah, which is the opposite of our version: "How is this? If both he and his father were nezirim, and his father designated unspecified money for his nezirut and he died -Rabbi Yose said, This will fall for a nedavah; and who may shave for his father's nezirut? If his father was a nazir, and he designated unspecified money for his nezirut and he died, and he said, 'I am a nazir on condition that I will shave with Father's money' - this one may shave with his father's nezirut" (Tosafot, citing a commentary of the early authorities).

The Tosefta quoted in the Gemara also cites two versions of Rabbi Yose's teaching: Rashi holds that the version in our mishnah is the correct one, while Tosafot maintain that their version is the correct one (see the Gemara, Rashi, and Tosafot; see also the Tosefta). According to Rashi, the Sages disagree with both the first and last parts of Rabbi Yose's words, i.e., according to the opinion of the Sages, only one who undertook nezirut after his father's death on condition that he will shave with his father's money may shave for his father's nezirut, but one who was a nazir during his father's lifetime, who had already obligated himself for another sacrifice of his own, may not shave for his father's nezirut vow. According to the other commentators, however, the Sages disagree only with the first part of Rabbi Yose's words, and they hold that in either case the son may shave for his father's nezirut, as we have cited above (Tosafot; Rambam; Hameiri;)

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives