Torah Community Connections

Week 76 - Sunday - 6 May 2001

NAZIR: CHAPTER 4: MISHNAH 4

If a woman adopted nezirut, and set aside her animal and then her husband revoked hers: if her animal was his - it goes out and grazes with the flock. And if her animal was hers - the hatat must be left to die, and the olah shall be offered as an olah; and the shelamim shall be offered as a shelamim, and is eaten on one day, and does not require bread. If she had unspecified money it falls for a nedavah; specified money: the money of the hatat must go to the Dead Sea, one may not benefit from it and it is not subject to the law of me'ilah; with the money of the olah they bring an olah, and it is subject to the law of me'ilah; with the money of the shelamim they bring shelamim, and it is eaten on one day, and does not require bread.

Kehati

If a woman adopted nezirut - undertook to be a nezirah, and she completed her term of nezirut, and she set aside her animal - the three animals for the sacrifices she is obligated to offer after the conclusion of the term of her nezirul, which are the following: a he-lamb for a burnt-offering a ewe for a sin-offering and a ram for a peace-offering, and then her husband revoked hers - her nezirut vow; as long as the blood of one of the sacrifices has not yet been thrown on the altar, the husband may revoke her nezirut vow; and once he has revoked her, she no longer may bring her sacrifices, for the sacrifices of cleanness are brought only if she is a nezirah, and here she is not a nezirah and does not require sacrifices. What, therefore, is the law regarding the sacrifices that she designated? if her animal - the animals she set aside, was his - her husband's, e.g., he put animals at her disposal, so that if she is obligated to bring sacrifices, she would bring from them, it - each one of those animals that she designated goes out and grazes with the flock - with the rest of the non-sacred animals; for since he revoked her nezirut vow, she does not require them for sacrifices. Thus the beasts were not in her possession to be consecrated, for her husband had not given her the animals for sacrifices which she is not obligated to bring, and therefore they do not have any sanctity at all.

And if her animal she designated was hers - if the animals were given to her as a present, on condition that her husband will not have any rights over them (see Ned. 11:8); then the sanctification was valid, and did not expire by the husband's revocation, the hatat - the animal designated for the hatat, must be left to die - it is locked up in a stall and not fed until it dies, as is the law regarding a hatat whose owner died (Rashi), and the olah - the animal designated for the olah, shall be offered as an olah - as a voluntary olah; and the shelamim - the animal designated for the shelamim, shall be offered - as a voluntary shelamim, and is eaten on one day - unlike all other shelamim, which may be eaten for two days and one night; for since it was designated as a nezirut offering it is considered a shelamim of a nazir, which may be eaten only for one day and one night, and does not require bread - for the shelamim of the nazir require a bread offering, as is written: "And the kohen shall take the cooked foreleg of the ram, and one unleavened loaf from the basket, and one unleavened wafer" (Num. 6:19). These shelamim, however, do not require bread, for it is written regarding the bread, "and shall place them on the palms of the nazir" (ibid.), and in this case there are no palms of the nazir (Tosafot).

If she had unspecified money - if she had not designated animals, but rather money with which to purchase the nazir sacrifices and she did not specify, "This is for the hatat, and this is for the olah, and this is for the shelamim," it falls for a nedavah - to the collection boxes in the Temple, from the money of which voluntary olot were offered (see Shek~ 6:5-6); specified money - if she had money which she had specified, "This is for the hatat, and this is for the olah, and this is for the shelamim," the money of the hatat - must go to the Dead Sea - it must be thrown into a place from which it is irretrievable, one may not benefit from it and it is not subject to the law of me'ilah lekhathillab - it is forbidden to derive benefit from this money, but, after the fact, if one derived benefit from it, they are not obligated to bring a m''ilah sacrifice (see Lev 5:15-16), unlike one who derives benefit from something totally sacred, who is obligated to bring a me'ilah sacrifice; for since it is cast into the Dead Sea, it is not considered completely sacred; with the money of the olah - from the money that he designated for the olah, they bring a - voluntary - olah, and it - whoever derives benefit from it, is subject to the law of me'ilah - is obligated to bring a me'ilah sacrifice, and to pay the principal and an additional one-fifth; with the money of the shelamim -from the money he designated for the shelamim, they bring shelamim - and the law of me'ilah does not apply to shelamim before the sprinkling of their blood, and it -the shelamim, is eaten on one day - i.e., one day and one night, and does not require bread.

NAZIR: CHAPTER 4 : MISHNAH 5

If one of the bloods was sprinkled for her - he may not revoke. Rabbi Akiva says, Even after one of the animals was slaughtered for her - he may not revoke. When does this apply? To tiglahat of cleanness, but in the case of tiglahat of uncleanness - he may revoke, for he could say, "I do not want an uncomely woman." Rabbi says, Even in the case of tiglahat of cleanness - he may revoke, for he could say, "I do not want a shorn woman."

Kehati

This mishnah is a continuation of the preceding mishnah. It continues the discussion regarding a woman who adopted nezirut and who designated the three animals to be offered as sacrifices at the conclusion of the term of her nezirut.

If - after - one of the bloods - the blood of one of her sacrifices, was sprinkled - on the altar, for her - on her behalf, he - the husband, may not revoke - may no longer revoke her nezirut vow; even though she has not yet shaved her hair and she has not brought the rest of her sacrifices, his revocation is not effective, for from the time when the blood of one of the sacrifices has been sprinkled on her behalf, she is permitted to drink wine (and to become unclean by a corpse related uncleanness), and this no longer constitutes a vow entailing physical discomfort.

Rabbi Akiva says, Even after one of the animals was slaughtered for her- but the blood has not yet been sprinkled, he may not revoke - her nezirut. The reason is explained in the Gemara: "because of the waste of sacrifices," i.e., if he will revoke, it will cause the loss of the sacrifice which has been slaughtered. When does this apply - that he may not revoke? To tiglahat of cleanness - she completed her term of a nezirut and brought her sacrifices of cleanness on the day of her tiglahat, and one of the animals was slaughtered on her behalf (according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva), or the blood of one of the sacrifices was sprinkled on her behalf (according to the opinion of the First Tanna); since her term of nezirut has been completed and she is obligated only to shave, she is already permitted wine, and this no longer constitutes a vow entailing physical discomfort, as was explained above, and therefore the husband may no longer revoke, but in the case of tiglahat of uncleanness - she became unclean by a corpse related uncleanness during the term of her nezirut, and she brought the sacrifices of uncleanness, as was taught in the preceding chapter, he - the husband, may revoke - her nezirut , for - since she is obligated to re-count the days of her term of nezirut while in a state of cleanness, he - the husband, could say, "I do not want an uncomely woman" - a wife who is a nezirah, who denies herself drinking wine, and afflicts her soul, and thereby makes herself uncomely; the husband therefore may revoke her nezirut.

Rabbi says, Even in the case of tiglahat of cleanness - even after the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifices of cleanness, as long as she has not shaved the hair of her head, he - the husband, may revoke - her nezirut, so that she will not shave her hair, for he could say, "I do not want a shorn woman" - for a shaven woman is repulsive. The Gemara explains that the First Tanna does not fear this claim, for she could wear a wig. According to Rabbi, however, the husband could claim that even a wig displeases him.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives