always provided that it is a lump sum and not earmarked money.1 Hence Scripture repeats the expression his offering2 [a third time, to show] that he can discharge his obligation with his own offering, but not with that of his father [even in this instance]. It might be thought, further, [that we can only lay down] that he is unable to discharge an obligation with money set aside by his father, albeit for an offence of equal gravity, but that he could discharge his obligation with an offering he himself has set apart, [even transferring it] from a less serious to a more serious offence, or vice versa. Hence Scripture uses the expression, his offering … for his sin,3 to show that the offering must be for the particular sin. It might be argued, again, that [we can only lay down that] he cannot discharge his obligation with an animal which he has set apart for himself whether for an equally serious offence or for an offence of a different degree of gravity, since [we know that] if he sets aside an animal [to make atonement] for [the offence of eating] forbidden fat,4 and [by mistake] sacrifices it for [the offence of eating] blood, or vice versa, he has not been guilty of malappropriation and [consequently] has not procured atonement;5 but [we might think] that he could discharge his obligation with money which he set aside for himself whatever be the degree of gravity of the offence, since [we know that] if he set aside money for himself [to make atonement] for [the offence of eating] forbidden fat, and used it [by mistake] for [the offence of eating] blood, or vice versa, he is guilty of malappropriation and [consequently] does procure atonement,6 and so Scripture says, for his sin7 to show that the offering must be for the particular sin [even in such circumstances].8 Now this passage refers simply to an animal.9 Surely this includes even a blemished one?10 — Not at all. One without blemish is meant. But if a blemished animal is regarded as not earmarked, why go on to speak of money set aside by his father when it could speak of an animal which has a blemish [instead]?11 — That is precisely [what is meant], for the only use [of such an animal for sacrificial purposes] is for the price it will bring, and this price is 'money'.
MISHNAH. IF ONE OF THE KINDS OF BLOOD12 HAS BEEN SPRINKLED ON HER BEHALF, [THE HUSBAND] CAN NO LONGER ANNUL [THE VOW].13 R. AKIBA SAYS, IF EVEN ONE OF THE ANIMALS HAS BEEN SLAUGHTERED ON HER BEHALF, HE CAN NO LONGER ANNUL [THE VOW]. THE ABOVE IS TRUE ONLY IF SHE IS POLLING14 [AFTER OBSERVING THE NAZIRITESHIP] IN PURITY, BUT IF SHE IS POLLING AFTER RITUAL DEFILEMENT, HE CAN [STILL] ANNUL [THE VOW], BECAUSE HE CAN SAY, 'I CANNOT TOLERATE AN UNSEEMLY WIFE,'15 RABBI16 SAYS THAT HE CAN ANNUL [HER VOW] EVEN IF SHE IS POLLING [AFTER OBSERVING THE NAZIRITESHIP] IN PURITY, SINCE HE CAN AVER THAT HE CANNOT TOLERATE A WOMAN WHO IS POLLED.
GEMARA. Our Mishnah does not agree with R. Eliezer, for R. Eliezer says that polling is a bar [to the drinking of wine],17 and since she has not polled, she is forbidden wine, and so since she is [still] unseemly, he is able to annul [her vow].
Original footnotes renumbered.
- Used also with reference to the lamb brought as a sacrifice by one of the common people who sins in error, Lev. IV, 32.
- 'He shall bring for his offering a goat … for his sin which he hath sinned.' Lev. IV, 28.
- Heb Heleb.
- He is guilty of malappropriation if he transfers an object in error from sacred to profane use, This cannot be done with animals intended for the altar, but only with objects intended for general temple use. Since an animal intended for the altar cannot be transferred from sacred to profane use, it cannot possibly become his again, and so once he sets aside an animal for the offence of eating forbidden fat, he cannot gain possession of it in order to use it to atone for his offence of eating blood.
- For malappropriating sacred money renders it his and it can now be used for any purpose he likes; v. note 2.
- Lev. IV, 18. The phrase used is the same as that from which the last inference was drawn. Rashi uses the verse in Lev. IV, 16, 'as concerning his sin'; but the parallel quotation in Ker. 27b is identical with this.
- And so, although the transference in error was valid, he is unable to transfer it at will. This Baraitha occurs also in Ker. 27b.
- In mentioning that a nazirite cannot poll with his father's animal.
- And so we see that a blemished animal is regarded as specific.
- And so make the distinction finer.
- I.e., the blood of one of the sacrifices.
- And her hair must be shorn.
- I.e., bringing the sacrifices at the polling.
- A teetotaller. This is based on the verse in Zach. IX, 1. 'New wine shall make the maids flourish.'
- Some versions read R. Meir.
- No wine may be drunk until after polling.
Our Tanna [on the other hand] takes the view that as soon as the blood is sprinkled on her behalf, she is permitted to drink wine and as a result she is no longer unseemly, whilst R. Akiba is of the opinion that even though the animal has only been slaughtered, he is no longer able to annul [her vow] since destruction of sacred property [would result].1
R. Zera objected: But why [should there necessarily be destruction of sacred property, in such a case]? Could not the blood be sprinkled as though it were some other [sacrifice],2 when it would be permitted to eat the flesh? For has it not been taught: If the lambs prepared for the Festival of Assembly3 were slaughter ed as though they were a different sacrifice, or before or after the proper time,4 the blood is to be sprinkled and the flesh can be eaten. Should [the mistake] occur on a Sabbath, [the blood] is not to be sprinkled, but if [notwithstanding] it is sprinkled, [the sacrifice] is acceptable, but the portions belonging to the altar must be roasted after dark?5 — The reply is this. If it were the burntoffering or the peace-offering that had been slaughtered,6 this [procedure] could be followed, but [the Mishnah] assumes that the sin-offering was slaughtered first [as could in fact happen], for we have learnt: If [the nazirite] polls after [the sacrifice] of any one of the three, his duty is performed.7
THE ABOVE IS TRUE ONLY IF SHE IS POLLING [AFTER OBSERVING THE NAZIRITESHIP] IN PURITY, BUT IF SHE IS POLLING AFTER RITUAL DEFILEMENT, HE CAN [STILL] ANNUL [THE VOW], BECAUSE HE CAN SAY, 'I CANNOT TOLERATE AN UNSEEMLY WIFE.' RABBI SAYS THAT HE CAN ANNUL [HER VOW] EVEN IF SHE IS POLLING [AFTER OBSERVING THE NAZIRITESHIP] IN PURITY, SINCE HE CAN AVER THAT HE CANNOT TOLERATE A WOMAN WHO IS POLLED. The first Tanna [does not allow this objection] because she can wear a wig, but Rabbi considers that [the husband] will not be satisfied with a wig because of the dirt [it collects].8
MISHNAH. A MAN IS ABLE TO IMPOSE A NAZIRITE VOW ON HIS SON,9 BUT A WOMAN CANNOT IMPOSE A NAZIRITE VOW ON HER SON. IF10 [THE LAD] POLLS HIMSELF OR IS POLLED BY HIS RELATIVES, OR IF HE PROTESTS OR HIS RELATIVES PROTEST ON HIS BEHALF, THEN IF [THE FATHER] HAD SET ASIDE AN ANIMAL [FOR THE SACRIFICE], THE SIN-OFFERING IS LEFT TO DIE, THE BURNT-OFFERING IS TO BE OFFERED AS AN [ORDINARY] BURNT-OFFERING, AND THE PEACE-OFFERING IS TO BE OFFERED AS AN [ORDINARY] PEACE-OFFERING. THIS [LAST], HOWEVER, MAY BE EATEN FOR ONE DAY [ONLY], AND REQUIRES NO LOAVES. IF HE HAD UNSPECIFIED MONIES, THEY FALL [TO THE TEMPLE TREASURY] TO PROVIDE FREEWILL-OFFERINGS: WHILST WITH REGARD TO EARMARKED MONIES, THE PRICE OF THE SIN-OFFERING IS TO BE TAKEN TO THE DEAD SEA, IT BEING NEITHER PERMISSIBLE TO USE IT, NOR POSSIBLE TO MALAPPROPRIATE IT; FOR THE PRICE OF THE BURNT-OFFERING, A BURNT-OFFERING IS TO BE PROVIDED AND THIS CAN SUFFER MALAPPROPRIATION, WHILST FOR THE PRICE OF THE PEACE-OFFERING, A PEACEOFFERING IS TO BE PROVIDED, WHICH MAY BE EATEN FOR ONE DAY ONLY AND REQUIRES NO LOAVES.
GEMARA. A man can [subject the son to a nazirite vow], but not a woman. Why? — R. Johanan said: It is a [traditional] ruling with regard to the nazirite.11 R. Jose son of R. Hanina,
Original footnotes renumbered.
- For the flesh could not be eaten. R. Akiba, however, would admit her right to drink wine after the sprinkling of the blood.
- Lit., 'be sprinkled not in its own name.'
- [In the absence of a fixed calendar there was always the possibility of the festival sacrifice being offered on a day earlier or later, and this Baraitha explains the procedure to be followed should such an incident occur.]
- And thus we see that an animal slaughtered as though it were some other sacrifice need not be destroyed, but can be eaten.
- On behalf of the nazirite woman.
- And so if the husband is allowed to annul the vow, this sin-offering would have to be destroyed as is asserted by R. Akiba, like all sin-offerings the owners of which no longer stand in need of atonement. Infra 45a.
- And so in order not to provoke ill-feeling between them, the husband should be allowed to annul the vow and save her from polling.
- Until what age wall be discussed in the Gemara.
- [So Tosaf. and Asheri, omitting [H] ('how?') in our texts which Bertinoro however explains: How (shall the offerings be treated) if the lad polls himself, etc.?]
- And requires no other justification. A tradition has the force of a Biblical injunction.