Previous Daf

NAZIR 26

Ask A Question

click for question
1)
(a) We quoted Rebbi Yochanan, who said 'Halachah Hi b'Nazir'. Ma'os Stam of a Metzora Ani (shall we say), who became rich ...
1. ... in his lifetime - may be used to purchase whichever he wishes (a Chatas Behemah or an Olas Behemah)
2. ... after his death - goes to 'Nedavah'.
(b) The earlier ruling speaks when, at the time that he designated the money, the Metzora declared 'Harei Eilu l'Tzarati'. Had he said ' ... l'Korbanos Tzarati' - then the Kedushah of both Korbanos would have taken effect on the money, and he would have to use half the money for his Chatas and half for his Olah.
(c) We might also establish Rebbi Yochanan's case - when he specified half the money for his Chatas and half for his Olah.
(d) Seeing as a Metzora (as well a Yoledes and a Zav) also brings a pair of birds and has the same Din as a Nazir in this regard, when Rebbi Yochanan said 'Halachah Hi b'Nazir, he meant 'Nazir' and all that are like it.

click for question
2)
(a) When Rebbi Yochanan said 'Halachah Hi b'Nazir (v'Chol d'Dami Lei') - he was coming to exclude a case where someone added an Olas Nedavah to a Chatas which he was already Chayav.
(b) In such a case (assuming the Noder was still alive) - he would have to bring two animals to cover his two obligations, and transfer the money of the Chatas on to the one, and that of the Olah on to the other.
(c) The underlying reason for this distinction is - because whereas, in Rebbi Yochanan's case, both Korbanos come for his Nezirus, in the case of the Beraisa, they come for different purposes (one for eating Chelev for example, and the other, for a Nedavah).
(d) We just said in the previous case that someone who says 'Harei Eilu l'Chovasi' cannot use the designated (but unspecified) money for whichever Korban he chooses; whereas Chayavei Kinin can. The difference might lie in the Lashon that he uses ('Harei Eilu l'Chovasi' in the former case), and 'l'Nezirasi' or 'l'Tzarati' (in the latter). The difference might be due to the fact that the Korbanos of a Nazir, a Yoledes or a Metzora are all of the same kind (e.g. Korbenos Nazir), and initially he could have bought a Chatas or an Olah from all the money, he can do likewise when he becomes rich; whereas the Chatas and the Olah, which are two independent Korbanos, the money is automatically designated for both Korbanos, not just one of them. Alternatively - it might be due to the Lashon that he uses ('Harei Eilu l'Chovasi' in the former case), and 'l'Nezirasi' or 'l'Tzarati' (in the latter).

click for question
3)
(a) If, in the previous case, he died leaving unspecified money, it goes to the Yam ha'Melach. It does not go to Nedavah - because, due to the fact that the Chatas and the Olah do not come from the same source, the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai was not said with regard to this case.
(b) If the money was specified however, then the money of the Chatas goes to the Yam ha'Melach, whereas if they got mixed up, the mixture goes to Nedavah. If the money was specified however, then the money of the Chatas goes to the Yam ha'Melach, whereas if they later became mixed up, the mixture goes to Nedavah. According to Rav Ashi's first Lashon, even if the man had said 'Eilu l'Chatasi, ul'Olasi ul'Shalmi', it would be considered 'Mefurashin'. The practical difference between whether he said 'Eilu l'Chatasi, Eilu l'Olasi, v'Eilu li'Shalmi' or 'Eilu l'Chatasi, ul'Olasi ul'Shalmi' is - that in the former case, he designated three piles of money, whereas in the latter, he designated all the money in one pile.
(c) The Halachic difference between the two cases is - that in the former, the money goes to Nedavah, whereas in the latter, it goes to the Yam ha'Melach (from now on, we will refer to this as mixed Mefurashin).

click for question
4)
(a) In the second Lashon, regarding Stam Ma'os from which the value of his Chatas was separated - Rav Ashi says that even if the Noder said 'Eilu l'Chovasi', the money is considered Ma'os Mefurashin (because 'l'Chovasi' implies for his entire Chovah, and not just for one of the Korbanos [unlike 'l'Nezirusi', which implies any one of them]).
(b) Rava say that Ma'os Stumin from which the equivalent of the value of the Chatas was removed - has the Din of Ma'os Mefurashin, and he brings a Chatas with half the money and an Olah with the other half.
(c) Even according to Resh Lakish, who learns from a Pasuk that Mosar Neder goes to Nedavah, there is a difference between Mosar Nedavah which contains the money for a Chatas and Mosar Nedavah which does not - because the Pasuk probably speaks when the money incorporated that of the Chatas, seeing as elsewhere, we find that (based on the Derashah of Yehoyada ha'Kohen) the Mosar Chatas is brought as a Nedavah).
(d) We know for certain that Rava is correct - because his opinion is substantiated by a Beraisa.

click for question
5)
(a) The Beraisa (which substantiates Rava) says in the case of 'Eilu l'Chatasi, v'ha'Sha'ar l'Sha'ar Nezirusi' that ...
1. ... the money of the Chatas - goes to the Yam ha'Melach.
2. ... the money of the Olah and the Shelamim - is transferred, half for an Olah, and half for a Chatas.
(b) The Tosefta establishes the Beraisa when the Noder died - because if he was still alive, there would be no reason for the money of the Chatas to go to the Yam ha'Melach.
(c) There is ...
1. ... Me'ilah for using all (or even most of) the remaining money - because some of the money at least, must be that of the Olah, which is subject toMe'ilah.
2. ... no Me'ilah for using only part of it - because it is fit to be used for a Shelamim, which is not subject to Me'ilah.

click for question
6)
(a) The Beraisa says in the case of 'Eilu l'Olasi, v'ha'Sha'ar l'Sha'ar Nezirusi' that ...
1. ... the money of the Olah - goes to buy an Olah.
2. ... the money of the Chatas and the Shelamim - goes to Nedavah (because it contains that of a Chatas).
(b) There is no Me'ilah for using part of that remaining money - because it is fit to be used for a Shelamim.
(c) We say this because despite the fact that the money goes to Nedavah, which, after all, is an Olah (to which Me'ilah does apply) - the transition to Nedavah only takes place when he actually comes to bring it (see Hagahos ha'Gra).

click for question
7)
(a) Rav Huna Amar Rav explains that the Beraisa is speaking when the deceased left behind money, but not animals - in which case it would have the Din of Ma'os Mefurashin.
(b) This cannot be speaking when he left a female lamb (for his Chatas), a lamb (for his Olah) and a ram (for his Shelamim), because that is obvious and Rav would not be teaching us any Chidush; and besides, that is already contained in a Mishnah. Moreover - Rav probably speaks in the same circumstances as Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, who precludes objects such as a piece of silver, from the Din in the Beraisa, and which is certainly not fit to be brought as a Korban.
(c) So we establish Rav - when he brought three animals that were not fit to be brought as Korbenos Nazir, such as three bulls.
(d) The animals have the Din of mixed Mefurashin (which go to the Yam ha'Melach). Consequently - they too must die.

click for question
8)
(a) Rav Nachman qualifies Rav's previous ruling - by confining it to unblemished animals, but blemished ones, have the Din of Stumos, which go to Nedavah.
(b) Despite the fact that, even when they are not blemished, they are unfit to be brought as the Korbanos for which they were designated, blemished animals are nevertheless different than unblemished ones - inasmuch as they are Kadosh Kedushas ha'Guf.
(c) Despite the fact that they are not fit to be brought as Korbenos Nazir, they have Kedushas ha'Guf - because Rav Nachman holds like the Rabanan in Temurah, who maintain that if someone designates a female animal as an Olah, it has Kedushas ha'Guf (seeing as it is fit to be brought as a Shelamim or a Chatas).
(d) And despite the fact that, even though the animals are not blemished, they need to be sold and it is the money which will be used to purchase Korbanos - nevertheless, they are not considered Stumin (like blemished ones) - because unlike blemished animals, they would still need to become blemished before they could be sold and replaced.

click for question
9)
(a) Rabeinu Tam says that if someone retained these blemished animals for a long period of time - they have the Din of mixed Mefurashin, which, as we discussed on the previous Amud, go to the Yam ha'Melach (because we are afraid that, in the course of time, the Noder may just declare part of them a Chatas). In fact, Rabeinu Tam learns the entire Sugya on this basis. But I shall be using the explanation of the Rosh, who explains Resh Lakish (who learns 'Ma'os Stumin' from a Pasuk) in this way.

click for question
10)
(a) Rav Nachman restricts 'Ma'os Stumin Yiplu li'Nedavah' (in our Mishnah), to money, but not to pieces of silver - which have the Din of mixed Mefurashin, and go to the Yam ha'Melach, because he does not consider them to be Ma'os (since they are not normally used as currency).
(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak agrees with him with regard to beams of wood - which are certainly not Ma'os, but not with regard to pieces of silver, which he considers Ma'os, because one sells them immediately like coins, or because one purchases with them.
(c) According to Resh Lakish, who learns Ma'os Stumin from a Pasuk, and not from a Halachah - we will preclude beams or pieces of silver from Ma'os Stumin due to the suspicion that, since one tends to retain them for long periods, the owner may have designated the money for a Chatas (in which case, it must go to the Yam ha'Melach).
(d) The Machlokes between Rav Nachman and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak regarding pieces of silver is - whether people tend to hold on to them for a long period of time (Rav Nachman) or not (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak).

click for question
11)
(a) Rav Shimi bar Ashi, queries this Halachah on the grounds that, by the same token, we ought then to say 'Ma'os v'Lo Ofos' - meaning that a pair of unspecified birds should also then be considered mixed Mefurashin which go to the Yam ha'Melach (Rosh).
(b) This cannot pertain to chickens and the like (which are unfit to be brought as Korbanos, and) which, in turn, are unfit to be used as Korbanos (like pieces of silver and planks, which we just precluded from 'Ma'os') - because, seeing as they are not fit to be brought as any Korban, they would be considered like blemished animals, which are fit to be sold immediately and have the Din of Ma'os Stumin.
(c) We initially think that Rav Shimi bar Ashi's statement can only pertain to someone who is Chayav Kinin (e.g. a Metzora or a Zav), but not to a Nazir - because, unlike blemished animals, birds that are Kadosh Kedushas ha'Guf, cannot be redeemed. Consequently, unless they are fit to be brought for the person concerned, the fact that they are fit to be brought in other cases would not help to make them Stumin.
(d) It is possible however - to establish it in the case of a Tamei Nazir, who also brings birds.

click for question
12)
(a) Rav Chisda says - that the two birds brought by someone who is Chayav to bring a Ken can be fixed, either by the owner designating them when he purchases them, or by the Kohen when he actually sacrifices them just bring them.
(b) The problem that Rav Shimi bar Ashi now has with regard to the Halachah 'Ma'os v'Lo Naska ... v'Lo Ofos', as we explained above, is - how the Kohen could then designate the two birds in the Ken, which have a Din of mixed Mefurashin.

Next Daf