ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 24
(a) We have already discussed our Mishnah (of a Nezirah whose husband
annulled her Nezirus after she had already designated her Korbanos). The
three animals that she bring for her Chatas, Olah and Shelamim respectively
are - a she-sheep, a sheep and a ram.
(b) The time-period for eating ...
(c) The two other differences between regular Shelamim and Shalmei Nazir
are - that the latter require bread (ten loaves and ten wafers) and a
special ceremony regarding the right foreleg, whereas the former do not.
- ... regular Shelamim - is two days and the intervening night.
- ... Shalmei Nazir - a day and a night.
(d) If the Chatas belongs to the (i.e. if it was purchased from her money),
it must die. Although it is forbidden to benefit from it (mi'de'Rabbanan) -
someone who does so is not Chayav a Korban Me'ilah (see Tosfos DH 'D'mei
(a) In the previous case, the Olah and the Shelamim are brought as Nedavos.
Even Rebbi Yishmael, who learned above that the Olah in the case of a Nazir
Tamei is not brought - agrees with this, because he only said that with
reference to a Nazir Tamei, where the Torah compares the Olah to the Chatas,
but not with reference to a Nazir Tahor.
(b) The Shelamim are only eaten for one day - even assuming that the Tana
holds that a husband uproots the Neder retroactively, because, having been
designated as a Shalmei Nazir (which is only eaten for one day), it is still
treated as such (with all the Chumros).
(c) The breads that normally accompany the Shelamim are not brought here -
because the Torah writes with regard to them "al Kapei Nazir", and the owner
in this case is not a Nazir.
(d) If she already designated them however, they will require redemption,
irrespective of whether a husband uproots his wife's Neder retroactively or
only from now onwards. Even assuming the latter, one will be permitted to
redeem the bread - because until the Shechitah of the Shelamim, it does not
assume the status of Kedushas ha'Guf.
(a) The "Zero'a Besheilah" is - the right foreleg, which is normally cooked,
waved and given to the Kohen.
(b) When we will later say 'Shalmei Nazir she'Shachtan she'Lo ke'Mitzvasan'
(such as the one under discussion) 'Ein Lo Zero'a', we may mean that it is
not waved (though it is certainly forbidden to a Zar) - or that it is cooked
independently (and not together with the rest of the ram).
(c) In fact - this applies to our Mishnah too, because, wherever the bread
is not brought, the Zero'a Besheilah is not brought in the usual manner
either (see Tosfos Amud Beis DH 've'Ein Te'unin').
(a) Unspecified money goes to the Yam ha'Melach, and so does the money that
is specified for her Chatas - from which one may not derive benefit
(b) One is not however, obligated to bring a Korban Me'ilah if one does -
because, seeing as it goes to the Yam ha'Melach, it is not called 'Kodshei
(c) The status of the Olah that she purchases with the money that was
specified for her Olah - is a full-fledged Olah (which is subject to
(d) The specifications of the Shelamim that she purchases with the money
for her Shelamim are - that she has one day to eat it (like all Shalmei
Nazir), though it does not require bread.
(a) The Tana differentiate between whether the animal is his or hers - on
the grounds that her husband is not obligated to bring Korbanos on her
The source of Rebbi Yehudah is the text that is written in the receipt that
a divorced woman hands to her ex-husband when he pays her Kesuvah - in which
she writes that her husband has paid her Kesuvah and that she foregoes
whatever he was Meshubad to her.
(b) Rav Chisda establishes the author of our Mishnah as the Rabbanan, of
Rebbi Yehudah. Rebbi Yehudah says - that if a poor married woman is married
to a wealthy man and is obligated to bring a Korban Oleh ve'Yoreid (which
depends on one's financial status) - her husband is obligated to bring the
Korban of a wealthy woman on her behalf.
(c) This does not mean that she is permitted to volunteer as many Korbanos
as she wishes and that her husband is obligated to bring them on her
behalf - because Rebbi Yehudah's Din is restricted to Korbanos that she is
obligated to bring (and not to Nedavos).
(d) Rava disagrees with Rav Chisda. He establish our Mishnah even like Rebbi
Yehudah - on the grounds that Rebbi Yehudah only obligates the husband to
provide her with Korbanos that she is obligated (but not Korbanos that
remain after he has annulled her Nezirus).
(a) In the second Lashon, Rav Yehudah agrees that, according to the Rabbanan
(who hold that a husband is not obligated to bring his wife's Korbanos at
all) our Mishnah would be superfluous. Consequently, the author must be
Rebbi Yehudah. Despite the fact that in his opinion, a husband is obligated
to bring his wife's Korbanos, the Tana says 'Teitzei ve'Tir'eh be'Eider'
(even with regard to the Chatas) - because he is only obligated to bring the
Korbanos that she is obligated (like Rava learned in the first Lashon).
(b) Rav Chisda did not establish our Mishnah like the Rabbanan, when the
husband was Makneh his animals for her use (should he not annul her Neder) -
because in that case, they would belong to her, and the Chatas ought to die.
(c) Here too, Rava disagrees, establishing our Mishnah even like the
Rabbanan - when the husband was Makneh her the animals. He is only Makneh
however, the animals that she needs (just like Rebbi Yehudah says with
regards to the Takanas Chachamim).
(d) We are forced to say that her husband was Makneh her his animals at an
earlier date for when she will need them, and not after she declared her
Neder Nezirus - because if he gave her the animals after her Neder Nezirus,
it would be tantamount to Hakamah (in which case he could no longer annul
her Neder) Tosfos.
(a) To reconcile our Mishnah, which says 'Im she'Lah Haysah ... ' with the
principle 'Mah she'Kansah Ishah Kansah Ba'alah', we establish it in a case
of 'Kamtzah me'Isasah' - meaning that if the woman scrimped on her food
(which will now be explained), she is permitted to retain it.
(b) To reconcile our Sugya with the Sugya in Kesuvos, which maintains 'Moser
Mezonos le'Ba'alah', we establish our case when her husband had already said
to her 'Tze'i Ma'aseh Yadayich bi'Mezonosayich', to which she had agreed,
and she then produced more than she would have received from her husband -
or when she literally scrimped, eating less than she actually needed;
whereas the Sugya in Kesuvos speaks when she ate her fill, but when the
price of food dropped, so she purchased more than she actually needed.
(c) We might also answer the initial Kashya from 'Mah she'Kansah Ishah,
Kansah Ba'alah' - by establishing our Mishnah when someone gave her food on
the express condition that her husband has no right to it.
(d) This is not Halachah however - according to Tosfos, who rules like Rav
in the last Perek of Nedarim that it is only if the donor adds 'Mah she'At
Nosenes le'Toch Pich' that her husband does not acquire it (though from the
fact that the Gemara does not answer that, it would appear that the Halachah
is not like Rav).
(a) There are four cases (all Mishnahs) where the ram of the Shalmei Nazir
does not require bread. One of these is 'she'Lah' (our Mishnah). The next is
'she'Lo', which deals with a case where a father declared a Neder Nezirus on
behalf of his son. In fact - anyone else (including a mother on behalf of
her son) cannot be Madir Nezirus on behalf of someone else.
(b) The significance of the continuation of the Mishnah 'Gilach O
she'Gilchuhu Kerovav' is - that the son or another relative can object to
the father's declaration (thereby negating it), and the shaving serves as
(c) The case of 'she'Lo' where he brings a Shelamim but not the bread is -
when, following the father declaring his son a Nazir, the son or a relative
objected to it or shaved the son, and he had money specified for his
(d) The money of the Chatas and of the Olah - is dealt with in exactly the
same way as they are in our Mishnah (the one goes to the Yam ha'Melach, the
other is used to purchase an Olah).
(a) The third case is that of 'she'le'Achar Misah'. The reason that there
is no Me'ilah regarding the unspecified money of Nazir is - because
theoretically, the money could all be used to purchase a Shelamim, and since
there is no Me'ilah on a Shelamim (seeing as, like all Kodshim Kalim, it is
not called "Kodshei Hashem"), there is no Me'ilah on the money either.
(b) Nevertheless, the Tana says 'Lo Nehenin' - which appears to mean
'mi'de'Rabbanan', but which might also mean even mi'd'Oraysa, seeing as the
Shelamim itself would also be forbidden mi'd'Oraysa.
(c) Should the Nazir die, leaving over unspecified money, the money goes to
Nedavah - meaning for 'Olas Kayitz ha'Mizbei'ach' (to bring communal Olos
Nedavah whenever the Mizbei'ach is not in use).
(d) If the money was specified (for a Chatas, an Olah and a Shelamim) - it
is dealt with in the same way as the equivalent money in our Mishnah.
(a) The fourth case is that of 'she'le'Achar Kaparah' - meaning that, if the
Shelamim got lost, and after he had brought a replacement on the Mizbei'ach,
it was found, he brings it but minus the bread.
(b) Shmuel now asked Avuhah bar Ihi to explain to him (before sitting
down) - either the reason for this fourth case, or the Kashya that we will
ask shortly about the fifth case?
(c) He answered him (or Shmuel said it himself) by comparing 'she'le'Achar
Kaparah' to 'she'le'Achar Misah' - just as the Shelamim in the case of
she'le'Achar Misah do not require bread because they no longer serve to
atone for the Nazir, so too, do the Shelamim of 'she'le'Achar Kaparah' no
longer serve to atone for him.
(a) We ask why Chazal only quoted four cases where the Shelamim is brought
without the bread, when really there are five. The fifth case is that of
Shalmei Nazir she'Shachtan she'Lo ke'Mitzvasan'. This might mean one that
was Shechted she'Lo Lishmah - or it might mean a lamb in its first year
(whereas a ram by definition, means in its second year).
Avuhah bar Ihi answered Shmuel that Chazal list only four cases of Shalmei
Nazir that are brought without bread, and not five - because they only
include in the list Shelamim that are brought according to their
(b) The Korban is Kasher - but the owner has not fulfilled his obligation
(in effect, he has brought a Shalmei Nedavah).
(c) No bread is brought with the Korban, and the Dinim of Zero'a are not
applied - because the Korban does not serve to permit the Nazir to drink
(d) The source of the Din of eating Shalmei Nazir for only one day is - the
Korban Todah, from which it is derived (from "al Zevach Todas Shelamav"
[which is otherwise superfluous]).