Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Nazir, 24

1) THE KORBANOS OF A WOMAN WHOSE NEZIRUS WAS REPEALED RETROACTIVELY

QUESTIONS: The Mishnah teaches that when a woman accepts upon herself Nezirus and after she designated her Korbanos but before she brought them, her husband annulled her Nezirus, her Korban Chatas must be left to die, and the Olah and Shelamim are brought as an Olah and Shelamim of Nedavah (freewill offering), but the Shelamim is eaten for only one day like a Shalmei Nazir, and it does not need the Lechem of a Shalmei Nazir.

There are a number of questions with this ruling.

(a) If the husband's Hafarah annuls the Neder of Nezirus by being "Meigiz Gayiz," or repealing the Neder from now on, then the Halachah of the Mishnah is easily understood; since the woman *was* a Nazir until the time that her husband annulled her Nezirus, the Olah and Shelamim that she designated are indeed Kadosh. The Lechem, though, is not brought with the Shelamim since Lechem is only brought if the Nazir is still a Nazir at the time the Korbanos are brought (excluding a case where the Nazir died (24b), or, as in our case, the Nezirus was repealed). However, according to the opinion that the husband's Hafarah is "Meikar Akar" and uproots the Neder retroactively, why should the Olah and Shelamim be brought altogether? Retroactively, it turns out that the woman was never a Nazir, and thus the animals should not be Kadosh at all, since the Hekdesh was a Hekdesh Ta'us -- she sanctified the animals thinking that she was a Nazir, and now it turns out that she was not a Nazir! (This may be compared to the Mishnah in Nedarim (66a) that discusses the case of a "Neder u'Pischo Imo," such as where a person says he will not marry a certain woman because she is ugly and it turns out that she is not ugly; the Mishnah there says that the Neder is a Neder Ta'us, a Neder made in error, and is not binding at all and does not even need Hatarah. See Ran there.)

In fact, it seems clear from the Gemara (21b) that her Hekdesh is indeed a Hekdesh Ta'us, since the Gemara says that if the husband's Hafarah is "Meikar Akar," then her Chatas should really not be sanctified at all and should not have to die. The only reason it dies is because of Rebbi Elazar ha'Kafar's principle that the woman needs a Kaparah and therefore it is appropriate for her to sanctify a Chatas. This implies that a Korban Olah and Korban Shelamim -- which are not brought because of the sin (see Tosfos here, DH v'ha'Olah) -- should not be Kadosh at all!

Similarly, Tosfos (DH Hachi Garsinan v'Einan) writes that if the husband's Hafarah is "Meikar Akar," then even if she was Makdish the Lechem already, and the husband annulled her Nezirus, the Lechem is not Kadosh mid'Oraisa at all. It is only Kadosh mid'Rabanan so that people not think that Hekdesh is becoming Chulin without Pidyon. Why, then, does the Mishnah imply that the Olah and Shelamim are Hekdesh d'Oraisa, when it says that one must bring a Korban Me'ilah if one derives benefit from them? (See ARZEI HA'LEVANON)

(b) Second, even if the Hekdesh was not considered an error, the animal she chose to be a Korban Shelamim was not designated to be a normal Korban Shelamim, but to be a Shalmei Nazir, which has different Halachos than a normal Shelamim (e.g. it is eaten for one day and not for two, the Nazir brings with it a special Minchah, the Lachmei Nazir, its forearm is treated like Kodshei Kodshim and is given to Kohanim). Only a Nazir can sanctify an animal to be a Shalmei Nazir; it is not something that can be brought voluntarily, since it is a specific obligation of a Nazir. Why, then, should the animal have the status of a normal Korban Shelamim even if she did want to make it Kadosh as a Shalmei Nazir and her husband annulled her Nezirus? Why can it be brought as a normal Shelamim by someone who was not a Nazir? If she actually was not a Nazir (retroactively) at the time that she sanctified it, then how could she make it Kadosh as a Shalmei Nazir (see what we wrote in the name of the Brisker Rav in Insights to 22a; according to what the Brisker Rav says, we might be able to answer this question). Yet Tosfos (DH Shelamim) implies that even if the husband's Hafarah is "Meikar Akar," the animal is still considered a Shalmei Nazir! How could that be?

ANSWERS:

(a) The reason why the Hekdesh of the Olah and Shelamim is not considered to be a Hekdesh Ta'us is because we assume that since the woman voluntarily accepted upon herself to bring a Korban by making herself a Nazir, once she sanctifies an animal for her Korban she shows that she would be willing to bring a Korban regardless of whether she remains a Nazir or whether her Nezirus is removed retroactively through the Hafarah of her husband. Therefore, we assume that she decided unequivocally in her mind that even if she ends up not being a Nazir, she still wants these animals to be sanctified as an Olas Nedavah and a Shalmei Nedavah. That is why the Mishnah says that one is Chayav Me'ilah for benefiting from these animals. The same applies to money that she designated towards bringing a Korban Olah and Shelamim. That is why the Mishnah says that there is a Chiyuv Me'ilah for benefiting from the money even if the husband's Hafarah is "Meikar Akar" and retroactively removes her Neder.

In contrast, a Korban Chatas and the Lachmei Nazir cannot be brought as a Korban Nedavah, voluntarily, and therefore it does not matter that she wants to bring those Korbanos even though she is not a Nazir, since she *cannot* bring them if she is not a Nazir. That is why the Gemara invokes Rebbi Elazar ha'Kafar's principle as the reason for why the Chatas must die. A Shalmei Nazir also cannot be brought as a Nedavah, and the money that the woman designated for a Korban Shelamim is used for a normal Shelamim and not a Shalmei Nazir.

(b) What, then, does Tosfos mean, when he implies that the Shelamim is actually a Shalmei Nazir and is treated with all the Chumros of a Shalmei Nazir, since the woman sanctified it with the Kedushah of a Shalmei Nazir? How can it have the Kedushah of a Shalmei Nazir if the husband's Hafarah is "Meikar Akar" and removes her Nezirus retroactively?

The answer is that Tosfos does not mean that the Korban is actually a Shalmei Nazir. Rather, the Korban is a normal Shelamim mid'Oraisa, but, mid'Rabanan, the Rabanan decreed that it should have all of the Chumros of a Shalmei Nazir, and that the Zero'a (forearm) should be Kadosh, and the Korban should be eaten for only one day and not two. They instituted this in order to prevent people from thinking that this is a real Shalmei Nazir and that a Shalmei Nazir can be eaten for two days, and that a non-Kohen may eat the Zero'a of a Shalmei Nazir (similar to the decree they made that the Lechem of a woman whose husband annulled her Nezirus needs Pidyon mid'Rabanan, so that people not say that Hekdesh is becoming Chulin without Pidyon). (See KEREN ORAH in the name of the Yerushalmi.)

24b

QUESTION: The Gemara says that even if a husband is not obligated ("Meshu'abad") to give animals to his wife for her to bring for her Korbanos obligations (like the opinion of the Rabanan who argue with Rebbi Yehudah), nevertheless, after the husband annuls his wife's Nezirus, any animals that he was Makneh to her in order for her to bring as her Korbanos become Chulin and are not sanctified. The reason the Gemara gives for this is because when he gave her the animals in the first place, he gave them on condition that she will need them, while if it ends up that she does not need them, he is not Makneh them to her.

The question is that there is a well-known rule, according to many Tana'im, that "Ein Bereirah" -- we cannot make a Kinyan dependent on something that will happen in the future which did not yet happen. How, then, can the husband be Makneh the animals to his wife on condition that, in the future, she will need them?

Similarly, TOSFOS (22a) explains why it is that if a person accepts Nezirus by being Matfis to the acceptance of Nezirus of a certain woman by saying, "Hareinu Kemosech" ("I am like her"), and then the husband of the woman annuls her Nezirus, then the person who was Matfis also loses his Nezirus. Tosfos asks why does he lose his Nezirus? Hafarah only works from now on ("mi'Kan u'l'ha'Ba"), and it can only work for the wife, and not for the person who was Matfis to the wife's Nezirus! Tosfos (DH Ta Shema) answers that we view it as if the person who was Matfis made his Nezirus conditional: if the husband will annul the woman's Nezirus, then he does not want to accept Nezirus upon himself, and if the husband does not annul her Nezirus, then he wants his Nezirus to take effect. Therefore, if the husband annuls his wife's Nezirus, the person who was Matfis to her Nezirus never accepted upon himself Nezirus. But in this case, too, how can the person who was Matfis make his status dependent on a future event (which is not in his control)?

These cases are not similar to the normal case of a Tenai (in which a person makes his Kinyan dependent on a certain condition which has not yet happened) which is not considered Bereirah. It is not considered Bereirah because, as RASHI says in Gitin (25b, DH u'Lechi Mayes; see Insights to Eruvin 36:2), when a person makes a Tenai, he intends for the Kinyan to take effect, and he only adds the condition in order to force another person to comply to a certain point. The condition must be something which is possible for the parties involved to fulfill and which they are interested in fulfilling. This Kinyan, made with a condition, actually takes effect now but will be annulled later if the condition does not take effect.

In contrast, whenever a condition makes a Kinyan dependent on an external action (an action not in the power of any of the parties involved), then the Kinyan does not take effect at all because of the problem of Bereirah (according to the opinions that hold "Ein Bereirah").

The Halachah is "Ein Bereirah" with regard to matters d'Oraisa. If so, why do the Gemara and Rishonim not point out that the Tenai that is mentioned in the Gemara and Tosfos will only work according to the opinion that allows Bereirah, while Halachically it will not work (since the Korbanos of Nazir are a question of a Halachah d'Oraisa)?

ANSWERS:

(a) The RAN and RAMBAN in Gitin (25b) differentiate between making a Tenai "on condition that something happens," and making a Tenai "on condition that something does *not* happen." When it depends on something actively happening, that is Bereirah. But when it depends on something passively *not* happening, that is not considered Bereirah (since it is only "Shev v'Al Ta'aseh"). (For example, "You are married to me on condition that your father does not protest" would not be Bereirah, while, "You are married to me on condition that your father grants permission" would be Bereirah.)

According to the Ran, the gift of animals that the husband gives to his wife on condition that she will need them (i.e. that he will not annul her Nezirus) might not be Bereirah, since the condition is a passive event, a "Shev v'Al Ta'aseh," that he not annul her Nezirus. Similarly, when a person accepts Nezirus on condition that a woman's husband does not annul her Nezirus, that is not Bereirah.

(b) A Tenai involves Bereirah only if it is contingent on something that did not happen yet. If it is contingent on something that happened already, but we just do not know (and cannot know) what happened, nevertheless the Tenai is valid. For example, if a person points to a pomegranate and says, "I will be a Nazir on condition that there are more than 500 seeds inside that fruit," it is not Bereirah, even though it is impossible to know the number of seeds right now, because the number is already determined and he simply needs to verify the number (see Eruvin 26b, and Tosfos in Bava Kama 69a, DH Kol ha'Nilkat)..

Perhaps the Tenai of our Gemara is not considered Bereirah for this reason as well. When the husband annuls his wife's Neder of Nezirus, even though the Hafarah removes the Nezirus from now on ("mi'Kan u'l'ha'Ba), nevertheless it affects the entire period of Nezirus that his wife observed even before the Hafarah. The Hafarah changes that Nezirus to a different type of Nezirus. The reason for this is because a Nezirus period has a minimum time limit: Stam Nezirus is 30 days, and if the Nazir specifies another number, then the Nezirus must be observed for however many days was specified. If a Nazir observes less than 30 days (or less than the specified number of days), and then his obligations of Nezirus suddenly come to an end, none of the days of Nezirus that he observed are part of an actual Nezirus, since they did not continue for the duration that was set. The Gemara in Nedarim (83a) refers to this as a "Chatzi Nezirus," a half-Nezirus. According to this, if a woman's husband annuls her Nezirus in the middle, since she did not complete the count she cannot bring the Korbanos of Nezirus even though her Nezirus came to an end, because, qualitatively, the Nezirus that she observed did not have the full quality of Nezirus since it was not part of a 30-day period of not drinking wine. Even though the Gemara in Nazir (22a) seems to disagree with the Gemara in Nedarim (see Insights to Nedarim 83a) and says that a woman could bring Korbanos Tum'ah if her husband's Hafarah is "Meigiz Gayiz" after she becomes Tamei, meaning that there *are* Korbanos Tum'ah for a Chatzi Nezirus, nevertheless the Gemara certainly agrees that the Nezirus is qualitatively different and there would not be Korbanos *Taharah* for such a Nezirus. This is clear from the fact that if the husband gives his wife animals for her Korbanos Nezirus and then he annuls her Nezirus, we say that the animal goes back to the flock of Chulin animals, and we do not say that she is obligated to bring the Korbanos of a Nazir Tahor like she is obligated to bring the Korbanos of a Nazir Tamei if she became Tamei. The difference between Nezirus Taharah and Nezirus Tum'ah is that the Korbanos of Nezirus Tum'ah are not brought for ending the Tum'ah and continuing the Nezirus, but they are brought for the Tum'ah that made her stop her Nezirus, which occurred at a time when she was still practicing a normal Nezirus (before the Hafarah). Korbanos Taharah are only brought for the completion of a Nezirus, at the end of a Nezirus (and at that time, in our case, it is a Chatzi Nezirus.) According to this, when the husband annuls the Neder and is "Meigiz Gayiz," even though the Hafarah works from now on, it also works retroactively in the sense that it makes her Nezirus into a Chatzi Nezirus retroactively. Hence, at the time that her husband gave her the animals for the Korban, her Nezirus was already either a full Nezirus (if, in the future, the husband does not annul it) or it was a half-Nezirus (if, in the future, the husband does annul it). Even though we cannot determine which one it is, it is like the number of seeds in the pomegranate that cannot be determined now, but which already exists. Therefore, making a Tenai dependent on such a situation would not involve Bereirah.