Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Nazir, 26

1) THE INFERENCE FROM "MA'OS SETUMIN"

QUESTION: The Beraisa teaches that if a person was obligated to bring a Korban Chatas (due to a sin he committed) and then he accepted upon himself to bring a Korban Olah as well, if he separates money and says, "This money is for my obligation [to bring a Korban]," he may not use the entire sum of money to bring a Chatas or an Olah alone (rather, he must use the money to buy both Korbanos, according to Tosfos). The Beraisa continues and says that "if he dies and has Ma'os Setumin (money that was set aside without being specified for which of the two Korbanos it will be used), the money must be thrown into the Yam ha'Melach."

TOSFOS (24b, DH Hayu Lo and DH Yiplu) explains that if a person who is obligated to bring a Chatas and an Olah sets aside money for the purpose of purchasing either a Chatas, Olah, or both, then when he dies the money is not thrown into the Yam ha'Melach, but rather it is used to bring a Korban Nedavah, since it is possible to use the money for an Olah. (This applies whether he must bring a Chatas because he is a Nazir or whether he must bring a Chatas for another reason). The only time it is necessary for the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai to teach that the money is used to bring a Korban Nedavah is when the person specifically designated the money to be used to bring *both* a Chatas and an Olah. Since he needed to use some of the money for a Chatas, when he dies (or can otherwise no longer bring a Korban) the money should really be thrown into the Yam ha'Melach, but the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai teaches that it is to be used to bring a Korban Nedavah.

Tosfos explains that when the Gemara earlier (24b) quotes a Mishnah that says that money set aside but not specified should be used for a Nedavah, the Gemara infers that it is referring not only to money that was not designated for any specific Korban, but even to money that was designated for Chatas as well as other Korbanos. That is why the Gemara must invoke the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai as the reason for why the money is to be used for a Nedavah. The same applies to the Beraisa (beginning of 26a) regarding Kinim. How does the Gemara know that the money was specified to be used for a Chatas as well as an Olah? The answer is because the beginning of the Mishnah and Beraisa discuss money that was separated for Korbanos but not specified for which ones, and then they continue and say, "If he dies and he has unspecified money...." Why do the Mishnah and Beraisa need to repeat that "he has unspecified money?" The Reisha was also discussing such money! It must be that the Seifa is adding that if the person had money that *was* specified for use for particular Korbanos but *how much* of the money to spend on the Chatas was *not* specified (but he only specified that "some" of it will be used for a Chatas), then the money still is used for a Nedavah.

According to Tosfos, why does the Beraisa that discusses a person who is obligated to bring a Chatas and accepts upon himself to bring an Olah state that if the person dies and has unspecified money set aside, it must be thrown into the Yam ha'Melach? Even the Reisha of the Beraisa is discussing a case where the person designated some of the money for a Chatas, and thus the words in the Seifa "he had Ma'os Setumin" are not adding anything to the case of the Reisha! The Beraisa should have left out those words and said only, "If he dies, the money must be thrown into the Yam ha'Melach!"

ANSWER: The part of Tosfos (24b) in which Tosfos makes the inference from the words, "He had Ma'os Setumin," is actually a Hagahah in Tosfos and not the words of Tosfos himself. It is possible that the Hagahah did not explain the Sugya here like Tosfos, but like RABEINU AZRIEL as cited in the SHITAH MEKUBETZES.

Rabeinu Azriel explains that the Ma'os Setumin of the Reisha of the Beraisa refers to money designated to be used to buy either a Chatas or an Olah, or both (just like the Ma'os Setumin in the Reisha of the other Beraisa and Mishnah). The Seifa, though, is discussing a case where the person designated the money to be used *both* for the Chatas and for the Olah. It seems that in the case of the Reisha, the money indeed will not go to Yam ha'Melach (but be used for a Nedavah instead), because it is possible that all the money is meant for an Olah, and therefore it is not included in the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai of "Chata'os Mesos," since the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai might refer only to money that is definitely designated for a Chatas.

QUESTION: The Beraisa teaches that if a person was obligated to bring a Korban Chatas (due to a sin he committed) and then he accepted upon himself to bring a Korban Olah as well, if he separates money and says, "This money is for my obligation [to bring a Korban]," he may not use the entire sum of money to bring a Chatas or an Olah alone (see previous Insight).

The Mishnah cited earlier (24b) says that if a Nazir separates money for his Korbanos, he may use all of it to bring any one of his Korbanos. Earlier on this Daf, another Beraisa says that if a person separates money for a pair of birds (one to be a Chatas and one to be an Olah), he may use all of the money to buy either a Chatas or an Olah. Why, then, in the case of this Beraisa may he not use all of the money to buy a Chatas or an Olah?

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS explains that the expression "l'Chovasi" ("for my obligation [to bring a Korban]") implies that the person wants to bring from this money everything he is obligated to bring. (It is comparable to one who separates money and says "these are for the Korbanos of my Nezirus" and not just "these are for my Nezirus;" see Tosfos, end of 24b.)

(b) Tosfos further suggests that the reason why this case is different from the other cases is because in this case the two Korbanos for which he separated the money are not related to each other. Therefore, when he designates money for his obligation (for the Olah or Chatas), it becomes sanctified towards both obligations. In the case of the Nazir, though, he set aside the money for the general obligation of "Korbanos Nazir," which includes all three of the Korbanos of a Nazir. If he spends money on any one of the Korbanos, it has been spent on "Korbanos Nazir."

According to Tosfos, in this case he must spend some portion of the money on the Chatas and some portion of the money on the Olah.

The ROSH, who follows a similar logic as that of Tosfos, rules that it does not help for the person to spend a portion of the money for the Chatas and a portion for the Olah. Rather, since he dedicated the money "for a Chatas or an Olah," the money became designated for one or both of the two Korbanos. He has no way of knowing for which it has become designated. Therefore, the only way for him to use the money is by adding additional money and sanctifying it for whatever Korban the first money was not designated for, and then buying the Chatas and Olah with the combined sum of money.

(c) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 5:13) has a different Girsa in the Beraisa. According to his Girsa, the Beraisa says that the person *may bring* either a Chatas or an Olah with the money, and thus this Beraisa is consistent with the other Mishnah and Beraisa.

26b

QUESTION: Rav Huna in the name of Rav says that when a Nazir separates animals for the Korbanos of his Nezirus (and those animals are not fit to be offered themselves but must be redeemed for money after they become blemished), if the Nazir dies the value of the animals that he separated must be thrown into the Yam ha'Melach and is not used for Nedavah. The value of the animals do not have the status of "Ma'os Setumin" (money that was set aside to be used for Korbanos but was not specified for which Korbanos it would be used), but rather the value of the animals is considered "Ma'os Mefurashin" (specified for particular Korbanos).

Rav Shimi bar Ashi asks that if the Halachah of Ma'os Setumin applies only to money and not to animals, then it should follow also that it applies only to money and not to *birds*. We find, though, that Rav Chisda states that if a woman buys a pair of birds in order to bring one as a Chatas and one as an Olah (for her Korban Yoledes), she may designate which one is the Chatas and which is the Olah only at the time that she buys the birds, or when the Kohen offers them on the Mizbe'ach. If birds are not considered like "Ma'os Setumin," then why should this be? (The Kohen should not be able to designate the birds at the time that he offers them, because the birds should already be considered designated, "Mefurashin"!)

How can Rav Shimi bar Ashi compare the ability of the Kohen to designate the birds for a Chatas and an Olah, respectively, with the Halachah of Rav Huna, that the value of the animals is considered to be designated for a Chatas? Even if money is designated for a Chatas with regard to having to be thrown into the Yam ha'Melach, nevertheless it is still possible for the owner of the Korban to designate which part of the money will be used for a Chatas! For example, if he says that "this money is for my Chatas, Olah and Shelamim," the money must be thrown into Yam ha'Melach if he dies, but if he does not die he may decide which part of the money to use to buy the Chatas and other Korbanos!

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS explains that the reason why the value of the animals must go to the Yam ha'Melach is because the owner cannot use the value to buy his Korban right away (since he must wait for the animal to become blemished). Therefore, we are concerned that he might have designated some of the value to be used for his Chatas, making it Mefurashin. If he designates money, and not animals, to use for his Korbanos, then there is no reason for concern that he set aside part of the money for the Chatas, because if he wanted to set aside money for the Chatas he would have simply went and bought a Chatas with it. However, when animals are set aside for his Korbanos and he cannot simply buy a Chatas with them until they get a blemish and are redeemed with money, we are concerned that he might have set aside some of the money for his Chatas.

Accordingly, Tosfos explains the question of Rav Shimi as follows. After the owner buys the pair of birds, he cannot choose which one will be the Chatas. Rather, the Kohen -- when he offers them -- chooses to offer one as the Chatas and one as the Olah. Since the owner could not choose which one is going to be the Chatas, and the birds must wait in their undesignated state, we are afraid that as time passes the owner might designate one in his mind as the Chatas and the other one as the Olah. Even though this will not make the one he chooses into the Chatas (with regard to the Halachah of "Chatas Mesah") since it only obtains the status of a Chatas at the time that the Kohen designates it, nevertheless the owner's mental designation limits the Kohen to designating as the Chatas the same one that the owner designated in his mind. (See next Insight.)

(b) The ROSH adds that according to Rebbi Yochanan who says that there is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai that Ma'os Setumin is used for a Korban Nedavah, the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai does not apply to animals that are designated for Korbanos Nazir. There is a logical reason why the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai does not apply. A person cannot set aside something to remain indefinitely as "Setumin," unspecified money. A person can only set aside money as Ma'os Setumin when that money could be used immediately for purchasing the respective Korbanos and thereby becoming specified, Mefurashin. When the money (or value) cannot be used immediately for the purchase of Korbanos, then it cannot remain Setumin and instead it is as if he specified that this money be used for the Chatas, Olah and Shelamim. Since the value of the animal that is designated for the Korbanos of Nezirus cannot be used to buy Korbanos until the animal becomes blemished, it cannot be considered Setumin. Rav Shimi bar Ashi is asking that if this rule is correct, then it should not be possible for birds to remain Setumin and for the owner not to be able to designate them for their respective Korbanos. They should become Mefurashin, immediately, for a Chatas and an Olah.

The Rosh holds that when money becomes specified, Mefurashin, for particular Korbanos, it does not mean that the owner may choose later which part of the money to use for which Korban. Rather, part of the money becomes designated for each Korban and it is impossible to know which part is designated for which Korban (see previous Insight). Therefore, if the pair of birds becomes designated for the respective Korbanos, it would be impossible for the Kohen to choose later which one will be the Chatas and which one will be the Olah.

(c) The RAM, cited by Tosfos (27a), and the ROSH in his second explanation say that the Gemara's question is straightforward. Rav Huna in the name of Rav says that if a person designates the value of animals towards his Korbanos, we are afraid that he might have chosen part of the value to be used as the Chatas (like we wrote above in (a)). Rav Shimi bar Ashi questions this from Rav Chisda's rule that one may designate a Korban only at the time that he buys the Korban or at the time that the Kohen offers it, but not at any other time. The same applies to money set aside for a Korban; it may be designated for a certain type of Korban only when one buys the Korban. It should be impossible for him to designate the value for a Chatas before he actually uses the money to buy a Chatas.

According to this explanation, Rav Chisda's statement does not relate exclusively to Kinim, but to all Korbanos. Although the Hagahah in Tosfos (and the ME'IRI) reject this explanation, the TOSFOS YESHANIM and the RITVA (Yoma 41a) point out that this indeed seems to be the way the Gemara in Yoma (41a) understands Rav Chisda, since it applies his teaching to the two Se'irim of Yom Kipur and not just to Kinim.

(d) The HAGAHAH in TOSFOS offers a simple, albeit forced, explanation. He suggests that Rav Chisda's wording implies that not only are the birds considered undesignated with regard to which will be offered as a Chatas, but they are not considered designated even with regard to leaving the birds to die (in a case where the owner has died).