Previous Folio / Nedarim Directory / Tractate List

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nedarim

Folio 36a

R. Simi b. Abba objected: If he [the maddir]1  is a priest, he may sprinkle for him the blood of his sin-offering and his guilt-offering?2  — This refers to the blood of a leper's sin-offering and of a leper's guilt-offering [who lack atonement], as it is written, This shall be the law of the leper:3  both an adult and a minor.4

We learnt: If priests render a sacrifice piggul5  in the Temple, and do so intentionally, they are liable;6  This implies [that if they do so] unwittingly, they are exempt, though it was taught thereon:7  Yet their piggul stands.8  Now, it is well if you say that they are the agents of the All-Merciful: hence their piggul stands. But if you say that they are our agents, why is it so; let him say to him, 'I appointed you an agent for my advantage, not for my hurt'?9  — I will tell you: Piggul is different, because the Writ saith, neither shall it be imputed unto him:10  [implying that it is piggul] in spite of everything.11

The [above] text [states]: 'R. Johanan said: All require [the owner's] consent, save for those lacking atonement, since one brings a sacrifice for his sons and daughters when minors.' If so, let one offer a sin-offering on behalf of his neighbour for [eating] heleb,12  since one brings [a sin-offering] for his insane wife?13  Why then did R. Eleazar say: If a man set aside a sin-offering for heleb on his neighbour's behalf, his action is invalid?14  — [Now consider:] In respect to his insane wife, what are the circumstances? If she ate [heleb] whilst insane, she is not liable to a sacrifice;15  while if she ate it when sane, subsequently becoming insane, [there is the ruling of] R. Jeremiah who said in the name of R. Abbahu in R. Johanan's name: If a man ate heleb, set aside an offering, became insane, and then regained his sanity, it [the sacrifice] is unfit: having been once rejected, it remains so.16

Yet if so,17  a man should be able to offer the passover sacrifice for his neighbour,18  since he brings it for his sons and daughters, who are minors. Why then did R. Eleazar say: If a man sets aside a passover sacrifice for his neighbour his action18  is null? — Said R. Zera: [The law, And they shall take to them every man] a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, [a lamb for a house],19  is not Biblically incumbent [upon minors].20  And how do we know this? — Because we learnt: If a man says to his sons [who are not of age], 'I will slaughter the passover sacrifice for whomever of you first enters Jerusalem', then as soon as the first of them enters with his head and the greater part of his body, he acquires his portion, and assigns a part thereof to his brothers with him. Now, if you maintain that 'a lamb, according to the house of their fathers' is Biblically applicable [to minors], then standing over the flesh, can he transfer a portion to his brethren?21  If so, why did their father speak thus to them? — In order to stimulate them in [the performance of] precepts. It was taught likewise: it once happened [after their father had spoken thus] that the daughters entered [the city] before the sons, so that the daughters shewed themselves zealous, and the sons indolent.22


To Part b

Original footnotes renumbered.
  1. V. Glos.
  2. Now. since these offerings are unspecified, they must refer to all, even of those who do not lack atonement.
  3. Lev. XIV, 2, referring to his purificatory sacrifices.
  4. Therefore the same reasoning applies as in the case of a zab.
  5. v. Glos. Such a sacrifice is 'not acceptable' and does not acquit its owner of his liability, so that he is bound to offer another.
  6. To compensate the owner of the sacrifice.
  7. This is absent in our text, but supplied from Men. 49a.
  8. Though committed unwittingly, the sacrifice remains piggul.
  9. I.e., such an act committed on behalf of someone else can be repudiated.
  10. Lev. VII, 18.
  11. I.e., the priest is the owner's agent, yet the latter cannot repudiate him, because his power of rendering a sacrifice piggul is absolute and unconditional.
  12. Forbidden fat. The objection is not particularly in regard to this sin-offering, but to all sin-offerings brought on account of transgression. The addition of heleb merely illustrates the type of offering referred to, and is frequently used as the general designation of a sin-offering.
  13. Who also has neither legal consent nor knowledge.
  14. The animal not becoming sanctified.
  15. Not being responsible for her actions.
  16. I.e., when the transgressor lost his reason, his sacrifice became unfit for offering, because an insane person cannot offer, and it remains unfit even if he regains his sanity. Thus we see that even if a sane person sinned, he is not liable to a sacrifice on becoming insane. Therefore, one cannot bring a sin-offering for his insane wife for actual transgression; hence the proposed analogy cannot be drawn.
  17. Still objecting to R. Johanan's first ruling.
  18. Without his knowledge.
  19. Ex. XII, 3.
  20. The Passover sacrifice had to be definitely assigned (before the animal was slain) to a number of persons and anyone not so appointed was subsequently forbidden to cat thereof. But this assignment does not, by Scriptural law, apply to minors at all. For this reason the father could slaughter for them, since they did not need to be appointed. Hence, one cannot argue from this to an adult, to whom the law off appointment applies.
  21. For the assignment of the sacrifice can be made only before it is slain, not after (Pes. 89a). How then can one son assign a portion of the sacrifice to his brothers after it is killed? Therefore we must conclude that by Biblical law they are not bound to be appointed for the eating of the sacrifice at all.
  22. But it is not stated that they lost their portion, proving that assignment is not Biblically incumbent upon them.
Tractate List

Nedarim 36b

The scholars propounded: If one gives terumah of his own for his neighbour's produce, does he require his consent or not? Do we say, since it is a benefit for him, his consent is unnecessary;1  or perhaps, [the privilege of performing] the precept is his, and he prefers to perform it himself? Come and hear! HE MAY SEPARATE HIS TERUMAH AND HIS TITHES WITH HIS CONSENT. How is this meant: Shall we say, his own corn is used?2  Then with whose consent? If with his own, who appointed him an agent?3  But if it means with the owner's consent — does he not benefit him by acting as his agent?4  Hence it must mean that he separates his own [i.e., the maddir's] produce for the owner's. Now, with whose consent? If with the owner's, does he not benefit him? Hence it must mean with his own knowledge [without informing the owner].5  Now if you say that he requires his consent, does he not benefit him?6  — [No.] After all, it means the owner's [produce] for the owner's produce; and it is as Raba said [elsewhere], That the owner had announced, 'Whoever wishes to separate, let him do so;' here, too, the owner had announced etc.7

R. Jeremiah asked R. Zera: If one separates of his own for his neighbour's [produce], to whom does the goodwill [value] belong?8  Do we say, but for this man's produce, would the other's stack have been made fit to use?9  Or perhaps, but for this man's stack, the other man's produce would not be terumah?10  — He replied, Scripture saith, all the increase of thy seed … and thou shalt give.11

He objected: HE MAY SEPARATE HIS TERUMAH AND HIS TITHES WITH HIS CONSENT. Now if you say that the goodwill belongs to the owner, surely he [the maddir] benefits him? Hence this proves that the goodwill is his!12  — I will tell you: it is not so. This means that the terumah belongs to the owner; 'HIS CONSENT also referring to the owner, who had announced, 'Whoever wishes to separate, let him do so.'

Come and hear: R. Abbahu said in R. Johanan's name: He who sanctifies the animal must add the fifth, whilst only he for whom atonement is made sanctifies a substitute;13  and he who gives terumah of his own for another man's produce, the goodwill is his.14

HE MAY TEACH HIM MIDRASH, HALACHOTH, AND AGGADOTH, BUT NOT SCRIPTURE. Why not Scripture — because he benefits him? But [by] Midrash too he benefits him? — Said Samuel: This refers to a place where the teaching of Scripture is remunerated, but not that of Midrash. How state this definitely?15  —

- To Next Folio -

Original footnotes renumbered.
  1. As it may be taken for granted.
  2. Lit., '(produce) of the owner of the stack (is separated as terumah, etc.) for produce belonging to the owner of the stack.'
  3. I.e., surely A cannot separate terumah for B, using B's produce, without the latter's consent.
  4. Whereas his vow forbids him to benefit him.
  5. [This is not regarded as a direct benefit, since he does not give him aught; v. Ran.]
  6. For by consenting he shews that he regards it as a benefit.
  7. Though such an announcement is a sufficient authorisation, the maddir is not thereby specially appointed an agent, and so does not directly benefit him.
  8. I.e., if another Israelite paid him something to give the terumah to a particular friend of his, to whom does that thing belong?
  9. Therefore the goodwill should belong to him who renders the terumah.
  10. Produce can he declared terumah only on account of other produce. But one cannot take some corn and declare it terumah.
  11. Deut. XIV, 25. In its context, thou shalt give refers to the changing of produce into money; but it is here taken out of its context and related to all the increase of thy seed, shewing that the goodwill belongs to the owner of the corn, no matter who actually separates the tithe. This is the reading of our text, and also that of Ran. But such forcible disregard of the context is not very plausible. Asheri prefers a preferable reading: (When thou hast made an end of tithing) All the tithes of thine increase … and thou shalt give it to the Levite; (Deut. XXVI, 12).
  12. This of course is on the assumption that the naddir gives his own corn as terumah.
  13. If A dedicates an animal for B's sacrifice and it subsequently receives a blemish and must be redeemed, then if A, who sanctified it, redeems it himself, he must add a fifth to its value, but nut if B redeems it (this is deduced from Lev. XXVII, 15). Again, if another animal is substituted for the first, both the original and its substitute are holy (ibid. 10). R. Johanan rules that this is only if B, on whose behalf the animal was sanctified, made the substitution, but not if A did so.
  14. Sc. the man who gives it.
  15. Seeing that the statement in the Mishnah is unqualified.
Tractate List