For the week ending 12 September 2015 / 28 Elul 5775

Nazir 23 - 29

by Rabbi Mendel Weinbach zt'l
The Color of HeavenArtscroll
  • Woman who violated the laws of nezirut unaware that her husband had nullified her vow of nazirut
  • Other examples of sinning with intention and not action
  • The righteous and the sinner in the same situation and an analysis of Lot and his daughters
  • A sin for Heaven's sake and a mitzvah for the sake of reward
  • Status of animal designated for sacrifice by a woman whose nezirut vow was nullified by husband
  • Husband's financial responsibility for wife's sacrifices
  • When a wife's funds belong to her and not her husband
  • The nezirut ram sacrifices that require no loaves to accompany them
  • What happens to sacrifices which cannot be offered because the nezirat vow was nullified
  • The differences between funds designated for particular sacrifices and those that were not
  • A son's ability to offer as atonement an animal designated by his father for his own sacrifice
  • At which stage of the wife's nezirut sacrifice offerings can the husband no longer nullify her vow
  • A father making his son a nazir
  • The nezirut vow of a minor

Who Owns the Surplus

  • Nazir 24b

How is it possible for a married woman to have her own funds if the rule is that whatever she owns belongs to her husband?

This question arises in regard to the distinction made in the mishna between sacrificial animals belonging to the husband or to the wife who made a vow of nezirut whose vow was nullified by her husband before those animals were sacrificed.

One of the answers given by Rabbi Papa is that the wife was able to buy those animals from the money she saved by stinting on the food she consumed and thus remaining with funds from the food allowance given to her by law from her husband.

Tosefot presents a challenge to this approach from a gemara (Ketubot 59a) which states that money remaining from the food allowance belongs to the husband.

One solution provided by Tosefot is that there is a distinction between money remaining because the price of food went down and a situation in which the price remained the same but the woman ate less than normal. In the first case it is the husband who benefits from the food being cheaper while in the second case it is the wife who owns the money she saved by eating less.

What the Sages Say

"One should study Torah and perform mitzvot even for selfish motives because this will eventually lead him to doing so for pure motives."

  • The Sage Rav - Nazir 23b

© 1995-2015 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved.


« Back to TalmuDigest
