Talmud for Nazir 4:10

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila: He may not dedicate for her the bird elevation offering, only the bird purification offering because the latter enables her to eat family sacrifices²⁴This speaks about the woman after childbirth whose husband is poor and can afford only two birds as purgation offering. It is asserted here that the husband on his own can only dedicate a sacrifice in which he has a direct interest, as stated by R. Abin. Mishnah Keritut 6:4 notes that only the purification offering enables her to eat family sacrifices. The elevation sacrifice also may be paid by him but only with his wife’s knowledge.. It was stated: He may dedicate for her only something that enables her to eat family sacrifices. Rebbi Yose said, that²⁵The offerings of the woman after childbirth. is all. It was stated: Just as that disables her from eating family sacrifices, so she disables others from eating family sacrifices; since he is hindered from enjoying with her it is as if he disabled her from eating family sacrifices²⁶In all cases, those whose impurity was produced by their own body and the suspected wife, where the husband cannot enjoy a holiday without having seen to it that her sacrifice has been presented in good order, any dereliction on his part to remove her disability is put on the same level as his hindering her from eating sacrifices. Therefore, it is his duty to bring these sacrifices and he does not need his wife’s consent for the dedication.. It was stated: Even by the shearing of her head²⁷The wife made a vow to be a nazir who may not drink any wine and the husband did not use his right to free her from any vow of self-punishment. As long as she is forbidden to drink wine, he cannot fully enjoy the holiday with her. Therefore, after she has cut her hair, the husband can dedicate the three offerings due from the nazir (Num. 6:14) without the knowledge of his wife (according to R. Ila only the family sacrifice which permits the wife to drink wine.) she hinders him from eating family sacrifices. Since she is ugly²⁸Because of her long hair. and he is hindered from enjoying with her it is as if he disabled her²⁹By not having vetoed her vow he is responsible for the problem. from eating family sacrifices.

HALAKHAH: “The excess of sheqalim is profane,” etc. Rebbi Yasa⁸¹While all sources have “R. Yose”, the reading must be R. Yasa, a Babylonian early enough to have visited Samuel’s academy. The name is spelled correctly at the end of the Halakhah. said, when I still was there, I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking Samuel, if somebody had set his sheqel apart and died? He told him, they shall fall to gift⁸²Since the monies were set aside for the sheqel and “a promise to Heaven is like delivery to an individual” (Mishnah Qiddušin1:6), they are Temple property. Since they are not sheqalim they must be given to the Temple account into which all Temple monies not otherwise specified are collected.. The excess of his tenth of an ephah, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one shall bring them to the Dead Sea⁸³If this refers to the daily offering of the High priest and the High priest had died, then the monies cannot be used in the Temple since possibly they were not dedicated; they cannot be used as profane since possibly they were dedicated. They have to be destroyed.. Rebbi Eleazar said, it shall fall to gift. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan⁸⁴The reading of B is “disagrees with both of them”.: “The excess of sheqalim is profane The excess of a tenth of an ephah, the excess of nests of male sufferers from gonorrhea, the nests of female sufferers from flux, the nests of women after childbirth, or purification offerings, or reparation offerings, the excesses are gift.”. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explains it as excess from the tenth of an ephah of the purification offering of any one in Israel⁸⁵This seems to be required by the wording of the Mishnah, which decrees that the excess of monies for the tenth of an ephah is Temple property but allows only excess of purification or reparation sacrifices to be so taken. The High Priest’s flour offering is neither of these; therefore the Mishnah cannot include it.
The reading of B implies that R. Eleazar identifies that tenth of an ephah as the High Priest’s offering..

¹¹⁴Tosephta 7:8; quoted in Babli 74b; also in Yerushalmi Qiddušin 2:5 (62c l. 66).“If she went to an Elder and her dissolved her vow, she is preliminarily married. To a doctor and he healed her, she is not preliminarily married.” ¹¹⁵In the Babli (previous Note) this is quoted as a tannai'tic text. What is the difference between the Elder and the doctor? The elder uproots the vow from its start; the doctor heals only for the future. ¹¹⁶The following text has a parallel with different emphasis in the Babli, loc. cit. Some Tannaïm state: Even if she went to an Elder and her dissolved her vow, she is not preliminarily married. The baraita follows Rebbi Eleazar, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Eleazar said, they forbade this only because of the other.¹¹⁷The reference is to Mishnah Giṭṭin 4:7 where it is stated that a man who divorces his wife because of her vows is never permitted to take her back. This is a rabbinic rule. R. Meïr holds that no remarriage is permitted in case of any vow that needs to be annulled by an Elder (cf. Nedarim Chapter 9). The reason is that one has to avoid a situation in which the divorcee marries another man and for him goes to an Elder to have him annul the vow. If the ex-husband says, “if I had known that her vow will be annulled, I would not have divorced her,” he retroactively would annul the bill of divorce, make his ex-wife a bigamist and bastards of her children from the second husband. Therefore, one has to make clear to him that the divorce is final and irreversible, to prevent him from having second thoughts. But if the cause of the divorce is an invalid vow, the divorce is not caused by the vow and the husband may remarry his divorcee (as long as she did not marry another man). R. Eleazar says that remarriage was forbidden in the second case because of the first one since it is obvious that the husband must be an ignoramus if he divorces his wife because of a vow which every competent scholar will immediately declare as invalid if asked about it (“a vow which does not have to be investigated by a Sage” because the Sage will declare it invalid at first sight.)” What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar? It would have been logical about a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage … because a vow which does not have to be investigated by a Sage¹¹⁸This text is clearly elliptic. There does not seem to be a lacuna, but rather the text is a reference to an extensive argument in Giṭṭin 4:7 (and a related text in Qiddušin 2:5):אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. לֹא אָֽסְרוּ זֶה אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי זֶה. בְּדִין הָיָה שֶׁאֲפִילוּ נֵדֶר שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ חֲקִירַת חָכָם יַחֲזִיר. שֶׁהַזָּקֵן עוֹקֵר אֶת הַנֵּדֶר מֵעִיקָּרוֹ מִפְּנֵי מָה אָֽסְרוּ נֵדֶר שֶׁאֵין צָרִיךְ חֲקִירַת חָכָם. מִפְּנֵי נֵדֶר שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ חֲקִירַת חָכָם. “Rebbi Eleazar said, they forbade this only because of the other. It would have been logical that even in the case of a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage he could take her back. For the Elder uproots the vow from the start. Why did they forbid a vow which does not have to be investigated by a Sage? Because of a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage.”. Some Tannaïm state: She is allowed to marry¹¹⁹The woman whose preliminary marriage has been declared invalid because of her vows may marry any other man without a divorce from the first. without a bill of divorce. Some Tannaïm state: She is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce¹²⁰This is also quoted in the Babli, loc. cit.. They wanted to say that he who says, she is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce, is Rebbi Eleazar¹²¹Who holds that all these prohibitions are only extreme precautions., and he who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce, are the rabbis¹²²This position, rejected here, is the one adopted in the Babli. It seems that the Babli would reject the argument given for the permission to remarry as unreasonable (cf. R. Nissim Gerondi, ad Aliassi 35a.). Everything follows the rabbis. He who says, she is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce: Since she knows that if she went to an Elder, he would dissolve her vow, since she does not go therefore she can be married without a bill of divorce¹²³If she does not go to stay married to the first husband, one does not expect her to try to dissolve her vow for any other man.. But he who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce, that she should not go to an Elder¹²⁴Having used the vows to escape a marriage chosen for her when adolescent by her father, she might be expected to have the vow annulled as an adult for a man of her choice. who would dissolve her vow, then the preliminary marriage would become retroactively valid for her and it would turn out that her children become bastards. Therefore she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce¹²⁵From her first husband, who in executing the divorce has to forswear any hope ever again to be married to her..