Nedarim 70

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> ותורם את תרומתו ומעשרותיו לדעתו ומקריב עליו קיני זבין קיני זבות קיני יולדות חטאות ואשמות ומלמדו מדרש הלכות ואגדות אבל לא ילמדנו מקרא אבל מלמד הוא את בניו ואת בנותיו מקרא

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. AND HE MAY SEPARATE HIS <i>TERUMAH</i> AND HIS TITHES WITH HIS CONSENT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If A is forbidden to benefit from B, B (the maddir) may separate terumah on the produce of the former (called the muddar). The Gemara discusses whose consent is meant. ');">¹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> איבעיא להו הני כהני שלוחי דידן הוו או שלוחי דשמיא למאי נפקא מינה למודר הנאה אי אמרת דשלוחי דידן הוו הא מהני ליה ואסור ואי אמרת שלוחי דשמיא שרי מאי

HE MAY OFFER UP FOR HIM THE BIRD SACRIFICES OF ZABIM AND ZABOTH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²</span>

תא שמע דתנן מקריב עליו קיני זבין כו' אי אמרת שלוחי דידן קא מהני ליה

AND THE BIRD SACRIFICES OF WOMEN AFTER CHILDBIRTH, SIN-OFFERINGS AND GUILT-OFFERINGS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 14f, 29f, XII, 6-8. i.e., the maddir, if a priest, may offer these sacrifices for the muddar. ');">³</span>

וליטעמיך ליתני מקריב עליו קרבנות אלא מחוסרי כפרה שאני דאמר רבי יוחנן הכל צריכין דעת חוץ ממחוסרי כפרה שהרי אדם מביא קרבן על בניו ועל בנותיו הקטנים שנאמר זאת תורת הזב (ויקרא טו, לב) בין גדול בין קטן

HE MAY TEACH HIM MIDRASH, HALACHOTH AND AGGADOTH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The three branches of Jewish learning. Midrash (from darash, to study, investigate) means any kind of Biblical hermeneutics. In contradistinction to the peshat (literal interpretation) it denotes the deeper investigation into the text of the Bible in order to derive interpretations and laws not obvious on the surface. Halachoth is a term referring to religious law (embracing both civil and ritual law) whether based on Biblical exposition, (and thus arrived at by Midrash) or not. By Aggadah (or Haggadah, from higgid, to narrate) is meant the whole of the non-legal portion of the Talmud. Thus it includes narratives, homiletical exegesis of the Bible (which inculcate morals, beliefs, etc. but no actual laws) medicine, astronomy, dreams, legends and folklore in general. ');">⁴</span>

אלא מעתה לרבי יוחנן זאת תורת היולדת וגו' (ויקרא יג, יב) בין קטנה ובין גדולה קטנה בת לידה היא והא תני רב ביבי קמיה דרב נחמן שלוש נשים משמשות במוך קטנה ומעוברת ומניקה קטנה שמא תתעבר ותמות

BUT NOT SCRIPTURE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that which is (to be) read' sc. from a written text. The Pentateuch with its literal interpretations in contradistinction to Midrash, v. Aboth (Sonc. ed.) p. 75, n. 1. As will be seen on 37a, Scripture was generally regarded as the study of children only, adults usually investigating the deeper meaning too. ');">⁵</span>

ההיא זאת תורת היולדת בין פיקחת בין שוטה שכן אדם מביא קרבן על אשתו שוטה

YET HE MAY TEACH SCRIPTURE TO HIS SONS AND DAUGHTERS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From this we see that it was usual to teach the Bible to girls, in spite of the Talmudic deduction that daughters need not be educated (Kid. 30a). The opposition of R. Eliezer to teaching Torah to one's daughter (Sot. 20a: He who teaches his daughter Torah is as though he taught her lewdness) was probably directed against the teaching of the Oral Law, and the higher branches of study. [V. Maim. Yad. Talmud Torah, I, 13.] Yet even in respect of this, his view was not universally accepted, and Ben 'Azzai (a.l.) regarded it as a positive duty to teach Torah to one's daughters. The context shows that the reference is to the higher knowledge of Biblical law. In point of fact, there were learned women in Talmudic times e.g., Beruriah, wife of R. Meir (Pes. 62b). ');">⁶</span>

כדברי רבי יהודה דתניא רבי יהודה אומר אדם מביא קרבן עשיר על אשתו וכל קרבנות שחייבת

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. The scholars propounded: Are the priests [in sacrificing] our agents or agents of the All-Merciful? What is the practical difference? — In respect of one who is forbidden to benefit [from a priest]: if you say that they are our agents, surely he [the priest] benefits him [by offering up his sacrifices]; hence it is prohibited. But if you say that they are the agents of the All-Merciful, it is permitted. What [then is the ruling]? — Come and hear: We learnt: HE MAY OFFER UP FOR HIM THE BIRD SACRIFICES [etc.]. Now if you say that they are our agents, does he not benefit him? Then on your view, let him [the Tanna] teach, HE MAY OFFER UP SACRIFICES FOR HIM?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sacrifices, in general, not lust these. ');">⁷</span>

שכך כותב לה ואחריות דאית ליך עלי מן קדמת דנא

But those who lack atonement are different.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., those who are unclean, and not permitted to eat holy food (e.g., the flesh of sacrifices) or enter the Sanctuary until their sacrifices have been offered up. This term however does not refer to sinners, whose sacrifice makes atonement for them. The sin- and guilt-offerings mentioned in the Mishnah will also refer to the former. ');">⁸</span> For R. Johanan said: All [sacrifices] require [the owner's] consent,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the priest may offer them. ');">⁹</span> save for those lacking atonement; since a man brings a sacrifice for his sons and daughters when minors, for it is said, This is the law of him that hath issue,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV. 32, referring to the sacrifices. ');">¹⁰</span> [implying] both for a minor or an adult.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression 'this is the law' is emphatic, and hence extends its provisions to include those who might otherwise not have been included. Since a minor cannot bring a sacrifice himself, his father must do so for him. Moreover, a minor has no legal consent. Thus, we see that these sacrifices can be brought without their owner's (i.e., those on whose behalf it is offered) consent. Since their consent is unnecessary, the priests do not act as their agents, and on that account it is permitted. ');">¹¹</span> If so, according to R. Johanan, does, This is the law for her that hath born [a male or a female]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XII, 7. ');">¹²</span> imply both an adult or a minor? Is a minor capable of childbirth? But R. Bibi recited in R. Nahman's presence: Three women use a resorbent [to prevent conception]: a minor, a pregnant woman, and a woman giving suck: a minor, lest she conceive and die?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Yeb. 12b. Thus we see that a minor is incapable of childbirth. — Of course, the same might have been stated simply on physiological grounds. ');">¹³</span> — That verse, 'This is the law for her that hath born', [teaches,] that it is a]] one whether the woman be sane or an imbecile, since one must offer a sacrifice for his wife, if an imbecile, in accordance with R. Judah's dictum. For it was taught. R. Judah said: A man must offer a rich man's sacrifice<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Certain sacrifices were variable, depending on their owner's financial position (v. Lev. V, 1-13; XII, 1-8). Now in a strictly legal sense every married woman is poor, since she has no proprietary rights, everything belonging to her husband. Nevertheless, if he is wealthy, he must bring the sacrifice of a rich person. ');">¹⁴</span> for his wife, and all other sacrifices which are incumbent upon her; since he writes thus for her [in her marriage settlement]: [I shall pay] every claim you may have against me from before up to now.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [This clause is taken as referring to sacrifices for which she may have become liable after the betrothal.] So curr. edd. Ran omits 'R. Judah said' from the beginning of the Baraitha, and adds at this point: R. Judah said: Therefore, if he divorced her, he is free from this liability, for thus she writes (in the document acknowledging receipt of settlements due to her on divorce): (I free you) from all the liabilities hitherto borne by you in respect of me. From the Rashi in B.M. 104a, it appears that his version there was the same as the Ran's here. Now, reverting to the argument, since R. Judah (and the first Tanna) taught that a husband is liable for his wife's obligatory sacrifices, 'this is the law' may be interpreted as applying to an imbecile too, the liability resting with her husband. For if this principle of the husband's liability were not admitted, this interpretation would be impossible, since an imbecile herself is not a responsible person. ');">¹⁵</span>