זָכְתָה וְקָדְמָה אַרְבָּעָה דּוֹרוֹת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לַמַּלְכוּת: she merited to precede the younger daughter by four generations to the monarchy of the Jewish people. The descendants of Ruth the Moabite ruled over the Jewish people for four generations: Obed, Yishai, David, and Solomon, before the reign of Solomon’s son Rehoboam, whose mother was Naamah the Ammonite.
מַתְנִי׳ הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּדְרָה בְּנָזִיר וְהִפְרִישָׁה אֶת בְּהֶמְתָּהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הֵיפֵר לָהּ בַּעֲלָהּ אִם שֶׁלּוֹ הָיְתָה הַבְּהֵמָה תֵּצֵא וְתִרְעֶה בָּעֵדֶר mishna With regard to a woman who vowed to be a nazirite and separated her animals for her offerings of purity at the end of her term, and afterward her husband nullified her vow, which means that she is not in fact a nazirite, what becomes of these animals? If the animal was his, it shall go out and graze among the flock until it becomes blemished, like regular non-consecrated animals.
וְאִם שֶׁלָּהּ הָיְתָה הַבְּהֵמָה הַחַטָּאת תָּמוּת וְעוֹלָה תִּקְרַב עוֹלָה שְׁלָמִים תִּקְרַב שְׁלָמִים וְנֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד וְאֵינָן טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם And if the animal was hers, different halakhot apply to the various offerings: The animal she set aside as a sin-offering must be left to die by being shut in an enclosed area and deprived of food and water, as will be explained in the Gemara. And the animal separated for a burnt-offering is sacrificed on the altar as a burnt-offering, as in any case one may bring a voluntary burnt-offering. As for the one designated for a peace-offering, it is sacrificed as a voluntary peace-offering. And this peace-offering is eaten for only one day, in accordance with the halakha of the nazirite’s peace-offering, despite the fact that regular peace-offerings may be eaten for two days. But the offering does not require bread, i.e., loaves and wafers, unlike that of a nazirite.
הָיוּ לָהּ מָעוֹת סְתוּמִין יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה מָעוֹת מְפוֹרָשִׁין דְּמֵי חַטָּאת יֵלְכוּ לְיָם הַמֶּלַח לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן If she had unallocated funds, i.e., she had separated money for her offerings but had not stated which coins were designated for which offering, all the money will be earmarked for communal gift offerings. If she had allocated funds, i.e., she had decided which coins were for the payment of each offering, even if she had not yet purchased the animals, the money for the sin-offering is taken and cast into the Dead Sea, i.e., it must be destroyed, either by being thrown into the sea or by some other means. One may not benefit from it, as it possesses a measure of sanctity, but one also does not misuse property consecrated to the Temple with it. In other words, if one did derive benefit from this money he is not liable to bring an offering for misusing consecrated property.
דְּמֵי עוֹלָה יָבִיאוּ עוֹלָה וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן דְּמֵי שְׁלָמִים יָבִיאוּ שְׁלָמִים וְנֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד וְאֵין טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם: As for the money for the burnt-offering, a burnt-offering is brought with those coins, and one who benefits from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property, as it is sacred since it can be used toward the purchase of a gift offering. Similarly, with regard to the money for a peace-offering, a peace-offering is brought with those coins, and it is eaten for one day and does not require bread.
גְּמָ׳ מַאן תְּנָא דְּבַעַל לָא מִשְׁתַּעְבַּד לַהּ אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא רַבָּנַן הִיא דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא אַמַּאי תֵּצֵא וְתִרְעֶה בָּעֵדֶר הָא מִשְׁתַּעְבַּד לֵהּ gemara The Gemara inquires: Who is the tanna who taught that a husband is not indebted to his wife, i.e., he is not required to provide her with her obligatory offerings? It is evident that the tanna of the mishna maintains that this is the case, as he rules that the animal does not remain sacred if it belonged to her husband. Rav Ḥisda said: It is the opinion of the Rabbis. As, if it should enter your mind that it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, why should an animal that belonged to the husband go out and graze among the flock until it becomes blemished? After all, the husband is indebted and required to give her the offerings she requires, which means that her consecration is valid even if she used his animals.
דְּתַנְיָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אָדָם מֵבִיא קׇרְבַּן עָשִׁיר עַל אִשְׁתּוֹ The Gemara provides the source for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: A person brings the offering of a rich man on behalf of his wife. If a wife is obligated to bring an offering that is different depending on whether she is wealthy or poor, e.g., the offering of a childbearing woman, then even if she herself does not own enough to be considered wealthy, if her husband can afford it he must bring the offering of a rich person on her behalf.
וְכֵן כׇּל קׇרְבְּנוֹתֶיהָ שֶׁהִיא חַיֶּיבֶת שֶׁכָּךְ כָּתַב לָהּ כׇּל אַחְרָיוּת דְּאִית לִיךְ עֲלַי מִן קַדְמַת דְּנָא And similarly, he brings all her offerings that she is obligated to bring, even those whose obligation preceded their marriage. The reason is that he wrote to her in her marriage contract like this: I accept upon myself all claims of guarantee that you have upon me from beforehand. These obligations include her offerings.
רָבָא אָמַר אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה כִּי מְשַׁעְבַּד לַהּ בְּמִילְּתָא דִּצְרִיכָא לַהּ בְּמִילְּתָא דְּלָא צְרִיכָא לַהּ לָא Rava said: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and nevertheless the husband is under no obligation if he nullified her vow. The reason is as follows: When is he obligated to bring her offerings? It is only in the case of a matter that is necessary for her to bring. However, in the case of a matter that is not necessary for her to bring, he is under no such obligation. Here, too, once he has nullified her naziriteship, she is no longer in need of this offering.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי מַאן תַּנָּא אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא וְכִי מְשַׁעְבַּד לַהּ בְּמִילְּתָא דִּצְרִיכָא לַהּ בְּמִילְּתָא דְּלָא צְרִיכָא לָהּ לָא דְּאִי רַבָּנַן לָא מְשַׁעְבַּד לַהּ כְּלָל Some say a different version of this discussion: Who is the tanna who taught that only a husband who nullified his wife’s vow is exempt from providing her offerings? Rav Ḥisda said that it is Rabbi Yehuda, and his opinion is as follows: When is he indebted to fund her offerings? It is in the case of a matter that is necessary for her to bring, but in the case of a matter that is not necessary for her to bring, he is under no such obligation. As, if it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, he is not mortgaged to her in this regard at all.
אֶלָּא הֵיכִי דָּמֵי דִּמְשַׁעְבַּד לַהּ כְּגוֹן דְּאַקְנְיַיהּ לַהּ וְכֵיוָן דְּאַקְנֵי לַהּ הָוֵה דְּנַפְשַׁהּ Rather, what are the circumstances in which he is obligated to provide her offering, according to the opinion of the Rabbis? For example, if he transferred the animal to her possession. But in that case, since he has transferred it to her, it is her own, which means that she has effectively separated the offering from her own property. The mishna cannot be referring to this situation, as the animal does not revert to a non-sacred state in a case of this kind. Evidently, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.