How can unspecified funds designated for sacrifices for a nazir who no longer needed them (such as a woman whose husband nullified her vow) be used to buy voluntary offerings? Isn’t their money in there designated to a sin offering that should be thrown in the Dead Sea and should not be able to be used at all. Rabbi Yochanan says this is a unique halacha (halacha l’Moshe m’Sinai) that was passed down regarding a nazir. Reish Lakish holds that is it derived from a verse in Vayikra 22:18 that vows can be turned into voluntary burnt offerings. If it is derived from the verse, why is it only unspecified funds and not specified? The reason given is because Rabbi Yishmael already taught in a braita from verses in Devarim 12:26-27 that sin offerings cannot be turned into burnt offerings and that must be referring to specified funds. After answering the question, the Gemara raises three questions on sections of the braita and explains them.
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Nazir 25
וַהֲלֹא דְּמֵי חַטָּאת מְעוֹרָבִין בָּהֶן? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה הִיא בְּנָזִיר. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: ״לְכׇל נִדְרֵיהֶם וּלְכׇל נִדְבוֹתָם״, הַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: מוֹתַר נֶדֶר יְהֵא לִנְדָבָה.
The Gemara asks: But the money for the sin-offering is mingled with these unallocated funds. How can it all be used for gift burnt-offerings? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is an accepted halakha with regard to a nazirite that his unallocated funds are used for gift offerings, despite the fact that they include the value of a sin-offering. Reish Lakish said: The verse states: “Whether for any of their vows or for any of their gift offerings, which are brought to the Lord as a burnt-offering” (Leviticus 22:18). In this verse, the Torah states that the surplus of a vow shall be for a gift offering. Here too, if the vow of naziriteship cannot be fulfilled, due to the death of the one who took the vow, the money is for a gift offering.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר: הֲלָכָה הִיא בְּנָזִיר, אַמְּטוּ לְהָכִי סְתוּמִין — אִין, מְפוֹרָשִׁין — לָא. אֶלָּא לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ ״לְכׇל נִדְרֵיהֶם וּלְכׇל נִדְבוֹתָם״, מַאי אִירְיָא סְתוּמִין? אֲפִילּוּ מְפוֹרָשִׁין!
The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that it is a halakha with regard to a nazirite, it is for this reason that if the funds were unallocated, yes, the money is used for gift offerings, but if they were allocated, no, they may not be used for this purpose, as this is the halakha passed down by tradition. However, according to the opinion of Reish Lakish, who derives the halakha from the verse: “For any of their vows or for any of their gift offerings,” why state specifically unallocated funds; even allocated money should be used for gift offerings after the death of their owner.
אָמַר רָבָא: מְפוֹרָשִׁין לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ, כְּבָר פַּסְקַהּ תַּנָּא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״רַק קׇדָשֶׁיךָ אֲשֶׁר יִהְיוּ לְךָ וּנְדָרֶיךָ״ — בְּוַלְדֵי קָדָשִׁים וּבִתְמוּרָתָם הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
Rava said: You cannot say that this halakha should apply to allocated funds, as the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael has already ruled in this regard. The tanna explained the following verse that deals with the obligation to bring consecrated animals to the Temple: “Only your sacred things that you have, and your vows” (Deuteronomy 12:26). The verse is speaking of the offspring of consecrated female peace-offerings and their substitutes, i.e., when one says a non-sacred animal should substitute for a sacred animal.
מָה תַּקָּנָתָן — ״תִּשָּׂא וּבָאתָ אֶל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר ה׳״. יָכוֹל יַעֲלֵם לְבֵית הַבְּחִירָה, וְיִמְנַע מֵהֶם מַיִם וּמָזוֹן בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיָּמוּתוּ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״.
With regard to these animals, what is their means of remedy? “You shall take and go to the place that the Lord shall choose” (Deuteronomy 12:26). One might have thought that this means that he must bring them up to the Temple, and yet he does not sacrifice them but withholds water and food from them so that they should die. Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall sacrifice your burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord your God; and the blood of your offerings shall be poured out against the altar of the Lord your God, and you shall eat the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:27).
לוֹמַר לָךְ: כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאַתָּה נוֹהֵג בָּעוֹלָה — נְהוֹג בִּתְמוּרָתָהּ, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאַתָּה נוֹהֵג בַּשְּׁלָמִים — נְהוֹג בְּוַלְדֵיהֶם. יָכוֹל אַף וְלַד חַטָּאת וּתְמוּרַת אָשָׁם כֵּן, — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״רַק״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
The tanna explains that this verse comes to say to you: In the manner that you treat a burnt-offering you must treat its substitute, i.e., it should be sacrificed in its entirety; in the manner that you treat a peace-offering you must treat their offspring, as its inner parts must be sacrificed on the altar, with the rest eaten by the owners. One might have thought that the offspring of a sin-offering and the substitute of a guilt-offering should also be treated so, i.e., they too should be sacrificed on the altar like sin-offerings and guilt-offerings. Therefore the verse states: “Only” (Deuteronomy 12:26), which excludes these cases. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״אָשָׁם הוּא״ — בַּהֲוָיָיתוֹ יְהֵא.
Rabbi Akiva says: In the case of a guilt-offering this exposition is not necessary, as it says: “It is a guilt-offering” (Leviticus 5:19), from which it may be inferred: It alone shall be sacrificed in its current state, but not its substitute. This baraita explicitly teaches that the surplus money of a sin-offering cannot be used for another offering. Consequently, the money set aside for a nazirite’s sin-offering must be cast into the Dead Sea upon the death of its owner rather than used for a gift offering, even according to the opinion of Reish Lakish.
קָתָנֵי: יָכוֹל יַעֲלֵם לְבֵית הַבְּחִירָה וְיִמְנַע מֵהֶם מַיִם וּמָזוֹן בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיָּמוּתוּ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ״. אַמַּאי? הָא וְלַד חַטָּאת הוּא דִּגְמִירִין בָּהּ מִיתָה? אִי לָאו קְרָא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא וְלַד חַטָּאת בְּכׇל מָקוֹם,
§ Since the Gemara has cited the above baraita, it analyzes it in detail. The baraita teaches: One might have thought that one must bring them up to the Temple and withhold water and food from them so that they should die. The verse states: “And you shall sacrifice your burnt-offerings.” The Gemara asks: Why would one think he should act in this manner? After all, it is only with regard to the offspring of a sin-offering that we learned that it must be left to die, but not other offerings. Why, then, is it necessary to derive the exclusion of the offspring of other offerings and the substitution of other offerings from a verse? The Gemara answers: If it were not for the verse, I would say that the offspring of a sin-offering may be killed anywhere, i.e., it need not be brought to the Temple and left to die there,
וּוַלְדֵי קָדָשִׁים בְּבֵית הַבְּחִירָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא.
but the offspring of other sacred animals, for peace-offerings, must be brought to the Temple and left to die there. The verse therefore teaches us that one does not leave the offspring of peace-offerings to die. Rather, they are sacrificed upon the altar.
קָתָנֵי: יָכוֹל אַף וְלַד חַטָּאת וּתְמוּרַת אָשָׁם כֵּן — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״רַק״. לְמָה לִי קְרָא? הִילְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ: וְלַד חַטָּאת לְמִיתָה אָזֵיל! הָכִי נָמֵי, וּקְרָא לְאָשָׁם הוּא דַּאֲתָא.
§ The Gemara continues to discuss the baraita. The baraita teaches: One might have thought that the offspring of a sin-offering and the substitute of a guilt-offering should also be treated so, i.e., they too should be sacrificed on the altar like sin-offerings and guilt-offerings. Therefore, the verse states: “Only” (Deuteronomy 12:26). The Gemara asks: Why do I need a verse for this halakha? After all, this halakha is learned as a tradition that the offspring of a sin-offering goes to its death. The Gemara answers: So too, this is correct as far as the offspring of a sin-offering is concerned, and the verse comes to teach that this halakha applies to a guilt-offering as well.
אָשָׁם נָמֵי הִילְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לָהּ: כֹּל שֶׁאִילּוּ בְּחַטָּאת מֵתָה, בְּאָשָׁם רוֹעֶה!
The Gemara asks: With regard to a guilt-offering as well, this halakha is learned as a tradition: Any situation that if it were to occur with a sin-offering it would be left to die, i.e., any offering that is invalid in such a manner that it would have to be left to die if it were a sin-offering, which includes a substitute, if it occurs with a guilt-offering it is left to graze until it develops a blemish so that it is no longer fit for the altar. Why, then, is a verse required to teach this halakha?
אֶלָּא: אִי מֵהִילְכְתָא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הִילְכְתָא, וְאִי אַקְרְיבֵיהּ — לָא לִיחַיַּיב עֲלֵיהּ וְלֹא כְּלוּם, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן קְרָא דְּאִי מַקְרֵיב לֵיהּ — קָאֵים עֲלֵיהּ בַּעֲשֵׂה.
Rather, the argument is as follows: If one would have learned this ruling only from the aforementioned halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, I would say: It is admittedly the halakha that the offspring of a sin-offering must die and the substitute of a guilt-offering is left to graze, but if he sacrificed it regardless, he would not be liable to receive any punishment for it. The verse therefore teaches us that if he sacrifices the offspring or substitute of a guilt-offering, he transgresses a positive mitzva by it, as derived from the verse: “Only your sacred things which you have, and your vows, you shall take and go to the place which the Lord shall choose” (Deuteronomy 12:26).
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״אָשָׁם הוּא״ — בַּהֲוָיָיתוֹ יְהֵא. לְמָה לִי קְרָא? גְּמָרָא גְּמִירִין לַהּ: כׇּל שֶׁבְּחַטָּאת מֵתָה — בְּאָשָׁם רוֹעֶה!
§ The same baraita teaches that Rabbi Akiva says: In the case of a guilt-offering this exposition is not necessary, as it says: “It is a guilt-offering” (Leviticus 5:19), which indicates: It alone shall be sacrificed in its current state, but not its substitute. The Gemara asks: Why do I need a verse for this halakha? We learned it as a halakha: Any situation that if it were to occur with a sin-offering it would be left to die, if it occurs with a guilt-offering it is left to graze. If so, it is clear that this guilt-offering cannot be sacrificed.
הָכִי נָמֵי, וְכִי אֲתָא קְרָא — לִדְרַב. דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: אָשָׁם שֶׁנִּיתַּק לִרְעִיָּיה, וּשְׁחָטוֹ לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה — כָּשֵׁר.
The Gemara answers: So too, this is correct, and when the verse comes to teach a halakha, it comes for that which was said by Rav. As Rav Huna said that Rav said: With regard to a guilt-offering that was consigned to grazing, i.e., it had been ruled that the animal must be left to graze until it develops a blemish as it could not be sacrificed as a guilt-offering, at which point it was sold so that the proceeds could be used for voluntary burnt-offerings, and one transgressed and slaughtered the guilt-offering itself for the sake of a burnt-offering rather than using an animal purchased with the money of its sale, it is valid.
טַעְמָא דְּנִיתַּק, הָא לֹא נִיתַּק — לָא. דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״הוּא״ — בַּהֲוָיָיתוֹ יְהֵא.
The Gemara infers from Rav’s statement: The reason for this ruling is that it is a guilt-offering that was consigned to grazing, from which it may be inferred that if it were not consigned in this manner it is not valid as a burnt-offering. This is because the verse states: “It is a guilt-offering,” which indicates that it shall be in its current state, and if it were sacrificed as a different offering it is invalid.
אָמַר מָר: הֲלָכָה הִיא בְּנָזִיר. וְתוּ לֵיכָּא? וְהָתַנְיָא: וּשְׁאָר חַיָּיבֵי קִינִּין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה,
§ The Gemara returns to the issue of a nazirite’s offerings: The Master, Rabbi Yoḥanan, said earlier: It is a halakha with regard to a nazirite that his unallocated funds, including the value of his sin-offering, are used for the purchase of gift offerings. The Gemara asks: This formulation indicates that this halakha pertains only to a nazirite, but is there no other case where the surplus goes toward the purchase of gift offerings? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: And the rest of those liable to bring nests by Torah law, i.e., those paupers who are obligated to bring only a bird-offering, e.g., a poor leper, who must bring two turtledoves, one for a burnt-offering and one for a sin-offering, instead of a sheep or a ewe,
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
Philadelphia, United States
Richmond, CA, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Hashmonaim, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
California, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
New York, United States
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
Oceanside NY, United States
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Karmiel, Israel
Nazir 25
וַהֲלֹא דְּמֵי חַטָּאת מְעוֹרָבִין בָּהֶן? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה הִיא בְּנָזִיר. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: ״לְכׇל נִדְרֵיהֶם וּלְכׇל נִדְבוֹתָם״, הַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: מוֹתַר נֶדֶר יְהֵא לִנְדָבָה.
The Gemara asks: But the money for the sin-offering is mingled with these unallocated funds. How can it all be used for gift burnt-offerings? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is an accepted halakha with regard to a nazirite that his unallocated funds are used for gift offerings, despite the fact that they include the value of a sin-offering. Reish Lakish said: The verse states: “Whether for any of their vows or for any of their gift offerings, which are brought to the Lord as a burnt-offering” (Leviticus 22:18). In this verse, the Torah states that the surplus of a vow shall be for a gift offering. Here too, if the vow of naziriteship cannot be fulfilled, due to the death of the one who took the vow, the money is for a gift offering.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר: הֲלָכָה הִיא בְּנָזִיר, אַמְּטוּ לְהָכִי סְתוּמִין — אִין, מְפוֹרָשִׁין — לָא. אֶלָּא לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ ״לְכׇל נִדְרֵיהֶם וּלְכׇל נִדְבוֹתָם״, מַאי אִירְיָא סְתוּמִין? אֲפִילּוּ מְפוֹרָשִׁין!
The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that it is a halakha with regard to a nazirite, it is for this reason that if the funds were unallocated, yes, the money is used for gift offerings, but if they were allocated, no, they may not be used for this purpose, as this is the halakha passed down by tradition. However, according to the opinion of Reish Lakish, who derives the halakha from the verse: “For any of their vows or for any of their gift offerings,” why state specifically unallocated funds; even allocated money should be used for gift offerings after the death of their owner.
אָמַר רָבָא: מְפוֹרָשִׁין לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ, כְּבָר פַּסְקַהּ תַּנָּא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״רַק קׇדָשֶׁיךָ אֲשֶׁר יִהְיוּ לְךָ וּנְדָרֶיךָ״ — בְּוַלְדֵי קָדָשִׁים וּבִתְמוּרָתָם הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
Rava said: You cannot say that this halakha should apply to allocated funds, as the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael has already ruled in this regard. The tanna explained the following verse that deals with the obligation to bring consecrated animals to the Temple: “Only your sacred things that you have, and your vows” (Deuteronomy 12:26). The verse is speaking of the offspring of consecrated female peace-offerings and their substitutes, i.e., when one says a non-sacred animal should substitute for a sacred animal.
מָה תַּקָּנָתָן — ״תִּשָּׂא וּבָאתָ אֶל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר ה׳״. יָכוֹל יַעֲלֵם לְבֵית הַבְּחִירָה, וְיִמְנַע מֵהֶם מַיִם וּמָזוֹן בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיָּמוּתוּ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״.
With regard to these animals, what is their means of remedy? “You shall take and go to the place that the Lord shall choose” (Deuteronomy 12:26). One might have thought that this means that he must bring them up to the Temple, and yet he does not sacrifice them but withholds water and food from them so that they should die. Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall sacrifice your burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord your God; and the blood of your offerings shall be poured out against the altar of the Lord your God, and you shall eat the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:27).
לוֹמַר לָךְ: כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאַתָּה נוֹהֵג בָּעוֹלָה — נְהוֹג בִּתְמוּרָתָהּ, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאַתָּה נוֹהֵג בַּשְּׁלָמִים — נְהוֹג בְּוַלְדֵיהֶם. יָכוֹל אַף וְלַד חַטָּאת וּתְמוּרַת אָשָׁם כֵּן, — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״רַק״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
The tanna explains that this verse comes to say to you: In the manner that you treat a burnt-offering you must treat its substitute, i.e., it should be sacrificed in its entirety; in the manner that you treat a peace-offering you must treat their offspring, as its inner parts must be sacrificed on the altar, with the rest eaten by the owners. One might have thought that the offspring of a sin-offering and the substitute of a guilt-offering should also be treated so, i.e., they too should be sacrificed on the altar like sin-offerings and guilt-offerings. Therefore the verse states: “Only” (Deuteronomy 12:26), which excludes these cases. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״אָשָׁם הוּא״ — בַּהֲוָיָיתוֹ יְהֵא.
Rabbi Akiva says: In the case of a guilt-offering this exposition is not necessary, as it says: “It is a guilt-offering” (Leviticus 5:19), from which it may be inferred: It alone shall be sacrificed in its current state, but not its substitute. This baraita explicitly teaches that the surplus money of a sin-offering cannot be used for another offering. Consequently, the money set aside for a nazirite’s sin-offering must be cast into the Dead Sea upon the death of its owner rather than used for a gift offering, even according to the opinion of Reish Lakish.
קָתָנֵי: יָכוֹל יַעֲלֵם לְבֵית הַבְּחִירָה וְיִמְנַע מֵהֶם מַיִם וּמָזוֹן בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיָּמוּתוּ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ״. אַמַּאי? הָא וְלַד חַטָּאת הוּא דִּגְמִירִין בָּהּ מִיתָה? אִי לָאו קְרָא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא וְלַד חַטָּאת בְּכׇל מָקוֹם,
§ Since the Gemara has cited the above baraita, it analyzes it in detail. The baraita teaches: One might have thought that one must bring them up to the Temple and withhold water and food from them so that they should die. The verse states: “And you shall sacrifice your burnt-offerings.” The Gemara asks: Why would one think he should act in this manner? After all, it is only with regard to the offspring of a sin-offering that we learned that it must be left to die, but not other offerings. Why, then, is it necessary to derive the exclusion of the offspring of other offerings and the substitution of other offerings from a verse? The Gemara answers: If it were not for the verse, I would say that the offspring of a sin-offering may be killed anywhere, i.e., it need not be brought to the Temple and left to die there,
וּוַלְדֵי קָדָשִׁים בְּבֵית הַבְּחִירָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא.
but the offspring of other sacred animals, for peace-offerings, must be brought to the Temple and left to die there. The verse therefore teaches us that one does not leave the offspring of peace-offerings to die. Rather, they are sacrificed upon the altar.
קָתָנֵי: יָכוֹל אַף וְלַד חַטָּאת וּתְמוּרַת אָשָׁם כֵּן — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״רַק״. לְמָה לִי קְרָא? הִילְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ: וְלַד חַטָּאת לְמִיתָה אָזֵיל! הָכִי נָמֵי, וּקְרָא לְאָשָׁם הוּא דַּאֲתָא.
§ The Gemara continues to discuss the baraita. The baraita teaches: One might have thought that the offspring of a sin-offering and the substitute of a guilt-offering should also be treated so, i.e., they too should be sacrificed on the altar like sin-offerings and guilt-offerings. Therefore, the verse states: “Only” (Deuteronomy 12:26). The Gemara asks: Why do I need a verse for this halakha? After all, this halakha is learned as a tradition that the offspring of a sin-offering goes to its death. The Gemara answers: So too, this is correct as far as the offspring of a sin-offering is concerned, and the verse comes to teach that this halakha applies to a guilt-offering as well.
אָשָׁם נָמֵי הִילְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לָהּ: כֹּל שֶׁאִילּוּ בְּחַטָּאת מֵתָה, בְּאָשָׁם רוֹעֶה!
The Gemara asks: With regard to a guilt-offering as well, this halakha is learned as a tradition: Any situation that if it were to occur with a sin-offering it would be left to die, i.e., any offering that is invalid in such a manner that it would have to be left to die if it were a sin-offering, which includes a substitute, if it occurs with a guilt-offering it is left to graze until it develops a blemish so that it is no longer fit for the altar. Why, then, is a verse required to teach this halakha?
אֶלָּא: אִי מֵהִילְכְתָא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הִילְכְתָא, וְאִי אַקְרְיבֵיהּ — לָא לִיחַיַּיב עֲלֵיהּ וְלֹא כְּלוּם, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן קְרָא דְּאִי מַקְרֵיב לֵיהּ — קָאֵים עֲלֵיהּ בַּעֲשֵׂה.
Rather, the argument is as follows: If one would have learned this ruling only from the aforementioned halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, I would say: It is admittedly the halakha that the offspring of a sin-offering must die and the substitute of a guilt-offering is left to graze, but if he sacrificed it regardless, he would not be liable to receive any punishment for it. The verse therefore teaches us that if he sacrifices the offspring or substitute of a guilt-offering, he transgresses a positive mitzva by it, as derived from the verse: “Only your sacred things which you have, and your vows, you shall take and go to the place which the Lord shall choose” (Deuteronomy 12:26).
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״אָשָׁם הוּא״ — בַּהֲוָיָיתוֹ יְהֵא. לְמָה לִי קְרָא? גְּמָרָא גְּמִירִין לַהּ: כׇּל שֶׁבְּחַטָּאת מֵתָה — בְּאָשָׁם רוֹעֶה!
§ The same baraita teaches that Rabbi Akiva says: In the case of a guilt-offering this exposition is not necessary, as it says: “It is a guilt-offering” (Leviticus 5:19), which indicates: It alone shall be sacrificed in its current state, but not its substitute. The Gemara asks: Why do I need a verse for this halakha? We learned it as a halakha: Any situation that if it were to occur with a sin-offering it would be left to die, if it occurs with a guilt-offering it is left to graze. If so, it is clear that this guilt-offering cannot be sacrificed.
הָכִי נָמֵי, וְכִי אֲתָא קְרָא — לִדְרַב. דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: אָשָׁם שֶׁנִּיתַּק לִרְעִיָּיה, וּשְׁחָטוֹ לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה — כָּשֵׁר.
The Gemara answers: So too, this is correct, and when the verse comes to teach a halakha, it comes for that which was said by Rav. As Rav Huna said that Rav said: With regard to a guilt-offering that was consigned to grazing, i.e., it had been ruled that the animal must be left to graze until it develops a blemish as it could not be sacrificed as a guilt-offering, at which point it was sold so that the proceeds could be used for voluntary burnt-offerings, and one transgressed and slaughtered the guilt-offering itself for the sake of a burnt-offering rather than using an animal purchased with the money of its sale, it is valid.
טַעְמָא דְּנִיתַּק, הָא לֹא נִיתַּק — לָא. דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״הוּא״ — בַּהֲוָיָיתוֹ יְהֵא.
The Gemara infers from Rav’s statement: The reason for this ruling is that it is a guilt-offering that was consigned to grazing, from which it may be inferred that if it were not consigned in this manner it is not valid as a burnt-offering. This is because the verse states: “It is a guilt-offering,” which indicates that it shall be in its current state, and if it were sacrificed as a different offering it is invalid.
אָמַר מָר: הֲלָכָה הִיא בְּנָזִיר. וְתוּ לֵיכָּא? וְהָתַנְיָא: וּשְׁאָר חַיָּיבֵי קִינִּין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה,
§ The Gemara returns to the issue of a nazirite’s offerings: The Master, Rabbi Yoḥanan, said earlier: It is a halakha with regard to a nazirite that his unallocated funds, including the value of his sin-offering, are used for the purchase of gift offerings. The Gemara asks: This formulation indicates that this halakha pertains only to a nazirite, but is there no other case where the surplus goes toward the purchase of gift offerings? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: And the rest of those liable to bring nests by Torah law, i.e., those paupers who are obligated to bring only a bird-offering, e.g., a poor leper, who must bring two turtledoves, one for a burnt-offering and one for a sin-offering, instead of a sheep or a ewe,
