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 Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
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.
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
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Teaneck, United States
See video
Raanana, Israel
Minneapolis, MN, United States
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
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
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Palo Alto, CA, United States
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
Jerusalem, Israel
Berlin, Germany
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
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,
