Nazir 25

והלא דמי חטאת מעורבין בהן אמר רבי יוחנן הלכה היא בנזיר ריש לקיש אמר לכל נדריהם ולכל נדבותם התורה אמרה מותר נדר יהא לנדבה

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.

בשלמא לרבי יוחנן דאמר הלכה היא בנזיר אמטו להכי סתומין אין מפורשין לא אלא לריש לקיש לכל נדריהם ולכל נדבותם מאי איריא סתומין אפילו מפורשין

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.

אמר רבא מפורשין לא מצית אמרת כבר פסקה תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל רק קדשיך אשר יהיו לך ונדריך בולדי קדשים ובתמורתם הכתוב מדבר

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.

מה תקנתן תשא ובאת אל המקום אשר יבחר ה׳ יכול יעלם לבית הבחירה וימנע מהם מים ומזון בשביל שימותו תלמוד לומר ועשית עלתיך הבשר והדם

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).

לומר לך כדרך שאתה נוהג בעולה נהוג בתמורתה כדרך שאתה נוהג בשלמים נהוג בולדיהם יכול אף ולד חטאת ותמורת אשם כן תלמוד לומר רק דברי רבי ישמעאל

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.

רבי עקיבא אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר אשם הוא בהוייתו יהא

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.

קתני יכול יעלם לבית הבחירה וימנע מהם מים ומזון בשביל שימותו תלמוד לומר ועשית עלתיך אמאי הא ולד חטאת הוא דגמירין בה מיתה אי לאו קרא הוה אמינא ולד חטאת בכל מקום

§ 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,

וולדי קדשים בבית הבחירה קא משמע לן דלא

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.

קתני יכול אף ולד חטאת ותמורת אשם כן תלמוד לומר רק למה לי קרא הילכתא גמירי לה ולד חטאת למיתה אזיל הכי נמי וקרא לאשם הוא דאתא

§ 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.

אשם נמי הילכתא גמירי לה כל שאילו בחטאת מתה באשם רועה

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?

אלא אי מהילכתא הוה אמינא הילכתא ואי אקריביה לא ליחייב עליה ולא כלום קא משמע לן קרא דאי מקריב ליה קאים עליה בעשה

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).

רבי עקיבא אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר אשם הוא בהוייתו יהא למה לי קרא גמרא גמירין לה כל שבחטאת מתה באשם רועה

§ 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.

הכי נמי וכי אתא קרא לדרב דאמר רב הונא אמר רב אשם שניתק לרעייה ושחטו לשם עולה כשר

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.

טעמא דניתק הא לא ניתק לא דאמר קרא הוא בהוייתו יהא

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.

אמר מר הלכה היא בנזיר ותו ליכא והתניא ושאר חייבי קינין שבתורה

§ 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,