Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 16, 2015 | 讙壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Nazir 25

讜讛诇讗 讚诪讬 讞讟讗转 诪注讜专讘讬谉 讘讛谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讘谞讝讬专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讻诇 谞讚专讬讛诐 讜诇讻诇 谞讚讘讜转诐 讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 诪讜转专 谞讚专 讬讛讗 诇谞讚讘讛

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 Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淲hether for any of their vows or for any of their gift offerings, which are brought to the Lord as a burnt-offering鈥 (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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讘谞讝讬专 讗诪讟讜 诇讛讻讬 住转讜诪讬谉 讗讬谉 诪驻讜专砖讬谉 诇讗 讗诇讗 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讻诇 谞讚专讬讛诐 讜诇讻诇 谞讚讘讜转诐 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 住转讜诪讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诪驻讜专砖讬谉

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, 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: 鈥淔or any of their vows or for any of their gift offerings,鈥 why state specifically unallocated funds; even allocated money should be used for gift offerings after the death of their owner.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪驻讜专砖讬谉 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讻讘专 驻住拽讛 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专拽 拽讚砖讬讱 讗砖专 讬讛讬讜 诇讱 讜谞讚专讬讱 讘讜诇讚讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜讘转诪讜专转诐 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

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: 鈥淥nly your sacred things that you have, and your vows鈥 (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.

诪讛 转拽谞转谉 转砖讗 讜讘讗转 讗诇 讛诪拽讜诐 讗砖专 讬讘讞专 讛壮 讬讻讜诇 讬注诇诐 诇讘讬转 讛讘讞讬专讛 讜讬诪谞注 诪讛诐 诪讬诐 讜诪讝讜谉 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讬诪讜转讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注砖讬转 注诇转讬讱 讛讘砖专 讜讛讚诐

With regard to these animals, what is their means of remedy? 鈥淵ou shall take and go to the place that the Lord shall choose鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:27).

诇讜诪专 诇讱 讻讚专讱 砖讗转讛 谞讜讛讙 讘注讜诇讛 谞讛讜讙 讘转诪讜专转讛 讻讚专讱 砖讗转讛 谞讜讛讙 讘砖诇诪讬诐 谞讛讜讙 讘讜诇讚讬讛诐 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讜诇讚 讞讟讗转 讜转诪讜专转 讗砖诐 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 专拽 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

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: 鈥淥nly鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:26), which excludes these cases. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗砖诐 讛讜讗 讘讛讜讬讬转讜 讬讛讗

Rabbi Akiva says: In the case of a guilt-offering this exposition is not necessary, as it says: 鈥淚t is a guilt-offering鈥 (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鈥檚 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.

拽转谞讬 讬讻讜诇 讬注诇诐 诇讘讬转 讛讘讞讬专讛 讜讬诪谞注 诪讛诐 诪讬诐 讜诪讝讜谉 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讬诪讜转讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注砖讬转 注诇转讬讱 讗诪讗讬 讛讗 讜诇讚 讞讟讗转 讛讜讗 讚讙诪讬专讬谉 讘讛 诪讬转讛 讗讬 诇讗讜 拽专讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讜诇讚 讞讟讗转 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐

搂 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: 鈥淎nd you shall sacrifice your burnt-offerings.鈥 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,

讜讜诇讚讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讘讬转 讛讘讞讬专讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗

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.

拽转谞讬 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讜诇讚 讞讟讗转 讜转诪讜专转 讗砖诐 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 专拽 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 讛讬诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讜诇讚 讞讟讗转 诇诪讬转讛 讗讝讬诇 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜拽专讗 诇讗砖诐 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

搂 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: 鈥淥nly鈥 (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.

讗砖诐 谞诪讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 讘讞讟讗转 诪转讛 讘讗砖诐 专讜注讛

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?

讗诇讗 讗讬 诪讛讬诇讻转讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讬诇讻转讗 讜讗讬 讗拽专讬讘讬讛 诇讗 诇讬讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 拽专讗 讚讗讬 诪拽专讬讘 诇讬讛 拽讗讬诐 注诇讬讛 讘注砖讛

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: 鈥淥nly your sacred things which you have, and your vows, you shall take and go to the place which the Lord shall choose鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:26).

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗砖诐 讛讜讗 讘讛讜讬讬转讜 讬讛讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 讙诪专讗 讙诪讬专讬谉 诇讛 讻诇 砖讘讞讟讗转 诪转讛 讘讗砖诐 专讜注讛

搂 The same baraita teaches that Rabbi Akiva says: In the case of a guilt-offering this exposition is not necessary, as it says: 鈥淚t is a guilt-offering鈥 (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.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讻讬 讗转讗 拽专讗 诇讚专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖诐 砖谞讬转拽 诇专注讬讬讛 讜砖讞讟讜 诇砖诐 注讜诇讛 讻砖专

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.

讟注诪讗 讚谞讬转拽 讛讗 诇讗 谞讬转拽 诇讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讛讜讗 讘讛讜讬讬转讜 讬讛讗

The Gemara infers from Rav鈥檚 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: 鈥淚t is a guilt-offering,鈥 which indicates that it shall be in its current state, and if it were sacrificed as a different offering it is invalid.

讗诪专 诪专 讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讘谞讝讬专 讜转讜 诇讬讻讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜砖讗专 讞讬讬讘讬 拽讬谞讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛

搂 The Gemara returns to the issue of a nazirite鈥檚 offerings: The Master, Rabbi Yo岣nan, 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鈥檛 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,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Nazir 25

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 25

讜讛诇讗 讚诪讬 讞讟讗转 诪注讜专讘讬谉 讘讛谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讘谞讝讬专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讻诇 谞讚专讬讛诐 讜诇讻诇 谞讚讘讜转诐 讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 诪讜转专 谞讚专 讬讛讗 诇谞讚讘讛

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 Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淲hether for any of their vows or for any of their gift offerings, which are brought to the Lord as a burnt-offering鈥 (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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讘谞讝讬专 讗诪讟讜 诇讛讻讬 住转讜诪讬谉 讗讬谉 诪驻讜专砖讬谉 诇讗 讗诇讗 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讻诇 谞讚专讬讛诐 讜诇讻诇 谞讚讘讜转诐 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 住转讜诪讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诪驻讜专砖讬谉

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, 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: 鈥淔or any of their vows or for any of their gift offerings,鈥 why state specifically unallocated funds; even allocated money should be used for gift offerings after the death of their owner.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪驻讜专砖讬谉 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讻讘专 驻住拽讛 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专拽 拽讚砖讬讱 讗砖专 讬讛讬讜 诇讱 讜谞讚专讬讱 讘讜诇讚讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜讘转诪讜专转诐 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

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: 鈥淥nly your sacred things that you have, and your vows鈥 (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.

诪讛 转拽谞转谉 转砖讗 讜讘讗转 讗诇 讛诪拽讜诐 讗砖专 讬讘讞专 讛壮 讬讻讜诇 讬注诇诐 诇讘讬转 讛讘讞讬专讛 讜讬诪谞注 诪讛诐 诪讬诐 讜诪讝讜谉 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讬诪讜转讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注砖讬转 注诇转讬讱 讛讘砖专 讜讛讚诐

With regard to these animals, what is their means of remedy? 鈥淵ou shall take and go to the place that the Lord shall choose鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:27).

诇讜诪专 诇讱 讻讚专讱 砖讗转讛 谞讜讛讙 讘注讜诇讛 谞讛讜讙 讘转诪讜专转讛 讻讚专讱 砖讗转讛 谞讜讛讙 讘砖诇诪讬诐 谞讛讜讙 讘讜诇讚讬讛诐 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讜诇讚 讞讟讗转 讜转诪讜专转 讗砖诐 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 专拽 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

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: 鈥淥nly鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:26), which excludes these cases. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗砖诐 讛讜讗 讘讛讜讬讬转讜 讬讛讗

Rabbi Akiva says: In the case of a guilt-offering this exposition is not necessary, as it says: 鈥淚t is a guilt-offering鈥 (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鈥檚 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.

拽转谞讬 讬讻讜诇 讬注诇诐 诇讘讬转 讛讘讞讬专讛 讜讬诪谞注 诪讛诐 诪讬诐 讜诪讝讜谉 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讬诪讜转讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注砖讬转 注诇转讬讱 讗诪讗讬 讛讗 讜诇讚 讞讟讗转 讛讜讗 讚讙诪讬专讬谉 讘讛 诪讬转讛 讗讬 诇讗讜 拽专讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讜诇讚 讞讟讗转 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐

搂 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: 鈥淎nd you shall sacrifice your burnt-offerings.鈥 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,

讜讜诇讚讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讘讬转 讛讘讞讬专讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗

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.

拽转谞讬 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讜诇讚 讞讟讗转 讜转诪讜专转 讗砖诐 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 专拽 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 讛讬诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讜诇讚 讞讟讗转 诇诪讬转讛 讗讝讬诇 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜拽专讗 诇讗砖诐 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

搂 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: 鈥淥nly鈥 (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.

讗砖诐 谞诪讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 讘讞讟讗转 诪转讛 讘讗砖诐 专讜注讛

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?

讗诇讗 讗讬 诪讛讬诇讻转讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讬诇讻转讗 讜讗讬 讗拽专讬讘讬讛 诇讗 诇讬讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 拽专讗 讚讗讬 诪拽专讬讘 诇讬讛 拽讗讬诐 注诇讬讛 讘注砖讛

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: 鈥淥nly your sacred things which you have, and your vows, you shall take and go to the place which the Lord shall choose鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:26).

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗砖诐 讛讜讗 讘讛讜讬讬转讜 讬讛讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 讙诪专讗 讙诪讬专讬谉 诇讛 讻诇 砖讘讞讟讗转 诪转讛 讘讗砖诐 专讜注讛

搂 The same baraita teaches that Rabbi Akiva says: In the case of a guilt-offering this exposition is not necessary, as it says: 鈥淚t is a guilt-offering鈥 (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.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讻讬 讗转讗 拽专讗 诇讚专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖诐 砖谞讬转拽 诇专注讬讬讛 讜砖讞讟讜 诇砖诐 注讜诇讛 讻砖专

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.

讟注诪讗 讚谞讬转拽 讛讗 诇讗 谞讬转拽 诇讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讛讜讗 讘讛讜讬讬转讜 讬讛讗

The Gemara infers from Rav鈥檚 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: 鈥淚t is a guilt-offering,鈥 which indicates that it shall be in its current state, and if it were sacrificed as a different offering it is invalid.

讗诪专 诪专 讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讘谞讝讬专 讜转讜 诇讬讻讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜砖讗专 讞讬讬讘讬 拽讬谞讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛

搂 The Gemara returns to the issue of a nazirite鈥檚 offerings: The Master, Rabbi Yo岣nan, 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鈥檛 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,

Scroll To Top