Rav Shimi bar Ashi raised a difficulty with those who limited the law about unspecified money for the nazirite sacrifices being used for voluntary burnt offerings for money only and not animals, pieces of silver, or piles of beams. Rav Shimi showed that also birds can remain unspecified until a later stage. Rav Papa responded with a source showing that animals do not remain unspecified, even in a case where one didn’t specifically designate each one for each particular sacrifice as when a nazir set aside a female sheep, male sheep, and ram, but did not specify which sacrifice each one is for, it is as if they are already specified. Rav Shimi rejects Rav Papa’s response as when one specifies those particular animals, it is clear which was meant for which sacrifice since the Torah specifically says that a female sheep is brought as a sin offering, the male sheep for a burnt offering and the ram for a peace offering and therefore, it is as if they were specifically designated. Earlier, Rav Nachan stated that even though the law of unspecified money does not apply to an animal, it would apply to an animal with a blemish, as it could be sold immediately and was therefore considered like money. Rav Hamnuna and Rava bring tannaitic sources to raise a difficulty against Rav Nachman.
This month’s learning is dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
Nazir 27
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, הָא דִּתְנַן: רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: הֵבִיא שָׁלֹשׁ בְּהֵמוֹת וְלֹא פֵּירֵשׁ, הָרְאוּיָה לְחַטָּאת — תִּקְרַב חַטָּאת, לְעוֹלָה — תִּקְרַב עוֹלָה, לִשְׁלָמִים — תִּקְרַב שְׁלָמִים. אַמַּאי? הָא אָמְרַתְּ: בְּהֵמָה לָאו כִּמְפוֹרֶשֶׁת דָּמְיָא!
Rav Pappa said to him: And according to your reasoning, which leads to the conclusion that all items can have the status of unallocated funds, consider that which we learned in a mishna (45a): Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If one brought three different animals for his naziriteship and did not specify which was for which offering, that which is fit for a sin-offering, a ewe, is sacrificed as a sin-offering; the animal suitable for a burnt-offering, a male sheep or bull, is sacrificed as a burnt-offering; and the animal fit for a peace-offering, any other male or female, is sacrificed as a peace-offering. But according to your opinion, why is this so? Didn’t you say that an animal is not considered as allocated, but is instead like unallocated funds; how can one decide which animal to use for each offering?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָתָם: ״וְלָקַח … וְעָשָׂה״.
Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to him: As for the case of birds, this is an exception, as there is an explicit verse to this effect there: It states with regard to the owner of a bird offering: “And he shall take one he-lamb for a guilt-offering to be waved, to make atonement for him, and one tenth part of an ephah of fine flour mingled with oil for a meal-offering, and a log of oil; and two turtledoves or two young pigeons, such as his means suffice for, and the one shall be a sin-offering and the other a burnt-offering” (Leviticus 14:21–22), and it later states with regard to the priest: “And he shall sacrifice one of the turtledoves, or of the young pigeons, such as his means suffice for; even such as his means suffice for, the one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering” (Leviticus 14:30–31).
אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: אִי בִּלְקִיחַת בְּעָלִים, אִי בַּעֲשִׂיַּית כֹּהֵן. הָכָא נָמֵי,
The Merciful One thereby states that the birds are allocated and designated for their offering either by the acquisition of the owner, by designating each bird for a particular offering upon their purchase, or by the action of the priest. With regard to the ruling of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, it presents no difficulty either, as it is a special case as well. Here too, when one separates these particular animals for his naziriteship offerings,
מִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ הָדֵין דְּחַטָּאת תִּקְרַב עוֹלָה? הָכָא נְקֵבָה, הָכָא זָכָר.
how can you say that this one that is for the sin-offering shall be sacrificed as a burnt-offering? Here, only a female may be sacrificed as a sin-offering, whereas here, in the case of a burnt-offering, it must be male. Therefore, it is as though he allocated each animal for a specific offering. Consequently, you cannot compare this case to that of items that are not inherently designated for a particular purpose, e.g., a blemished animal or a silver bar, as they have the status of unallocated funds.
מֵתִיב רַב הַמְנוּנָא: וּמִי אָמְרִינַן בְּהֵמָה בַּעֲלַת מוּם כִּסְתוּמָה דָּמְיָא? תָּא שְׁמַע: כֵּיצַד אָמְרוּ הָאִישׁ מְגַלֵּחַ עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיו? בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָיָה הוּא וְאָבִיו נְזִירִים, וְהִפְרִישׁ אָבִיו מָעוֹת לִנְזִירוּתוֹ וָמֵת, וְאָמַר: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֲגַלֵּחַ עַל מְעוֹת אַבָּא״.
§ Rav Hamnuna raised an objection against Rav Naḥman’s statement: And do we say that a blemished animal is considered like unallocated funds? Come and hear a proof to the contrary from the following baraita, which begins: How, in what case, did the Sages say that a man shaves, i.e., bring the offerings sacrificed at the end of a term of naziriteship, for his father’s naziriteship? The Gemara cites a part of that baraita which records a case where the son does not bring the offerings for his father’s naziriteship: When he and his father were both nazirites, and his father separated money for the offerings of his naziriteship and died, and the son said: I am hereby a nazirite on the condition that I will shave, i.e., bring my offerings, through the money my father set aside, in that case he cannot shave for his father’s naziriteship.
הָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת סְתוּמוֹת — יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. הָיְתָה לוֹ בְּהֵמָה מוּפְרֶשֶׁת חַטָּאת — תָּמוּת. עוֹלָה — תִּקְרַב עוֹלָה, וּשְׁלָמִים — יְקָרְבוּ שְׁלָמִים. מַאי לָאו, אֲפִילּוּ בַּעֲלַת מוּם?
Consequently, if the father had unallocated funds, they are allocated for communal gift offerings. If he had allocated animals, that which is for a sin-offering must be left to die, like any sin-offering whose owner has died; the animal for a burnt-offering is sacrificed as a burnt-offering, and the animal for a peace-offering is sacrificed as a peace-offering. What, is it not referring even to the case of a blemished animal, as the baraita differentiated only between money and animals? This indicates that a blemished animal is also considered allocated, which contradicts Rav Naḥman’s ruling.
לֹא, תְּמִימָה. אֲבָל בַּעֲלַת מוּם, כִּסְתוּמָה דָּמְיָא? מַאי אִירְיָא מָעוֹת? לֵימָא: הָיְתָה לוֹ בְּהֵמָה בַּעֲלַת מוּם — יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה!
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No; it is referring only to an unblemished animal, which is considered allocated because it is suitable for an offering itself. The Gemara asks: However, if that is so, is a blemished animal considered like unallocated funds? In that case, why does the baraita specifically distinguish between animals and unallocated funds? Let the baraita say as follows: If he had a blemished animal its money is allocated for communal gift offerings. The baraita would thereby distinguish between two similar cases that involve animals, from which one could infer the halakha of unallocated funds.
הָכִי נָמֵי, בַּעֲלַת מוּם לְמַאי קַדִּישָׁא — לִדְמֵי, דְּמֵי הַיְינוּ — מָעוֹת.
The Gemara answers: So too, this is the meaning of the baraita, and there is no difference between a blemished animal and money. The Gemara clarifies this claim: For what purpose is a blemished animal consecrated? It is for the value of its sale, and this value is provided in money. Consequently, this baraita does not refute Rav Naḥman’s opinion that the halakha of a blemished animal is like that of unallocated funds.
מֵתִיב רָבָא: ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״, בְּקׇרְבָּנוֹ הוּא יוֹצֵא, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא בְּקׇרְבַּן אָבִיו. יָכוֹל לֹא יֵצֵא בְּקׇרְבָּנוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיו שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ מִן הַקַּלָּה עַל הַחֲמוּרָה, אוֹ מִן הַחֲמוּרָה עַל הַקַּלָּה,
§ Rava also raises an objection against Rav Naḥman’s opinion, from a baraita that deals with sin-offerings. The Torah states: “And he shall bring for his offering” (Leviticus 4:23), which indicates: He fulfills his obligation with his own offering, but he does not fulfill his obligation with his father’s offering, if his father was obligated to bring a sin-offering and died after separating an animal for this purpose. One might have thought that one does not fulfill his obligation with an offering that his father separated only in a case where the son’s transgression is not equal in severity to that of his father’s sin, e.g., sacrificing his offering from animals that his father designated to atone for a minor transgression to atone for his own major transgression, or from animals that his father designated to atone for a major transgression, to atone for his own minor transgression.
אֲבָל יוֹצֵא בְּקׇרְבָּן שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ אָבִיו מִן הַקַּלָּה עַל הַקַּלָּה אוֹ מִן הַחֲמוּרָה עַל הַחֲמוּרָה — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״, ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״. בְּקׇרְבָּנוֹ הוּא יוֹצֵא, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא בְּקׇרְבָּנוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיו.
However, one might have thought that he does fulfill his obligation with an offering that his father separated if it is from animals his father set aside to atone for a minor transgression and the son atones for his own minor one, or from animals the father set aside to atone for a major transgression and the son atones for his own major one. Therefore, the verse states: “His offering” (Leviticus 4:23), and it repeats: “His offering” (Leviticus 4:28), to emphasize that he fulfills his obligation with his own offering, and he does not fulfill his obligation with his father’s offering even for similar transgressions.
יָכוֹל לֹא יֵצֵא בְּקׇרְבַּן אָבִיו בִּבְהֵמָה שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ אֲפִילּוּ מִן הַקַּלָּה עַל הַקַּלָּה, מִן הַחֲמוּרָה עַל הַחֲמוּרָה, שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין אָדָם מְגַלֵּחַ עַל בֶּהֱמַת אָבִיו בִּנְזִירוּת, אֲבָל יוֹצֵא בְּמָעוֹת שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ אָבִיו, אֲפִילּוּ מִן הַחֲמוּרָה עַל הַקַּלָּה, אוֹ מִן הַקַּלָּה עַל הַחֲמוּרָה, שֶׁהֲרֵי אָדָם מְגַלֵּחַ עַל מְעוֹת אָבִיו בִּנְזִירוּת,
The baraita continues: One might have thought that a son does not fulfill his obligation with his father’s offering, i.e., with an animal that his father separated, even from animals that his father designated to atone for a minor transgression, to atone for the son’s minor one, or from animals the father set aside to atone for a major transgression, to atone for the son’s major one, as stated above, as a person cannot shave, i.e., bring an offering, for naziriteship with his father’s animal. Consequently, the halakhot of inheritance do not apply to this animal. However, it is nevertheless possible that a son can fulfill his obligation by purchasing a sin-offering with money that his father separated for his own sin-offering, even from money the father set aside to atone for a major transgression in a case where the son is atoning for a minor transgression, or from money the father set aside to atone for a minor transgression in a case where the son is atoning for a major one, as a person can shave, i.e., purchase an offering, with the money his father set aside for naziriteship,
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.
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Bronx, United States
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, 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 my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
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
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 started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
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
Minneapolis, MN, United States
Phoenix, AZ, United States
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Yad Binyamin, 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
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
Jerusalem, Israel
Blacksburg, United States
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
Nazir 27
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, הָא דִּתְנַן: רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: הֵבִיא שָׁלֹשׁ בְּהֵמוֹת וְלֹא פֵּירֵשׁ, הָרְאוּיָה לְחַטָּאת — תִּקְרַב חַטָּאת, לְעוֹלָה — תִּקְרַב עוֹלָה, לִשְׁלָמִים — תִּקְרַב שְׁלָמִים. אַמַּאי? הָא אָמְרַתְּ: בְּהֵמָה לָאו כִּמְפוֹרֶשֶׁת דָּמְיָא!
Rav Pappa said to him: And according to your reasoning, which leads to the conclusion that all items can have the status of unallocated funds, consider that which we learned in a mishna (45a): Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If one brought three different animals for his naziriteship and did not specify which was for which offering, that which is fit for a sin-offering, a ewe, is sacrificed as a sin-offering; the animal suitable for a burnt-offering, a male sheep or bull, is sacrificed as a burnt-offering; and the animal fit for a peace-offering, any other male or female, is sacrificed as a peace-offering. But according to your opinion, why is this so? Didn’t you say that an animal is not considered as allocated, but is instead like unallocated funds; how can one decide which animal to use for each offering?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָתָם: ״וְלָקַח … וְעָשָׂה״.
Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to him: As for the case of birds, this is an exception, as there is an explicit verse to this effect there: It states with regard to the owner of a bird offering: “And he shall take one he-lamb for a guilt-offering to be waved, to make atonement for him, and one tenth part of an ephah of fine flour mingled with oil for a meal-offering, and a log of oil; and two turtledoves or two young pigeons, such as his means suffice for, and the one shall be a sin-offering and the other a burnt-offering” (Leviticus 14:21–22), and it later states with regard to the priest: “And he shall sacrifice one of the turtledoves, or of the young pigeons, such as his means suffice for; even such as his means suffice for, the one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering” (Leviticus 14:30–31).
אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: אִי בִּלְקִיחַת בְּעָלִים, אִי בַּעֲשִׂיַּית כֹּהֵן. הָכָא נָמֵי,
The Merciful One thereby states that the birds are allocated and designated for their offering either by the acquisition of the owner, by designating each bird for a particular offering upon their purchase, or by the action of the priest. With regard to the ruling of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, it presents no difficulty either, as it is a special case as well. Here too, when one separates these particular animals for his naziriteship offerings,
מִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ הָדֵין דְּחַטָּאת תִּקְרַב עוֹלָה? הָכָא נְקֵבָה, הָכָא זָכָר.
how can you say that this one that is for the sin-offering shall be sacrificed as a burnt-offering? Here, only a female may be sacrificed as a sin-offering, whereas here, in the case of a burnt-offering, it must be male. Therefore, it is as though he allocated each animal for a specific offering. Consequently, you cannot compare this case to that of items that are not inherently designated for a particular purpose, e.g., a blemished animal or a silver bar, as they have the status of unallocated funds.
מֵתִיב רַב הַמְנוּנָא: וּמִי אָמְרִינַן בְּהֵמָה בַּעֲלַת מוּם כִּסְתוּמָה דָּמְיָא? תָּא שְׁמַע: כֵּיצַד אָמְרוּ הָאִישׁ מְגַלֵּחַ עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיו? בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָיָה הוּא וְאָבִיו נְזִירִים, וְהִפְרִישׁ אָבִיו מָעוֹת לִנְזִירוּתוֹ וָמֵת, וְאָמַר: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֲגַלֵּחַ עַל מְעוֹת אַבָּא״.
§ Rav Hamnuna raised an objection against Rav Naḥman’s statement: And do we say that a blemished animal is considered like unallocated funds? Come and hear a proof to the contrary from the following baraita, which begins: How, in what case, did the Sages say that a man shaves, i.e., bring the offerings sacrificed at the end of a term of naziriteship, for his father’s naziriteship? The Gemara cites a part of that baraita which records a case where the son does not bring the offerings for his father’s naziriteship: When he and his father were both nazirites, and his father separated money for the offerings of his naziriteship and died, and the son said: I am hereby a nazirite on the condition that I will shave, i.e., bring my offerings, through the money my father set aside, in that case he cannot shave for his father’s naziriteship.
הָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת סְתוּמוֹת — יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. הָיְתָה לוֹ בְּהֵמָה מוּפְרֶשֶׁת חַטָּאת — תָּמוּת. עוֹלָה — תִּקְרַב עוֹלָה, וּשְׁלָמִים — יְקָרְבוּ שְׁלָמִים. מַאי לָאו, אֲפִילּוּ בַּעֲלַת מוּם?
Consequently, if the father had unallocated funds, they are allocated for communal gift offerings. If he had allocated animals, that which is for a sin-offering must be left to die, like any sin-offering whose owner has died; the animal for a burnt-offering is sacrificed as a burnt-offering, and the animal for a peace-offering is sacrificed as a peace-offering. What, is it not referring even to the case of a blemished animal, as the baraita differentiated only between money and animals? This indicates that a blemished animal is also considered allocated, which contradicts Rav Naḥman’s ruling.
לֹא, תְּמִימָה. אֲבָל בַּעֲלַת מוּם, כִּסְתוּמָה דָּמְיָא? מַאי אִירְיָא מָעוֹת? לֵימָא: הָיְתָה לוֹ בְּהֵמָה בַּעֲלַת מוּם — יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה!
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No; it is referring only to an unblemished animal, which is considered allocated because it is suitable for an offering itself. The Gemara asks: However, if that is so, is a blemished animal considered like unallocated funds? In that case, why does the baraita specifically distinguish between animals and unallocated funds? Let the baraita say as follows: If he had a blemished animal its money is allocated for communal gift offerings. The baraita would thereby distinguish between two similar cases that involve animals, from which one could infer the halakha of unallocated funds.
הָכִי נָמֵי, בַּעֲלַת מוּם לְמַאי קַדִּישָׁא — לִדְמֵי, דְּמֵי הַיְינוּ — מָעוֹת.
The Gemara answers: So too, this is the meaning of the baraita, and there is no difference between a blemished animal and money. The Gemara clarifies this claim: For what purpose is a blemished animal consecrated? It is for the value of its sale, and this value is provided in money. Consequently, this baraita does not refute Rav Naḥman’s opinion that the halakha of a blemished animal is like that of unallocated funds.
מֵתִיב רָבָא: ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״, בְּקׇרְבָּנוֹ הוּא יוֹצֵא, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא בְּקׇרְבַּן אָבִיו. יָכוֹל לֹא יֵצֵא בְּקׇרְבָּנוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיו שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ מִן הַקַּלָּה עַל הַחֲמוּרָה, אוֹ מִן הַחֲמוּרָה עַל הַקַּלָּה,
§ Rava also raises an objection against Rav Naḥman’s opinion, from a baraita that deals with sin-offerings. The Torah states: “And he shall bring for his offering” (Leviticus 4:23), which indicates: He fulfills his obligation with his own offering, but he does not fulfill his obligation with his father’s offering, if his father was obligated to bring a sin-offering and died after separating an animal for this purpose. One might have thought that one does not fulfill his obligation with an offering that his father separated only in a case where the son’s transgression is not equal in severity to that of his father’s sin, e.g., sacrificing his offering from animals that his father designated to atone for a minor transgression to atone for his own major transgression, or from animals that his father designated to atone for a major transgression, to atone for his own minor transgression.
אֲבָל יוֹצֵא בְּקׇרְבָּן שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ אָבִיו מִן הַקַּלָּה עַל הַקַּלָּה אוֹ מִן הַחֲמוּרָה עַל הַחֲמוּרָה — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״, ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״. בְּקׇרְבָּנוֹ הוּא יוֹצֵא, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא בְּקׇרְבָּנוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיו.
However, one might have thought that he does fulfill his obligation with an offering that his father separated if it is from animals his father set aside to atone for a minor transgression and the son atones for his own minor one, or from animals the father set aside to atone for a major transgression and the son atones for his own major one. Therefore, the verse states: “His offering” (Leviticus 4:23), and it repeats: “His offering” (Leviticus 4:28), to emphasize that he fulfills his obligation with his own offering, and he does not fulfill his obligation with his father’s offering even for similar transgressions.
יָכוֹל לֹא יֵצֵא בְּקׇרְבַּן אָבִיו בִּבְהֵמָה שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ אֲפִילּוּ מִן הַקַּלָּה עַל הַקַּלָּה, מִן הַחֲמוּרָה עַל הַחֲמוּרָה, שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין אָדָם מְגַלֵּחַ עַל בֶּהֱמַת אָבִיו בִּנְזִירוּת, אֲבָל יוֹצֵא בְּמָעוֹת שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ אָבִיו, אֲפִילּוּ מִן הַחֲמוּרָה עַל הַקַּלָּה, אוֹ מִן הַקַּלָּה עַל הַחֲמוּרָה, שֶׁהֲרֵי אָדָם מְגַלֵּחַ עַל מְעוֹת אָבִיו בִּנְזִירוּת,
The baraita continues: One might have thought that a son does not fulfill his obligation with his father’s offering, i.e., with an animal that his father separated, even from animals that his father designated to atone for a minor transgression, to atone for the son’s minor one, or from animals the father set aside to atone for a major transgression, to atone for the son’s major one, as stated above, as a person cannot shave, i.e., bring an offering, for naziriteship with his father’s animal. Consequently, the halakhot of inheritance do not apply to this animal. However, it is nevertheless possible that a son can fulfill his obligation by purchasing a sin-offering with money that his father separated for his own sin-offering, even from money the father set aside to atone for a major transgression in a case where the son is atoning for a minor transgression, or from money the father set aside to atone for a minor transgression in a case where the son is atoning for a major one, as a person can shave, i.e., purchase an offering, with the money his father set aside for naziriteship,
