## Nazir Daf 25b

###### Nazir 25b:1
[Nazir 25b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/25b:1)

וּוַלְדֵי קָדָשִׁים בְּבֵית הַבְּחִירָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Nazir 25b:2
[Nazir 25b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/25b:2)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Nazir 25b:3
[Nazir 25b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/25b:3)

אָשָׁם נָמֵי הִילְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לָהּ: כֹּל שֶׁאִילּוּ בְּחַטָּאת מֵתָה, בְּאָשָׁם רוֹעֶה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*?


###### Nazir 25b:4
[Nazir 25b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/25b:4)

אֶלָּא: אִי מֵהִילְכְתָא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הִילְכְתָא, וְאִי אַקְרְיבֵיהּ — לָא לִיחַיַּיב עֲלֵיהּ וְלֹא כְּלוּם, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן קְרָא דְּאִי מַקְרֵיב לֵיהּ — קָאֵים עֲלֵיהּ בַּעֲשֵׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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).


###### Nazir 25b:5
[Nazir 25b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/25b:5)

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״אָשָׁם הוּא״ — בַּהֲוָיָיתוֹ יְהֵא. לְמָה לִי קְרָא? גְּמָרָא גְּמִירִין לַהּ: כׇּל שֶׁבְּחַטָּאת מֵתָה — בְּאָשָׁם רוֹעֶה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Nazir 25b:6
[Nazir 25b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/25b:6)

הָכִי נָמֵי, וְכִי אֲתָא קְרָא — לִדְרַב. דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: אָשָׁם שֶׁנִּיתַּק לִרְעִיָּיה, וּשְׁחָטוֹ לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה — כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Nazir 25b:7
[Nazir 25b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/25b:7)

טַעְמָא דְּנִיתַּק, הָא לֹא נִיתַּק — לָא. דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״הוּא״ — בַּהֲוָיָיתוֹ יְהֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nazir 25b:8
[Nazir 25b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/25b:8)

אָמַר מָר: הֲלָכָה הִיא בְּנָזִיר. וְתוּ לֵיכָּא? וְהָתַנְיָא: וּשְׁאָר חַיָּיבֵי קִינִּין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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,