Nazir 25a (כה.) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara is surprised: Why should these coins go to a free-will offering,

yet are not the funds for a sin-offering mixed among them—

and the funds for a sin-offering are subject to the rule that they must be cast into the Dead Sea?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is a halakha concerning a nazirite

that unassigned funds designated for nazirite offerings, when the funds for a sin-offering are mixed among them, go to a free-will offering.

Reish Lakish said:

The reason unassigned funds go to a free-will offering is that it is stated: “Speak to Aaron, etc.: Any man of the children of Israel, etc., who brings his offering

for all their vows and for all their free-will offerings

that they bring to the Lord as an elevation-offering”;

the Torah said: The surplus of a vow shall be a free-will offering

[for the summer offerings on the altar], and the offerings of naziriteship are “a vow,” since naziriteship comes about through a vow. The Gemara raises an objection:

Granted, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says: It is a halakha concerning a nazirite; for this reason

[therefore,] when the funds are

unassigned

they

indeed go to a free-will offering, but when the funds are

explicitly designated, they do not

go to a free-will offering, because this is how the halakha was stated.

But according to Reish Lakish,

who derives this law from the verse

“for all their vows and for all their free-will offerings,”

if so,

why specifically

unassigned

funds? Even

explicitly designated funds for a sin-offering

—

should we not say that they too go to a free-will offering?

Rava

said: Funds for a sin-offering that are

explicitly designated—you cannot say

that they go to a free-will offering, since:

The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael has already established

that is, the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael already derived from Scripture that the “surplus of a sin-offering”—that is, the offspring or substitution of a sin-offering—is not offered. Included in this law is that explicitly designated funds for a sin-offering that remained must be cast into the Dead Sea and may not be offered.

For the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael said: It is written:

“Only your sacred things

that you shall have, and your vows

you shall take and come to the place that the Lord shall choose.”

Necessarily, the verse is not speaking of the elevation-offerings and peace-offerings themselves, since we have already learned their laws from other verses. Rather,

it is speaking of the offspring of sacred animals

of peace-offerings,

and of their substitutions

of elevation-offerings and peace-offerings.

What is their remedy? The verse speaks of them:

: “

“You shall take and come to the place that the Lord shall choose,”

that is, they are offered.

One might have thought—

even though the verse says, “You shall take and come to the place that the Lord shall choose,” they are not to be offered, but rather

you shall bring them to the chosen House

to fulfill what is stated: “You shall take and come to the place that the Lord shall choose,”

and

nevertheless

withhold from them

there

water and food so that they will die—

.

The verse states:

“[You shall take and come to the place that the Lord shall choose].

And you shall perform your elevation-offerings, the flesh and the blood,

on the altar of the Lord your God, and the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured upon the altar of the Lord your God, and you shall eat the flesh [these are the peace-offerings],”

to teach you:

:

a.

In the manner in which you treat an elevation-offering

itself—when you offer it upon the altar—so

shall you treat

also

its substitution,

and it shall not die.

b.

In the manner in which you treat a peace-offering—

when you offer it upon the altar—so

shall you treat

also

its offspring

[and its substitution], and they shall not die.

One might have thought that even the offspring

[and substitution] of

a sin-offering and the substitution of a guilt-offering

likewise,

should be offered upon the altar—

The verse states:

“Only”

to exclude a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, which may not be offered,

the words of Rabbi Yishmael.

Rabbi Akiva says: It is not necessary

to derive this from the word “only,” because

it says: “It is a guilt-offering

it says: “It is a guilt-offering and shall remain in its status

it shall remain in its form,”

that is, only the guilt-offering itself is brought as a guilt-offering, but not its offspring or its substitution. The words of Rabbi Akiva will be explained in the continuation of the Gemara.

We have therefore learned that all surplus of a sin-offering does not go to a free-will offering. Accordingly, it is impossible to say that explicitly designated funds for a sin-offering that remained go to a free-will offering, since their law is that they must be cast into the Dead Sea. Necessarily, the verse “for all their vows and for all their free-will offerings” spoke only of unassigned funds, and not of explicitly designated funds.

And the Gemara explains the beraita:

It teaches

in the beraita:

One might have thought that he could bring them to the Temple and withhold water and food from them so that they would die. Therefore, the verse states:

“And you shall perform your burnt offerings”:

And we raise an objection:

Why

would I have thought that they would die!?

Here, regarding the offspring [and

substitute]

of a sin-offering, it is that they learned

from the halakha given to Moses at Sinai that it goes to

death,

but not the offspring or substitute of a burnt offering or peace offering!?

And we answer:

Were it not for the verse

that the offspring and substitutes of burnt offerings and peace offerings are offered,

I would have thought

that this is the distinction between the offspring and substitute of a burnt offering and peace offerings and the offspring of a sin-offering:

That the

offspring [and

substitute] of a

sin-offering

would die

everywhere —