Nazir 25a — the Talmud in English

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

but are not the monies for a sin-offering mixed among them

, and the monies for a sin-offering—surely their law is that they must go to the Dead Sea

Rabbi Yohanan said: It is a halakha concerning a nazirite

that anonymous monies of nazirite offerings, when the monies for a sin-offering are mixed among them, should go to a free-will offering.

Reish Lakish said:

The reason anonymous coins fall to a free-will offering is because it is stated: “Speak to Aaron, etc., any man of the House 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 a burnt-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 Yohanan, who says: It is a halakha concerning a nazirite; for this reason

[therefore], when the coins are

anonymous

—they

indeed do go to a free-will offering—but when the coins are

specified, they do not

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

But according to Reish Lakish

, who learns this law from the verse

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

if so,

why specifically

anonymous

coins? Even

the monies for a sin-offering,

if specified,

we should say that they should go to a free-will offering.

Rava

said: The monies for a sin-offering,

if specified, you cannot say

that they should go to a free-will offering, for:

The teaching of the school of Rabbi Ishmael has already settled this

, meaning: the tannai of the school of Rabbi Ishmael already expounded from Scripture that “the surplus of a sin-offering”—that is, the offspring or substitute of a sin-offering—is not offered; and included in this law is that specified monies for a sin-offering that remained go to the Dead Sea and are not offered.

For the tannai of the school of Rabbi Ishmael: it is written:

“Only your holy things

that you will have, and your vows,

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

And necessarily the verse is not speaking of the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings themselves, for we have already learned their law from other verses; rather, it is speaking

of the offspring of consecrated animals

of peace-offerings,

and of their substitutes

—of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings.

The verse is speaking of them; what is their remedy?

: “

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

meaning that they are offered.

One might have said—

even though the verse said, “You shall take and come to the place that the Lord will choose,” he should not offer them, but rather

bring them up to the chosen House

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

and

nevertheless

withhold from them

there

water and food so that they die—

.

The verse therefore says: “[

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

And you shall perform your burnt-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 tell you

:

a.

In the manner in which you act with a burnt-offering

itself—you offer it upon the altar—so

act

also

with its substitute

, and it shall not die.

b.

In the manner in which you act with peace-offerings

—you offer them upon the altar—so

act

also

with their offspring

[and their substitutes], and they shall not die.

One might have said even the offspring

[and substitute]

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

likewise,

that they should be offered upon the altar—

The verse therefore says:

“Only”

, to exclude the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, which are not offered

—the words of Rabbi Ishmael

.

Rabbi Akiva says: It is not necessary

to learn this from “only,” because

he says: “It is a guilt-offering;

in its state of being it shall remain,”

meaning: only the guilt-offering itself shall be brought as a guilt-offering, but not its offspring or its substitute; and Rabbi Akiva’s words will be explained in the continuation of the Gemara.

We have therefore learned that all the surplus of a sin-offering does not go to a free-will offering. Consequently, it is impossible to say that specified monies for a sin-offering that remained go to a free-will offering, since their law is to go to the Dead Sea; and necessarily the verse “for all their vows and for all their free-will offerings” spoke only of anonymous coins and not of specified coins.

And the Gemara explains the beraita:

It teaches

in the beraita:

One might have thought: He could lead them to the chosen house and withhold water and food from them so that they would die; it states "

And you shall perform your burnt offerings":

And we raise an objection:

And why

would I have said that they should die!?

Behold, regarding the offspring

and the substitution

of a sin-offering it is learned

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

death,

but not the offspring and substitution of a burnt-offering and peace-offerings!?

And we answer:

Were it not for the verse

that the offspring and substitutions of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings are offered,

I would have said:

This is in what the offspring and substitution of a burnt-offering and peace-offerings differ from the offspring of a sin-offering:

that

the offspring

and the substitution

of a sin-offering

will die

everywhere —