Nazir 25b (כה:) — the Talmud in English

And

if

the offspring of consecrated animals

of an olah or shelamim were to die

in the chosen House, this teaches us that they do not

die at all. The Gemara further explains what

is taught

in the beraita:

“One might have thought that even the offspring of a sin-offering and the substitute of a guilt-offering”—

yes

[that they should be sacrificed just like the offspring and substitute of an olah and shelamim]—

the verse states: “only”:

And we challenge this: Why

would the verse be necessary

to teach that the offspring of a sin-offering may not be sacrificed? After all,

we have

received it as a halakha

from the halakha given to Moses at Sinai, that

the offspring

and substitute of

a sin-offering goes to die!?

And we answer:

That is also so:

indeed, we do not need to derive the law of the offspring of a sin-offering from “only,”

and the verse

“only”

comes for

the substitute of

a guilt-offering—

the verse comes concerning the substitute of a guilt-offering, teaching that it may not be sacrificed.

We still challenge this:

This too is a halakha

[for with regard to a guilt-offering as well, a halakha given to Moses at Sinai was received]:

Whatever, in the case of a sin-offering, must die, in the case of a guilt-offering

may not be sacrificed, but

is left to graze

until it becomes unfit, develops a blemish, and one brings an olah with its value for the summer offerings of the altar; but it itself may not be sacrificed. Why, then, is the verse “only” necessary to teach this!?

Rather, we do indeed need the verse “Only” to teach this even regarding a sin offering. As for your difficulty—that we already knew this from the law given to Moses at Sinai—do not raise it:

Rather,

the verse “only” is indeed necessary to teach this also concerning a sin-offering; and as for your difficulty—that we already knew this from the halakha given to Moses at Sinai—this is not difficult:

For if it were only from the halakha

I would have thought:

indeed,

there is a halakha

to that effect,

but

nevertheless

if one sacrificed it

[if he went ahead and sacrificed it despite this],

he would incur no liability whatsoever

[he would not transgress anything]—

Therefore,

the verse teaches us

“only”

that if he sacrifices it, he stands in violation of an

prohibition of

a positive commandment

[if a person sacrifices the offspring or substitute of a sin-offering or guilt-offering, he transgresses a positive prohibition], for the verse says: only the offspring and substitute of an olah and shelamim may be sacrificed; but the offspring and substitute of a sin-offering and guilt-offering may not be sacrificed.

The Gemara further explains what we learned in the beraita:

Rabbi Akiva says: It is not necessary

to use the verse “only” to derive what Rabbi Yishmael derived from it, because

after all

it says

with regard to a guilt-offering:

“It is a guilt-offering,”

and we derive:

It shall remain as it is:

We challenge this:

Why is a verse necessary!?

After all,

it has been received as a tradition

[it is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai]:

Whatever, in the case of a sin-offering, must die, in the case of a guilt-offering is left to graze!?

And we answer:

That is also so,

we already knew this law from the halakha,

but when the verse came

[the verse came only]

for Rav’s teaching!

For Rav Huna said in the name of Rav:

A guilt-offering

whose law is that it is left to graze until it becomes unfit, and one brings olot with its value for the summer offerings of the altar,

that was

set aside for grazing,

meaning that it had already been handed over to a herdsman,

and

afterward

was slaughtered as an olah,

it is

valid,

for ultimately its value was destined for an olah; therefore, once it had been set aside for grazing, it is valid even when the animal itself was slaughtered as an olah.

And

the reason is that it was set aside

because it had already been handed over to a herdsman;

but if it was not set aside,

meaning that it had not yet been handed over to a herdsman—

no,

it is not valid if it was slaughtered as an olah, since

the verse says:

“It,”

“shall remain as it is,”

as it had been a guilt-offering and not an olah.

The Master said:

Rabbi Yohanan said:

It is a halakha concerning a nazirite

that non-designated money—money mixed with the money of a sin-offering—goes to voluntary offerings:

Since Rabbi Yohanan said, “It is a halakha concerning a nazirite,” it implies that this halakha was stated only with regard to a nazirite. We therefore challenge this:

Is that all there is?

Are there no other non-designated funds that go to voluntary offerings besides those of a nazirite!?

But it was taught in a beraita: And the other people obligated to bring pairs of birds

[two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one of which is for a sin-offering and the other for an olah, are called a “nest”]

prescribed in the Torah,

such as a poor leper—