Nazir 25b — the Talmud in English

And

these

offspring of consecrated animals

of a burnt-offering and peace-offerings would die

in the chosen House, it informs us that they do not

die at all. The Gemara further explains that which

it teaches

in the

beraita:

could even the offspring of a sin-offering and the substitute of a guilt-offering —

yes [that they should offer them just as they offer the offspring and substitute of a burnt-offering and peace-offerings] —

the verse says: “only”:

And we challenge this: Why

And we object:

why do I need a verse

concerning the offspring of a sin-offering, that it should not be offered!? After all,

it is a received law

from the law given to Moses at Sinai that

the offspring

and substitute

of a sin-offering goes to death!?

And we answer:

so too;

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

and the verse

“only”

comes for the

substitute

of a guilt-offering

[the verse comes concerning the substitute of a guilt-offering], to teach that it is not offered.

And we still object:

this too is a received law

[for concerning a guilt-offering as well, a law given to Moses at Sinai was received]:

that whatever in the case of a sin-offering dies, in the case of a guilt-offering

is not offered, but

grazes

until it becomes blemished and a blemish occurs in it, and he brings a burnt-offering with its value for the summer offerings of the altar, but it itself is not offered; so why do I need the verse “only” to teach this

!?

For

Rather

the verse “only” is indeed needed to teach this also concerning a sin-offering; and concerning your difficulty—that we already knew this from the law given to Moses at Sinai—do not object:

For

if from the received law

alone

I would have said:

indeed,

the received law

is so,

but

nevertheless, if one offered it

[if he nevertheless went and offered it]

he would not be liable for it at all

[he would transgress nothing] —

Therefore

the verse teaches us

of “only,”

that if he offers it, a

prohibition of

positive commandment stands against him [if a person offers the offspring or substitute of a sin-offering or guilt-offering, he transgresses a prohibition of a positive commandment], for the verse says: only the offspring and substitute of a burnt-offering and peace-offerings are offered, but the offspring and substitute of a sin-offering and guilt-offering are not offered.

Rabbi Akiva says: “It is not necessary”

to use the verse “Only” to derive what Rabbi Yishmael derived, because

behold

it says

regarding a guilt offering:

The Gemara further explains what we learned in the beraita:

Rabbi Akiva says: It is not needed

the verse “only” to learn from it what Rabbi Ishmael learned, because

behold,

it says

concerning a guilt-offering: “

It is a guilt-offering,”

and we learn:

It shall remain in its state:

And we object: why do I need a verse!? After all,

it is learned by tradition

[it is a law given to Moses at Sinai]: “

Whatever in the case of a sin-offering dies, in the case of a guilt-offering grazes”!?

and when the verse comes [the verse comes only]

and does nothing other than

teach the ruling of Rav!

And we answer:

so too

we already knew this law from the received law,

and when the verse came

[the verse came only]

for Rav!

For Rav Huna said in the name of Rav:

A guilt-offering

whose law is that it should graze until it becomes blemished and that burnt-offerings should be brought with its value for the summer offerings of the altar,

that was set aside for grazing,

that is, that it was already handed over to the herder,

and afterward

they slaughtered it for the sake of a burnt-offering,

it is

valid,

for in the end its value would go toward a burnt-offering; therefore, once it was set aside for grazing, it is valid even when they themselves slaughtered it for the sake of a burnt-offering.

it is not

And

the reason is that it was set aside

for it had already been handed over to the herder;

but if it was not set aside,

for it had not yet been handed over to the herder,

not

valid if they slaughtered it for the sake of a burnt-offering, since

the verse says:

“

It” shall remain in its state, as it was a guilt-offering and not a burnt-offering. The Master said: Rabbi Yohanan said: There is a law concerning a nazirite

that unstipulated money—money mixed with the money of a sin-offering—goes to freewill-offerings:

Since Rabbi Yohanan said, “There is a law concerning a nazirite,” it implies that this law was stated only concerning a nazirite; therefore we object: and is there no more, are there no other unstipulated monies that go to freewill-offerings besides those of a nazirite!? But it was taught in a beraita: And the other people liable for pairs of birds [two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one of which is for a sin-offering and the other for a burnt-offering, are called a “nest”] in the Torah, such as a poor person afflicted with scale-disease —

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 a burnt offering, are called a “nest”]

in the Torah,

such as a poor person afflicted with leprosy—