Nazir 27b (כז:) — the Talmud in English

4.

Can you really say that this sin-offering is to be offered as a burnt-offering

[And can you say that the animal designated by us as a sin-offering is designated to be offered as a burnt-offering]!?

But

here

[this one designated as a sin-offering]

is female,

whereas

here

[the burnt-offering]

is male,

and necessarily the female is for a sin-offering and the male is for a burnt-offering!?

The following objection of the Gemara is explained according to the words of the commentators cited in Arzei HaLevanon.

Here the Gemara returns to the words of Rav, who said [above, 26b]: “They taught this only with regard to money, but an animal is considered specified,” and Rav Naḥman explained his words: “They taught this only with regard to an unblemished animal, but a blemished animal is considered unspecified”; and

Rav Hamnuna objects

[he raised an objection]

to Rav Naḥman

concerning his words:

And do we say

that indeed the law is that

a blemished animal is considered like unspecified money,

meaning: It has the status of “unspecified money”!?

But

come and hear

a beraita:

There is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that if a father who was a nazirite died and left money that he had set aside for his nazirite offerings, his son brings it for his own nazirite offerings if he is a nazirite [in the language of the Sages, “he shaves with his father’s money”]. This applies provided that the money is “unspecified money,” and that after his father’s death the son undertakes naziriteship on the condition that he will shave with his father’s money. The remaining details of this law are explained at the end of the chapter.

As it is taught:

How did they state “

a man shaves with his father’s naziriteship”?

When his father was a nazirite, and he set aside

his father

money

unspecified

for

offerings of

his naziriteship, and he died,

the father,

and the son said

after his father’s death:

I hereby become a nazirite on the condition that I will shave with my father’s money.

This is the one who shaves with his father’s money.

But if both he and his father were nazirites, and his father set aside money

unspecified

and died, and the son said: I will shave with my father’s money—

he does not shave with it,

since his initial acceptance of naziriteship was not based on his father’s money, and he had already become obligated to bring his own offerings ;

rather, they shall fall

to a voluntary offering,

like other unspecified money set aside by a nazirite who then died.

And if

he had

the nazirite father who died

an animal

[animals]

set aside

for his nazirite offerings, even if the son undertook naziriteship after his father’s death, he does not shave with his father’s offerings rather:

The

sin-offering shall die,

and the

burnt-offering shall be offered as a burnt-offering, and the peace-offering shall be offered as a peace-offering.

The Gemara raises an objection from the first clause of the beraita, where we learned: He set aside “money” for his naziriteship. This implies that this law applies only to money and not to an animal—and

is it not

that what we learned in the beraita: His father set aside “money” for his naziriteship, implying that this law is found only with regard to money, means that

even

if the father set aside an animal

that was blemished,

the son is not found to shave with it, because a blemished animal does not have the status of “unspecified money with which the son shaves,” and the same applies with regard to the law of “unspecified money that falls to a voluntary offering”?

If so, this is difficult for Rav Naḥman, who said: “A blemished animal is considered like unspecified money”!?

And we answer:

No,

the tanna of the beraita did not mention “money” in order to exclude a blemished animal, but to exclude an

unblemished

animal that is not fit for nazirite offerings. With regard to this, everyone agrees that it does not have the status of “unspecified money,” as the Gemara explained above.

And we ask:

But

with regard to an

blemished

animal, do you say that it

is considered like unspecified money!?

If so,

why specifically

in the first clause

“

money,”

should the tanna not say:

If he had “

a blemished animal,”

it shall fall to a voluntary offering!?

And we answer:

So too, meaning: The expression “money” taught by the tanna also includes a blemished animal, since:

For what purpose is a blemished animal consecrated!?

For its value,

[After all, why is a blemished animal consecrated!? It is consecrated for its value], and

its value is the same as “

money,”

meaning: Anything consecrated for its value—for example, a blemished animal—is included in the “money” mentioned in the beraita.

Rava objects

to Rav Naḥman’s method, according to which a blemished animal is considered like an unspecified one:

It is taught: It is written [Leviticus 4:22]: “When a ruler sins,” etc. “Or his sin that he committed is made known to him, and he shall bring his ‘offering,’ a male goat without blemish.”

And it is written [there, verse 27]: “And if any one person of the people of the land sins unwittingly,” etc. “Or his sin that he committed is made known to him, and he shall bring his ‘offering,’ a female goat without blemish, for his sin that he committed.”

And it is written [there, verse 32]: “And if he brings a sheep as his ‘offering’ for a sin-offering, he shall bring a female without blemish.”

And what is the purpose of stating

“

his offering”

with regard to the sin-offering written in the passage “When a ruler sins”?

With his own offering he achieves atonement, but he does not achieve atonement

for his obligation to bring a sin-offering

with the offering

of the sin-offering of

his father

who died.

One might have thought that he does not achieve atonement

the son

with his father’s offering that he set aside—

But only when it is

from a less severe [transgression] for a more severe one,

when his father set it aside for a less severe sin, one that does not carry the death penalty imposed by the court, and the son wishes to fulfill his obligation with it for a more severe sin that does carry the death penalty imposed by the court—

Or from a more severe [transgression] for a less severe one,

when his father set it aside for a more severe sin and the son wishes to fulfill his obligation with it for a less severe sin.

But he does fulfill his obligation with an offering that his father set aside

when it is

from a less severe [transgression]

that his father committed

for a less severe [transgression]

that the son committed,

or from a more severe [transgression]

that his father committed

for a more severe [transgression]

that the son committed.

Therefore,

the verse states “

his offering, his offering,”

meaning: Therefore, “his offering” is stated again with regard to the female goat, to teach:

With his own offering he achieves atonement, but he does not achieve atonement with his father’s offering,

even from a less severe [transgression] for a less severe one, and from a more severe [transgression] for a more severe one.

One might have thought that he does not fulfill his obligation with his father’s offering when it is an animal that he set aside, even from a less severe [transgression] for a less severe one, and from a more severe [transgression] for a more severe one, since a person does not shave with his father’s animal in naziriteship,

meaning: Since we do not find an equivalent case with nazirite offerings in which he shaves, because with an animal—even a blemished one—the son cannot shave.

But

let us say that the son

does fulfill his obligation

with

money that his father set aside

for a sin-offering,

even from a more severe [transgression] for a less severe one or from a less severe [transgression] for a more severe one, since a person shaves with his father’s money in naziriteship;

since we find in naziriteship that one shaves with his father’s money, let us say that with regard to a sin-offering as well, a person may bring it from money left by his father.