Nazir 27b — the Talmud in English

d

Can you really say that the sin-offering is to be brought as an elevation-offering

[And can you say that the animal which we designate for a sin-offering is designated to be brought as an elevation-offering]?!

For

here

[this one designated for a sin-offering]

is female, while

it is

here

[the elevation-offering]

male,

and necessarily the female is for a sin-offering, and the male is for an elevation-offering?!

The following question of the Gemara is explained according to the words of the commentators brought in Arzei ha-Levanon.

Here the Gemara returns to Rav’s statement, which he 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 raised an objection

[he challenged]

against

Rav Naḥman’s words:

And do we say,

is it indeed the law that

a blemished animal is considered like unspecified [money],

that is to say, it has the status of “unspecified money”?!

And

come and hear

a beraita:

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

For it was 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 died,

the father,

and the son said

after his father’s death:

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

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

But if 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 the beginning of his acceptance of naziriteship was not based on his father’s money, and he had already become obligated to bring offerings of his own ,

but they shall fall

for voluntary offerings,

like other unspecified money that a nazirite set aside and 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 , but:

the

sin-offering shall die, and the

elevation-offering

shall be brought as an elevation-offering, and the peace-offering shall be brought as a peace-offering.

The Gemara raises a difficulty from the first clause of the beraita, where we learned: and he set aside “money” for his naziriteship, implying 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,” meaning that this law is found only with 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 falling for voluntary offerings.”

If so, this is a difficulty against Rav Naḥman, who said: “A blemished animal is considered like unspecified [money]”?!

And we answer:

No,

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

unblemished

animal, which is not fit for nazirite offerings; regarding this, everyone agrees that it does not have the status of “unspecified money,” as explained in the Gemara above.

And we raise a difficulty:

But

with regard to an animal

that is blemished, you say that

it

is considered like unspecified [money]?!

But if so,

why specifically

in the first clause does it say

“money,”

let the tannai say

[let the tannai state]:

“If he had

a blemished animal,

it shall fall for voluntary offerings”?!

And we answer:

That is also so,

that is to say, the expression “money” taught by the tannai also includes a blemished animal, for:

For what purpose is a blemished animal consecrated?!

For its value,

[for what purpose is a blemished animal consecrated?! It is consecrated for its value], and

“its value” means

“money,”

that is to say: everything consecrated for its value—for example, a blemished animal—is included in “money” mentioned in the beraita.

Rava raised an objection

to Rav Naḥman’s position, that a blemished animal is considered like unspecified [money]:

It was taught: It is written [Leviticus 4:22]: “When a ruler sins,” etc. “Or his sin is made known to him wherein he sinned, and he shall bring his ‘offering,’” a male goat, unblemished.

And it is written [there, verse 27]: “And if any one person of the people of the land sins unwittingly,” etc. “Or his sin is made known to him wherein he sinned, and he shall bring his ‘offering,’” a female goat, unblemished, for his sin wherein he sinned.

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, unblemished.”

And what does it teach us by stating

“his offering”

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

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

for his 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 the less severe to the more severe,

for his father set it aside for a less severe sin, which does not carry the death penalty of the court, and the son wishes to achieve atonement with it for a more severe sin, which carries the death penalty of the court—

or from the more severe to the less severe,

for his father set it aside for a more severe sin, and the son wishes to achieve atonement with it for a less severe sin.

But he does achieve atonement with the offering that his father set aside,

when it is

from the less severe

that his father transgressed

for the less severe

that the son transgressed,

or from the more severe

that his father transgressed

for the more severe

that the son transgressed.

Therefore

the verse says

“his offering, his offering,”

that is to say: “his offering” was stated again with regard to the female goat in order to teach:

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

even from the less severe for the less severe or from the more severe for the more severe.

One might have thought that he does not achieve atonement with his father’s offering in an animal that he set aside, even from the less severe for the less severe and from the more severe for the more severe, since a person does not shave with his father’s animal in naziriteship,

that is to say: since we do not find something similar with regard to nazirite offerings, that he shaves with it, for with an animal the son cannot shave even with a blemished one.

But

let it be said that

he achieves atonement

the son

with money that his father set aside

for a sin-offering,

even from the more severe for the less severe or from the less severe for the more severe, since a person shaves with his father’s money in naziriteship,

and since we find in naziriteship shaving with his father’s money, let it be said that with a sin-offering a person brings it from money that his father left.