Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nazir

Folio 25a

Now if we accept the view of R. Johanan who says that this ruling concerning the nazirite is traditional, we can understand why it [applies only to] a lump sum of money and not to earmarked money.⁵  But on Resh Lakish's view that it is derived from the verse, Whether it be any of their vows, or any of their freewill offerings, why should it apply only to money in a lump sum? Surely it should also apply to earmarked monies? — Raba replied: You cannot maintain that the reference is also to specific monies, for a Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael has already given a [different] decision [as follows]: The verse, Only thy holy things which thou hast and thy vows,⁶  speaks of the offspring and substitutes⁷  of sacred animals. What is to be done with them? Thou shalt take [them] and go unto the place which the Lord shall choose.⁶  It might be thought [from this] that they are to be taken to the Temple and kept without food and drink until they perish, but Scripture continues, And thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood,⁸  as much as to say, as you do with the burnt-offering so do with its substitute,⁹  as you do with the peace-offering so do with its offspring [and substitutes]. It might further be thought that the same applies to the offspring [and substitutes] of a sin-offering and the substitute of a guiltoffering,¹⁰  but the text states 'only' [precluding these].¹¹  The above is the opinion of R. Ishmael. R. Akiba says that it is unnecessary [to use this argument for the guilt-offering], for it says. It is a guiltoffering,¹²  which shows that it retains its status.¹³

[The above passage] states: 'It might be thought that they are to be taken to the Temple and kept without food and drink until they perish, but Scripture continues, And thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, the blood and the flesh.' But why [should one think this]; seeing that only in regard to the sin-offering is there a traditional teaching that it is left to perish?¹⁴  — Were it not for the verse, it might have been thought that the offspring of the sin-offering [may be allowed to perish] anywhere,

1. Should not this be 'taken to the Dead Sea'?
2. Lit., 'a halachah'.
3. Lev. XXII, 18.
4. And here there is money left over from the naziriteship money.
5. For presumably the tradition mentioned one and not the other.
6. Deut. XII, 26. The words in themselves are superfluous.
7. Substitution of a sacrifice was not allowed, and if it was attempted both animals became sacred, v. Lev. XXVII, 33.
8. Deut. XII, 27.
9. I.e., sacrifice it in the same way. 'Offspring' is not mentioned in connection with the burnt-offering or guilt-offering because these are males.
10. That they be offered as guilt-offerings or sin-offerings.
11. The particle, er only, is one of the particles invariably considered to indicate a limitation of the rule that follows it.
12. Lev. V, 19.
13. The word [H] 'it is', is emphatic in the Hebrew'. Hence if money is ear-marked for a sin-offering etc., it cannot be used for voluntary offerings, but must be used in the manner described in the Mishnah.
14. Tem. 21b.

It also states above: It might further be thought that the same applies to the offspring [and substitutes] of sin-offerings and the substitute of a guilt-offering, but the text states 'only' precluding [these]. But what need is there of a verse, for there is a traditional ruling that the offspring of a sin-offering is to perish? — That is so; but the verse is required for the guilt-offering.

But for the guilt-offering, too, there is a traditional ruling viz., that wherever [an animal] if intended as a sin-offering, is left to perish, if intended as a guilt-offering it is allowed to pasture [until a blemish appears]?²  — If we had only the traditional ruling, it might be thought that the traditional ruling [is indeed so], but [nevertheless] should someone sacrifice [the animal] he would incur no guilt by so doing; hence the verse tells us that if someone should sacrifice it, he has transgressed a positive precept.³

'R. Akiba says that it is unnecessary [to use this argument for the guilt-offering] for it says, It is a guilt-offering, which shows that it retains its status.' What need is there of the verse, since we have it as a traditional ruling that wherever [an animal] if intended as a sin-offering is left to perish, if intended as a guilt-offering it is to pasture [until a blemish appears]? — That is so, and the verse is only necessary for [the case described by] Rab. For R. Huna. citing Rab, said: If a guilt-offering which had been relegated to pasture⁴  [until a blemish appears] was slaughtered as a burnt-offering, it is a fit and proper [sacrifice].⁵  This is true only if it was [already] relegated, but not otherwise, for the verse says, 'It is [a guilt-offering,' implying] that it retains its status.⁶

The master said [above]: 'This is a traditional ruling⁷  concerning the nazirite.' Are there then no other spheres [in which it applies]? Has it not been taught: 'And all others⁸  required by the Torah to offer a nest of birds,⁹

1. Since it says, 'Thou shalt take (them) etc.'
2. When it would be sold and the money devoted to sacred purposes.
3. Viz.: that only the others are to be sacrificed and not this one. A prohibition inferred from a positive command, as here, is called a positive precept.
4. Lit., 'was transferred (from the category of guilt-offering) to pasture.'
5. And the flesh may be burnt on the altar.
6. As a guilt-offering and if offered as a burnt-offering, the flesh is not fit for the altar.
7. That no account is taken of the presence of money that should have gone to purchase a sin-offering, but the whole of the money if in a lump sum is utilised for freewill-offerings.
8. As well as the nazirite.
9. E.g., a leper who must offer on recovery a sin-offering and a burnt-offering, and may provide birds if he cannot afford animals; v. Lev. XIV, 21ff.