Talmud Nazir (E)

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 pasture
4
 [until a blemish appears] was slaughtered as a burntoffering, 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 ruling
7
 concerning the nazirite.’ Are there then no
other spheres [in which it applies]? Has it not been taught: ‘And all others
8
 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 burntoffering, 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.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 26a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 26a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 26a
who set aside money for this purpose and then desire to use it to provide an animal
1
 as sin-offering,
or as burnt-offering can do so. Should such a one die and leave a lump sum of money, it is to be used
to provide freewill-offerings’?
2
 — He mentions the nazirite, meaning also [to include] those required
to offer birds whose case is similar,
3
 but excluding [the following case]. For it has been taught: If a
man, under an obligation to offer a sin-offering, says, ‘I undertake to provide a burnt-offering,’ and
sets aside money saying, ‘This is for my obligation,’ should he then desire to provide from it either a
sin-offering or a burnt-offering he must not do so.
4
 Should he die and leave a lump sum of money, it
is to be taken to the Dead Sea.
5
 
    R. Ashi said: In the statement
6
 that moneys earmarked must not be used [for freewill-offerings],
you should not presume [the meaning to be] that he said, ‘This [portion] is for my sin-offering, this
for my burnt-offering, and this for my peace-offering,’ for even if he says simply, ‘[All] this is for
my sin-offering, burnt-offering and peace-offering,’ it counts as earmarked money.
7
 Others say that
R. Ashi said, Do not presume that he must say, ‘[All] this is for my sin-offering, burnt-offering and
peace-offering,’ for even if he says, ‘[All] this is for my obligation,’ it is regarded as earmarked

---

money.
8
 Raba said: Though we have said that a lump sum of money is to be used for
freewill-offerings, yet if the money for the sin-offering becomes separated from the rest,
9
 all is
regarded as earmarked. [
____________________
(1) If they become more affluent.
(2) Thus the ruling applies to these as well as to the nazirite.
(3) Since their obligation to provide both a sin-offering and a burnt-offering springs from a single source, and they are
not separate obligations.
(4)  Here the obligations are separate. What he must do is to add more money and buy both animals at the same time
(Tosaf.).
(5) The traditional ruling does not apply here, and there is now no remedy since a sin-offering cannot be brought after
death. Tosef. Me'il. I, 5.
(6) In the various texts quoted above.
(7) And must not be used for freewill-offerings.
(8) And the sums required are regarded as unspecified only if he put them aside without stating their purpose.
(9)  E.g., if sufficient for a sin-offering is lost, the rest is to be used as to half for a peace-offering and half for a
burnt-offering.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 26b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 26b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 26b
. It has been taught in agreement with Raba: [If a nazirite says,] ‘This is for my sin-offering and the
remainder for the rest of my nazirite obligations,’ [and then dies,] the money for the sinoffering is to
be cast into the Dead Sea, and the rest is to be used, half to provide a burnt-offering, and half, a
peace-offering.
1
 The law of malappropriation applies to the whole of it,
2
 but not to any separate part
of it.
3
 [If he says,] ‘This is for my burnt-offering and the remainder for the rest of my nazirite
obligations,’ [and then dies,] the money for the burnt-offering is to be used for a burntoffering and it
can suffer malappropriation, whilst the rest is to be used to provide freewill-offerings and can suffer
malappropriation.
4
 Rab Huna, citing Rab, said that [our rule]
5
 applies only to money, but animals
would be regarded as earmarked.
6
 R. Nahman added that the animals that would be regarded as
earmarked would only be unblemished animals, but not blemished ones.
7
 [Three] bars of silver, on
the other hand, would be counted as earmarked.
8
 R. Nahman b. Isaac, however, considered even bars
of silver as unspecified,
9
 but not [three] piles of timber.
10
 
    R. Shimi b. Ashi asked R. Papa: What is the reason [for the distinctions made] by these Rabbis?
11
Is it that they interpret money’,
12
 as meaning neither animals, nor bars of silver, nor piles of timber
[as the case may be]? For if so, they should also say money’ but not birds.
13
 Should you reply that
they do make this distinction too, how comes R. Hisda to say that birds
14
 do not become earmarked
except [when earmarked] by the owner at their purchase, or by the priest at their preparation,
15
seeing that our tradition is that only money [is regarded as unspecified]? —
____________________
(1) In agreement with Raba.
(2) Since the money for the burnt-offering can suffer malappropriation.
(3)  Since the money for the peace-offering may be in the part used, and a peace-offering does not suffer
malappropriation.
(4)  Adopting an emendation of the Wilna Gaon after the text of Tosef. Me'il. I, 5. Our texts read: ‘The law of
malappropriation applies to the whole of it, but not to any part of it.’ This cannot be the case since all the rest is to be
used for freewill burnt-offerings which suffer malappropriation.
(5) Regarding the disposition of a lump sum of money.
(6)  Even if they were not the animals that a nazirite must bring (v. Tosaf. and Asheri for various explanations of the
distinctions). Possibly the reason is that it can be assumed that he intended to exchange each one for one of the animals
suitable for his sacrifice.
(7) He would have to sell these first in order to purchase others, and would not think of them In terms of animals but in

---