Nazir - Daf 25
- How unspecified nazir funds, which include a chatas, can be used for nedavos
A Mishnah was quoted, which taught that a nazir who died and left unspecified funds designated for his korbanos, they go to communal nedavos. The Gemara asks: והלא דמי חטאת מעורבין בהן – But chatas funds are mixed with them!? Since his korbanos include a chatas, the funds cannot be used for any voluntary korban. Rebbe Yochanan answered: הלכה היא בנזיר – It is a halachah [leMoshe miSinai] regarding nazir that their funds are used for communal nedavos, despite including chatas funds. Reish Lakish answered: The passuk says, "לכל נדריהם ולכל נדבותם" – Any of their vows and any of their pledges, התורה אמרה מותר נדר יהא לנדבה – The Torah said that excess of a neder goes for nedavah (communal olos). The Gemara continues that according to Rebbe Yochanan it is understandable why this law applies only to unspecified funds, because that is how the הלכה למשה מסיני was taught. But according to Reish Lakish that a passuk taught that excess nazir funds go to nedavos, why does this not apply equally to specified chatas funds? Rava answered that there is a derashah teaching that a chatas animal which is not needed (e.g., its offspring or temurah) cannot be sacrificed, and the same applies to excess chatas funds.
- What is done with offspring or temurah or various korbanos
A Baraisa states: רק קדשיך אשר יהיו לך ונדריך – “Only your holy [animals] which you will have, and your vows,” בולדי קדשים ובתמורתם הכתוב מדבר – the passuk speaks of the offspring and temurah of korbanos. About them the passuk says: תשא ובאת אל המקום אשר יבחר ה' – “You shall take them and come to the place that Hashem shall choose.” The Baraisa continues that one might think they should be brought to the Mikdash, and water and food should be withheld from them so they die (similarly to an excess chatas), so the next passuk says: ועשית עולותיך הבשר והדם – “And you shall perform your olos, the meat and the blood,” לומר לך כדרך שאתה נוהג בעולה נהוג בתמורתה – to tell you that the way you act with an olah, act with its temurah, כדרך שאתה נוהג בשלמים נהוג בולדיהם – and the way you act with a shelamim, act with its offspring, i.e., sacrifice them. The Gemara adds, that although the halachah to be left to die was said specifically for chatas, one might have thought that this was regarding being left to die anywhere, but perhaps an excess olah or shelamim would need to be brought to the Mikdash to die.
- אשם שניתק לרעייה ושחטו לשם עולה כשר
Rebbe Akiva said: אינו צריך – A passuk is not necessary to teach that the temurah of an asham is not sacrificed (as Rebbe Yishmael had said), הרי הוא אומר אשם הוא בהוייתו יהא – for [the Torah] says, “It is an asham,” that it must be in its original state, and not a temurah. The Gemara asks that no passuk should be necessary, for we have a tradition that כל שבחטאת מתה באשם רועה – any case in which a chatas would die, an asham would be left to graze until it gets a blemish and qualifies for redemption. The Gemara answers that instead, the derashah is necessary for a law taught by Rav: אשם שניתק לרעייה – An asham which was designated for grazing, ושחטו לשם עולה כשר – and he shechted it as an olah, it is valid as an olah. The implication is, טעמא דניתק הא לא ניתק לא – the reason it is valid is because it was designated for grazing (and removed from asham status), but if it was not, it is not valid, דאמר קרא הוא בהוייתו יהא – because the passuk said, “It is [an asham],” that it remains in its original [asham] state until it is designated for grazing.
