| |
|
|
Folio 27a
He replied: But on your own argument [that all these are unspecified], how are we to explain [the following] which we learnt: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said that if [a nazirite] brings three animals and does not say explicitly [what they are for], the one which is fit to be a sin-offering shall be offered as a sin-offering,1 the one fit to be a burnt-offering2 shall be offered as a burnt-offering and the one fit for a peace-offering3 shall be offered as a peace-offering?4 Now why should this be so? Do you not say that animals are not regarded as earmarked?5 — [R. Shimi b. Ashi]6 rejoined: [The explanation is this.7 In R. Hisda's case] the reason8 is because the All-merciful has said, And she shall take [two turtle doves, the one for a burnt-offering and the other for a sin-offering],9 and also, And [the priest] shall take [the one for a sin-offering and the other for a burntoffering10 showing that they can be earmarked] either when the owner takes them or when the priest offers them. [In R. Simeon b. Gamaliel's case] too
Original footnotes renumbered.
- The ewe lamb; v. Num, VI, 14.
- The one year old male lamb.
- The two year old ram.
- Infra 45a.
- Surely therefore we must regard them as earmarked and take the expression 'money' as excluding all else from being regarded as unspecified.
- So Asheri. According to Rashi, R. Papa is still speaking; but v. Yoma 41a where the statement following is attributed to R. Shimi b. Ashi.
- R. Shimi now assumes that unless there has been explicit earmarking, everything is unspecified, and he therefore goes on to explain why R. Hisda allows the priests to earmark the birds and the reason for R. Simeon b. Gamaliel's statement.
- That it is possible for the priest to sacrifice the birds even if the owner does not specify them, although birds are otherwise specified.
- Lev. XII, 8.
- Lev. XV, 30.
Nazir 27b
would it be possible to say that the one that should be the sin-offering is to be the burnt-offering, seeing that one is female and the other male?1
R. Hamnuna raised an objection: Do we really say that an animal which has a blemish is regarded as unspecified? Come [then] and hear [the following]: What are the circumstances in which a man is permitted to poll at the expense of his father's naziriteship? Suppose his father had been a nazirite and had set apart the money for his nazirite sacrifices and died, and [the son then] said, 'I declare myself a nazirite on condition that I may poll with my father's money,'2 [then he may do so].3 If he leaves unspecified moneys, they fall to [the Temple treasury to provide] freewillofferings. If there were animals set apart, the sin-offering is left to die, the burnt-offering is to be offered as a burnt-offering, and the one for a peace-offering is to be offered as a peaceoffering.4 Is not this the case even if the animal is blemished?5 — No; only if it is without blemish. But if a blemished one is unspecified, why is money' mentioned?6 The text ought to read: If he left a blemished animal, it is to be used to provide freewill-offerings?7 — That is precisely what it means. For a blemished animal is made sacred purely in respect of the price it will bring; and this price is [included in] 'money'.
Raba raised an objection: [It has been taught: The expression] his offering8 [signifies] that he can discharge his obligation with his own offering but not with that of his father. It might be thought [that this means merely] that an obligation with regard to a serious offence cannot be discharged with an offering set aside by his father for a less serious offence or vice versa, whereas he could discharge an obligation entailed by a less serious offence, with an offering set aside by his father for a similar offence, or [an obligation] entailed by a more serious offence, with [an offering set aside for] a similar offence. Hence Scripture repeats the words, his offering,9 [to show that] he can discharge an obligation with his own offering but not with that of his father [even in this instance]. Again, it might be supposed that [the rule that] he cannot discharge an obligation with his father's offering applies only if it is an animal set aside by his father albeit for an offence of a similar degree of gravity, since [there is a similar rule] that a man cannot make use of his father's [nazirite] animal for polling in respect of [his own] naziriteship,10 but that he could discharge his obligation with motley set aside by his father, and even [transfer it] from a serious offence to one less serious or vice versa, for a man can make use of his father's [nazirite] money for polling in respect of [his own] naziriteship,
Original footnotes renumbered.
- And so formal earmarking is not necessary, but in all other cases it is necessary and without it they are regarded as unspecified. Thus R. Shimi b. Ashi disagrees with the Rabbis mentioned above. Maim. Yad Neziruth IX, 5, also rules in agreement with this interpretation of R. Shimi's views.
- I.e., buy the sacrifices that must be offered on polling with my father's money.
- The quotation is incomplete. V. the Tosef. and cf. infra 30b.
- Tosef. Naz. III, 9.
- Viz., that it is left to die or to be used to provide a burnt-offering or a peace-offering, as the case may be. How then does R. Nahman (R. Hamnuna's contemporary) distinguish between blemished and unblemished animals?
- In the opening clause of the Baraitha.
- This is a finer distinction than the one between animals and money.
- Used with reference to the sacrifice a ruler must bring if he sins in error, Lev. IV. 23.
- Used also with reference to the goat brought as a sacrifice by one of the common people who sins in error, Lev. IV, 28.
- V. infra 30a.
|
|
|
|