Nazir 27b

נזיר כ״ז ע״ב

Learn Nazir 27b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Nazir 27b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Is a blemished animal set aside for offerings like unallocated money (מעות סתומים)? רב המנונא and רבא challenge רב נחמן using ברייתות about a son using his father's offerings.

Overview

The amud opens by finishing an earlier answer: an animal fit for a חטאת cannot be offered as an עולה, because a חטאת is female and an עולה is male, so such animals already count as allocated. רב המנונא then challenges רב נחמן's rule that a blemished animal is like מעות סתומים. He quotes a ברייתא about a father and son who were both נזירים. In that ברייתא, the father's unallocated money goes to נדבה, while each set-aside animal is treated by its type. The גמרא first answers that the ברייתא means only an unblemished animal. It then asks why the ברייתא didn't simply say 'a blemished animal goes to נדבה.' The answer is that a blemished animal is holy only for its value, so it is already included in 'money.' רבא then opens a new objection from a ברייתא that learns from 'קרבנו' that a son cannot use his father's חטאת, even when their sins match. That ברייתא goes on to suggest that a father's money, unlike his animal, might be usable, just as in נזירות, and it continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (10)

1. ResolutionA sin-offering animal can't become a burnt-offering
2. Challengeרב המנונא questions the blemished-animal rule
3. ProofThe ברייתא about a son and his father's נזירות
4. ChallengeThe ברייתא splits money from animals
5. RejectionNo: the ברייתא means an unblemished animal
6. ChallengeThen why didn't the ברייתא mention a blemished animal?
7. ResolutionA blemished animal is really just money
8. Challengeרבא opens a new objection using the word 'his offering'
9. ProofEven when the sins match, the father's offering does not work
10. ProofA father's animal does not work, but maybe his money does