וּוַלְדֵי קָדָשִׁים בְּבֵית הַבְּחִירָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא but the offspring of other sacred animals, for peace-offerings, must be brought to the Temple and left to die there. The verse therefore teaches us that one does not leave the offspring of peace-offerings to die. Rather, they are sacrificed upon the altar.
קָתָנֵי יָכוֹל אַף וְלַד חַטָּאת וּתְמוּרַת אָשָׁם כֵּן תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר רַק לְמָה לִי קְרָא הִילְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ וְלַד חַטָּאת לְמִיתָה אָזֵיל הָכִי נָמֵי וּקְרָא לְאָשָׁם הוּא דַּאֲתָא § The Gemara continues to discuss the baraita. The baraita teaches: One might have thought that the offspring of a sin-offering and the substitute of a guilt-offering should also be treated so, i.e., they too should be sacrificed on the altar like sin-offerings and guilt-offerings. Therefore, the verse states: “Only” (Deuteronomy 12:26). The Gemara asks: Why do I need a verse for this halakha? After all, this halakha is learned as a tradition that the offspring of a sin-offering goes to its death. The Gemara answers: So too, this is correct as far as the offspring of a sin-offering is concerned, and the verse comes to teach that this halakha applies to a guilt-offering as well.
אָשָׁם נָמֵי הִילְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לָהּ כֹּל שֶׁאִילּוּ בְּחַטָּאת מֵתָה בְּאָשָׁם רוֹעֶה The Gemara asks: With regard to a guilt-offering as well, this halakha is learned as a tradition: Any situation that if it were to occur with a sin-offering it would be left to die, i.e., any offering that is invalid in such a manner that it would have to be left to die if it were a sin-offering, which includes a substitute, if it occurs with a guilt-offering it is left to graze until it develops a blemish so that it is no longer fit for the altar. Why, then, is a verse required to teach this halakha?
אֶלָּא אִי מֵהִילְכְתָא הֲוָה אָמֵינָא הִילְכְתָא וְאִי אַקְרְיבֵיהּ לָא לִיחַיַּיב עֲלֵיהּ וְלֹא כְּלוּם קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן קְרָא דְּאִי מַקְרֵיב לֵיהּ קָאֵים עֲלֵיהּ בַּעֲשֵׂה: Rather, the argument is as follows: If one would have learned this ruling only from the aforementioned halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, I would say: It is admittedly the halakha that the offspring of a sin-offering must die and the substitute of a guilt-offering is left to graze, but if he sacrificed it regardless, he would not be liable to receive any punishment for it. The verse therefore teaches us that if he sacrifices the offspring or substitute of a guilt-offering, he transgresses a positive mitzva by it, as derived from the verse: “Only your sacred things which you have, and your vows, you shall take and go to the place which the Lord shall choose” (Deuteronomy 12:26).
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר אָשָׁם הוּא בַּהֲוָיָיתוֹ יְהֵא לְמָה לִי קְרָא גְּמָרָא גְּמִירִין לַהּ כׇּל שֶׁבְּחַטָּאת מֵתָה בְּאָשָׁם רוֹעֶה § The same baraita teaches that Rabbi Akiva says: In the case of a guilt-offering this exposition is not necessary, as it says: “It is a guilt-offering” (Leviticus 5:19), which indicates: It alone shall be sacrificed in its current state, but not its substitute. The Gemara asks: Why do I need a verse for this halakha? We learned it as a halakha: Any situation that if it were to occur with a sin-offering it would be left to die, if it occurs with a guilt-offering it is left to graze. If so, it is clear that this guilt-offering cannot be sacrificed.
הָכִי נָמֵי וְכִי אֲתָא קְרָא לִדְרַב דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב אָשָׁם שֶׁנִּיתַּק לִרְעִיָּיה וּשְׁחָטוֹ לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה כָּשֵׁר The Gemara answers: So too, this is correct, and when the verse comes to teach a halakha, it comes for that which was said by Rav. As Rav Huna said that Rav said: With regard to a guilt-offering that was consigned to grazing, i.e., it had been ruled that the animal must be left to graze until it develops a blemish as it could not be sacrificed as a guilt-offering, at which point it was sold so that the proceeds could be used for voluntary burnt-offerings, and one transgressed and slaughtered the guilt-offering itself for the sake of a burnt-offering rather than using an animal purchased with the money of its sale, it is valid.
טַעְמָא דְּנִיתַּק הָא לֹא נִיתַּק לָא דְּאָמַר קְרָא הוּא בַּהֲוָיָיתוֹ יְהֵא The Gemara infers from Rav’s statement: The reason for this ruling is that it is a guilt-offering that was consigned to grazing, from which it may be inferred that if it were not consigned in this manner it is not valid as a burnt-offering. This is because the verse states: “It is a guilt-offering,” which indicates that it shall be in its current state, and if it were sacrificed as a different offering it is invalid.
אָמַר מָר הֲלָכָה הִיא בְּנָזִיר וְתוּ לֵיכָּא וְהָתַנְיָא וּשְׁאָר חַיָּיבֵי קִינִּין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה § The Gemara returns to the issue of a nazirite’s offerings: The Master, Rabbi Yoḥanan, said earlier: It is a halakha with regard to a nazirite that his unallocated funds, including the value of his sin-offering, are used for the purchase of gift offerings. The Gemara asks: This formulation indicates that this halakha pertains only to a nazirite, but is there no other case where the surplus goes toward the purchase of gift offerings? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: And the rest of those liable to bring nests by Torah law, i.e., those paupers who are obligated to bring only a bird-offering, e.g., a poor leper, who must bring two turtledoves, one for a burnt-offering and one for a sin-offering, instead of a sheep or a ewe,