Nazir — Daf 25b

וולדי קדשים בבית הבחירה קמ"ל דלא

קתני יכול אף ולד חטאת ותמורת אשם כן ת"ל רק למה לי קרא הילכתא גמירי לה ולד חטאת למיתה אזיל הכי נמי וקרא לאשם הוא דאתא

אשם נמי הילכתא גמירי לה כל שאילו בחטאת מתה באשם רועה

אלא אי מהילכתא הוה אמינא הילכתא ואי אקריביה לא ליחייב עליה ולא כלום קמ"ל קרא דאי מקריב ליה קאים עליה בעשה:

ר"ע אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר אשם הוא בהוייתו יהא: למה לי קרא גמרא גמירין לה כל שבחטאת מתה באשם רועה

הכי נמי וכי אתא קרא לדרב דאמר רב הונא אמר רב אשם שניתק לרעייה ושחטו לשם עולה כשר

טעמא דניתק הא לא ניתק לא דאמר קרא הוא בהוייתו יהא

אמר מר הלכה היא בנזיר ותו ליכא והתניא ושאר חייבי קינין שבתורה

It also states above: It might further be thought that the same applies to the offspring [and substitutes] of sin-offerings and the substitute of a guilt-offering, but the text states 'only' precluding [these]. But what need is there of a verse, for there is a traditional ruling that the offspring of a 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]?  — 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. '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  [until a blemish appears] was slaughtered as a burnt-offering, it is a fit and proper [sacrifice].  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. The master said [above]: 'This is a traditional ruling  concerning the nazirite.' Are there then no other spheres [in which it applies]? Has it not been taught: 'And all others  required by the Torah to offer a nest of birds,