Kiddushin 13B

מי כתיב ״ופרצו״? ״פרצו״ כתיב.

The Talmud explains: Is it written: And they break all bounds, with the conjunction: And, which would indicate that all the sins are included as one unit? Rather, it is written: “They break all bounds,” from which it may be inferred that this punishment is given separately for each one of these sins.

הדור יתבי וקאמרי: הא דתנן: האשה שהביאה חטאתה ומתה ⁠– יביאו יורשין עולתה. אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל: והוא שהפרישתה מחיים. אבל לא הפרישתה מחיים ⁠– לא.

§ They then sat and said additional statements in the name of Rav Asi, one of which concerned that which we learned in a Mishnah (Kinnim 2:5): With regard to a woman after childbirth who brought her sin-offering for her ritual purification and died, the heirs bring her burnt-offering to fulfill her remaining sacrificial obligations. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: And this is the halakha only when the woman herself had already separated, i.e., designated, the animal for the burnt-offering in her lifetime. But if she had not separated it in her lifetime, no, the heirs are not required to bring a burnt-offering on her behalf.

אלמא קסבר שיעבודא לאו דאורייתא. אמר רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן: אף על גב שלא הפרישתה מחיים. אלמא קסבר: שיעבודא הוה דאורייתא.

The Talmud concludes: Apparently, Shmuel maintains that the property of a debtor is not liened by Torah law. In other words, one does not say that because she was required to bring a burnt-offering there is a lien on her property and the debt must be paid even if she did not set aside the animal before her death. R' Asi says that R' Yoḥanan says: This is the halakha even though she did not separate the burnt-offering in her lifetime. Apparently, R' Yoḥanan maintains that the property of a debtor is liened by Torah law.