Nazir 25B

וולדי קדשים בבית הבחירה, קא משמע לן דלא.

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.

קתני: יכול אף ולד חטאת ותמורת אשם כן ⁠— תלמוד לומר: ״רק״. למה לי קרא? הילכתא גמירי לה: ולד חטאת למיתה אזיל! הכי נמי, וקרא לאשם הוא דאתא.

§ The Talmud 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 Talmud 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 Talmud 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.

אשם נמי הילכתא גמירי לה: כל שאילו בחטאת מתה, באשם רועה!

The Talmud 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?