Study Guide Nazir26
Nazir 26
09.17.2015 | ד׳ בתשרי תשע״ו
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Nazir 26
שֶׁהִפְרִישׁוּ מָעוֹת לְקִינֵּיהֶם, רָצָה לְהָבִיא בָּהֶן חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה — יָבִיא, עוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה — יָבִיא. מֵת וְהָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת סְתוּמִין — יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה!
who separated money for their nests and then became wealthy, if the owner wishes to change their designation and to bring an animal sin-offering with them, he may bring a sin-offering with them. If he wishes to use them to buy an animal burnt-offering he may bring it, supplementing the required amount with other money. If the owner died and he had unallocated funds, they all will be allocated for communal gift offerings, including the value of the sin-offering. This shows that the halakha that unallocated funds are used for gift offerings applies in cases other than that of a nazirite.
תַּנָּא נָזִיר וְחַיָּיבֵי קִינִּין דְּדָמוּ לֵיהּ, וּלְאַפּוֹקֵי מֵהָא דְּתַנְיָא: מִי שֶׁהָיָה מְחוּיָּיב חַטָּאת, וְאָמַר: ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה״, וְהִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת וְאָמַר ״הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לְחוֹבָתִי״,
The Gemara answers: He taught the case of a nazirite and also the case of those obligated to bring nests, which is similar to that of a nazirite and is therefore treated identically with regard to its halakha. This serves to exclude that case which is taught in a baraita. The situation discussed in the baraita involves one who was obligated to bring a sin-offering for a transgression he committed, and he also said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a gift burnt-offering, and he separated money and said: These are hereby for my obligatory offering. Since he might have meant either his obligation of the sin-offering or his burnt-offering for the new vow, the question arises as to what should be done with the money.
רָצָה לְהָבִיא בָּהֶן חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה — לֹא יָבִיא. עוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה — לֹא יָבִיא. מֵת וְהָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת סְתוּמִים — יֵלְכוּ לְיָם הַמֶּלַח.
The baraita explains that if he wishes to bring an animal sin-offering with it, he may not bring one; if he wishes to use it to purchase an animal burnt-offering, he may not bring it either. If he died and had unallocated funds, one must take them and cast them into the Dead Sea. Since the two offerings are not part of the same obligation, the unallocated funds may not be used for gift offerings.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ מְפוֹרָשִׁין לָא — לָא תֵּימָא דְּאָמַר ״אֵלּוּ לְחַטָּאתִי, וְאֵלּוּ לְעוֹלָתִי, וְאֵלּוּ לִשְׁלָמַי״. אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ אָמַר ״אֵלּוּ לְחַטָּאתִי וּלְעוֹלָתִי וְלִשְׁלָמַי״ — מְפוֹרָשִׁין הֵן.
§ Rav Ashi said: That which you said with regard to a nazirite who had allocated money, that he may not use it all for gift offerings because the value of the sin-offering must be taken and cast into the Dead Sea, do not say that this is referring only to a case where he explicitly said: These are for my sin-offering, and these are for my burnt-offering, and these are for my peace-offering, each one separately. Rather, even if he said: These are for my sin-offering and for my burnt-offering and for my peace-offering, they are considered allocated for the purposes of this halakha, despite the fact that he did not designate the money for particular offerings.
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לָא תֵּימָא עַד דְּאָמַר ״אֵלּוּ לְחַטָּאתִי וּלְעוֹלָתִי וְלִשְׁלָמַי״, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ אָמַר: ״אֵלּוּ לְחוֹבָתִי״ — הֲרֵי הֵן כִּמְפוֹרָשִׁין.
And some say a different version of this statement. Rav Ashi said: Do not say they are deemed allocated only if he says: These are for my sin-offering and for my burnt-offering and for my peace-offering; rather, even if he said it in broader terms: These are for my obligation, they are considered as allocated.
אָמַר רָבָא: הָא דַּאֲמַרַן מָעוֹת סְתוּמִין יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה, אִם נָפְלָה דְּמֵי חַטָּאת מִבֵּינֵיהֶן — הֲרֵי הֵן כִּמְפוֹרָשִׁין.
§ Rava said: That which we said, that if one had unallocated funds they will be allocated for communal gift offerings, applies only if the money for all of the offerings was mixed together. However, if the money for the sin-offering fell and was separated from the others, all the remaining money is now considered as allocated. This means that instead of the entire sum being used for a gift burnt-offering, part of it is used for a peace-offering, which is eaten for one day and does not require bread.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: ״אֵלּוּ לְחַטָּאתִי וְהַשְּׁאָר לִשְׁאָר נְזִירוּתִי״, דְּמֵי חַטָּאת — יֵלְכוּ לְיָם הַמֶּלַח, וְהַשְּׁאָר — יָבִיא חֶצְיוֹ לְעוֹלָה וְחֶצְיוֹ לִשְׁלָמִים. וּמוֹעֲלִין בְּכוּלָּן, וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בְּמִקְצָתָן.
The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: If one said: This money is for my sin-offering and the rest is for the rest of my obligations of naziriteship, and he died, the money for the sin-offering is taken and cast into the Dead Sea, and as for the rest, he brings a burnt-offering with half of it, and half of it goes for a peace-offering. And one who benefits from all of it is liable for misuse of consecrated property, due to the value of a burnt-offering that is included in the money. But one is not liable for misuse of consecrated property if he benefits from some of the money, as the money he took is possibly that of the peace-offering, to which the prohibition against misuse does not apply.
״אֵלּוּ לְעוֹלָתִי וְהַשְּׁאָר לִשְׁאָר נְזִירוּתִי״, דְּמֵי עוֹלָה — יָבִיאוּ עוֹלָה, וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן. וְהַשְּׁאָר יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה, וּמוֹעֲלִין בְּכוּלָּן, וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בְּמִקְצָתָן.
If one said: This money is for my burnt-offering and the rest is for the rest of my obligations of naziriteship, the money for the burnt-offering goes for a burnt-offering, and one who benefits from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property. And the rest is allocated for communal gift offerings, as the sum includes the value of a sin-offering. And one who benefits from all of it is liable for misuse of consecrated property, due to the value of a sin-offering included in it, but one is not liable for misuse of consecrated property if he benefits from some of the money, as he might have taken the money for a peace-offering, as stated above.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מָעוֹת, אֲבָל בְּהֵמָה — הֲרֵי הִיא כִּמְפוֹרֶשֶׁת.
§ Rav Huna said that Rav said: They taught only that there is a difference between unallocated and allocated money of a nazirite with regard to money designated for the purchase of offerings. However, if one designated an animal it is treated as allocated. A nazirite is obligated to bring three types of animals, a female sheep for a sin-offering, a male sheep for a burnt-offering, and a ram in its second year for a peace-offering. It is therefore evident which offering he had in mind when designating a particular animal. Consequently, if the owner died each offering is treated in the appropriate manner: The sin-offering must be left to die, like all sin-offerings whose owners have died; the burnt-offering is sacrificed as a burnt-offering; and the peace-offering is brought as a peace-offering, although it must be eaten in one day and does not require bread.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הָא דְּאָמְרִי בְּהֵמָה הֲרֵי הִיא כִּמְפוֹרֶשֶׁת, לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא תְּמִימָה, אֲבָל בַּעֲלַת מוּם — הֲרֵי הִיא כִּסְתוּמָה. אֲבָל נְסָכָא — לָא.
Rav Naḥman said: When they say that if one designates an animal it is considered as allocated, they taught this only if it is unblemished and is fit to be sacrificed itself. However, if one separated a blemished animal, even if he set aside the three required types, a female sheep, a male sheep, and a ram in its second year, each one is considered as unallocated. This is because one will not sacrifice the animals themselves but will sell them and use the money. However, this is not the case with regard to a bar of silver [naskha]. If one separated three silver bars they are considered allocated, as each is a distinct item, designated for a particular offering.
וְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ נְסָכָא, אֲבָל סְוָאר שֶׁל קוֹרוֹת — לָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי לְרַב פָּפָּא: מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן — דְּאָמְרִי: מָעוֹת, וְלֹא בְּהֵמָה וְלָא נְסָכָא, מָעוֹת וְלָא סְווֹרָא? אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה: מָעוֹת וְלֹא עוֹפוֹת!
And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Even a silver bar is considered unallocated; however, a pile [sevar] of beams is not. If he set aside three piles of construction beams for his offerings, they are treated as allocated money. Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to Rav Pappa: What is the reasoning of the Rabbis, i.e., Rav, Rav Naḥman, and Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, who say: Money and not an animal, and not a silver bar; and similarly, money and not a pile? Do they maintain that the halakha of unallocated funds applies only to money and not to other items? However, if that is so, one should likewise say that it applies to money and not birds.
וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, אֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אֵין הַקִּינִּין מִתְפָּרְשׁוֹת, אֶלָּא אִי בִּלְקִיחַת בְּעָלִים, אִי בַּעֲשִׂיַּית כֹּהֵן.
And if you would say: So too, this is in fact the case, and birds cannot be considered allocated, but what about this statement that Rav Ḥisda said: Nests, i.e., a pair of turtle doves or pigeons, one for a burnt-offering and the other for a sin-offering, are considered allocated only by either the acquisition of the owner, if the owner designates each bird for a particular offering upon their purchase, or by the actions of the priest who decides which bird is for which offering when he sacrifices them. This clearly indicates that the birds are considered unallocated beforehand.
אַמַּאי? הָא מָעוֹת גְּמִירִין לָהּ!
Therefore, the question arises: Why is this so? Didn’t we learn this halakha only with regard to money, whereas Rav Ḥisda’s statement indicates that birds are also considered unallocated? If Rav Ḥisda’s opinion is accepted, the same halakhot should also apply to animals, bars, and piles of beams.
Follow 
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Shira Eliaser
Skokie, IL, United States
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Anne Rubin
Elkins Park, United States
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Debbie Engelen-Eigles
Minnesota, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi because my sister, Ruth Leah Kahan, attended Michelle’s class in person and suggested I listen remotely. She always sat near Michelle and spoke up during class so that I could hear her voice. Our mom had just died unexpectedly and it made me feel connected to hear Ruth Leah’s voice, and now to know we are both listening to the same thing daily, continents apart.
Jessica Shklar
Philadelphia, United States
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Hannah Lee
Pennsylvania, United States
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Leah Herzog
Givat Zev, Israel
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Phyllis Hecht
Hashmonaim, Israel
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Beth Elster
Irvine, United States
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
Meira Shapiro
NJ, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi to fill what I saw as a large gap in my Jewish education. I also hope to inspire my three daughters to ensure that they do not allow the same Talmud-sized gap to form in their own educations. I am so proud to be a part of the Hadran community, and I have loved learning so many of the stories and halachot that we have seen so far. I look forward to continuing!
Dora Chana Haar
Oceanside NY, United States
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Julie Mendelsohn
Zichron Yakov, Israel
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Carolyn Hochstadter and Margo Kossoff Shizgal
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Anne Rubin
Elkins Park, United States
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Catriella Freedman
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
See video
Susan Fisher
Raanana, Israel
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker
Modi’in, Israel
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Nancy Kolodny
Newton, United States
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Sara Averick
Jerusalem, Israel
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Goldie Gilad
Kfar Saba, Israel
Nazir 26
שֶׁהִפְרִישׁוּ מָעוֹת לְקִינֵּיהֶם, רָצָה לְהָבִיא בָּהֶן חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה — יָבִיא, עוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה — יָבִיא. מֵת וְהָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת סְתוּמִין — יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה!
who separated money for their nests and then became wealthy, if the owner wishes to change their designation and to bring an animal sin-offering with them, he may bring a sin-offering with them. If he wishes to use them to buy an animal burnt-offering he may bring it, supplementing the required amount with other money. If the owner died and he had unallocated funds, they all will be allocated for communal gift offerings, including the value of the sin-offering. This shows that the halakha that unallocated funds are used for gift offerings applies in cases other than that of a nazirite.
תַּנָּא נָזִיר וְחַיָּיבֵי קִינִּין דְּדָמוּ לֵיהּ, וּלְאַפּוֹקֵי מֵהָא דְּתַנְיָא: מִי שֶׁהָיָה מְחוּיָּיב חַטָּאת, וְאָמַר: ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה״, וְהִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת וְאָמַר ״הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לְחוֹבָתִי״,
The Gemara answers: He taught the case of a nazirite and also the case of those obligated to bring nests, which is similar to that of a nazirite and is therefore treated identically with regard to its halakha. This serves to exclude that case which is taught in a baraita. The situation discussed in the baraita involves one who was obligated to bring a sin-offering for a transgression he committed, and he also said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a gift burnt-offering, and he separated money and said: These are hereby for my obligatory offering. Since he might have meant either his obligation of the sin-offering or his burnt-offering for the new vow, the question arises as to what should be done with the money.
רָצָה לְהָבִיא בָּהֶן חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה — לֹא יָבִיא. עוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה — לֹא יָבִיא. מֵת וְהָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת סְתוּמִים — יֵלְכוּ לְיָם הַמֶּלַח.
The baraita explains that if he wishes to bring an animal sin-offering with it, he may not bring one; if he wishes to use it to purchase an animal burnt-offering, he may not bring it either. If he died and had unallocated funds, one must take them and cast them into the Dead Sea. Since the two offerings are not part of the same obligation, the unallocated funds may not be used for gift offerings.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ מְפוֹרָשִׁין לָא — לָא תֵּימָא דְּאָמַר ״אֵלּוּ לְחַטָּאתִי, וְאֵלּוּ לְעוֹלָתִי, וְאֵלּוּ לִשְׁלָמַי״. אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ אָמַר ״אֵלּוּ לְחַטָּאתִי וּלְעוֹלָתִי וְלִשְׁלָמַי״ — מְפוֹרָשִׁין הֵן.
§ Rav Ashi said: That which you said with regard to a nazirite who had allocated money, that he may not use it all for gift offerings because the value of the sin-offering must be taken and cast into the Dead Sea, do not say that this is referring only to a case where he explicitly said: These are for my sin-offering, and these are for my burnt-offering, and these are for my peace-offering, each one separately. Rather, even if he said: These are for my sin-offering and for my burnt-offering and for my peace-offering, they are considered allocated for the purposes of this halakha, despite the fact that he did not designate the money for particular offerings.
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לָא תֵּימָא עַד דְּאָמַר ״אֵלּוּ לְחַטָּאתִי וּלְעוֹלָתִי וְלִשְׁלָמַי״, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ אָמַר: ״אֵלּוּ לְחוֹבָתִי״ — הֲרֵי הֵן כִּמְפוֹרָשִׁין.
And some say a different version of this statement. Rav Ashi said: Do not say they are deemed allocated only if he says: These are for my sin-offering and for my burnt-offering and for my peace-offering; rather, even if he said it in broader terms: These are for my obligation, they are considered as allocated.
אָמַר רָבָא: הָא דַּאֲמַרַן מָעוֹת סְתוּמִין יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה, אִם נָפְלָה דְּמֵי חַטָּאת מִבֵּינֵיהֶן — הֲרֵי הֵן כִּמְפוֹרָשִׁין.
§ Rava said: That which we said, that if one had unallocated funds they will be allocated for communal gift offerings, applies only if the money for all of the offerings was mixed together. However, if the money for the sin-offering fell and was separated from the others, all the remaining money is now considered as allocated. This means that instead of the entire sum being used for a gift burnt-offering, part of it is used for a peace-offering, which is eaten for one day and does not require bread.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: ״אֵלּוּ לְחַטָּאתִי וְהַשְּׁאָר לִשְׁאָר נְזִירוּתִי״, דְּמֵי חַטָּאת — יֵלְכוּ לְיָם הַמֶּלַח, וְהַשְּׁאָר — יָבִיא חֶצְיוֹ לְעוֹלָה וְחֶצְיוֹ לִשְׁלָמִים. וּמוֹעֲלִין בְּכוּלָּן, וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בְּמִקְצָתָן.
The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: If one said: This money is for my sin-offering and the rest is for the rest of my obligations of naziriteship, and he died, the money for the sin-offering is taken and cast into the Dead Sea, and as for the rest, he brings a burnt-offering with half of it, and half of it goes for a peace-offering. And one who benefits from all of it is liable for misuse of consecrated property, due to the value of a burnt-offering that is included in the money. But one is not liable for misuse of consecrated property if he benefits from some of the money, as the money he took is possibly that of the peace-offering, to which the prohibition against misuse does not apply.
״אֵלּוּ לְעוֹלָתִי וְהַשְּׁאָר לִשְׁאָר נְזִירוּתִי״, דְּמֵי עוֹלָה — יָבִיאוּ עוֹלָה, וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן. וְהַשְּׁאָר יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה, וּמוֹעֲלִין בְּכוּלָּן, וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בְּמִקְצָתָן.
If one said: This money is for my burnt-offering and the rest is for the rest of my obligations of naziriteship, the money for the burnt-offering goes for a burnt-offering, and one who benefits from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property. And the rest is allocated for communal gift offerings, as the sum includes the value of a sin-offering. And one who benefits from all of it is liable for misuse of consecrated property, due to the value of a sin-offering included in it, but one is not liable for misuse of consecrated property if he benefits from some of the money, as he might have taken the money for a peace-offering, as stated above.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מָעוֹת, אֲבָל בְּהֵמָה — הֲרֵי הִיא כִּמְפוֹרֶשֶׁת.
§ Rav Huna said that Rav said: They taught only that there is a difference between unallocated and allocated money of a nazirite with regard to money designated for the purchase of offerings. However, if one designated an animal it is treated as allocated. A nazirite is obligated to bring three types of animals, a female sheep for a sin-offering, a male sheep for a burnt-offering, and a ram in its second year for a peace-offering. It is therefore evident which offering he had in mind when designating a particular animal. Consequently, if the owner died each offering is treated in the appropriate manner: The sin-offering must be left to die, like all sin-offerings whose owners have died; the burnt-offering is sacrificed as a burnt-offering; and the peace-offering is brought as a peace-offering, although it must be eaten in one day and does not require bread.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הָא דְּאָמְרִי בְּהֵמָה הֲרֵי הִיא כִּמְפוֹרֶשֶׁת, לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא תְּמִימָה, אֲבָל בַּעֲלַת מוּם — הֲרֵי הִיא כִּסְתוּמָה. אֲבָל נְסָכָא — לָא.
Rav Naḥman said: When they say that if one designates an animal it is considered as allocated, they taught this only if it is unblemished and is fit to be sacrificed itself. However, if one separated a blemished animal, even if he set aside the three required types, a female sheep, a male sheep, and a ram in its second year, each one is considered as unallocated. This is because one will not sacrifice the animals themselves but will sell them and use the money. However, this is not the case with regard to a bar of silver [naskha]. If one separated three silver bars they are considered allocated, as each is a distinct item, designated for a particular offering.
וְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ נְסָכָא, אֲבָל סְוָאר שֶׁל קוֹרוֹת — לָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי לְרַב פָּפָּא: מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן — דְּאָמְרִי: מָעוֹת, וְלֹא בְּהֵמָה וְלָא נְסָכָא, מָעוֹת וְלָא סְווֹרָא? אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה: מָעוֹת וְלֹא עוֹפוֹת!
And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Even a silver bar is considered unallocated; however, a pile [sevar] of beams is not. If he set aside three piles of construction beams for his offerings, they are treated as allocated money. Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to Rav Pappa: What is the reasoning of the Rabbis, i.e., Rav, Rav Naḥman, and Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, who say: Money and not an animal, and not a silver bar; and similarly, money and not a pile? Do they maintain that the halakha of unallocated funds applies only to money and not to other items? However, if that is so, one should likewise say that it applies to money and not birds.
וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, אֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אֵין הַקִּינִּין מִתְפָּרְשׁוֹת, אֶלָּא אִי בִּלְקִיחַת בְּעָלִים, אִי בַּעֲשִׂיַּית כֹּהֵן.
And if you would say: So too, this is in fact the case, and birds cannot be considered allocated, but what about this statement that Rav Ḥisda said: Nests, i.e., a pair of turtle doves or pigeons, one for a burnt-offering and the other for a sin-offering, are considered allocated only by either the acquisition of the owner, if the owner designates each bird for a particular offering upon their purchase, or by the actions of the priest who decides which bird is for which offering when he sacrifices them. This clearly indicates that the birds are considered unallocated beforehand.
אַמַּאי? הָא מָעוֹת גְּמִירִין לָהּ!
Therefore, the question arises: Why is this so? Didn’t we learn this halakha only with regard to money, whereas Rav Ḥisda’s statement indicates that birds are also considered unallocated? If Rav Ḥisda’s opinion is accepted, the same halakhot should also apply to animals, bars, and piles of beams.
Follow
