Study Guide Nazir26
Nazir 26
September 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.
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Roslyn Jaffe
Florida, United States
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
Dena Lehrman
אפרת, 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
I saw an elderly man at the shul kiddush in early March 2020, celebrating the siyyum of masechet brachot which he had been learning with a young yeshiva student. I thought, if he can do it, I can do it! I began to learn masechet Shabbat the next day, Making up masechet brachot myself, which I had missed. I haven’t missed a day since, thanks to the ease of listening to Hadran’s podcast!
Judith Shapiro
Minnesota, United States
My family recently made Aliyah, because we believe the next chapter in the story of the Jewish people is being written here, and we want to be a part of it. Daf Yomi, on the other hand, connects me BACK, to those who wrote earlier chapters thousands of years ago. So, I feel like I’m living in the middle of this epic story. I’m learning how it all began, and looking ahead to see where it goes!
Tina Lamm
Jerusalem, Israel
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Janine Rubens
Virginia, United States
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Shoshana Ruerup
Berlin, Germany
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
Cindy Dolgin
HUNTINGTON, United States
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Laura Major
Yad Binyamin, Israel
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Julie Landau
Karmiel, Israel
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
Rabbi Nicki Greninger
California, United States
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Lisa Lawrence
Neve Daniel, Israel
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
Lisa Berkelhammer
San Francisco, CA , United States
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Hannah Greenberg
Pennsylvania, United States
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
Cindy Dolgin
HUNTINGTON, United States
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Jill Felder
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Mona Fishbane
Teaneck NJ, United States
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Reena Slovin
Worcester, United States
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Joséphine Altzman
Teaneck, United States
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
