Nazir 27A

אמר ליה: וליטעמיך, הא דתנן: רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר: הביא שלש בהמות ולא פירש, הראויה לחטאת ⁠— תקרב חטאת, לעולה ⁠— תקרב עולה, לשלמים ⁠— תקרב שלמים. אמאי? הא אמרת: בהמה לאו כמפורשת דמיא!

Rav Pappa said to him: And according to your reasoning, which leads to the conclusion that all items can have the status of unallocated funds, consider that which we learned in a Mishnah (45a): Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If one brought 3 different animals for his naziriteship and did not specify which was for which offering, that which is fit for a sin-offering, a ewe, is sacrificed as a sin-offering; the animal suitable for a burnt-offering, a male sheep or bull, is sacrificed as a burnt-offering; and the animal fit for a peace-offering, any other male or female, is sacrificed as a peace-offering. But according to your opinion, why is this so? Didn’t you say that an animal is not considered as allocated, but is instead like unallocated funds; how can one decide which animal to use for each offering?

אמר ליה, התם: ״ולקח ... ועשה״.

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to him: As for the case of birds, this is an exception, as there is an explicit verse to this effect there: It states with regard to the owner of a bird offering: “And he should take one he-lamb for a guilt-offering to be waved, to make atonement for him, and 1/10th part of an ephah of fine flour mingled with oil for a meal-offering, and a log of oil; and two turtledoves or two young pigeons, such as his means suffice for, and the one should be a sin-offering and the other a burnt-offering” (Leviticus 14:21–22), and it later states with regard to the priest: “And he should sacrifice one of the turtledoves, or of the young pigeons, such as his means suffice for; even such as his means suffice for, the one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering” (Leviticus 14:30–31).