Study Nazir folio 27B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
מי מצית אמרת הדין דחטאת תקרב עולה? הכא נקבה, הכא זכר.
how can you say that this one that is for the sin-offering should be sacrificed as a burnt-offering? Here, only a female may be sacrificed as a sin-offering, whereas here, in the case of a burnt-offering, it must be male. Therefore, it is as though he allocated each animal for a specific offering. Consequently, you cannot compare this case to that of items that are not inherently designated for a particular purpose, e.g., a blemished animal or a silver bar, as they have the status of unallocated funds.
מתיב רב המנונא: ומי אמרינן בהמה בעלת מום כסתומה דמיא? תא שמע: כיצד אמרו האיש מגלח על נזירות אביו? בזמן שהיה הוא ואביו נזירים, והפריש אביו מעות לנזירותו ומת, ואמר: ״הריני נזיר על מנת שאגלח על מעות אבא״.
§ Rav Hamnuna raised an objection against Rav Naḥman’s statement: And do we say that a blemished animal is considered like unallocated funds? Come and hear a proof to the contrary from the following baraita, which begins: How, in what case, did the rabbis say that a man shaves, i.e., bring the offerings sacrificed at the end of a term of naziriteship, for his father’s naziriteship? The Talmud cites a part of that baraita which records a case where the son does not bring the offerings for his father’s naziriteship: When he and his father were both nazirites, and his father separated money for the offerings of his naziriteship and died, and the son said: I am hereby a nazirite on the condition that I will shave, i.e., bring my offerings, through the money my father set aside, in that case he cannot shave for his father’s naziriteship.
היו לו מעות סתומות — יפלו לנדבה. היתה לו בהמה מופרשת חטאת — תמות. עולה — תקרב עולה, ושלמים — יקרבו שלמים. מאי לאו, אפילו בעלת מום?
Consequently, if the father had unallocated funds, they are allocated for communal gift offerings. If he had allocated animals, that which is for a sin-offering must be left to die, like any sin-offering whose owner has died; the animal for a burnt-offering is sacrificed as a burnt-offering, and the animal for a peace-offering is sacrificed as a peace-offering. What, is it not referring even to the case of a blemished animal, as the baraita differentiated only between money and animals? This indicates that a blemished animal is also considered allocated, which contradicts Rav Naḥman’s ruling.