Nazir 26a — the Talmud in English

that he set aside money for his pairs of birds,

such as when the leper said, “These are for my leprosy-offering,” and then became wealthy and needs to bring animals for a sin-offering and a burnt-offering; if

he wishes to bring with them [

all of them ]

an animal sin-offering—

he may bring;

if he wishes to bring with all of them

an animal burnt-offering—

he may bring.

And if

the leper died,

the leper

and he had unspecified money

such that when he set it aside he said, “These are for my leprosy-offerings

” they shall fall to voluntary offerings,

even though the value of a sin-offering is mixed among them.

It is thus clear that even concerning money that does not belong to a nazir, the halakha was stated regarding unspecified money—in which the value of a sin-offering is mixed—that it shall fall to voluntary offerings when the one obligated in the offering dies. If so, why did Rabbi Yohanan say: “It is a halakha in a nazir,” which implies specifically a nazir?

And we answer: Indeed, this halakha was not stated only with regard to a nazir; and what Rabbi Yohanan said, “It is a halakha in a nazir”:

the tanna taught: a nazir and those obligated in pairs of birds who resemble him,

meaning: this is how the halakha was stated: unspecified money of a nazir, and of anyone similar to him—who likewise brings, for one matter, a sin-offering and another offering—shall fall to voluntary offerings.

And

And Rabbi Yohanan intended—when he said: “It is a halakha in a nazir”—

to exclude [

to exclude ]

this tanna,

meaning: Rabbi Yohanan came to teach that the unspecified money with which the tanna in the beraita deals is not similar to the unspecified money of a nazir, and therefore their laws are not the same, just as the tanna indeed said in the beraita;

For it was taught: One who was obligated in a sin-offering

such as one who ate forbidden fat,

and

in addition to this

said: “

It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt-offering”

as a voluntary offering, and it follows that he was obligated in a sin-offering and a burnt-offering.

And

afterward

he set aside money and said: “

These are for my obligation”—

If

he wishes to bring with them [

all of them ]

an animal sin-offering

for the forbidden fat that he ate,

he shall not bring it;

and likewise, if he wishes to bring with them [all of them]

an animal burnt-offering

for his vow,

he shall not bring it,

for he set them aside for his entire obligation and not for part of his obligation.

He died, and he had unspecified money

they shall go to the Dead Sea

because the value of a sin-offering is mixed among them, and they shall not go to voluntary offerings like the money of a nazir and the other people obligated in pairs of birds.

And the reason is that this halakha was stated only with regard to a nazir and anyone similar to him, who is obligated in a sin-offering and another offering for one matter. But this person, who became obligated in a sin-offering for forbidden fat, whereas he became obligated in the other offering because of his vow—in such a case the halakha that they shall fall to voluntary offerings was not stated. Consequently, they will all go to the Dead Sea, since the value of a sin-offering is mixed among them, and by their fundamental law it goes to the Dead Sea.

Rav Ashi said: This that you said—

concerning one who set aside money for naziriteship and died, that

specified money does not

have the same law as unspecified money, which falls to voluntary offerings.

Do not say [

do not say that this law applies only

when

he set aside three groups of money and

said: “

These are for my sin-offering, these are for my burnt-offering, and these are for my peace-offerings,”

for these are certainly not unspecified.

Rather, even

if he set aside only one group and

said: “

These

the monies in this group

are for my sin-offering, my burnt-offering, and my peace-offerings,”

then the value of the sin-offering among them

is specified

in the mixture [the value of a specified sin-offering that became mixed with other money]

” they are,

and not “unspecified,” which would fall to voluntary offerings—

And there are those who say,

more than this

Rav Ashi said:

This that you said, “specified money does not,”

do not say [that it is so] only when

he says “

These are for my sin-offering, my burnt-offering, and my peace-offerings” [

and all the more so when he says: “These are for my sin-offering, these are for my burnt-offering, and these are for my peace-offerings”]—

Rather, even

he set aside one group of money and

said “

These are for my obligation,”

they are like specified money

in the mixture, for since he said “for my obligation,” it is as though he explicitly said “sin-offering.”

Rava said: This that we said: “

unspecified money shall fall to voluntary offerings”—

if the value of the sin-offering fell out from among them,

and the money of the burnt-offering and the peace-offerings that remains is “unspecified,”

it is like specified money

and it shall not fall to voluntary offerings; rather, he shall bring with half of it a burnt-offering and with half of it peace-offerings.

And this is because the fundamental law of “unspecified money” was stated only when the value of a sin-offering is mixed among it.