Nazir 26b (כו:) — the Talmud in English

It was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rava:

“Unspecified funds” fall to the free-will offerings only when the money for a sin-offering is mixed in with them:

As it was taught: If one set aside two piles of money and said: “

These”

[the first pile] shall be

for my sin-offering, and the remainder—

the second pile—

for the remainder of my naziriteship,”

and he died,

the money for the sin-offering shall go to the Dead Sea, while the remainder: He shall bring half of it for an olah and half for a shelamim—

It has thus been learned in accordance with Rava’s statement, that the law of “unspecified funds” applies only to money in which money for an unspecified sin-offering is mixed.

The beraita continues:

And

there is no

misuse

of the money that he set aside for the remainder of his naziriteship unless he used

all of it

or most of it, in which case money for an olah must necessarily be included;

but there is no misuse of part of it,

that is, half or less, because perhaps all the money he used was for shelamim, and there is no misuse with regard to money for shelamim, just as there is no misuse with regard to an animal designated as a shelamim.

And if he said: “

This is for my olah, and the remainder is for the remainder of my naziriteship,”

the money for the olah shall be used to bring an olah, and there is misuse of it, while the remainder shall fall to the free-will offerings,

because money for a sin-offering is mixed among it.

And there is misuse of all of it

[or most of it], since money for a sin-offering is mixed among it,

but there is no misuse of part of it,

since money for a shelamim is mixed among it. Although all of it falls to the free-will offerings, it does not cease to retain the designation of shelamim that it had until the time of its sacrifice.

a. The following passage is explained in accordance with Tosafot’s conclusion.

Rav Huna said that Rav said:

They taught—

that if one set aside unspecified funds for his naziriteship and died, the money falls to the free-will offerings—

only

when he set aside

money.

But

if he set aside

an animal

for its value, in order to purchase with it the “offerings of his naziriteship,” and he died, it is not included in the law that “unspecified funds fall to the free-will offerings,” since an animal is not included in the category of “funds,” as will be explained—

And therefore

it is as though

[the money for the sin-offering contained within it] had been

explicitly designated

“within the mixture,” and the animal shall die and be lost.

He said—

Rav

Naḥman

explained Rav Huna’s statement in the name of Rav:

This that they said,

meaning, this statement of Rav:

“An animal is considered as explicitly designated”—

They taught only

that he consecrated

an unblemished

animal—one that is not fit for the offerings of naziriteship—to be sold for its value, in order to purchase with the proceeds the offerings of his naziriteship. Since the sanctity of the body took effect upon it, as it is unblemished, it follows that he cannot redeem it unless it develops a blemish. Therefore, it is not included in the law that “unspecified funds”—

This is because the halakha was stated as follows: “Unspecified funds shall fall to the free-will offerings.” This includes only money or other things that can be used to purchase [the offerings] immediately. But an unblemished animal, with which one cannot make the purchase immediately, is not comparable to “funds” and is not included in the halakha.

But

if he set aside an

blemished

animal for its value, since he can sell it immediately,

it is

included among funds and is treated

as unspecified;

it shall be sold, and its proceeds shall fall to the free-will offerings.

In any event, this applies specifically to a blemished animal and the like.

But

if he set aside

a silver ingot

[a piece of silver] for the value of the offerings of his naziriteship—

it is not

included in the halakha that “unspecified funds shall fall to the free-will offerings,” because it is customary to wait before selling it until one finds someone who needs it, and it is not included in the category of “funds.” Rather, the law of the ingot is as though it had been explicitly designated within the mixture, and the entire ingot shall be lost because of the money for the sin-offering contained within it.

And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

Even

if he set aside

a silver ingot,

it is included in the halakha of “unspecified funds,” because sometimes it is sold immediately.

But

if he set aside

a stack of beams

[an arrangement of beams prepared and standing for construction],

it is not,

because it is customary to store the beams until one finds someone who needs to purchase them for construction, and therefore they are not included in the category of “funds.”

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to Rav Pappa:

But

what is the reason of the Rabbis

[the Sages mentioned above]

who say

that one who sets aside an animal, a silver ingot, or a stack of beams does not have the status of “unspecified funds”? Is it because the halakha was stated as follows:

“Funds”

that are unspecified shall fall to the free-will offerings,

but not an animal;

“funds,”

but not a silver ingot;

“funds,”

but not a stack?!

If that is so—that the halakha was indeed stated only with regard to “funds”—we should likewise say:

—if the law was indeed stated only with regard to “funds”—we should also say:

“Funds”

that are unspecified are what fall to the free-will offerings,

but not birds [a

“nest” of turtledoves or pigeons, one of which is a sin-offering and the other an olah] that are unspecified, which those liable to bring nests or an impure nazirite set aside to fulfill their obligation?!

That is, one might say: Although with regard to an impure nazirite and those liable to bring nests, the halakha was accepted that “unspecified funds shall fall to the free-will offerings,” nevertheless this law applies only to funds. But if they set aside birds and the owners died, the birds would not fall to the free-will offerings?!

And should you say that this is indeed so

[perhaps you will say: Yes, the law was not stated with regard to birds]?!

Rather

[if so], the following statement of

Rav Ḥisda presents a difficulty:

“The nests do not become designated”—

which bird will be the sin-offering and which the olah—

except at the time of the owners’ purchase,

from the seller who sells them to the owners. When they purchase them, they say: “I am taking this one for an olah, and this one for a sin-offering.” [This is called an “explicitly designated nest.”] Thereafter, the koen may not alter their designations when performing them, and if he does alter them, they are disqualified.

Or at the time of the koen’s performance—

that is, if the owners purchased them without specifying, and afterward the owners designated them by name, the designation does not take effect, and the koen may alter them. [This is called an “unspecified nest.”]

The difficulty now is as follows: Rav Ḥisda’s statement includes the principle that if the owners did not specify the birds at the time of purchase, the nest has the status of an “unspecified nest,” including with regard to the law that if they die, the birds fall to the free-will offerings under the law of “unspecified funds.” But the following difficulty may be raised:

Why?!

For the law was derived from funds

[the halakha was accepted only with regard to funds], and not with regard to birds?!