Nazir 26b — the Talmud in English

It was taught in accordance with Rava

, that “unassigned funds” fall to a free-will offering only when money for a sin-offering is mixed among them:

For 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 rest of my naziriteship,”

and he died,

the money for the sin-offering shall go to the Dead Sea, and the remainder: he shall bring half of it for a burnt-offering and half of it for a peace-offering —

We have thus learned in accordance with Rava’s words, that the law of “unassigned funds” was stated only with regard to money in which unassigned money for a sin-offering is mixed.

And the beraita continues:

And

there is no

misuse

of the money that he set aside for the rest of his naziriteship except when he used

all of it

or most of it, for there is necessarily money for a burnt-offering among it,

but there is no misuse of part of it

, that is, half of it or less, because perhaps all that money which he used was money for peace-offerings, and with money for peace-offerings there is no misuse, just as there is no misuse with an animal designated as a peace-offering.

And if he said:

“These are for my burnt-offering, and the remainder for the rest of my naziriteship,”

the money for the burnt-offering shall be used to bring a burnt-offering, and there is misuse of it; and the remainder shall fall to a free-will offering

, since 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 peace-offerings is mixed among it; and although all of it falls to a free-will offering, it does not leave the status of the peace-offerings that it had until now until the time of its offering.

A. The following discussion is explained according to the conclusion of Tosafot.

Rav Huna said in the name of Rav:

They taught

—that one who set aside unassigned funds for his naziriteship and died, the funds fall to a free-will offering—

only

when he set aside

money.

But

if he set aside

an animal

for its value, so that he could purchase with it “the offerings of his naziriteship,” and he died, it is not included in the law that “unassigned funds shall fall to a free-will offering,” for an animal is not included in “funds,” as will be explained —

And therefore,

it is as though

[the money for the sin-offering in it] had been

explicitly designated

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

He said

—

Rav Nahman

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

This that they said

, that is, this that Rav said,

“An animal is considered explicitly designated”—

They taught only

that he consecrated an

unblemished

animal—which is not suitable for the offerings of naziriteship—for its value, in order to purchase with it the offerings of his naziriteship; since bodily sanctity takes effect upon it, for it is unblemished, it follows that he cannot redeem it unless a defect occurs in it, and therefore it is not included in the law of “unassigned funds ”.

And because this is how the law was stated: “Unassigned funds shall fall to a free-will offering,” this includes only money or other objects with which one can immediately purchase, but an unblemished animal, with which he cannot purchase immediately, is not similar to “funds” and is not included in the law.

But

if he set aside an

blemished

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

it is

included among funds, and we treat it

as unassigned

; it shall be sold, and its value shall fall to a free-will offering.

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

but

if he set aside an

ingot

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

it is not

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

And Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said:

Even

if he set aside an

ingot

, it is included in the law of “unassigned funds,” because sometimes it is sold immediately.

But

if he set aside an

array of beams

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

not

, because it is customary to hold the beams until he finds someone who needs to buy them for construction, and therefore they are not included among “funds.”

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to Rav Pappa:

But

what is the reason of the Sages

[the Sages mentioned above]

who say

that one who sets aside an animal, an ingot, or an array of beams does not have the law of “unassigned funds”? Is it because the law was stated as follows:

“Funds”

that are unassigned shall fall to a free-will offering,

but not an animal

, “funds”

but not an ingot

,

“funds” but not an array!?

If that is so

—that indeed the law was stated only with regard to “funds”—we too shall say:

“Funds”

that are unassigned are what fall to a free-will offering,

but not birds

[a “nest” of turtledoves or young doves, one of which is for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering], unassigned, which those liable for nests or an impure nazir set aside—for their obligation!?

That is to say: Even though, with regard to an impure nazir and those liable for nests, the law “unassigned funds shall fall to a free-will offering” was received, nevertheless this law applies only to funds; but if they set aside birds and the owners died, the birds shall not fall to a free-will offering!?

And should you say, so too

[perhaps you will say: Indeed so, and this law was not stated with regard to birds]!?

Rather

[if so], let there be a difficulty from

that which Rav Hisda said:

The nests are not designated

—which bird shall be for the sin-offering and which for the burnt-offering—

except either at the owner’s purchase

from those who sell them, when, as he purchases them, he says: This one I am taking for a burnt-offering, and this one I am taking for a sin-offering [and it is called an “explicitly designated nest”]; and afterward the koen cannot change their designation in performing them, and if he changed it, they are disqualified.

Or in the koen’s performance

, that is, if the owners took them without specification, and afterward, when the owners pronounced a designation over them, the designation does not take effect upon them and the koen may change them [and it is called an “unassigned nest”].

And now there is a difficulty: Included in Rav Hisda’s words is that if the owners did not specify at the time of purchase, the nest has the status of an “unassigned nest” also with regard to the fact that if they died, the birds fall to a free-will offering by virtue of the law of “unassigned funds”; and let there be a difficulty for you:

Why!?

For it was learned from funds

[after all, the law was received only with regard to funds] and not with regard to birds!?