## Nazir Daf 26a

###### Nazir 26a:1
[Nazir 26a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/26a:1)

שֶׁהִפְרִישׁוּ מָעוֹת לְקִינֵּיהֶם, רָצָה לְהָבִיא בָּהֶן חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה — יָבִיא, עוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה — יָבִיא. מֵת וְהָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת סְתוּמִין — יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**who separated money for their nests** and then became wealthy, if the owner **wishes** to change their designation and **to bring an animal sin-offering with them, he may bring** a sin-offering with them. If he wishes to use them to buy **an animal burnt-offering he may bring** it, supplementing the required amount with other money. If the owner **died and he had unallocated funds,** they all **will be allocated for** communal **gift** offerings, including the value of the sin-offering. This shows that the *halakha* that unallocated funds are used for gift offerings applies in cases other than that of a nazirite.


###### Nazir 26a:2
[Nazir 26a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/26a:2)

תַּנָּא נָזִיר וְחַיָּיבֵי קִינִּין דְּדָמוּ לֵיהּ, וּלְאַפּוֹקֵי מֵהָא דְּתַנְיָא: מִי שֶׁהָיָה מְחוּיָּיב חַטָּאת, וְאָמַר: ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה״, וְהִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת וְאָמַר ״הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לְחוֹבָתִי״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **He taught** the case of **a nazirite and** also the case of **those obligated to** bring **nests, which is similar to** that of a nazirite and is therefore treated identically with regard to its *halakha*. This serves **to exclude that** case **which is taught** in a *baraita*. The situation discussed in the *baraita* involves **one who was obligated to** bring **a sin-offering** for a transgression he committed, **and he** also **said: It is** incumbent **upon me** to bring a gift **burnt-offering, and he separated money and said: These are hereby for my obligatory** offering. Since he might have meant either his obligation of the sin-offering or his burnt-offering for the new vow, the question arises as to what should be done with the money.


###### Nazir 26a:3
[Nazir 26a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/26a:3)

רָצָה לְהָבִיא בָּהֶן חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה — לֹא יָבִיא. עוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה — לֹא יָבִיא. מֵת וְהָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת סְתוּמִים — יֵלְכוּ לְיָם הַמֶּלַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* explains that if he **wishes to bring an animal sin-offering with it, he may not bring** one; if he wishes to use it to purchase **an animal burnt-offering, he may not bring** it either. If he **died and had unallocated funds,** one must **take** them and cast them into **the Dead Sea.** Since the two offerings are not part of the same obligation, the unallocated funds may not be used for gift offerings.


###### Nazir 26a:4
[Nazir 26a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/26a:4)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ מְפוֹרָשִׁין לָא — לָא תֵּימָא דְּאָמַר ״אֵלּוּ לְחַטָּאתִי, וְאֵלּוּ לְעוֹלָתִי, וְאֵלּוּ לִשְׁלָמַי״. אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ אָמַר ״אֵלּוּ לְחַטָּאתִי וּלְעוֹלָתִי וְלִשְׁלָמַי״ — מְפוֹרָשִׁין הֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Ashi said: That** which **you said** with regard to a nazirite who had **allocated** money, that he may **not** use it all for gift offerings because the value of the sin-offering must be taken and cast into the Dead Sea, **do not say that** this is referring only to a case where he explicitly **said: These are for my sin-offering, and these are for my burnt-offering, and these are for my peace-offering,** each one separately. **Rather, even** if **he said: These are for my sin-offering and for my burnt-offering and for my peace-offering, they are** considered **allocated** for the purposes of this *halakha*, despite the fact that he did not designate the money for particular offerings.


###### Nazir 26a:5
[Nazir 26a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/26a:5)

וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לָא תֵּימָא עַד דְּאָמַר ״אֵלּוּ לְחַטָּאתִי וּלְעוֹלָתִי וְלִשְׁלָמַי״, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ אָמַר: ״אֵלּוּ לְחוֹבָתִי״ — הֲרֵי הֵן כִּמְפוֹרָשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And some say** a different version of this statement. **Rav Ashi said: Do not say** they are deemed allocated **only if he says: These are for my sin-offering and for my burnt-offering and for my peace-offering; rather, even if he said** it in broader terms: **These are for my obligation, they are** considered **as allocated.**


###### Nazir 26a:6
[Nazir 26a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/26a:6)

אָמַר רָבָא: הָא דַּאֲמַרַן מָעוֹת סְתוּמִין יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה, אִם נָפְלָה דְּמֵי חַטָּאת מִבֵּינֵיהֶן — הֲרֵי הֵן כִּמְפוֹרָשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava said: That** which **we said,** that if one had **unallocated funds** they **will be allocated for** communal **gift** offerings, applies only if the money for all of the offerings was mixed together. However, **if the money for the sin-offering fell** and was separated **from** the others, all the remaining money **is** now considered **as allocated.** This means that instead of the entire sum being used for a gift burnt-offering, part of it is used for a peace-offering, which is eaten for one day and does not require bread.