## Nazir Daf 26b

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

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: ״אֵלּוּ לְחַטָּאתִי וְהַשְּׁאָר לִשְׁאָר נְזִירוּתִי״, דְּמֵי חַטָּאת — יֵלְכוּ לְיָם הַמֶּלַח, וְהַשְּׁאָר — יָבִיא חֶצְיוֹ לְעוֹלָה וְחֶצְיוֹ לִשְׁלָמִים. וּמוֹעֲלִין בְּכוּלָּן, וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בְּמִקְצָתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes that it **is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rava:** If one said: **This** money **is for my sin-offering and the rest is for the rest of my** obligations of **naziriteship,** and he died, **the money for the sin-offering** is **taken** and cast into the **Dead Sea, and** as for **the rest, he brings a burnt-offering with half of it, and half of it** goes **for a peace-offering. And** one who benefits **from all of it** is liable for **misuse** of consecrated property, due to the value of a burnt-offering that is included in the money. **But one is not** liable for **misuse of** consecrated property if he benefits from **some** of the money, as the money he took is possibly that of the peace-offering, to which the prohibition against misuse does not apply.


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

״אֵלּוּ לְעוֹלָתִי וְהַשְּׁאָר לִשְׁאָר נְזִירוּתִי״, דְּמֵי עוֹלָה — יָבִיאוּ עוֹלָה, וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן. וְהַשְּׁאָר יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה, וּמוֹעֲלִין בְּכוּלָּן, וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בְּמִקְצָתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one said: **This** money **is for my burnt-offering and the rest is for the rest of my** obligations of **naziriteship, the money for the burnt-offering goes for a burnt-offering, and** one who benefits **from it** is liable for **misuse** of consecrated property. **And the rest is allocated for** communal **gift** offerings, as the sum includes the value of a sin-offering. **And** one who benefits **from all of it** is liable for **misuse** of consecrated property, due to the value of a sin-offering included in it, **but one is not** liable for **misuse of** consecrated property if he benefits from **some** of the money, as he might have taken the money for a peace-offering, as stated above.


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

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מָעוֹת, אֲבָל בְּהֵמָה — הֲרֵי הִיא כִּמְפוֹרֶשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Huna said** that **Rav said: They taught only** that there is a difference between unallocated and allocated money of a nazirite with regard to **money** designated for the purchase of offerings. **However,** if one designated **an animal it is** treated **as allocated.** A nazirite is obligated to bring three types of animals, a female sheep for a sin-offering, a male sheep for a burnt-offering, and a ram in its second year for a peace-offering. It is therefore evident which offering he had in mind when designating a particular animal. Consequently, if the owner died each offering is treated in the appropriate manner: The sin-offering must be left to die, like all sin-offerings whose owners have died; the burnt-offering is sacrificed as a burnt-offering; and the peace-offering is brought as a peace-offering, although it must be eaten in one day and does not require bread.


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

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הָא דְּאָמְרִי בְּהֵמָה הֲרֵי הִיא כִּמְפוֹרֶשֶׁת, לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא תְּמִימָה, אֲבָל בַּעֲלַת מוּם — הֲרֵי הִיא כִּסְתוּמָה. אֲבָל נְסָכָא — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said: When they say** that if one designates **an animal it is** considered **as allocated, they taught** this **only** if it is **unblemished** and is fit to be sacrificed itself. **However,** if one separated **a blemished** animal, even if he set aside the three required types, a female sheep, a male sheep, and a ram in its second year, each one **is** considered **as unallocated.** This is because one will not sacrifice the animals themselves but will sell them and use the money. **However,** this is **not** the case with regard to **a bar of silver [*naskha*].** If one separated three silver bars they are considered allocated, as each is a distinct item, designated for a particular offering.


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

וְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ נְסָכָא, אֲבָל סְוָאר שֶׁל קוֹרוֹת — לָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי לְרַב פָּפָּא: מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן — דְּאָמְרִי: מָעוֹת, וְלֹא בְּהֵמָה וְלָא נְסָכָא, מָעוֹת וְלָא סְווֹרָא? אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה: מָעוֹת וְלֹא עוֹפוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Even a silver bar** is considered unallocated; **however, a pile [*sevar*] of beams** is **not.** If he set aside three piles of construction beams for his offerings, they are treated as allocated money. **Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to Rav Pappa: What is the reasoning of the Rabbis,** i.e., Rav, Rav Naḥman, and Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, **who say: Money and not an animal, and not a silver bar;** and similarly, **money and not a pile?** Do they maintain that the *halakha* of unallocated funds applies only to money and not to other items? **However, if that is so,** one should likewise say that it applies to **money and not birds.**


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

וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, אֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אֵין הַקִּינִּין מִתְפָּרְשׁוֹת, אֶלָּא אִי בִּלְקִיחַת בְּעָלִים, אִי בַּעֲשִׂיַּית כֹּהֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say: So too,** this is in fact the case, and birds cannot be considered allocated, **but** what about **this** statement **that Rav Ḥisda said: Nests,** i.e., a pair of turtle doves or pigeons, one for a burnt-offering and the other for a sin-offering, **are** considered **allocated only by either the acquisition of the owner,** if the owner designates each bird for a particular offering upon their purchase, **or by the actions of the priest** who decides which bird is for which offering when he sacrifices them. This clearly indicates that the birds are considered unallocated beforehand.


###### Nazir 26b:7
[Nazir 26b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/26b:7)

אַמַּאי? הָא מָעוֹת גְּמִירִין לָהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, the question arises: **Why** is this so? Didn’t **we learn this** *halakha* only with regard to **money,** whereas Rav Ḥisda’s statement indicates that birds are also considered unallocated? If Rav Ḥisda’s opinion is accepted, the same *halakhot* should also apply to animals, bars, and piles of beams.