## Nazir Daf 27b

###### Nazir 27b:1
[Nazir 27b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/27b:1)

מִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ הָדֵין דְּחַטָּאת תִּקְרַב עוֹלָה? הָכָא נְקֵבָה, הָכָא זָכָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**how can you say** that **this** one **that** is **for the sin-offering shall be sacrificed** as **a burnt-offering? Here,** only **a female** may be sacrificed as a sin-offering, whereas **here,** in the case of a burnt-offering, it must be **male.** Therefore, it is as though he allocated each animal for a specific offering. Consequently, you cannot compare this case to that of items that are not inherently designated for a particular purpose, e.g., a blemished animal or a silver bar, as they have the status of unallocated funds.


###### Nazir 27b:2
[Nazir 27b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/27b:2)

מֵתִיב רַב הַמְנוּנָא: וּמִי אָמְרִינַן בְּהֵמָה בַּעֲלַת מוּם כִּסְתוּמָה דָּמְיָא? תָּא שְׁמַע: כֵּיצַד אָמְרוּ הָאִישׁ מְגַלֵּחַ עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיו? בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָיָה הוּא וְאָבִיו נְזִירִים, וְהִפְרִישׁ אָבִיו מָעוֹת לִנְזִירוּתוֹ וָמֵת, וְאָמַר: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֲגַלֵּחַ עַל מְעוֹת אַבָּא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Hamnuna raised an objection** against Rav Naḥman’s statement: **And do we say** that **a blemished animal is considered like unallocated** funds? **Come** and **hear** a proof to the contrary from the following *baraita*, which begins: **How,** in what case, did the Sages **say** that **a man shaves,** i.e., bring the offerings sacrificed at the end of a term of naziriteship, **for his father’s naziriteship?** The Gemara cites a part of that *baraita* which records a case where the son does not bring the offerings for his father’s naziriteship: **When he and his father were** both **nazirites, and his father separated money for** the offerings of **his naziriteship and died, and** the son **said: I am hereby a nazirite on the condition that I will shave,** i.e., bring my offerings, **through the money** my **father** set aside, in that case he cannot shave for his father’s naziriteship.


###### Nazir 27b:3
[Nazir 27b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/27b:3)

הָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת סְתוּמוֹת — יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. הָיְתָה לוֹ בְּהֵמָה מוּפְרֶשֶׁת חַטָּאת — תָּמוּת. עוֹלָה — תִּקְרַב עוֹלָה, וּשְׁלָמִים — יְקָרְבוּ שְׁלָמִים. מַאי לָאו, אֲפִילּוּ בַּעֲלַת מוּם?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Consequently, if the father **had unallocated funds, they are allocated for** communal **gift** offerings. If **he had allocated animals,** that which is for **a sin-offering must** be left to **die,** like any sin-offering whose owner has died; the animal for **a burnt-offering is sacrificed** as **a burnt-offering, and** the animal for **a peace-offering is sacrificed** as **a peace-offering. What, is it not** referring **even** to the case of **a blemished** animal, as the *baraita* differentiated only between money and animals? This indicates that a blemished animal is also considered allocated, which contradicts Rav Naḥman’s ruling.


###### Nazir 27b:4
[Nazir 27b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/27b:4)

לֹא, תְּמִימָה. אֲבָל בַּעֲלַת מוּם, כִּסְתוּמָה דָּמְיָא? מַאי אִירְיָא מָעוֹת? לֵימָא: הָיְתָה לוֹ בְּהֵמָה בַּעֲלַת מוּם — יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **No;** it is referring only to **an unblemished** animal, which is considered allocated because it is suitable for an offering itself. The Gemara asks: **However,** if that is so, is **a blemished** animal **considered like unallocated** funds? In that case, **why** does the *baraita* **specifically** distinguish between animals and unallocated **funds? Let** the *baraita* **say** as follows: If he **had a blemished animal** its money **is allocated for** communal **gift** offerings. The *baraita* would thereby distinguish between two similar cases that involve animals, from which one could infer the *halakha* of unallocated funds.


###### Nazir 27b:5
[Nazir 27b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/27b:5)

הָכִי נָמֵי, בַּעֲלַת מוּם לְמַאי קַדִּישָׁא — לִדְמֵי, דְּמֵי הַיְינוּ — מָעוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **So too,** this is the meaning of the *baraita*, and there is no difference between a blemished animal and money. The Gemara clarifies this claim: **For what** purpose is **a blemished** animal **consecrated?** It is **for the value** of its sale, and this **value is** provided in **money.** Consequently, this *baraita* does not refute Rav Naḥman’s opinion that the *halakha* of a blemished animal is like that of unallocated funds.


###### Nazir 27b:6
[Nazir 27b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/27b:6)

מֵתִיב רָבָא: ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״, בְּקׇרְבָּנוֹ הוּא יוֹצֵא, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא בְּקׇרְבַּן אָבִיו. יָכוֹל לֹא יֵצֵא בְּקׇרְבָּנוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיו שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ מִן הַקַּלָּה עַל הַחֲמוּרָה, אוֹ מִן הַחֲמוּרָה עַל הַקַּלָּה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava** also **raises an objection** against Rav Naḥman’s opinion, from a *baraita* that deals with sin-offerings. The Torah states: “And he shall bring for **his offering”** (Leviticus 4:23), which indicates: **He fulfills** his obligation **with his** own **offering, but he does not fulfill** his obligation **with his father’s offering,** if his father was obligated to bring a sin-offering and died after separating an animal for this purpose. One **might** have thought that one **does not fulfill** his obligation **with an offering that his father separated** only in a case where the son’s transgression is not equal in severity to that of his father’s sin, e.g., sacrificing his offering **from** animals that his father designated to atone for **a minor** transgression to atone **for** his own **major** transgression, **or from** animals that his father designated to atone for **a major** transgression, to atone **for** his own **minor** transgression.


###### Nazir 27b:7
[Nazir 27b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/27b:7)

אֲבָל יוֹצֵא בְּקׇרְבָּן שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ אָבִיו מִן הַקַּלָּה עַל הַקַּלָּה אוֹ מִן הַחֲמוּרָה עַל הַחֲמוּרָה — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״, ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״. בְּקׇרְבָּנוֹ הוּא יוֹצֵא, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא בְּקׇרְבָּנוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However,** one might have thought that **he does fulfill** his obligation **with an offering that his father separated** if it is **from** animals his father set aside to atone for **a minor** transgression and the son atones **for** his own **minor** one, **or from** animals the father set aside to atone for **a major** transgression and the son atones **for** his own **major** one. Therefore, **the verse states: “His offering”** (Leviticus 4:23), and it repeats: **“His offering”** (Leviticus 4:28), to emphasize that **he fulfills** his obligation **with his** own **offering, and he does not fulfill** his obligation **with his father’s offering** even for similar transgressions.


###### Nazir 27b:8
[Nazir 27b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/27b:8)

יָכוֹל לֹא יֵצֵא בְּקׇרְבַּן אָבִיו בִּבְהֵמָה שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ אֲפִילּוּ מִן הַקַּלָּה עַל הַקַּלָּה, מִן הַחֲמוּרָה עַל הַחֲמוּרָה, שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין אָדָם מְגַלֵּחַ עַל בֶּהֱמַת אָבִיו בִּנְזִירוּת, אֲבָל יוֹצֵא בְּמָעוֹת שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ אָבִיו, אֲפִילּוּ מִן הַחֲמוּרָה עַל הַקַּלָּה, אוֹ מִן הַקַּלָּה עַל הַחֲמוּרָה, שֶׁהֲרֵי אָדָם מְגַלֵּחַ עַל מְעוֹת אָבִיו בִּנְזִירוּת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: One **might** have thought that a son **does not fulfill** his obligation **with his father’s offering,** i.e., **with an animal that** his father **separated, even from** animals that his father designated to atone for **a minor** transgression, to atone **for** the son’s **minor** one, **or from** animals the father set aside to atone for **a major** transgression, to atone **for** the son’s **major** one, as stated above, **as a person cannot shave,** i.e., bring an offering, **for naziriteship with his father’s animal.** Consequently, the *halakhot* of inheritance do not apply to this animal. **However,** it is nevertheless possible that a son can **fulfill** his obligation by purchasing a sin-offering **with money that his father separated** for his own sin-offering, **even from** money the father set aside to atone for **a major** transgression in a case where the son is atoning **for a minor** transgression, **or from** money the father set aside to atone for **a minor** transgression in a case where the son is atoning **for a major** one, **as a person can shave,** i.e., purchase an offering, **with the money his father** set aside **for naziriteship,**