R. Nachman’s position on a designated animal that ends up being blemished – already consecrated for the nazir’s offerings. Is it to be treated like an unallocated animal or an allocated one? R. Hamnuna questions whether the blemished animal could be treated like unspecified funds. Plus, Rava’s objection to R. Nachman – via a son and father needing to bring their own respective sin-offerings, as per a verse.

Click here for the Talking Talmud podcast on Nazir 27.

To listen: Click the link above. Or subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Or join the Talking Talmud WhatsApp group, and receive the link as soon as it goes up.

Please like our Facebook page and join our conversation there: <a href=”https://www.facebook.com/Talking-Talmud-113324056898191/” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener