Rav Shimi bar Ashi raised a difficulty with those who limited the law about unspecified money for the nazirite sacrifices being used for voluntary burnt offerings for money only and not animals, pieces of silver, or piles of beams. Rav Shimi showed that also birds can remain unspecified until a later stage. Rav Papa responded with a source showing that animals do not remain unspecified, even in a case where one didn’t specifically designate each one for each particular sacrifice as when a nazir set aside a female sheep, male sheep, and ram, but did not specify which sacrifice each one is for, it is as if they are already specified. Rav Shimi rejects Rav Papa’s response as when one specifies those particular animals, it is clear which was meant for which sacrifice since the Torah specifically says that a female sheep is brought as a sin offering, the male sheep for a burnt offering and the ram for a peace offering and therefore, it is as if they were specifically designated. Earlier, Rav Nachan stated that even though the law of unspecified money does not apply to an animal, it would apply to an animal with a blemish, as it could be sold immediately and was therefore considered like money. Rav Hamnuna and Rava bring tannaitic sources to raise a difficulty against Rav Nachman.
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Nazir 27
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, הָא דִּתְנַן: רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: הֵבִיא שָׁלֹשׁ בְּהֵמוֹת וְלֹא פֵּירֵשׁ, הָרְאוּיָה לְחַטָּאת — תִּקְרַב חַטָּאת, לְעוֹלָה — תִּקְרַב עוֹלָה, לִשְׁלָמִים — תִּקְרַב שְׁלָמִים. אַמַּאי? הָא אָמְרַתְּ: בְּהֵמָה לָאו כִּמְפוֹרֶשֶׁת דָּמְיָא!
Rav Pappa said to him: And according to your reasoning, which leads to the conclusion that all items can have the status of unallocated funds, consider that which we learned in a mishna (45a): Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If one brought three different animals for his naziriteship and did not specify which was for which offering, that which is fit for a sin-offering, a ewe, is sacrificed as a sin-offering; the animal suitable for a burnt-offering, a male sheep or bull, is sacrificed as a burnt-offering; and the animal fit for a peace-offering, any other male or female, is sacrificed as a peace-offering. But according to your opinion, why is this so? Didn’t you say that an animal is not considered as allocated, but is instead like unallocated funds; how can one decide which animal to use for each offering?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָתָם: ״וְלָקַח … וְעָשָׂה״.
Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to him: As for the case of birds, this is an exception, as there is an explicit verse to this effect there: It states with regard to the owner of a bird offering: “And he shall take one he-lamb for a guilt-offering to be waved, to make atonement for him, and one tenth part of an ephah of fine flour mingled with oil for a meal-offering, and a log of oil; and two turtledoves or two young pigeons, such as his means suffice for, and the one shall be a sin-offering and the other a burnt-offering” (Leviticus 14:21–22), and it later states with regard to the priest: “And he shall sacrifice one of the turtledoves, or of the young pigeons, such as his means suffice for; even such as his means suffice for, the one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering” (Leviticus 14:30–31).
אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: אִי בִּלְקִיחַת בְּעָלִים, אִי בַּעֲשִׂיַּית כֹּהֵן. הָכָא נָמֵי,
The Merciful One thereby states that the birds are allocated and designated for their offering either by the acquisition of the owner, by designating each bird for a particular offering upon their purchase, or by the action of the priest. With regard to the ruling of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, it presents no difficulty either, as it is a special case as well. Here too, when one separates these particular animals for his naziriteship offerings,
מִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ הָדֵין דְּחַטָּאת תִּקְרַב עוֹלָה? הָכָא נְקֵבָה, הָכָא זָכָר.
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.
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״.
§ 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.
הָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת סְתוּמוֹת — יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. הָיְתָה לוֹ בְּהֵמָה מוּפְרֶשֶׁת חַטָּאת — תָּמוּת. עוֹלָה — תִּקְרַב עוֹלָה, וּשְׁלָמִים — יְקָרְבוּ שְׁלָמִים. מַאי לָאו, אֲפִילּוּ בַּעֲלַת מוּם?
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.
לֹא, תְּמִימָה. אֲבָל בַּעֲלַת מוּם, כִּסְתוּמָה דָּמְיָא? מַאי אִירְיָא מָעוֹת? לֵימָא: הָיְתָה לוֹ בְּהֵמָה בַּעֲלַת מוּם — יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה!
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.
הָכִי נָמֵי, בַּעֲלַת מוּם לְמַאי קַדִּישָׁא — לִדְמֵי, דְּמֵי הַיְינוּ — מָעוֹת.
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.
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,
§ 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.
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.
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.
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,
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,
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
Berlin, Germany
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
Oceanside NY, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, United States
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
Bronx, United States
Phoenix, AZ, United States
Nazir 27
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, הָא דִּתְנַן: רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: הֵבִיא שָׁלֹשׁ בְּהֵמוֹת וְלֹא פֵּירֵשׁ, הָרְאוּיָה לְחַטָּאת — תִּקְרַב חַטָּאת, לְעוֹלָה — תִּקְרַב עוֹלָה, לִשְׁלָמִים — תִּקְרַב שְׁלָמִים. אַמַּאי? הָא אָמְרַתְּ: בְּהֵמָה לָאו כִּמְפוֹרֶשֶׁת דָּמְיָא!
Rav Pappa said to him: And according to your reasoning, which leads to the conclusion that all items can have the status of unallocated funds, consider that which we learned in a mishna (45a): Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If one brought three different animals for his naziriteship and did not specify which was for which offering, that which is fit for a sin-offering, a ewe, is sacrificed as a sin-offering; the animal suitable for a burnt-offering, a male sheep or bull, is sacrificed as a burnt-offering; and the animal fit for a peace-offering, any other male or female, is sacrificed as a peace-offering. But according to your opinion, why is this so? Didn’t you say that an animal is not considered as allocated, but is instead like unallocated funds; how can one decide which animal to use for each offering?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָתָם: ״וְלָקַח … וְעָשָׂה״.
Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to him: As for the case of birds, this is an exception, as there is an explicit verse to this effect there: It states with regard to the owner of a bird offering: “And he shall take one he-lamb for a guilt-offering to be waved, to make atonement for him, and one tenth part of an ephah of fine flour mingled with oil for a meal-offering, and a log of oil; and two turtledoves or two young pigeons, such as his means suffice for, and the one shall be a sin-offering and the other a burnt-offering” (Leviticus 14:21–22), and it later states with regard to the priest: “And he shall sacrifice one of the turtledoves, or of the young pigeons, such as his means suffice for; even such as his means suffice for, the one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering” (Leviticus 14:30–31).
אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: אִי בִּלְקִיחַת בְּעָלִים, אִי בַּעֲשִׂיַּית כֹּהֵן. הָכָא נָמֵי,
The Merciful One thereby states that the birds are allocated and designated for their offering either by the acquisition of the owner, by designating each bird for a particular offering upon their purchase, or by the action of the priest. With regard to the ruling of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, it presents no difficulty either, as it is a special case as well. Here too, when one separates these particular animals for his naziriteship offerings,
מִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ הָדֵין דְּחַטָּאת תִּקְרַב עוֹלָה? הָכָא נְקֵבָה, הָכָא זָכָר.
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.
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״.
§ 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.
הָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת סְתוּמוֹת — יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. הָיְתָה לוֹ בְּהֵמָה מוּפְרֶשֶׁת חַטָּאת — תָּמוּת. עוֹלָה — תִּקְרַב עוֹלָה, וּשְׁלָמִים — יְקָרְבוּ שְׁלָמִים. מַאי לָאו, אֲפִילּוּ בַּעֲלַת מוּם?
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.
לֹא, תְּמִימָה. אֲבָל בַּעֲלַת מוּם, כִּסְתוּמָה דָּמְיָא? מַאי אִירְיָא מָעוֹת? לֵימָא: הָיְתָה לוֹ בְּהֵמָה בַּעֲלַת מוּם — יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה!
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.
הָכִי נָמֵי, בַּעֲלַת מוּם לְמַאי קַדִּישָׁא — לִדְמֵי, דְּמֵי הַיְינוּ — מָעוֹת.
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.
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,
§ 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.
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.
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.
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,
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,
