Study Nazir folio 27B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
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.
§ 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 rabbis say that a man shaves, i.e., bring the off
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 t
The Talmud 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 Talmud asks: However, if that is so, is a blemished animal considered like unallocated funds? In that case, why does the baraita s
The Talmud answers: So too, this is the meaning of the baraita, and there is no difference between a blemished animal and money. The Talmud 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,