Nazir - Daf 27
- הביא שלש בהמות ולא פירש הראויה לחטאת תקרב חטאת וכו'
On the previous Daf, it was taught that only money or easily sold goods can be considered unspecified. There, Rav Shimi bar Ashi asked that if so, birds purchased for an obligation without being specified, should be treated as though they were specified and cannot be brought, yet Rav Chisda taught that they can!? Here, Rav Pappa responds by proving that animals are considered specified: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said, הביא שלש בהמות ולא פירש – A nazir who brought three animals for his korbanos and did not specify which is for which korban, הראויה לחטאת תקרב חטאת – the one fit for chatas (the female lamb) is brought as a chatas, לעולה תקרב עולה – the one fit for olah (the male lamb), as an olah, לשלמים תקרב שלמים – and the one fit for shelamim (the ram), as a shelamim. This proves that animals are automatically specified! Rav Shimi bar Ashi answered that this is not analogous to the case of birds, because whereas with birds the chatas and olah need to be specified, these animals do not: מי מצית אמרת הדין דחטאת תקרב עולה – Can you say the chatas should be brought as an olah? הכא נקבה הכא זכר – This is a female, and this is a male!
- Animals the father designated for his own nezirus
On the previous Daf, it was taught that blemished animals are the equivalent of money and are considered unspecified. Here, Rav Hamnuna challenges this from a Baraisa discussing the halachah of a son using his father’s nezirus funds for his own nezirus (a halachah leMoshe miSinai discussed on Daf 30). It teaches that if they were both nezirim simultaneously, he may not use his father’s funds. The Baraisa concludes: היו לו מעות סתומות יפלו לנדבה – If he had unspecified money, they go to nedavos. היתה לו בהמה מופרשת – If he had specified animals, חטאת תמות, עולה תקרב עולה, ושלמים יקרבו שלמים – the chatas dies, the olah is brought as an olah, and the shelamim as a shelamim. Rav Hamnuna asks that the Baraisa implies that this is so even with blemished animals, indicating that even they are considered specified. It ultimately answers that it is speaking only of unblemished animals, and blemished animals are effectively included in the earlier case of unspecified money.
- Not using a father’s chatas for himself
A Baraisa states: קרבנו – The Torah says “his korban” regarding chatas, teaching:בקרבנו הוא יוצא, ואינו יוצא בקרבן אביו – only with his own korban is he yotzei, but not with his father’s korban. The Baraisa continues that "קרבנו" is written a second time to teach that one cannot use his father’s chatas even if their offense was on the same level of stringency (and not only when they were for different level offenses, e.g., if his father’s was for chillul Shabbos, which incurs the death penalty, and his was for consuming blood, which is only kareis, or vice versa). The Baraisa continues that one still might think that although he cannot use the chatas his father designated, that is because one cannot use his father’s nazir korbanos. אבל יוצא במעות שהפריש אביו - But perhaps one could use money his father designated for his own chatas (and then died), because one can use money which his father designated for his own nezirus (without specifying). "קרבנו" is written a third time to teach that he cannot. On the next Daf, the Baraisa will eventually teach that one cannot even use a korban, or even money, which he designated for a different chatas for himself.
