Nazir 27: The Use of Unallocated Offerings

Rav Pappa argues with the notion that it might be simple to determine which animal was intended for which offering.  He states that animal offerings are meant to be unallocated unless they have been overtly named for one purpose or another.  Rav Shimi bar Ashi argues that the situation is different for birds.  Leviticus provides specific guidance on which birds, whether turtledoves or pigeons, should be used for the sin-offering and the burnt-offering.  He suggests that we know exactly which offerings are required, and thus unnamed offerings should be considered unallocated.

The rabbis move now to the topic of blemished animals.  Can they be considered like "unallocated funds"?  This is discussed through the example of a man who takes on responsibility for his recently deceased father's offerings.  The Gemara considers a blemished animal to be consecrated for the value of its sale, which is measured through money.  Thus Rav Nachman's opinion that a blemished animal is like that of allocated funds is successfully defended.

Rava throws out another argument.  Using another verse from Leviticus, he notes that one cannot use his father's offering to fulfill his own obligations.  It does not matter whose sins might be more major or minor.  However, the wording in Leviticus (4:23 and 4:28) repeats the phrase "His offering".  This is interpreted to mean that he fulfills his own obligation  with his own offering and not with his father's offering, regardless of the type of transgression.

Our daf ends with a question regarding the inheritance halachot that apply to a deceased father's offering that has been set aside.  Further, the Gemara wonders about what can be done with the money resulting from the sale of this father's animals or other belongings - or money that has been set aside for nazirut.