who set aside money for this purpose and then desire to use it to provide an animal1 as sin-offering, or as burnt-offering can do so. Should such a one die and leave a lump sum of money, it is to be used to provide freewill-offerings'?2 — He mentions the nazirite, meaning also [to include] those required to offer birds whose case is similar,3 but excluding [the following case]. For it has been taught: If a man, under an obligation to offer a sin-offering, says, 'I undertake to provide a burnt-offering,' and sets aside money saying, 'This is for my obligation,' should he then desire to provide from it either a sin-offering or a burnt-offering he must not do so.4 Should he die and leave a lump sum of money, it is to be taken to the Dead Sea.5
R. Ashi said: In the statement6 that moneys earmarked must not be used [for freewill-offerings], you should not presume [the meaning to be] that he said, 'This [portion] is for my sin-offering, this for my burnt-offering, and this for my peace-offering,' for even if he says simply, '[All] this is for my sin-offering, burnt-offering and peace-offering,' it counts as earmarked money.7 Others say that R. Ashi said, Do not presume that he must say, '[All] this is for my sin-offering, burnt-offering and peace-offering,' for even if he says, '[All] this is for my obligation,' it is regarded as earmarked money.8
Raba said: Though we have said that a lump sum of money is to be used for freewill-offerings, yet if the money for the sin-offering becomes separated from the rest,9 all is regarded as earmarked.
Original footnotes renumbered.
- If they become more affluent.
- Thus the ruling applies to these as well as to the nazirite.
- Since their obligation to provide both a sin-offering and a burnt-offering springs from a single source, and they are not separate obligations.
- Here the obligations are separate. What he must do is to add more money and buy both animals at the same time (Tosaf.).
- The traditional ruling does not apply here, and there is now no remedy since a sin-offering cannot be brought after death. Tosef. Me'il. I, 5.
- In the various texts quoted above.
- And must not be used for freewill-offerings.
- And the sums required are regarded as unspecified only if he put them aside without stating their purpose.
- E.g., if sufficient for a sin-offering is lost, the rest is to be used as to half for a peace-offering and half for a burnt-offering.
It has been taught in agreement with Raba: [If a nazirite says,] 'This is for my sin-offering and the remainder for the rest of my nazirite obligations,' [and then dies,] the money for the sinoffering is to be cast into the Dead Sea, and the rest is to be used, half to provide a burnt-offering, and half, a peace-offering.1 The law of malappropriation applies to the whole of it,2 but not to any separate part of it.3 [If he says,] 'This is for my burnt-offering and the remainder for the rest of my nazirite obligations,' [and then dies,] the money for the burnt-offering is to be used for a burnt-offering and it can suffer malappropriation, whilst the rest is to be used to provide freewill-offerings and can suffer malappropriation.4
Rab Huna, citing Rab, said that [our rule]5 applies only to money, but animals would be regarded as earmarked.6 R. Nahman added that the animals that would be regarded as earmarked would only be unblemished animals, but not blemished ones.7 [Three] bars of silver, on the other hand, would be counted as earmarked.8 R. Nahman b. Isaac, however, considered even bars of silver as unspecified,9 but not [three] piles of timber.10
R. Shimi b. Ashi asked R. Papa: What is the reason [for the distinctions made] by these Rabbis?11 Is it that they interpret money',12 as meaning neither animals, nor bars of silver, nor piles of timber [as the case may be]? For if so, they should also say money' but not birds.13 Should you reply that they do make this distinction too, how comes R. Hisda to say that birds14 do not become earmarked except [when earmarked] by the owner at their purchase, or by the priest at their preparation,15 seeing that our tradition is that only money [is regarded as unspecified]? —
Original footnotes renumbered.
- In agreement with Raba.
- Since the money for the burnt-offering can suffer malappropriation.
- Since the money for the peace-offering may be in the part used, and a peace-offering does not suffer malappropriation.
- Adopting an emendation of the Wilna Gaon after the text of Tosef. Me'il. I, 5. Our texts read: 'The law of malappropriation applies to the whole of it, but not to any part of it.' This cannot be the case since all the rest is to be used for freewill burnt-offerings which suffer malappropriation.
- Regarding the disposition of a lump sum of money.
- Even if they were not the animals that a nazirite must bring (v. Tosaf. and Asheri for various explanations of the distinctions). Possibly the reason is that it can be assumed that he intended to exchange each one for one of the animals suitable for his sacrifice.
- He would have to sell these first in order to purchase others, and would not think of them In terms of animals but in terms of money.
- He would not sell the silver to buy animals, in order not to lose on the two transactions, but would await his opportunity to barter for animals.
- They are easily convertible into money at a very small loss, and would therefore naturally be thought of in terms of money.
- Which would not be sold, in order to avoid loss, but bartered for animals.
- Rab, R. Nahman and R. Nahman b. Isaac.
- In the phrase, 'money in a lump sum,' occurring in our Mishnah and the other texts.
- I.e., they should regard birds as specified.
- Lit., 'nests', i.e., the pair of birds brought as offerings; cf. e.g., Lev. XII, 8.
- But not by the mere purchase. Hence if the owner dies, the pair is indeterminate and becomes a freewill-offering in the cases considered, contrary to the assumption that this is true only of money.