The Eli B. Sitt Edition and Audio Series of the Talmud Bavli Massechet Nazir has been dedicated for the growth of children in Torah and mitzvot, and for the full recovery of Moshe Ben Dina Elna and Penina Bat Esther.
Today, we are studying the Zaf, Chav, Zayin section of the text, in memory of Yosef ben Sala and Abraham ben Esther. Our discussion centers on a halacha l'Moshe miSinai concerning "unspecified funds" (ma'ot setumot). This law, as understood by Rabbi Yohanan, dictates that if a Nazir set aside money for the sacrifices required at the conclusion of his Nazirite vow (an Olah, a Hatat, and Shelamim), but died before completing the vow, or if a woman's Nazirite vow was annulled by her husband, then these unspecified funds are to be used for voluntary offerings (nedavah).
Yesterday's lesson established that this law of ma'ot setumot applies specifically to money, but not to items like silver ingots (naskah) or beams (sivar shel korot). If one designated such items with the intention of selling them to purchase sacrifices, they are considered "specified" (meforash). In such a case, if the individual dies, the items cannot be used for voluntary offerings. Instead, they would be subject to the standard law for a specified Hatat, which dictates that the money from its sale must be cast into the Dead Sea (Yama Melach).
The distinction, therefore, is that the law of ma'ot setumot applies only to money, which is easily spent, and not to items that require conversion to value. This brings us to today's discussion, beginning from the statement of Rav Shimi Bar Asher to Rav Papa, seven lines from the bottom of the page on Chav Dalet.
The Gemara asks for the reasoning behind the Rabbis' view that the law of setumot applies only to money and items easily converted to money, but not to items like naskah, sivar shel korot, or even animals. For example, if a person designates an animal not typically brought by a Nazir, such as an ox (par), the question arises whether it should be blemished and its value used, or if it must be treated as a specified Hatat and its value cast into the Dead Sea. The Rabbis maintain that it is not considered satum because the halacha l'Moshe miSinai explicitly states "money" (ma'ot), thereby excluding animals (behemah), silver ingots (naskah), and beams (sivar shel korot). This implies a literal interpretation: the halacha is specific to money alone.
The Gemara then challenges this literal interpretation: if the halacha is so specific, why wouldn't it also exclude birds (ofot)? Consider a person obligated to bring two bird sacrifices, one for an Olah and one for a Hatat. If these birds were not specified for their respective sacrifices, and the person died, then according to this logic, the law of setumot would not apply to birds. This would mean the birds are considered specified even without explicit designation. Consequently, they could not be used for voluntary offerings and would have to be left to die, similar to a specified Hatat whose owner died, as birds cannot be redeemed like animals.
However, the Gemara counters, this cannot be. We have a teaching from Arav Hazda that states that bird offerings can become specified in two ways: either when the owner designates them, or if the owner does not, then the Kohen can specify them at the time of the sacrifice. This implies that until the Kohen specifies them, the birds are considered unspecified. If the law of setumot did not apply to birds, they would automatically be considered specified upon purchase, and the Kohen would not have the authority to designate which bird is for which sacrifice, as this might lead to incorrect designation (e.g., making the Olah a Hatat). Therefore, the fact that the Kohen can specify them proves that the law of setumot does apply to birds, meaning they are considered unspecified until designated. If it applies to birds, then by extension, it should also apply to animals. This would mean that if a Nazir designated an animal like an ox and died, its value should be used for voluntary offerings, just like unspecified money.
Rav Papa responds to this challenge. He argues that the law of setumot does not apply to animals. He cites the case of a Nazir who, at the conclusion of his vow, separates three specific animals for his sacrifices: a male lamb for an Olah, a ram for Shelamim, and a female lamb for a Hatat. Even if he did not explicitly designate which animal was for which sacrifice, it is understood that each animal, by its very nature (species and gender), is intended for its specific offering. Therefore, these animals are treated as if they were specified (meforash). If the law of setumot applied to animals, these undesignated animals would be considered unspecified, and their value would have to be used for voluntary offerings, or the Hatat would have to be left to die. The fact that each animal is brought for its intended sacrifice demonstrates that the law of setumot does not apply to animals.
Rav Shimi Bar Asher then refutes Rav Papa's argument. He reiterates that by birds, there are indeed two stages of specification, allowing the Kohen to designate them if the owner did not. This confirms that birds are considered satum (unspecified) until designated, and thus the law of setumot applies to them. However, he distinguishes this from the case of the Nazir's animals. In the Nazir's concluding sacrifices, the animals are distinct in species or gender (e.g., a male lamb for Olah, a female lamb for Hatat). Because of these inherent differences, the animals are considered specified by their very selection, even without explicit verbal designation. One cannot bring a Hatat as an Olah or vice versa due to their distinct characteristics. Thus, the general designation of these animals for the concluding sacrifice is tantamount to individual designation, and they are considered meforash. This means that the law of setumot still applies to birds but not to these specific Nazirite animals.
The discussion then shifts to a case where a person designates a blemished animal (ba'alat mum). Previously, it was stated that a blemished animal is treated like money because it is destined to be redeemed. Therefore, if a person designated a blemished animal for his Nazirite vow and then died, its value would be considered ma'ot setumot and used for voluntary offerings. A question is raised from a Braita that discusses a son using his deceased father's funds for his own Nazirite sacrifices. The Braita states that if the father had designated unspecified money for his Nazirite sacrifices and died, the son could become a Nazir and use those funds. However, if both father and son were Nazirim while the father was alive, and the father died, then the father's unspecified money would be used for voluntary offerings. The Braita further states that if the father had designated a specified animal (behemah meforeshet), then a specified Hatat would be left to die, and other specified sacrifices would be brought as intended.
The Gemara analyzes this Braita. The phrase "specified animal" (behemah meforeshet) could potentially include a blemished animal. If a blemished animal is considered like money, as previously stated, then its value should be used for voluntary offerings upon the owner's death, not treated as a specified animal. The fact that the Braita implies a blemished animal could still be considered meforash, and thus its Hatat would be left to die, contradicts the idea that a blemished animal always has the status of money for the purpose of setumot. The Gemara answers that the Braita is referring specifically to an unblemished animal (temimah). An unblemished animal, if specified, would indeed be treated as the Braita describes. However, a blemished animal (ba'alat mum) retains its status as money (k'stumadam ya). Therefore, if a person designated a blemished animal and died, its value would be treated as ma'ot setumot and used for voluntary offerings.
The Gemara then asks why the Braita chose to illustrate the case of unspecified funds with money (ma'ot) rather than with a blemished animal. If a blemished animal is indeed like money, it would have been a greater novelty (hiddush) for the Braita to state that a father's designated blemished animal, if he died, could be used by his son for his Nazirite vow, or if both were Nazirim, would be used for voluntary offerings. The Gemara concludes that the Braita's use of "money" (ma'ot) implicitly includes a blemished animal. A blemished animal is consecrated "for its monetary value" (l'may kidisha l'dmeh); it cannot be brought on the altar, only its monetary value is relevant. Therefore, in the language of the Braita, "money" encompasses anything that holds only monetary value, such as a blemished animal. This means our initial premise remains intact: the law of ma'ot setumot applies to money and items that are equivalent to money, like blemished animals. It also applies to birds, where the Kohen's ability to specify indicates their initial unspecified status. However, it does not apply to items like naskah or sivar shel korot, which are not easily converted to money, nor to Nazirite animals that are inherently specified by their species and gender.