Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) UNSPECIFIED MONEY

(a) (R. Yochanan): The law of unspecified money is a tradition from Moshe from Sinai regarding a Nazir.
(b) Question: Is it really only by Nazir?

1. (Beraisa): One who must bring (a sin-offering and a burnt-offering, in a case where the Torah said that a poor person may bring) a Ken (2 birds) - if he separated money for the Ken, if he wants, he may use all the money for an animal for the sin-offering or the burnt-offering.
2. If he died, leaving money designated for the Ken, but unspecified (how much is for the sin-offering, how much for the burnt-offering), the money goes to Nedavah.

(c) Answer: The law applies to Nazir and those that must bring Kinim, similar to a Nazir (that one matter obligates bringing a sin-offering and burnt-offering).

1. "Regarding a Nazir" came to exclude the following case.

i. (Beraisa): Reuven was obligated to bring a sin-offering; he also vowed to bring a burnt-offering'. He separated money and said 'This is for my obligation' - he may not use all the money for an animal for the sin-offering or burnt-offering;
ii. If he died, leaving unspecified money (designated for the sacrifices), the money is cast into the Dead Sea.

(d) Version #1 (Rav Ashi): When we say (in Mishnayos) that specified money does not go to Nedavah, this is not only if he said, 'This will be for the sin-offering, this for the burnt-offering, this for the Shelamim';

1. Rather, even if he said, 'These are for my sin-offering, burnt-offering and Shelamim', this is considered specified.

(e) Version #2 (Rav Ashi): (Money is considered specified) not only if he said, 'This will be for the sin-offering, burnt-offering, and Shelamim';

1. Rather, even if he said, 'These are for my obligation', this is considered specified.

(f) (Rava): Unspecified money goes to Nedavah (if the man dies) - but if the money for the sin-offering was separated off, the money is considered specified.

(g) Support (Beraisa): Reuven said 'This money is for my sin-offering; the rest is for the other sacrifices I must bring for my Nezirus' (and he died) - the money for the sin-offering goes to the Dead Sea; half the other money is used for a burnt-offering, the other half for a Shelamim;

1. If he used all the remaining money, he transgressed Me'ilah; if he used part of it, he did not transgress Me'ilah.

(h) 'This money is for my burnt-offering; the rest is for the other sacrifices I must bring for my Nezirus' (and he died) - the money for the burnt-offering is used for a burnt-offering; if one benefited from it he transgressed Me'ilah;
(i) The remaining money goes to Nedavah; one who benefits from (part of it does not transgress Me'ilah; if he uses all of - the Gra deletes this from the text, see Insights), he transgresses Me'ilah.

(a) (Rav Huna): The law of unspecified money only applies to money - but if he designated animals, they are considered specified.
(b) (Rav Nachman): Only unblemished animals are considered specified - but blemished animals are considered unspecified. However, a piece of silver is considered specified.
(c) (Rav Nachman Bar Yitzchak): Even a piece of silver is considered unspecified - but wooden beams are not.
(d) Question (Rav Simi Bar Ashi): Why do the above Amora'im say that money is unspecified, but not an animal, piece of silver, or beams?

1. According to them - we should also say that money is unspecified, but not Kinim!

i. Suggestion: Perhaps Kinim really are specified!
ii. Rejection: Rav Chisda taught, a Ken is only specified when the owner buys it, or when the Kohen offers them - we see, they are just as unspecified as money!