תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרָבָא אֵלּוּ לְחַטָּאתִי וְהַשְּׁאָר לִשְׁאָר נְזִירוּתִי דְּמֵי חַטָּאת יֵלְכוּ לְיָם הַמֶּלַח וְהַשְּׁאָר יָבִיא חֶצְיוֹ לְעוֹלָה וְחֶצְיוֹ לִשְׁלָמִים וּמוֹעֲלִין בְּכוּלָּן וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בְּמִקְצָתָן The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: If one said: This money is for my sin-offering and the rest is for the rest of my obligations of naziriteship, and he died, the money for the sin-offering is taken and cast into the Dead Sea, and as for the rest, he brings a burnt-offering with half of it, and half of it goes for a peace-offering. And one who benefits from all of it is liable for misuse of consecrated property, due to the value of a burnt-offering that is included in the money. But one is not liable for misuse of consecrated property if he benefits from some of the money, as the money he took is possibly that of the peace-offering, to which the prohibition against misuse does not apply.
אֵלּוּ לְעוֹלָתִי וְהַשְּׁאָר לִשְׁאָר נְזִירוּתִי דְּמֵי עוֹלָה יָבִיאוּ עוֹלָה וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן וְהַשְּׁאָר יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה וּמוֹעֲלִין בְּכוּלָּן וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בְּמִקְצָתָן If one said: This money is for my burnt-offering and the rest is for the rest of my obligations of naziriteship, the money for the burnt-offering goes for a burnt-offering, and one who benefits from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property. And the rest is allocated for communal gift offerings, as the sum includes the value of a sin-offering. And one who benefits from all of it is liable for misuse of consecrated property, due to the value of a sin-offering included in it, but one is not liable for misuse of consecrated property if he benefits from some of the money, as he might have taken the money for a peace-offering, as stated above.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מָעוֹת אֲבָל בְּהֵמָה הֲרֵי הִיא כִּמְפוֹרֶשֶׁת § Rav Huna said that Rav said: They taught only that there is a difference between unallocated and allocated money of a nazirite with regard to money designated for the purchase of offerings. However, if one designated an animal it is treated as allocated. A nazirite is obligated to bring three types of animals, a female sheep for a sin-offering, a male sheep for a burnt-offering, and a ram in its second year for a peace-offering. It is therefore evident which offering he had in mind when designating a particular animal. Consequently, if the owner died each offering is treated in the appropriate manner: The sin-offering must be left to die, like all sin-offerings whose owners have died; the burnt-offering is sacrificed as a burnt-offering; and the peace-offering is brought as a peace-offering, although it must be eaten in one day and does not require bread.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן הָא דְּאָמְרִי בְּהֵמָה הֲרֵי הִיא כִּמְפוֹרֶשֶׁת לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא תְּמִימָה אֲבָל בַּעֲלַת מוּם הֲרֵי הִיא כִּסְתוּמָה אֲבָל נְסָכָא לָא Rav Naḥman said: When they say that if one designates an animal it is considered as allocated, they taught this only if it is unblemished and is fit to be sacrificed itself. However, if one separated a blemished animal, even if he set aside the three required types, a female sheep, a male sheep, and a ram in its second year, each one is considered as unallocated. This is because one will not sacrifice the animals themselves but will sell them and use the money. However, this is not the case with regard to a bar of silver [naskha]. If one separated three silver bars they are considered allocated, as each is a distinct item, designated for a particular offering.
וְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר אֲפִילּוּ נְסָכָא אֲבָל סְוָאר שֶׁל קוֹרוֹת לָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי לְרַב פָּפָּא מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי מָעוֹת וְלֹא בְּהֵמָה וְלָא נְסָכָא מָעוֹת וְלָא סְווֹרָא אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה מָעוֹת וְלֹא עוֹפוֹת And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Even a silver bar is considered unallocated; however, a pile [sevar] of beams is not. If he set aside three piles of construction beams for his offerings, they are treated as allocated money. Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to Rav Pappa: What is the reasoning of the Rabbis, i.e., Rav, Rav Naḥman, and Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, who say: Money and not an animal, and not a silver bar; and similarly, money and not a pile? Do they maintain that the halakha of unallocated funds applies only to money and not to other items? However, if that is so, one should likewise say that it applies to money and not birds.
וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי אֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אֵין הַקִּינִּין מִתְפָּרְשׁוֹת אֶלָּא אִי בִּלְקִיחַת בְּעָלִים אִי בַּעֲשִׂיַּית כֹּהֵן And if you would say: So too, this is in fact the case, and birds cannot be considered allocated, but what about this statement that Rav Ḥisda said: Nests, i.e., a pair of turtle doves or pigeons, one for a burnt-offering and the other for a sin-offering, are considered allocated only by either the acquisition of the owner, if the owner designates each bird for a particular offering upon their purchase, or by the actions of the priest who decides which bird is for which offering when he sacrifices them. This clearly indicates that the birds are considered unallocated beforehand.
אַמַּאי הָא מָעוֹת גְּמִירִין לָהּ Therefore, the question arises: Why is this so? Didn’t we learn this halakha only with regard to money, whereas Rav Ḥisda’s statement indicates that birds are also considered unallocated? If Rav Ḥisda’s opinion is accepted, the same halakhot should also apply to animals, bars, and piles of beams.