אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ הָא דִּתְנַן רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר הֵבִיא שָׁלֹשׁ בְּהֵמוֹת וְלֹא פֵּירֵשׁ הָרְאוּיָה לְחַטָּאת תִּקְרַב חַטָּאת לְעוֹלָה תִּקְרַב עוֹלָה לִשְׁלָמִים תִּקְרַב שְׁלָמִים אַמַּאי הָא אָמְרַתְּ בְּהֵמָה לָאו כִּמְפוֹרֶשֶׁת דָּמְיָא Rav Pappa said to him: And according to your reasoning, which leads to the conclusion that all items can have the status of unallocated funds, consider that which we learned in a mishna (45a): Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If one brought three different animals for his naziriteship and did not specify which was for which offering, that which is fit for a sin-offering, a ewe, is sacrificed as a sin-offering; the animal suitable for a burnt-offering, a male sheep or bull, is sacrificed as a burnt-offering; and the animal fit for a peace-offering, any other male or female, is sacrificed as a peace-offering. But according to your opinion, why is this so? Didn’t you say that an animal is not considered as allocated, but is instead like unallocated funds; how can one decide which animal to use for each offering?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָתָם וְלָקַח וְעָשָׂה Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to him: As for the case of birds, this is an exception, as there is an explicit verse to this effect there: It states with regard to the owner of a bird offering: “And he shall take one he-lamb for a guilt-offering to be waved, to make atonement for him, and one tenth part of an ephah of fine flour mingled with oil for a meal-offering, and a log of oil; and two turtledoves or two young pigeons, such as his means suffice for, and the one shall be a sin-offering and the other a burnt-offering” (Leviticus 14:21–22), and it later states with regard to the priest: “And he shall sacrifice one of the turtledoves, or of the young pigeons, such as his means suffice for; even such as his means suffice for, the one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering” (Leviticus 14:30–31).
אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא אִי בִּלְקִיחַת בְּעָלִים אִי בַּעֲשִׂיַּית כֹּהֵן הָכָא נָמֵי The Merciful One thereby states that the birds are allocated and designated for their offering either by the acquisition of the owner, by designating each bird for a particular offering upon their purchase, or by the action of the priest. With regard to the ruling of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, it presents no difficulty either, as it is a special case as well. Here too, when one separates these particular animals for his naziriteship offerings,