(R. Yochanan): The law of Stam money is a tradition from Sinai regarding a Nazir.

Question: It applies also to other matters!

(Beraisa): (A Ken is a pair of birds. One will be offered for a Chatas, and the other for an Olah. Oleh v'Yored is a Chatas in which rich people bring animals, and an Ani brings birds.) If one who must bring a Ken (for Oleh v'Yored) designated money for it, he may use all the money for Chatas Beheimah (an animal) if he wants, or all for Olas Beheimah;

If he died, leaving Stam money (he did not specify how much is for the Chatas), it goes to Nedavah.

Answer: The law applies to Nazir and those who must bring Kinim, for they are similar (they must bring a Chatas and an Olah);

R. Yochanan said "regarding a Nazir" to exclude the following.

(Beraisa): If Reuven was obligated to bring a Chatas and he vowed to bring an Olah, and he separated money and said 'this is for my obligation', he may not use all the money for an animal for the Chatas or Olah ('my obligation' connotes all that he must bring);

If he died, leaving Stam money (for the Korbanos), we cast it into the Dead Sea. (Since the Chatas and Olah are not brought for the same matter, the tradition does not apply.)

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 Chatas, this for the Olah, and this for the Shelamim.'

Rather, even if he said 'this is for my Chatas, Olah and Shelamim', this is considered specified.

Version #2 (Rav Ashi): (Money is considered specified) not only if he said 'this will be for the Chatas, Olah, and Shelamim';

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

(Rava): Stam money goes to Nedavah (if the man dies), but if the Demei Chatas were separated off, the money is considered specified. (We use half the rest for Olah, and half for Shelamim.)

Support (Beraisa): If Reuven said 'this money is for my Chatas. The rest is for my other Korbanos Nazir (and he died), the Demei Chatas goes to the Dead Sea. Half the remaining money is used for an Olah, and the other half for a Shelamim;

If he used all the remaining money, he transgressed Me'ilah (some of it was Demei Olah). If he used part of it, he did not transgress Me'ilah (perhaps it was Demei Shelamim).

If he said 'this money is for my Olah. The rest is for my other Korbanos Nazir (and he died) - the Demei Olah is used for an Olah. If one benefited from it, he transgressed Me'ilah;

The remaining money goes to Nedavah. One who benefits from the remaining money transgresses Me'ilah (if he uses all of it, but not if he used only part - the Gra deletes this from the text).

(Rav Huna): The law of Stam applies only to money. If he designated animals, they are considered specified.

(Rav Nachman): Only Tam (unblemished) animals are considered specified. Ba'alei Mumim (blemished animals) are considered Stam. However, a piece of silver is considered specified.

(Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Even a piece of silver is considered Stam, but wooden beams are not.

Question (Rav Simi bar Ashi): Why do the above Amora'im say that money is Stam, but not an animal, piece of silver, or beams?

According to them, we should also say that money is Stam, but not Kinim!

Suggestion: Perhaps Kinim really are specified!

Rejection: Rav Chisda taught that a Ken is specified only when the owner buys it, or when the Kohen offers it. This shows that it is as Stam as money!