Explanation: R. Yochanan, who said that it is a tradition from Moshe from Sinai about Nazir, which connotes only regarding Nazir and nothing else, teaches unlike the following Tana;

A Beraisa teaches that if one was obligated a Chatas because he ate Chelev, and he said "Harei Alai Olah", he is liable a Chatas and an Olah, but they are not for one matter, for the Chatas is for Chelev, and the Olah is a Neder;

If he separated coins and said when he separated "these are for my obligation", this connotes for all that he is obligated. Therefore, he may not bring from all of them Chatas Behemah, or Olas Behemah, because they are mixed (the coins have Kedushah for Chatas, and also for Olah);

His only solution is to bring two animals, and say "all Kedushas Chatas in these coins should take effect on this animal" [and all Kedushas Olah should take effect on the other animal].

Question #1: Why is this different than above, regarding one who separated coins? If he wants, he can bring a Chatas with them. If he wants, he can bring an Olah;

We do not say that the separation was specifically for both of them! Rather, he may bring from all of them either Chatas or Olah.

Question #2: Also above (24b), when he separates coins for his Nezirus, [a Beraisa] said [that there is no Me'ilah] because it is proper to bring Shelamim with all of them!

Answer #1: Perhaps when he said in the expression "for my obligation", this connotes everything that he is obligated. Therefore, the separation was for both of them. He cannot bring one of them with all [of the coins];

However, "for his Nezirus" or "for his Tzara'as" properly connotes for part of his Nezirus or part of his Tzara'as.

Answer #2: We can distinguish when he separated for his Nezirus or his Tzara'as, for all Korbanos of Nazir, Yoledes or Tzara'as are one matter.

Therefore, he can bring l'Chatchilah from all money of the Ken one bird, i.e. a Chatas or Olah. Therefore, when he gets rich, he brings from all of them either a Chatas or Olah (Behemah);

However, here he is obligated a Chatas for Chelev that he ate, and an Olah that he vowed. They are not one class. When he separates coins for their sake, he may not bring from all [of the coins] one [of the Korbanos].

Explanation: Since they do not bring Chatas and Olah for one matter, we have no tradition that [the coins] go to Nedavah. That is only when the Chatas and Olah come for one matter;

However, when the Chatas is for Chelev that he ate, and the Olah was vowed, we have no tradition that they go to Nedavah.

Explanation: "To teach unlike this Tana" means that Nazir is unlike the matter that this Tana discusses. R. Yochanan does not argue with this Tana, and this Tana does not argue with R. Yochanan.

Observation: We learned in our Mishnah that Demei (the money for) Chatas goes to the Dead Sea. We do not say that all of [the coins] go to Nedavah.

Suggestion: This is only when he said "these are for my Chatas", e.g. he separated three piles of coins, each by itself. However, if [he separated] one pile, it goes to Nedavah.

Rejection: Even when he separated one pile, and said "these are for my Chatas, my Shelamim and my Olah", and did not divide them at all, they are Mefurashim.

Explanation: "Mefurashim" means in a mixture. The Halachah was not taught regarding them, that we should say that since Demei Chatas is mixed with them, they go to Nedavah;

Rather, just the contrary! All go to the Dead Sea.

Implied question: Why is this unlike the law of Mefurashim in our Mishnah? It says that [coins of] Olah are offered for Olah!

Answer: There, they are clarified. These coins are clarified for Chatas, and these coins for Shelamim. Each is offered like its law, and Demei Chatas goes to the Dead Sea.

Observation: According to this version, the tradition that Stumim go to Nedavah, this is when he said "these coins are for my obligation."

Citation of Gemara: Some say that...

Explanation: Also when he said "for my obligation", these are like Mefurashim in a mixture, and they go to the Dead Sea. "For my obligation" connotes my entire obligation, both the Chatas and the Olah;

Stumim that go to Nedavah, this is when he said "for the Korbanos of my Nezirus." He did not specify Chatas among them.

Comment: We can give a reason for this. When he said "for the Korbanos of my Nezirus", they were totally Stumim. There is no connotation in his words for Chatas more than other Korbanos;

However, "for my obligation" connotes Chatas more than other Korbanos, for Chatas is always an obligation, and not a Nedavah. Until here is a comment.

Distinction: ["For the Korbanos of my Nezirus"] connotes also that he said all the Korbanos. He could not bring from all [of the coins] one Korban;

However, when he said only "for my Nezirus", and did not mention "Korbanos" he can bring from all of them one Korban, for it connotes part of his Nezirus.

Explanation: If he died, a tradition was received about a Nazir, that they go to Nedavah, for he could bring Olah with all of them.

Question: If so, when he said only "for my obligation", they go to the Dead Sea even regarding a Nazir. If so, why did we say above "to teach unlike this Tana..."?

Since that Tana discusses when he said "for my obligation", this supports him, that they go to the Dead Sea. Also regarding Nezirus, when he said "for my obligation", according to this version they go to the Dead Sea!

Answer - part 1: This is fine for the first Perush.

Question: However, according to [this] second Perush, how is [R. Yochanan] unlike this Tana?

Answer: The Seifa of the Beraisa is unlike [R. Yochanan]. It taught "if he died and he had Ma'os Stumim", [i.e.] he did not mention about them "for my obligation", rather, he said "these will be for my Korbanos", [it taught that] they go to the Dead Sea;

If this referred specifically to (i.e. discusses the same case as) the Reisha, when he said "for my obligation", it should say [only] "if he died, they go to the Dead Sea";

Question: Why does [the Beraisa elaborate, and] say "if he died, and he had Ma'os Stumim"? Also the Reisha discusses Stumim!

Answer: Rather, surely it comes to teach that this is a different case of Stumim, that he did not mention in the Reisha;

The Reisha discusses when he said "for my obligation", and the Seifa comes to say that even when he said "for my Korbanos", they go to the Dead Sea;

Distinction: In such a case, when he said "for the Korbanos of my Nezirus", they go to Nedavah.

Explanation: This discusses one who separated part of a pile and said "these are for my Chatas, and the rest are for the rest of my Nezirus, [i.e.] the Olah and Shelamim", and he died;

The rest of the coins are like Mefurashim, even though they are Stumim (which are for the Olah, and which for the Shelamim). Here we do not say that all go to Nedavah. Rather, he brings Olah with half, and Shelamim with half.

The Halachah [they go to Nedavah] was taught only when Demei Chatas are mixed with them.

Question: This is fine for R. Yochanan, who says that it is a tradition about Nazir. He says that this is how the Halachah was received;

However, according to Reish Lakish, who expounds the verse to teach that Mosar Neder goes to Nedavah, even if Demei Chatas are not mixed with them, they should go to Nedavah!

Also this is Mosar Neder, for all Korbanos Nazir come through a Neder.

Answer: It is reasonable to establish the verse only when Demei Chatas are mixed with them, for we find elsewhere that Mosar Chatas goes to Nedavah;

Citation (Temurah 23b, Zevachim 103a): Yehoyada ha'Kohen expounded "Asham Hu" - Asham Hu la'Shem" to include everything that comes from Mosar Asham and Mosar Chatas;

He buys with it an animal. The owner gets the meat, and the skin is to the Kohanim.

Because we find elsewhere that Mosar Chatas goes to Nedavah, it is reasonable to establish this verse to be when he separated coins and Demei Chatas is mixed with them.

Explanation: Surely, it is destined for both of them, since he said "and the rest are for the rest of my Nezirus." It is as if he said "for the Korbanos of my Nezirus." He cannot bring one Korban, i.e. Chatas or Shelamim, from all of the coins, like I explained (26a DH u'Le'afukei);

His only solution is to bring two animals and profane the coins on them. He says "whether there is Demei Olah, it is redeemed on this animal;

The tradition that they go to Nedavah is only when Demei Chatas is mixed with them.

Citation of Gemara: Me'ilah applies to all of them.

Explanation: This is because he used Demei Olah, to which Me'ilah applies

Observation: [Me'ilah applies to all of them] is not precise. The same applies if he used the majority, for it is impossible that there is no Demei Olah among them;

Me'ilah does not apply to the minority of them. Perhaps all of these coins are of Shelamim, and Me'ilah does not apply to Demei Shelamim, just like [it does not apply to] a live Shelamim.

Explanation: This is because Demei Chatas is mixed with them. This is a tradition about Nazir [according to R. Yochanan], and according to Reish Lakish like he learns [from a verse].

Me'ilah applies to all of them, due to the Demei Chatas mixed with them. Me'ilah applies to [Demei Chatas];

Me'ilah does not apply to the minority of them, for that minority is proper to be totally Shelamim.

Question (Maharam): Why doesn't Me'ilah apply to the minority? All of them go to Nedavah, i.e. Olas Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach (Olos Tzibur offered when the Mizbe'ach is idle). [It is as if] he uses Demei Olah!

Note: Hagahos ha'Gra changes the text of the Gemara to say that Me'ilah applies to them (i.e. even to a minority), based on the Tosefta, and like Maharam's question.

Answer: We must say that until they are offered for an Olah, they do not lose the status of [Demei] Shelamim that they had until now.

Inference: It seems that we discuss an animal proper for a Nazir, e.g. a female lamb, which is offered for the Chatas, a male lamb, which is offered for the Olah, or a ram, which is offered for the Shelamim;

Rav Huna said that these are like Mefurashim, i.e. that each Korban is offered like its law;

Rav Huna's Chidush is that granted, he did not specify "this is for the Chatas, this is for the Olah, and this is for the Shelamim." Still, each is offered like its law.

Rejection #1: If so, what is Rav Huna's Chidush? This is the Mishnah brought below! R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if he brought three animals and did not specify...

Rejection #2: Presumably, Rav Huna's exclusion of an animal is like the other matters excluded from "coins", i.e. ingots, and beams, which cannot be offered.

Explanation: Therefore, it seems that we discuss an animal not proper for a Nazir, e.g. three bulls or three goats. A Nazir offers a ram, male lamb and female lamb.

Implied question: Why did Rav Huna say that it is as if it is specified?

Answer: He means that it is like specified in the mixture with of all of them, just like the case of Mefurashim above, regarding "even [if he said] for his Chatas, his Olah and his Shelamim, they are Mefurashim";

[There,] "Mefurashim" means in a mixture with animals that must die, and they perish.

Question: Since we discuss an animal not proper to offer for a Nazir, like I explained, rather, e.g. three bulls or three goats, what is the difference whether they are Ba'alei Mumim or Temimim?

Just like Ba'alei Mumim are considered Stumim, also Temimim!

Answer: A Tamim animal, even though it cannot be offered for a Nazir, only its value [can be offered after gets a Mum and is redeemed], in any case Kedushas ha'Guf takes effect on it. It may not be redeemed without a Mum;

This is like one who was Makdish a male for its value. He was not Makdish it itself for an Olah, rather, only to buy an Olah with its value, i.e. for Demei Olah. It gets Kedushas ha'Guf.

Question: These are different! There, he can be Makdish it Kedushas ha'Guf for an Olah itself. Here, he cannot be Makdish it for Nezirus, for it is not proper, like I explained!

Answer: He holds like Rabanan in Temurah (19b), who say that one who separates a female for an Asham, even though it is not proper for an Asham, which must be a male, in any case it gets Kedushas ha'Guf. It must get a Mum in order to redeem it.

Question: Still, this is difficult! Why are Temimim here and the case in Temurah (19b) of one who separated a female for an Asham, different than one who is Makdish a male for money to buy Nesachim?

It does not get Kedushas ha'Guf, like we say in Shevuos (11a) because its body is not proper for Nesachim!

Question: These are different! There, it is not proper at all for any Nesachim in the world;

However, Temimim here, and the female in Temurah, granted, they are not proper for Kedushas ha'Guf of this Korban for which he separated it. In any case, it is proper for another Korban that also applies to animals.

Question: Granted, it gets Kedushas ha'Guf and needs a Mum to redeem it. Still, it is destined for its value [to be offered]. Why is it different than Temimim?

Answer #1: These are very different. It is proper to sell a Ba'al Mum immediately, and to buy Korbanos Nazir, i.e. the three animals he needs;

However, Temimim may not be sold immediately, like I explained, that they require a Mum to redeem them. There is a delay;

R. Tam explained that since it delays with him for a long time [until it gets a Mum], we are concerned lest he decided to call one of them a Chatas, but he did not clarify which one;

This is like one who said for his Chatas, for his Olah and for his Shelamim. They are Mefurashim in a mixture, and must perish.

Answer #2: We can give an additional reason. Coins and a Ba'al Mum are proper immediately for him to buy with them the very Korbanos that a Nazir needs. Therefore, we are not concerned lest he decided to specify in the mixture;

Note: This seems very much like R. Tam's reason. Perhaps the additional reason is needed to explain the question from Rav Chisda. At the beginning of Tosfos 27a DH v'Chi, he asks based on R. Tam's reason, and answers like this additional reason (PF).

Why should he specify in his heart amidst the mixture? He can specify and clarify immediately, when he buys the Korbanos themselves that a Nazir needs!

However, here, that he must wait, we cannot say so.

Explanation: "Aval" refers to the Mishnah. It taught that Ma'os Stumim go to Nedavah;

"Aval" refers to this. Only coins [go to Nedavah], but if he separated three ingots to three beams, they do not have the law of Stumim, rather, Mefurashim in a mixture. All of them must perish.

The reason is due to delay, like I explained, for it is not normal to sell one's silver [pieces] immediately, until he finds one who needs them, and he sells them for a high price;

According to Rav Nachman, also ingots are considered Stumim, for sometimes it occurs that people buy immediately;

However, beams, it is normal to delay them until he finds one who needs to buy them for the sake of building.

Inference: It seems that we discuss birds that are not proper for offering, e.g. geese and chickens, similar to the case of ingots and beams, which we exclude above from "coins".

Rejection #1: We cannot say so. Geese and chickens are not proper for any Korban. Kedushas ha'Guf does not take effect on them. He can sell them immediately without a blemish. They are like an animal Ba'al Mum, which we considered above like coins.

Rejection #2: Rav Chisda's teaching, which is brought regarding this [suggestion that birds are Mefurashim], discusses Turim and Bnei Yonah. (Rather, we discuss Turim and Bnei Yonah.)

Question: Still, we discuss Nazir. They (Turim and Bnei Yonah) are not proper for Nazir at all! Also they are like geese and chickens regarding Nazir!

Answer: Since they are proper for some Korban, Kedushas ha'Guf takes effect on them, just like bulls and goats, which we explained above.

Question #1: Still, this is difficult. If Kedushas ha'Guf takes effect on them, they cannot be redeemed, for there is no redemption of birds, even when they get a Mum!

If so, they are not proper for Nazir at all, not to be sold, and not to offer for his Korbanos!

Question #2: Rav Chisda's teaching, which is brought regarding this, discusses Chayavei (people obligated to bring) Kinim. This implies that also this question discusses Chayavei Kinim!

Answer #1: Surely we discuss Chayavei Kinim, like a Zav, Zavah and similar people;

Also regarding Chayavei Kinim, the law of Stumim can apply, just like regarding Nazir, like we said above (26a). The tradition was said about Nazir, and all who resemble him, e.g. Chayavei Kinim.

Answer #2: We can establish it even regarding a Nazir, e.g. a Nazir Tamei, who must bring two Torim (or two Bnei Yonah), one for a Chatas and one for an Olah;

The tradition applies also to a Tamei, like it connotes at the end of our Perek (30b).

The meaning of "coins, and not birds" means that if one who was Chayav a Ken separated Turim and Bnei Yonah, and did not specify (which is each Korban) at the time of purchase, and he died before offering them, or her husband annulled her...

We do not give to them the law of Stumim regarding this, that the Kohen may offer whichever he wants for Chatas, and whichever he wants for Olah, according to your words, that you say that only coins are Stumim, but not an animal. (This Dibur continues on the coming Daf.)