Nazir

Rab Huna, citing Rab, said that [our rule]  applies only to money, but animals would be regarded as earmarked.  R. Nahman added that the animals that would be regarded as earmarked would only be unblemished animals, but not blemished ones.  [Three] bars of silver, on the other hand, would be counted as earmarked.  R. Nahman b. Isaac, however, considered even bars of silver as unspecified,  but not [three] piles of timber. R. Shimi b. Ashi asked R. Papa: What is the reason [for the distinctions made] by these Rabbis?  Is it that they interpret money',  as meaning neither animals, nor bars of silver, nor piles of timber [as the case may be]? For if so, they should also say money' but not birds.  Should you reply that they do make this distinction too, how comes R. Hisda to say that birds  do not become earmarked except [when earmarked] by the owner at their purchase, or by the priest at their preparation,  seeing that our tradition is that only money [is regarded as unspecified]? —