משנה: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּֽדְרָה בַנָּזִיר הִפְרִישָׁה אֶת בְּהֶמְתָּהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הֵיפֵר לָהּ בַּעֲלָהּ אִם שֶלּוֹ הָֽיְתָה בְּהֵמָה תֵּצֵא וְתִרְעֶה בָּעֵדֶר. וְאִם מִשֶּׁלָּהּ הָֽיְתָה בְּהֵמָה הַחַטָּאת תָּמוּת וְהָעוֹלָה תִּיקְרַב עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים יִקְרְבוּ שְׁלָמִים וְנֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד וְאֵינָן טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם. הָיוּ לָהּ מָעוֹת סְתוּמִים יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. מָעוֹת מְפוֹרָשִים דְּמֵי חַטָּאת יֵלְכוּ לְיַם הַמֶּלַח לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין. דְּמֵי עוֹלָה יָבִיאוּ עוֹלָה וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן. דְּמֵי שְׁלָמִים יָבִיאוּ שְׁלָמִים וְנֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד וְאֵינָן טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם. MISHNAH: A woman who had made a vow of nazir and designated her animal61Really three animals for her prescribed sacrifice. when her husband dissolved her vow, if the animal was his, it leaves and grazes with the herd62Since one cannot dedicate anybody else’s property, the animals are not dedicated.. But if the animal was hers63If the spouses had signed a contract of separation of properties by which the husband renounced his right of administration and usufruct. Then the wife can dedicate her property without asking the husband’s consent., the purification offering shall die64Since an animal designated as purification offering can never be redeemed., the elevation offering shall be brought as an elevation offering65Since elevation offerings can be brought as voluntary gifts; Lev. 1., the well-being offering as a well-being offering66Most well-being offerings are voluntary gifts. But those are eaten during two days and the intervening night (Lev. 7:16) while the nazir’s well-being offering follows the rules of thanksgiving offerings which may be eaten only during one day and the following night (Lev. 7:15). The nazir’s offering also needs an accompanying gift of bread, similar to the thanksgiving offering. But since the woman is no nezirah after the husband’s dissolution of her vow, the bread cannot be offered. (The bread is baked on the day it is offered; since the husband has to dissolve the vow before it has run its course, there is no dedicated bread.), to be eaten on one day; it does not need bread. If she had money not designated67Money put aside for her sacrifices, without specifying which money should be used for which animal., it should be given as a donation68Given to the special Temple account, to be used for elevation sacrifices if the altar otherwise would be vacant.. If the monies were designated, the value of the purification offering shall be thrown into the Dead Sea69Where it will be quickly dissolved by the chemicals in the water. “Throwing something into the Dead Sea” means: “making sure it cannot be used.”; one may not use it70Since it is designated for a sacrifice. but there can be no larceny71Since the sacrifice cannot be offered, misappropriation of the money cannot be prosecuted; the rules of Lev. 5:14–16 cannot be applied.. For the value of the elevation offering, they shall bring an elevation offering; it is subject to the law of larceny. For the value of the well-being offering, they shall bring a well-being offering, to be eaten on one day; it does not need bread72Well-being sacrifices remain the property of the offerer; they may be sancta, but are not “The Eternal’s Sancta”, never subject to the rules of Lev. 5:14–16..
הלכה: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּֽדְרָה בַנָּזִיר כול׳. הָא לִיקַּדֵּשׁ קָֽדְשָׁה. אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁנָּתַן לָהּ אַחֵר מַתָּנָה וְאָמַר לָהּ. עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא לְבַעֲלֵיךְ רְשׁוּת בָּהֶן. שֶׁלָּהּ הֵן. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתַּנְייָה. בַּמְשַׁלֶּטֶת עַל נְכָסָיו. וְאִם בָּא וּמִיחָה לֹא קָֽדְשָׁה. וְאִם לָאו קָֽדְשָׁה. HALAKHAH: “A woman who had made a vow of nazir,” etc. Does this mean it became holy by dedication73Since in the absence of a contract to the opposite, all property of the wife’s is administered by her husband, how can the wife dedicate animals for her sacrifices without asking her husband to do it for her?? But if a third person gave her a gift and said, on condition that your husband have no right of disposition over it74This is one scenario in which the husband has no say in what she does. (Cf. Nedarim 11:8, Notes 69–70; Babli 24b.), then it is hers. Rebbi Mattaniah said, if he gave her power over his properties75The husband gives her the right to sign for everything concerning their properties. In this case, she is able to dedicate the animals but he retains veto power. In the scenario described in Note 63, he has no veto power.. If he comes to protest, it did not become holy; otherwise, it became holy.
תַּמָּן אַתְּ מוֹצֵא אוֹמֵר. תִּרְעֶה בָעֵדֶר. וָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר אָכֵן. תַּמָּן הַזָּקֵן עוֹקֵר אֶת הַנֶּדֶר מֵעִיקָּרוֹ. בְּרַם הָכָא אֵינוֹ עוֹקֵר אֶלָּא מִיכָּן וְלָבֹא. There76Mishnah 5:3: If an Elder annuls the vow for which animals already had been reserved, the animals are profane. Why are the wife’s animals not profane if her husband dissolves her vow?, you find it possible to say, “it should go grazing”, and here, you say so? There, the Elder eliminates the vow from the start; here, he77The husband. In the Babli, 19a, the question of the reach of the husband’s action remains unanswered. Only for the Elder, the Babli agrees, Ketubot 74b. eliminates only from that moment onwards.
מִי מֵיפֵר אֶת שֶׁעָלֶיהָ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. גְּזֵירַת הַכָּתוּב הִיא. הֵפֵר אֶת נִדְרָהּ. הֵפֵר אֶת מַה שֶׁעָלֶיהָ. מִי שֶׁהוּא הֵיפֵר נִדְרָהּ הוּא מֵיפֵר מַה שֶׁעָלֶיהָ. Who dissolves her obligations78It is agreed that Num. 30 gives the husband the right to dissolve his wife’s vows. But where is it written that the husband can eliminate the sacrifices which are implied by his wife’s vow?? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is a decree of Scripture: “He dissolved her vow;” he dissolved her obligation79Num. 30:9: “If on the day of his hearing he stops her and dissolves her vow [and] obligations.”. The one who dissolved her vow dissolved her obligation.
תַּנֵּי. אֵין טְעוּנִין לֹא לֶחֶם וְלֹא זְרוֹעַ. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה בָּעֵי. שְׁלָמִים בָּאִין לְאַחַר מִיתָה. (בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן) מָהוּ שֶׁיִּטָעֲנוּ לֶחֶם. חָזַר וָמַר. וְכֵן בַּחַיִים. לֹא עַל הַבַּטָּלָה הֵן בָּאִין. אַתְּ אָמַר. טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם. וָכָא טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. פְּשִׁיטָה לְרִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה בִּשְׁלָמִים הַבָּאִין לְאַחַר הֲפָרָה שֶׁאֵין טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם. מַה בֵין מִיתָה מַה בֵין הֲפָרָה. מִיתָה כְּבָר נִרְאוּ לְהִיטָּעֵן לֶחֶם. הֲפָרָה לֹא נִרְאוּ לְהִטָּעֵן לֶחֶם. תַּנֵּי. אָשָׁם לְאַחַר הֲפָרָה. אֵין אָשָׁם לְאַחַר מִיתָה. מֵתָה אֵין אֲשָׁמָהּ קָרֵב. שֶׁאֵין לָךְ אָשָׁם קָרֵב לְאַחַר מִיתָה. הֵיפֶר לָהּ אֲשָׁמָהּ קָרֵב. שֶׁאֵין לָךְ אָשָׁם בָּא עַל הַבַּטָּלָה כָזֶה. It was stated: They81The sacrifices offered after a vow of nazir was dissolved. The Mishnah mentions that no bread is offered; it is a logical consequence that the officiating Cohen does not receive a foreleg from the goat offered as well-being sacrifice since Num. 6:19 makes the gift of the foreleg dependent on the gift of bread. need neither bread nor foreleg. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Do well-being sacrifices which are brought after death82If the estate of a deceased person included animals dedicated for well-being sacrifices, the heirs have to offer these animals in the Temple. need bread? He turned around and said, is it not the same during his lifetime, do they not come for nothing83A person made a vow for sacrifices and afterwards dedicated certain animals to satisfy his vow. If then these animals were lost or ran away, he dedicated other animals and offered them; when afterwards the original animals are found, they have to be sacrificed; this is “for nothing” since the vow already was fulfilled.? You say, they need bread, and here they need bread. Rebbi Yose said, it is obvious for Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya that well-being sacrifices which are brought after dissolution do not need bread84Since this is stated in our Mishnah. The question is why did R. Abun bar Ḥiyya not conclude (with the Babli, 24b) from the Mishnah that well-being sacrifices after the dedicator’s death do not need bread?. What is the difference between death and dissolution? In the case of death, they already were prepared to need bread; In the case of dissolution, they never were prepared to need bread85In the case of animals dedicated to fulfill a vow of well-being offerings, they can immediately be brought to the Temple and offered. But a well-being offering for a vow of nazir cannot be brought before the period of the vow has expired; before that time the dedication is potential, rather than actual.. It was stated: There is a reparation sacrifice after dissolution86If the wife became impure before her vow was annulled, she incurred the obligation of a reparation sacrifice. If the husband then dissolves her vow, the obligation is not dissolved since his action is not retroactive (Note 77).; there is no reparation sacrifice after death87Reparation sacrifices are parallel to purification sacrifices (Lev. 7:7). Since purification sacrifices after death are impossible, so are reparation sacrifices.. If she died, her reparation sacrifice is not offered, since there is no reparation sacrifice after death. If he dissolved for her, her reparation sacrifice is offered since that reparation sacrifice does not come for nothing.
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. מוֹתָר נְזִירִים לַנְּזִירִים. מוֹתָר נָזִיר לִנְדָבָה. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא. וְהוּא שֶׁקָּֽרְבָה חַטָּאתוֹ בַּסּוֹף. וְאִם קָֽרְבוּ שְׁלָמָיו בַּסּוֹף מוֹתָרוֹ שְׁלָמִים. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. אֲפִילוּ קָֽרְבוּ שְׁלָמָיו לְבַסּוֹף הֲלָכָה אַחַת הִיא בַּנָּזִיר שֶׁתְּהֵא מוֹתָרוֹ נְדָבָה. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייעָא לְדֵין וּמַתְנִיתָא מְסַייעָה לְדֵין. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייעָא לְרִבִּי זְעִירָא. אֵילּוּ הֵן מָעוֹת סְתוּמִין. כָּל־שֶׁדְּמֵי חַטָּאוֹת מֵיתוֹת מְעוּרָבוֹת בָּהֶן. וַאֲפִילוּ הִפְרִישׁ דְּמֵי חַטָּאוֹת מֵתוֹת מִתּוֹכָן מָעוֹת סְתוּמִין הֵן. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייעָא לְרַב חִסְדָּא. אֵילּוּ לְחַטָּאתִי וְהַשְּׁאָר לִנְזִירוּתִי. וָמֵת. מוֹעֲלִין בְּכוּלָּן וְאֵינָן מוֹעֲלִין בְּמִקְצָתָן. וְלֹא אָמַר. וְאִם מֵת יִפְּלוּ בִּנְדָבָה. There, we have stated88Mishnah Šeqalim 2:6.: “Leftovers for nezirim are for nezirim; what is left over from a nazir is for donation89If moneys were collected to help indigent nezirim with the expenses of their sacrifices but not all was used, the remainder has to be kept in trust to be used in the future for the same purpose. But if a person dedicated his own money for his sacrifices and had money left over, that should go to the account for offerings (Note 68)..” Rav Ḥisda said, only if his purification offering was presented last. But if his well-being offering waspresented last, what is left over is for a well-being offering90Mishnah Šeqalim 2:6 also states that leftovers of monies for purification offerings go to the offerings account, but leftovers for well-being offerings must be used for well-being offerings.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, even if his well-being offering was presented last, it is a general rule for a nazir that his leftover be for donation91Overriding the general rules of Mishnah Šeqalim 2:6. In the Babli, 25a, this rule is attributed to R. Joḥanan (and, therefore, declared to be practice to be followed.). A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze‘ira: “The following are undesignated monies: any which contain money for purification offerings that should die. Even if he designated money for purification offerings that should die, it remains undesignated.92This refers to Mishnah Meʻilah 3:2 which decrees that money left over from unspecified funds set aside for nazir’s sacrifices must be given to the Temple’s offering account. Such money can be used for elevation or well-being offerings only if absolutely no money of purification offerings is mixed in (since one has to avoid the danger that the value of purification offerings be totally lost if anything goes wrong with that kind of sacrifice.)” A baraita supports Rav Ḥisda: “This is for my purification offering and the rest for my nezirut93The required elevation and well-being offerings.. Then he died. One commits larceny with all of them but not with part of them94Since well-being offerings are not subject to larceny by its owner, misappropriation cannot be prosecuted unless one can prove that money for elevation offerings is involved..”95A different version of this baraita is in the Babli, 26b; Tosephta Meʻilah 1:10. It does not say, when he died it should be given for donation.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא. מוֹתָר לֶחֶם נָזִיר יִרְקַב. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְיֵאוּת. לְהַקְרִיבוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ אֵי אַתָּה יָכוֹל. שֶׁאֵין לָךְ אָשָׁם קָרֵב בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. לְהַקְרִיבוֹ עִם נְזִירוּת אֲחֶרֶת אֵין אַתְּ יָכוֹל. שֶׁאֵין לָךְ נְזִירוּת בָּאָה עַל לֶחֶם. לְפוּם כֵּן צָרַךְ לוֹמַר. מוֹתָר לֶחֶם נָזִיר יִרְקַב. סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר. הוּא מוֹתַר לַחְמוֹ הוּא מוֹתַר נְסָכָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. מוֹתַר נְסָכָיו קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים אִינּוּן יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. שְׁמוּאֵל וְרַב חִסְדָּא וְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר שְׁלָשְׁתָּן אָֽמְרוּ דָבָר אֶחָד. רַב חִסְדָּא. הָהֵן דְהָכָא. שְׁמוּאֵל. דָּמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. עַד תַּמָּן שְׁמַעִת קָל רַב יְהוּדָה שְׁאַל לְרַבֵּינוּ שְׁמוּאֵל. הִפְרִישׁ שִׁקְלוֹ וָמֵת. אָמַר לֵיהּ. יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. מוֹתָר עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה שֶׁלּוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. יוֹלִיכֵם לְיַם הַמֶּלַח. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אוֹמֵר. יִפְּלוּ בִנְדָבָה Rav Ḥisda said, a nazir’s leftover bread shall be left to decay. Rebbi Yose said, that is correct. You cannot sacrifice it by itself since (reparation sacrifices)96Instead of אָשָׁם “reparation sacrifice” one has to read לֶחֶם “bread”. While there are all kinds of offerings of flour and baked goods (Lev. 2), no offering of bread alone is authorized. cannot be brought alone. You cannot sacrifice it together with another nazir’s since no nazir sacrifices without bread97Also, nowhere do we find a procedure to redeem sacrificial bread.. Therefore, it was necessary to say that a nazir’s leftover bread shall be left to decay. They wanted to say, the same rule applies to his leftover bread as to his leftover wine offering98Required in Num. 6:15, following the rules of Num. 15:1–16.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, his leftover wine offering is most holy; it should be given to donation accounts99Since all leftovers of sacrifices characterized as “most holy” are to be given to the donation account of the Temple (Mishnah Šeqalim 2:5).. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Samuel, Rav Ḥisda, and Rebbi Eleazar, all three said the same. Rav Ḥisda, as quoted here100About wine offerings, in the interpretation of R. Yose ben R. Abun.. Samuel, as Rebbi Yasa101For historical reasons, one has to read ר׳ יסא instead of ר׳ יוסי. said, when I still was there102In Babylonia., I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking our teacher Samuel: If he designated his sheqel and died? He said, it should be given as donation103But leftover money to be used for the Temple tax of a living person is profane (Mishnah Šeqalim 2:5).. The leftover of his tenth of an epha104To buy the required flour offering belonging to a purification offering.: Rebbi Joḥanan said, he should bring it to the Dead Sea; Rebbi Eleazar said, it should be given as donation105Mishnah (Mishnah Šeqalim 2:5)..
רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רַב. מָעוֹת סְתוּמִין. אֵין בְּהֵמָה סְתוּמָה. אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. יָכוֹל לֹא יֵצֵא בְקָרְבָּן אָבִיו בִּבְהֵמָה שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ מִן הַקַּלָּה לַחֲמוּרָה וּמִן הַחֲמוּרָה לַקַּלָּה מִן הַקַּלָּה לַקַּלָּה וּמִן הַחֲמוּרָה לַחֲמוּרָה. שֶׁכֵּן אֵינוֹ מְגַלֵּחַ עַל בְּהֵמַת אָבִיו נְזִירוּת. אֲבָל יֵצֵא בְקָרְבָּן אָבִיו בְּמָעוֹת שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ מִן הַקַּלָּה לַחֲמוּרָה וּמִן הַחֲמוּרָה לַקַּלָּה וּמִן הַקַּלָּה לַקַּלָּה וּמִן הַחֲמוּרָה לַחֲמוּרָה. שֶׁכֵּן הוּא מְגַלֵּחַ עַל מָעוֹת נְזִירוּת. בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן סְתוּמִין לֹא בִזְמַן שֶׁהֵן מְפוֹרָשִׁין. תִּלְמוּד לוֹמַר קָרְבָּנוֹ. בְּקָרְבָּנוֹ הוּא יוֹצֵא. אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא בְקָרְבָּנוֹ שֶׁלְּאָבִיו. כְּשֶׁהוּא אֶצֶל הַמָּעוֹת הוּא מַזְכִּיר סְתוּמִין. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Money can be non-designated, no animal can be non-designated106Money can be used to buy any animal; an animal usually defines the sacrifice for which it can be used: A female exclusively for a purification offering, a young male for an elevation offering, an older animal for a well-being offering. The same argument is in the Babli, 26b.. Rav Sheshet said, it was stated thus: 107Sifra Wayyiqra II Parašah 6(2), Babli 27b, Keritut 27b.“I might think that one could not satisfy his obligation with his father’s sacrifice, with an animal which he dedicated, whether from a minor sin for a major sin108A minor sin is one not punished either by divine exstirpation or by capital punishment. The latter are major sins. Since all purification offerings are the same, if it were possible to use one’s father’s designated purification offering for oneself, it would not matter for which sin his father designated the animal., or from a major sin for a minor sin, or from a minor sin for a minor sin, or from a major sin for a major sin, since he cannot shave for his nezirut with his father’s animal; but he could satisfy his obligation with his father’s sacrifice, with money he dedicated, whether from a minor sin for a major sin, or from a major sin for a minor sin, or from a minor sin for a minor sin, or from a major sin for a major sin, since he can shave on money for his nezirut, any time it is not designated, but not if it is designated. The verse says109For purification offerings, Lev. 4:29,32. For the nazir, Num. 6:14. The mention of his sacrifice in Lev. 4:32 is redundant; this is given as motivation for the restrictive interpretation of all three verses., ‘his sacrifice’, he can only satisfy his obligation with his sacrifice, not with his father’s sacrifice.” Talking about money, one mentions “not designated”.110But non-designated animals are not mentioned. This is Rav Sheshet’s support for Rebbi Abba’s statement.
בְּהֵמָה אֵין עָלֶיהָ הִילְכוֹת סְתוּמִין כַּתְּחִילָּה. יֵשׁ עָלֶיהָ הִילְכוֹת סְתוּמִין בַּסּוֹף. מָעוֹת יֵשׁ עֲלֵיהֶן הִילְכוֹת סְתוּמִין בַּתְּחִילָּה. וְאֵין עֲלֵיהֶן הִילְכוֹת סְתוּמִין בַּסּוֹף. מָעוֹת יֵשׁ עֲלֵיהֶן הִילְכוֹת סְתוּמִין בַּתְּחִילָּה. דְּתַנִּינָן. הָיוּ לָ[הּ] מָעוֹת סְתוּמִין יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. בְּהֵמָה יֵשׁ עָלֶיהָ הִילְכוֹת סְתוּמִין בַּסּוֹף. דִּתְנַן. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. הֵבִיא שָׁלֹשׁ בְּהֵמוֹת וְלֹא פֵירֵשׁ. יֵשׁ עֲלֵיהֶן הִילְכוֹת סְתוּמִין בַּתְּחִילָּה. דִּתְנַן. אֵילּוּ לְחַטָּאתִי וּשְׁאָר לִשְׁאַר נְזִירוּתִי. וָמֵת. מוֹעֲלִין בְּכוּלָּן וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בְּמִקְצָתָן. אֵין עֲלֵיהֶן הִילְכוֹת סְתוּמִין בַּסּוֹף. כְּשֶׁהֵבִיא מְעוֹת וְחִילְלָן עַל בְּהֵמָה. הִפְרִישׁ חֲמוֹר כְּמַפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת. הִפְרִישׁ שׁוֹר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר לוּלִייָנִי תְּרֵיהוֹן אָֽמְרִין בְשֵׁם שַׁמַּי. חַד אָמַר. כְּמַפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת. וְחַד אָמַר. כְּמַפְרִישׁ בְּהֵמָה. An animal is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning111Cf. Note 106., but it is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end112If an animal develops a defect and can no longer be offered on the altar, it must be redeemed and the redemption money may be used for any type of offering.. Money is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, but it is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end113Cf. Note 121.. Money is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, as we have stated: “If he had money not designated, it should be given as donation.” An animal is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end114As written, this is a non sequitur. It seems that one has to read: An animal is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning., as we have stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if he brought three animals but did not explain.115Mishnah 6:12. If somebody brings his three animals to the Temple without specification, the officiating priests do not have to ask him to designate the animals for specific offerings since the situation is clear, cf. Note 106.” They are subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning,116This must read: Money is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end. as we have stated117Tosephta Meʻilah 1:10. The text there is more complete: “ ‘These are for my purification offering, the remainder is for the rest of my nezirut’, when he died. The money’s worth of the purification offering shall be thrown into the Dead Sea; one may not use it but there can be no larceny. The remainder may be used for either elevation or well-being offerings. One commits larceny about all but one cannot commit larceny about a part.”
If the moneys were under the rules of the non-designated, any surplus would have to be used for donation, i. e., to buy elevation offerings. Since it may also be used for well-being offerings, it is not subject to these rules.: “ ‘These are for my purification offering, the remainder is for the rest of my nezirut’, when he died. One commits larceny about all but one cannot commit larceny about a part118Since no money destined for well-being offerings can be misappropriated by its owner..” It is not subject119One has to read: “An animal is subject”, cf. Note 112. to the rules of the non-designated at the end, when he brought money and redeemed it for an animal. If he designated a donkey120An animal unfit as sacrifice is simply representing its money’s worth., it is as if he designated money. If he designated an ox121A sacrificial animal in general, but not for a nazir who is required to offer one female and one male sheep, and one male goat. The Babli rules that the animal must be treated as a sacrifice unless it be blemished, when it follows the rules of money (27b)., Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Ḥiyya ben Julianus, both speak in Shammai’s name. One says, he is like one who designates money; the other says, he is like one who designates an animal122It cannot be redeemed unless it develops a blemish; Lev. 27:10..