רָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן; כִּי מַקְנֵי לָהּ נַמִי – בְּמִלְּתָא דִּצְרִיכָא לָהּ, בְּמִילְּתָא דְּלָא צְרִיכָא לָהּ – לָא מַקְנֵי לָהּ.

Rava said: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and the reason the animal loses its sanctity is that even when he transfers it to her, he does so for a matter that is necessary for her to bring, but for a matter that is not necessary for her to bring, he does not transfer it to her.

״אִם שֶׁלָּהּ הָיְתָה בְּהֶמְתָּהּ חַטָּאת תָּמוּת וְעוֹלָה תִּקְרַב״. הִיא מְנָא לָהּ? הָאָמְרַתְּ: מַה שֶּׁקָּנְתָה אִשָּׁה קָנָה בַּעְלָהּ! אֲמַר רַב פַּפָּא: שֶׁקִּמַּצְתָּהּ מֵעִיסָּתָהּ. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּאַקְנֵי לָהּ אַחֵר, וַאֲמַר לָהּ ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין לְבַעֲלֵיךְ רְשׁוּת בָּהֶן״.

§ The mishna teaches: If the animal was hers, the sin-offering must be left to die and the burnt-offering is sacrificed. The Gemara asks: She, this married woman, from where does she have her own property? Haven’t you said as a principle that with regard to any item that a woman acquires, her husband automatically acquires it from her? Rav Pappa said: This is referring to a case where she saved it from her dough, i.e., she was able to buy the animal with the money she saved by eating less. And if you wish, say instead that another person transferred the property to her, and he said to her that he is doing so on the condition that your husband has no rights to it. In that case the wife is the exclusive owner of the animal.

״הָעוֹלָה תִּקְרַב עוֹלָה וְהַשְּׁלָמִים תִּקְרַב״ כו'. אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לַאֲבוּהּ בַּר אִיהִי: לָא תֵּיתִיב עַל כַּרְעֵיךְ עַד דַּאֲמַרְתְּ לִי הָדָא מִילְּתָא; וְאֵלּוּ הֵן אַרְבָּעָה אֵילִים שֶׁאֵינָן טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם: שֶׁלּוֹ, וְשֶׁלָּהּ, וְשֶׁלְּאַחַר הַמִּיתָה, וְשֶׁלְּאַחַר כַּפָּרָה.

§ The mishna taught that the burnt-offering is sacrificed as a burnt-offering and the peace-offering is sacrificed as a peace-offering. Shmuel said to Avuh bar Ihi: You shall not sit on your feet until you say and explain to me this matter taught in a baraita : And these are the four rams of the nazirite’s offering that do not require bread to be brought with them, in contrast to the usual practice: His, hers, the one brought after death, and the one brought after the nazirite has gained atonement by means of a different offering.

שֶׁלָּהּ – הָא דַּאֲמָרַן. שֶׁלּוֹ – דִּתְנַן: הָאִישׁ מַדִּיר אֶת בְּנוֹ בְּנָזִיר, וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה מַדֶּרֶת אֶת בְּנָהּ בְּנָזִיר. גִּילֵּחַ אוֹ שֶׁגִּילְחוּהוּ קְרוֹבִים, מִיחָה אוֹ שֶׁמִּיחוּהוּ קְרוֹבִים;

The Gemara clarifies this statement: Hers, this is that which we just said, the offering of a woman who separated an animal of her own before her husband proceeded to nullify her vow. His, as we learned in a mishna (28b): A man can vow his son to become a nazirite, i.e., he can apply a vow of naziriteship to his minor son, but a woman cannot vow her son to become a nazirite. If the son objects, either of his own initiative or at the behest of others, his father’s vow is canceled. Consequently, if the boy shaved his hair during the period of naziriteship, thereby demonstrating his desire not to be a nazirite, or if relatives shaved him, or even if the minor performed no action at all but simply objected, or if his relatives made him object, his naziriteship is canceled.

הָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת סְתוּמִין – יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. מָעוֹת מְפוֹרָשִׁין, דְּמֵי חַטָּאת – יֵלְכוּ לְיַם הַמֶּלַח, דְּמֵי עוֹלָה – יָבִיאוּ עוֹלָה, וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן. דְּמֵי שְׁלָמִים – יָבִיאוּ שְׁלָמִים, וְנֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד, וְאֵינָן טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם.

In that case, if he had unallocated funds, which had been consecrated for the child’s offerings but not designated for any particular offering, all the money will be earmarked for communal gift offerings. If he had allocated funds designated for a particular offering, the money for a sin-offering is taken and cast into the Dead Sea; the money for a burnt-offering is brought as a burnt-offering, and one who benefits from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property; and the money for a peace-offering is brought as a peace-offering and it is eaten for one day and does not require bread.

שֶׁלְּאַחַר מִיתָה מְנָלַן – דְּתַנְיָא: הַמַּפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לִנְזִירוּתוֹ – לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן רְאוּיִין לְהָבִיא בְּכוּלָּן שְׁלָמִים.

With regard to a ram that is after its owner’s death, from where do we derive that this offering requires no bread? As it is taught in a mishna ( Me’ila 18a): With regard to one who separates money for his naziriteship without specifying an offering, he may not derive benefit from them, but one who benefits from it is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. Why is he not liable to bring an offering for misuse of consecrated property? It is because the money is fit to bring peace-offerings with all of it, and no misuse is effected by deriving benefit from a peace-offering until after its blood has been sprinkled.

מֵת וְהָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת סְתוּמִים – יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. מָעוֹת מְפוֹרָשִׁין; דְּמֵי חַטָּאת – יוֹלִיךְ לְיַם הַמֶּלַח לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין. דְּמֵי עוֹלָה – יָבִיאוּ עוֹלָה, וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן. דְּמֵי שְׁלָמִים – יָבִיאוּ שְׁלָמִים, וְנֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד, וְאֵינָן טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם.

The mishna continues: If the one who set aside the money died and he had unallocated funds, they are all allocated for communal gift offerings. If he left behind allocated funds, with regard to the money for a sin-offering, one must take it and cast it into the Dead Sea; one may not derive benefit from it but one who benefits from it is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. The money for a burnt-offering is brought as a burnt-offering, and one who benefits from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property. The money for a peace-offering is brought as a peace-offering, and it is eaten for one day and does not require bread. This is the case of a ram after its owner’s death that does not require bread.

שֶׁלְּאַחַר כַּפָּרָה – סְבָרָא הוּא: שֶׁלְּאַחַר הַמִּיתָה מַאי טַעַם – דְּלָא חַזְיָא לְכַפָּרָה, שֶׁלְּאַחַר כַּפָּרָה נַמִי – הָא לָא חַזְיָא לְכַפָּרָה.

As for the ram that is after atonement, whose owner has used a different offering to achieve atonement, the halakha that this offering does not require bread is not taught explicitly. Rather, it is based on logical reasoning: What is the reason that no bread is brought in the case of a ram that is sacrificed after the death of its owner? It is that this offering is not fit for atonement, as no atonement is granted to the dead through offerings. With regard to a ram that is sacrificed after atonement too, it is no longer fit for atonement, as the owner has already gained atonement by means of a different animal.

וְתוּ לֵיכָּא? וְהָאִיכָּא: וּשְׁאָר כָּל שַׁלְמֵי נָזִיר שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא כְּמִצְוָתָן – כְּשֵׁרִים, וְלֹא עוֹלִין לַבְּעָלִים לְשׁוּם חוֹבָה, וְנֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד, וְאֵינָן טְעוּנִין לֹא לֶחֶם וְלֹא זְרוֹעַ.

The Gemara asks: And is there nothing else? Are there no other instances of a peace-offering of a nazirite that does not require bread, apart from the aforementioned cases? But isn’t there the following halakha : And with regard to all the other peace-offerings of a nazirite that were slaughtered not in accordance with their mitzva, e.g., if the ram was not of the proper age, they are fit offerings and may be eaten, but they do not count toward the owner’s obligation, i.e., he must bring another offering. The baraita continues: And these offerings are eaten for one day, like regular peace-offerings of a nazirite, and they require neither bread nor the foreleg, unlike the peace-offering of a nazirite. This is another example of a nazirite’s peace-offering that does not require bread.

כְּמִצְוָתָן קָא חָשֵׁיב, שֶׁלֹּא כְּמִצְוָתָן לָא קָא חָשֵׁיב.

The Gemara answers: In the above list the tanna includes only offerings that were sacrificed in accordance with their mitzva; he does not include animals that were sacrificed not in accordance with their mitzva.

״הָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת סְתוּמִים יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה״.

§ It was stated above, with regard to one who separated money for his naziriteship and then died, that if he had unallocated funds, they are all allocated for communal gift offerings.