Question: According to R. Yishmael, who said above (19a) that Olah is not a gift, and it is not offered when her husband annulled her, does he argue with our Mishnah here?

It explicitly teaches that the Olah is offered like an Olah, even though her husband annulled her!

Answer: Even R. Yishmael agrees about a Nazir Tahor that Olas Behemah is a gift;

Only regarding Nazir Tamei, about whom it is written "v'Chiper", and Olah (Olas ha'Of) is written in that verse, he understands that also Olah comes for Kaparah.

Explanation: This is like the stringency of Shalmei Nazir.

Implied question: According to the opinion that a husband uproots [a vow, she was never a Nazir. There is no reason to be stringent!]

Answer: Since she was Makdish it for the sake of Shalmei Nazir, it should be eaten with their full stringency.

Implied question: The Gemara says that if Shalmei Nazir was slaughtered unlike its Mitzvah, it has no Zero'a (foreleg, that only Kohanim may eat it), and it compares it to this (a Nezirah whose husband annulled her vow. We should apply all stringencies to her Shelamim!)

Answer #1: The Mitzvah of the Zero'a does not apply, i.e. Tenufah (waving it), but in any case it is forbidden [to non-Kohanim] like the stringency of Shalmei Nazir.

Answer #2 (R. Tam): "It has no Zero'a" means that the law of cooking the Zero'a with the [entire] ram does not apply, but it itself is forbidden [to Zarim].

Explanation: [It is not brought with Lachmei Todah] like other Shalmei Nazir, for it says "Al Kapei ha'Nazir", and there is no Nazir here, for he annulled her. If they were already Makdish [bread], it must be redeemed.

Implied question: According to the opinion that a husband uproots [it is Chulin. Why is Pidyon needed?]

Answer: This is a decree lest people say that Hekdesh become Chulin without Pidyon.

Observation: Also if a husband cuts off, one can redeem it, for it has no Kedushas ha'Guf until the Korban (Shalmei Nazir) is slaughtered for it.

Explanation: If he is rich, and she is obligated Korban Oleh v'Yored (a poor person brings birds or a Minchah in place of animals), he must bring Korban Ashir for her. He cannot say "she has nothing. She will bring Korban Oni";

Similarly, for all Korbanos that she is obligated, he must bring a Korban for her.

Limitation: This is only for obligations she is obligated in, e.g. Yoledes or Zavah;

However, Nedarim and Nedavos, she may not vow 1000 Olos a day [and obligate her husband]!

Limitation (Ri): [He must bring for her] obligations she incurred after marrying him, but not what she was obligated before she married him.

Explanation: According to Rabanan, he is not obligated to her through a Tenai Kesuvah.

Question: What is the case in which he is obligated to her, that she can offer his animals if he did not annul her?

Answer: The case is, he was Makneh to her a gift from his animals.

Citation of Gemara: Since he was Makneh to her, it is hers.

Explanation: [The Gemara asks that] we should say that the Chatas must die, just like regarding her animal!

Citation of Gemara: He is Makneh to her [only] something she needs.

Explanation: This is when he did not annul her.

Citation of Gemara: Something she does not need.

Explanation: This is when he annulled her.[ Such matters] he was not Makneh to her.

Explanation (Maharam): We do not discuss when he gave to her now Korbanos Nezirus, for if so, he was Mekayem her vow. After this, he cannot annul!

Note: I do not know why he cannot permit his Kiyum and then annul! (PF)

Rather, he had said to her a long time ago "if you will need Korbanos, take from my animals."

Note: Why did Maharam say "he said so a long time ago." Perhaps if she vowed shortly after he told her, and he did not retract the permission he gave to take his animals, this is like Kiyum. However, even this applies only if he heard her vow. Perhaps she took animals before he heard! (PF)

Question: It says in Kesuvos (59a) that leftover food belongs to her husband!

Answer #1: Here we discuss when he told her "feed yourself from your earnings", and she consented, and her earnings exceeded [the cost of her food]. Surely, [the excess] is hers.

Answer #2 (Maharam): We say that leftover food belongs to her husband, i.e. when they allotted for her a fixed amount of Dinarim per week, and food became cheaper. The allotment suffices for her, and there is leftover. The husband receives the leftover;

Here we discuss when she skimped on her dough. Food did not become cheaper. Rather, she skimped and withheld from her mouth. She did not eat to satiation. Surely, that excess is hers.

Pesak: R. Tam rules like Rav, who said in Nedarim (88a) that one who vows Hana'ah from his son-in-law, and wants to give money to his daughter, says "these coins are a gift to you, provided that your husband has no authority in them, only what you put into your mouth";

Note: This is a Mishnah. I changed the text of Tosfos, because "Amar" connotes that Rav taught this, and Rav said about this, i.e. his own teaching.

Rav taught about this [Mishnah] "this is only when he said "only what you put into your mouth." However, if he said "what you want, do [with the coins]", her husband acquires them.

Implied question: Shmuel argues with [Rav] there, and the Halachah follows Shmuel in monetary laws! (Why does R. Tam rule like Rav?)

Answer: The question was asked regarding Isurim.

Observation: In our Sugya, the Gemara abbreviated. It should say "only what you put into your mouth." (Rav Papa, who is Basra, should hold like the Halachah.)

Implied question: All of these are Mishnayos! (Shmuel should have known all of them!)

Answer #1: Perhaps he asked about after Kaparah, which was not taught explicitly.

Answer #2: All this is from Shmuel's words - "hers" is what we said [in our Sugya]... until he asked him "are there no others? There are other Shalmei Nazir [slaughtered improperly]!"

All this Shmuel asked to Avuha bar Ihi, and he answered that we do not count matters done improperly.

Citation (Me'ilah 11a - Mishnah): If one separated coins for his Nezirus, one may not benefit from them, but there is no Me'ilah [if he did].

Explanation #1: The Isur to benefit from them is mid'Rabanan.

Explanation #2: Even mid'Oraisa it is Asur, even though they can be spent on Shelamim;

This is just like a live Shelamim. Granted, Me'ilah does not apply, but there is a Torah Isur [to benefit from it].

Explanation #1 (Rashi in Menachos 48b): That they were slaughtered Lo Lishmah.

Explanation #2 (Rashi in Menachos 48b): The Torah wrote that the ram must be in its second year. They were "unlike their Mitzvah", for he brought yearlings. They are Kosher for Nedavah of Shelamim.

Inference: The text in Seforim says "and he had [Ma'os Stumim, i.e. unspecified coins]". This implies that it refers to the case of one who separated coins for his Nezirus in Me'ilah (11a), and not our Mishnah here of one who had Ma'os Stumim. ("And he had Ma'os Stumim" is not appropriate, since these words begin a new clause!)

Implied question: Why doesn't he question the Mishnah here?

Answer: We could establish that he said [only] "for Nezirus." Therefore, they go to Nedavah (Olos Nedavah of the Tzibur), for if he wanted, he could have brought all of them for an Olah. (Perhaps the text should say "for my Nezirus." Birkas Rosh is Magihah like this at the top of the coming Daf.)

However, the Mishnah there is difficult. You are forced to say that we discuss when he said "for the Korbanos of my Nezirus" [so some must be used for each of the three Korbanos, including the Chatas]. If not, why did it teach "Ma'os Stumim"? The previous case there discussed Stumim!

Note: There, it says "one who separated coins for his Nezirus... If he died and had Ma'os Stumim..." Why did it need to say "and had Ma'os Stumim"? We must say that this is a different case of Stumim, i.e. he said "for the Korbanos of my Nezirus", so some must be used for Chatas].

However, in our Mishnah here, until now we discuss animals, and now we begin to discuss the law of Ma'os Stumim. (Perhaps he said only "for Nezirus.") Therefore, we ask about what it taught there "Stumim fall [to Nedavah]." This is a comment.

Explanation: [Since they include money of Chatas, we ask] how can they fall to Nedavah?

Implied question: We could have asked "money of Shelamim is mixed in. It is not Kalil (totally burned on the Mizbe'ach). How can the coins fall to Nedavah, for Olos when the Mizbe'ach is idle, which is Kalil?

Answer: We ask a stronger question from Chatas, which may not be offered at all after [the owner] died. Rather, [the coins] must go to the Dead Sea (no one may benefit from them).

Question: We should have answered that [they fall to Nedavah] because all of them could have been used for Olah, like we said above "because all of them could have been used for Shelamim"!

Note: The last Tosfos already answered this, like Tosfos says below (Answer #2). Above was a comment added later to Tosfos.

Answer #1: Here, when he is alive, it is possible to say that he would reconsider [and use all for one Korban, and add money for the others];

However, when he died, the concept of reconsidering does not apply. They are like the initial separation. It is as if he specified that they will be used also for Chatas.

Answer #2: We say that he could have changed to use all of them for Shelamim, only when he said "these coins are for my Nezirus";

This implies "if I want, I will bring an Olah with a third of them, a Chatas with a third of them, and a Shelamim with a third of them. Or, if I want, I will bring a Chatas from all of them, or a Shelamim [or Olah] from all of them.