QUESTION: The Mishnah (30a) teaches that if a Nazir set aside money for his Korbanos of Nezirus and then died, his son may use that money for his own Korbanos of Nezirus. Rebbi Yochanan teaches that this is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai.
Rabah asks how the money is to be used when more than one heir is a Nazir? Is the money divided equally among the sons like any inheritance, or is the money given to the first son (either the first who uses it or the first who became a Nazir)?
Rava asks how the money is to be used when one son is a Bechor (firstborn). Does the Bechor receive a double portion ("Pi Shenayim") of the money just as he receives a double portion of the rest of the estate, or does the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai state that it is to be distributed differently from the rest of the estate?
Rava continues and asks that if the money is considered part of the estate, "is it only with Chulin that the Bechor takes a double portion, or even with Hekdesh?"
What is Rava's second question? The money which the father set aside obviously was Hekdesh, since the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai applies only to Ma'os Setumin (unspecified money designated for Korbanos) which the father set aside for his Korbenos Nazir, as the Mishnah says. If the money is Chulin, it obviously is divided among the brothers in the same manner the rest of the Chulin assets of the father's estate are divided.
(a) The ROSH seems to understand that Rava does not ask a second question. Rather, the Gemara itself is adding explanation to Rava's question. Rava emphasizes that even if the money clearly is treated like a Yerushah, there is still reason not to give a double portion to the Bechor. Not all types of assets in a Yerushah are distributed to the Bechor according to "Pi Shenayim" (such as assets which are "Ra'uy"); perhaps Hekdesh is treated like those assets which the Bechor and other sons divide equally. (Perhaps a reason why the money is comparable to Ra'uy is that the sons cannot use it until the end of their Nezirus period.)
(b) RABEINU TAM (cited by Tosfos DH Ba'i) explains that Rava's second question applies even if the Bechor does receive a double portion of the money. Perhaps he receives a double portion only if the father designated the money by saying, "This money is for my Nezirus." If the father designated the money by saying, "This money is for the Korbanos of my Nezirus," perhaps the Bechor divides the money equally with the other sons.
What is the difference between the two statements? In either case the money should be Hekdesh since the father designated the money for his Nezirus, and it should make no difference whether he mentioned "the Korbanos" of his Nezirus or not.
The Rosh (who calls this explanation "strange") seems to understand that the Gemara is asking about the extent of the application of the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. Perhaps it applies only to money (Ma'os Setumin) set aside for Nezirus, in which case he may use the money for any or all of the Korbanos. On the other hand, perhaps it applies even to money that was set aside for "Korbenos Nezirus" and must be used for all three Korbanos and not for any individual Korban (see Tosfos, beginning of 25a).
The Rosh points out that according to this explanation, Rava's second question is unrelated to the case of a Bechor. Why, then, does Rava pose his question in a case in which the father has two sons and one is a Bechor? He should ask the same question in a case in which the father has one son!
Perhaps Rabeinu Tam' means something else. Rava's question is whether the Bechor receives "Pi Shenayim" of money of Hekdesh when the Hekdesh is "Mevurar," clearly specified, such as when the father said that the money will be used for three specific Korbanos. When the money is not specified, but instead may be used for any one, or all three, of the Korbanos, Rava maintains that it is obvious that the money should be treated like Chulin and the Bechor should receive "Pi Shenayim" the same way he receives his share from the rest of the estate. The logic for this view may be that when the option still exists to make the money into whichever Korban he wants, the sons may put the money to use immediately by declaring for which Korban it will be used. If, on the other hand, the money is already designated for specific Korbanos, the sons cannot use it until they actually bring those specific Korbanos.
(c) The MEFARESH explains that the second question of Rava relates to the status of the meat of the Korban after the sons offer it as a Korban Nazir. Even if the Bechor receives two thirds of the money for his Nezirus, perhaps his benefits as a Bechor extend only to the right to spend the money on the purchase of animals for his Nezirus. However, once the animal is sacrificed and its meat is ready to be eaten, the brothers must divide the meat equally, since a Bechor does not receive "Pi Shenayim" from assets that are Hekdesh.
Why, though, should the Bechor not be entitled to eat all of the meat of his own Korban? Perhaps the Mefaresh follows the view of RASHI in Bava Kama (12b, DH Aval l'Achar; see Tosfos there) who explains that even when the owner eats the meat of his own Korban, his portion is granted to him from "Shulchan Gavo'ah" -- it is granted to him from Hash-m. In the case of the Gemara here, although the son is the one who offers the Korban, the father is still considered the owner. Since the father is not alive, however, the beneficiary rights from "Shulchan Gavo'ah" go to his sons, who are "b'Kar'a d'Avuha," an extension of their father. The question of the Gemara is whether these rights that come because they are an extension of the father grant the Bechor a double portion, or whether the Bechor divides the meat equally with the other brothers because it is not a Yerushah.
(See also the OR SAME'ACH, Hilchos Nachalos 2:1, and CHIDUSHEI RABEINU MEIR SIMCHAH here for other approaches.)