(Continuation of Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps one is not Yotzei with money that his father separated, even for sins of the same severity, but he is Yotzei with an animal he separated for himself for a different sin, even if the other sin was of a different severity!

Rejection: "His Korban for his sin" - his Korban must be for the sake of his sin (that it was originally separated for).

Suggestion: If one separated a Korban for eating Chelev and offered it (b'Shogeg) for eating blood, or vice-versa, he did not transgress Me'ilah and did not get atonement. Therefore, even b'Meizid, if one offers an animal he separated for a sin for a different sin, even of the same severity, he was not Yotzei;

But if one separated money for a Korban for eating Chelev and (b'Shogeg) used it to buy a Korban for eating blood, or vice-versa, (the money becomes Chulin and) he transgresses Me'ilah and gets atonement. Perhaps he is Yotzei even b'Meizid with money he separated for himself, even for sins of different severity!

Rejection: "For his sin" - his Korban must be (from money) for the sake of his sin.

(Summation of Rava's question): The Beraisa teaches that a Nazir cannot bring an animal that his father separated for the father's Nezirus (i.e. because it is considered specified).

Suggestion: The Beraisa discusses even a Ba'al Mum.

Answer: No, the Beraisa discusses only a Tam.

Question: If a Ba'al Mum is considered like Stam, why did the Beraisa say that he can bring Korbanos from money that his father separated? It should teach that he can bring a Ba'al Mum that his father separated!

Answer: It does! The Kedushah of a Ba'al Mum is its value. The Mishnah teaches about money, and a Ba'al Mum is included!

(Mishnah): A husband cannot annul the Nezirus of his wife after Zerikah (throwing the blood on the Mizbe'ach) of one of her Korbanos;

R. Akiva says, he cannot annul after slaughter of a Korban;

This applies to (Korbanos brought for) Gilu'ach (shaving after finishing Nezirus in) Taharah. Regarding Gilu'ach Tum'ah, he can annul it, for he can say that he does not want her to become repulsive (by being a Nezirah again).

R. Meir says, even regarding Gilu'ach Taharah, he can annul it, for he can say that he does not want her to shave her hair.

(Gemara): Our Mishnah is unlike R. Eliezer, who says that the Isurim of Nezirus are in effect until he shaves his hair;

If the Mishnah were like R. Eliezer, since she cannot drink wine until she shaves, an element of revulsion remains, and he would be able to annul the Nezirus.

Our Tana permits her to drink wine right after Zerikah, therefore there are no grounds to annul.

R. Akiva does not allow Hafarah after slaughter, for this would cause the Korban to be lost (disqualified).

Question (R. Zeira): We should be able to do Zerikah with intent for a different Korban, and the meat would be permitted!

(Beraisa): If the lambs (Shelamim of the Tzibur, that accompany Shtei ha'Lechem) of Shavuos were slaughtered with intent for a different Korban, or were slaughtered before or after Shavuos, we may do Zerikah, and the meat may be eaten;

If it was Shabbos, Zerikah should not be done. If it was done, the Korban is valid, and the appropriate parts are burned on the Mizbe'ach at night.

Answer: Indeed, if the Olah or Shelamim was slaughtered, we may do Zerikah (with intent for a Nedavah, not for Korban Nezirus), and the Korban is not lost!

The case is, the Chatas was slaughtered first.

(Mishnah): If a Nazir shaved after Zerikah of any of the three Korbanos, he was Yotzei (and may drink wine. Therefore, R. Akiva says that he cannot annul.)

(Mishnah): This applies to Gilu'ach Taharah. If it was Gilu'ach Tum'ah, he can annul, for he can say that he does not want her to become repulsive;

R. Meir says, even regarding Gilu'ach Taharah, he can annul it, for he can say that he does not want her to shave her hair.

The first Tana holds that this is not grounds to annul the Nezirus. She can wear a wig!

R. Meir holds that a man would be repulsed if his wife wore someone else's hair.

(Mishnah): A father can impose Nezirus on his son, but a mother cannot.

If the son shaved or protested, or relatives shaved him or protested (the Nezirus is annulled);

If an animal was designated for the Chatas, it must die. If it was for the Olah, it is offered for an Olah. If it was for the Shelamim, it is offered for a Shelamim, without bread, and may only be eaten for one day.

If money was specified for each Korban, Demei Chatas is thrown into the Dead Sea. We may not benefit from it; if one benefited, he did not transgress Me'ilah;

If he had Ma'os Stumim (coins set aside for the Korbanos, without specifying how much for each Korban), they go to Nedavah.

Demei Olah is used to buy an Olah. If one benefited from the money, he transgressed Me'ilah;

Demei Shelamim is used to buy a Shelamim. It is eaten for one day, and bread is not brought with it.

(Gemara) Question: Why can a father impose on his son, but a mother cannot?

Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): The law is a tradition from Sinai. (We need not give reasons.)