Nazir

MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN MAKES A NAZIRITE VOW AND SETS ASIDE THE REQUISITE ANIMAL [FOR THE SACRIFICE] AND HER HUSBAND SUBSEQUENTLY DECLARES [THE VOW] VOID, THEN, IF THE ANIMAL WAS ONE OF HIS OWN, IT CAN BE PUT TO PASTURE WITH THE HERD,  BUT IF IT WAS ONE OF HERS, THE SIN-OFFERING IS TO BE LEFT TO DIE, THE BURNT-OFFERING IS TO BE OFFERED AS AN [ORDINARY] BURNT-OFFERING, AND THE PEACE-OFFERING IS TO BE OFFERED AS AN [ORDINARY] PEACE-OFFERING. THIS [LAST], HOWEVER, MAY BE EATEN FOR ONE DAY [ONLY],  AND REQUIRES NO LOAVES.  IF SHE HAS A LUMP SUM OF MONEY  [SET ASIDE FOR THE PURCHASE OF SACRIFICES]. IT IS TO BE USED FOR FREE-WILL OFFERINGS;  IF EARMARKED MONEY,  THE PRICE OF THE SIN-OFFERING IS TO BE TAKEN TO THE DEAD SEA;  THE USE OF IT IS FORBIDDEN, BUT INVOLVES NO MALAPPROPRIATION;  FOR THE SUM SET ASIDE FOR THE BURNT-OFFERING, A BURNT-OFFERING IS TO BE PROVIDED, THE USE OF WHICH INVOLVES MALAPPROPRIATION;  WHILST FOR THE SUM SET ASIDE FOR THE PEACE-OFFERING, A PEACE-OFFERING IS TO BE PROVIDED, WHICH MAY BE EATEN FOR ONE DAY [ONLY] AND REQUIRES NO LOAVES. GEMARA. Who is the Tanna [of our Mishnah, who intimates] that the husband is not liable for the wife's [sacrifices]?  — R. Hisda said: It is the Rabbis, for if you suppose it is R. Judah [then since he is liable,] why should [the animals] be sent to pasture with the herd?  For it has been taught: R. Judah says: A man [who can afford to do so] must offer the rich man's sacrifice  on his wife's behalf, as well as all other sacrifices for which she may be liable. For thus does he write to her [in the marriage settlement, viz.: I shall pay] every claim you may have against me from before up to now. Raba said: It may even be R. Judah. [The reply to R. Hisda's objection being that the husband] is liable only for something which she needs, but not for something which she does not need. Another version [of the above discussion is as follows]. Who is the Tanna [of our Mishnah]? — R. Hisda said: It is R. Judah,  [the husband, however,] being liable only for something that she needs, but not for something that she does not need.  For if it were the Rabbis [do they not say that] he is not liable for her [sacrifices] at all?  The only possible interpretation of the liability [implicit in the Mishnah]  would be that he transferred [the animals] to her, but on transference it becomes her own property.