Before us is Mishnah 4 in the fourth chapter of Maseches Nazir, which deals with a woman who took a nazirite vow, set aside the animals for her offerings, and whose husband then annulled her vow.
The text of the Mishnah and its explanation:
"Ha'ishah shenadrah b'nazir v'hifrishah es behemtah, v'achar kach heifer lah ba'alah" - a woman who took a vow of nezirus and completed the days of her nezirus. In order to conclude the nezirus she must bring offerings, and so she set aside the animals she needed for the offerings that conclude the nezirus. But before she managed to bring them, her husband annulled her vow and rendered it null and void.
Even though she actually completed the days of nezirus, since she did not bring the offerings this is not a nezirus that was truly completed. Therefore the annulment takes effect: the nezirus is void, and there is no need to bring the offerings.
The status of the animals that were set aside:
"Im shelo haysah behemtah" - if the animals belonged to the husband, that is, they were his animals which she is permitted to use for her needs and to bring for her offerings, then "teitzei v'sireh ba'eder" - it goes out and grazes with the flock. Once the husband nullified the very taking effect of the nezirus, the offerings are no longer needed, and the animals cannot be considered sanctified: it turns out retroactively that she had no power to consecrate them, since they are not hers, and the husband has made known that he does not want the nezirus to take effect. Therefore they bear no sanctity at all, and they return to graze with the flock.
"Im shelah haysah behemtah" - if the animals belong to her, for example they were given to her as a gift on condition that her husband have no ownership of them whatsoever, then consecrating them is entirely within her authority. Even though he annulled the vow, we cannot say that by force of the annulment he does not want the animals to be sanctified, since the animals are hers alone. Once she consecrated them, the sanctity stands; it is only that they can no longer be used.
Since the sanctified animals can no longer be used, these are their laws:
"Hachatas tamus" - the sin offering must die. They would shut it into an enclosed place without food until it died. It is a rule that a sin offering whose owner died, or where the owners already achieved atonement with a different animal and this one remained, must be put to death. Here too, since the woman is no longer obligated in the offerings of nezirus, it is like a sin offering whose owner died, and therefore the animal dies.
"V'ha'olah tikrav olah" - this is not a nazirite burnt offering but simply a voluntary burnt offering, for a person may bring a burnt offering as a gift. With a sin offering this is not possible.
"V'hashelamim yikrevu shelamim" - the peace offering is brought as a voluntary offering, except that the laws of a voluntary peace offering and the laws of a nazirite's peace offering differ from one another. Since this animal was originally consecrated as a nazirite's peace offering, some of the laws of a nazirite's peace offering are retained: it may be eaten for one day only, on the day of slaughter and the following night, unlike an ordinary peace offering which may be eaten on the day of slaughter, that night, and the next day. On the other hand, "ein te'unin lechem" - they do not require bread; the breads of a nazir are not brought with it, those meal offerings and breads that accompany a nazirite's peace offering, since she is not a nezirah.
If she set aside money rather than animals:
What is the law if she did not actually set aside animals, but money to purchase the offerings of nezirus, and she had not yet designated which money was intended for which offering? This money is placed in the charity boxes called 'nedavah', and from it voluntary burnt offerings are brought on behalf of the public.
But if she set aside the money for the offerings of nezirus and did designate which money was intended for each offering, these are the laws:
Money for the sin offering: it is thrown into the Dead Sea, since it cannot be used. And although it must be disposed of, it is not subject to the law of me'ilah: ordinarily one who derives benefit from consecrated property improperly must bring a me'ilah offering, but this money is not designated to serve any consecrated purpose, only to be destroyed, and therefore it is not fully sanctified and there is no me'ilah. Nevertheless, it is forbidden to derive benefit from it in the first place.
Money for the burnt offering: a voluntary burnt offering is brought with it, and with this money there is an obligation of me'ilah, since it is fit to be used for a burnt offering.
Money for the peace offering: a voluntary peace offering is brought with it. And as explained regarding an animal that was set aside, it is eaten for one day and does not require bread. There is no me'ilah with it, since peace offerings are not subject to the laws of me'ilah.
In summary: in this Mishnah we learned that a woman who completed the days of her nezirus and set aside the animals for her offerings, and whose husband annulled her vow before she brought them, has her nezirus voided. Animals that belonged to the husband go out and graze with the flock, since retroactively she had no power to consecrate them; animals that were hers remain in their sanctity, and therefore the sin offering must die, the burnt offering is brought as a voluntary burnt offering, and the peace offering is brought as a peace offering that is eaten for one day and does not require bread. We also learned the law of the money: money that was not designated for a particular offering is given to the 'nedavah' boxes, money for a sin offering is thrown into the Dead Sea and is not subject to me'ilah, money for a burnt offering is used for a voluntary burnt offering and is subject to me'ilah, and money for a peace offering is used for a voluntary peace offering.