This is necessary lest you say: Although the one who took the vow stood in judgment before he died and the court obligated him, since the object of his vow was not assessed before he died, the property of the one who vowed is not liened to the debt, and consequently the heirs are not obligated to pay. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that the property of the one who took the vow was liened, since he stood in judgment while he was still alive, and the assessment of the object of the vow is considered to be a mere disclosure of the matter, which can be performed after the death of the one who vowed.

MISHNA: In the case of one who says: This bull is consecrated as a burnt offering, or: This house is consecrated as an offering, and the bull died or the house collapsed, he is exempt from paying his commitment. But in the case of one who says: It is incumbent upon me to give this bull as a burnt offering, or: It is incumbent upon me to give this house as an offering, if the bull died or the house collapsed, he is obligated to pay its value.

GEMARA: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rav says: The Sages taught in the mishna only that one who said: It is incumbent upon me to give the monetary value of this bull as a burnt offering, is obligated to pay its value if it dies. But if he said: It is incumbent upon me to give this bull as a burnt offering, since he said: This, thereby referring specifically to that animal, and then the bull died, he does not bear financial responsibility for its loss. And as for his statement: It is incumbent upon me, he did not intend to accept financial responsibility for the loss of the bull. Rather, he meant to say: It is incumbent upon me to bring this bull as an offering to the Temple.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita (Tosefta 3:11): With regard to one who says: This bull is consecrated as a burnt offering, the bull is consecrated property and one who benefits from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property. If the bull dies or is stolen, he does not bear financial responsibility for its loss. If one says: It is incumbent upon me to give this bull as a burnt offering, the bull is consecrated property, and one who benefits from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property. If the bull dies or is stolen, he bears financial responsibility for its loss, despite the fact that he did not vow to give the monetary value of the bull.

The Gemara answers: Is the baraita stronger than the mishna, with regard to which we established that it is referring to a case where he says: The monetary value of the bull? Here too, in the case of the baraita, he says: It is incumbent upon me to give the monetary value of this bull as a burnt offering.

The Gemara objects: But from the fact that the latter clause of the baraita is referring to a case where he says: Monetary value of, it may be inferred that the first clause of the baraita is referring to a case where he does not say monetary value. As it teaches in the latter clause of the baraita (Tosefta 3:12): With regard to one who said: It is incumbent upon me to give the monetary value of this bull as a burnt offering, the bull is non-sacred property and one who benefits from it is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. If the bull dies or is stolen, he does not bear financial responsibility for its loss. But if he sold the bull and received money for the sale, he does bear financial responsibility for that money, since he accepted financial responsibility for the monetary value of the bull in his vow.

The Gemara explains: The first clause and the latter clause of the baraita are both referring to one who says: Monetary value of, in his vow. The difference between them is that the first clause is dealing with one who says: Let the bull be consecrated for its monetary value, and therefore the bull is consecrated and he bears financial responsibility for its value. But the latter clause is referring to one who says: When this bull shall be sold, the money received from the sale shall be consecrated for use as a burnt offering.

The Gemara asks: Can this possibly be the case of the latter clause of the baraita? But a person cannot consecrate an entity that has not yet come into the world, and therefore one cannot consecrate the money he will receive in the future from the sale of the bull. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: A person can consecrate an entity that has not yet come into the world.

Some say a slightly different version of this discussion, that Rav Pappa said to Abaye, and some say Rami bar Ḥama said to Rav Ḥisda: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says that a person can consecrate an entity that has not yet come into the world? Abaye said to him: Rather, in accordance with who else’s opinion could this baraita be? Certainly it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

And some teach this discussion with regard to this baraita (Tosefta, Bava Metzia 8:30): In the case of one who rents a house to another and the house became ritually impure with leprosy, even though a priest confirmed the house as impure, condemning it to be dismantled, as long as the house is still standing its owner may say to the renter: That which is yours is before you, and the owner is not required to compensate the renter. Nevertheless, in accordance with the halakha of a house afflicted with leprosy, once the priest has dismantled the house the owner is obligated to provide a new house for the renter.