said: That is only when the nazirite's sin-offering was sacrificed last, after he offered his burnt-offering and his peace-offering. In that case, any extra leftover money must be used for a free-will offering, as taught earlier in the mishna. However, if he already brought his burnt-offering and sin-offering, and the peace-offering was sacrificed last, the leftover money that he set aside for his sacrifices must be used for a peace-offering, as with all leftover funds of peace-offerings. Rabbi Ze'eira said: This is not so. Rather, even if the peace-offering was sacrificed last, there is one consistent halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai with regard to the nazirite, that the leftover money from that which he set aside for his nazirite offerings must be used for free-will offerings. The Gemara comments: A baraita supports this one and a different baraita supports that one. One baraita supports the opinion of Rabbi Ze'eira, as it was taught in a mishna (Me'ila 11b) that in the case of a nazirite who dies after he had set aside a lump sum for all his sacrifices, the money is to be used for free-will burnt-offerings. The baraita elaborates: Which coins are considered unspecified coins? Any money that has money mixed in it for sin-offerings whose owners have died, as when he set aside this money he specified that it would be used for all of his sacrifices, including the sin-offering. And even if he had set aside the money for sin-offerings from the rest of the money designated for the offerings, all the money is considered unspecified money. Once the nazirite dies, the money that he set aside is used for free-will offerings. Apparently, this applies even if he brought the peace-offering last. Therefore, this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ze'eira. A baraita supports the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, as it was taught with regard to a nazirite who set aside money for his sacrifices and did not initially specify which coins were designated for which sacrifice, and then took some of that money and said: This money is designated for my sin-offering, and the rest is designated for the rest of my nazirite offerings, and he died before actually purchasing the offerings. The money designated for the sin-offering must be cast into the Dead Sea. With regard to the rest of the money, half must be used for burnt-offerings and half for peace-offerings. If one used the money that was designated for peace-offerings and burnt-offerings for his own purposes he is guilty of misuse of consecrated property only if he used all the money, as that certainly included the money designated for a burnt-offering. However, he is not guilty of misuse of consecrated property if he used only some of it, as it is possible that he used only the portion of the money that was meant for peace-offerings; one who uses that money is not guilty of misuse of consecrated property, since the meat of a peace-offering may be eaten by the owner (Me'ila 7b). Since the author of this baraita did not say: If he died the money must be allocated for communal free-will burnt-offerings, but rather that they are to be used for both burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, it seems that he holds in accordance with Rav Ḥisda; once the nazirite separated the money for his sin-offering from the rest of the money that he set aside, the leftover amount may be used for a peace-offering. This is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ze'eira, who holds that all the money must be used for free-will burnt-offerings.

Since the Gemara mentioned the halakha with regard to the leftover money of a nazirite's offerings, it discusses the leftover portion of his meal-offering as well. Rav Ḥisda said: With regard to the leftover portion of a nazirite's loaves, i.e., if the nazirite set aside fine flour for his meal-offering and found that he had set aside more than was necessary, the rest of the fine flour must be left to spoil. Similarly, if he set aside money for his meal-offering and then found that he had set aside more than was necessary, he must cast the leftover money in the Dead Sea. Rabbi Yosei said: And Rav Ḥisda is right. You cannot offer it on its own, as loaves are never brought as an offering on their own; they are offered only along with a sheep as a burnt-offering or along with a ram as a peace-offering. You cannot offer it with the burnt-offering or peace-offering belonging to another nazirite, as no offering of a nazirite is offered without loaves; when the other nazirite took his vow upon himself, he obligated himself to bring his offerings along with his meal-offerings from his own funds, and he has no need for this leftover fine flour. Therefore, one must say that the leftover portion of a nazirite's loaves must be left to spoil, as it has no other use. § When a nazirite set aside wine or money to purchase wine for his libations and there was more than necessary, the students of the study hall thought to say that the halakha with regard to the leftover portion of his loaves and the halakha of the leftover portion of his libations is the same, and that the leftover portion of libations must also be left to spoil. Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Bun said: The leftover portion of libations is different, as it is an offering of the most sacred order and therefore must be allocated for communal free-will offerings. The Gemara comments: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Bun, it becomes apparent that three Rabbis all said the same thing: Shmuel, according to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda with regard to the leftover portion of libations; Rav Ḥisda himself; and Rabbi Elazar all agree that the leftover portion of offerings of the most sacred order must be allocated to communal free-will offerings. The Gemara elaborates: The opinion of Rav Ḥisda is evident from that which we have said. Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Bun's opinion that the leftover portion of libations must be allocated for free-will offerings is based on Rav Ḥisda's opinion that only the leftover portion of a peace-offering is to be destroyed, but not the leftover portion of libations. This is due to the fact that they are offerings of the most sacred order. The opinion of Shmuel is evident, as Rabbi Yosei said: While I was still there, in Babylonia, I heard the voice of Rabbi Yehuda ask his teacher Shmuel: If one set aside his shekel and died before he contributed it to the Temple treasury, what is to be done with this money? Shmuel said to him: It must be allocated for communal free-will offerings. These shekels were used to purchase communal burnt-offerings, which are of the most sacred order. Therefore, it seems that the allocation of these shekels follows the same principle as do the offerings intended to be purchased with the shekels and the leftover money must be allocated for free-will offerings. The opinion of Rabbi Elazar is evident from that which he says with regard to the leftover money from the High Priest's tenth of an ephah. The High Priest would offer a tenth of an ephah of fine flour made into griddle-cakes daily, half in the morning and half in the evening. When the High Priest died during the day, half would be left over. The amora'im disputed what should be done with the leftovers: Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He must cast it into the Dead Sea. Rabbi Elazar says: It must be allocated for communal free-will offerings, as it is an offering of the most sacred order.

Halakha 5 · MISHNA The leftover money collected for freeing unspecified captives must be allocated to freeing captives. The leftover money collected for freeing a specific captive is given as a gift to that captive. The leftover money collected as charity for the poor must be allocated to the poor. The leftover money collected for a specific poor person is given as a gift to that poor person. The leftover money collected for burying the dead must be allocated to burying the dead. The leftover money collected to bury or provide burial shrouds for a particular deceased person is given to his heirs. Rabbi Meir says: It is uncertain what should be done, and therefore the leftover money for the deceased should be placed in a safe place until Elijah comes and teaches what should be done. Rabbi Natan says: With the leftover money collected for a deceased person they build a monument [nefesh] on his grave for him.

GEMARA: With regard to a case where the community collected money to finance the expenses of burying a deceased person with the presumption that he did not have money in his estate to cover these expenses and it was subsequently found that he had money, Rabbi Yirmeya thought to say that the halakha should be in accordance with the first tanna in the mishna, that the leftover money for a deceased person is given as a gift to his heirs. There is no difference whether only a portion of the money was needed and a portion was left, or whether there was no need at all for the money and all of it now remains. Rabbi Idi of Ḥutra said to him: Bring yourself [hagga atzmekha] to consider the matter and you will see that the two cases are not similar, as surely the townspeople intended to contribute their money only for him, for the deceased. They do not mind if the heirs receive any extra money, as it is difficult to collect precisely the right amount for the burial. However, had they known that their money would not be used for the burial at all, and that the entire amount would be given to the heirs, they presumably would not have initially agreed to contribute. Rabbi Yirmeya said in response to Rabbi Idi of Ḥutra: I didn't say that this was the definitive halakha, as I merely suggested what I think should be done. However, from where do you derive the distinction you are making? The Gemara leaves the issue unresolved.

§ It was taught in the name of Rabbi Natan: With the leftover money that was collected for burying a deceased person a monument is built on his grave, and wine is bought for spraying over his bier to make a pleasant odor. The mishna teaches that the leftover money for freeing a specific captive or for the support of a particular poor person is given to that person. Similarly, it was taught in a baraita: One may not redeem a captive with money that was collected for another captive. Similarly, one may not purchase a garment for one poor person with charity collected to to purchase a garment for a different poor person. Nonetheless, one does not protest against the leaders [parnasim] of the community about this if they choose to do so in exigent circumstances. After discussing building a monument for a deceased person, the Gemara adds that it was taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One does not construct monuments for the graves of righteous people. The purpose of a monument is to remember the dead person, and Torah scholars do not need a monument, as their words of Torah that continue to be taught are their memorial.

Rabbi Yoḥanan was walking while leaning on the shoulder of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, and Rabbi Eliezer was watching him and hiding from him. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This Babylonian has done two improper things to me. One, he didn't inquire after my welfare; and another, he is hiding from me, as though he doesn't want to speak with me. Rabbi Ya'akov bar Idi tried to placate Rabbi Yoḥanan and said to him: This is the custom among them, i.e., among Babylonians. The small, less prominent people do not inquire after the welfare of great, prominent people; they only respond to them. That is the reason he did not inquire after your welfare. Their custom is to fulfill that which is written in the verse: "The young men saw me and hid themselves, and the aged rose up and stood" (Job 29:8). When Rabbi Ya'akov bar Idi saw that Rabbi Yoḥanan was not mollified, he said to him: What is the halakha with regard to passing in front of the Adura statue? Does that fall into the category of giving honor to idolatry? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: What honor are you giving it by merely passing in front of it? You could pass in front of it and blind its eyes, meaning that you could pass in front of it and insult it. Rabbi Ya'akov bar Idi said to him: If so, Rabbi Eliezer was right not to pass in front of you, since if he had passed in front of you but maintained the custom of Babylonians not to inquire after your welfare, it would have been a slight to your honor. Rabbi Yoḥanan continued: That Babylonian did something else wrong, in that he did not say a halakha in my name, as he repeated without attribution something I taught him. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi entered. In order to appease Rabbi Yoḥanan they said to him: Rabbi, there was an incident that occurred in the synagogue of the weavers [tarsiyyim], where they were discussing the halakhic status of a door bolt, a vertical bar that is affixed to the door in order to push into the ground, which has a knob [gelustera] protruding at its top.