Clarification: This She'eilah does not follow the pattern of 'Im Timtzi Lomar' like the previous She'eilos

Implied Question: It could in fact, have cited it separately ...

Answer: Only it preferred to combine it with the other She'eilos.

Implied Question: When the Beraisa, in the first Perek of Bava Kamaeis-Din's assessment (Daf 27a & 27b) learns from "ve'Nasan Pidyon Nafsho", 'the value of the Nizak', meaning that one assesses the Nizak after death according to his value whilst still alive ...

Answer: It is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv.

Answer (cont.): Whilst here, he only vowed to pay the amount that Beis-Din would assess, whereas the Nidar is not subject to assessment, seeing as he is dead.

Question: Whey does the Gemara not query the Mishnah which states 'This is the Chumra of Nedarim over Erchin': 'This is the Chumra!' - 'and no more?. How about those cited in the Beraisa?' (See Tosfos Zevachim, 94b, DH 'Ela mi'T'rei')

Precedent: Because in similar vein the Gemara in Perek ha'Zahav (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 57b), in connection with 'Zeh Chomer be'Hekdesh mi'be'Hedyot', where the Gemara asks 'This is the Chumra' - 'and no more? There are many others?'

Question (cont.): Why does the Gemara not ask the same Kashya here?

Answer: Because there it is not a Chidush to find a Chumra of Hekdesh over Hedyot, since it is natural to be more strict by Hekdesh than by Hedyot ...

Answer (cont.): Hence the Gemara wonders about the Mishnah and asks 'This is the Chumra', and no more? There are many others?'

Answer (concl.): Whereas here, since the fact that Nedarim is more strict than Erchin is in itself a Chidush, it is not appropriate to ask 'This is the Chumra, and no more?' ...

Reason: Because it learns some, and omits others.

Question: The Gemara earlier (on Daf 18a) compares Damim to Erchin and therefore a pearl to Kalim' (See Rashi there), and we have a principle 'Ein Hekesh le'Mechtzah'?

Answer: There is a Miy'ut - when the Torah writes "Ya'arichenu ha'Kohen" by Erchin - implying not elsewhere ...

Answer (cont.): In which case Erchin are subject to Heseg Yad but not Nedarim.

Question: Why does the Gemara mention from the knee and upwards more than any of the other eighteen T'reifos?

Answer: Because it contains a Chidush more than other T'reifos - in that it precludes The opinion of Rebbi Shimon, who says (in Chulin, Daf 42b) that 'It can be burned and live'.

Refuted Text: This is the text in most Sefarim.

Refutation: It is not correct however, because if it was, how can the Gemara shortly state that 'One does not donate half of it'?

Refutation (cont.): Why would one not donate half the value of a K'li?

Authentic Text: The Ri therefore amends the text to 'ha'Ma'arich Erech Chatzi K'li'.

Conclusion: In which case it makes sense to say 'One does not donate half' ...

Conclusion (cont.): Since half a K'li is worthless, which is why the Gemara says 'One does not donate half of it'.

Clarification: Meaning to be responsible for it until it is sacrificed.

Question: In that case, when the Reisha of the Mishnah states 'Shor Zeh Olah, Meis ha'Shor, Patur mi'Leshalem', why does it not teach us that this would be the Din even if he added 'Alai', just as Reb Chiya bar Rav concludes (See Avodah Berurah)?

Answer: The Ri therefore explains that the entire Mishnah, both the Reisha and the Seifa, are speaking where he inserted 'D'mei' ...

Clarification: And what the Mishnah is therefore saying is - If he says 'D'mei Shor Zeh Olah' or 'Dmei Bayis Zeh Korban', and the ox dies or the house collapses, he is Patur from paying, since he did not say 'Alai' ...

Clarification (cont.): But should he say 'D'mei Shor Zeh alai Olah, D'mei Bayis Zeh alai Korban', and the ox dies or the house collapses, he will be Chayav to pay.

Explanation: And this is how we will have explain the Gemara in the first Perek of Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 6a & 6b [See Avodah Berurah]) - 'Eizehu Neder, ve'Eizehu Nedavah? Neder - de'Amar "Alai"; Nedavah - de'Amar "Harei Zu" ...

Explanation (cont.): Mah bein Neder li'Nedavah? Neder - Meis O Nignav, Chayav be'Acharayuso; Nedavah - Meis O Nignav, Eino Chayav be'Acharayuso'.

Implied Question: And when the Mishnah states 'Shor Zeh' ...

Answer: It is coming to teach us a Chidush - that even though he said 'Zeh', since he added 'Alai', he accepts responsibility for it.

Explanation: The Ri points out that this seems to imply that, when he says 'D'mei Shor Zeh alai Olah', the actual ox remains Chulin, and possesses no Kedushah ...

Precedent: As it is similar to somen who declares 'D'mei Shor shel P'loni alai', where the actual ox remains Chulin - seeing as a person cannot be Makdish his friend's ox ...

Implied Question: It is not comparable however, to someone who is Makdish a male for its value - which the Gemara rules in Temurah (Daf 19b & 20a) is Kadosh Kedushas ha'Guf.

Implied Question: Because since Kedushas Damim takes effect on it, so does Kedushas ha'Guf ...

Answer: Because it speaks there where he expressly said that 'This ox should be Kadosh for its value'.

Support: And so it will shortly say in our Sugya - that if he declares the ox Kadosh for its value, the body of the ox becomes Kadosh.

Clarification: So we see that we do not say that he means 'Alai Lehavi' - a Kashya on Rebbi Chiya.

Clarification (cont.): And the Gemara answers - 'Why is it any better than the Mishnah, which we established that he said 'D'mei' - here too it speaks where he said 'D'mei'.

Question: According to the Ri (in the previous Dibur) that the body of the animal remains Chulin - since in the current Beraisa it states that the ox is Kadosh?

Answer: According to Rashi here the problem is solved - This is what he writes: Here too, he said D'mei, and as we establish later, it speaks where he declared 'The ox shall be Kadosh for its value, for which I am obligated to bring an Olah'; Consequently, the ox is Kadosh ...

Answer (cont.): Since he said 'The ox shall be Kadosh'; and if it dies, he is liable - since he said 'Alai' ...

Answer (cont.): But in our case, we do not say that h e meant 'Alai Lehavi'am'

Reason: Because, since the value (the money) is not lying in front of him, and he did not (therefore) say 'This money is on me an Olah', we cannot say like it said above ...

Reason (cont.): Because there, since he said 'Zeh' - he is coming to exempt himself from responsibility, and by 've'Alai' he means to obligate himself to take the trouble of bringing it ...

Reason (concl.): Whereas here, where the money is not lying in front of him and he did not say 'This money', 'Alai' must refer to taking responsibility.

Answer (concl.): And when he said 'Zeh', he must have meant to say that this ox will be Hekdesh until I sell it and bring its value (Up to here is the wording of Rashi).

Implied Question: The Gemara could just as well have asked explicitly from the Seifa on the Mishnah, according to Rebbi Chiya bar Rav's explanation ...

Implied Question (cont.): seeing as the Seifa states by 'D'mei Zeh alai Olah' - that the ox is Chulin and it is not subject to Me'ilah;And that if it dies or is stolen, he is not liable - whereas our Mishnah rules that he is?

Answer: Only since it began to ask from the Reisha, it finished its Kashya from there.

Conclusion: In any event, according to the answer, everything is solved.

Introduction to Question: There is a Kashya however, on the last Perek of Chulin (Daf 139a & 139b), on the the Sugya of 'ha'Mekadesh Manah le'Bedek ha'Bayis, ve'Nignav O she'Avad, where Rebbi Yochanan renders him liable till it reaches the hand of the treasurer ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): Whilst according to Resh Lakish 'Wherever it is, it is in the storehouse of Hekdesh' - since the Torah writes "la'Hashem ha'Aretz u'Melo'ah", and by Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis he is not Chayav, even though he said 'Alai'.

Introduction to Question (concl.): And the Gemara queries (Resh Lakish) from the Mishnah - 'If someone declares "Shor Zeh Olah" or "Bayis Zeh Korban", Meis ha'Shor ve'Nafal ha'Bayis, Patur; "Shor Zeh Alai Olah", "Bayis Zeh alai Korban", Meis ha'Shor ve'Nafal ha'Bayis, Chayav Leshalem'?

Question: What is the Kashya - since the case of Resh Lakish is speaking where he set aside the Manah that he was Makdish, which is why he says that 'Wherever it is, it is in the storehouse of Hekdesh', and he is not Chayav to pay.

Question (cont.): Whereas the Mishnah is speaking where he did not set anything aside, and that is why the Tana obligates him to pay - seeing as we establish it where the ox itself is Chulin?

Question (concl.): It also appears that this Sugya does not hold like Rebbi Chiya bar Rav, who established the Mishnah by 'D'mei'.

Answer: Therefore the Ri explains that the Mishnah here speaks where the ox itself is Kadosh (See Avodah Berurah) - such as where he was Makdish a male for its value, in which case it adopts Kedushas ha'Guf (See Avodah Berurah)...

Answer (cont.): And it is not comparable to where one is Makdish one's friend's ox - since there one cannot render Hekdesh something that belongs to somebody else. However, to whatever extent he can be Makdish it, he is.

Answer (cont.): But here, where the ox belongs to him, when he says 'D'mei Shor alai Olah', the body of the ox actually becomes Kadosh.

Conclusion: Now we can understand why the Gemara in the last Perek of Chulin (Ibid.) queries Resh Lakish from this Mishnah ...

Conclusion (cont.): Because seeing as the actual ox is Kadosh, it is as if he set it aside, and is comparable to someone who is Makdish a Manah to Bedek ha'Bayis.

Answer (extention.): And we can also understand when, in our Sugya, the Gemara asks from the Beraisa of 'Shor Zeh alai Olah', and it answers that the ox is Hekdesh, as the Beraisa states, and here too, it means that the body of the ox is Hekdesh (See Avodah Berurah).

Question: It remains somewhat difficult however, why it is necessary to establish the Reisha by Yikadesh Shor le'Damav, as the Gemara concludes - seeing as without that, since he said 'D'mei Shor Zeh alai Olah', the ox is intrinsically Kadosh?

Answer #1: We must therefore explain the Reisha where he said 'Yikadesh Shor le'Damav' (See Avodah Berurah), and the ox is Hekdesh.

Answer #2: Or that, when Rebbi Chiya bar Rav said 'Lo Shanu Ela de'Amar D'mei Shor Zeh alai Olah', he means 'Yikadesh Shor le'Damav' - in which case the body of the ox is Kadosh

Conclusion: With this explanation, the entire Sugya falls into place.

Conclusion (Extention): As does the Sugya in the last Perek of Chulin (Ibid.) - when it asks from our Mishnah on to Resh Lakish - because since the body of the ox is Kadosh, it is as if he set it aside, and is therefore comparable to someone who is 'Makdish a Manah to Bedek ha'Bayis'.

Clarification: This implies, says the Ri,that a plagued house that becomes Muchlat is Mutar be'Hana'ah, and that is why he can say to him 'Harei she'Lecha Lefanecha!' ...

Precedent: It can be compared to the Mishnah in Perek ha'Umnin (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 78a & 78b) - 'If someone rented a donkey and it got an eye infection or was claimed to work for the king, the owner can say to the the hirer "Harei she'Lecha Lefanecha" ' ...

Proof: Because if it would be Asur be'Hana'ah, it would be comparable to where the donkey 'dies or broke down', in which case the Mishnah there rules that 'He is obligated to furnish him with another donkey'.

Question: Tosfos' Rebbe queries this however, from the Toras Kohanim, which says, in connection with Begadim - "Tzara'as Mam'eres", 'Give it a curse, not to derive benefit from it' - implying that it is Asur be'Hana'ah'?