(Mishnah): [When Beis Din needs to sell property] of orphans, the auction (we announce, to see who will pay the most for it) is for 30 days. The auction of Hekdesh is 60 days. We announce in the morning and in the evening. (If there was a lien for a Kesuvah against property made Hekdesh, and he comes to divorce her, R. Eliezer says that he must vow not to benefit from her, lest they scheme to enable her to take it from Hekdesh, and he will remarry her. R. Yehoshua says that he need not vow.)

(R. Mana): R. Eliezer is concerned for scheming. R. Yehoshua is not concerned for scheming.

(R. Yosi bei R. Bun): (No. All are concerned for scheming.) R. Eliezer holds like Beis Shamai, and R. Yehoshua holds like Beis Hillel;

R. Eliezer holds like Beis Shamai, who says that one cannot ask to permit his Hekdesh. (His only way to 'retract' from his Hekdesh is to scheme to enable his wife to collect it, and remarry her. Therefore,) he says that he must vow not to benefit;

R. Yehoshua holds like Beis Hillel, who says that one can ask to permit his Hekdesh. He says that he need not vow from benefit. No matter what you will say, [in this case there is no concern for scheming]. If he regrets [his Hekdesh, he would not divorce his wife]. He would ask to permit his Hekdesh!

Note: Perhaps the Chacham would not permit his Hekdesh! Surely, one who would scheme to take from Hekdesh, he would lie in order to permit it, e.g. say 'I was Makdish because I thought that I had other money, but now I see that I miscalculated.'

R. Yehoshua agrees about an Arev (guarantor, for her Kesuvah. Her husband) must vow from benefit [when divorcing her. Perhaps they scheme to collect from the Arev, and he will remarry her!]

Question: What would R. Yehoshua say about a gift (there was a lien for her Kesuvah against it, and he comes to divorce her. Must he swear, lest this is a scheme to retract the gift?)

Since [presumably] he gives a gift generously [and does not scheme, so] he need not vow. Or, since [the recipient] has little power (if the divorcee collects it, he has no claim for compensation) and [it is as if] the giver retracts, he must vow!

Question: What [would R. Yehoshua say if she will collect her Kesuvah from property that] a creditor [took]?

Answer: We learn from the following. R. Chagai's relative, her husband owed money through a document. The creditor took [property Meshubad to her Kesuvah, and her husband wanted to divorce her]. The case came in front of R. Acha. He said, he must vow not to benefit. R. Yosi said, he need not vow not to benefit.

Talmidim (in front of R. Yosi): R. Acha said properly!

R. Yosi: [There is no concern for scheming, for if he remarries her], will the creditor not take [back what she collected for her Kesuvah]?!

Rebuttal (Talmidim): She can convert (sell the property and buy) ornaments, or her husband can make it a gift (waive rights to it when he remarries her. There is concern for scheming!)

R. Chagai: Moshe (Gedol ha'Dor)! R. Acha said properly.

A case occurred, and [they ruled] like R. Acha. (We explained this based on PANIM ME'IROS Bava Basra 10:9; there, a different version of the episode is brought.)

Question: There, we say that [if one asked a Chacham and permitted his Nezirus, the animal he designated] goes (to Chulin) and grazes with the flock, and here you say so (that one cannot permit Hekdesh)?!

Answer (R. Yosi bei R. Bun): There, he asked to permit Nezirus. Due to [Bitul of] Nezirus, the Korbanos become Chulin.

(R. Yirmeyah citing R. Chunah, and R. Chizkiyah and R. Acha citing R. Yochanan): All agree that one cannot ask to permit his Temurah. About what do they argue? His Hekdesh. Beis Shamai say, just like one cannot ask to permit his Temurah, one cannot ask to permit his Hekdesh;

Beis Hillel say, one can ask to permit his Hekdesh, but he cannot ask to permit his Temurah.

(Reish Lakish citing Bar Kapara): [In our Mishnah, Beis Shamai] say that we obligate him due to 'black', and due to 'first' (if it is possible to fulfill both of these);

[If he said] 'the black ox that will leave my house first [will be Hekdesh]', and a white ox left, and black ones left after it, you obligate him due to the first of the black oxen (it is Kadosh);

[If he said] 'the white ox that will leave my house first', and a black ox left, and white ones left after it - you obligate him due to the first of the white oxen. (We explained this like OHR YAKOV.)

Question: [If one was Makdish] 'the ox standing by the trough', and it was found to be crouching, [or he said] 'crouching', and it was found to be standing [what is the law]?

Answer: It is like R. Avahu said in the name of R. Yochanan - if one intended to be Torem (separate Terumah from) a stack of wheat, and he was Torem barley - at night, it has no effect (he erred). During the day, what he did, he did (he saw what it is, and decided to be Torem barley, therefore it took effect. Also here, if he could see whether it was crouching or standing, it takes effect; if not, it does not);

[If he intended to be Torem] red, and it was found to be white - even during the day (they are not easily distinguishable, so) it has no effect.

[If he said] 'the ox that will leave my house first [will be Hekdesh]', and a ram left, it has no effect. If a calf left, yes (it is Kadosh) - "v'Egel Ben Bakar l'Chatas." (Perhaps the proof is because this was Aharon's Chatas at the Milu'im; a Kohen Gadol brings a Par for a Chatas. (PF) Here it was a calf, to show that Hash-m forgave Aharon for the Egel (Rashi Vayikra 9:2).)

If a lamb left, it has no effect. [If he said 'the Dinar that will come out of my wallet first will be Hekdesh]', and Sela'im came out, it has no effect. If Perutos (worth a Dinar in all) came out, it has no effect. If a gold Dinar came out, it is Kadosh.

(Mishnah): If one accepted Nezirus, and he asked Chachamim to permit it, and they forbade, he counts his Nezirus from the time that he accepted Nezirus (even if he was not observing the laws of Nezirus).

If he asked Chachamim, and they permitted, if he had designated an animal [for Korban Nazir], it goes out [to Chulin] and grazes with the flock (it has no Kedushah).

Beis Hillel (to Beis Shamai): Don't you agree about this, that it is mistaken Hekdesh, it goes out and grazes with the flock?!

Beis Shamai: Don't you agree that if one (was counting his flock to declare the 10th Ma'aser and) erred, and called the ninth '10th', called the 10th 'ninth', and called the 11th '10th', that it is (all are) Kadosh?!

Beis Hillel: The staff was not Mekadesh them. Had he erred and put his staff on the eighth or 12th, would this have any effect?!

Rather, the verse that teaches that the 10th is Hekdesh, also is Mekadesh (through a Derashah) the ninth and 11th.

(Gemara - Beraisa - Beis Shamai): [If he asked and Chachamim forbade, he counts his Nezirus] from the time he asked. Beis Hillel say, from the time he vowed.

If he ruined his Nezirus (transgressed), all agree that it is from the time he asked! (All changes of the text to 'Kilkel' are from NICHMAD L'MAR'EH and HA'MASHBI'ACH.)

If he did not transgress his Nezirus, all agree that it is from the time he accepted Nezirus!

Answer: The case is, [we know that] he intended to ask. Beis Shamai say, since he intended to ask, [presumably] he transgressed. Beis Hillel say, had he transgressed (for he was not concerned for it), he would not have asked!

If one accepted Nezirus and transgressed his Nezirus, we do not let him ask to permit it unless he conducts Isur like the number of days he conducted Heter. R. Yehudah says so;

When is this? It is for a short Nezirus, but for a long Nezirus, 30 days suffices.

Question: What is the difference between a long Nezirus and a short Nezirus?

Correction: Rather, when is this? It is when he transgressed his Nezirus for a short time, but if he transgressed his Nezirus for a long time, 30 days suffices. (We explained this like KEHILAS YAKOV Nazir 18/19.)

Question: What is the case?

If he transgressed Tum'ah, all agree that he canceled everything!

If he transgressed only shaving, all agree that he cancels only 30 days!

Answer: Rather, the case is, he transgressed [drinking] wine. (Mid'Oraisa, this does not cancel anything. Chachamim are stringent not to let him ask to permit it unless he conducts Isur like the time he transgressed.)

Limitation: This is when he stands amidst Nezirus, but if he [transgressed] after [his time of] Nezirus (before bringing Korbanos), he does not cancel.

(Mishnah): If one called the ninth '10th', called the 10th 'ninth', and called the 11th '10th', all three are Hekdesh. The ninth is eaten when it gets a Mum (like the law of a blemished Ma'aser), the 10th is [offered for] Ma'aser, and the 11th is offered for Shelamim;

Source: "Yihyeh Kadosh" teaches that Kedushah takes effect [even] on the ninth and 11th.

Suggestion: Perhaps both of them are offered!

Rejection: "Min ha'Bakar"- ha'Bakar includes the 11th. Min ha'Bakar excludes the ninth.

Question: Why do you see proper to include the 11th and exclude the ninth? (We could expound oppositely!)

Answer: After the Torah included, it excluded. (It authorized Chachamim to expound what to include and exclude. - PNEI MOSHE) It is proper to say, when does Kodesh (the 10th) make Temurah - before it or after it? I say, after it (is Kadosh. Therefore,) I include the 11th, which is after Kedushah [of the 10th], and exclude the ninth, which is before the Kedushah.

Question: Until now, we discussed when he thought that [the ninth] is 10th, and he called it 10th. If he knew that it is ninth, and he called it 10th [what is the law]?

Answer #1 (Talmidim): It is Kadosh.

Answer #2 (R. Yudan): It is not Kadosh.

Support: (for Talmidim - Mishnah): Beis Hillel said to Beis Shamai - don't you agree that [it is mistaken Hekdesh, so] it goes out and grazes with the flock?!

Beis Shamai: Don't you agree that if one erred, and called the ninth '10th', called the 10th 'ninth', and called the 11th '10th', that they are all Hekdesh!

Summation of support: Beis Hillel accepted from them. If not, they should have answered them 'how do you challenge us from something (the ninth and 11th) that takes effect only mistakenly, [to learn from it] something (regular Hekdesh) that takes effect mistakenly or not mistakenly?! (Regular Hekdesh is only knowingly, and the ninth and 11th are only unknowingly! Beis Hillel did not say so, for they agree that the ninth and 11th take effect even knowingly.)

Rebuttal: This is like R. Ami said in the name of R. Nasa said - [Beis Hillel] had many rejoinders - this is like a man who has two reasons, and he answered one of them. (They could have answered also that the ninth and 11th take effect only mistakenly. We explained this like the GRA.)

(Mishnah): If one accepted Nezirus, and went to bring the animal [that he intended to bring for Korban Nazir], and found that it was stolen:

If it was stolen after his vow, he is a Nazir;

If it was stolen before he vowed, he is not a Nazir.

Nachum the Mede erred in this law when Nezirim ascended from Bavel and heard that the second Mikdash had been destroyed.

Nachum the Mede: Had you known that the Mikdash will be destroyed, would you have vowed?

They said 'no', and Nachum the Mede permitted them.

When the matter came to Chachamim, they said 'anyone who vowed before the Churban is a Nazir. One who vowed after the Churban is not a Nazir.'

(Gemara) Question: What is the case?

If when he saw an animal passing in the market, he said 'I am a Nazir [in order to shave] on this animal that passed', even [if he accepted Nezirus] after the animal was stolen, he is a Nazir!

If he thought that he has [an animal], and it is found that he does not have, so we say - if he was rich and became poor, is his Nezirus uprooted from him?! (Surely it is not!)

Answer: The case is, he said 'I am a Nazir [in order to shave] on the animal that I have in the house', and it is found that it was stolen. If before it was stolen, he accepted Nezirus, he is a Nazir. If after it was stolen, he accepted Nezirus, he is not a Nazir.

Question (Talmidim of R. Chiyah bar Lulaina, citing R. Yehudah): If the thieves returned it at night (before he knew that it was stolen), does Nezirus return to him retroactively, or from now and onwards? (If he knew that it was stolen before it was returned, the Nezirus is Batel, and does not return - OHR SOMAYACH Hilchos Nedarim 8:2. According to this, we can say that it mentioned 'at night', for during the day, normally he would realize that it was stolen before it was returned to him. - PF)

Note: OHR SOMAYACH says that it was returned the same day that he vowed, for if not, surely he never accepted to be a Nazir for 30 days from when it was returned. What is the difference whether it is from when he vowed, or later that day? If he transgressed Nezirus with warning, it is relevant for lashes. Or, if he was Mekadesh an animal in between, it is Kadosh only if he was a Nazir then. (PF) I suggest that it can be relevant even if it was returned the next day, e.g. if the first day that he could have shaved was on Shabbos, in any case he must conduct Nezirus until bringing Korban(os) the following day. Indeed, if his Nezirus begins the next day, he has the severity of being a full Nazir for one additional day (and not a mere Isur Aseh "Az Yishteh ha'Nazir Yayin"), but perhaps this is not a reason to say that he never intended to accept Nezirus

Nachum the Mede erred about this. What was his mistake? He permitted them through Nolad (something that occurred later, that the Noder could not have anticipated).

(Mishnah - Nachum the Mede): Had you known that the Mikdash would be destroyed, would you have vowed?

(R. Ze'ira): He should have told them 'did you not know that prophets already prophesized that the Beis ha'Mikdash will be destroyed?' Then, it would not be like Nolad.

Rebuttal (R. Heila): It would still be like Nolad. They could say, we knew, but we thought that it will be much later - "he'Chazon Asher Hu Chozeh l'Yamim Rabim."