(Mishnah): [If one told his friend] 'I am Cherem to you', the Mudar is forbidden [to benefit from him];

'You are Cherem to me', the Noder is forbidden;

'I am Cherem to you, and you to me', both are forbidden;

Both may benefit from matters of Olei (the exiles who returned from) Bavel, but not from matters of the city.

(Gemara): [If one said] 'Konam, I will not benefit you, or [a Chacham] who will permit this' - he asks [a Chacham] to permit the first, but he need not ask about the second.

Some teach that he asks both [to permit] the first and the second.

(Shmuel brei d'R. Yosef bei R. Bun): This (latter opinion) is like the opinion that [Heter Nedarim depends on the time of] the Isur (the vows took effect at different times, so they do not depend on each other);

However, according to the opinion that [it depends on the time of] the Neder (he vowed both together), a Neder that it partially Batel is totally Batel.

If one vowed from 'Bnei ha'Ir', and someone came and dwelled there for 30 days, he is permitted to him. If one vowed from 'Yoshvei ha'Ir', and someone came and dwelled there for 30 days, he is forbidden to him.

'Konam, Hana'ah from me is forbidden to people of my city', he cannot ask a Chacham there to permit it (for he is biased; also the Chacham is forbidden until the vow is permitted). 'Hana'ah from people of my city is Alai', he can ask a Chacham there.

Some teach that even in the first case, he can ask [a Chacham there], for this is not like annulling one's own vows.

A Neder of Rabim (many vowed together) has no Heter. A Neder b'Rabim has no Heter.

If one vowed not to benefit from his friend in front of him, he may ask [to permit the vow] only in front of him. If he vowed not in front of him, he may ask in front of him or not in front of him.

Explanation #1 (R. Yochanan): This is due to shame (the Noder will be embarrassed to permit it in front of him, just like his friend was embarrassed at the time of the vow - RASHBA 3:324).

Explanation #2 (R. Yehoshua ben Levi): It is due to suspicion (lest his friend not know that he permitted it, and suspect that he transgresses).

This argument is like the following argument;

(Beraisa): On Yom Kipur, one must detail his deeds (mention the Aveiros for which he confesses). R. Yehudah ben Beseira says so (in order that he will be ashamed);

R. Akiva says, he need not detail the sin (lest people suspect that he transgressed also other Aveiros - TOSFOS Gitin 35b DH Leichush).

Some teach that one must give details of the vow [that he asks to permit], and some teach that he need not give details of the vow.

One man vowed that he will not profit. He came to R. Yudan bar Shalom [to permit it]. He asked, what did you swear about? He said, that I will not profit.

R. Yudan: Does a person do so?!

The man said, [I vowed not to profit] through diceplaying. R. Yudan said, blessed is He who chose [Chachamim's] words, that they said that one must give details of the vow!

(Mishnah): What is a matter of Olei Bavel? Matters like Har ha'Bayis, the Azaros, and a well in the middle of the road;

What is a matter of the city? Matters like the market, the bathhouse, the Beis ha'Keneses, the Aron, and Seforim [of Tanach from which people read].

If one wrote that his share [in these things] should belong to the Nasi (the leader, so the Mudar can benefit from it) - R. Yehudah says, writing to the Nasi is like writing to a commoner;

What is the difference between writing to the Nasi and writing to a commoner? One who writes to the Nasi, no Kinyan (acquisition) is needed; to a commoner, a Kinyan is needed.

Chachamim say, in this case and in this case, a Kinyan is needed. The Nasi was mentioned only because it was common [to write one's share to the Nasi].

R. Yehudah says, people of Galil need not write [their shares to the Nasi], for their ancestors already wrote for them.

(Gemara): Our Mishnah [calls regular markets 'matters of the city', but] a market that Reshus ha'Rabim passes through it, it is like [matters of] Olei Bavel. (CHASDEI DAVID (Tosefta 2:11) - if it is a thoroughfare also for people outside the city, it was built with intent to be Hefker to all of Yisrael.)

A man was Mekadesh a woman with a Sefer Torah. R. Shovsai and R. Chasida brought the case in front of R. Yosah, and he said that she is not Mekudeshes.

R. Chizkiyah: I read the letter [with this ruling of R. Yosah], and it was written in it 'v'Lo Od.'

Question (R. Mana, to R. Chizkiyah): What is 'v'Lo Od'?

Possibility #1: He was Mekadesh with an individual's Sefer Torah. [R. Yosah] told us that she is not Mekudeshes. He comes to teach that even with a Sefer Torah of the Rabim (the Mekadesh has a share in it), she is not Mekudeshes - this is [the meaning of] 'v'Lo Od.' (CHASAM SOFER 5:143 DH v'Aidi - if an individual donated a Sefer Torah to the Tzibur, as long as it is attributed to him, it cannot be sold. If the Tzibur bought it with their money, the governors of the city can sell it in the presence of the residents, for any purpose. Even if one's share is more than a Perutah, she is not Mekudeshes, for he cannot sell it and demand his share.)

Possibility #2: He was Mekadesh with a Rabim's Sefer Torah. [R. Yosah] said that she is not Mekudeshes. He comes to teach that even with an individual's Sefer Torah, she is not Mekudeshes - this is 'v'Lo Od.' (I.e. even if the Mekadesh donated this Sefer to the Rabim, she is not Mekudeshes. Since he cannot retract, it is like the Rabim's Sefer - PF, based on CHASAM SOFER ibid. However, it seems that PNEI MOSHE and CHASAM SOFER delete this line from the text.)

Our Mishnah [says veha'Kosev, i.e. one who writes; it means] he must write his share to the Nasi [to permit the Mudar].

(Mishnah): If one was Mudar Hana'ah from his friend, and he has nothing to eat, he gives a gift to another, and the Mudar is permitted to [eat] it.

A case occurred in Beis Choron in which Ploni's father was Mudar Hana'ah from him; [Ploni] was marrying off his son. He told his friend 'the Chatzer and the banquet are given to you for a gift, and they are in front of you, until my father will come and eat with us at the banquet.'

The friend: If they are mine, they are Hekdesh to Shamayim!

Ploni: I did not give my [property] to you to make it Hekdesh to Shamayim!

The friend: You gave it to me in order that you and your father will eat, drink and appease each other, and the sin will be on my head!

When the matter came in front of Chachamim, they said 'any gift that is not, that if [the recipient] was Makdish it, it is not Kadosh, it is not a gift.'

(Gemara - R. Yochanan): It is recognized that this one [who said 'if they are mine, they are Hekdesh to Shamayim!' is a Talmid Chacham.

Hillel had 80 pairs of Talmidim. The greatest [Talmid] was Yonason ben Uzi'el. The smallest of them was R. Yochanan ben Zakai.

Once, [Hillel] fell sick, and they all came to visit him. R. Yochanan ben Zakai stood in the Chatzer (amidst humility).

Hillel (to the other Talmidim): Where is the smallest of you, who is an Av (father) in Chachmah and an Av for generations (he will be the Nasi), and there is no need to say [that he will be] the greatest among you?

They told him, he is in the Chatzer. He told them, he should enter. After he entered, [Hillel] said "Lehanchil Ohavai Yesh v'Otzroseihem Amalei."

(R. Yochanan): It is recognized that this one is a Talmid Chacham.

(R. Yosi bei R. Bun): So was the episode [of our Mishnah]. The father of Yonason ben Uzi'el vowed that [Yonason] will not benefit from his property. He wrote his property to Shamai.

What did Shamai do? He sold some, was Makdish some, and gave the rest to [Yonason], and said 'whoever will protest against this gift, he will take from the buyers and from Hekdesh, and afterwards he will take from [Yonason].

Question (R. Yirmeyah): If so (any gift that the recipient cannot be Makdish it, it is not a gift), one cannot give a gift to his friend on condition that he not be Makdish it to Shamayim?!

Answer: Our Mishnah means, any gift that is like the gift of Beis Choron, that was a ruse, that is not [a real gift], that if he was Makdish it, it is not Kadosh, it is not a gift.