Answer: Even so, since we can say this way or the other way, we are stringent. We hold that we are stringent about Stam (ambiguous) Nedarim.

Question: This is the text in Seforim. It is difficult to me. What is the difference between Tahor and Dachi?

Since he taught la'Dachi with a Lamed, this implies that without a Lamed, he is not forbidden. If so, when he says Tahor without a Lamed, why is he forbidden? Dachi is the Targum of Tahor!

Answer: I saw that the Rambam in Hilchos Nedarim (1:18) wrote Tahor with a Lamed, and Tamei, Pigul, and Nosar without a Lamed. I say that this is primary.

If the text in our Mishnah says la'Tahor with a Lamed, this is fine;

If this is not the text, I say that because the Tana taught a Lamed with Dachi, he was not concerned to teach it with Tahor, for obviously Dachi and Tahor are the same, for they are one matter.

Explanation: Our Tana of our Mishnah taught three laws:

Law #1: Whenever he mentions a name that connotes Heter, he must prefix it with a Lamed with a Patach, and [then] it is forbidden, for from the negative we infer the positive;

These are (four words in our Mishnah -) Chulin, Kasher, Dachi and Tahor.

Law #2: Whenever he mentions a name that indicates Isur, and it applies to Kodshim, e.g. Tamei, Pigul, and Nosar, in these a Lamed with a Patach at the beginning does not apply;

Just the contrary! If he said them with a Lamed, we could say that he intended for Heter (not Tamei...)!

Regarding these, even though he said them without [the prefix] Kaf of comparison (like) they are forbidden even according to R. Yehudah;

Proof: In the Gemara, we establish our entire Mishnah like R. Yehudah, and even so these are forbidden without a Kaf.

Since the name indicates Isur, even without a Kaf they are forbidden according to everyone.

Implied question: We could say that when he said Tamei, he intends for Terumah, to which Tum'ah and Taharah apply!

Also Terumah is Davar ha'Asur, and when he is Matfis in it, it does not forbid, like we say in the Gemara.

Answer: Even so, since we can also say that he intended for Kodshim, this is like Stam Nedarim, about which we are stringent.

Law #3 - Explanation #1: He then taught "like sheep, like pens, like wood." Their name does not indicate Isur. Therefore, R. Yehudah says that he must say them with a Kaf;

If not, it does not connote that he said Isur;

This is unlike Pigul and Nosar. Since their name is based on their Isur, it is as if he said k'Pigul, k'Nosar.

Question: Another Mishnah (13a) says "if one says Korban, Olah or Minchah...", and even so the Mishnah says that R. Yehudah permits. His reason is because he did not say them with a Kaf;

Why is this? Their name indicates Isur. Why are they unlike Pigul and Nosar?

Answer: This is not difficult. These, even though their name indicates Isur, their name is not based on their Isur;

One who says "this animal is an Olah or Chatas" does not intend with this name for Isur. Rather, one must do to it the laws of an Olah, Chatas, Todah or Shelamim;

Distinction: This is unlike Pigul and Nosar. Their name is on them only due to the Isur. Therefore, whoever said "Pigul or Nosar Alai this loaf", his words prove that he intends for Isur;

He means "like Pigul or Nosar." Therefore, it is forbidden even without a Kaf, even according to R. Yehudah.

Explanation #2: R. Yehudah requires a Kaf, because without a Kaf, he holds that he says (swears in) the life of the sheep. (It has no effect, for a Shevu'ah must be in Hash-m's name.) The same applies to the rest;

Therefore, regarding Tamei Pigul, and Nosar, since "the life of Tamei" does not apply, he does not require a Kaf.

Support: The Gemara proves like this. A Beraisa says that Chachamim agree with R. Yehudah about one who says "Ha Korban"...

I.e. even though they argue with him about one who says Korban alone, that he does not mean the life of the Korban, when he says Ha Korban, they agree with him. So I explain our Mishnah.

I saw Rishonim who were very unclear, and did not explain it clearly, in my opinion.

Mishnah: Like a sheep.

Explanation #1: Like a Seh of a Korban, for we are stringent about Stam Nedarim.

Explanation #2: 'K'Imra' implies like a known Seh (of the Tamid - PF).

Mishnah: Like pens.

Explanation: Like Korbanos in pens

Mishnah: Like wood.

Explanation: Like the two logs that he arranged on the Ma'arachah - "u'Vi'er Aleha ha'Kohen Etzim."

Mishnah: Like fires.

Explanation: Like flames of fire on the Mizbe'ach. (Rashash - even though Me'ilah does not apply to a flame, mid'Rabanan it is forbidden (Beitzah 39a). Ohr ha'Tzvi - this is not Devar ha'Nadur! Shiras ha'Leviyim - the Ran holds that Nedarim do not require Hatfasah, just improper Hatfasah (e.g. in Devar ha'Asur) invalidates. This is not improper Hatfasah. Shitah Mekubetzes - when it is attached to a coal, it has the law of the coal (ibid.). Rashash - we find like this regarding Hotza'ah (ibid.) and a flame of idolatry (Taz YD 142:3). I (PF) do not understand. In those cases, one transgresses due to the coal! Also, no one was Makdish the flame, so it is not Devar ha'Nadur! Margoliyos ha'Shas, citing the Rugachaver - Tosfos (10b) says that flames of the Mizbe'ach are considered tangible, so Me'ilah applies to them.)

Mishnah: Like Yerushalayim.

Explanation: Like Korbanos in Yerushalayim.

Mishnah: One who says 'Yerushalayim', it has no effect.

Explanation: Because he did not say 'like Yerushalayim.'

Gemara: They thought.

Remark: This 'they thought' remains in the conclusion. We find like this in Bava Basra (2a).

Gemara: He does not infer the positive from the negative.

Explanation: He requires a Tenai Kaful (to stipulate what will be if the condition is fulfilled, and if it is not fulfilled), like he learns from the Tenai of Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven. It is written "if they will cross... and if they will not cross."

Reference: He says so in Kidushin (61b).

Implied question: We say in Shevu'os (36a) that for monetary laws, R. Meir does not infer the positive from the negative, but for Isur, he does!

Answer: We conclude there that regarding Sotah and testimony, he does not hold so, because these Isurim entail Mamon;

Also Nedarim entail Mamon, for the item becomes forbidden to him.

Explanation: He says in Gitin (46a) about one who divorces his wife due to a vow, that he does not require a Tenai Kaful. Rather, we say that from the negative we infer the positive.

Implied question: R. Chanina [ben Gamliel] argues with R. Meir about Tenai Kaful in Kidushin (61a. We should have said that our Mishnah is like him!)

Answer: Even so, we wanted to establish our Mishnah like R. Yehudah, because he appears in it;

Even though we need to give a weak answer, and say that two Tana'im argue about the opinion of R. Yehudah, [we prefer this, and we] did not want to establish it like R. Chanina, who was not mentioned in it at all.

Gemara: Since the Seifa is R. Yehudah, the Reisha is not R. Yehudah!

Explanation: Since the Seifa teaches 'R. Yehudah says...', this implies that until now, it did not teach only R. Yehudah's opinion.

Gemara: The entire Mishnah is R. Yehudah... for R. Yehudah says that one who says 'Yerushalayim', it has no effect.

Explanation: This is because he did not mention the Kaf of comparison (like).

The same applies to Imra, Dirim and Etzim. [R. Yehudah] mentioned Yerushalayim, for it is Samuch (it is the last matter that the first Tana mentioned).

Distinction: Regarding Pigul, Nosar and Tamei R. Yehudah agrees that the Kaf of comparison is not needed, like I explained in our Mishnah. Therefore, the Tana taught them without the Kaf.

Gemara: Two Tana'im argue about R. Yehudah's opinion.

Explanation: The Tana of our Mishnah holds that R. Yehudah holds that [the Noder's] intent is for something offered in Yerushalayim. When he says ki'Yrushalayim, he is forbidden;

The Tana of the Beraisa holds that [the Noder's] intent is for wood and rocks. Until he vows in something offered in Yerushalayim, he is not forbidden.

Gemara - Beraisa: "Chulin", "the Chulin," or "like Chulin," whether he concluded "that I will eat of yours" or "that I will not eat of yours," he is permitted.

Explanation: When he said "that I will eat of yours", obviously he is permitted;

And when he said "that I will not eat of yours", granted, he said "what I eat of yours will not be Chulin.' We establish it like R. Meir, who does not infer the positive from the negative.

Question: This is the text in most Seforim. It is very difficult. Why is he forbidden?

We must say that [he is forbidden] due to "from the negative we infer the positive." R. Meir does not hold like this!

Suggestion: We do not need to infer [the positive] from the negative. Since he said "Lo Chulin", you are forced to say that it is a Korban!

Rejection: This reason (the Mishnah forbids one who said Lo Chulin) is why above, we established our Mishnah unlike R. Meir. This shows that in such a case, we need to apply "from the negative we infer the positive"!

Answer #1: Therefore, some say that this is not in the text here at all.

Answer #2: Others defend our text, in the name of the Ra'avad. The text says "l'Chalin", without a Vov. He is forbidden, for he refers to Chalos of Korban Todah.

Gemara: 'L'Chulin what I will not eat of yours', he is permitted.

Explanation: This is whether it is with a Vov or without a Vov, like we will explain shortly.

Gemara: It is difficult for us - R. Meir does not infer the positive from the negative!

Explanation: We are thinking that R. Meir forbids because [la'Korban] implies to him Lo Korban. He means, it will not be a Korban, what I do not eat from you, but what I eat will be a Korban.

Explanation #1: Since la'Korban implies l'Korban, and it implies Lo Korban, in every place we explain it in a way that his vow can take effect.

Here, we explain that he said l'Korban Yehei, therefore I will not eat from you;

Also here (la'Chulin), he should say "it should not be Chulin", i.e. rather, a Korban, therefore I will not eat from you!

We should explain the Lamed of la'Chulin to be Lo Chulin, in order that his vow will take effect.

Question: Even so, how can it take effect? For these, we need to say that from the negative we infer the positive! This is why above, we established our Mishnah unlike R. Meir.

Answer: This is only regarding our Mishnah, which concludes she'Ochel Lecha. However, here it concludes [if he said] Lo Ochel Lecha, he is forbidden. This connotes even according to R. Meir;

Summation: This is the explanation of our Sugya according to the opinion that the text is la'Chulin with a Vov.

Explanation #2: According to the opinion that the text says "la'Chalin", this is better. We ask "just like we say 'la'Korban Yehei', we should say also 'la'Chalin Yehei', i.e. Chalos of Korban Todah;

The text says 'also here, we should say 'la'Chalin Yehei', therefore...

Explanation #1: The entire Beraisa is R. Meir. The Seifa taught 'l'Chulin Lo Ochel Lecha', he is permitted;

This is when he said l'Chulin, with a Sheva under the Lamed. Therefore, we cannot say that he meant Lo Chulin;

Suggestion: Perhaps he meant "Chulin will be what I do not eat", which implies that what I eat will not be a Korban!

Rejection: R. Meir does not infer the positive from the negative.

Explanation (cont.): Here (in the Reisha) he said la'Chulin, i.e. with a Patach under the Lamed. What Rav Ashi said "here is where he said" is not precise, for this is not [in the] Beraisa.

Note: The Ran (above, DH la'Chulin) said that the text of the Beraisa does not say "l'Chulin she'Ochel Lecha Asur."

Rather, he means as follows. You want to say that the Beraisa is abbreviated, and you compare it to 'la'Korban Lo Ochel Lecha.' You are correct, if he said 'la'Chulin' with a Patach under the Lamed.

Conclusion: This (Explanation #1) is according to the opinion that the text says "l'Korban Lo Ochel Lecha" which R. Meir forbids;

Explanation #2: According to the opinion that the text [says "l'Chalin" without a Vov, Rav Ashi answers as follows. When he said l'Chalin, with a Sheva under the Lamed, it is forbidden.

He means "it will be [like] Chalos Todah, therefore I will not eat from you, similar to "l'Korban Lo Ochel Lecha", which R. Meir forbids. Also that is only when there is a Sheva under the Lamed.

However, when he said with a Patach under the Lamed, he means "not Chalin (Chalos)." His words connote like this. It is impossible to explain them in any other way. Therefore, (even R. Meir explains like this, even though from the negative we do not infer the positive), and it is permitted.

Suggestion: He means "will not be [like] Chalos Todah what I do not eat from you." This implies that what I eat from you will be [like] Chalos Todah!

Rejection: R. Meir does not infer the positive from the negative.

Question: If the Beraisa teaches "la'Chalin" with a Patach under the Lamed, and it connotes to us not Chalin, how can the middle clause teach "la'Chalin I eat from you, it is forbidden"?

Just the contrary! It should have taught that it is permitted, for he means not Chalin!

Answer: In the middle clause, there is a Sheva under the Lamed. In the Seifa, there is a Patach under the Lamed. Each one teaches a Chidush;

The middle clause teaches that whenever there is a Sheva under the Lamed, even if he concluded with an expression of Heter, i.e. she'Ochel Lecha, it is forbidden;

The Seifa teaches that whenever there is a Patach under the Lamed, even if he concluded with an expression of Isur, i.e. she'Lo Ochel Lecha, he is permitted.

Ruling: We hold like R. Yehudah, who infers the positive from the negative, like our Stam Mishnah here.

Implied question: We say in Gitin (75b) that Shmuel enacted in the Get of a Shechiv Mera 'if I die [from this illness...] and if I do not die...', with a Tenai Kaful!

Answer: This is not because he holds like R. Meir. Rather, he was concerned to distance from all possible problems;

This is a decree lest a Beis Din err and hold like R. Meir. If he did not double his Tenai, they would permit his wife to remarry [even if he recovered]!

Support: The Rif holds like this, and so ruled the Ramban in his Halachos.

Gemara: He is Matfis in Heter.

Explanation: For it says "v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech", and after "veha'Basar Tochel."

Gemara: There was meat of a Shelamim in front of him.

Explanation: After the blood was thrown.

Gemara: And there was Heter in front of him.

Explanation: A loaf of Heter.

Explanation: This refers to the Isur before Zerikas Dam.

Question #1: Even if you will say that he is Matfis in Heter, i.e. this [other matter in front of him] should be truly like this [meat of Shelamim] in front of him, still he should be forbidden, for it is forbidden to Tamei people, due to his vow!

Question #2: There is the chest and thigh, which are forbidden to Zarim, due to his vow! (Only Kohanim may eat Chazah v'Shok of Shelamim.)

Answer: These are not difficult. If [the Isurim of Basar Shelamim after Zerikah] were due to his vow (to bring a Shelamim), they should be forbidden to everyone, for when he made it Hekdesh, he made it Asur to the entire world;

However, after Zerikah, [the Isur due to] his vow was uprooted. The Isur to Teme'im, and of the chest and thigh to Zarim, are not due to his vow;

If they were due to his vow, they should be forbidden to everyone! Rather, it is an Isur that the Torah imposed on it.