Explanation: Because he specified the matters forbidden, he made them to himself like Hekdesh;

Therefore, he is forbidden Chilufeihem and Giduleihem, just like Chilufeihem and Giduleihem of Hekdesh are forbidden.

Implied question: Why is this different than one who vowed Stam from figs or grapes?

Answer: Since he did not detail [which figs or grapes he forbids], and forbade to himself the entire species, he did not make them Hekdesh to himself. He intended only not to eat that species. Therefore, Chilufeihem and Giduleihem are not forbidden. (Note: Giduleihem includes more than the species. Grape leaves grow from grapes, but they are not included in 'grapes'. - PF)

However, one who specifies, like here that he says "these Peros" - and the same applies if he said "Peros in the place Ploni" or Ploni's Peros...

Since he designated, he is like one who specified, and he is forbidden Chilufeihem and Giduleihem, like we will explain in the coming Mishnah with Hash-m's help.

Note: The Ran calls the coming clause (ha'Omer l'Ishto...) the start of a new Mishnah.

Question: How can we say that he is forbidden Chilufeihem and Giduleihem because he specified?

Rami bar Chama asked above (47a), if one said "these Peros are Cherem on Ploni", what is the law of Chilufeihem?

His Safek is whether the reason for our Mishnah is due to the Noder's intent. Therefore, only a Noder is forbidden, but not a Mudar;

Or, perhaps it is not due to the Noder's intent, rather, because Chilufeihem are like Giduleihem, and the same applies to all Isurei Hana'ah. Chilufeihem are forbidden to the one who exchanged them, like I wrote above.

Observation: Surely, if the reason is because Chilufeihem are like Giduleihem, this is not only if he said "these". Also for all Isurei Hana'ah, Chilufeihem are forbidden.

Consequence: Since according to "or, perhaps" (the latter side of his Safek), "Elu" is not precise (the law is the same when he did not say "these"), also when we say that it is due to the Noder's intent, it connotes that "Elu" is not precise. The same applies when he forbids the entire category.

Source: Rami bar Chama had no Safek whether or not Elu is precise!

Answer: I can say that really, Elu is precise, even if we say that the reason is because Chilufeihem are like Giduleihem;

This is because that reason suffices only to forbid them to the one who exchanged them, but not to forbid them to someone else;

Our Mishnah uniformly forbids Chilufeihem and Giduleihem, even if someone else exchanged them;

You are forced to say that this Isur is due to Elu, for Chilufeihem of Isurei Hana'ah are not forbidden when someone else exchanged them.

Explanation: Above, Rami bar Chama said as follows. It is obvious to me that when someone else exchanged them, they are forbidden due to Elu. Therefore, only a Noder is forbidden, but not a Mudar;

However, I am unsure about the following. If he exchanged them, are Chilufeihem forbidden only due to Elu, that we will say that only a Noder is forbidden, but not a Mudar, just like he said when someone else exchanged them?

Or, perhaps granted, when someone else exchanged them, they are forbidden only due to Elu, but when he exchanged them, we do not need Elu. The reason is because Chilufeihem are like Giduleihem. There is no difference between a Noder and a Mudar;

The Mishnah taught Elu due to the case when someone else exchanged them. Without Elu, he is not forbidden Chilufeihem. So it seems to me. I already wrote about this above (47a DH Ba'i).

Mishnah: [If he said] 'that I will eat' [or] 'that I will taste', he is permitted Chilufeihem and Giduleihem,

Implied question: 'That I will eat' [or] 'that I will taste' increases the Isur!

Answer: Even so, he is not forbidden Chilufeihem and Giduleihem, for when he eats Chilufeihem and Giduleihem, he does not taste these Peros that he forbade to himself.

Explanation: This refers to our entire Mishnah. It means as follows. The Reisha said that Giduleihem are forbidden. This implies that only Giduleihem are forbidden, but Gidulei Giduleihem are permitted...

This is only in a matter in which the seed decomposes. In such a case, granted, the first Giduleihem are forbidden, even though there is nothing in the Giduleihem from what he forbade, for the seed decomposed...

Even so, Giduleihem are no worse than Chilufeihem. Also Chilufeihem, even though there is nothing in them from what he forbade, even so they are forbidden!

Distinction: However, Gidulei Giduleihem are permitted, for Giduleihem in a matter in which the seed decomposes are like Chilufeihem;

Just like Chilufei Chilufeihem are permitted, like is proven above (47b) regarding one who sold [Isurei Hana'ah] and was Mekadesh with the money - she is Mekudeshes - likewise, Gidulei Giduleihem are permitted.

Support: This is why it taught "and Giduleihem", which connotes that Gidulei Giduleihem are not [forbidden], because we discuss a matter in which the seed decomposes.

Similarly, the Seifa, [in which he said] she'Ani Ochel or she'Ani To'em, he is permitted Chilufeihem and Giduleihem, is only in a matter in which the seed decomposes.

Distinction: In a matter in which the seed does not decompose, both in the Reisha and Seifa, even Gidulei Giduleihem are forbidden;

Since the seed does not decompose, the original Isur is mixed with Gidulei Giduleihem;

Nedarim are Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim, like we say in the Gemara, and every Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim is not Batel even in 1000 [parts of Heter].

Explanation: This teaches a Chidush, that one who designates Ploni's Peros, like here that he designates his wife's earnings, is like one who said "Elu", and he is forbidden Chilufeihem and Giduleihem.

Implied question: Her earnings are intangible! (Nedarim take effect only on tangible things.)

Answer #1: We can establish that he said "your hands are Konam for their actions."

Answer #2: His wife's handiwork, after she does it, is tangible.

Ruling (Rabbeinu Yonah): Only the amount corresponding to her labor is forbidden;

If his wife grinded (grain) and baked [bread], he sells the bread, so the money corresponding to the added value due to the grinding and baking are hers (and is forbidden to him), and what corresponds to the wheat is his.

Explanation: This Seifa also teaches a Chidush more than our first Mishnah (i.e. the Reisha). Even though (i.e. even if) he said Elu, since he concluded his words "she'Ani Ochel" or "she'Ani To'em", he is permitted Chilufeihem and Giduleihem.

Ma'aseh Yedei Ishto is like Elu, like I wrote [in the previous Dibur], and even so it was taught that if he said she'Ani Ochel she'Ani To'em, Chilufeihem and Giduleihem are permitted;

She'Ani Ochel she'Ani To'em, not only they do not add Isur regarding Chilufeihem and Giduleihem when he did not say Elu...

Just the contrary! [These expressions] permit [Chilufeihem and Giduleihem] even when he said Elu, because there is no taste of Isur in Chilufeihem and Giduleihem.

Therefore, when he concludes his words she'Ani Ochel she'Ani To'em, this comes to permit them (Chilufeihem and Giduleihem). This is the Chidush of she'Ani Ochel in this Mishnah (the Seifa) above she'Ani Ochel in the first Mishnah (Reisha);

Assertion: [We do not learn this from the Reisha, for] she'Ani Ochel in the Reisha does not refer to [when he said] Elu.

Proof: Above (52b), [we asked why one who said 'I will not taste these grapes or olives' is forbidden even what comes out of them. Is it because he said 'these', or because he said 'I will not taste'?]...

[The Gemara] wanted to resolve the question, that it is only due to she'Ani Ochel [or To'em], since [when he said so, our Reisha] taught that he is permitted Chilufeihem and Giduleihem. This implies that he is forbidden what comes out of them.

If she'Ani Ochel in the Reisha refers to when he said Elu, how can we learn from here? Here is different, for he said Elu! Rather, surely it is like we said (she'Ani Ochel refers to when he did not say Elu).

Mishnah: 'What you make, I will not eat it until Pesach...' he may eat and wear after Pesach.

Explanation: We have no doubt, lest perhaps 'until Pesach' refers to 'what you make', and he means that he will never eat it.

Source: If [he intended] so, he should have said 'what you make until Pesach, I will not eat it', like the Seifa taught. Since he did not say so, this implies that 'until Pesach' refers to eating.

Mishnah: 'What you benefit from me until Pesach...'

Reference: I explained this Mishnah above (15) according to Rav Yehudah's opinion and according to Rav Nachman's opinion.

Gemara: Ish Kefar Yama.

Explanation: He dwelled in a village that was on the sea shore.

Gemara: He raised in his hand.

Explanation: He raised this question with his mouth. The Targum of "uv'Yado Ritzpah" (Yeshayah 6:6) is uv'Fumei Memalel.

Explanation: This does not mean that it was a mere majority over the Ikar. Rather, it was such a majority, that in a corresponding case of [Heter] from elsewhere, there would be enough to nullify the Isur;

However, regarding growth he is unsure whether Gidulim of Heter are Mevatel the Isur, or not.

Assertion: It seems to me that his primary Safek is whether we say that Gidulim, since they are drawn and come from a source that does not decompose, they are like the source, and they are forbidden;

Or, they are like Heter, and they are Mevatel the Isur!

Implied question: He should have asked whether the Gidulim themselves are permitted or forbidden!

Answer: One depends on the other. If Gidulim of Heter are Mevatel the Isur, obviously [the Gidulim themselves] are permitted;

If they are not Mevatel the Isur, obviously [the Gidulim themselves] are forbidden. If they were permitted, they would be Mevatel [the Isur]!

Conclusion: So it seems to me. Below you will see what forced me to explain so.

Gemara: If a Terumah onion was planted and the added growth is more than the Ikar (initial size), it is permitted.

Explanation: I.e. it is not Terumah (there is a Heter even for Zarim, and even b'Tum'ah), for Gidulim nullify the Ikar.

Limitation: However, it is Tevel, for its Gidulim nullified the Ikar. We say that it is permitted, i.e. it ceased to be called Terumah, and one may eat it Arai (before it is fixed, like the law of Tevel).

Gemara: Why did the master abandon two?

Explanation: R. Yochanan and R. Yonason, who hold that Gidulim do not nullify the Ikar.

Gemara: If a young tree was grafted onto an old tree.

Explanation: A young tree, that is less than three years old, and he cut it and grafted it onto an old tree more than three years old, and it has Peros;

If it did not have Peros, we say in Sotah (43b) a young tree grafted onto an old tree, it is Batel (Orlah does not apply to what grows from it).

Gemara: Even though it added 200 times, it is forbidden.

Explanation: Even though the Peros increased 200 times over their size before he grafted it, it is forbidden.

Implied question: Heter growth comes from the old tree, and we hold that a young tree grafted onto an old tree is Batel!

Answer: Even so, since these Peros already were on [the young branch] before he grafted it, their growth does not nullify the Ikar.

Gemara: Even if the vineyard was uprooted.

Explanation: And afterwards, it grew b'Heter; it is forbidden.

Inference: Gidulim, since they come from the Ikar, they are like it. Also regarding Shevi'is, there is no difference.

Gemara: That he fixed it.

Explanation: He separated its Terumah and Ma'aseros.

Gemara: V'Zar'ah (and he planted it).

Explanation: [Normally, Zeri'ah applies to sowing seeds, and Neti'ah to planting things that do not decompose, e.g. trees. Here it says v'Zar'ah] because the Litra contains many onions, and he plants them in different places, so an expression of Zeri'ah applies.

Explanation: [It is tithed based on] the Gidulim and the Ikar.

Inference: The Gidulim, which are obligated, nullify the Ikar, which is exempt.

Implied question: Above, R. Avahu said in the name of R. Yochanan that if a young tree was grafted onto an old tree, and there were fruits on the former, even if they grow 200 times larger, they are forbidden. This shows that Gidulim do not nullify the Ikar!

Answer: Amora'im argue about R. Yochanan's opinion.

Explanation: Really, I can tell you that based on letter of the law, Gidulim are not Mevatel the Ikar (source). Just the contrary, they (Gidulim) are [exempt] like the Ikar!

Rather, here for a mere stringency we say that they are Mevatel (and all is Tevel).

Support: What I explained defuses the question that some asked here, that this stringency leads to a leniency!

Implied question: If he will tithe it from it itself, perhaps he will take the Ikar to be Ma'aser to exempt the growth, and this is from Patur (what is exempt) on Chayav (what is obligated, which is invalid);

And if he will tithe it from elsewhere, he will separate too much Ma'aser [since we say that all of it is Tevel, but really the Ikar is exempt]!

Answer: This is not difficult at all. Since the Gidulim are not Mevatel the Ikar, the Gidulim are [exempt] like the Ikar, since they grow from it;

This Litra (volume of onions), the Ikar and growth are exempt based on letter of the law. When he tithes it from it itself, there is no problem. (All of it is obligated only mid'Rabanan.)