Why does Rashi say ואין שאלה להקדש״ when the מח' between ב"ש-ב"ה has nothing to do with that? It's based on whether or not his dibbur is considered fruition (Rashi nazir 31, Tosfos Nazir 33 DH מאי טעמא)
.Further in Taanis 4a we see from Yiftach that there is שאלה בהקדש and one cannot say that he was only giving a korban but not bedek habayis as the mefarshim on Shoftim clearly explain that all his extra lshonos were to cover all types of הקדש for whatever exited his door
Daniel Gray, Toronto Canada
Regarding your first point, if we say that even הקדש טעות is hekdesh for whatever reason, it follows logically that הקדש doesn't work like a regular נדר which can be cancelled on the basis of the fact that it was done by mistake. This is the entire basis of שאלה- the חכם finds a way to say that the נדר was a mistake.
This is why Rashi adds that אין שאלה להקדש since the whole concept of שאלה is based on the premise that it was a טעות, whereas if טעות doesn't make a difference there is no way to release the הקדש.
As for the second question, I cannot see in the Sugya any reference to שאלה regarding Yiftach. According to some meforshim, Yiftach in fact sacrificed his daughter (Midrash Tanchuma) or she never married (Malbim) or was sanctified to serve Hash-m all her life (Radak, Metzudos). The reason his נדר was not cancelled by a חכם is because both Yiftach and Pinchas refused to meet one another to perform the cancellation ceremony (Midrash).
Yoel Domb
Tks, but both questions remain unanswered for me personally b/c:
Regarding the first point, the question still remains why Rashi is at all bringing up the concept of ואין שאלה להקדש״ when the מח' between ב"ש-ב"הhas nothing to do with that? Their argument is based entirely on whether or not his dibbur (speaking) is considered significant as a dibbur.
Regarding the second point, you yourself did indeed note - Yiftach's pledge was annullable via sheilah aka "the cancellation ceremony" as you term it. Question returns - that there is שאלה בהקדש
I think the answer has to be along the lines of: of course there is שאלה בהקדש as proven from Yiftach but we must make a chiluk. In Yiftach's case he clearly pledged (it was identified when upon his return he encountered the first exiting life form) and both ב"ש-ב"ה agree there that the neder is chal and there is sheilah. In our sugya, it's argued whether or not he even made a valid pledge.
Daniel Gray
---------------------------------------------- The Kollel replies: