Rejection: The Beraisa cannot refer to Kodshei Mizbe'ach. The Seifa says "even if he said 'the head of this cow is Hekdesh,' only the head is Hekdesh";

If this was Kodshei Mizbe'ach, the Kedushah would spread to the whole animal!

(Beraisa - R. Meir and R. Yehudah) Suggestion: If one says "the leg of this animal is an Olah," perhaps the entire animal is an Olah!

Rejection: "Kol Asher Yiten Mimenu la'Shem Yihyeh Kodesh" teaches that part of it will be Kodesh, but not all of it.

Suggestion: Perhaps the animal can be redeemed!

Rejection: "Yihyeh" - it remains Kodesh;

It is sold to someone who needs an Olah. The money becomes Chulin, except for the value of the leg.

R. Yosi and R. Shimon say, if one says "the leg of this animal is an Olah," the entire animal is an Olah - "Kol Asher Yiten Mimenu la'Shem Yihyeh Kodesh." (The Gemara in Chulin says that they learn from "Yihyeh.")

Even R. Meir and R. Yehudah say that the entire animal is not an Olah only when he was Makdish a non-vital organ. All agree that Hekdesh of a vital life organ is Makdish the entire animal!

Answer #2 (to the question and counter-question): Kedushah spreads only regarding Kedushas ha'Guf. The Beraisa discusses Kedushas Damim (in order to buy Kodshei Mizbe'ach).

Question (Abaye): You (Rabah) yourself taught that if a male was Hukdash to be sold and to buy an Olah with its money, it gets Kedushas ha'Guf! (It itself will be offered.)

Answer: That is only if the entire animal was Hukdash, but not if only part was Hukdash.

Question (Abaye): You yourself were unsure about this!

Question (Rabah): If one was Makdish a limb (to buy a Korban), is the entire animal Kodesh?

Answer (Rabah): I asked about a Tam animal. The Beraisa discusses a Ba'al Mum, similar to the previous clause, which discusses a donkey.

Question (Abaye): You were unsure also about a Ba'al Mum!

Question (Rabah): If one said "Alai Demei (the value of) my head for (a Korban for) the Mizbe"ach," what is the law? (A person is the ultimate Ba'al Mum, he cannot be offered.)

Answer (Rabah): I was unsure before I heard the Beraisa. Once I heard it, I learned that the Kedushah does not spread.

Question (Rabah): If one said "Alai Demei Roshi for the Mizbe'ach," is he evaluated bi'Chvodo?

Vows of Damim are always evaluated bi'Chvodo;

On the other hand, we never find Kedushas Mizbe'ach that is evaluated bi'Chvodo!

This question is not resolved.

Question (Rava): If one said "Erki (my Erech) is Alai for the Mizbe'ach" (and he cannot afford it), does Heseg Yad apply?

Heseg Yad always applies to Erchin;

On the other hand, Kedushas Mizbe'ach is always redeemed for its value!

This question is not resolved.

Question (Rav Ashi): If one was Makdish a Sedeh Achuzah (an inherited field) for the Mizbe'ach, how is it redeemed?

A Sedeh Achuzah is always redeemed according to the fixed price (50 Shekalim per Beis Kor);

On the other hand, Kedushas Mizbe'ach is always redeemed for its value!

This question is not resolved.

(Mishnah): A baby less than one month can be Nidar, but he cannot be Ne'erach.

(Gemara - Beraisa - R. Meir): If one vows to give the Erech of a baby less than a month old, he gives the Damim;

Chachamim say, the vow is void.

Question: What do they argue about?

Answer: R. Meir holds that one does not say vain things (about Hekdesh. We must interpret his words in a way that they take effect);

One knows that Erchin does not apply to a baby before one month. Surely he meant to give its value.

Chachamim hold that people sometimes say things that have no effect.

Question: Like which Tana is the following teaching?

(Rav Gidal citing Rav): If one said "the Erech of this Kli is Alai," he must give its value.

Answer: It is like R. Meir.

Question: This is obvious!

Answer: One might have thought that it is even like Chachamim;

Perhaps Chachamim exempt only one who vows to give the Erech of a baby before one month, for people err, and they think that just like Erchin apply to babies above a month, also to babies less than a month, but all know that a Kli has no Erech. Surely, he intended to give its value!

Rav teaches that this is not so.

Question: Since Rav holds like R. Meir, what is the Chidush of his ruling?

Answer: One might have explain R. Meir differently, i.e. he decrees to obligate one who was Ma'arich a baby before one month, lest people think that even a baby above one month has no Erech, but there is no need to decree about Erech of a Kli;

Rav teaches that this is not so. In both cases R. Meir holds that one does not say vain things.

Question: Like which Tana is the following?

(Rabah bar Yosef citing Rav): If Reuven was Makdish Shimon's animal, he gives its value to Hekdesh.

Answer: It is like R. Meir.

Question: Rav already taught this in another way!

(Rav Gidal citing Rav): If one said "the Erech of this Kli is Alai," he must give its value.

Answer: One might have thought that since people know that a Kli has no Erech, he intended to be Makdish its value, but since one can be Makdish an animal, perhaps he intended to be Makdish it now (for a Korban) on condition that Shimon will consent to sell it, but he does not intend to be Makdish its value. Rav teaches that this is not so.

(Rav Ashi): This is only if he said "(Shimon's animal is) Alai." If he said "it is a Korban," his words do not take effect.

(Mishnah - R. Meir): A Nochri can be Ne'erach, but he cannot be Ma'arich;

R. Yehudah says, he can be Ma'arich, but he cannot be Ne'erach;

All agree that he can be Noder and be Nidar.

(Gemara - Beraisa - R. Meir): "Bnei Yisrael" can be Ma'arich. Nochrim cannot;

Suggestion: Perhaps Nochrim cannot be Ne'erachim!

Rejection: It says "Ish".

Question (R. Meir): Since one verse includes and one verse excludes, why do I say that he is Ne'erach but cannot be Ma'arich?

Answer: We find that people who cannot be Ma'arich can be Ne'erach, e.g. a child, lunatic or Cheresh.

R. Yehudah says, "Bnei Yisrael" can be Ne'erachim, but Nochrim cannot;

Suggestion: Perhaps Nochrim cannot be Ma'arich!

Rejection: It says "Ish".

Question (R. Yehudah): Since one verse includes and one verse excludes, why do I say that he can be Ma'arich but cannot be Ne'erach?

Answer: We find that people who cannot be Ne'erach can be Ma'arich, e.g. a Tumtum and Androginus.

(Rava): Presumably, R. Meir's law is correct, but his reasoning is not. Presumably, R. Yehudah's reasoning is correct, but his law is not!

Presumably, R. Meir's law is correct - "Lo Lachem va'Lanu Livnos Bayis Leilokeinu" (Nochrim may not contribute to the Mikdash);

His reasoning is unsound. We cannot learn from a child, lunatic or Cheresh, for they lack Da'as (understanding. Therefore, they cannot be Ma'arich. We have no source that one with Da'as cannot be Ma'arich but can be Ne'erach!)

R. Yehudah's reasoning is sound. He learns from Tumtum and Androginus. Even though they have Da'as, they can only be Ma'arich, but they cannot be Ne'erachim;

His law is not correct - "Lo Lachem va'Lanu... "

Question: What does R. Yehudah learn from "Lo Lachem va'Lanu"?

Answer #1 (Rav Chisda): If a Nochri is Ma'arich, he is liable. However, the money is put in Genizah (buried).

Question: If so, Me'ilah should not apply to it!

(Mishnah): One may not benefit from any of the five Chata'os that must die (because it cannot be offered or redeemed) or from money that must be cast to the Dead Sea;

If one benefited, he did not transgress Me'ilah (because these have no use for Hekdesh or the Mizbe'ach).

Summation of question: Me'ilah applies to Kodshei Nochrim!

(Beraisa): Me'ilah does not apply to Kodshei Mizbe'ach of Nochrim, but it applies to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis of Nochrim.

Answer #2 (Rava): (Mid'Oraisa, a Nochri can be Ma'arich, and Hekdesh uses his money.) Ezra decreed not to take their money for the Mikdash, lest Yisraelim will (rely on Nochrim and)) slacken from contributing for it (giving time to Nochrim to persuade the king to order to cease building) - "va'Yehi Am ha'Aretz Merapim Yedei Am Yehudah u'Mevahalim Osam Livnos." (Tosfos - Rava retracted from saying that the Halachah follows R. Meir.)