Question #1: Why does the Tana not put them together and say 'ha'Shanim ve'ha'Erchin be'Ne'erach' (See Shitah Mekubetzes 6)?

Question #2: Moreover, why does it not state 'Zachar Nosein Erech Nekeivah', in which case it would not need to say later 'ha'Erchin be'Ne'erach Keitzad'? (See Gilyon & Avodah Berurah).

Reference: Tosfos already explained this above on Daf 7b (Perek Ein Ne'erachin Pachos etz. DH 'Ein be'Erchin').

Clarification: By Ma'arich Davka, and not by Noder ...

Source: As the Gemara says later in 'ha'Omer Mishkali' (Daf 20a) - 'Nedarim are more stringent than Erchin, inasmuch as Nedarim take effect on animals and birds, and inasmuch as they are subject to Heseg Yad, which Erchin are not.

Clarification: ha'R. Menachem mi'Youni explains that if an Ashir declares 'Erchi alai' and an Ani overhears him and states 'What he said is also on me', he gives the Erech of an Ani ...

Clarification (cont.): 'Which is not the case by Korbanos - If somebody declares 'Korban shel Metzora Zeh alai ... ' ...

Clarification (cont.): 'On which Rebbi argues and says that if an Ashir declares 'Erki alai', and an Ani who overhears him, states 'What he said is also on me', he gives the Erech of an Ashir, like the Din by Korbanos.

Proof: And this also what the Mishnah implies.

Clarification: Is it not that by Korbanos too if a rich man declares 'Korbanos shel Metzora Ani Zeh alai', he must bring the Korban of an Ashir; so what is the difference between Korbanos and Erchin?

Answer: To which the Gemara answers 'Regarding one of them' ...

Clarification: With reference to the Metzora of an Ashir, where the Madir is an Ani ...

Clarification (cont.): Because as far as a Metzora is concerned, if a poor man declares 'Korban shel Metzora Ashir Zeh alai', he brings thr Erech (i.e. Korban) of an Ashir - since we do not go after the Noder ...

Clarification (cont.): Whereas by Erchin we go after the Noder - and if a rich man declares 'Erki alai' and a poor man hears him and and says 'What he said is on me', he gives the Erech of an Ani - because we go after the Noder ...

Conclusion: That is why we need "Hu" to preclude by him (Metzora), that we do not go after the Noder like we do by Erchin.

Rebbi: Whereas Rebbi, who says that Erchin and Metzora are the same in this regard, does not need "Hu" to preclude a Metzora Ashir whom an Ani is Madir, that he should give the 'Erech' of an Ashir, seeing as that is the Din by Erchin.

Rebbi (cont.): Only he needs "Hu" to preclude a Metzora Ani whom a rich man is Madir ...

Rebbi (cont.): Since we would otherwise have thought that since Rebbi goes after the obligation of the man, here too we should do likewise, and he should bring the Korban of an Ani

Rebbi (concl.): It therefore teaches us that this is not the case.

Clarification (concl.): But according to the Rabbanan, "Hu" is not needed to preclude a Metzora Ani whom an Ashir is Madir ...

Reason: Because seeing as by Erchin we go after the Noder, it is obvious that we will do likewise by Metzora, and we do not need "Hu" for that, as Tosfos explained (Refer to Gilyon).

Support: This is also how Rashi explains it.

Proof: And if one examines the Sugya carefully, one will see that that is precisely what it is saying.

Introduction to Question: This explanations needs to be looked into however, in that according to Rebbi, who compares where a rich man declares 'Erki alai' to the Korbanos of an Ashir, where the Noder is obligated to bring the Korban of an Ashir ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): This is specifically where the Ani undertakes to bring the Kobanos of the Ashir to exempt him ...

Question: And if he were to undertake the same thing by Erchin, what is the reason of the Rabbanan? ...

Question (cont.): Since he undertakes to bring what the Ashir declared in order to exempt him, he has undertaken to bring fifty Sela'im, so how can he be Yotzei by giving the Erech of an Ani?

Question: Without the reason of 'We find by Erchin', we ought to say that a Metzora of an Ani who declared 'Korban Metzora alai' gives the Erech of an Ani ...

Source: Based on the Ribuy "Ein Yado Maseges", 'to include a Noder' ...

Source (cont.): As the Gemara Darshened earlier (on Amud Alef)?

Answer: Nonetheless, if we did not find a similar source by Erchin, we would not have applied that D'rashah to an Ani who declared the Erech of an Ashir from the Ribuy of the Pasuk "Im Ein Yado Maseges" (See Avodah Berurah).

Question: R. Elchanan asks that, since even according to Rebbi, if not for the Miy'ut of the Pasuk, that a Metzora Ani whom an Ashir is Madir, we would go after the obligation of the person (who is Ne'erach) ...

Question (cont.): By Erchin let us say the same thing - that if an Ani declares 'Ercho alai', and an Ashir overhears him and says 'What he declared is on me too', then he gives the Erech of an Ani ...

Reason: Seeing as there is no Pasuk there to preclude, to say that that we do not go after 'the obligation of the person'?

Answer: And he answers that a Metzora is different, since there it is correct to say that we go after 'the obligation of the person' (even) if there is no Pasuk to preclude it ...

Reason: Seeing as he is specifically Noder the Korban of the Metzora ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas by Erchin, where the Ashir undertakes to bring what the Ani declared, it is obvious that we do not go after 'the obligation of the man' ...

Reason: Because if the Ani would not be Chayav anything, and the Ashir would have said simply 'Erech P'loni alai', he would have had to give the Erech of an Ashir and all the more so if he is Chayav an Erech ...

Reason: One cannot detract from the Ashir('s obligation) that he should now give the Erech of an Ani.

Introduction to Question: The Gemara says later in Perek Mishkali alai (Daf 21a) and in Peaschim (Daf 59a) that - 'Just as his Chatas and his Asham are crucial, so too is his Olah' - So we see that they are all crucial? ...

Question: And the Chatas and the OLah are not Machshir, only the Asham?

Answer: Although for sure aall of them are crucial and prevent him from eating Kodshim, bearing in mind that the Chatas is connected with Kaparah more than the Asham ...

Answer (cont.): Yet since the Asham comes basically only to be Machshir the Metzora, when they sprinkled from its blood on big toe and thumb, it calls it 'something that is Machshir' (See Avodah Berurah).

Refuted Explanation: One cannot extrapolate that by Erchin if the Kohen assesses him when he is an Ani, one waits until his father dies - whren he will be rich and he will then give the Erech of an Ashir ...

Refutation: Because we learned in the Tosefta of Erchin that 'If an Ani declares his own Erech, we do not tell him to work and to bring to bring the Erech of an Ashir later when he becomes rich' , but that it is better to bring the Erech of an Ani immediately than to bring that of an Ashir later' ...

Refutation (cont.): Indicating that we do not wait.

Authentic Explanation: But the explanation is - that even if his father, who was a Goseis, dies ...

Source: As the Gemara will establish - that by the Korban of a Metzora, if his father is a Goseis at the time that he brings his Chatas, and dies before he manages to sacrifice his Korbanos, Hekdesh does not benefit from the father's property ...

Authentic Explanation (cont.): Whereas by Erchin, if the Kohen assesses him to give a Sela when he is poor, and before he has managed to give it, his father dies and he becomes rich, he must give the Erech of an Ashir.

Question: The Kashya remains however, why the Gemara asks 'P'shita?' , when the Tana is teaching us a big Chidush, inasmuch as - if his father dies, before he has managed to bring his Korbanos and becomes rich, Hekdesh does not benefit from his father's property?

Answer: Some commentaries explain that it is referring to Rebbi Yehudah, who rules that 'If he was poor, bacame rich and poor again, he gives the Erech of an Ashir ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas by Korbanos, if his father was a Goseis - as the Gemara explains, where initially he was rich and then became poor, and now he is on the verge of becoming rich again, due to his forthcoming inheritance ...

Answer (cont.): Nevertheless, Hekdesh receives nothing ...

Answer (concl.): And it is on this that the Gemara asks 'P'shita?' that Hekdesh receives nothing

Reason: Seeing as that money never belonged to him?