1)

(a)Beis Shamai, in our Mishnah, learn 'Hekdesh Ta'us Hekdesh' by Techilas Hekdesh from Sof Hekdesh. Sof Hekdesh - refers to Temurah (swapping another animal for one's Korban).

(b)Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah (in Temurah) learns from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "Vehayah Hu u'Semuraso Yiheyeh Kodesh" - 'Lerabos Shogeg k'Mezid' (that if someone meant to say that the black animal standing in front of him should be a Temurah for his Olah, and by mistake, he said it about the white one that was standing next to it, the black one becomes a Temurah).

(c)Beis Hillel disagree with this - on the grounds that one cannot learn Techilas Hekdesh from Sof Hekdesh.

(d)We query Beis Shamai however, from someone who declares an animal a Temurah from midday on - where it is obvious, even according to Beis Shamai, that the Temurah will take effect as from midday (because that is what he said, and we have a principle which requires 'Piv v'Libo Shavin'), and not immediately. In that case, in our Mishnah how can Beis Shamai maintain that even if someone declares a black animal Hekdesh, it is a white one that will become Hekdesh?

2)

(a)On the basis of the previous Kashya, Rav Papa changes our understanding of Beis Shamai. He now explains the case in our Mishnah 'Amar Shor Shachor she'Yetzei mi'Beisi Rishon, Harei Hu Hekdesh, v'Yatza Lavan' to mean - that if the owner of a number of black animals declared the first black animal to come out of the gate Hekdesh, then his words will take effect, even if a white one preceded it.

(b)This explanation also extends to the other two cases in our Mishnah. In the case of Dinar Zahav she'Ya'aleh b'Yadi Rishon, Harei Hu Hekdesh, v'Alah shel Kesef' - he declared the first of his gold coins that he picked up, Hekdesh, only the first coin that he actually held in his hand was a silver one. And similarly, he meant to be Makdish the first barrel of wine.

(c)Alternatively, what Rav Papa means to say is - that the Noder really intended to be Makdish the first animal that came out of his house, and he only said a black one, because he anticipated that that is what would happen.

3)

(a)Beis Hillel disagree on the basis of the Lashon used by the Noder. According to Beis Shamai, they maintain - he should have said 'Shor Shachor she'Yetzei mi'Beisi ba'Rishon' (rather than 'Rishon'), according to the first explanation, and 'Shor she'Yetzei Rishon', according to the second.

(b)The Tana nevertheless refers to this as Hekdesh Ta'us, despite the fact that the Hekdesh takes effect exactly as he intended it to - because the Lashon is misleading (as Beis Hillel point out).

4)

(a)Beis Shamai in the following Mishnah rules that the designated Korban of a Nazir who then has his Nezirus revoked - must graze in the field until it obtains a blemish, when it goes out to Chulin.

(b)Beis Hillel attempt to prove from Beis Shamai's very own words - that 'Hekdesh Ta'us, Lo Havi Hekdesh' (otherwise, why should the animal not retain its Kedushah?).

(c)This Mishnah presents Rav Papa with a Kashya - inasmuch as from Beis Hillel's words it is clear that Beis Shamai holds 'Hekdesh Ta'us Hekdesh.' (So how can Rav Papa say that he does not?)

(d)Rav Papa resolves it by explaining - that it is Beis Hillel who misunderstood Beis Shamai, thinking that his opinion was based on 'Hekdesh Ta'us Hekdesh' when really it wasn't.

5)

(a)The Mishnah later speaks about six people traveling together when they see a man coming towards them. The first traveler declares that he is a Nazir if that person is Reuven - the second one, if he is not.

(b)The third traveler declares that he is a Nazir if one of the first two is a Nazir - the fourth one, if one of them is not. In fact, both mean the same thing, since the one is referring to the one who is right, the other, to the one who is wrong.

(c)The fifth traveler declares himself a Nazir if both of the first two are Nezirim - seeing as each one accepted Nezirus on the understanding that he was right.

(d)The sixth traveler declares that he is a Nazir if all the others are Nezirim.

6)

(a)Beis Shamai hold that they are all Nezirim - because 'Nezirus b'Ta'us Nezirus.

(b)In that case, they will also hold 'Hekdesh Ta'us Hekdesh'. This case differ from that of someone who declares a Temurah to take effect from midday - inasmuch as there, the Noder certainly did not intend the Hekdesh to take effect immediately, whereas here, each of the travelers intended to accept Nezirus, according to his mistake.

(c)Rav Papa reconciles his opinion (that Beis Shamai do not hold 'Hekdesh Ta'us Hekdesh') with that Mishnah - by conceding that from there it is indeed clear that Beis Shamai hold Hekdesh Ta'us Hekdesh, but not from our Mishnah (seeing as it is open to an alternative interpretation, as we explained).

7)

(a)Abaye establishes our Mishnah as we thought at first (that it is the white animal which is Hekdesh, even though the Noder specifically said 'the first black one'. He reconciles that with the case of someone who declares a Temurah to take effect from midday (where Beis Shamai agrees that we do not deviate from his words) - by changing the case in our Mishnah from the future to the past. What the Noder said was Shor Shachor she'Yatza mi'Beisi ... '. And when they tell him that it was not a black one but a white one, he retorts that, had he known that, he would have said so.

(b)In the equivalent case, if the Noder made his declaration with reference to the future, and then, when they told him that it was a white animal that emerged first, he said that, had he known that, he would have specifically said 'a white one' - Abaye would say that his Neder is not effective ...

(c)... because there (bearing in mind that he is not a prophet) there is no justification for saying 'a black one'; whereas in the past, he said 'a black one', because he genuinely thought (albeit mistakenly) that it was a black one that emerged first.

(d)This latter case differs from the case of Temurah and from the Mishnah of the six travelers (where Beis Shamai hold 'Hekdesh Ta'us, Hekdesh') - inasmuch as there, his mistake is justifiable, whereas here, there is no basis to think that a black animal will emerge first.

(e)Beis Hillel say 'Eino Hekdesh'.

8)

(a)Abaye amends the Mishnah, which says 'Dinar Zahav she'Ya'aleh Rishon ... ', and 'Chavis shel Yayin she'Ta'aleh Risho nah ... ' (in the future) - to the past ('Dinar Zahav she'Alah Rishon ... ', and 'Chavis shel Yayin she'Alsah Rishonah ... ').

9)

(a)When Rav Chisda says ...

1. ... 'Uchma b'Chivra Lakya' - he means that a black ox in a herd of white ones devalues the herd.

2. ... 'Chivra b'Uchma Lakya' - he means that white spots on a black ox devalues the ox.

(b)The problem with that from our Mishnah, where Beis Shamai declare the white ox Hekdesh is - that on the assumption that a person tends to be Makdish begrudgingly, we take for granted that the Noder had in mind a black one. In that case, why is the white one Hekdesh (bearing in mind that we are explaining our Mishnah like Abaye).

(c)To conform with his opinion - Rav Chisda explains that a person is Makdish generously.

(d)We reject his answer however - from the middle case of 'Dinar shel Zahav' from which it is evident (from the fact that the silver coin is Hekdesh) that a person tends to be Makdish begrudgingly.

10)

(a)Having concluded that a person tends to be Makdish begrudgingly ...

1. ... we establish the Seifa of 'Chavis' (despite the fact that oil is generally more expensive than wine) - in the Galil, where wine is more expensive than oil.

2. ... Rav Chisda establishes the Reisha, where Beis Shamai considers the white ox Hekdesh even though in his opinion, it is more valuable - by the majority of oxen (where black oxen are more valuable than white ones), whereas his statement is confined specifically to oxen from Karmuna (where the white oxen were of particularly high quality).

(b)Based on these facts, the Tana of our Mishnah needs to state the case of ...

1. ... the coins (the middle case) - to establish that a person is Makdish begrudgingly.

2. ... the oxen (the Reisha) - to teach us the Din by all oxen other than those of Karmuna (according to Rav Chisda).

3. ... the barrels (the Seifa) - to teach us that although the Din is confined to the Galil, we do not go after the majority of the world. Note: see also the commentaries on the Mishnah.

11)

(a)Rav Chisda also said that a black ox is good for its skin, a red one for its meat - whereas a white one is good for plowing.

(b)This appears to clash with his previous statement (that a black ox among white ones lessens their value) - because if it more valuable as far as its skin is concerned, it does not seem logical that the white ones are so superior as regards plowing that they completely negate the black ones' advantage.

(c)We resolve these two statements by qualifying the first one, like we did earlier - by confining Rav Chisda's earlier statement to oxen from Karmuna, where the white ones are better than the black ones in all regards; whereas his second statement pertains to all other oxen.

(d)Rav Chisda will explain our Mishnah, which considers black oxen superior - by ordinary oxen, as we explained earlier, because the advantage of better skin outweighs that of better plowing.

12)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that if the Chacham declined to annul the Nezirus, the Noder continues to count his Nezirus from the time of the declaration - even though, thinking that the Nezirus was not valid, the Noder contravened it (by drinking wine ... ).

(b)In a case where the Chacham did revoke the Nezirus, and where the Nazir had already designated an animal for his Korban - the Tana rules that it must graze in the field until it obtains a blemish, when it goes out to Chulin.

(c)Even Beis Shamai (who hold 'Hekdesh Ta'us Havi Hekdesh') will concede to this ruling - seeing as his Nezirus has now turned to be non-existent, retroactively.

13)

(a)When Beis Hillel attempted to prove from here that 'Hekdesh Ta'us Lo Havi Hekdesh' - Beis Shamai countered with a Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheni, which rules that if someone mistakenly declared the ninth animal that entered the pen, the tenth, the tenth, the ninth and the eleventh, the tenth, that all of them are Ma'asar Behemah (a proof that 'Hekdesh Ta'us is Hekdesh').

(b)Beis Hillel however, refute Beis Shamai's proof from Ma'asar Behemah - inasmuch as there it his not his erroneous declaration that renders the animals Hekdesh, but a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv' ("ha'Asiri Yiheyeh Kodesh").

(c)And they prove their point - from the fact that it is only the ninth and the eleventh animals that are Kadosh, but not the eighth and the twelfth.

(d)Beis Shamai's response to that is - because it is either the tenth animal that can be Hekdesh or one that has been called the tenth.

14)

(a)To reconcile what we learned in Perek 'Mi she'Amar' (if the Chatas of a Nezirah was purchased with her money it must die, with our Mishnah, which rules that it grazes ... ) - we point to the fact that the Tana there is talking about a husband, who only negates his wife's Nedarim from now on; whereas we are talking about a Chacham, who removes a Neder from its inception.

(b)Alternatively, the author there is Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar, who requires that she brings a Chatas anyway (as we discussed there); and the reason that he concedes in our case that even the Chatas grazes is - because, even if we say that a husband annuls his wife's Nedarim retroactively, they are nevertheless effective for one moment (since he annuls them even without Charatah), whereas in our case, where it was a Chacham who annulled the Nezirus, it is uprooted from its inception.