Mishnah: Except for a Shevu'ah.

Explanation: This is because a Shevu'ah is more stringent than a Neder. It says about [one who swears falsely] "Lo Yenakeh" (he will not be cleansed).

Mishnah: One may not be Pose'ach (initiate) a vow.

Explanation: This means, if [the thug] did not say 'vow to me.'

Mishnah: [He may vow only] about what [the thug] makes him vow about it.

Explanation: Even if [the thug] opened (insisted that he vow), he may vow only] about what [the thug] makes him vow about it

Mishnah: His wife is permitted, and his children are forbidden.

Explanation: This is because [the thug] did not make him vow about his children; he himself vowed about them.

Gemara - Question: Shmuel taught that the law of the kingdom is binding!

Explanation: How do we permit to vow like this in order to evade the tax, since the law obligates him to pay the tax?

Gemara: [The Mishnah discusses] a tax collector without limit (he takes as much as he wants).

Explanation: Therefore, this is not law [of the kingdom], rather, extortion. Extortion of a tax collector is not law.

Explanation: The king did not command him [to collect taxes].

Distinction (Tosfos): Only regarding Nochri kings we say Dina d'Malchusa Dina (the law of the kingdom is binding), because the land is his, and he can say "if you will not do my commands, I will expel you from the land";

However, regarding Yisrael kings we do not say so, for all of Yisrael are partners in Eretz Yisrael.

Distinction: We say Dina d'Malchusa Dina regarding one who bought [the right to collect] the tax. People must pay the tax to him;

Similarly, if he did not buy it, but he is appointed to collect it, another Yisrael may not swear that it is Terumah, for there is no Ones, since Dina d'Malchusa Dina.

Explanation: The words of the Mishnah were difficult to him. It seems that we vow that they are Terumah. How can Neder apply in such an expression? (A Neder forbids an object.)

I.e. if he said "all Peros are forever forbidden to me", Devarim sheb'Lev (unspoken intents) are not Mevatel what he said with his mouth, even regarding an Ones like this;

Rather, here he said Stam "all Peros are forbidden to me."

Implied question: Stam connotes forever!

Answer: This is only when there is no Ones, for his words connote "forever" more than "today";

However, when there is Ones, the Ones explains his words, that he means "today", since he did not explicitly say otherwise.

Distinction: However, granted, here we conclude that without Ones, it connotes "forever", since he said Stam. Even if he says "today" in his heart, it does not help;

Even so, one who resolved in his heart to vow from [eating] wheat bread, and said "bread" Stam, we do not say that since he said Stam, and there is no Ones, he is forbidden all bread;

Explanation: Here, the reason is because he intends to say an expression that connotes forever. Therefore, whenever there is no Ones, it connotes forever;

However, there he intended to say "wheat bread", but after he said "bread", he stumbled in his words. His mouth and heart are not equal. He is forbidden only wheat bread;

I already wrote this in my Perush on the second Perek of Shevuos (10b), with Hash-m's help.

Gemara: The Tana of our Mishnah taught the argument regarding (initiating) a vow, to show the extreme [stringency] of Beis Shamai.

Explanation: One may not volunteer even a Neder.

Gemara: The Tana of the Beraisa taught the argument about a Shevu'ah, to show the extreme [leniency] of Beis Hillel.

Explanation: One may volunteer even a Shevu'ah.

Gemara: Rav Ashi said, [the Beraisa] means that Beis Shamai say that one may not ask to permit a Shevu'ah.

Explanation: The Beraisa does not discuss swearing to thugs at all. Rather, it means that [Beis Shamai say that] one who swore about something, a Chacham may not suggest for him a reason to permit his Shevu'ah, for one may not ask to permit a Shevu'ah; Beis Hillel say that one may ask to permit it.

Mishnah: If one said 'these saplings are a Korban... they have redemption.

Explanation: I.e. Kedushah takes effect on them, to the point that they need redemption. The Gemara explains why it needs to say so. It explains also why the Tana taught this expression 'they have redemption', and did not explicitly teach that they have Kedushah.

Explanation #1: The Gemara explains that there is one opinion that when it taught "Korban", he was Makdish their value (they will be sold, and the money will be used) for a Korban. This is why it says that they have Pidyon (redemption).

Explanation #2: Some explain that it is Konam. It means that these saplings are forbidden like a Korban.

Question: If so, how does Pidyon apply to Konam?

Answer: We can say that our Mishnah is R. Meir, who holds that whenever it is a Konam Kelali, which is forbidden to everyone like Hekdesh, it has Pidyon, like it is taught below (35a);

If one said "Konam this loaf" and ate it, whether he or someone else ate it, he transgressed Me'ilah, therefore it has Pidyon;

If he said "this loaf is Alai Hekdesh" and ate it, he transgressed Me'ilah, but [if] someone else [ate it, the latter] did not transgress Me'ilah. Therefore, it has no Pidyon.

Version #1: This is the primary text. It means as follows. Surely, the Tana's primary Chidush is that even though he attributed the Kedushah to this Tenai of being cut off, Kedushah takes effect on them.

It needs to teach this, like it explains below. If so, it should say "Kedoshos"!

Question: Granted, according to what we explained in the Mishnah that "Korban" was taught when he was Makdish saplings for Demei Korban...

Therefore, the entire Chidush of the Tana is only to teach that Kedushah takes effect on them;

Surely, it is obvious that since they are Kadosh, they have Pidyon.

Therefore, it is a proper question "he should teach Kedoshos"!

However, according to the other Perush, that we truly discuss Konam, what was the question "he should teach Kedoshos"?

Perhaps the Tana teaches by the way that they have Pidyon, for the Tana is R. Meir, who says that Konam Kelali has Pidyon!

[He needed to teach this,] for Rabanan argue with him below (35a)!

Answer: Surely, the Tana did not come here to teach Stam like R. Meir. If he did, why did he teach this law regarding being uprooted? He should have taught it regarding Konamos!

Since the Tana needed to teach that Kedushah takes effect on them in such a case, he should have taught so first, and teach that they are Kedoshos, and afterwards, if he holds like R. Meir, he should teach Stam like him, here or elsewhere.

However, before he teaches that Kedushah takes effect on them, it is not appropriate to teach that there is Pidyon, which connotes that it is obvious that Kedushah takes effect on them, so it was needed to teach only that there is Pidyon;

Just the contrary, there is great need to teach [that Kedushah takes effect], like it explains below! Therefore, we ask that he should teach that they are Kedoshos.

Version #2: Some texts say "he should teach [that they are] Kedoshos and [in the Seifa, they are] not Kedoshos!" This is not precise.

Explanation: The Gemara answers that since the Seifa needs to teach that they have no Pidyon, the Reisha taught that they have Pidyon;

I.e. the Seifa could not teach "they are not Kedoshos", for surely they are Kedoshos until they are uprooted.

Similarly, it could not teach "Kedoshos", for if so, one might have thought that the law in the Seifa is like the law of the Reisha, and this is not true, like it explains below.

Explanation: [The Gemara] finds the wording difficult. It says 'if they are not cut.' Since he made the Isur dependent on this condition, how does the Isur take effect on them? In the end, they are destined to be cut!

This is difficult, but 'a Talis, if it is not burned', is not difficult to [the Gemara], for a Talis is not destined to be burned. Perhaps it will never be burned! Therefore, the Isur takes effect from now.

Remark: Some texts explicitly say 'they are destined to be cut!'

Explanation: [If so,] obviously, it is Hekdesh!

Question: According to the Perush that our Mishnah is R. Meir, who holds that Konam Kelali has Pidyon, what was the question "why must it teach this"? Just the contrary, there is great need to teach [that there is Pidyon], to teach unlike Rabanan!

Answer: I already explained (in DH Gemara v'Lisni Kedoshos) that the Tana did not intend for this, rather, to teach that Kedushah takes effect on them, like I wrote above.

Gemara: The Gemara answers that the case is, there is a great wind;

Explanation: Had the Mishnah not taught that Kedushah takes effect on them, one might have thought that since he thinks that they will not be saved, he did not resolve in his mind that they be a Korban;

Had he known that they will not be uprooted, he would not have been Makdish them. Therefore, we would think that they are not Kodesh. [The Mishnah] teaches that this is not so.

Gemara: Is a Talis destined to be burned?!

Explanation: This is said in astonishment. How does he make a condition about something not relevant to it?! Rather, surely we discuss when it is relevant, e.g. there is a fire.

Gemara: And forever?!

Explanation: This is said in astonishment. I.e. how is it possible that they never have redemption?!

Explanation: When it taught that they have no Pidyon, this is as long as they were not uprooted. This does not mean that they have no Pidyon at all;

I.e. [no Pidyon at all would mean that] their Pidyon (what is given to redeem them) does not receive their Kedushah. If it did, why do they become Kodesh again?

Rather, it means that they have no Pidyon to totally remove them from their Kedushah;

Rather, since he said "until they are cut", it is as if he explicitly said "these saplings are a Korban from now, and a Korban when (after) they are redeemed, as long as they are not uprooted." This does not mean that they have no Pidyon at all;

Conclusion: It turns out that their redemption is always Kodesh, since they become Chulin, just immediately they return to be Kodesh.

Gemara: If they were cut, he redeems them once, and this suffices.

Explanation: Bar Pada holds that even though he was Makdish them only until they are cut, even so, when they were cut, their Kedushah is not uprooted bi'Chdi (automatically, without an action).

Gemara: And Ula said, once they are cut, he does not [need to] redeem them.

Explanation: He holds that their Kedushah last only until the time for which he was Makdish them. From then and onwards, their Kedushah is uprooted bi'Chdi.

Opinion #1 (Rashba): Ula argues with Bar Pada only regarding after they are uprooted. Bar Pada holds that Kedushah does not vanish bi'Chdi, and Ula holds that it vanishes;

However, until they are uprooted, all agree that if he redeemed them, they become Kodesh again. This is why the Mishnah teaches "they have no Pidyon."

Application: Therefore, the Rashba wrote that from here we learn to monetary laws;

If Reuven said to Shimon "go acquire this field, that it is acquired to you from now until I go to Yerushalayim", and Reuven bought it back from him before he went to Yerushalayim, Shimon acquires it again;

This is because so [Reuven] said to him "it is always yours until I ascend to Yerushalayim." From now and for the time that he buys it from him, he gives it to him.

Limitation: This is only if he said to him 'from now.' If he did not say 'from now', he did not acquire, since his Kinyan is through Chazakah, and this Chazakah that he makes now already lapsed after [Reuven] bought it [back] from him;

This is like one who said "do Meshichah on this cow, and acquire it only after 30 days." If it is not standing in his (the recipient's) Reshus after 30 days, he does not acquire;

The same applies here. Since the second Kinyan does not take effect from now, only after he buys it back from him, and at that time this Chazakah already lapsed, he cannot acquire [through that Chazakah].

Distinction: We say that whenever he did not say 'from now', he did not acquire, only if he acquired through Chazakah;

If he acquired through Kesef, even if he did not say 'from now', he acquired, because the lien of the coins endures;

He is like one who tells a woman "you are Mekudeshes to me after 30 days";

She is Mekudeshes even if the coins were consumed, because these coins are not like a loan, and not like a deposit, like it says in Kidushin (59a).

Consequence: Therefore, if Reuven was Makneh (transferred ownership of) his field through Kesef [to Shimon] until he goes to Yerushalayim, whether he said 'from now' or did not say 'from now'...

Alternatively, [if he acquired through] Chazakah, and he said 'from now', if he bought it back from Shimon before he went to Yerushalayim, Shimon acquires it again.

Limitation: This is only if he (Reuven) bought it back. If someone else bought it from Shimon, even though later he was Makneh it to Reuven, Shimon does not acquire, for someone else interrupted in the middle.

Source: Below (30a), R. Yochanan said "this is only if he redeemed them. If others redeemed them, they do not become Kodesh again."

Inference: This implies that even if the Makdish bought them from the one who redeemed them, they do not become Kodesh again, for someone else interrupted. This is from the Rashba.

Opinion #2 (R. Moshe Kartavi): Bar Pada and Ula argue about two matters. One depends on the other;

Because Bar Pada holds that Kedushah does not vanish bi'Chdi, he said that if he redeemed them, they return to be Kodesh;

If not, why must this man say "until they are uprooted"? If it is to teach that afterwards, their Kedushah vanishes automatically, this is impossible, for Kedushah does not vanish bi'Chdi!

Therefore, why didn't he absolutely make them Hekdesh, and say "forever"? You are forced to say that even if he redeems them before they are uprooted, their Kedushah returns to them.

Therefore, when it says "they have no Pidyon", this does not mean that they do not need Pidyon when they are uprooted, for Kedushah does not vanish bi'Chdi!

Rather, it teaches that their Pidyon does not remove them [from Kedushah] to Chulin until they are uprooted.