Explanation: This is the Chidush we say now. Also initially, we held that Amirah to Hekdesh is like Mesirah to a person. This is why we asked "this is obvious!", like I wrote above (29b, DH Peshita);

However, initially we did not hold that Amirah to Hekdesh is better than Mesirah to a person;

Now in the conclusion, we are Mechadesh that Amirah to Hekdesh, even without 'from now', helps like full Mesirah to a person, i.e. with 'from now.'

Opinion #1: From here we learn that one who says "this coin is to Tzedakah after 30 days", he cannot retract, for Amirah to Hekdesh is like full Mesirah to a person. (The Ran holds that Tzedakah is like Hekdesh regarding this. Rishonim argue about this - PF.)

Opinion #2: However, the Rashba wrote that perhaps we say so only according to Bar Pada, who holds that Kedushas Damim does not vanish bi'Chdi;

However, Rava and Abaye hold that Kedushas Damim vanishes bi'Chdi. They establish the Beraisa like its simple meaning.

Implied question: It is difficult for Rava! Why must both [clauses] discuss Kedushas Damim?

Answer: Perhaps he is forced to say that the Beraisa teaches "this, and we need not even teach this", like we find many times in the Gemara.

Therefore, it is possible that granted, Amirah to Hekdesh is like Mesirah to a person, but this is only like Mesirah without 'from now.' It is not like Mesirah 'from now';

It is impossible that it acquires more than Mesirah to a person. Therefore, according to [Abaye and Rava], if one says "it is an Olah after 30 days", he can retract. There is an argument about this in the Yerushalmi. This is from the Rashba.

Gemara: We can resolve R. Hoshaya's question... also [there], it is Kidushin.

Explanation: Just like it says in our Mishnah that he can be Makdish these saplings after he will redeem them, and Kedushah takes effect on them, even though after he redeemed them, he did not declare them Hekdesh...

Also here, when he said 'after I will divorce you', Kidushin takes effect on her, even though after he divorced her, he was not Mekadesh her again.

Gemara: We learned only when he (the one who created the Kedushah) redeemed them.

Explanation: Since he redeemed them, and they never left the Reshus of Hekdesh or of him, it is proper that they return to be Kadosh.

Gemara: However, if others redeemed them.

Explanation: Even if afterwards the others entered them back to his Reshus.

Gemara: They do not return to be Kadosh.

Explanation: This is because once others redeemed them, the first owner's Reshus was removed from them. Since at that time [his] Hekdesh cannot take effect on them, also later, when the others returned it to his Reshus, it does not take effect.

Explanation: Immediately after she was divorced, she went from the husband's Reshus to her Reshus, and [his] Kidushin does not take effect on her.

Question: Just the contrary! A woman is like one who redeemed them himself! Just like these saplings, since they do not leave the Reshus of Hekdesh or his (the Makdish's) Reshus, he can be Makdish them after they are redeemed. (Kehilas Yakov 23 - since they never enter the Reshus of someone other than the Makneh and the Koneh, the Makneh can stipulate now for another Hakna'ah after they return to his Reshus);

Similarly, this woman, since she does not leave the Reshus of the husband or her Reshus, it is proper that she can become Mekudeshes now, even after she will be divorced!

Answer: If a woman could be Mekadesh herself to a man, this would truly be like one who was Makdish saplings;

However, since the Torah said "Ki Yikach Ish Ishah" and it did not say 'Ki Tilakach Ishah l'Ish', she cannot enter herself into her husband's Reshus;

Support: This is why we say in Kidushin (5b) that if she said "I am Me'oreses to you", her words have no effect.

Explanation: Rather, since she agrees to the man's Kidushin, she nullifies her intent and will, and makes herself regarding the husband (the Mekadesh) like a Hefker item, and her husband enters her into his Reshus;

Therefore, we do not judge Kidushin from the woman's perspective (as if she is the Mekadesh), rather, from the husband's perspective. Regarding the husband, it is as if someone else redeemed her;

In the first Kidushin, she was in his Reshus. After divorce, she leaves his Reshus. Therefore, we cannot resolve that [a second] Kidushin takes effect, from the case when he redeemed them, for these are different, like I wrote.

Observation: Also, we cannot resolve it from the case when someone else redeemed them, that [Kidushin] does not take effect, for it is not totally similar;

Here, also the woman enters herself into his Reshus a little, and we can compare it to when he redeemed them. Therefore, we cannot resolve from here at all. So it seems to me.

Resolution: The Rashba wrote that granted, the question was not resolved here, but even so we can resolve it from what it says in Kesuvos (59b) and it is brought also below (86a);

Citation (86a - R. Ila): This (a wife who was Makdish her earnings for after she will be divorced) is like the case of one who says to his friend "this field that I sell to you, when I will buy it from you, it should become Hekdesh." It becomes Hekdesh;

The reason is, since it is b'Yado (in his ability) to be Makdish it now, even though a time will come when it will not be b'Yado, he can be Makdish it for when it will be b'Yado.

Also here regarding a woman (being Mekadesh her a second time, after he marries and divorces her), since he can be Mekadesh her now, he can be Mekadesh her also for afterwards.

Question: If so, why don't we settle our question from there?

Answer: R. Ila said that based on his own reasoning. R. Yirmeyah did not know it. Therefore, he was unsure (he could not resolve R. Hoshaya's question), for one cannot resolve it from a Mishnah or a Beraisa. (Keren Orah asks how he can say that R. Yirmeyah did not know R. Ila's teaching. Below (86a), R. Yirmeyah challenged it!)

Support: It seems that the Rambam agrees. He wrote that she is Mekudeshes. This implies that he resolved from that teaching;

Therefore, when he said here that if others redeemed them, they do not become Hekdesh again, if he stipulated at the time of the Hekdesh that Hekdesh should take effect on them if they will come to another's hand, and he will buy [them] from him, it helps.

However, whenever he did not stipulate, even if it came to his hand afterwards, it is not Kadosh, since someone else interrupted. These are his (the Rashba's) words.

Rebuttal: I disagree. R. Ila's case is different, for he can be Makdish them now;

Since he can be Makdish it now, he can be Makdish it also for later, since the same Hekdesh he is Makdish for later, he can be Makdish it even now;

This is unlike saplings and Kidushin of a woman. That second Kedushah cannot take effect now. Since he puts the first Kedushah on them, the second Kedushah cannot take effect now.

Therefore, we can say that also later, i.e. after Pidyon and divorce, it does not take effect. So it seems to me.

Mishnah: He may benefit from those who dwell on land.

Explanation: This refers to people who do not normally descend to the sea in boats.

Gemara: [If one is Mudar] from those who dwell on land, he may not benefit from seafarers.

Explanation: They are now on the sea, for they are destined to be alight on land, like the Gemara will explain.

Gemara: This does not refer to those who go from Ako to Yafo.

Explanation: The Gemara will explain to where (which part of the Mishnah) at this applies.

Gemara: He may not benefit even from blind people.

Explanation: When he said 'me'Ro'ei ha'Chamah', he does not means those who see the sun. Had he meant so, he would have said just 'Min ha'Ro'im', for all who see, they seen also the sun;

Rather, surely, since he mentioned the sun, he means that the sun sees them. He excluded fish and embryos from his vow, like the Gemara will say.

Gemara: He may not benefit from bald people or white-haired people.

Explanation: He is forbidden from bald people, even though they habe no hair, and from white-haired people, even though their hair is white.

Gemara: Only men are called black-headed.

Explanation: The Gemara will explain the reason.

Gemara: If one vowed from Yeludim.

Explanation: They were already born.

Gemara: He may benefit from Noladim.

Explanation: These are those who will be born.

Gemara: [R. Meir] permits even from Yeludim;

Explanation: The Gemara will ask, and all the more so he permits Noladim. If so, whom did he forbid?

Gemara: He may not benefit from Yisraelim nor from Kusim.

Explanation: Yisraelim and Kusim are commanded to keep Shabbos, and they guard it, so they are properly called Shovesei Shabbosos.

Gemara: From those who eat garlic.

Explanation: Ezra enacted to eat garlic on Shabbos night, because garlic increases semen, and the Onah (time for marital intimacy) of Chachamim is on Shabbos night.

Gemara: He may not benefit from Kusim.

Explanation: Also they eat garlic on Shabbos night.

Gemara: [If he vowed] those who ascend to Yerushalayim [on the festivals], he is forbidden [benefit from] Yisraelim.

Explanation: They are commanded to ascend, and they ascend.

Gemara: He may benefit from Kusim.

Explanation: Granted, they are commanded, but they do not ascend.

Gemara: One of them taught that this applies to the Reisha.

Explanation: The Mishnah says 'not like these who go from Ako to Yafo'; he holds that it applies to the Reisha, and it is lenient (they are not forbidden with Yoredei ha'Yam).

Gemara: They are considered land dwellers.

Explanation: Due to that small amount, from Ako to Yafo, which are close to each other, they are not called seafarers.

Explanation: He is stringent. Even one who normally embarks [on sea voyages] is included in land-dwellers;

Similarly, even those who go from Ako to Yafo are included in seafarers, since [the Tana] did not explain anything regarding the Reisha.

Pesak: We hold like the opinion who explains that it refers to the Seifa, to be stringent.

Explanation (Rashba): Presumably, he is not forbidden from everyone who once went [on the sea] from Ako to Yafo, only from people who regularly go there constantly, or one who was going from Ako to Yafo at the time that he vowed.

Citation (Yerushalmi) Question: If one who vowed from seafarers [to take effect] after 30 days, and before 30 days they became land-dwellers, what is the law?

Do we follow the time he said the vow, and now they are seafarers? Or, do we follow the time he said the vow, and then they are land-dwellers, and he may [benefit from] them?

Answer: [The Yerushalmi] says that this depends on the argument of R. Yishmael and R. Akiva, who argue below (89a) about a woman who said "I will be a Nezirah after I marry";

R. Yishmael follows the time the vow takes effect, so the husband can annul it. R. Akiva follows the time she said it, and a husband cannot annul vows that preceded his marriage.

Pesak: We rule like R. Akiva. Therefore, he is forbidden [benefit] from people who are now seafarers, even though at the time it takes effect they became land-dwellers, for we follow the current status.

Inference: From this Yerushalmi we can resolve also when it was opposite (they were land-dwellers, and became seafarers), that we are lenient.

Rebuttal: I say that the law is unlike this. This will be explained below (84a) with Hash-m's help.

Pesak: The Yerushalmi asked also about people who embark on sea for pleasure trips, whether or not they are included in seafarers. It did not resolve this, so we are stringent.

Inference: Even bald people are included.

Inference: Since "black-headed people" is not precise regarding bald people (it does not exclude them), also regarding white-haired people it is not precise.

Therefore, [the Gemara] says that when he said "black-headed people", he refers to those people that a person describes them as "black-headed", i.e. men;

Because sometimes they cover their heads, and sometimes they expose their heads, one cannot describe them as "those with covered heads", and not "those with exposed heads";

They are called "black-headed" because for most men, their head is black.

However, women always cover [their heads], so one describes them as "those with covered heads";

Minors always expose [their heads], so one describes them as "those with exposed heads."

Gemara: And there is no need to teach Noladim (that they are permitted). From whom did he vow?

Explanation: If he is permitted Noladim and Yeludim.

Explanation: Rabanan hold that granted, when he says "from Yiludim", this does not include ha'Noladim, i.e. those who will be born...

This is only regarding Yiludim, which is a specific expression. However, ha'Noladim includes both of them, i.e. those who were born, and those who will be born.

R. Meir disagrees, and says that just like one who vows from Yiludim, ha'Noladim are not included, likewise one who vows from ha'Noladim, Yiludim are not included;

This is why he taught "even".

Gemara: If so, does "your two sons [ha'Noladim Lecha in Mitzrayim" refer to sons who will be born?!

Explanation: Menasheh and Efrayim were already born!

Explanation: R. Meir and Rabanan argue about the following. Rabanan hold that just like the Torah uses "ha'Noladim" to include those who were born, and those who will be born, also people speak like this;

This is why Rabanan respond in the Seifa "he intended only for one whose nature is to be born;

This is not a third opinion. Rather, [Rabanan] explain their reason, why they say that one who vows from "ha'Noladim" is forbidden [to benefit] from everyone;

They explain their reason, that he intended only for one whose nature is to be born, whether in the future or in the past, since this word does not have one specific meaning, only for the past or only for the future.

Explanation (cont.): R. Meir holds that the way people speak, Noladim refers only to those who will be born.

Also regarding Yiludim, both of them agree that he is permitted [to benefit] from those who will be born. Their reason is due to the way people speak;

The way the Torah speaks, just like it connotes those who were born, like it says "Kol ha'Am ha'Yiludim ba'Midbar", it connotes also those who will be born, like it says "Kol ha'Ben ha'Yilud."

Gemara: This excludes fish and birds.

Explanation: [These species] lay eggs. They are not formed in their mothers' wombs.