Verses teach that Olah, Chatas and Asham are slaughtered in Tzafon. We could not learn any one from the others;

We could not learn Olah from Chatas and Asham, for they are Mechaper (more than Olah)!

We could not learn Chatas from Olah and Asham, for they are males!

We could not learn Asham from Olah and Chatas, for they are brought also for Korbanos Tzibur!

Shevu'os 26b (Shmuel): It does not suffice to think the oath. He must say it - "Levatei bi'Sfasayim."

(Beraisa): "Motzei Sefasecha Tishmor" refers to what he uttered (vows to bring Korbanos). "Kol Nediv Lev" (donated towards the Mishkan) teaches (that it is a vow) even if he decided in his heart.

"Kol Nediv Lev" teaches that intent suffices for Hekdesh. We do not learn oaths from Hekdesh, because Terumah and Kodshim are Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'in k'Echad (both teach that deciding in the heart is enough). They do not teach about other laws. Alternatively, we do not learn laws of Chulin (oaths) from Kodshim.

Kidushin 41b - Question: Why did the Torah need to teach about Shelichus regarding divorce, Terumah and Korban Pesach?

Answer: We cannot learn Kodshim from the others, for they are like Chulin compared to Kodshim. We cannot learn divorce from Kodshim and Terumah, for they take effect through mere thought.

Chagigah 10a (Mishnah): Hataras Nedarim has no solid basis from verses.

(R. Yitzchak): It has a source - "Kol Nediv Libo."

Rejection (Rava): Perhaps the verse comes to teach unlike Shmuel, who says that one must say (the oath). It obligates (a Neder) even if he did not say it.

Nedarim 7a - Question: Do Yados (the start of a full expression) work for Tzedakah?

I.e. if one said 'this coin is for Tzedakah', and said 'and this', does he mean 'and this one is also for Tzedakah', or 'and this one is for expenditures'? In Parshas Korbanos, "b'Ficha" teaches about Tzedakah. Does the Hekesh teach even that Yados work also for Tzedakah, or only about Bal Te'acher?

Question: Do Yados work for Hefker?

If you will say that Yados work for Tzedakah because a Hekesh totally equates them, is Hefker just like Tzedakah? Or, is Hefker different, for it is even for rich people?

Rif (Bava Kama 18b): Some learn from Bava Kama 36b that Aniyim acquire like regular people. There is no proof. Aniyim are no less than others. If one said about money in his Reshus 'it is for Aniyim', they acquire immediately, due to "b'Ficha".

Rambam (Hilchos Matanos Aniyim 8:1): Tzedakah is included in Nedarim.

Rambam (5): Tzedakah is not like Hekdesh, from which one may not benefit.

Rosh (Bava Kama 4:3): If something is not in one's possession, he cannot give it to Hekdesh or Tzedakah. "B'Ficha" does not apply. However, if he said 'when I get it, I will give it to Hekdesh or Tzedakah', he must fulfill his vow.

Rosh (Ta'anis 1:13): Rabbeinu Yehudah wrote in the name of R. Tam that if one accepted in his heart to fast, but did not say it, this is a proper acceptance. It is included in "Nediv Lev", like it says in Shevu'os. Even though this does not help for oaths, presumably we learn all from vows from each other. We learn Tzedakah from "Motza Sefasecha...", and intent suffices for it. The same applies to an acceptance to fast. The Gemara connotes unlike this (regarding fasting).

Rosh (Teshuvah 13:1, brought in Tur CM 212): If one bought land with intent to make it Hekdesh, but did not utter anything, this is Devarim sheb'Lev (unspoken intents). Shmuel taught that this is not an oath. Intent makes Hekdesh, but we do not learn Chulin from Kodshim. Nowadays, we do not have Hekdesh Bedek ha'Bayis. All our Hekdesh is Chulin, i.e. Tzedakah.

Bedek ha'Bayis (YD 258 DH v'Chen): Also the Rif, Tosfos, and Rosh in Bava Kama, and Rambam (Hilchos Matanos Aniyim) wrote like this.

Ateres Paz (1:2 YD 10 DH Emnam): Teshuvas ha'Rosh wanted to learn Tzedakah from Hekdesh through a Binyan Av, like Shevu'os 26 wanted to learn Shevu'ah from Hekdesh. The Gemara rejected this, for we do not learn Chulin from Kodshim, and similarly we do not learn Tzedakah from Kodshim. This is because Binyan Av is refuted if we find any stringency in the source not in the matter to be learned. This is clear from Zevachim 50a. R. Chananel (Shevu'os 26a) says that we do not learn from Chulin from Kodshim because Kodshim are more stringent.

Mordechai (Bava Basra 659 and 491): We say in Shevu'os and Kidushin that Kodshim take effect through mere thought. From here, a Gaon ruled that if one resolved in his heart to give Tzedakah, he is liable as if he said so with his mouth. Even though we say that we do not learn from Hekdesh and Terumah because they are Shnei Kesuvim, Rashi said in a Teshuvah that Tzedakah is considered like voluntary Korbanos. Therefore, it is as if he said. Rosh Hashanah 4a proves that Tzedakah is like voluntary Korbanos. A Beraisa teaches that Bal Te'acher applies to vows to give Hekdesh, Chatas... Tzedakah, Ma'aseros... Leket, Shichchah and Pei'ah. Another Beraisa (6a) expounds "Motza Sefasecha" teaches about a Mitzvas Aseh... "B'Ficha" teaches that Bal Te'acher applies to Tzedakah.

Rema (YD 258:13): If one thought in his heart to give something to Tzedakah, he must fulfill it. He need not say anything (to be obligated), just if he did say, we force him to fulfill. Some say that if he did not say it with his mouth, it is nothing. The first opinion is primary. See CM 212 (Sa'if 8, brought below).

Pischei Teshuvah (16, citing Chasam Sofer 243): The Rema should say 'no speech is needed, but if he says that he intended, we force him to to fulfill his intent.'

Beis Yosef (DH Kasav ha'Rosh): Maharik (161:5-7) says that Teshuvas ha'Rosh holds like the Ri, but R. Tam and R. Peretz hold that one becomes liable to give to Tzedakah through intent, even if he did not utter it. In Ta'anis, the Rosh holds like this, and the Maharik concludes like this.

Gra (35): In Kidushin (28b), we say that saying (to give) to Hekdesh (is like handing over to a person). This teaches that we force one who said to fulfill it. One is liable for mere thought, but we do not know, so we cannot force him.

Gra (36): The two opinions argue about whether Tzedakah is like Hekdesh. In CM (301:1,6) we say that Tzedakah is unlike Hekdesh. In YD 160:18 we forbid contracted interest regarding Tzedakah. (It is permitted regarding Hekdesh.)

R. Akiva Eiger (citing v'Shav ha'Kohen 20): Here we discuss whether he is obligated to fulfill his vow. The first opinion, which obligates, is primary. In CM 212 we discuss whether we take the property from him if he admits that he intended. Therefore the Rema wrote 'one must be stringent', i.e. to rule that we do not force him, like any Safek.

Pischei Teshuvah (14): V'Shav ha'Kohen (18) discusses whether one who intended in his heart can retract Toch Kedei Dibur.

Pischei Teshuvah (15): Das Esh (14) concluded that if one did not say anything, even though he intended to give something to Tzedakah, he is totally exempt, like any vow or oath. If he did not say with his lips, it is void. However, if he said that he will give to Tzedakah, but did not say what or how much, but he intended for a certain thing or amount, he must fulfill his intent. Similarly, (if he said that he will give,) if he intended for a particular Tzedakah, but gave to the Gabai Stam, it is as if he specified, and he cannot change it to another Tzedakah.

Shulchan Aruch (CM 212:8): If one bought land with intent to make it Hekdesh, but did not utter anything, some say that since he resolved in his heart to give to Tzedakah, he must give. Some say that even though it says "Kol Nediv Lev Olos", we do not learn Chulin from Kodshim, and nowadays, we do not have Hekdesh. Nowadays Hekdesh is not to Bedek ha'Bayis. It is only for Tzedakah.

Rema: One should be stringent like the first opinion.

Gra (22): Chagigah 10a proves that Kol Nediv Lev applies to every vow. What the Rema wrote in OC 553:1 and 608:3 is astounding. The Ran (Nedarim 7a DH ul'Inyan) says that according to the Ge'onim who say that whenever the Gemara says 'if you will say...', this is the Halachah, Tzedakah is like Hekdesh in every way, for a Hekesh totally equates both matters.

Shulchan Aruch (OC 553:1): If after eating the meal before the fast of Tish'ah b'Av, if one explicitly accepted not to eat more today, he may not eat more.

Rema: Acceptance in the heart is not acceptance.

Magen Avraham (2): The Bach says that it is an acceptance. Therefore, it is good to stipulate that he does not accept the fast.

Gra (DH Kabalah): The Rema is astounding. The Poskim discuss one who did not accept, but not one who accepted in his heart! Even though the Magid Mishneh said that he must say that he accepts, we hold that acceptance in the heart suffices (OC 562:6, YD 258, CM 212)!

Mishnah Berurah (2): If he did not accept to fast, just he decided that he will not eat more, he may eat more. It is better to explicitly say or resolve in his heart that he does not accept the fast until Bein ha'Shemashos.

Kaf ha'Chayim (3): There is no Tosefes (addition) to Tish'ah b'Av, therefore acceptance in his heart does not suffice, unlike Yom Kipur. An acceptance in his heart to fast for an entire day takes effect.

Shulchan Aruch (OC 562:6): One who wants to fast should accept the fast in Minchah the day before. If he thought that in his heart that he accepts at the time of Minchah, this is acceptance.

Taz (10): It is best to accept in his heart during Tefilah, and to accept with his mouth after Tefilah before Elokai Netzor.

Gra (DH v'Im): Only vows of fasting and Tzedakah are like Hekdesh, but not other vows. Some Poskim say that only Hekdesh takes effect in the heart.

Mishnah Berurah (31): The Taz says that a vow to fast is like Hekdesh, for through this his blood and Chelev are diminished, and this is like a Korban.

Kaf ha'Chayim (15): Some question whether acceptance in his heart suffices. L'Chatchilah, one should accept with his mouth. B'Di'eved, acceptance in his heart suffices to say Aneinu in Shome'a Tefilah, and to fulfill a (previous) vow to fast.