(Mishnah - Beis Shamai): Mistaken Hekdesh is Hekdesh;

Beis Hillel say, it is not Hekdesh.

How is this? [If one said] 'the black ox that will leave my house first, will be Hekdesh', and a white ox left first, Beis Shamai say, it is Hekdesh; Beis Hillel say, it is not Hekdesh.

[If one said] 'the gold coin that will be the first to come to my hand, will be Hekdesh', and a silver coin came first to his hand, Beis Shamai say, it is Hekdesh; Beis Hillel say, it is not Hekdesh.

'The barrel of wine which will be the first to come to my hand, will be Hekdesh', and a barrel of oil came first, Beis Shamai say, it is Hekdesh; Beis Hillel say, it is not Hekdesh.

(Gemara - Mishnah): If one intended to say 'Terumah', and he said 'Ma'aser', [or he intended to say] 'Ma'aser', and he said 'Terumah', 'Olah' and he said 'Shelamim', 'Shelamim', and he said 'Olah' [it has no effect, until his mouth says like his heart intended].

(R. Yirmeyah): [In our Mishnah, Beis Shamai say that even if] he came to say 'Chulin', and he said 'Olah', it becomes Kadosh.

(R. Yosi): It is when he intends to be Makdish, but he erred due to another matter (said unlike he intended).

Question: How do we explain [the Mishnah about Terumah]?

Answer #1: According to R. Yirmeyah, Tana'im argue about it (it is like Beis Hillel, and unlike Beis Shamai).

Answer #2: According to R. Yosi, it is like everyone. (Even Beis Shamai agree that it does not become Hekdesh if his mouth contradicted the intent in his heart.)

(Beraisa) Suggestion: [If one wanted to say a Shevu'ah, it takes effect if he said it] "vi'Sefasayim", and not [only] in his heart. Perhaps I exclude one who resolves in his heart [without intent to say it]!

Rejection: "Levatei [... l'Chol Asher Yevatei " includes one who resolves in his heart. We explained this like PNEI MOSHE.]

(Shmuel): One who resolves in his heart is not liable, unless he said it with his lips.

Question (Beraisa): "Kol Nediv Lev" - this is one who resolves in his heart;

Suggestion: You say that it is one who resolves in his heart - perhaps it is one who says with his lips!

Rejection: "Motza Sefasecha Tishmor v'Asisa" discusses one who says with his lips. How do I fulfill "Kol Nediv Lev"? This is one who resolves in his heart.

Answer: Shmuel discusses [to be liable] a Korban.

(Mishnah): If one gathers coins and says 'these are for my [half-]Shekel', Beis Shamai says, the excess is Nedavah. Beis Hillel says, the excess is Chulin;

If he said 'I will bring my [half-]Shekel from them (the coins that he gathers), all agree that the excess is Chulin.

[If one gathers coins and says] 'these are for my Chatas', all agree that the excess is Nedavah.

If he said 'I will bring my [half-]Shekel from them (the coins he gathers), all agree that the excess is Chulin.

(R. Yosi citing R. Elazar): When do they argue? It is when he gathers small coins [one at a time], but if he said 'these', all agree that the excess is Nedavah;

(R. Chizkiyah citing R. Bivi citing R. Lazar): When do they argue? It is when he gathers small coins, but if he said 'these', all agree that the excess is Chulin.

Support (for R. Bivi - R. Chizkiyah - Mishnah - R. Shimon): What is the difference between Shekalim and Chatas? Shekalim have a limit (one cannot give more than a half-Shekel. There is no limit how much one may spend for a Chatas.)

Question: What is the case?

If he said 'I will bring Shekalim from them, all agree that the excess is Chulin! If he said 'I will bring my Chatas from them, all agree that the excess is Chulin!

Answer: Rather, the case is, he said 'these are Shekalim.' Since the Torah gave a limit, the excess is Chulin. Chatas, the Torah did not give a limit, so the excess is Nedavah.

Question: How can R. Yosi answer this? (He said that the excess is Nedavah!)

Answer: It is when he gathers small coins [one at a time], according to Beis Hillel.

If one separated his [half-]Shekel, and he thought that he was obligated, and it turns out he was not obligated, it is not Kadosh;

Question: If one separated two [half-Shekalim], and he thought that he was obligated two, and it turns out he was obligated only one, how do you judge the second?

Answer: We learn from the following [Beraisa]. If one separated his Chatas, and he thought that he was obligated, and it turns out he was not obligated, it is not Kadosh;

Question: If he separated two [Chata'os], and he thought that he was obligated two, and it turns out he was obligated only one, the second is Ro'eh (grazes until it gets a Mum; it is sold, and the money goes to Nedavah). Here, how do you judge [the extra half-Shekel]?

Answer: According to the opinion (Beis Shamai) that [one who says] 'these' (are for my half-]Shekel, the excess is) for Nedavah, also here it is for Nedavah. According to the opinion (Beis Hillel) that 'these', [the excess is] Chulin, also here it is Chulin. (We explained this according to Hagahos HA'GRA in Shekalim; KORBAN HA'EDAH says that our text should be like in Shekalim.)

(Mishnah): 'It is Alai to bring [a Minchah cooked] in a Machavas', and he brought in a Marcheshes, or 'it is Alai to bring in a Marcheshes', and he brought in a Machavas [it is a new Nedavah, and he did not fulfill his vow].

(R. Yosi citing Reish Lakish): This is like Beis Shamai, for Beis Shamai say that mistaken Hekdesh is Hekdesh.

Question (R. Ze'ira, to R. Yosi): Why don't we explain that it is like everyone, when he says 'I [know that] I said in a Machavas [and even so, I bring in a Marcheshes]', but if he said 'Harei Alai in a Machavas', and retracted and said 'in a Marcheshes' he was Yotzei?

Remark: R. Chanina and R. Yosah citing R. Yochanan said that it is like everyone.

Question (R. Yirmeyah): If he said 'Harei Alai in a Machavas or Marcheshes', and retracted and said 'in a Machavas', and retracted and said 'in a Marcheshes' [what is the law? Does he retract, or return to his initial version?]

(R. Yudah bar Pazi citing R. Acha, and R. Chama citing R. Yosi): One can fix (how he must offer it) even verbally (without putting it in a Kli).

Assumption: Even Yom Tov fixes. Even Kelim fix (if he put it in a Kli, he must offer it in such a Kli).

NOTE: I do not understand the Reisha. If one may not offer a Minchah on Yom Tov, surely a vow to offer it on Yom Tov is not binding! If one may offer a Minchah on Yom Tov, just like one may offer Nedavos on Yom Tov, what is the Chidush of Yom Tov? If the text were reversed (even Kelim fix. Even Yom Tov fixes), I could explain that even Kelim fix, and even on Yom Tov, when one may not cook it. Even though Kohanim eat the Shirayim, he cooks primarily to fulfill Hilchos Minchah; the Heter of Ochel Nefesh does not apply. (PF)

(Mishnah - R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah): [The Torah] made Shogeg like Mezid regarding Temurah (even if he was Shogeg, it takes effect), and it did not make Shogeg like Mezid regarding Kodshim.

(Chizkiyah): If he was Shogeg, he transgresses a Lav. If he was Mezid, he transgresses a Lav.

However, if he came to say 'Chulin', and he said 'Olah', it did not become Kadosh (even for Temurah).

(R. Yochanan): If he came to say 'Temuras Chulin', and he said 'Temuras Olah', it became Kadosh, but if he came to say 'Chulin', and he said 'Olah', it did not become Kadosh.

R. Yochanan holds like R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah in Temurah, like R. Yirmeyah explains Beis Shamai regarding Kodshim (that even a total mistake takes effect).

Question: According to R. Yochanan, we understand '[the Torah] made Shogeg like Mezid' regarding Temurah [taking effect]. 'It did not make Shogeg like Mezid' regarding Kodshim. According to Chizkiyah, how can we explain this? (He holds that Temurah takes effect even b'Shogeg. He must explain 'Shogeg like Mezid' regarding Temurah regarding lashes. Regarding Kodshim, lashes do not apply even to Mezid (there is no Aveirah)!

Answer #1: He was Makdish a Bechor.

Objection: Does it become Kadosh?! Didn't R. Chiyah and R. Acha citing R. Yosa citing R. Yochanan said that if one was Makdish a Bechor [to be] an Olah to the Mizbe'ach, it did not become Kadosh even for Damim?!

If one was Makdish a Ba'al Mum for the Mizbe'ach, even for Temurah (if he says that another animal is in place of it) it did not become Kadosh!

Answer #2: Rather, he was Makdish an animal with a temporary Mum.

Objection: Are there lashes for this [even for Mezid]?!

Answer #3 (R. Yudan, the father of R. Matanyah): The case is, he was Makdish a Tam for Bedek ha'Bayis.

R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah holds like his father;

If one was Makdish a Tam for Bedek ha'Bayis transgresses an Aseh. What is the source that he transgresses a Lav? "Va'Ydaber Hash-m El Moshe Leimor" - [we read this like] Lav Amur (a Lav was said about it). R. Yehudah says so.

Rebbi was sitting and teaching in the Parshah of 'we do not make Temurah of Bechor.' The father of Bar Padyah passed. Rebbi saw him;

Question (Rebbi): I do not know [to explain] what I said (this Drashah)! "Va'Ydaber Hash-m El Moshe Leimor" - [we read this like] Lav Amur. R. Yehudah says so.' Is it written so?!

Answer (Bar Padyah's father): It is like R. Ami said in the name of R. Yochanan - we remove [letters from words] and expound [through moving them] from the beginning of the Parshah to its end. (It connotes that R. Yochanan said so elsewhere. Perhaps he said so about "mi'Dam ha'Par"; we expound it as if it said 'Dam meha'Par' - Yoma 48a (PF).)

(R. Chaninah citing R. Yirmeyah): We do so even in the middle of a Parshah - "v'Yatzakta Aleha Shemen Minchah Hi" - [we expound as if it said] 'v'Yatzakta Shemen Al ha'Minchah' to include all Menachos for Yetzikah (pouring oil on them. "Aleha" is put between "Shemen" and "Minchah", and the Yud is removed from the middle, and it is divided into 'Al' and the letter 'Hei'.)