Gemara: Question... 'lend to me your cow that is acquired...

Explanation: The cow placed in front of them.

Gemara: Konam, the cow that I own is forbidden to you.

Explanation #1: This cow is forbidden to you like a Korban, if I acquired [a cow] other than this cow.

Explanation #2: He forbade all his property to him if he has a cow other than this one.

Gemara: In his lifetime, it is forbidden.

Explanation: If it turns out that if he has another cow or axe.

Gemara: If he died or it was given to him for a gift, it is permitted.

Explanation: This is because when he died, or it was given to him for a gift, it is not his cow or his axe or his property. We are thinking that the Madir gave to the Mudar, and even so it is permitted. This is difficult for Rava, who forbids.

Gemara: It was given to him via someone else.

Explanation: The Madir gave it to someone else, and afterwards that person gave it to the Mudar.

Gemara: We can infer so, for it taught 'it was given to him.'

Explanation: I.e. there was a tradition to read 'Nitnu' with a Chirik, even though there is no difference in how it is written (if it says Nitnu or Nasno).

Gemara: Regarding the Halachah.

Pesak: We hold that even if he gave it to him for a gift, it is forbidden.

Source: So Rava answered [R. Chiya bar Avin], and we conclude that the Beraisa implies [like Rava], for it taught [Nitnu...].

Extrapolation: The Rashba wrote that just like when he gave it to him for a gift, it is forbidden, the same applies if the Mudar bought it from him; the same reason (applies).

Gemara: Does Me'ilah apply to Konamos?

Explanation: If one forbade something to himself via Konam, and benefited from it, is he liable for Me'ilah, or not?

Do we say that he made like a Korban, and he is liable to bring Asham Me'ilah, like one who benefits from Kodshim?

Gemara: The benefit is given to Hekdesh. This teaches that it is like Hekdesh.

Explanation: If Konamos were not like Hekdesh, it should have said that he casts the benefit to Yam ha'Melach, like it says everywhere;

Rather, [it does not say so] because Me'ilah applies to Konamos, like [to] Hekdesh. Since he discusses Hekdesh, the Tana taught 'the benefit goes to Hekdesh.'

Gemara: 'Konam, this loaf is Hekdesh'

Explanation: He forbade it via Konam to everyone, like Hekdesh, which is forbidden to everyone.

Gemara: If he ate it, whether he or his friend, he transgressed Me'ilah.

Explanation: This is because Me'ilah applies to Konamos.

Gemara: He transgresses Me'ilah. Therefore, it has redemption.

Explanation: Since it is forbidden to everyone like Hekdesh, it is Tofes (transfers its Isur to) its redemption.

Gemara: 'Konam, this loaf is to me Hekdesh' and he ate it, he transgressed Me'ilah.

Explanation: Since it is forbidden only to him, when he benefits from it, he transgressed Me'ilah.

Gemara: His friend does not transgress Me'ilah. Therefore, it has no redemption.

Explanation: Since his friend did not transgress Me'ilah, it is not strong like Hekdesh to be Tofes its redemption.

Gemara: And Chachamim say, in both cases he did not transgress Me'ilah, for Me'ilah does not apply to Konamos.

Explanation: This refers to both to Konam Kelali, that he forbade to everyone, and to Konam Perati (to an individuals).

Pesak: We rule like R. Meir, that there is Me'ilah in Konamos.

Source #1: Rav Nachman derived for Rava from our Mishnah that there is Me'ilah.

Source #2: In Shevuos (22b), we switch the opinion of R. Meir to Rabanan [so that Rabanan say that there is Me'ilah]. Therefore, we hold that there is Me'ilah.

Pesak: We also hold that Konam Kelali has Pidyon.

Question: I am unsure, if one was Mo'el in Konamos, if the Konam is permitted after the Me'ilah, just like Hekdesh becomes Chulin through Me'ilah.

Gemara: 'My loaf is forbidden to you', and then he gave it to him for a gift, who transgressed Me'ilah?

Explanation: I.e. who transgressed via this gift?

Since there is Me'ilah, just like it says about Hekdesh (Chagigah 10b) that if one took a rock or beam of Hekdesh, he was Mo'el, even though he did not take it out [of Hekdesh's Reshus] - also here, since he acquired it, Me'ilah applies, for it left the Reshus of the one who forbade it means, and entered the Reshus of the recipient.

Gemara: Was the giver Mo'el? [No,] for he did not forbid it to himself!

Remark: This refutes the Rambam, who wrote (Hilchos Nedarim 10:12) that if one was Madir his friend, and fed him, he is lashed for "Lo Yachel Devaro", like I wrote above (15a, DH Halchah).

Gemara: Was the recipient Mo'el? [No,] for he can say 'I wanted [to receive] what is permitted. I did not want Isur!'

Explanation: Had he known that it is Isur, he would not have wanted to acquire it. It turns out that his acquisition was mistaken, and he did not acquire.

Implied question: One who removed [Hekdesh] from the Reshus of Hekdesh, it is possible that even mistakenly, he was Mo'el!

Answer: Here is different, for he did not remove [it from its Reshus], rather, his friend did; the recipient only accepted it.

Gemara: He told him, the recipient will transgress Me'ilah when he will give it to someone else.

Explanation: I.e. now, neither of them was Mo'el, for the reasons that you said. However, when he will give it to someone else, he transgresses;

Granted, regarding acquiring it, we say that it is a mistaken acquisition (so he was not Mo'el). When he will give it to someone else, we do not say so, like anyone who profanes coins of Hekdesh.

Gemara: The Yerushalmi [says...]

Citation: If one vowed from a loaf, may he use it to warm his hands? It was not resolved.

Mishnah: He may separate his Terumah and Ma'aser [for the Mudar] with his Da'as (knowledge or intent).

Explanation: The Gemara will explain with whose Da'as.

Mishnah: He may offer for him.

Explanation: If the Madir is a Kohen.

Mishnah: Kinim (bird-offerings) of a Zav, or Zavah, or a woman who gave birth.

Explanation: Because all of them bring two turtledoves [or doves], they are called [Kinim].

Mishnah: He may teach to him Midrash.

Explanation: This is because Mitzvos are not given for Hana'ah (an Isur Hana'ah does not forbid doing Mitzvos).

Mishnah: He may not teach to him written Torah.

Explanation: The Gemara will explain the reason.

Gemara: They asked, are these Kohanim (serving in the Mikdash) our [Yisrael's] Sheluchim (agents) on behalf of us (Yisraelim), or on behalf of Hash-m?

Implied question: In Kidushin (23b), Rav Huna concluded that they are Hash-m's Sheluchim , for if you will say that they are our Sheluchim, is there anything that we cannot do, and they do it [for us]?!

Answer: Even so, here we ask to settle it from a Mishnah or Beraisa.

Gemara: He benefits him.

Explanation: Since he did his mission, he benefits him;

Granted, if you will say that they are Hash-m's Sheluchim, even though via this Korban they permit him to eat Kodshim, this only indirectly causes benefit, and it is permitted.

Gemara: And according to you.

Explanation: You wanted to resolve from our Mishnah. [If so,] it should have taught 'he may offer Korbanos for him'!

Explanation: Just the contrary, we learn from here oppositely!

Since the Tana taught only Mechusarei Kaparah (people who were Tamei, and must offer a Korban to complete their Taharah), which do not require Da'as [of the owner], this implies that only they [are permitted];

[These Korbanos are permitted,] for since they do not need [the owner's] Da'as, surely the Kohen does not do Shelichus for them;

However, other Korbanos, which require Da'as, [Kohanim] are our Sheluchim.

Source: If this were not true, it should have taught that he offers for him Korbanos. This would be a bigger Chidush (because other Korbanos require Da'as).

Conclusion: Our question is not totally settled, for we can say that the Tana taught Mechusarei Kaparah to teach a Chidush;

Even though they permit the person to eat Kodshim, it is permitted, and all the more so other Korbanos!

Also from R. Yochanan, who said that all Korbanos require intent, we cannot resolve our question to say that they are our Sheluchim, for we can say that the Torah made Kohanim Sheluchim whenever the owner has Da'as.

Gemara: Except for Mechusarei Kaparah.

Explanation: A Zav, Zavah, Metzora, Metzora'as and Yoledes. Regarding all of them it is written "Toras." They are called Mechusarei Kaparah because they are forbidden to enter the Mikdash or eat Kodshim before bringing their Kaparah;

These, since their Korban does not come for Kaparah, they do not need [the owner's] Da'as for Kaparah. However, all who need Kaparah for a sin, they need Da'as.

Gemara: For it says "Zos Toras ha'Zav" - whether an adult or a minor.

Explanation: Just like a man brings a Korban for his minor son, who has no Da'as, also he may bring for his friend, without his friend's Da'as.

Gemara: If so, according to R. Yochanan...

Explanation: He holds that "Toras" comes to include a minor. Regarding "Zos Toras ha'Yoledes", what is there to include?

If you will say whether an adult or a minor, [this cannot be, for] Rav Bivi taught...

Explanation: They are obligated to use a wad when she has relations, lest she become pregnant and die.

Inference: (If she would become pregnant, she would surely die.) There is no case in which a minor gives birth.

Question: What was the question? We concluded in Yevamos that [the Beraisa] means that perhaps she will become pregnant and die. It is also possible that she will not die!

Answer: The one who says so, there he holds that children are like Simanim (signs of adulthood. If she gave birth, this proves that she was an adult, even if she was less than 12 years old), or better than Simanim (they prove that she was an adult from the beginning of pregnancy);

Therefore, she is an adult, and we do not find a minor who gives birth.

Explanation: If we did not find that a man brings a Korban for his wife, we would not include a lunatic, for whom does the Torah command?

Granted, regarding a minor, the Torah commands her father. However, whom [does it command] about a lunatic?

However, now that R. Yehudah taught that a man brings a Korban for his wife, we can establish the verse Zos Toras to discuss a lunatic Yoledes, for we do not require her intent;

Rather, [we require] intent of the husband, since he brings her Korbanos.

Explanation: This means as follows. A [rich] man brings Korban Ashir for his wife, even though every woman with a husband is not an Ashirah, for whatever a woman acquires, her husband acquires it;

Even so, since her husband is rich, he brings Korban Ashir for her regarding Korbanos Oleh v'Yored (those Korbanos in which an Oni bring birds or a flour offering in place of an animal), because a husband is obligated to bring his wife's Korbanos;

The same applies to all Korbanos that she is obligated to bring. This excludes her Nedarim and Nedavos;

R. Yehudah says, therefore if he exempted her, i.e. he divorced her, he has no Acharayus for them, for so she writes to him in the receipt for her Kesuvah that she writes at the time of divorce;

She writes that she pardons all Acharayus that she has against him from beforehand. These words include even Korbanos;

This is because R. Yehudah expounds the text that people use. We learn this from here in Bava Metzi'a (104a).

Implied question: Why do we say that "a man brings a Korban for his wife" is like R. Yehudah?

This is not only like R. Yehudah, for the Stam Reisha says that a man brings Korban Ashir for his wife!

Answer: Because we do not know who is the first Tana, and R. Yehudah speaks [in the Beraisa], we attribute this opinion to him.