(R. Yochanan): A vote was taken. The consensus was, she is not Mekudeshes (and Rebbi Yehudah retracted).

(Rav): They still argue. Neither side retracted.

Support (for R. Yochanan - Abaye - Beraisa #1) Question: What is the source that Menachos (flour-offerings) may not be traded for Zevachim (animal offerings)?

Answer: "Every Minchah baked in an oven... will be to all Bnei Aharon."

Suggestion: (For some Korbanos, one who cannot afford an animal brings birds, and if he cannot afford even birds he brings a Minchah.) Perhaps Menachos may not be traded for Zevachim, because one may not bring a Minchah in place of an animal due to poverty (mere inability to afford an animal, unless he cannot afford even birds), but Menachos may be traded for birds, because one may bring a Minchah in place of birds due to poverty (whenever he cannot afford birds)!

Rejection: "(Any Minchah made) in a deep pan... will be to all Bnei Aharon".

Suggestion: Perhaps one may not trade Menachos for birds, for they are so different (birds are living beings, and Menachos are flour), but one may trade birds for animals, for both are living beings.

Rejection: "(Any Minchah made) in a shallow pan... will be to all Bnei Aharon." (The verse is not needed to teach about Menachos, so we expound it to teach about other offerings.)

Suggestion: Perhaps one may not trade birds for animals, for we slaughter animals with a Kli, and Melikah of birds is with the Kohen's body (fingernail), but one may trade Menachos for other Menachos, since both are offered by hand.

Rejection: "Any Minchah kneaded with oil... will be to all Bnei Aharon."

Suggestion: Perhaps Menachos made in deep pans may not be traded for Menachos made in shallow pans, for the former are soft and the latter are hard, but Menachos of the same consistency may be traded for each other.

Rejection: "Or a dry Minchah (i.e. without oil) will be to all Bnei Aharon."

Suggestion: Perhaps Kohanim may not trade Kodshei Kodoshim, but they may trade Kodshim Kalim.

Rejection: "A man like his brother ...if for a Todah (thanksgiving offering)" - just like they may not trade (Menachos which are) Kodshei Kodoshim, they may not trade Kodshim Kalim (e.g. Todah).

"Ish" - an adult Kohen receives a share, even if he is blemished, but minors never receive.

A Stam (anonymous) Sifra (Beraisa that expounds verses in Vayikra) is like Rebbi Yehudah, and he says that Kodshim may not be traded at all! (This supports R. Yochanan.)

Support (for Rav - Rava - Beraisa #2): The modest Kohanim would refrain (from taking from the Lechem ha'Panim), the ravenous Kohanim would divide it. (Ritva - if all agreed unlike Rebbi Yehudah, the Tana would not teach Stam like Rebbi Yehudah! We could have rejected the proof by saying that this Beraisa was before he retracted. We brought a better rejection. Zera Yitzchak - Rava merely wanted to reject the support for R. Yochanan, for one of these Beraisos is errant. Perhaps Rava was sure that this Tana did not retract, for he had a tradition that they used to divide in the Mikdash - PF.)

Rejection: 'Divide' means that they would grab it.

(Seifa): Once, a Kohen grabbed his portion and that of another Kohen. They called him "Ben Chamtzan" (the robber) until the day he died.

Question: What is the source that Chamtzan means the same as Chamsan (an extortionist)?

Answer #1 (Rabah bar Rav Shilo): We learn from "Hash-m, save me... from a Chometz".

Answer #2 (Rabah): We learn from "support the Chamutz (victim of oppression)."

(Mishnah - R. Meir): If a man was Mekadesh with Ma'aser Sheni, whether he was Shogeg or Mezid, the Kidushin is invalid. Rebbi Yehudah says, if he was Shogeg, it is invalid. If he was Mezid, it is valid.

Question: From where do they learn?

Answer (Rav Acha Brei d'Rava): "All Ma'aser of the land, from fruits of the tree, to Hash-m, it is Kodesh to Hash-m" - Ma'aser is to Hash-m. It is not to be Mekadesh a woman.

Question: It says about Terumas Ma'aser "Terumas Hash-m" (and it can be Mekadesh)!

(Mishnah): If one was Mekadesh a woman with Terumos, she is Mekudeshes.

Answer: Terumah is not called Kodesh (therefore, it can be Mekadesh).

Question: It says about Shemitah "it is Kodesh to you" (and it can be Mekadesh)!

(Mishnah): If one was Mekadesh a woman with Peros Shemitah, she is Mekudeshes.

Answer: Shemitah is not called 'to Hash-m.'

Question: It says regarding Terumah "Yisrael are Kodesh to Hash-m, the beginning of His crop" (and Terumah can Mekadesh)!

Question: The verse says that Yisrael are Kodesh to Hash-m, not Terumah!

Answer: Yisrael are called "the beginning of His crop", like Terumah. (It follows that also Terumah is "Kodesh to Hash-m")!

Answer (Ravin): It says about Ma'aser "it is." This teaches that it always keeps its status (of being to Hash-m).

(Mishnah - R. Meir): If a man was Mekadesh with Hekdesh b'Mezid, the Kidushin is valid. If he was Shogeg, it is invalid. Rebbi Yehudah says, if he was Shogeg, it is valid. If he was Mezid, it is invalid.

(R. Yakov): R. Yochanan explained why Rebbi Yehudah says that she is not Mekudeshes when he was Shogeg, and why R. Meir says that she is not Mekudeshes when he was Mezid.

In one case, she would not agree if she knew. In the other case, neither party would agree if he or she knew. I (R. Yakov) do not know which of these applies to Ma'aser, and which to Hekdesh.

(R. Yirmiyah): Regarding Ma'aser, she is unhappy, for now she must take the money to Yerushalayim to use it. He is happy, for he acquired a woman with money that had limited use;

Regarding Hekdesh, neither is happy that Hekdesh was profaned through them.

R. Yakov was unsure, for one could say oppositely. Regarding Ma'aser, she is unhappy, for now she must take the money to Yerushalayim to use it. He is unhappy, lest the money be lost on the way (Rashi - and the Kidushin will be invalid; Tosfos - she is Mekudeshes, but she will be upset);

Regarding Hekdesh, she is not happy that Hekdesh was profaned through her, but he is happy that he acquired a woman with money that had limited use.

Question (Rava): She is not Mekudeshes. Does the money become Chulin?

Answer (Rav Chisda): Since she is not Mekudeshes, surely the money remains Hekdesh!

Question (R. Chiya bar Avin): What is the law of a purchase (in which Hekdesh money was given)?

Answer (Rav Chisda): Also a purchase is invalid.

Question (Mishnah - R. Meir): (If b'Shogeg, Reuven gave Hekdesh coins to a grocer,) a grocer is like a commoner (i.e., even if they were unwrapped, if the grocer uses them, he transgresses Me'ilah);

Rebbi Yehudah says, he is like a moneychanger (he transgresses Me'ilah only if the coins were wrapped. If they were unwrapped, Reuven transgresses, for he knows that the grocer will use them).

They argue only about the status of a grocer. All agree that one who spends Hekdesh coins transgresses Me'ilah!

Answer: This is not R. Meir's opinion. In the Mishnah, he addresses Rebbi Yehudah according to Rebbi Yehudah's opinion;

R. Meir: I hold that even if he spent them, he did not transgress Me'ilah. Granted, you argue about this, but at least admit that a grocer is like a common man (so Reuven is exempt)!

Rebbi Yehudah: No, a grocer is like a moneychanger.