Observation: The Gemara implies that it knew that Yayin Nesech causes money exchanged for it to become forbidden as does idolatry. Even so, it still wanted to compare the wages earned through working with Yayin Nesech to money exchanged for Orlah or Shevi'is. This is despite the fact that Yayin Nesech has two stringencies: it is forbidden from benefit and it causes money exchanged for it to become forbidden from benefit as well. (The Avodah Berurah gives various explanations regarding how Tosfos saw this implied in our Gemara when the simple reading of the Gemara indicates that the opposite is true.)

Explanation: The Gemara therefore asks the following question. Why are the wages forbidden from benefit? Even though the money exchanged for it is forbidden from benefit like money exchanged for idolatry, wages (earned while working with Yayin Nesech) are only a Rabbinic prohibition. It is not the same as money exchanged directly for Yayin Nesech. Why, then, did they decree that this too is forbidden from benefit?

Explanation (cont.): If it is because Yayin Nesech itself is prohibited from benefit according to Torah law, and they therefore decreed that wages earned are decreed forbidden due to the Yayin Nesech itself, Orlah and Kilai ha'Kerem are also prohibited from benefit according to Torah law, and yet there is no decree regarding the money due to the Torah prohibition from benefit on Orlah.

Explanation (cont.): There is no reason to be more stringent here regarding wages than regarding money exchanged for Orlah etc. If we find regarding certain things that are prohibited from benefit that the money exchanged for them is prohibited according to Torah law, but yet we do not find that a decree was made by the Rabbanan that this should also be the case regarding money exchanged for similar items prohibited by the Torah from benefit when the Torah did not declare the money exchanged prohibited, certainly wages which the Torah never prohibited from benefit should not be decreed forbidden due to the item being prohibited from benefit!

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara answers that being that Yayin Nesech makes money exchanged for it prohibited as does idolatry, it is forbidden. In other words, the Gemara answers that while one would not mix up wages with the item itself, they would mix up wages with the money exchanged for the item. (Being that the money exchanged is prohibited from benefit, we also decree that the wages are forbidden from benefit.)

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara asks, doesn't Shemitah cause money exchanged for it to have Kedushas Shevi'is, yet we say that the wages are permitted! This indicates the wages are completely permitted, and that they are not even considered to have Kedushas Shevi'is. We do not decree wages of Shemitah are forbidden due to the fact that money exchanged for Shemitah produce has Kedushas Shevi'is! (We therefore should similarly not make this decree regarding wages of Yayin Nesech!)

Implied Question: One cannot say that Yayin Nesech is different as it has two stringencies in that it is forbidden from benefit and money exchanged for it is forbidden from benefit.

Answer: This is because just as wages are not confused with money exchanged for an item that has only one stringent aspect, so too is not confused regarding an item that has two stringent aspects (i.e. the added stringency is no reason to make a decree).

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara concludes that Rebbi Avahu says in the name of Rebbi Yochanan that this is a fine, and it certainly does have the reasoning to make it into a decree, as I have explained. If the reason would be because it is confused with money exchanged for it, we should not differentiate between a worker for Yayin Nesech and worker for Shevi'is. We also should not differentiate regarding Shevi'is between donkey drivers and workers.

Explanation (cont.): Rather, this is due to a fine. The Chachamim understood that donkey drivers should receive this fine because they receive higher wages. They also understood that even workers for Yayin Nesech should receive this fine due to the stringency of Yayin Nesech, as Rava concludes later.

Explanation (cont.): Only regarding these two categories, Yayin Nesech and Shemitah, were Chazal stringent. Being that the money exchanged for them is like them, it is fitting to fine one who receives wages for working with these things, as it is somewhat similar to the money exchanged for it. However, regarding other categories of items forbidden from benefit where money exchanged from them is unlike them, it is logical that this fine was not levied.

Question: This is difficult. Rashi's explanation earlier (54b) is that they were specifically lenient regarding Kidushin done with this money, although he is generally forbidden to have benefit from it according to Rabbinic law. However, a different person can benefit from that money. Similarly, regarding Shemitah, the money is not forbidden to others as stated earlier (ibid.).

Question (cont.): What, then, is our Gemara's question? When our Mishnah says the wages are forbidden, it means that they are only forbidden to the worker, just as these monies are forbidden to the person selling these goods!

Answer: When our Gemara says that the wages are forbidden, it implies they are forbidden to everyone (not just the person himself).

Question: However, the Gemara's question is difficult. The law that the monies can be used in Kidushin is only b'Dieved, as is apparent in Nedarim (47b)! However, Lechatchilah it is forbidden, and our Mishnah is discussing the law Lechatchilah!

Answer: It is possible to say that when our Mishnah says it is forbidden, it means that it is even forbidden b'Dieved. [See also Tosfos in Chulin 4b, DH "Mutar mi'Yad."]

Observation: This indicates that it would indeed be forbidden to be Mekadesh with the Orlah itself. The reason is because it is not worth a Perutah (the minimum amount required for Kidushin to be valid).

Question: This is difficult. The Orlah is still worth a Perutah being that it can be benefited from in an abnormal fashion or turned into ash, as the Mishnah states in Temurah (34a) that one can have benefit from the ash of anything (i.e. things forbidden from benefit) that is burned.

Answer #1: Being that as long as it is extant the Torah forbids one to sell it, it is similarly forbidden to be Mekadesh a woman with it, as this is like an important sale from which one benefits when he is Mekadesh the woman.

Answer #2: [Additionally, (added by some Acharonim in Tosfos)] in Kidushin (2a) we derive a Gezeirah Shaveh of "Kichah-Kichah" from the field of Efron (which teaches us to compare a purchase of a field to Kidushin of a woman). This money is not similar to the taking (i.e. money used to purchase) of the field of Efron, which was fit to buy a different object or be used for other benefits. (This explanation is quoted by the Avodah Berurah. See Avodah Berurah for another explanation of Tosfos in which there is only one answer in this Tosfos.)

Explanation: This is as if he hired him to gather lost objects, as this is not money from fruit of Shemitah.

Question: This is understandable according to the opinion in Bava Metzia (8a) that someone who picks up a lost friend for his friend has acquired it for his friend. However, according to the opinion that he has not acquired it for his friend, the one who gathers them acquires them. When he gives the objects to the owner because he is receiving this Dinar, he is essentially selling him fruit of Shemitah!

Answer #1: This is not considered selling, as the hand of the worker is like the hand of his employer.

Answer #2: Additionally, it is possible that the case of lost objects is different, as this opinion holds that his friend does not acquire the lost objects until he takes them in his hand. If the person who lifts it wants to, he may acquire it before his friend comes. However, in our case where the person gathering the Shemitah vegetables does not intend to acquire them at all, not in the beginning or end of his picking them up, the employer acquires them when he gives them to him (as opposed to the worker, who never acquired them).

Proof: Similarly, Rabeinu Tam explains in Beitzah (39b, DH "Hacha") regarding a person who filled up a bucket with water and gave it to his friend that Rav Nachman holds that the bucket has the Techum of the person who it was filled up for.

Proof (cont.): This is despite the fact that Rav Nachman holds that the second person did not acquire the water (when the first person picked it up) being that the first person did not intend to acquire it for him. However, when the first person gives it to the second person, the second person acquires it.

Opinion: Rabeinu Yitzchak says that forbidden business with Shemitah produce is when someone buys a lot in order to take it from a place where the produce is cheap to a place where it is expensive.

Opinion (cont.): This is similar to those who gathered Shemitah produce that were declared unfit to testify in Sanhedrin (26a) due to their business dealings in produce of Shemitah.

Opinion (cont.): Similarly, someone who pays back his debt with Shemitah produce is in this category as he is considered as profiting from Shemitah produce. This is not deemed "to eat it" (the use designated for Shemitah produce by the Torah). However, if he gathers it in order to sell a little at a time in order to buy food to eat, this is not considered business.

Proof: We similarly learned in Sukah (39a, see Tosfos there DH "v'Leisev") that one can swallow the cost of the Esrog in the Lulav. Without this method, it would still be permitted were it not for the fact that we do not give money from fruit of Shemitah to an ignoramus. This implies that it is technically permitted to sell fruits of Shemitah (on a small scale).

Proof: The Mishnah also says in Shevi'is (7:3) that one should not take vegetables from the field and sell them in the marketplace. However, he can gather them and his son can sell them for him. This implies that this can even be done Lechatchilah.

Question: We should ask that the first part of the Mishnah (ibid.) contradicts the second part. The first part forbids the buyer to sell in the marketplace. This indicates that one may gather it, and even sell it in the marketplace. The Mishnah then states that one may gather it and his son can sell it for him. This indicates that he cannot gather it and then sell it himself in the marketplace!

Answer #1: It appears that there is a mistake in the text of the beginning of the Mishnah. Instead of saying "Lokei'ach" -- "buyer," it should read "Loket" -- "gathers."

Answer #2: However, one can answer the existing text by saying that the Mishnah is teaching that the law of one who buys and gathers is the same. Both of them cannot sell in the marketplace. When the first part of the Mishnah discusses a buyer, it means that the same law applies to one who gathers. Similarly, the second part of the Mishnah that discusses a gatherer means that the same applies regarding a buyer.

Implied Question: We need to give a reason why it is more forbidden to sell in the marketplace.

Answer: When a person makes a store in the marketplace, it gives more of an appearance that he is benefiting from fruit of Shemitah.

Opinion: Even though we said that it is forbidden for a person to pay his debt from fruit of Shemitah because this is not deemed "to eat it," it is still permitted to be Mekadesh a woman with it even though it is not deemed "to eat it."

Proof: This is as the Gemara states in Kidushin (52a) that a person was Mekadesh five women with a fruit basket of Shemitah fruit. The Chachamim said that the sisters are not Mekudeshes (some of them were sisters to each other). This indicates that the other ones were indeed Mekudeshes to him. The reason for this is because the Rabbanan were lenient when it came to the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah.

Implied Question: However, one can push aside this proof by saying that the Gemara in Kidushin is saying they are Mekudeshes b'Dieved. However, Lechatchilah it would be forbidden to do so.

Question: Being that he gives the fruit in a way that is permitted, why is the case of the Beraisa that workers can work with this fruit? They can even do other work, and the employer can pay them in this permitted fashion with Shemitah fruit!

Answer: This is specifically when they do the work with the Shemitah fruit itself. It therefore does not look like they are getting wages when they are paid from the fruit itself.

Answer (cont.): This is why the Beraisa states that they can do work with Shemitah fruit, and the Mishnah said they can bring it (Ma'aser Sheini fruit, see Tosfos 62b DH "He'eleh") up to Yerushalayim to be eaten. It is as if the fruit belongs to both the employer and the worker, and they are both able to eat it. However, if the workers are working at a different job it is possibly forbidden, as it seems like they are being paid for their work.

Explanation: This is because it is like selling Ma'aser Sheini, and it is forbidden to sell Ma'aser Sheini. Many Mishnayos in Meseches Ma'aser Sheini imply that it is forbidden to do business with Ma'aser Sheini.

Explanation (cont.): It is logical that anything that (the holiness of) Ma'aser Sheini cannot be transferred to is considered doing business with Ma'aser Sheini. It can only be transferred on food or drink, as the Mishnah states in Ma'aser Sheini (2:1) that Ma'aser Sheini can be eaten, drunk, or used as ointment.

Question #1: This is difficult, as the Mishnah states in Ma'aser Sheini that one cannot buy with Ma'aser Sheini money "an unkosher animal etc." implying that one could buy clothing with it.

Question #2: Additionally, the Mishnah states in Ma'aser Sheini (5:12), "And I did not give it to a dead person" means that he did not give it to him in order to buy a coffin and burial shrouds. This indicates that if it were to buy clothes for live people, it would be permitted.

Answer: It is possible to answer that all of the Mishnayos that permit this are saying that it is permitted according to Torah law. However, the Rabbanan forbade all business with Ma'aser Sheini being that it is a Mitzvah to bring a Korban Shelamim from it. They also forbade paying wages to workers from Ma'aser Sheini.

Implied Question: The Yerushalmi states that just as one cannot buy clothes for the dead from Ma'aser Sheini money, similarly they cannot buy clothes for a live person. It learns this from a Pasuk. (This is unlike the answer above that buying clothes for a live person is only prohibited according to Rabbinic law!)

Answer: This is not an actual derivation from the Pasuk, but rather a Rabbinic teaching leaning on a Pasuk.

Question: Rebbi Yehudah asked on this that the Gemara states in Eiruvin (27b) that the Pasuk, "And you will give the money etc." is derived using the rule of Klal u'Perat (and teaches us what one can buy with Ma'aser Sheini money). We only include fruits that come from fruits and things that grow from the ground. However, we do not find that things that are not eaten are included. (In other words, why would we think one can buy clothes with Ma'aser Sheini money?)

Answer: It therefore appears that whenever we find that it is permitted to buy anything using Ma'aser Sheini money, it means that the money still has the holiness of Ma'aser Sheini in the hands of the seller (see Rashash that this is the correct text).

Answer (cont.): This is similar to Shemitah as stated in Sukah (41a) that if someone has a Sela of Shemitah etc. that the holiness of Shemitah is still in effect even after it is transferred. Whenever we find a prohibition of buying something with Ma'aser Sheini money, it means that one cannot treat the money exchanged as mundane after the transaction. (See Avodah Berurah that even this opinion agrees that even if one will not treat the money as mundane, certain sales may be forbidden, at least according to Rabbinic law.)

Explanation: It is more lucrative, and therefore more like doing business.

Implied Question: It is certainly forbidden Lechatchilah to earn money by working with Stam Yayin, as the Gemara stated earlier (56b) that it is not permitted to stomp on grapes together with the Nochri unless his hands are tied (so he cannot pour for idolatry). (What, then, is the Gemara's question?)

Answer: The Gemara's question is whether or not the wages are permitted b'Dieved.

Question: What proof is there from the case of the boat to the case of a worker? Renting a boat earns more profit, and is therefore similar to donkey drivers (whose wages are forbidden because they are more lucrative than those of a regular worker).

Answer: The wages in this case were only a small amount in order to pass over a small river, and therefore it is comparable to the case of the worker.

Explanation: This means that he should be able to burn it without burying it. The Gemara answers that people will come to use it as fertilizer.

Implied Question: The Gemara does not ask that he should be able to burn it and then scatter it by a grave, as this would not present a possibility of it being used for fertilizer (as a cemetery is already prohibited from benefit). This is as the Pasuk states, "And he threw her ashes on the grave of the people." (Why didn't the Gemara ask that this should be done?)

Answer: This Pasuk is referring to a grave in a building that is prohibited from benefit. However, here the cemetery is regular ground which does not become prohibited from benefit.

Proof: This is also implied in Sanhedrin (47b), as the Gemara states that they would take earth from the grave of Rav to heal a fever on its first day (and the Gemara there says that Shmuel said this practice was permitted, as the ground does not become forbidden).

Question: Why should this make a difference? The Gemara ruled earlier (49a) like Rebbi Yosi who says that when two different things (one permitted and one forbidden) cause something the result is permitted. In this case, the fertilizer is forbidden but the land is permitted (and the result should therefore be permitted).

Answer: Lechatchilah one should worry about the opinion of the Rabbanan who argue on Rebbi Yosi and say (48b) that this too will become fertilizer. (In other words, they hold that the result in the case above when two things are combined is forbidden.)

Observation: The Gemara concludes that this is not readily apparent, and is therefore forbidden.

Question: How is this different than all of the things that we say should be buried in Temurah (33b), such as an ox that is stoned, an Eglah Arufah, the hair of a Nazir, and everything that is buried as is even outside a cemetery?

Answer: Being that it is abnormal to bury meat and hair, the identity of these items is apparent. However, the identity of buried wheat is not apparent, as it is possible one would say that someone stole the wheat, brought it here, and buried it. It is indeed normal today to bury wheat in pits (see Bach who changes the text of this part of Tosfos, resulting in this explanation).

Answer (cont.): (The Bach switches around the first and last sentence of this part of Tosfos as follows.) After the items that are buried turn into earth, there is no reason to suspect that someone will use it as fertilizer, as it is abnormal to dig up graves in order to obtain fertilizer. However, it appears that one should bury them somewhat deeply in the ground, lest someone come digging to find these things that are buried there. (There are many other ways to explain this Tosfos. See other explanations in the Maharsha, Maharam, and Seder Yaakov.)

Implied Question: The poor people ended up eating in the eighth year after the Biur things that had been exchanged for Shemitah fruit. (What is wrong with that? The Tosefta in Shevi'is 8:3 states that poor people can eat Shemitah produce after the Biur, as stated below!)

Answer #1: It must be that the prohibition is the fact that they were eating these fruit in a manner which indicated they belonged to them (not treating them with Kedushas Shevi'is). If it was just that they were Shemitah, even the fruit themselves could be eaten by the poor people according to everyone.

Answer #1 (cont.): This is as the Tosfeta states in Shevi'is (8:3) that after the Biur, poor people can still eat although rich people cannot. These are the words of Rebbi Yehudah. Rebbi Yosi states that both poor people and rich people can eat after the Biur.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the poor people would make medicines or merchandise out of the fruit. This is why those who came were upset with them, and they told Rebbi Yochanan.

Explanation: Being that at that time (when the poor people loaned Rebbi Yanai's house the Shemitah fruit and they were then eaten) these fruit (used to pay back the poor people) were not extant, they did not become holy with Kedushas Shevi'is (and the house of Rebbi Yanai did the right thing). Accordingly, even if they were doing this on Shemitah they could pay the poor people if the Shemitah fruit given by the poor people had already been eaten.

Observation: The Gemara in Sukah (39a) states that one can swallow the payment for a Shemitah Esrog in a Lulav (that he is selling as Arba Minim, meaning that while he is officially only charging for the Lulav, he is including the price of the Esrog). However, the "swallowing" is unnecessary if the ignoramus would be willing to pay him after the Esrog had been used up. This would mean that he is not accepting payment for Shemitah fruit.

Opinion #1: Rebbi Elchanan deduced from here a ruling that if a Jew has Yayin Nesech, idols, or anything prohibited and he sells them to a Nochri on credit, and the Nochri then sells it to another Nochri before he pays back the Jew, it is permitted b'Dieved to benefit from the money even though the forbidden item is still extant.

Opinion #2: Rabeinu Yitzchak added that even if the first Nochri did not yet sell the items this applies. Being that he pulled them toward him before paying, and we rule (71a) that pulling of a Nochri acquires the item for him, it is similar to a case where a person has relations with a prostitute and then pays her the sheep. Such a sheep is permitted to be brought as a sacrifice, being that she did not have it in her position during the relations. Similarly, the idol wasn't in his possession when he received the money (and he therefore may benefit from the money b'Dieved).

Implied Question: There is no problem of taking interest (in the case of Rebbi Yanai). (Why not?)

Answer: This is as the house of Rebbi Yanai had other produce in their house. It is permitted to lend a Sa'ah for another Sa'ah (even though the payback will be a Sa'ah that is more expensive because the demand is greater, as in the eighth year versus the seventh year) when the person borrowing has that same item in his house when borrowing.

Explanation: The case is where he said to her that she should take this sheep from now, and during the relations the present should be finalized.

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara asks, let the prohibition of Esnan work retroactively from the time that he gave it to her! The Gemara concludes that the case is where she offered it as a sacrifice before they had relations.

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara asks, what is the case? The case is where he told her take this sheep from now. What exactly did he say? If he said, "Acquire it from now" it is obviously permitted, as it was not alive during the relations.

Implied Question: However, the text of the Sefarim that this is considered as if he gave her a gift is somewhat difficult, as this is not actually a present, as he also told her that when they have relations the present will be finished. The Gemara in Temurah (29a) also does not have this in its text. (How can we defend this text?)

Answer: If this is the text, we can explain that this is like a present, being that she already brought the animal as a sacrifice.