The Beraisa discusses a case of someone who declares Hekdesh three out of ten trees in a Beis Sa'ah - fifty times fifty Amos (two thousand, five hundred square Amos).

The Beraisa rules - that the ground that surrounds them as well as the remaining trees, are all Hekdesh.

In such a case, each tree will then require - two hundred and fifty square Amos to nurture.

The Tana must be speaking about saplings (and not fully-grown trees) - because we learned in 'Lo Yachpor' that fully-grown trees require a Sa'ah per three trees.

The redemption rate of inherited property is fifty Shekel per Chomer - (i.e. a Kur [thirty Sa'ah]).

The Tana's ruling teaches us - that the redemption of the trees is included in that of the land. Consequently, he does not pay anything for each independent tree.

The three cases where the above Din will not apply are; where the trees are planted in a smaller area ('Pachos mi'Ka'an'), where they are planted in a larger area ('Yoser al Kein') and - where the owner declares the three trees Hekdesh one after the other (and not simultaneously) 'Hikdishan be'Zeh Achar Zeh'.

In these three cases - the owner will have to redeem the trees at their going price, and not the land.

The Din is different in the case of ...

... 'Pachos mi'Ka'an' - because due to the trees growing too close together, they stand to be uprooted and re-planted.

... 'Yoser al Kein' - because they don't need all the land, and it is as if the owner had planted one tree, which does not incorporate the field in the sale.

With reference to where the owner declares the three trees Hekdesh one after the other) the Tana finally rules - that he is obligated to redeem the trees individually and the land at the Torah's redemption rate.

The author of this Beraisa (the case of two trees) cannot be ...

... Rebbi Akiva - because if he holds 'Mocher be'Ayin Yafah Mocher', how much more so 'Makdish', in which case, even if the owner was Makdish two trees, this ought to incorporate the land.

... the Rabbanan of Rebbi Akiva - because even they concede that 'Makdish be'Ayin Yafah Makdish' (as we learned earlier).

The author of the Beraisa must therefore be - Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah.

The basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Shimon and the Tana Kama in our Mishnah is - whether the Rabbanan, who argue with Rebbi Akiva by Mocher, concede by Hekdesh that 'be'Ayin Yafah Makdish' (the Rabbanan) or not (Rebbi Shimon).

Rebbi Shimon cannot now hold like Rebbi Akiva - because he (Rebbi Akiva) holds Makdish be'Ayin Yafah Makdish (as we just explained).

On the other hand, establishing him like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Akiva poses a Kashya in that - instead of asking on Rav Huna, we should rather ask on Rebbi Shimon himself ('ve'Ela Kashya'), who now gives the Rabbanan's reason as 'Makdish be'Ayin Ra'ah Makdish, whereas in our Mishnah, he says 'Ho'il ve'Yonkin mi'Sadesh Hekdesh' (implying that 'be'Ayin Yafah Makdish').

What Rebbi Shimon is therefore saying to the Tana Kama of the Mishnah is that - even though, in his opinion, the Rabbanan concede to Rebbi Akiva that Hekdesh is different than Mocher (a fact with which he himself disagrees), he should at least confine that Chidush to Ch'ruv ha'Murkav and Sadan ha'Shikmah (because of their Chashivus, as we explained earlier), but not to Bor, Gas and Shovach (which are not an intrinsic part of the field.

To which the Tana Kama replies - by insisting that 'Makdish, be'Ayin Yafah Makdish' (even according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Akiva), since they compare Makdish to Matanah completely.

This answers adequately the contradiction in Rebbi Shimon, and the Kashya on Rav Huna too, since - now that we have established the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Shimon (in the Rabbanan) as we just did, that enables us to explain Rav Huna even according to Rebbi Akiva, to protect his own interests, as we explained.

Having established the above Beraisa like Rebbi Shimon, we query it from the Seifa ('ve'Lo Od, Ela Afilu Hikdish es ha'Ilanos ve'Chazar ve'Hikdish es ha'Karka ... '), which we discussed there. When we ask that, according to Rebbi Shimon 'Leizil Basar Pidyon', we mean that - when redeeming a field of Hekdesh, Rebbi Shimon determines its status (Sadeh Achuzah or Sadeh Mecher) by what it is at the time of redemption ...

... in which case, the Din in the case of 'Hikdish es ha'Ilanos ve'Chazar ve'Hikdish es ha'Karka ... ' ought to be that - we consider the trees that he is redeeming as part of the field (even though they were not at the time when he declared them Hekdesh, posing a Kashya on the Reisha).

The source of the Kashya 'Leizil Basar Pidyon' is a Beraisa which discusses the Pasuk in Bechukosai "ve'Im es S'deih Miknaso Asher Lo mi'S'deih Achuzaso Hu". The going rate for the redemption of a purchased field the buyer declares Hekdesh is - determined by its market value (see Maharsha).

Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon learn from the above Pasuk - that if Reuven purchases a field from his father Ya'akov and, after he declares it Hekdesh, his father dies - it is considered a S'deih Achuzah (which is redeemed for the fixed value of fifty Shekalim per Chomer of barley), and not a S'deih Mikneh ...

... because at the time that he declared the field Hekdesh, it was fit to become an inheritance.

Rebbi Meir learns from the Pasuk "ve'Im es S'deih Miknaso asher Lo mi'Sedeih Achuzaso hu" that - only if Reuven declares the field Hekdesh after his father died is it considered a S'deih Achuzah (but not if he did so before).

We initially think that Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon do not require a Pasuk for Rebbi Meir's case - because, due to the S'vara of 'Azlinan basar Pidyon' (the source of the current Kashya), it is obvious.

They must hold of Azlinan Basar Pidyon - because otherwise they would concur with Rebbi Meir (who learns a smaller Chidush, as we just explained).

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak answers by Darshening two D'rashos from the Pasuk "ve'Im es S'deih Miknaso Asher Lo mi'Sdeih Achuzaso ... ". He learns (according to Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon) from ...

... the superfluous phrase ("asher Lo mi'Sdeih Achuzaso ... ") - that if Reuven declares the field Hekdesh after his father's death, it has the Din of a Sadeh Achuzah (like Rebbi Meir).

... the word "mi'Sedeih" (or from the 'Mem' alone) that - only if it is not even a little bit like a Sadeh Achuzah, is it considered a Sadeh Mikneh (precluding where Reuven declared it Hekdesh even before his father died from the Din of Sadeh Mikneh).

This solves the current problem inasmuch as - going after the time of the Pidyon now becomes a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv' that applies in this case only, but that in general, Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon go after the time of Hekdesh, and not of Pidyon (as we originally thought).

Rav Huna considers a Ch'ruv ha'Murkav and a Sadan ha'Shikmah as both a tree and a field. He considers them ...

... a tree inasmuch as - if someone sells or is Makdish two trees plus one of them, the purchaser or Hekdesh will receive the land in which they are growing (as if he sold them three trees).

... a field - inasmuch as it is not sold together with the field in which it is growing (even though two other trees growing in the field, are).

The reason for the former ruling is - because the fact that it is important does not detract from the fact that it is a tree.

He also considers a haystack comprising two Sa'ah as both a sheaf and a haystack. He considers it ...

... a sheaf inasmuch as - whereas two sheaves are considered Shikchah, two sheaves plus it, are not.

... a haystack in that - a haystack on its own is not subject to Shikchah.

We learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "ve'Shachachta Omer ba'Sadeh" - "Omer", 've'Lo Gadish' (to preclude a haystack from Shikchah).

When Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Resh Lakish says that 'Ch'ruv ha'Murkav and Sadan ha'Shikmah are subject to the Machlokes between Rebbi Menachem b'Rebbi Yossi and the Rabbanan, he is referring to the Machlokes of - whether 'Makdish be'Ayin Yafah Makdish' (the Rabbanan) or 'be'Ayin Ra'ah ... ' (Rebbi Menachem b'Rebbi Yossi).

Rebbi Menachem b'Rebbi Yossi rules in this connection that if a Ch'ruv or a Sadan nurtures from a field that someone is Makdish - he retains the land in which they are growing.

Resh Lakish cites Rebbi Menachem b'Rebbi Yossi and the Rabbanan (rather than Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan) - to teach us that Rebbi Menachem b'Rebbi Yossi holds like Rebbi Shimon.