Inference: Rav Ashi himself, when he initially said that Meshichah of a Nochri does not acquire, it is not because he held like Reish Lakish. Really, he holds like R. Yochanan;

[And] therefore, when [Ravina] challenged him from the teaching about a Ben Noach, he did not want to ask from the teaching that mid'Oraisa, coins acquire, for really, [both] to Amisecha and to a Nochri, [the Kinyan is] with Kesef;

Amisecha [does not come to exclude a Nochri from Kinyan Kesef; rather,] it comes for Ona'ah (to teach that it applies only to Yisrael), like the opinion that Gezel Nochri is forbidden;

According to the opinion that Gezel Nochri is permitted, we do not need it, like we said above.

Implied question: [Rava] said in Bava Metzi'a (48a) that a verse and a Mishnah support Reish Lakish!

Answer: He means that it seems that they support him, but one can properly answer the verse according to R. Yochanan;

And the Mishnah of "one who gave [Hekdesh money] to a Balan (bathhouse attendant), he was Mo'el" (it connotes that this applies only to a Balan, for Meshichah is not lacking, but not when Meshichah is lacking), R. Yochanan establishes it to discuss a Nochri Balan.

And the [Beraisa] of one who gave [Hekdesh money] to a barber (he was Mo'el) R. Yochanan establishes it to discuss a Yisrael barber. Therefore he was Mo'el, even though he did not do Meshichah, for coins acquire.

Question: What is the support for Reish Lakish? He establishes the Beraisa of one who gave to a barber to discuss a Nochri barber. Likewise, one can establish the Mishnah of one who gave to a Balan to discuss a Nochri Balan!

Answer (R. Tam): A Balan connotes more a Yisrael Balan, similar to "one who gave to his Chaver (colleague)." It taught that he was Mo'el, and his friend was not Mo'el. This connotes that his Chaver is a Yisrael, to whom Me'ilah applies;

And this is only for a Balan, for Meshichah is not lacking, like that Mishnah concludes, because he tells him "the bathhouse is in front of you. Enter and bathe!" However, a barber similar to a Balan, i.e. a Yisrael barber, he was not Mo'el until Meshichah.

Explanation: Rava said that that a verse and a Mishnah support Reish Lakish, but not because he holds like him.

Proof: Rava himself rules like R. Yochanan against Reish Lakish everywhere, except for three laws.

Suggestion: Perhaps here is different, for a Beraisa supports [Reish Lakish].

Rejection: There, it counts one of the three [in which Rava rules like Reish Lakish] in which a Beraisa supports him!

Implied suggestion: Perhaps these three were taught together, and there are other [exceptions].

Rejection: In Chulin (77a), regarding sinews that will harden (when the animal gets older), it concludes that Rava said specifically these three, and no others.

Implied question: R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue in Sanhedrin (15a) about whoever is first to kill (animals whose nature is to kill), he merited, and a Beraisa supports Reish Lakish! (Rava should rule like him!)

Answer: There, they argue according to R. Eliezer, and the Halachah follows Rabanan.

Implied question: In Avodah Zarah (6b), regarding one who did business [with Nochrim before their festival], a Beraisa supports Reish Lakish [who permits benefit what he took from the Nochri]!

Answer: R. Yochanan holds like the Tana of the Mishnah, regarding the Mishnah (7b) that taught that [three days] before the festivals of Nochrim are forbidden, and afterwards is permitted, and it explains that they argue about if one did business.

Answer #2: We can reject the proof from Rava [that the Halachah follows Reish Lakish], since Reish Lakish did not say so in his own name, rather, in the name of R. Oshaya;

Citation (13a - Reish Lakish citing R. Oshaya): If a Yisrael gave money to a Nochri for his Behemah, according to their laws..., and [Abaye] explains, the law that the Torah gave for them - from Amisecha with Meshichah, but to a Nochri, with Kesef."

In such cases Rava does not discuss, to rule like R. Yochanan against Reish Lakish, in matters that Reish Lakish said in the name of his Rebbeyim, like it explains in Chulin (29b) regarding Shechitah is only at the end [when the majority of the Simanim are cut];

Reish Lakish said [so] in the name of Levi the elder, and R. Yochanan argued with him, and Rava himself holds like Reish Lakish in Pesachim (63a) and Zevachim (30a).

Question: We find (Bava Metzi'a 46b) that Rava said in the name of Rav Huna [that if one said] "sell to me for these [coins]" - he acquired, and the Gemara explains that he holds like R. Yochanan, who says that mid'Oraisa, coins acquire!

Answer: It seems that the text says Rabah, and not Rava, for Rava never saw Rav Huna, and he did not see even Rav Yehudah, like we say in Kidushin (72b), that the day that Rav Yehudah died, Rava was born;

And when Rav Yehudah died, Rav Huna was already dead, since it says in Mo'ed Katan (17a) "there is not a great man like Rav Yehudah to permit you [from Niduy]";

And Rav Huna was greater even than Shmuel, the Rebbi of Rav Yehudah, since it says in Gitin (5a) that Shmuel asked Rav Huna, if two brought a Get [from Chutz la'Aretz, must they say 'it was written and signed in front of me']?

Support (for Pesak (a), 13): The Halachah follows R. Yochanan, that mid'Oraisa coins acquire, since it says "and so said Rav Nachman, that mid'Oraisa coins acquire, and Levi checked it in his Mishnah (and found that this is the Halachah)", and we hold like [Rav Nachman] in monetary laws.

Implied question: It says in Kidushin (14b) regarding an Eved Ivri sold to a Nochri, that a Nochri's only Kinyan is through Kesef!

Answer: That means his only Kinyan of an Eved Ivri, not of all matters, for according to R. Yochanan it is Meshichah.

Implied question: The Gemara answers in Avodah Zarah (63a) that a Nochri Zonah is not lacking Meshichah (she acquires the Esnan without it)?

Answer #1: That answer is like Reish Lakish, and unlike R. Yochanan. The other answers that it answers there, that it is in her Chatzer, are fine even according to R. Yochanan;

However, initially [the Gemara] was happy to establish it even if it is in her Chatzer.

Answer #2: Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said that answer. He holds like Reish Lakish;

This is unlike Seforim in which it is written Rav Chisda, for Rav Chisda said in Bava Metzi'a (47b) that just like they enacted Meshichah for sellers (they can retract until Meshichah), they enacted Meshichah for buyers. This shows that he holds like R. Yochanan, that Meshichah is an enactment mid'Rabanan!

Disclaimer: We can reject that [Rav Chisda said that answer in Avodah Zarah, and] even if he holds like R. Yochanan, it is possible that he holds that also Nochrim [acquire through] money, and he expounds "Amisecha" regarding Ona'ah, according to the opinion that forbids Gezel Kena'ani, like I explained above.

Explanation: [It teaches that if he did not give coins,] and also he did not do Meshichah, he can return.

Question: Similar to the case of Yisrael from a Nochri, that he loses everything, e.g. here that he loses the value of idolatry, do we find [in a case of] Yisrael from Yisrael a problem of Mechusar Emanah?!

Answer: Here it says that a Yisrael from a Nochri, if there were a problem of Mechusar Emanah, it would be like money of idolatry in a Yisrael's hand;

Even though it is Mekach Ta'os, he would need to fulfill the sale, lest there be in [his purchase] Mechusar Emanah.

Explanation: This does not discuss Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, rather, when he was Makdish them to the Mizbe'ach for their value. The only difference between the Reisha and the Seifa is that here (in the Seifa) the Hekdesh preceded the Mum, and here (in the Reisha) the Mum preceded the Hekdesh.

Implied question: He transgresses when he is Makdish a Ba'al Mum for the Mizbe'ach, like we say in Temurah (6b)!

Answer: In any case, [our Mishnah] teaches the law.

Remark: There it explains (perhaps the text should say asks - PF) why this is different than one who is Mekadesh a mere date tree (also it has no Kedushas ha'Guf), and answers that it is more disgraceful, [for here] he abandons Tam animals and is Mekadesh Ba'alei Mumim.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Kedushas Damim exempts from Bechorah like Kedushas ha'Guf, like it explains below from verses that it exempts from Bechorah and Matanos.

Objection: There we exempt Pesulei ha'Mukdashim even though they were redeemed, since they are equated to Tzvi va'Ayal, and here it is only when they were not redeemed!

Explanation #2: Rather, the reason for Kedushas Damim is because it says about Bechor "b'Yisrael" (to exclude Hekdesh), and about Matanos it says "me'Es ha'Am."

Explanation: He mentions a male, for it itself is offered for an Olah. Had he said "animal" Stam, one might have thought that a female has Kedushas ha'Guf and it is offered for a Shelamim;

And we know that R. Yehoshua holds in Shekalim (6a), and it is brought in Temurah (20a) about one who is Makdish his property, that males are themselves offered Olos, and females are sold for the need of Shelamim, and he brings Olos with their money.

However, it seems that [Rava's teaching can be] also according to R. Eliezer, who says there that males are sold for the need of Olos, and females are sold for the need of Shelamim, and their money falls with the other property to Bedek ha'Bayis.

Implied question: According to what Rava wanted to say there (Temurah 19b) initially, that one who is Makdish a male for its value, it does not have Kedushas ha'Guf, it is difficult from the Mishnah in Shekalim!

Answer: (It is not difficult at all.) We can distinguish one who is Makdish his property Stam from one who explicitly specified "for its value."

Implied question: He could have learned "Tachas-Tachas" from Kodshim!

Answer: It mentioned [the Gezeirah Shavah to Bechor] because Bechor and Ma'aser are the same in several matters.

Remark: This is not in the Beraisa in Temurah (17b). Rava himself explains so;

Below (15b) in our Sugya there is another Beraisa that learns Temuros and Vlados from Zachar and Nekevah, and it argues with Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael here, like it explains in Temurah (17b). And so Rashi explained below.

And also that Tana properly learns that Temuros and Vlados are equated to the Korban itself, for "Im Zachar" and "Im Nekevah" discuss the Korban itself. Rather, from extra words we expound also Temuros and Vlados.

Consequence: Now, we do not need the Hekesh above that equates its Temurah to it.

Reference: The primary part of this Sugya is in Temurah (9a), and Rava holds that we do not warn from a Kal v'Chomer, and he expounds there differently;

And Abaye does not consider this a Kal v'Chomer, for [Tov b'Ra] is not worse [than Ra b'Tov. I.e. it is a Giluy Milsa.] Here it mentions Abaye's Drashah, for it is simpler.

Observation: We find like this in Sanhedrin (34b) regarding "we see Tzara'as [to rule about it] only during the day", and it brings Abaye's Drashah "b'Yom", and not at night, and abandons Rava's Drashah, which learns from "[it appears] Li", and not [due] to my lamp.

Implied question: In Sanhedrin (76a), regarding one's granddaughter from a woman he raped, it says a Kal v'Chomer - if [the Torah] punishes for one's granddaughter, all the more so for one's daughter! Abaye considers this a Giluy Milsa more than Rava, for according to Rava we do not learn them from each other...

And regarding his sister, all agree that we need a verse for the daughter of his father and mother, for we do not warn from a Kal v'Chomer, and it is not considered a mere Giluy Milsa!

Answer: That is because the simple meaning of the verse connotes that it comes to exclude, for it is written "Bas Aviv Oh Bas Imo."

Question: Perhaps we need it due to the end of the verse - "v'Hayah Hu u'Semuraso Yihyeh Kodesh"!

Answer: It could have written in the Seifa "v'Im Hamer Yamir Tov b'Ra Oh Ra b'Tov." (Surely, Tov b'Ra was taught also in the Reisha to teach that only a Korban that was initially Tam can make Temurah.)

Observation: According to what we say below (15a), that Rav holds like Reish Lakish, who says there that Chachamim hold that Kodshei Mizbe'ach do not need Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah (to be stood up alive in front of a Kohen for evaluation for redemption), this is fine. He agrees to Chachamim [when a Mum preceded the Hekdesh].

Question: However, according to the conclusion that [Rav] holds like R. Yochanan, that according to Chachamim both (Kodshei Mizbe'ach and Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis), if so, to whom does R. Shimon admit?

Answer: We can say that he mentioned this lest one think that the reason why our Mishnah says that they are buried is because we do not redeem in order to feed to dogs, and not due to Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah, for Ha'amadah and Ha'a'rachah are not needed for Kodshei Mizbe'ach, and this is why in the Reisha, that the Mum preceded the Hekdesh, they are redeemed;

[The Mishnah] teaches that this is not so. The reason for our Mishnah is due to Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah, and like we inferred below, since it did not teach "if they became Tereifah", and in the Reisha, that the Mum came first, R. Shimon agrees that they do not need Ha'amadah and Ha'a'rachah.

Consequence: Now, it said that R. Shimon agrees, for one could err to say that he argues with our Mishnah, like I explained. It needs to say that he properly agrees to it.

Implied question: Why does it say R. Shimon [agrees? It should say that Chachamim agree, for they are more stringent about redeeming!]

Answer: It is because according to him, it is more obvious that Ha'amadah and Ha'a'rachah apply to Kodshei Mizbe'ach. Since he said it does not apply to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, he is forced to say that it was written about Kodshei Mizbe'ach;

However, according to Rabanan it is not so simple. One could say that [Ha'amadah and Ha'a'rachah] do not apply [to Kodshei Mizbe'ach], like Reish Lakish says.

Reference: R. Shimon excludes all Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis from another verse, in Temurah (33a).

Observation: In Temurah (33a) it connotes like this, since Rav Gidal said in the name of Rav "what is Reish Lakish's reason?"