Question (Rav Ashi): Why does the Tana assume that a Tamei animal is always initial Hekdesh? Perhaps it is intermediate Hekdesh! (E.g. it was used to redeem Hekdesh, and later it will be redeemed, for it is not needed for Avodah in the Mikdash.)

Answer (Ravina): He calls it initial Hekdesh because it cannot be final Hekdesh (something used for Avodah). This is why the Chomesh does not apply to it.

Question (Rav Acha mi'Difti): When it is intermediate Hekdesh, there should be a Chomesh for it!

Answer (Ravina): Intermediate Hekdesh is like final Hekdesh. Just like there is no Chomesh for the latter (it is not redeemed), also for the former.

Question (Mar Zutra brei d'Rav Mari): Why do you compare intermediate Hekdesh to final Hekdesh, and not to initial Hekdesh?

Answer (Ravina): It is preferable to learn Hatfasah (imbuing with Kedushah of existing Hekdesh) from Hatfasah, and not from initial Hekdesh.

Question (Mar Zutra): Just the contrary! It is preferable to learn something that can be redeemed from something that can be redeemed, and not from final Hekdesh!

Answer: Rava taught that "ha'Olah" refers to the first Olah (offered each day). Similarly, "ha'Teme'ah" refers to the first (Hekdesh)!

Support (for R. Yehoshua ben Levi - Beraisa): If Reuven said 'this cow or garment is (Hekdesh) in place of this Hekdesh cow', it is redeemed, and Hekdesh has the upper hand (if the redemption is worth more than the Hekdesh, the redemption stands. If it is worth less than the Hekdesh, Reuven must give the difference to Hekdesh. Normally, saying this is Temurah, and both cows would be Kodesh. We must say that the first Kodesh cow was of Bedek ha'Bayis, or it had a Mum before it was made Hekdesh.)

If he said 'this cow or garment should be like five Shekalim in place of (i.e. to redeem) this Hekdesh cow', even if it is not worth five Shekalim, it is redeemed (Rashi - and Hekdesh has the upper hand; Tosfos - here, he need not add anything, for he intended to redeem onto this cow or garment even if it is worth less than the Hekdesh);

He adds a Chomesh when redeeming initial Hekdesh, not secondary Hekdesh.

(Mishnah): The threshold of Ona'ah is four (Ma'os of) silver (per Sela); the oath of partial denial is only when the claim was at least two (Ma'os of) silver, and the admission was at least a Perutah;

A Perutah is the Shi'ur (required quantity) for five things: the admission; money to be Mekadesh a woman; benefit from Hekdesh to transgress Me'ilah; the value of a Metzi'ah that obligates the finder to announce it; and if one stole a Perutah and swore that he did not, he must return it, even if the owner is overseas.

(Gemara) Question: A Mishnah (49b) already taught this. The threshold of Ona'ah is four Ma'os per Sela, a sixth of the purchase!

Answer: The Chidush is the next case. The oath of partial denial requires a claim of two Ma'os and an admission of a Perutah.

Question: Another Mishnah (Shevu'os 38b) explicitly teaches this!

Answer: The Chidush is that a Perutah is the Shi'ur for five things.

(Mishnah): A Perutah is the Shi'ur for five things...

Question: It should also teach that the threshold of Ona'ah is a Perutah!

Answer (Rav Kahana): The omission teaches that Ona'ah of Perutos is not Ona'ah (only Ona'ah of Isarim, silver coins).

(Levi): Ona'ah applies to Perutos.

(Levi's Tosefta): A Perutah is the Shi'ur for five things: Ona'ah; the admission; money to be Mekadesh a woman; theft; and a claim to obligate judges to judge the case.

Question: Why didn't our Tana teach a claim to obligate judges to judge the case?

Answer: He already taught theft.

Question: Even so, he also taught a Metzi'ah. If so, he could also teach a claim to obligate judges to judge the case!

Answer: Each of those had a Chidush:

The Chidush of theft is that if one stole a Perutah and swore that he did not, he must return it, even if the owner is overseas;

The Chidush of a Metzi'ah is that if it was worth a Perutah when he found it he must announce it, even if it declined in value to less than a Perutah.

Question: Why didn't Levi teach a Metzi'ah?

Answer: It is included in theft.

Question: He taught theft and a claim to obligate judges to judge the case!

Answer: That was needed to exclude the opinion of Rav Katina.

(Rav Katina): Beis Din must judge a case of less than a Perutah.

Question: Why didn't Levi teach Me'ilah?

Answer: He only lists Perutos of Chulin.

Question: Our Tana lists Perutos of Hekdesh. Why did he omit Ma'aser?

Answer: He rules according to the opinion that it can imbue Kedushah to a coin only if its Chomesh is worth a Perutah (i.e. the Ma'aser is worth four Perutos).

Question: Why didn't he teach that the Chomesh of Ma'aser must be a Perutah (in order that the Ma'aser can put Kedushah on a coin)?

Answer: He discusses only principal, not Chomeshim.

(Rav Katina): Beis Din must judge a case of less than a Perutah.

Objection (Rava - Beraisa): "Asher Chata Min ha'Kodesh Yeshalem" includes less than a Perutah. One must return it to Hekdesh.

It must be returned to Hekdesh, but not to a commoner (so Beis Din would not judge the case)!

Correction (Rav Katina): If Beis Din started judging a case of a Perutah, they must give a verdict, even if the claim changed and it is now less than a Perutah;

The beginning of the case must be for a Perutah. The verdict need not be.

Mishnah: There are five cases in which one must add a Chomesh:

If a Zar ate b'Shogeg Terumah, Terumas Ma'aser of (definite) Tevel or Demai, Chalah or Bikurim, he adds a Chomesh to what he ate and gives it to a Kohen;

One who redeems his Reva'i fourth-year Peros or Ma'aser Sheni;

One who redeems his Hekdesh;

If one benefited b'Shogeg from a Perutah of Hekdesh, he adds a Chomesh when paying back Hekdesh;

If one stole and swore falsely, when he admits his sin he adds a Chomesh to the theft.

(Gemara - Rava) Question (R. Elazar): Why is there a Chomesh for Terumas Ma'aser of Demai? Did Chachamim really strengthen their enactment as Torah law?!

Answer (Shmuel): The Tana is R. Meir, who holds that indeed Chachamim strengthened their enactments like Torah law.

(Beraisa - R. Meir): (It was enacted that a Shali'ach who brings a Get from Chutz la'Aretz must say 'it was written and signed in front of me.') If he did not say this and she remarried using this Get, she must leave her husband. Any children she had are Mamzerim;

Chachamim say, the child are not Mamzerim;

To make the Get valid, he gives it again in front of two witnesses and says 'it was written and signed in front of me.'

Question: Does R. Meir say that because he did not say 'it was written and signed in front of me', she must leave her husband and her children are Mamzerim?! (Mid'Oraisa, the Get is valid!)

Answer: Yes, he holds ;` this in general;

(Rav Hamnuna): R. Meir holds that if a woman remarried using a Get that deviates from Chachamim's enactment, she must leave her husband and the children are Mamzerim.

Question (Rav Sheshes - Mishnah #1 - R. Meir): Regarding Ma'aser Sheni of Demai, one may redeem silver (coins) onto silver or copper, copper onto copper or food (even outside of Yerushalayim), and he may redeem the food again;

Chachamim say, he must take the food to Yerushalayim.

Question: One may not redeem silver onto copper!

(Mishnah #2): If a Sela of Ma'aser was mixed with a Sela of Chulin, he brings a Sela's worth of coins and says that the Ma'aser is redeemed onto the coins. He then redeems the coins onto the better of the two Sela'im;

This is because one may redeem silver onto copper only in pressed circumstances. It should not be left that way.

Summation of question: We may redeem silver onto copper only in pressed circumstances. Mishnah #1 allows this l'Chatchilah for Demai!