1)

(a)The Mishnah in Chalah lists the differences between Terumah and Bikurim on the one hand, and Ma'aser Sheini on the other. If a Zar or a Kohen Tamei eats the former, he is Chayav Misah, and if a Zar eats them be'Shogeg, he pays an extra fifth. Neither ruling applies to the latter. The Tana nevertheless needs to add 've'Asurim le'Zarim' in order to teach us 'Mah she'Ein Kein be'Ma'aser, which is permitted Lechatchilah to be eaten by Zarim (and which we would not have known from the Reisha).

(b)The ramifications of 've'Hein Nechsei Kohen' are that the Kohen can betroth a woman with them.

(c)Ma'aser is not 'Nechsei Kohen' because, like Hekdesh, it is Mamon Gavohah (it belongs to Hash-m), according to Rebbi Meir, who is the author of this Mishnah.

(d)The former also require washing one's hands before eating and 'Ha'arev Shemesh'. Ma'aser does not require ...

1. ... washing one's hands before eating it because although Stam hands are considered Sheini le'Tum'ah mi'd'Rabanan, that does not affect fruit (even Ma'aser fruit), because Mar said that someone who does so is conceited (though this statement does not extend to bread -even of regular Chulin).

2. ... Ha'arev Shemesh because we learn from Pesukim that a Tamei person is permitted to eat Ma'aser as soon as he has Toveled in a Mikveh.

2)

(a)The Tana also differentiates between the above as regards Bitul. In order to become Batel Terumah and Bikurim must fall in at least a hundred times itself of Chulin.

(b)Assuming that Ma'aser is Batel be'Rov, the Tana cannot be referring to Stam Ma'aser, either before or after it enters Yerushalayim since one is able to either redeem it or eat it (respectively), and a Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin does not become Batel.

(c)The Tana is referring to less than a Perutah's worth of Ma'aser (which can neither be eaten nor redeemed, either because it became Tamei or for other reasons that we shall see during the course of the Sugya).

(d)The Mishnah is still problematic according to Rebbi Chiya however since he permits redeeming less than a Perutah's worth of Ma'aser, in which case it remains a Davar she'Yesh lo Matirin; so why does it become Batel?

3)

(a)We initially reject the suggestion that Ma'aser is different than Terumah and Bikurim inasmuch as it does not become Batel at all on the grounds that the Tana lists only the leniencies of Ma'aser, not the stringencies.

(b)And we refute that reason on the grounds that he did insert the Chumra that it is not Nechsei Kohen.

(c)Nevertheless the Tana cannot mean that Ma'aser is not Batel at all because another Beraisa specifically states that it is Batel be'Rov.

4)

(a)That Beraisa also establishes the Mishnah by Ma'aser Sheini that is less than a Shaveh Perutah which is Tamei (see Maharsha on Tosfos 'Lehader ve'Le'aylei'). Alternatively, the Mishnah speaks when it entered Yerushalayim and was taken out again, rendering it both unfit to eat and unfit to be redeemed.

(b)The Kashya (on the first explanation) why he should not be able to redeem it on an old used coin (like Rebbi Chiya). We initially answer that he simply does not have such a coin (and 'Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin' applies only when one has all the means to be Matir it).

(c)He cannot take a new coin and combine the Ma'aser that he has with ...

1. ... other Ma'aser and redeem them together because that Ma'aser is d'Oraisa, whereas the one in question is only d'Rabanan (since Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin is Batel d'Oraisa), and one cannot redeem what is d'Oraisa together with what is d'Rabanan.

2. ... Demai (which is also only d'Rabanan), because the Chachamim decreed that this too, cannot be redeemed together with the Ma'aser in question, since one might then go on to redeem a d'Oraisa together with a d'Rabanan.

5)

(a)We reject the suggestion that he redeem two Perutos worth of Ma'aser, on one and a half of two Perutos, and the current half Perutah of Ma'aser, on the remaining half Perutah on the grounds that the one Perutah would then redeem the Perutah's worth of Ma'aser, and the other half would simply remain unredeemed.

(b)One cannot ...

1. ... initially combine the half Perutah together with the one and half Perutos of Ma'aser since, as we already explained, d'Oraisa and d'Rabanan cannot combine.

2. ... redeem the one and a half Perutos of Ma'aser on to an Isar, and the half Perutah in question on to part of what remains (there are eight Perutos in an Isar) because Chazal forbade that too, in case one comes to bring two Perutos instead of an Isar.

(c)That explains why it is not a Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin. Alternatively, we established the Mishnah where the Ma'aser entered Yerushalayim and was taken out again. The reason that the mixture containing the Ma'aser cannot simply be returned to Yerushalayim and eaten there is because the Tana speaks when it (too) became Tamei.

(d)The problem with this however, is Rebbi Elazar, who Darshened from the Pasuk in Re'ei (in connection with the redemption of Ma'aser Sheini) "ki Lo Suchal Se'eiso" that Ma'aser Sheini that became Tamei may be redeemed even in Yerushalayim (since it cannot be eaten, and 'Se'eis' also has connotations of eating, as we find in Miketz "Va'yisa Mas'os me'Eis Panav").

6)

(a)We therefore establish the Mishnah (not by the Ma'aser itself, but) by food that was purchased with the money of Ma'aser in Yerushalayim according to Rebbi Yehudah, who holds in the Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheini that food that is bought with money of Ma'aser and that became Tamei, cannot be redeemed.

(b)According to the Chachamim, even Ma'aser that is bought with Ma'aser Sheini money can be redeemed. Rebbi Yehudah's reason for saying that it cannot is because its 'Kedushah' (which is third-hand, so to speak) is too weak to be redeemed.

(c)We reject this explanation however, on the grounds that if the author is Rebbi Yehudah, then the Beraisa would not have needed to establish the Mishnah specifically when the Ma'aser entered Yerushalayim and was taken out. According to Rebbi Yehudah, even if it had remained in Yerushalayim, it would need to be buried, as we just explained (and it could therefore not be classified as a 'Davar she'Yesh lo Matirin').

7)

(a)So we establish it by Tahor Ma'aser, and the reason that one cannot return the Ma'aser to Yerushalayim and eat it there is because we interpret 'Yatza' to mean that the walls of Yerushalayim fell. Consequently, the Ma'aser could neither be eaten (because the Torah prescribes "Lifnei Hash-m") nor redeemed (because, having entered whilst the walls were standing ['Kaltuhu Mechitzos'], they can only be redeemed within the Mechitzos).

(b)There is a problem with this however, based on a statement of Rava, who said 'Mechitzos li'K'lot d'Rabanan' meaning that min ha'Torah, the fact that the Ma'aser entered the walls of Yerushalayim, do not prevent it from being redeemed once it leaves (and the prohibition is only d'Rabanan).

(c)We now extrapolate from this that if there are no walls, Chazal did not decree (in other words, the decree was that, the Ma'aser must be returned to within the walls to be redeemed, but will not apply if the walls are no longer standing). This poses a Kashya on the current explanation of the Mishnah inasmuch as it would still be a case of 'Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin'.

(d)We counter this Kashya with the principle 'Lo P'lug', meaning that Chazal did not in fact differentiate here between whether the Mechitzos are standing or not.

8)

(a)Rav Huna bar Yehudah Amar Rav Sheshes establishes the second reason in the Beraisa ('ve'she'Nichnas li'Yerushalayim ve'Yatza') not as an independent reason (as we learned until now), but as an addition to the first one ('she'Ein Bo Shaveh Perutah'). The Kashya that caused the Tana to add it was the Kashya from Chizkiyah (Why can he not redeem the Ma'aser on a used coin?)

(b)He goes on to learn the Sugya as the first Lashon learned it (ending with 'Lo P'lug'). The Tana needs to establish it by less than a Shaveh Perutah (not because the Halachah will be any different if it is worth a Perutah, but) because we might otherwise have thought that the Din of 'Kaltuhu Mechitzos' does not apply to Ma'aser that is less than a Perutah (because it is not Chashuv).

(c)If that was so then if less than a Perutah's worth of Ma'aser in Yerushalayim in the time of the Beis Hamikdash got mixed up with Chulin after the walls had fallen, it would not become Batel, because it can be redeemed and is therefore a Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin'.

9)

(a)The Beraisa Darshens from the Pasuk "Im Ga'ol Yig'al Ish mi'Ma'asro" that Ma'aser that is worth less than a Perutah cannot be redeemed (initially [on a new coin]).

(b)When Rav Ami says 'Ein bo', he means that as long as the Ma'aser itself is worth a Perutah, it can be redeemed (even though the fifth is not).

(c)Rav Asi says 'Bo u've'Chomsho', which means that not only must the Ma'aser be worth a Perutah, but so must the fifth (in which case, one cannot redeem Ma'aser that is worth less than four Perutos (according to one side of the She'eilah that follows).

(d)Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish respectively, argue over the same point as Rav Ami and Rav Asi.

10)

(a)The Beraisa 'Ma'aser Sheini she'Ein bo Shaveh Perutah, Dayo she'Yomar Hu ve'Chomsho Muchulal al Ma'os ha'Rishonos' bears out Chizkiyah's statement that we quoted earlier. We extrapolate from the word 'Dayo' that one really ought to do more (such as to take it to Yerushalayim or wait until he has more fruit with which to combine it) ...

(b)... which in turn makes sense if the Keren is a Perutah or more (and it is only the Chomesh that is not), and there is reason to think that he should. But if the Keren itself is worth less than a Perutah, it would have sufficed to say 'Omer Hu ve'Chomsho ... ', posing a Kashya on the opinion of Rav Ami and Rebbi Yochanan.

11)

(a)We ask whether the Chomesh which the Torah obligates the owner to add when he redeems his Ma'aser Sheini means a Chomesh ...

1. ... 'mi'Legav' (a fifth of the given amount), or ...

2. ... 'mi'Lebar' (a fifth of the total including the fifth [which we would refer to as a quarter]).

(b)The basic difference between an owner who redeems what he declared Hekdesh and a stranger who redeems it is that the owner adds a fifth, whereas a stranger does not (and the same will apply to Ma'aser Sheini).

12)

(a)The Beraisa discusses who has to redeem the Ma'aser, in the event that both the owner and a stranger offer to redeem the owner's Hekdesh. In the event that they both offer the same price, the owner has the first right because after adding a fifth, he will be paying more than the stranger.

(b)Should the owner offer to pay twenty Zuz, and the stranger twenty-one, the owner pays twenty-six (the twenty that he bid plus a fifth, plus the extra Zuz that the stranger offered).

(c)Despite the fact that we make him pay the extra Sela that the stranger offered, he does not pay twenty-six and a fifth of a Sela because he does not need to add a fifth on to the stranger's offer.

(d)If the owner offers twenty Zuz, and the stranger twenty-five the owner pays thirty (and the Sugya in Erchin discusses why this is so).

13)

(a)We prove from this Beraisa that a fifth really means a quarter (Chomesh mi'Lebar).

(b)The exact proof is from the fact that the Tana gives the total of twenty Zuz plus the fifth as twenty-five Zuz (and not twenty-four).