1)

(a)Tana'im actually argue over whether 'Chomesh' means mi'Legav or mi'Lebar. Rebbi Yoshiyah Darshens "ve'Yasaf Chamishiso Alav", 'she'Yehei Hu ve'Chomsho Chamishah' (mi'le'Bar). The value of the object that is being redeemed is four Shekalim, and Rebbi Yoshiyah holds 'Chomesh mi'Lebar' (which is actually a quarter).

(b)The Tana who requires only a fifth of the Keren (mi'le'Gav) is Rebbi Yonasan.

2)

(a)We ask whether the fifth is Me'akev (crucial). The basis of the She'eilah is whether the fifth is a separate obligation (the amount plus a fifth), or part of the payment (five Zuz for Ma'aser worth four).

(b)And its ramifications are whether the owner is permitted to eat his redeemed Ma'aser outside Yerushalayim, before he has paid the Chomesh.

(c)The Beraisa states that there is no Chomesh and no Bi'ur by Demai. The implications of the latter ruling are that the owner does not need include the Chomesh of Ma'aser Sheini in his declaration of Bi'ur Ma'asros at the end of the third and sixth years.

(d)We extrapolate from there that the Din of Keren of Ma'aser Sheini is subject to Bi'ur because it is Me'akev by Vadai, whereas the Chomesh is not.

3)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer permits someone who has paid the Keren of Ma'aser but not the Chomesh, to eat it. Rebbi Yehoshua forbids it.

(b)Rebbi rules like Rebbi Eliezer on Shabbos because of Kavod Shabbos, but like Rebbi Yehoshua on weekdays.

(c)We know that Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua argue ...

1. ... on Shabbos because Rebbi said 'Nir'in Divrei Rebbi Yehoshua be'Chol'.

2. ... on weekdays because he said 'Nir'in Divrei Rebbi Eliezer be'Shabbos'.

(d)Initially, we attempt to establish the Machlokes as to whether Chomesh is Me'akev (Rebbi Yehoshua) or not (Rebbi Eliezer).

4)

(a)Rav Papa concludes however, that both Tana'im hold 'Chomesh Eino Me'akev'; Rebbi Yehoshua nevertheless forbids him to eat the Ma'aser before he has paid the Chomesh due to a decree mid'Rabanan (in case he forgets to pay it).

(b)Rebbi Eliezer is not concerned that he will forget.

(c)According to Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Yehoshua concedes that he is permitted to eat Hekdesh, even though he has not yet paid the Chomesh based on the fact the treasurers of Hekdesh will claim it from him (in which case he cannot forget to pay it).

(d)We refute this statement however, on the basis of another Beraisa, where Rebbi says 'Nir'in Divrei Rebbi Eliezer be'Hekdesh, ve'Divrei Rebbi Yehoshua be'Ma'aser'. Clearly then, Rebbi Yochanan's ruling may well be the Halachic opinion of Rebbi, but Rebbi Yehoshua still argues with Rebbi Eliezer over it.

5)

(a)We therefore conclude that what Rebbi Yochanan really said was that they both agree regarding Hekdesh, but only on Shabbos because a. the treasurers will claim Hekdesh's debt from him, and b. because the Pasuk in Yeshayah writes "ve'Karasa la'Shabbos Oneg" (turning eating on Shabbos into a Mitzvah).

(b)We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Bechukosai "ve'Yasaf Chamishis Kesef Erk'cha Alav" that one cannot redeem Hekdesh with Karka.

2. ... Ibid. "ve'Nasan la'Kohen es ha'Kodesh" that a Zar who eats Terumah be'Shogeg must pay the Kohen with food that is fit to be 'Kodesh' (i.e. Terumah).

3. ... in Re'ei "ve'Tzarta ha'Kesef be'Yadcha" that one can only redeem Ma'aser Sheini with Kesef Tzurah (a minted coin).

(c)Rami bar Chama asks whether all these restrictions apply to the Chomesh too.

(d)When the She'eilah came before Rava, he resolved all three She'eilos with one swoop by citing the word "Alav" which the Torah writes together with each Chomesh, to teach us that the Chomesh has basically the same Din as the Keren.

6)

(a)Ravina supports Rava's ruling from a Beraisa, which rules that someone who steals Terumah but does not eat it, must pay double 'D'mei Terumah' meaning that he returns the Keren, and pays the Kefel in cash, though at the cheap price that a Kohen would pay someone who was selling it (since it is only fit for Kohanim to eat when they are Tahor).

(b)Should he then eat it, he is obligated to pay two times the Keren (one for what he ate and one for the outstanding Kefel) plus a Chomesh for eating it.

(c)He pays ...

1. ... the Keren and its Chomesh for eating it in kind (Chulin that is fit to become Terumah, as we explained earlier).

2. ... the 'Keren' for stealing it in cash at a cheap price, as we just explained.

(d)Ravina proves from here that the Chomesh has basically the same Din as the Keren, corroborating Rava's ruling.

7)

(a)The Torah writes in Vayikra (in connection with someone who stole, denied and swore that he did not steal "va'Chamishisav Yosef Alav". The Mishnah in Bava Kama extrapolates from the fact that "va'Chamishisav" is written in the plural that if the Ganav subsequently designated the Chomesh and then swore again, then, besides the Chomesh on the Keren, he also has to pay a Chomesh on that Chomesh.

(b)He no longer has to pay a Chomesh on the Chomesh from the moment the Chomesh on which he swears is worth less than a Perutah.

(c)The Mishnah in Terumos states that a Zar who designated Chulin plus a Chomesh as payment for Terumah that he ate be'Shogeg also has to pay a Chomesh on that Chomesh, should he eat it after designating it, even though the Torah there writes "va'Chamishiso" (and not 'Chamishisav').

(d)This Halachah ...

1. ... extends to drinking Terumah wine because 'Achilah' incorporates 'Shesiyah' ...

2. ... and to anointing oneself with Terumah oil because of the principle 'Sichah ki'Shesiyah' (anointing is akin to drinking), but ...

3. ... not to burning Terumah.

4. ... extends to eating Tamei Terumah as well.

8)

(a)Rava observes that in connection with Ma'aser Sheini there is no Mishnah which obligates one to pay a Chomesh on a Chomesh, nor does anyone ask whether one perhaps should. This is because the Pasuk writes there "va'Chamishiso (in the singular) Yosef Alav", in which case it is obvious that one does not.

(b)The difference between Terumah, where there is a Din of Chomesh al Chomesh, and Ma'aser, where there is not, despite the fact that in both cases, the Torah uses the singular lies in the 'Vav' in "ve'Yasaf" which the Torah writes by Terumah, implying that one adds and adds again (like Chazal Darshen in Toldos, on the Pasuk "ve'Yiten Lecha" [see Rashi there]; whereas by Ma'aser it only writes "Yosef".

(c)On the other hand, the Mishnah teaches us that Terumah pays a Chomesh on a Chomesh, but does not say this about Hekdesh.

(d)Considering that in both cases, the Torah uses the Lashon "ve'Yasaf", the Din of a Chomesh on a Chomesh might not apply to Hekdesh, even though it does apply to Terumah because (based on the principle 'Gor'in u'Mosifin ve'Dorshin') perhaps the reason by Terumah is (not as we explained, but) because we add the extra "Vav" to "va'Chamishiso", which then reads "va'Chamishisav", which we cannot do by Hekdesh, where the Torah writes (not "Chamishiso", but) "Chamishis".

(e)We nevertheless conclude that it does because in fact, the Derashah is due to the extra 'Vav' alone, which implies to add again (as we explained earlier).

9)

(a)We cannot resolve the problem (that the Torah writes "Chamishis" by Hekdesh, and not "Chamishiso") by adding the 'Vav' in the middle of the word to read "Chamishiyos" because we never find 'Gor'in u'Mosifin ve'Dorshin' in the middle of the word, only at the beginning of the word or at the very end.

(b)We ask why we cannot resolve the She'eilah regarding Hekdesh from Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi about Hekdesh Sheini a Hekdesh animal that became blemished and the owner transferred its Kedushah on to another animal.

(c)He says that one does not add a Chomesh to Hekdesh.

(d)Rav Papi answered Ravina from Rava, who defines the Chomesh as Hekdesh Rishon because it comes automatically (nobody declared it Hekdesh in place of Hekdesh Rishon).

(e)We finally resolve the She'eilah from Rav Tavyumi in the name of Abaye, who Darshened from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "ve'Yasaf Chamishis Erk'cha Alav" that the Chomesh is subject to a Chomesh, just like the money of one's Erech is.

10)

(a)Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi learns from the Pasuk "ve'Im ha'Makdish Yig'al es Beiso, ve'Yasaf Chamishis Erk'cha Alav" that only Hekdesh Rishon is subject to a Chomesh, but not Hekdesh Sheini.

(b)A Beraisa expert Darshened the Pasuk "ve'Im ba'Beheimah ha'Temei'ah u'Fadah be'Erk'cha" in front of Rebbi Elazar. The Pasuk refers to Hekdesh Bedek ha'Bayis (which belong to Hekdesh, but is not intrinsically holy).

(c)The Tana is comparing other Kodshim to Bedek ha'Bayis because of two specific characteristics 1. that it is initially Hekdesh (Techilas Hekdesh [i.e. Hekdesh Rishon]), and 2. that it all goes to Hash-m ('Kulah la'Shamayim'), and neither the owner nor the Kohen receives anything from it.

11)

(a)The Tana concludes 'Mo'alin Bah'. 'Kulah la'Shamayim' precludes Shelamim from Me'ilah (see Tosfos DH 'le'Inyan').

(b)In fact however, the Tana cannot be referring to Me'ilah, because if it were, then to preclude 'Sof Hekdesh' from Me'ilah would be incorrect. It is also not possible to learn like that because the Pasuk is talking about a Chomesh, and not about Me'ilah.

(c)When the Tana says 'Techilas Hekdesh', he is actually precluding 'Sof Hekdesh' from Chomesh (like Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi).

(d)He referred to it as 'Me'ilah' because the Din of Chomesh is connected to that of Me'ilah.

12)

(a)When Rebbi Elazar put this to the Beraisa expert, his response was that this was precisely what he had meant to say.