Question: If Hekdesh worth 100 Zuz was redeemed on Shaveh Perutah, it is redeemed, and presumably, the same applies to Ma'aser!

Answer: Surely, if he said "it and its Chomesh are redeemed on a Perutah", it works. However, if he did not explicitly mention the Chomesh, it does not help.

Explanation: He holds that a Chomesh is not Me'akev. Therefore, on Shabbos it is redeemed;

However, on a weekday it is not redeemed, for we are concerned for negligence. On Shabbos we are not concerned; [we are lenient] in order to enable pleasure on Shabbos.

Question: We should answer that [Rebbi] means as follows. R. Eliezer's words are Nir'in (seem correct) to R. Yehoshua regarding Hekdesh, for even R. Yehoshua argues only about Ma'aser!

We answer like this in Chulin (12a).

Answer #1: If the text here says "Nir'in" twice, this is fine.

Answer #2: According to the texts that say "he gave to him", it is proven that we discuss Hekdesh, for "he gave to him" connotes to the Gizbar (overseer of Hekdesh).

Implied question: Below (57b), Shmuel said that we build [the Mikdash] when it is Chulin, and afterwards we are Makdish (redeem Hekdesh coins on what was built)!

Answer #1: According to the opinion that if something detached was later attached, it is considered detached, this is fine.

Answer #2: Even according to the opinion that it is considered attached, since if it was not Kadosh, it would be destined to be uprooted, it is considered detached.

Question: If [the verse] discusses specifically Kesef, Metaltelim should not work [to redeem];

Note: Tosfos (Shabbos 128a) points out that there is no verse v'Nasan h'Kesef v'Kam Lo. Really, it is "v'Yasif Chamishis Kesef... v'Kam Lo" (Vayikra 27:19), regarding redemption of a field. However, below Tosfos says that we learn from a Klal u'Ferat u'Chlal from "v'Yasif Chamishis Kesef... v'Hayah Lo" (Vayikra 27:15), regarding redemption of a house. The Gemara cites this verse on Amud B.

If we learn [Pidyon] from damages and [redemption of a] slave, about which it says "Yashiv", to include Shaveh Kesef like Kesef, if so, also land [should redeem]!

Answer: We expound through [the method of] Klal u'Ferat. "V'Yasif Chamishis" is a Klal. Kesef is a Prat. V'Hayah Lo is another Klal.

Support - Citation (Bechoros 51a - Mishnah): We one may not redeem a firstborn [son] with land [documents, or slaves,] and not with Hekdesh;

The Gemara explains that [this means that] also Hekdesh may not be redeemed with all these (land, documents, or slaves). There, regarding a Bechor, we learn from a Klal u'Ferat u'Chlal (and the Gemara says that the same applies to Hekdesh).

Question: Had the Torah written only Kesef, one might have thought that Shaveh Kesef is like Kesef. Now that it wrote Kelalim, we exclude land! (The Kelalim should include more.)

Answer: Here, "Kesef" is extra, for it could have written "Chamishis Erkecha." Also regarding Bechor, it could have written "u'Fduyav mi'Ben Chodesh Tifdeh b'Erkecha Chamishah Shekalim";

Since it wrote "Kesef", this is to expound it to be a Prat [and exclude].

Question: The Chomesh is not Me'akev. If so, it is not [totally] like the principal!

Also below, regarding Ma'aser, we say that he does not add a Chomesh on a Chomesh! (It is not totally like the principal.)

Answer: "Alav" teaches only that a matter [kind of property] used to pay principal, we use it to pay Chomesh.

Implied question: He could have brought our Mishnah brought below (Amud B), that he pays a Chomesh on the Chomesh. Since the Chomesh becomes Terumah, it must be paid with something proper to be Kodesh!

Answer #1: We could reject that one may pay with anything, and when he pays with something proper to be Kodesh, it becomes Terumah.

Answer #2: It is better to bring this [Mishnah], which explicitly teaches that the Chomesh is brought from Chulin.

Question: Above (48a, regarding the Korban for denying wages), we require that he designated a Kli [to pay for his it], or he received [a security for his wages] and deposited it back [with his employer. If he did so, obviously he adds Chomesh to Chomesh!]

Answer: In any case, one might have thought that since it comes due to the law of Chomesh, one does not bring a Korban for it, and does not add another Chomesh. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

Explanation: He did not teach yes (that there is Chomesh), and not no.

Question: A Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheni (2:6) says that if a Sela of Chulin and [a Sela of] Ma'aser became mixed, he brings a Sela of Ma'os [and says that the Ma'aser is redeemed on them].

Inference: It did not teach a Sela and a Chomesh of Ma'os. The Mishnah teaches that one does not add a Chomesh on a Chomesh!

Answer: The Tana did not bother to mention the Chomesh.

Proof: One adds a Chomesh on the second principal, like was taught in Menachos (82a), that if one is Matfis Ma'aser Sheni for Shelamim, when he redeems it, he must add two fifths, one for Ma'aser, and one for Hekdesh (it gets Kedushas Shelamim);

Even so, [the Mishnah cited above] did not teach a Sela and its Chomesh of a principal of Ma'os.

Explanation: We cannot expound from "Alav", like I explained above (Amud A DH Alav. "Alav" teaches only that a matter used for principal, we use it for Chomesh.)

Implied question: Why can't we learn from "Kesef Erko" that [Hekdesh] cannot be redeemed on land?

Answer: It comes to teach only that when there is a Chomesh, its law is like the principal, to add a Chomesh to it.

Explanation: They are opposites. Regarding Ma'aser, one does not add a Chomesh to a Chomesh, but one adds a Chomesh on secondary redemption, like it says in Menachos (82a). Regarding Hekdesh, it is the opposite (one adds a Chomesh to a Chomesh, but does not add Chomesh on redemption of secondary Hekdesh).

Explanation: [It excludes Kodshim Kalim,] that Me'ilah does not apply to them.

Observation: We could have asked that the verse does not discuss Me'ilah. (Even without this, we properly asked that Me'ilah applies also to secondary Hekdesh.)

Question: We already excluded secondary Hekdesh from "ha'Makdish", and not "ha'Matfis"!

Answer: The verse above discusses one who was Makdish his house. Here we discuss a Tamei animal, which is Metaltelim. Both are needed.

Support: This is why also above, we needed Kesef Erko to teach that one adds a Chomesh to a Chomesh, because "Chamishiso" was not written regarding one who was Makdish his house, even though in the verse of one who was Makdish a Tamei animal it is written "v'Yasaf Chamishiso."

Explanation (Rashi): [The Tana answered that] "Me'ilah applies to it" means that he adds a Chomesh.

Question: Shelamim is not totally to Shamayim, and one adds a Chomesh to it, like it says in Menachos (82a)!

Answer: In the conclusion of the Toras Kohanim, it includes even Kodshim Kalim.

Citation (Toras Kohanim): What do we include from this (Chomesh applies to all initial Hekdesh that is totally to Shamayim)? Parim ha'Nisrafim and Se'irim ha'Nisrafim (inner Chata'os to atone for mistaken rulings of the Great Sanhedrin, or of the Kohen Gadol for himself).