Question: Erchin disproves this! We do not return [a security for Erchin], and we are Mesader!

Answer: Erchin are lenient. They apply only to people who are Yisraelim, and not to a Tumtum (his genitals are covered) or Androginus (one who has male and female genitals) or baby less than a month old. Hekdesh applies to everything!

Question: In any case we should learn through the Hekesh that we are Mesader, for a Hekesh is not half-way (we learn from it everything possible to learn).

Suggestion: The Hekesh connotes that it comes to teach only Nidon bi'Chvodo (if one pledged the Erech of a limb, it takes effect only if it is vital to life), for it says "Neder b'Erkecha Nefashos", which connotes something vital to the Nefesh. The Hekesh does not apply to other matters.

Rejection: In Erchin (24a) we say "what is the source that we do not delay a pearl for [more than] a light appraisal?

I.e. if someone said "my Erech is Alai (upon me to give to Hekdesh)", and he has a pearl worth 100 (Zuz), and where he is now it is worth only 50, for there are not rich people who will buy it, what is the source that we evaluate it only for 50?

Citation (24a): It says "v'Hayah Erkecha ba'Yom ha'Hu" - like it is worth that day.

Question: In Erchin (18a) it says "you equated Hekdesh to Erchin for Nidon bi'Chvodo and a light appraisal of a pearl." Here we mentioned one of them. This shows that we equate for everything!

Answer: We must say that the logic of the Kal v'Chomer nullifies the Hekesh, since we can establish the Hekesh for another matter.

Support: It connotes like this in Zevachim (10b). The Mishnah there teaches "R. Akiva says, all blood that entered the Heichal for Kaparah is Pasul. Chachamim say, only Chatas [is Pasul]. R. Eliezer says, also Asham, for it says "ka'Chatas ka'Asham";

Citation (10b) Question: Granted, R. Eliezer explained his reason. What is Rabanan's reason?

Citation (cont.) Answer (Rava): You cannot say that blood of an Asham that entered is Pasul, because a Kal v'Chomer [teaches unlike this]...

Inference: A Kal v'Chomer nullifies the Hekesh ka'Chatas ka'Asham, since we can establish the Hekesh for another matter.

Question: In Chulin (115b) we learn that one may not eat meat and milk from the Gezeirah Shavah "Kodesh-Kodesh" from "Anshei Kodesh Tihyun Li"... (Tereifah), and we learn Isur Hana'ah from a Kal v'Chomer from Orlah;

Some expound the Gezeirah Shavah entirely to forbid eating it and permit Hana'ah!

Answer: That is unlike here, even if a Hekdesh and a Kal v'Chomer were like a Gezeirah Shavah and a Kal v'Chomer;

Even the one who learns there from a Kal v'Chomer could hold here that a Hekesh is not half-way, for there through the Kal v'Chomer we do not contradict the Gezeirah Shavah at all;

This is because the verse Basar ba'Sadeh Tereifah, which discusses meat that left its wall, also discusses Isurei Hana'ah, e.g. Kodshim that left the wall (within which they are permitted), which must be burned.

The one who does not learn Isur Hana'ah from the Kal v'Chomer due to the Gezeirah Shavah, this is because eating and Hana'ah are one matter;

However, here he agrees that we make the Kal v'Chomer for Mesadrin, since we can establish the Hekesh for another matter.

Question: In many places in Toras Kohanim and the Gemara, we want to make a Kal v'Chomer, and we refute it through a Hekesh or Gezeirah Shavah. This requires investigation, whether in every such case we cannot establish the Hekesh or Gezeirah Shavah for another matter!

Question: We say in Erchin (4b) that if one said "the head of this donkey is Hekdesh" or "the head of this slave is Hekdesh", he and Hekdesh are partners in it (or him). We do not say that it (or he) is Nidon bi'Chvodo!

Answer (Ri): In Erchin it asks this, and answers that we distinguish Kodshei Mizbe'ach and Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis. Here we discuss Kodshei Mizbe'ach.

Explanation (Rashi): We expound from "Nefashos".

Question: Why do we need a verse? Why is this unlike damages? If one cut off a hand, we evaluate [the difference between] what [the victim] was worth with his hand, and what he is worth [now] without a hand;

Similarly, we should estimate [the difference between] how much he is worth with the limb vital to life, and what he is worth without it, i.e. his full Erech, for he is not worth anything if that limb would be removed!

Answer: It says in Erchin (19b) that we do not estimate for Nedarim the estimation of damages. Rather, we estimate as if his hand was written (acquired) to his first master, and not as if it was totally removed, for then the slave is disgraced, and he is worth far less;

Also here, we would not estimate a limb vital to life [as if he pledged the Erchin of the entire person], if not that it is written "Nefashos".

Question: Since we are Mesader, and we leave for him the amount explicit in the Mishnah, how does "returning" apply? We leave for him everything that he needs! What else should we return to him?

Answer (R. Tam): When he takes from him for payment, then we are Mesader;

However, when he takes for a security, for we take a security from one who owes Erchin, then we are not Mesader, and returning applies.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [This other opinion] is Rabanan of our Mishnah.

Observation: Below, R. Tam explained that Rabanan of our Mishnah could hold that Ein Mesadrin!

Explanation #2: He must explain that "the other opinion" are those who asked about whether we are Mesader for a creditor.

Explanation #3: Or, [he can explain that] it is the Beraisa above that taught that we are Mesader.

Explanation: This excludes an Oni who became rich and became poor again, like R. Yehudah, in Erchin (17b).

Pesak (R. Tam, in Sefer ha'Yashar): We are not Mesader for a creditor, for R. Shimon ben Gamliel in our Mishnah, we concluded above that he holds that we are not Mesader for a creditor;

We hold that the Halachah follows R. Shimon ben Gamliel in the Mishnah, unless the Gemara explicitly rules like the one who argues with him, and we do not find any Amora in our Sugya who holds that we are Mesader.

Implied question: Rabah bar Avuha asked Eliyahu whether or not we are Mesader for a creditor, and he answered that we learn [a Gezeirah Shavah] "Michah-Michah" from Erchin!

Answer (R. Tam): It seems that the text says "what is the source that we are Mesader for a creditor", i.e. for the one who says that we are Mesader. Also Bahag has this text.

Support #1: This is correct. According to the text in Seforim, he asked whether we are Mesader. He should have said "we are Mesader", for he did not ask the reason!

Rather, surely the text says "what is the source?", and really, he holds that we are not Mesader.

Support #2: In Erchin (17b), R. Yehudah and Rabanan argue about an Oni who became rich and became poor again. R. Yehudah holds that he gives the Erech of an Ashir;

The Gemara explains that R. Yehudah's reason is because it says "Im Mach Hu" - until he is poor from the beginning to the end;

Inference: Rabanan who argue with him expound "he", and not a creditor. We are Mesader only for Erchin, but not for a creditor, like we expounded above. When an individual argues with a Rabim, the Halachah follows the Rabim!

Rejection: [Rabanan] expound "he, and not his wife", like we expounded above. (Rashi brought so above. It is in Erchin 24a.)

Support #3: We say in Bava Kama (11b, that one may collect) from him (the borrower), even from the cloak on his back.

Question: Perhaps this means that we remove from him a [luxurious] cloak worth 1000 Zuz, and give to him a different cloak proper for him!

Answer: There is nothing that is not proper for him, like R. Shimon ben Gamliel taught above (that all Yisraelim are proper to raise ravens, like princes).

Also, Rav ruled in Shabbos (111a) like R. Shimon, who says that all Yisraelim are princes.

Disclaimer: However, we say there that he rules like R. Shimon, but not for his reason.

Observation: Also Rabanan of our Mishnah could hold that Ein Mesadrin, and they discuss when he comes to take for a security. Rabanan hold that he returns it to him his entire life, and R. Shimon ben Gamliel holds that after 30 days, he sells it;

However, when he took it for collection, he may sell it immediately, and we are not Mesader at all.

Question: Why don't we bring from R. Shimon ben Gamliel that we are not Mesader?

Answer: The Gemara held that we take from him what is not proper for him, and give to him what is proper for him, just like the Gemara did not know above (that R. Shimon ben Gamliel holds that anything is proper for any Yisrael).

Implied question: We learned that R. Shimon ben Gamliel permits Luf (a kind of legume that is proper for ravens)!

Answer: It did not know that the reason is because [Yisrael are princes. Rather, it thought that] there is no one [for whom ravens are] not proper.

Question: Why don't we bring from R. Akiva and R. Yishmael, who hold that every Yisrael is proper for that [luxurious] Talis, that they hold that Mesadrin?

Answer: The case is, he collected it for a security. The first Tana holds that we remove from him the Talis worth 100 Maneh, and give to him what is proper for him, and with [the latter] Talis we fulfill returning the security every day. The lender keeps the rest like a security, and he does not return it at all;

R. Akiva and R. Yishmael hold that we fulfill returning the security with the good Talis;

However, [if he took it] for collection, it does not return at all.

Implied question: Why don't we learn from Eliyahu's answer that we learn from "Michah-Michah"?

Answer: Even if the text says "are we Mesader?" [we cannot learn from his answer], for Eliyahu dispelled him, and he should have answered "we are not Mesader."

Support #1: He answered that graves of Nochrim do not have Tum'as Ohel, like R. Shimon ben Yochai, even though the Halachah does not follow him;

Rather, the Halachah follows R. Shimon ben Gamliel in our Mishnah in Ohalos who forbids dwellings of Nochrim due to Ohel;

Eliyahu's reason is because most coffins have an open [cubic] Tefach [above the Mes], and there are places where Chachamim did not decree [due to the minority, which do not have an open Tefach], e.g. in order to go to greet kings, and similar cases.

Support #2: So we find when [Eliyahu] was burying R. Akiva, he dispelled. [R. Yehoshua ha'Garsi] said "aren't you a Kohen?", and he answered "Tzadikim are not Mitamei." He dispelled so due to the honor of R. Akiva. (The story is brought in Yalkut Mishlei 944);

The real reason was because he was a Mes Mitzvah, for [others] were afraid to bury him, because the kingdom killed him.

Support: It is found in a Teshuvah of a Gaon who wrote that in Seder Eliyahu Rabah (18) they argued about [Eliyahu]. Some say that he was from Leah's sons. He said "I am from Rachel's sons!" If so, he was not a Kohen. Here he says that he was a Kohen!

Citation (Eliyahu Rabah 18): [They asked Eliyahu] to give a Siman to [prove the truth of] his words. He said 'so it is written in the lineage of Binyamin "v'Ya'areshyah v'Eliyahu v'Zichri Bnei Yerucham."'

Citation (cont.): They said to him "didn't you tell that widow "make for me a small cake, and afterwards make for you and your son"? Are you not a Kohen?

Explanation: Because he is a Kohen, he wanted to take Chalah first. He said to them "that son was Mashi'ach ben Yosef. I hinted to him that I always come first";

Support (#4 for Answer (c)): In that same Teshuvah (of the Gaon), he brings this that we learn from "Michah-Michah", and his text says "what is the source that we are Mesader for a creditor", like R. Tam's text.

Reference: Also in Bereishis Rabah, regarding "va'Tomer Leah Ba Gad", R. Nehurai says, Eliyahu is from Gad. R. Eliezer says, he is from Binyamin;

[Eliyahu] stood in front of them and said "my Rebbeyim! Why do you argue about me? I descend from Rachel!"

Implied question: He should have asked "what is the source that he may not bless?", for at the time he separates Terumah it is not forbidden, only at the time of the Brachah;

Also other Brachos one may not bless when he is naked!

Answer: It mentions this (separating Terumah) for it is a Mishnah (Terumos 1:6). A naked person may not separate Terumah.

Question (Ri): How did he revive the widow's son, since he is a Kohen? It says "va'Yismoded Al ha'Yeled..."

Answer: It was clear to him that he will revive him. Therefore it was permitted, due to Piku'ach Nefesh.

Explanation: [The text says 'd'Tanya', and not 'd'Tanan',] for this is not a Mishnah anywhere.

Support: Also, the Mishnayos even of Zera'im and Taharos were fluent in their mouths, like it connotes in several places. (If it were a Mishnah, Rabah bar Avuha would have known it.)

Implied question: [Rabah bar Avuha] said "I do not know the four (Sedorim of the Mishnah that apply even in Chutz la'Aretz). Do I know six (also Zera'im and Taharos)?!

Answer: This refers to Tosefta.