Version #2 - (Beraisa): If Reuven rented his house to Shimon and Tzara'as came on it, even if the Kohen declared the house to be Muchlat, Reuven can say "the house is there (I need not find another for you)." (Tosfos - if he says so, Shimon need not pay the rent.)

If the house was taken apart, Reuven must supply another house for Shimon.

If the one who lives there (Shimon) was Makdish it, he pays rent to Hekdesh.

Question: How can Shimon be Makdish it?!

"Ish Ki Yakdish Beiso Kodesh" teaches that one can be Makdish only things like his house, which are in his full possession.

Answer: It means that if Reuven was Makdish it, the one who lives there (Shimon) pays rent to Hekdesh.

Question #1: Shimon may not live there, lest he transgress Me'ilah! (This is like the opinion that Me'ilah applies to something that was built onto the ground.)

Question #2: Why does he pay rent to Hekdesh? After transgressing Me'ilah, the house (Rashi; Tosfos - the rental) becomes Chulin!

Answer to both questions: The case is, Reuven was Makdish the rent money when it will be paid.

Version #2A - Question: One cannot be Makdish a Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam!

Answer (Rav Yehudah): The Beraisa is R. Meir, who says that one can be Makdish a Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam.

Version #2B - Question (Rav Papa): Is the Beraisa like R. Meir, who says that one can be Makdish a Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam?

Answer (Abaye): (Yes!) Who else could it be like?

(Mishnah): If one owes Erchin, we (Beis Din) take a security from him.

If one is obligated to bring a Chatas or Asham, we do not take a security from him. (Surely he will be zealous to bring it, to get atonement);

If he must bring an Olah or Shelamim, we take a security from him (lest he delay bringing it).

Even though "li'Rtzono" teaches that he does not get atonement until he consents to offer it, we force him until he consents.

Similarly, if one must divorce his wife, we force him until he says "I want" (to divorce her, and authorizes Sheluchim to write and give a Get).

(Gemara - Rav Papa): Sometimes we take a security from one obligated to bring a Chatas or Asham. Sometimes, we do not take a security from one who must bring an Olah or Shelamim;

We take a security from one who must bring Chatas Nazir;

It was taught that if a Nazir shaved after bringing any of his three Korbanos, he was Yotzei. Once the blood of one of them is thrown, he is permitted to drink wine and become Tamei.

Since the Chatas is not necessary for atonement, we are concerned lest he delay bringing it.

We do not take a security for Olas Yoledes.

Objection: Presumably, because the Torah commands about it before her Chatas, it is Me'akev her Taharah. (Therefore, she will not delay bringing it);

However, Rava taught that the Torah puts the Olah first (only) regarding Mikra'ah! (Rashi - the Torah mentions it first. Others explain that one must be Makdish the Olah first. Alternatively, if she has only one bird now, she may offer it for the Olah and bring the Chatas when she finds another, but if both are in front of us, the Chatas is offered first.)

Correction: Rather, we do not take a security for Olas Metzora;

(R. Yishmael, son of R. Yochanan ben Berokah): Just like the Chatas and Asham of a Metzora are Me'akev Taharah, also the Olah.

(Mishnah): Even though he does not get atonement until he consents...

(Beraisa): "Yakriv" teaches that if Shimon must bring an Olah, Beis Din forces him to bring it;

Suggestion: Perhaps we force him against his will!

Rejection: "Li'Rtzono."

Question: How do we fulfill both verses?

Answer: We force him until he says "I want to bring it."

(Shmuel): His consent is required for an Olah.

Question: We already learn this from the Mishnah! "Even though 'li'Rtzono' teaches that he does not get atonement until he consents to offer it, we force him until he consents."

Answer: Shmuel teaches about a case in which Reuven supplies an Olah on behalf of Shimon;

One might have thought that we need Shimon's consent only to take an animal of Shimon, but not to take another's animal (since Shimon does not lose);

Shmuel teaches that this is not so. Perhaps Shimon prefers to get atonement from his own money.

Question (Beraisa #1): If Reuven said "it is Alai to bring Ploni's Chatas or Asham" (and brought it), Ploni was Yotzei only if he consented.

Regarding Olah and Shelamim, Ploni is Yotzei whether or not he consented.

Answer (Shmuel): The Beraisa refers to offering a Korban without consent. I taught that consent is required to be Makdish an Olah on behalf of Ploni.

Shmuel argues with Ula;

(Ula): The only difference between Chatas and Olah (regarding consent) is that consent is required to be Makdish a Chatas, but it is not required to be Makdish an Olah;

Both Chatas and Olah require consent to offer it.

Question (against Ula - Beraisa #2): If Reuven said "it is Alai to bring Ploni's Chatas, Asham, Olah or Shelamim" (and brought it), Ploni was Yotzei only if he consented.

Answer #1 (on behalf of Shmuel): This discusses consent to offer the Korban.

Answer #2 (on behalf of Ula): This discusses consent to be Makdish a Korban.

(Rav Papa): The Beraisos do not contradict each other. One of them discusses consent to be Makdish a Korban, and the other discusses consent to offer a Korban;

The Beraisos do not refute Shmuel and Ula:

Shmuel establishes Beraisa #1 to discuss consent to be Makdish a Korban, and Beraisa #2 discusses consent to offer it;

Ula establishes them vice-versa.

Shmuel and Ula argue with each other.

Objection: This is obvious!

Answer: One might have thought that Shmuel means that consent is needed (to offer, and) also to be Makdish, even though Beraisa #1 refutes him. Rav Papa teaches that this is not so.

(Mishnah): Similarly, we force a man to divorce...

(Rav Sheshes): If one gives a Moda'ah about a Get (tells witnesses that he does not intend to divorce, merely to escape coercion), the Moda'ah is valid (the Get is void).

Question: This is obvious!

Answer: The case is, he was forced and later consented;

One might have thought that his consent is a Bitul (retraction) of the Moda'ah. Rav Sheshes teaches that this is not so.

If it were a Bitul, the Mishnah could have said only "until he gives a Get". Rather, it says "until he says 'I want'", to teach that he must explicitly nullify any Moda'ah.

(Mishnah): The Hachrazah (period during which Beis Din publicly announces that they are selling property) of orphans is 30 days;

The Hachrazah of Hekdesh is 60 days;

Beis Din announces in the morning and evening.

(Gemara) Question: Why do they announce morning and evening?

Answer (Rav Yehudah): This is when workers go out to and return from work;

One who wants to buy can ask his workers to look at the property in the morning, and ask them about it at night (Rashi. Tosfos explains vice-versa.)

Support (Beraisa): The Hachrazah of orphans is 30 days. The Hachrazah of Hekdesh is 60 days. They announce in the morning and evening, when workers go out to and return from work.

They announce the characteristics of the field, its borders, how much it produces, the price, and whether the money will be used to pay a Kesuvah or a creditor.

Question: Why must they announce what the money will be used for?

Answer: Some people prefer paying a creditor, for he is not fussy about the quality of the coins. Others prefer paying a Kesuvah, for (usually) a widow prefers to receive the money little by little.