Explanation: This is referring to Rabbinic Terumah, according to the opinion that the Chachamim do not have the power to uproot something from the Torah. This is indeed stated in Yevamos (90a), where the Gemara explains the statement, "she eats Terumah because of him" as referring to Rabbinic Terumah.

Question: Let us say that this is even referring to Torah Terumah, as a minor who eats animals that are improperly slaughtered does not have to be stopped by Beis Din!

Answer#1: Whether or not a minor who eats improperly slaughtered animals must be stopped is a question asked in Yevamos (114a). The Gemara does not conclude one way or another.

Answer#2: Additionally, "she eats because of him," implies that he could even feed her with his hands (which is more stringent than whether or not Beis Din must stop him).

Answer#3: Additionally, the Gemara implies that even when she grows older she can eat due to this marriage, even though he did not yet have marital relations with her.

Implied Question: Here, we do not make a decree on Rabbinic Terumah due to Torah Terumah, as we indeed do when a Cheiresh marries a regular woman. (Note: What is the difference between the two cases?)

Answer: Even if she will eat Torah Terumah (in our case), she is a minor. (Note: This is as opposed to the case of the Cheiresh who marries a regular woman, where there are no minors involved.)

Observation: Ula here holds that Yiush (giving up hope of ever retrieving the object) does not acquire. In Bava Kama (67a), Ula also asks, "How do we know that Yiush does not acquire (etc.)?"

Question: Rabeinu Tam asks that in Bava Kama (114a) there is an argument between Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan regarding a hidden thief and a brazen thief. Ula says that their argument is in a case where we did not hear that the victim had Yiush. If we had, everyone agrees that Yiush would be effective. (Note: This shows Ula holds Yiush is effective!)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that Ula generally holds that Yiush acquires. Only regarding a Korban, in order that it should be valid to be brought, Ula holds here and in Bava Kama that Yiush does not acquire, as this is a Mitzvah that can only be performed to the sin that was performed with it.

This is clearly true. Later, the Gemara asks a question from Ula from the case of someone who stole and then dedicated what he stole to Hekdesh. He then proceeded to sell and slaughter what he stole. The Gemara (conspicuously) does not ask, why is he exempt from paying four or five times its value? He did not slaughter the animal of Hekdesh if Yiush does not allow the thief to acquire! (Note: A clear question on Ula.) Rather, it must be that Yiush generally does acquire according to Ula, except when it comes to bringing Korbanos.

This is why the Gemara asked from the Beraisa that states that if the thief (mentioned immediately above slaughtered the animal) outside (the Beis Hamikdash), he would be liable to be punished with Kares. This implies that the dedicated animal is fit to be brought to the Ohel Moed (as a Korban), and that even regarding Korbanos it seems that Yiush acquires.

Question#1: Rabeinu Yitzchak has difficulty with this due to a later Gemara where Rava concludes that the offspring of this animal are only his from the time of Hekdesh. Rava's position is according to Ula, as is clear from our Gemara. If Ula holds Yiush acquires, it must be that from the time of Yiush means from the time of the theft he acquires the shearings and the offspring. (Note: How can Rava conclude it is from the time of Hekdesh?)

Question#2: There is additional difficulty, as the Gemara implies that if Yiush acquires there is no difficulty.

The Gemara in Bava Kama (68b) quotes Rebbi Yochanan asking the opposite to Reish Lakish, who holds that he is liable before Yiush. After Yiush, the thief is considered to be slaughtering or selling his own animal. Rebbi Yochanan asks from the Beraisa above that if someone stole, dedicated to Hekdesh, and then slaughtered and stole etc. Rebbi Yochanan asks, when did this happen? If it was before Yiush, is the Hekdesh valid? It must be that it all happened after Yiush.

If Yiush acquires, why is it important in this case that he dedicate the animal? If he doesn't dedicate the animal he should still be exempt from paying four or five times the value as he is slaughtering and selling his own animal!

One cannot answer (our question) as the Gemara there answers for Reish Lakish that the case is where the owner declared that it should be Hekdesh in the house of the thief. If so, what is the Gemara's question here on Ula that there should not be any liability for Kares? He is clearly liable for Kares, as it is able to be brought to the Beis Hamikdash as a Korban, being that it was dedicated by the true owner!

Answer: It seems to Rabeinu Yitzchak that Ula generally holds that Yiush is not effective. The Gemara in Bava Kama (114a, that implies it is effective) is referring to a case where there was Yiush in addition to a change in the name of the item. Originally it was called a Mashcha (piece of wood), and in the end it was called Abarza (a table), as stated earlier there (66b).

Implied Question: Regarding a Korban there is also Yiush and a change in the name, as is also stated there (67a) that originally it was called Chulin and now it is called Kodesh. (Note: Why, then, should a Korban be any different?)

Answer: Even so, being that the only reason it is acquired is because he was Makdish it, and he did not acquire it beforehand, the Torah said that it is unfit to be brought as a Korban due to the fact that it would be a Mitzvah done because a sin was performed.

Observation: However, if he would acquire it before he would be Makdish it, it would not be considered a Mitzvah done because a sin was performed.

This is apparent from the Gemara in Sukah (30a), where Rav Huna said to the merchants that when they buy Hadassim (myrtle branches) from the Nochrim, they should let the Nochrim harvest the Hadassim. The Gemara asks, why don't the Jews acquire the Hadassim because of a change in their name? This implies that if they would indeed acquire it, there would be no problem that a Mitzvah was done because a sin was performed.

It is difficult to say that he holds like Rebbi Yitzchak bar Nachmeini who does not hold that there is a problem for a Mitzvah to be done because a sin was performed.

Additionally, we say there that the Rabbanan instituted that a beam from a roof can be paid for instead of physically returned (and making the thief break his roof to repent) in order to make it easier for thieves to repent. A Sukah does not have a requirement that it has to be yours, and therefore would not become invalid for a reason other than the fact that the Mitzvah could only be performed due to the sin. If the thief acquires it due to a Rabbinic decree (that he does not have to return it, but rather can pay its value), there is no longer a problem of doing a Mitzvah through a sin. There would certainly be no problem if he properly acquired the beam.

Implied Question: The Gemara states in Bava Kama (94a) that if someone steals a Sa'ah of wheat, and proceeds to grind, knead, bake it into bread, and take Chalah from it, how can he make a blessing? Such a person is not one who is blessing, but rather one who is scoffing! The Gemara says this despite the fact that the wheat was clearly acquired with this Shinui (change, i.e. grinding) well before the blessing. (Note: Why is there a problem if he already acquired it, and we have just established that the acquisition takes away the association of the sin.)

Answer: Regarding a blessing it is appropriate to be more stringent and consider this still to be a Mitzvah done through sin. Even though he has already acquired it, he should not mention Hash-m's name on it.

Explanation: Now in our Gemara, without the additional Beraisa (which our Gemara uses to ask a question on Ula), it is understandable according to Ula why the thief would be exempt from paying four or five times the value of the animal. This is because there is Yiush and a change of its name.

One cannot ask that if Yiush acquires, when he is not Makdish he should also totally acquire the animal.

According to Rav Yehudah, Yiush alone is not effective, but Yiush together with a change of name is effective, and takes away the problem that it is a Mitzvah done through sin.

Question: Do the Chachamim have the ability to actively uproot a Torah law? According to Torah law, there is no need to bring another Korban.

Answer: Only if it was known before sprinkling does it not atone. However, after sprinkling, where the atonement was already done, they did not require him to bring another Korban.

Explanation: Rashi explains that the Rabbanan gave him a fine (that it should be in his possession).

Question: This is difficult. Aren't we dealing with a case where even if someone else slaughtered the animal outside the Beis Hamikdash he would liable?

Opinion#2: Rather, being that it is not known to the public we say that it is in his possession, in order that the Kohanim should not be sad. This automatically causes whoever slaughters it outside the Beis Hamikdash to be held liable.

Question: Even before Hekdesh, they are his. The Mishnah states in Bava Kama (93b) that if someone stole a pregnant cow that gave birth or a sheep loaded with wool which he proceeded to shear, he pays the value of a cow that is about to give birth and a sheep that is about to be shorn. If it became pregnant in his domain, he pays the amount it was worth when he stole it.

Answer: The difference would be according to Rebbi Meir in Bava Kama (95a-b), who says in the Gemara there that he pays for it, its shearings, and its offspring because they gave a fine to the thief (not because it actually was acquired by him).

Even though a Shinui acquires, during Hekdesh they established it in his domain and did not give him a fine.

According to Rebbi Yehudah in Bava Kama (ibid.) who says that the stolen item can be returned as it is, and Rav Zvid's understanding of Rebbi Yehudah (ibid.) that the improvement on the item belongs to the owner, here that improvement switches to the domain of the thief.

However, according to Rav Papa who says that according to Rebbi Yehudah this improvement belongs to the thief, there indeed is no practical difference.

According to Rebbi Shimon who says in Bava Kama (ibid.) that the improvement made in the thief's possession is split in half, thirds, or quarters (depending on what the custom of shepherds (i.e. our thief) is to take someone else's animal and improve it), here everything would be considered belonging to the thief.

However, according to Rav Zvid who says that according to Rebbi Shimon everything belongs to the thief, there is no difference here by saying that we establish that it is in the possession of the thief.

Explanation: The Yerushalmi explains that the Romans first made their decree against Yehudah, as they had a tradition from their ancestors that Yehudah killed Eisav. This is as the Pasuk states, "Your hand is at the back of the neck of your enemy" (Bereishis 49:8). The Sifri also states, "His hands are mighty to him - (refers to) when he killed Eisav."

Implied Question: At the end of the first chapter of Sotah (13a), the Gemara states that Chushim, son of Dan, took a staff and struck Eisav's head, causing his eyes to fall out onto the knees of Yaakov. (Note: This implies that Chushim, not Yehudah, killed Eisav.)

Answer: Perhaps he did not die with that blow (and did not die at all), until Yehudah came and killed him.

Explanation: The Gemara in Berachos (60a) says that he (Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi) saw a person who was scared. He told him that he was a sinner, as the Pasuk says, "Sinners are scared in Zion." The person asked him, "Doesn't the Pasuk say, "Praised is a person who is always scared?" The Gemara answers that this latter Pasuk is discussing someone who is scared that he should not forget his learning, and he therefore constantly reviews his learning.

The Gemara here similarly quotes this Pasuk regarding these incidents, where people were confident due to their mostly good and peaceful lives that they could embarrass Bar Kamtza and stand against the daughter of the Caesar. They should have been scared and worried about the punishments that could come to them due to their actions. This is unlike someone who is worried for nothing.