ONE MAY NOT EAT CHULIN B'AZARAH
Question: This only forbids eating unblemished animals (slaughtered in the Mikdash), for they are Kosher for Korbanos;
What is the source for blemished animals?
Answer: The same applies to them, for they are the same species as animals fitting for Korbanos.
Question: What is the source for Chayos?
Answer: The Torah explicitly says that they require slaughter like Beheimos.
Question: What is the source for birds?
Answer: It says "he will slaughter it", "he will slaughter it", he will slaughter it." (Just like one may not slaughter Chayos and birds in the Mikdash, just like Beheimos, one may not eat them if they were slaughtered in the Mikdash, like Beheimos.)
Suggestion: Perhaps one may not slaughter, but if he slaughtered, he may feed it to dogs!
Rejection: "You will cast it (a Tereifah) to the dogs", but not Chulin ba'Azarah.
(Beraisa - R. Shimon): If one was Mekadesh a woman with a firstborn donkey, with meat cooked with milk, or Chulin ba'Azarah, she is Mekudeshes;
Chachamim say, she is not Mekudeshes.
Inference: R. Shimon forbids Chulin ba'Azarah only mid'Rabanan.
Contradiction (Mar Yehudah - Mishnah - R. Shimon): Chulin ba'Azarah must be burned. The same applies to a Chayah slaughtered in the Mikdash.
Rav Yosef and Rav Shmuel Brei d'Rabah bar Rav Huna could not answer.
Answer (Rabah): R. Shimon says that she is Mekudeshes with Chulin ba'Azarah when it was found to be Tereifah.
This is like R. Shimon taught elsewhere, that a slaughter that does not permit the meat is not considered slaughter.
(Beraisa - R. Shimon): If one slaughtered a Tereifah (or after Shechitah found that it is a Tereifah), and it was Chulin ba'Azarah, it is permitted to benefit from it;
Chachamim forbid benefit from it.
THE SALE OF ISUREI HANA'AH
(Mishnah): If he sold (any of these) and was Mekadesh with the money, she is Mekudeshes.
Question: What is the source for this?
Answer: It says about idolatry "v'Hayisa (you will be) Cherem (condemned) like it" - whatever you will make of (exchange for) it, it is (Asur b'Hana'ah,) like the idolatry.
Inference: Regarding other Isurim, what he receives in exchange for them is permitted.
Question: Why don't we learn from idolatry to other Isurim?
Answer: Idolatry and Shemitah are Shnei Kesuvim (two verses, one of which could have been learned from the other), so we do not learn from them.
Question: What is the source for Shemitah?
Answer: "Yovel Hi Kodesh Tihyeh Lachem" - just like Kodesh forbids money exchanged for it, also Peros Shemitah.
Suggestion: Just like Kodesh forbids (money exchanged for it) and it itself becomes permitted, also Peros Shemitah.
Rejection: "Tihyeh" - the Peros remain (forbidden,) like they are.
If one bought meat with Peros Shemitah, both require Bi'ur (when that species of Peros is not available to Chayos in the field, one may leave in his house only the amount for three meals);
If he then bought fish with the meat, the fish gets Kedushas Shemitah in place of the meat;
If he then bought wine with the fish, the wine is in place of the fish;
The rule is, the last thing bought is like Shemitah, and also the original Peros.
Question: This is like the opinion that we may not learn from Shnei Kesuvim.
According to the opinion that learns from Shnei Kesuvim, what is the source that she is Mekudeshes with money from the sale of other Isurei Hana'ah?
Answer: It says "for it (idolatry) is Cherem", and "it is Yovel (in which Peros get Kedushas Shemitah)" - only these forbid what they are exchanged for.
(Mishnah): If a man, even if he is not a Kohen or Levi, was Mekadesh with any of the following, she is Mekudeshes:
Terumos, Ma'asros or Matanos (parts of a Chulin animal that are given to a Kohen);
Water or ashes of the red heifer.
(Gemara - Ula): Tovas Hana'ah (the right to decide to whom one will give gifts) is not considered like one's money.
Question (Rava - Mishnah): If a man, even a Yisrael, was Mekadesh with Terumos, Ma'asros or Matanos, she is Mekudeshes.
Answer (Ula): The case is, the Yisrael inherited Tevel (untithed Peros) from his mother's father (who was a Kohen);
Ula considers Tevel to contain gifts (given to Kohanim), as if they were separated. (It is as if the grandfather fully owned the gifts. The Yisrael inherited them, not just the Tovas Hana'ah.)
Question (R. Chiya bar Avin): Is Tovas Hana'ah considered like money?
Answer (Rav Huna - Mishnah): If a man, even a Yisrael, was Mekadesh with Terumos, Ma'asros or Matanos, she is Mekudeshes.
Question (R. Chiya bar Avi): We established the Mishnah to discuss a Yisrael who inherited Tevel from his mother's father!
Rav Huna: You are a Hotza'ah!
R. Chiya bar Avin was embarrassed. He though Rav Huna meant that he distorts things.
Really, Rav Huna meant that R. Chiya holds like Rav Asi of Hutzal.
Suggestion: The following Tana'im argue about whether or not Tovas Hana'ah is like money.
(Beraisa - Rebbi): If Reuven stole Shimon's Tevel, he must pay the value of the Tevel;
Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says, he pays the value of the Chulin that one keeps from the Tevel.
Suggestion: Rebbi obligates also the Tovas Hana'ah because (Shimon lost the privilege to give the Terumah and Ma'asros to whom he wanted, and) this is like money. Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah exempts, for it is unlike money.
Rejection #1: All agree that Tovas Hana'ah is unlike money. The case is, Shimon inherited Tevel from his grandfather (a Kohen);
They argue about whether or not we consider Tevel to contain gifts that were separated. Rebbi says that we do (Shimon's grandfather fully owned them, and Shimon inherited them). Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says that we do not.
Rejection #2: All consider Tevel to contain gifts that were separated, and hold that Tovas Hana'ah is unlike money. They argue about Shmuel's law.
(Shmuel): If one separated one blade of wheat to be Terumah, this exempts the entire harvest.
Rebbi holds like Shmuel. (Shimon could have given a miniscule amount of Terumah, therefore we do not deduct the amount (about 2%) that people usually give for Terumah);
Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah argues with Shmuel (he obligates separating at least one part in 60 for Terumah, so Reuven need not pay for this).
Rejection: #3: Both hold unlike Shmuel. Letter of the law, the thief should be exempt for the amount that Shimon needed to give to the Kohen;
Rebbi holds that we fine the thief to pay for it.
Rejection: #4: Both hold like Shmuel. Letter of the law, we should not deduct from Reuven's liability the amount of Terumah that would have been separated;
Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah deducts it to penalize Shimon for having delayed separating Terumah.
TAKING PAYMENT FOR MITZVOS
(Mishnah): If one was Mekadesh a woman with water or ashes of the red heifer, she is Mekudeshes.
Contradiction (Mishnah #1): If one takes wages for a Mitzvah, the Mitzvah is invalid;
If he is a judge or witness, his judgment or testimony is invalid;
If he sprinkled the water of the red heifer, or was Mekadesh (put the ashes on) the water, the water and ashes do not Metaher.
Answer (Abaye): One may take (and be Mekadesh a woman with) wages for the exertion of transporting and drawing the water. One may not take wages for sprinkling or Kidush.
Support: Our Mishnah discusses Kidushin with water and ashes of the red heifer. Mishnah #1 discusses sprinkling and Kidush.
(Mishnah): If Reuven told his friend (Shimon) 'go be Mekadesh Plonis to me', and Shimon went and was Mekadesh her to himself, she is Mekudeshes to him;
Similarly, if Reuven told Leah 'you are Mekudeshes to me after 30 days', and Moshe was Mekadesh her during the 30 days, she is Mekudeshes to Moshe;
If Moshe is a Kohen and Leah is a Bas Yisrael, she may eat Terumah.
If Reuven told Leah 'you are Mekudeshes to me from now and after 30 days', and Moshe was Mekadesh her during the 30 days, she is Mekudeshes and not Mekudeshes;
If he is a Kohen and she is a Bas Yisrael, or he is a Yisrael and she is a Bas Kohen, she may not eat Terumah.
(Gemara): If Reuven told his friend...
(Beraisa): Shimon's Kidushin takes effect, but he acted like a swindler.
Our Mishnah agrees. It says 'he went', i.e. he went with deceit.