Explanation #1: Rashi explains that 'A person is compared to Karka'os', as the Torah writes "ve'Hisnachaltem osam Lareshes Acguzah".

Refutation: That Pasuk however, is written in connection with an Eved (Cana'ani), but a ben Chorin is not compared ... , except where he declares his value Hekdesh ...

Reason: Because one then assesses him like an Eved, as the Gemara states in the first Perek of Sanhedrin (Daf 15b).

Refutation (cont.): And even an Eved is a Machlokes in the first Perek of Bava Kama (Daf 12a) as to whether he is like Karka or Metalt'lin?

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that 'Yesh lashem Achrayus' is La'av Davka, because even if they not subject to Achrayus we do not find that Metalt'lin can be acquired with Metalt'lin ...

Reason: Since the concept of 'Agav' is not applicable to property that is not subject to Achrayus.

Explanation #3: Alternatively, what the Gemara means is - that 'If a woman can be acquired together with Metalt'lin, so can a field ...

Reason Explanation #3: Bearing in mind that we learn the Kinyan Kesef of a woman from Sadeh (Efron) via 'Kichah Kichah' ...

Explanation #3 (cont..): And if, on the other hand, a field cannot ... , from where would we know that a woman can?

Question: At the beginning of Temurah (Daf 11b), the Gemara learns that ' "Raglah shel Zu Olah", the entire animal is an Olah, with regard to a limb on which its life depends' from the Pasuk (in Bechukosai) "Kol asher Yitein Mimenu la'Hashem" ...

Question (cont.): Whereas there is no such Pasuk by Ishah, in which case, what is the Gemara's Kashya, the cases are not comparable?

Answer: That, it would seem is why Rashi makes a point to explain 'Because he said to her "Mekudeshes" using a Lashon Hekdesh' ...

Source: As the Gemara explained at the beginning of the Perek (Daf 2b) 'That he renders her forbidden to the whole world like Hekdesh', in that he makes her a form of Hekdesh ...

Answer (cont.): And that is why her Din is akin to Hekdesh; But if he were to have said 'Me'ureses' or any one of the other expressions mentioned above (on Daf 6a), the Gemara would not have asked 'Let the Kidushin spread to all of her, according to this explanation.

Implied Question: The reason that it mentions that he went and bought it back, rather than 'An animal belonging to two partners where each one of them declared his half Hekdesh, is ...

Answer: Because the Din of 'making a Temurah, which is like the original animal' would not apply there ...

Source: Since partners cannot make a Temurah, as the Gemara says in Temurah (Daf 13a) and in the first Perek of Zevachim (Daf 6a).

Question: The Gemara there (in Temurah, Daf 11b) explains, according to the opinion that holds that 'It is not entirely an Olah', what one does with it ...

Answer: One sells it for the needs of Olos, except for the value of the leg that he declared Hekdesh'.

Question: And, in answer to the question 'How can he be Patur from his Olah, seeing as it an Olah that is incomplete?' ...

Answer: It replies that it speaks where he said 'This is an Olah in whatever state I find it'.

Clarification - Ba'alei Chayim Nidachin: Rashi explains that if they are rejected, they are rejected forever - since they is an opinion that confines 'Dichuy' to animals that have been Shechted, but that live animals that are rejected, can later be re-accepted ...

Ba'alei Chayim Nidachin (cont.): And according to him, the animal would be brought on the Mizbe'ach when he purchased the other half.

Dichuy Me'ikara havi Dichuy: 'And it is a proof that "An inititial Dichuy is considered a Dichuy" ' - such as the current animal, which, already from the time it was declared Hekdesh, was not fit to be brought - since there is an opinion that confines Dichuy to where it was initially fit and then became rejected.

Yesh Dichuy be'Damim: 'And it is a proof that Dichuy applies even to (Kedushas) Damim' - that Dichuy applies even to an animal that is only Kadosh for its value, such as the current animal which was only declared Kadosh for its value - to be sold and half of the proceeds to be sanctified ...

Yesh Dichuy be'Damim (cont.): Since it was not fit to bring half on on the Mizbe'ach - yet the law of Dichuy took effect on it disqualify it from the Mizbe'ach forever ...

Yesh Dichuy be'Damim (concl.): And w don't say that Dichuy is confined to an animal that was sanctified to be brought on the Mizbe'ach.

Question: Why do we need to insert the two proofs - 'Yesh Dichuy be'Damim' and 'Yesh Dichuy Me'ikara', seeing as it impossible to be Dichuy Me'ikara without being Dichuy be'Damim?

Answer *: We find Dichuy Me'ikara even when it is Kadosh Kedushas ha'Guf , like Rebbi Yochanan says in Perek Nigmar ha'Din (Sanhedrin, Daf 47a) where 'Someone ate Cheilev, designated a Korban, converted and then retracted' ...

Answer (cont.): Because since it was rejected when he converted, on account of "Zevach Resha'im To'evah" (Mishlei, 21), it remains rejected.

Implied Question: And when it says that he designated the Korban first, it is La'av Davka, as the same would apply if he first converted and then designated the Korban, in which case it is 'Dichuy Me'ikara' ...

Reason: Bearing in mind that Rebbi Yochanan is the one who holds 'Dichuy Me'ikara havi Dichuy' ...

Answer: And it is only due to the other statement of Rebbi Yochanan that is cited there where 'Someone ate Cheilev, designated a Korban, became a Shoteh and then became sane' ...

Answer (cont.): Where it could not say that he became a Shoteh first, since a Shoteh is not eligible to designate a Korban ...

Answer (concl.): That it also says that he first designated a Korban and then served Avodah-Zarah.

Answer* (cont.): And we also find Kedushas Damim even though it is not Dichuy Me'ikara - in a case where 'Someone designated a female lamb for his Korban Pesach and it subsequently gave birth to a male' - which is Kedushas Damim, since a female animal cannot be brought as a Pesach ...

Answer* (concl.): But it is not Dichuy Me'ikara, seeing as the baby was fit to be brought as a Pesach.

Alternative Text: There are some texts that read 'Sh'ma Minah Kedushas Damim Madcheh' ...

Explanation: Which means that it pushes away its Temurah - since Rebbi Yochanan said that 'Its Temurah is like it'.

Refutation: This is not correct however, because the Gemara in Kerisus (Daf 28a) in connection with 'A Metamei Mikdash who designated birds instead of a lamb and then became poor, 'Ho'il ve'Nidcheh, Yidacheh' also has the text 'Sh'ma Minah T'las', like in our Sugya ...

Refutation (cont.): And there one cannot say that 'the Kedushas Damim pushes away the Temurah' ...

Reason: Since there is no Temurah by birds.

Conclusion: It must therefore mean that it is Kadosh but cannot be brought.

Question: Why does Rebbi Yochanan see fit to teach these three things here, seeing as he has already taught them in Perek Mi she'Hayah Tamei (Pesachim, Daf 98a & 98b)?

Answer: Because since there is a Machlokes between Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai and the Rabbanan in the last Perek of Kerisus (Ibid.), it cites the opinion of the Amora'im (regarding it).

Question #1: Why does the Gemara not ask on Rebbi Yochanan like it asks in Kerisus (Ibid.) on Rebbi Oshaya, who says regarding a rich Metamei Mikdash who designated birds instead of a lamb and then became poor, 'Ho'il ve'Nidcheh, Yidacheh', and whom the Gemara queries from Rebbi Shimon ...

Introduction to Question #1 (cont.): From the case where 'Someone who designated a female lamb for his Pesach, before Pesach, he lets it graze in the meadow until it obtains a blemish, when it is sold and with the proceeds one purchases a Pesach ...

Introduction to Question #1 (cont.): If it then gives birth to a male, he lets it graze in the meadow ... .

Question #1 (concl.): Rebbi Shimon says that 'The baby itself it brought as a Korban Pesach'?

Question #2: Furthermore, rather than query him (Rebbi Oshaya) from Rebbi Shimon, why does it not support him from the Rabbanan in the Reisha, who say that the lamb must graze?

Question #3: Moreover, now that the Gemara does query him from an individual opinion, why does it do so from Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa, and not from Rebbi Eliezer in the Mishnah in Temurah (in Perek Eilu Kodshim, Daf 18b) ...

Question #3: Who says in connection with 'Someone who desgnates a female as an Olah, which subsequently gives birth to a male' that the baby itself should be brought as an Olah"?

Answer: The reason that it asks from Rebbi Shimon is because in that case, even the Rabbanan concede ...

Answer (cont.): This is because the Rabbanan only argued with him regarding something which is subject to Kedushas Damim - since they hold that 'Since Kedushas Damim takes effect, so does Kedushas ha'Guf', and there is no Kedushas ha'Guf, because a female cannot be brought as a Pesach ...

Answer (cont.): But by birds, they concede to Rebbi Shimon, since Kedushas Damim does not take effect by birds.

Conclusion: On the other hand, the Gemara cannot ask on Rebbi Yochanan here, since it comparable to someone who designates a female as a Pesach, and if it were to query him from Rebbi Shimon, it would have supported him from the Rabbanan ...

Conclusion (cont.): And by the same token, it can also not query him from Rebbi Eliezer, since he is an individual opinion.

Question: Why is it not effective? The Gemara only said earlier that the Kidushin does not spread to the entire animal because of 'Da'as Acheres' (the woman), and she only consents to what she hears ...

Question (cont.): But if we would know that she consents to a full Kidushin, it would indeed spread to all of her, and in the current case, she has revealed that she does?

Answer: If it was speaking where he betrothed her with a Lashon of Kidushin, it would indeed, spread to all of her, but it speaks where he betrothed her with the words 'Harei At Me'ureses li', or one of the other Leshonos mentioned above (on Daf 6a).

Clarification: This is what he said to her in one go.

Clarification: The Ri explains that it is speaking about girls who are Ketanos, in which case the Kidushin is attributed to the father ...

Proof: Because if it was speaking about Gedolos, in which case the father receives the Kidushin in the form of Sh'lichus, it would be obvious that a P'rutah would be required for each one, seeing as a Shali'ach is no better than the one who sends him ...

Clarification (cont.): Because 'After the Nosein' which the Gemara mentions is La'av Davka, since the Nosein must be coming as a Sha'lach of his sons

Reason: And if we were to contend with the Nosein, two P'rutos would be needed, as if the sons themselves were performing the Kidushin.

Clarification (concl.): The She'eilah therefore is whether we contend with the recipient exclusively, since perhaps we are only concerned that she receives the value of a P'rutah.

Chidush: We must also say that he clarified which daughter he designated for which son - 'Rachel for Reuven, Le'ah for Shimon' ...

Reason: Because otherwise, it would be Kidushin which will not lead to Bi'ah (See later, Daf 51a).

Clarification: Because, since a cow cannot be acquired with money, we cast it after his daughter ...

Clarification (cont.): Then the Gemara asks 'your daughter and your land', since land can be acquired with money.

Clarification: This speaks before the Kidushin, as Rashi explains.

Introduction to Question: Later on, in the second Perek (Daf 48a) in the Beraisa 'Hiskadshi li bi'Shetar', the Chachamim say 'One assesses the paper and that, if it is worth a P'rutah, she is Mekudeshes'

Question: Implying that the assessment takes place after the Kidushin - even though initially, the value of the paper was not known?

Answer: According to the Lashon that 'They are not arguing by Kol-D'hu', it speaks where he said 'Kol-D'hu' ...

Answer (cont.): And according to the Lashon that 'They argue by Kol-D'hu as well' (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim), what the Gemara means is that - If he wants to betroth her with a Sh'tar, they must assess the value of the paper first, and that, if it is worth a P'rutah, she is Mekudeshes ...

Answer (concl.): Provided they did asses it first - to preclude the opinion that she is Mekudeshes because of Sh'tar, even if it is not worth a P'rutah.