Question: But we establish this like Rebbi Yehudah, who does only Darshens Semuchin in Seifer Devarim, as the Gemara explains at the beginning of Yevamos (Daf 4a)?

Answer: 'Semuchim' here does not really mean 'Semuchin' but 'Vav Mosif al Inyan Rishon', as the Torah writes "ve'Zos Toras Zevach ha'Shelamim" (See Masores ha'Shas).

Implied Question: It is not from here that we learn it, but from another Pasuk (in Vayikra 6) "Kol Zachar", 'to include a Ba'al-Mum' (Zevachim, 99a) ...

Answer: And we only need it to teach us that a Kohen Katan does not take a portion even if he is a Tam.

Clarification: This means that he cannot take the portion belonging to his fellow Kohen, as the Beraisa explains.

Refuted Explanation: But one cannot explain that there is no Chalukah at all, even from it directly ...

Refutation: Since we find Chalukah regarding Kodshim in many places ...

Example #1: Such as the Mishnah in Perek Sho'el (Shabbos, Daf 148b) 'One may draw lots by Kodshim'.

Example #2: And in the first Perek of Pesachim (Daf 3b) 'I received the size of a bean'.

Conclusion: And seeing as it is not subject to the Din of Chalukah, one cannot betroth a woman with it, since the two Dinim are interconnected.

Clarification: This means that really it is not subject to Chalukah and 'Cholkin' means the portion that he is entitled to, and when he only receives a small portion, he grabs his fellow-Kohen's and eats it ...

Proof: As it says in the Seifa 'An incident with a Kohen who grabbed his friend's portion ... '.

Question: Seeing as it was common practice to grab, why does the Tana refer to the current Kohen as 'a grabber' more than the other Kohanim?

Answer: Because he grabbed the portion of a Kohen who was greedy like himself, whereas the other Kohanim used to only grab the portions of the modest Kohanim who withdrew.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the Unsa de'Urcha must be on the man, since the Ma'aser here is not worth a P'rutah ...

Reason: Seeing as it cannot be spent here, only in Yerushalayim ...

Reason (cont.): Because even if he were to sell it, its proceeds would adopt its Kedushah ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): And Kidushin must be worth at least a P'rutah.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Consequently, had he known initially that it was Ma'aser, bearing in mind that he would have had to accept Unsa de'Urcha, he would not nave betrothed her with it, since Onsin are more common by a woman than by a man.

Explanation #1 (concl.): From Rashi's explanation it seems that be'Meizid, the Kidushin does not take effect until it reaches Yerushalayim.

Introduction to Question: The Gemara asks in Bechoros (Daf 9b) 'But there is the case of Ma'aser, of which the Torah specifically requires 'Kesef Tzurah' - i.e. when one redeems it one should use minted money, yet Rebbi Yehudah rules that be'Meidid Kidesh'? ...

Question: What is the problem, seeing as the Kidushin, according to him, is only concluded when the Ma'aser reaches Yerushalayim, and in Yerushalayim the Torah does not require minted money, as the Torah writes in Devarim (14) "And you shall spend the money on whatever your heart desires" ...

Question (cont.): A proof that she is Mekudeshes even outside Yerushalayim, should she accept the Ma'aser?

Explanation #2: Therefore Tosfos learns like Rashi's second explanation - 'Alternatively, even if the responsibility does not lie on him, he does not want her to bear a grudge against him, that she will say to him 'You betrothed me with something that is useless to me'.

Introduction to Question: This implies that the Mishnah is speaking outside Yerushalayim, yet Rebbi Yehudah holds that 'be'Meizid Kidesh', because Ma'aser belongs to the owner.

Support: And this is also implied later (on Daf 54b), when it says that 'Someone who redeems Ma'aser Sheini must add a fifth', and the Gemara establishes it like Rebbi Yehudah - and that can only be speaking outside Yerushalayim (See Hagahos R. Renshberg) ...

Proof: Because in Yerushalayim, one cannot redeem Ma'aser Sheini (See Masores ha'Shas) ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): So we see that Ma'aser Sheini is the property of the owner even outside Yerushalayim ...

Question: It implies in Perek Cheilek (Sanhedrin, Daf 112b) that everyone agrees that outside Yerushalayim Ma'aser belongs to Hash-m, in connection with 'A dough of Ma'aser Sheini' - which Rebbi Meir exempts from Chalah and the Chachamim declare Chayav ...

Question (cont.): And Rav Chisda explains that 'The Machlokes applies specifically in Yerushalayim - where Rebbi Meir considers it Mamon Gavohah, and Rebbi Yehudah, Mamon Hedyot; But outside Yerushalayim, they both declare it exempt'?

Answer: Despite the fact that Rebbi Yehudah considers it Mamon Hedyot - even outside Yerushalayiam, he exempts it from Chalah,Rav Chisda nevertheless explains that it is not a dough that is Chayav Chalah, seeing as it is not fit to be eaten there (See Masores ha'Shas & Gilyon ha'Shas).

Clarification: And the money does not go out to Chulin.

Clarification (cont.): According to Rebbi Meir Me'ilah only applies to someone who eats Hekdesh, but not to somebody who takes it out of Hekdesh ...

Reason: Since wherever it is, it still retains its title 'Hekdesh' ...

Reason (cont.): Because 'Wherever it is, it is in the treasury of Hekdesh', seeing as if he would have known, he would not have taken it out.

Clarification (cont.): 'But be'Meizid, the Kidushin is effective'; Rebbi Meir follows his reasoning, since he holds 'Hekdesh goes out to Chulin be'Meizid'.

Source: And he learns it from the Pasuk of "Tim'ol Ma'al".

Clarification (concl.): 'And (he holds - in Me'ilah, 18a) that 'Me'ilah only applies when there is a change' - i.e. be'Meizid, because if he intends to steal it, he acquires it immediately, and here he changed it when he betrothed with it be'Meizid.

Proof: And a proof that "Tim'ol Ma'al" applies specifically to Meizid, lies in the Pasuk (in Bamidbar 5), in connection with Sotah, where it writes "Ish ki Sisteh Ishto u'Ma'alah bo Ma'al" ...

Proof (cont.): Which is definitely speaking by Meizid, since adultery is only applicable by Meizid.

Conclusion: And the Pasuk of "ve'Nasan ha'Kesef ve'Kam lo" (See above, 29a) is merely a Mitzvah (preferable), because even without money the Hekdesh goes out to Chulin if one intends to steal it.

Ma'aser Sheini: However, concerning Ma'aser, Rebbi Meir holds that both be'Shogeg and be'Meizid, the Kidushin is not valid ...

Reason: Because it is in connection with Me'ilah that the Torah reveals that 'Hekdesh goes out to Chulin be'Meizid', but by Ma'aser, wherever it is, it is called Ma'aser.

Ma'aser Sheini (cont.): Rebbi Yehudah on the other hand, holds that Ma'aser is the property of the owner, in which case be'Meizid, the Kidushin is valid, since it is Mamon ...

Ma'aser Sheini (concl.): But not be'Shogeg, due to the trouble of transporting it (as the Gemara explains).