Clarification: This is an expression of assessment, like 'Ma'alin be'Damim' (in Chulin 134b), and which means that 'we assess how much (monetary) 'power' he has in it ...

Source: As the Gemara explains in Erchin (Daf 28b) 'Someone who is Matfis an Olah to Bedek haa'Bayis, if it is a Neder, he gives its value - seeing as if it were to get lost, he would have to pay (for a replacement) ...

Source (cont.): Whereas if it is a Nedavah, he pays the Tovas Ha'anah that he has in it' ...

Explanation #1: Meaning that he could take from his Yisrael friend a small coin on condition that he brings it in the Mishmar of his daughter's son, who is a Kohen - Rashi.

Refutation: Rashi was not accurate however, when he gave the example of 'Ben Bito' regarding Tovas Hana'ah ...

Reason: Certainly the Gemara there uses it with regard to B'chor, whose Basar belongs to whoever one gives it; consequently, it is considered Tovas Hana'ah ...

Reason (cont.): But regarding an Olah, where the Kohen only owns the skin, it is not considered Tovas Hana'ah.

Explanation #2: The Gemara in Erchin (Ibid) presents a different definition of Tovas Hana'ah with regard to Olah - 'And if it is a Nedavah, we assess how much a person would want to give for the ox to bring it up as an Olah ...

Source (cont.): Even though he is not Rashai' - (meaning even though he is not obligated) to do so...

Precedent: Like we find in Chulin (Daf 54b) 'Craftsmen are not Resha'in (obligated) to stand up'.

Source: The Gemara in Erchin (Ibid) learns Hekdesh Iluy from the Pasuk in Vayikra (25) "Kol Cherem Kodesh Kodshim", 'to teach us that the Cherem takes effect on KOdshei Kodshim and Kodshim Kalim' ...

Clarification: And Hekdesh Iluy applies to KOdshei Mizbe'ach ...

Proof: Because concerning Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis the Gemara says that 'If someone is Makdish them to Kodshei Mizbe'ach or Chermei Kohanim, he has done nothing.

Refuted Reason: Rashi explains in the Gemara that Tovas Hana'ah is not applicable to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis ...

Refutation: But Tosfos' Rebbe disagrees with that reason ...

Reason: Because why can one not say 'How much a person would want to give Bedek ha'Bayis for it' - even though one is not obligated to do so, like by Kodshei Mizbe'ach? (See also Shitah Mekubetzes 14)

Authentic Reason: Tosfos' Rebbe therefore explains that it is due to the fact that whereas the owner's name of Kodshei Mizbe'ach is attached to them to redeem them should they obtain a blemish, once one declares Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis Hekdesh, the owner has no more rights over them than anybody else ...

Authentic Reason (cont.): Since anybody is allowed to redeem them; therefore they are not under his jurisdiction to be Matfis them.

Establishing Rav Huna: According to the flow of the Sugya, it appears that Rav Huna holds like the Rabbanan who argue with Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira in Maseches Erchin (Daf 28b) ...

Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira: Who says, based on the Pasuk "Kol Cherem Kodesh Kodshim la'Hashem", says that 'S'tam Charamim go to Bedek ha'Bayis' ...

Chachamim: Whilst the Chachamim maintain that 'S'tam Charamim go to the Kohanim' ...

Chachamim: And the Torah writes "Kol Cherem Kodesh Kodshim" to teach us that Cherem takes effect even on Kodshei Kodshim and Kodshim Kalim.

Proof: According to this Tana, Rav Huna's D'rashah fits nicely, because when he says that it takes effect on Kodshim, he means on Charamim, which are for Hash-m ...

Proof (cont.): But according to Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira, we cannot Darshen this, since he is not referring to being Matfis Hekdesh Iluy at all (ha'Rav Mordechai).

Refuted Explanation: Rashi explains that 'That is fine with Kodshei Mizbe'ach, which have Tovas Hana'ah, as the Mishnah explains, but what Tovas Hana'ah is there by Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis?

Refutation: This is not correct however, since there is no question that all that we previously explained in the Mishnah applies equally to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis - that if he said 'Alai', he accepts full responsibility, and if he does not, then we will say that we will assess ... ?

Authentic Explanation: There is another reason there however - because regarding Kodshei Mizbe'ach, the name of the owner ... (See above, Tosfos DH 'Makdishin'.)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that he does have Tovas Hana'ah in them - since he has to give them to a Kohen of that Mishmar (See footnote) ...

Implied Question: And even according to those who do not compare Metalt'lin to Karka ...

Answer: That is specifically by Makdish.

Source: Tosfos Rebbe explains that the comparison of Metalt'lin to Karka by Erchin is in Perek ha'Mekadesh (Daf 28a), where Rav Chisda says that 'Someone who declares Metalt'lin a Cherem must give them to whichever Kohen he chooses, as the Torah writes (in Korach) "Kol Cherem be'Yisrael l'cha Yih'yeh" ...

Source (cont.): Whereas if he is Machrim his fields, he must give them to a Kohen in that Mishmar' ...

Source (concl.): And in answer to the question 'Why do we not compare Metalt'lin to Karka, the Gemara answers 'Is this not a Machlokes; some compare them and some don't!'

Question: Tosfos' Rebbe does not understand what Rashi means when he says that 'even those who do not compare them that is specifically by Makdish'.

Explanation #2: He therefore explains that the Sugya speaks where it was in the hands of the Kohen, and it goes even according to the opinion that does not compare them (Tosfos is unclear - See Tzon Kodshim).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it cannot be brought until the treasurers come and stand next to it, as it says there 'How can a person's Korban be brought if he is not standing beside it?' But no money needs to be given to Bedek ha'Bayis.

Explanation #1 (cont.): And Kal va'Chomer Chermei Kohanim ...

Proof: Seeing as even according to Rav Huna, who argues by Chermei Kohanim, concedes by Bedek ha'Bayis.

Explanation #1 (cont.): And the Gemara answers 'mi'de'Rabbanan' - meaning that the Beraisa cited earlier that omitted Kodshei Mizbe'ach, to say that Kodshei Iluy takes effect on them, this is only mi'de'Rabbanan, but that mi'd'Oraysa, there is only 'Ikuv Gizbarin' ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): And also when Ula answered, he answered mi'de'Rabbanan ...

Explanation #1 (concl.): The Pasuk he quoted is an Asmachta, and the basic Pasuk comes to include Charamim in the realm of Me'ilah. Until here are the words of Rashi.

Question #1: This is very difficult however, because if so, there is a Kashya on the Mishnah earlier 'Makdishin osan Hekdesh Iluy'?

Question #2: Moreover, here the Gemara conclude that it is mi'de'Rabbanan, whereas in Erchin (Ibid.) it learns from "Kol Cherem la'Hashem" that Cherem takes effect on Kodshei Kodshim and on Kodshim Kalim' - implying that it is the main D'rashah?

Explanation #2: According to Ula, one is definitely Chayav (mi'd'Oraysrin' - a) to give money to Bedek ha'Bayis, as we learned in the Mishnah 'And one is Makdish them Hekdesh Iliuy; and the same applies to Erchin' ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): And what Ula means is 'Ein bah Ela Ikuv Guzbarin' - that Hekdesh does not have anything in the body of the animal except that the Gizbarin can prevent it from being Shechted until they have assessed it - and he is then obligated to pay the amount assessed to Bedek ha'Bayis ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): And he teaches us that Hekdesh takes effect on the body of the Olah only to the extent that it is forbidden to Shecht it until it is redeemed ...

The Mishnah: Consequently, the Mishnah goes like him, since it does not say that it takes place on the body of the animal, but only that it is a debt.

Introduction to Question: The problem is however, that seeing as in any event, Ula holds that one is permitted to be Matfis it for Chermei Kohanim, he inevitably holds that Hekdesh takes effect on the body of the animal, because otherwise, on what does the Cherem of the Kohen take effect ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): Since it is not like Chermei Bedek ha'Bayis, where, if he says 'Harei alai anah le'Bedek ha'Bayis' he is Chayav - due to the principle 'A word to Gavohah is like handing over to a Hedyot' ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): Whereas by Chermei Kohanim there is no question that if one declares 'Harei alai Manah le'Chermei Kohanim', he may retract, since a word to a Hedyot is not binding.

Introduction to Question (concl.): And they only take effect when one declares 'This object is for Chermei Kohanim', because then it definitely takes effect on the actual object ...

Question: In that case, Ula must hold that the Cherem takes effect on the body of the animal - in which case why is there only Ikuv Gizbzarin? Why is there no Isur to Shecht it until it is redeemed?

Explanation #2 (cont.): And the Gemara answers 'mi'de'Rabanan - when Ula said that 'By Chermei Kohanim, what he did is done', that is mi'de'Rabbanan ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): But mi'd'Oraysa, it does not take effect at all on the body of the animal, and only mi'de'Rabbanan is it forbidden to Shecht it.

Explanation #2 (concl.): And the basic Pasuk teaches us that the Cherem takes effect on Hekdesh to be Chayav only in the form of a debt.

Explanation #3: Furthermore, Tosfos' Rebbe found that the Ri explains that the Kashya from Ula is based on the fact that he says 'ha'Matfis Olah le'Bedek ha'Bayis', and not 'le'Chermei Kohanim' - a proof that in his opinion, if one says Chermei Kohanim, his words are ineffective ...

Explanation #3 (cont.): Posing a Kashya on what he Darshens that one can in fact, be Matfis on to Chermei Kohanim?

Explanation #3 (concl.): And the Gemara answers 'mi'de'Rabbanan' - that when he Darshens from "Kol Cherem" tat one can be Matfis on to Chermei Kohanim, it is really only mi'de'Rabbanan.

Question: Seeing as we do not Darshen "Kol Cherem", to indicate that it is talking about Chermei Kohanim, where is Kodshei Kodshim written by Chermei Kohanim?

Answer #1: Tosfos Rebbe, ha'Rav Mordechai answers that the Gemara relies on another Pasuk (in Vayikra 27) which writes "ve'Hayah ha'Sadeh be'Tzeiso ba'Yovel Kodesh la'Hashem ki'Sedei ha'Cherem, la'Kohen tih'yeh Achuzaso" ...

Answer #1 (cont.): And 'Kodshei Kodashim' (mentioned by Rebbi) is La'av Davka; what he means is 'Kodesh la'Hashem'.

Answer #2: Another Rebbe of however, explains that without the D'rashah of "Kol" to include Chermei Kohanim, we know that the simple P'shat in the Pasuk of "Kodshei Kodshim" is referring to Chermei Kohanim ...

Proof: From the continuation of the Pasuk "Lo Yiga'el ve'Lo Yimacher" - which can only refer to Chermei Kohanim, which cannot be redeemed ...

Proof (cont.): Because as far as Chermei Bedek ha'Bayis is concerned, on the contrary, there very essence is to be redeemed.

Conclusion: Nevertheless it is necessary to include Hekdesh Iluy from the D'rashah of "Kodesh la'Hashem" from which it is implied that they would otherwise be precluded, but with regard to Me'ilah, we include them from the simple P'shat in the Pasuk.

Clarification: This means that the assessment of the treasurers will delay its Shechitah until after they have assessed it ...

Clarification (cont.): But not until after it has been redeemed ...

Reason: Because Hekdesh Iluy is merely an obligation based on a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv.

Clarification: Because the Vherem takes effect on the body of the Olah.

Answer: And the Gemara answers that the Isur of Shechting it is mi'de'Rabbanan, and that min ha'Torah, he is Chayav to pay Bedek ha'Bayis.

Introduction to Question: In Perek T'vul Yom (Zevachim, Daf 103a) the Gemara says 'There is no ned to mention it according to the opinion that holds Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis take effect, but even according to those who hold that they do not, that applies only to the flesh, but on the skin, they do, and it requires redeeming ...

Question: The question arises however, who is it who holds that Hekdesh Iluy does not take effect on Bedek ha'Bayis?

Answer: Rashi answers the question based on the current ruling; he explains that those that hold that they do take effect, that is only due to the Kashya the Gemara asks here, when it tries to prove that it is Asur to Shecht them min ha'Torah ...

Answer (cont.): But even those that hold that they do not take effect learn it from here, when the Gemara concludes that it is only mi'de'Rabbanan - nevertheless, that is only with regard to flesh, but on the skin, they do indeed take effect, and need to be redeemed.

Question: In many places however, we find that one is Mo'el mi'de'Rabbanan by blood and doves; eggs (See Me'ilah, Daf 12b)?

Answer: Thyat speaks specifically with regard to things from which one does not separate - whereas here it is speaking about things from which one does, seeing as they were already Hekdesh beforehand.

Clarification (Rabbanan): And the Mishnah 'Im Meisu Yikavru' also refers to Kodshei Kodshim in the Seifa (See also footnote 2) ...

Clarification (Rebbi Shimon): And Rebbi Shimon argues and says that Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis are not included in Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah.

Clarification: And the Mishnah 'Im Meis Yikavru' is confined to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.

Implied Question: Even though at the beginning of this section, the Tana states that 'One may not change either Kodshei MIzbe'ach or Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis', implying that the entire Mishnah refers to both of them ...

Answer: This is not a Kashya, because in any case it cannot refer to the whole Mishnah - since 'Hekdesh Iluy' only refers to Kodshei Mizbe'ach - so too does this ruling only refer to Kodshei Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis ...

Answer (cont.): And this is clearly the case according to Resh Lakish - that it does apply to Kodshei Mizbe'ach.

Answer (concl.): Whereas Rebbi who argues with the Rabbanan, holds that, to the contrary - Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis are not included, whilst Kodshei Mizbe'ach are ...

Conclusion: They are opposite opinions.

Clarification: Specifically by Kodshei Mizbe'ach, but by Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, even the opinion that holds that they are (included in Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah), there is no difference between a Tam and a Ba'al-Mum m'Ikaro.

Proof: And this is evident throughout the Sugya.

Clarification: Who says that the Rabbanan are not speaking at all about Kodshei Mizbe'ach, which are not subject to Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah, let him say that 'If they die, they can be redeemed'?

Question: From where does he know that? Perhaps it is also speaking about Kodshei Mizbe'ach ...

Question: And the reason (that one cannot redeem them) is because 'One cannot redeem Kodshim to feed the dogs'?