Citation (cont.): What is the source to include Kodshei Kodoshim and Kodshim Kalim? It [does not] say "bi'Behemah Teme'ah", rather, "v'Im Kol Behemah Teme'ah."

Implied question: Above, [R. Elazar] asked "granted, 'it is totally to Shamayim' excludes Kodshim Kalim, to which Me'ilah does not apply"!

Answer: He did not know the end of the Toras Kohanim, which includes Kodshim Kalim. (Maharsha discusses why we cannot say that he thought that the Reisha means that if not for an inclusion, we would have excluded them.)

Question: If so, why do we need a verse?

If it is to exclude final Hekdesh, Chomesh does not apply, since it cannot be redeemed any more!

Answer #1: The case is, he took rocks in order to leave them built into the Mikdash, and reconsidered and decided to redeem them;

Even so, it is called final Hekdesh, since initially he intended to leave them built.

Answer #2: The case is, the building fell, and he wants to redeem the rocks.

Answer #3: We ask "what is the source to exclude middle Hekdesh? Perhaps the verse excludes only what is not totally to Shamayim!"

Explanation #1: It is the first Olah written among the Korbanos in Parshas Pinchas, i.e. the morning Tamid. Rashi explained so in Pesachim (58b).

Explanation #2: It is the first Olah that Yisrael offered in the Midbar, according to the opinion that it was Olas Tamid.

Explanation #3: It was first to inaugurate the Mizbe'ach, like it says in Menachos (49a) "we inaugurate the Mizbe'ach only with the morning Tamid."

Question: It says "v'Hayah Hu u'Semuraso Yihyeh Kodesh"!

Answer #1: Here we discuss Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, and even Temimim;

It says in Temurah (5b) that if one was Matfis (Makdish) Temimim for Bedek ha'Bayis, even though he transgresses a Lav, what he did, he did.

Implied question: It says there that anything proper for the Mizbe'ach never leaves the Mizbe'ach!

Answer: This means that when they redeem it, they sell it to people who need Olos.

Answer #2: We discuss even Kodshei Mizbe'ach. The case is, they had a blemish before he was Makdish them. Such Kodshim do not make Temurah.

Suggestion: We discuss even he was Makdish them before they had a Mum, and his hand was on the Kodesh animal, for it makes Temurah only when his hand was on the Chulin!

Rejection: "This cow is Tachas this Hekdesh cow" connotes that his hand was on the Chulin.

Assertion: Here the text does not say "Hekdesh has the upper hand", for since he intended to redeem Hekdesh, even [Hekdesh] worth much on a small amount, it is redeemed, like Shmuel taught below;

However, the Reisha did not mention any value. He did not intend to buy Hekdesh [for a particular price], rather, to redeem it for its value. Therefore, he completes (pays the excess value of the Hekdesh over what he gave to redeem it);

If [what he gave to redeem it] exceeded [the value of the Hekdesh], Hekdesh has the upper hand. This is why he did not teach the clauses together.

Question: We should answer that he holds like Rav Ketina, that we take a case even for less than Shaveh Perutah!

Below, it says that Levi, who taught sitting of judges, needed only to teach unlike Rav Ketina!

Answer: We conclude that Rav Ketina agrees that at the beginning of judgment, we require [that the case is for at least] Shaveh Perutah;

Therefore, we ask that our Tana should teach sitting of judges, which connotes beginning the case;

When we answer for Levi [that he needed] to teach unlike Rav Ketina, [the Tartzan] holds that "sitting of judges" connotes even the end of the case.

Explanation: This is difficult for the opinion that there is not in [the Ma'aser] a Perutah. Similarly, he was refuted above (53b).

Note: Also there, the Gemara said "it is difficult. It did not say "Teyuvta" (he is refuted).

Implied question: In several places, [Chachamim] made their words even stronger than Torah law!

Answer: That is when it is applicable to fine to make a fence;

However, here, even Vadai Terumas Ma'aser it would not be applicable to fine a Chomesh had the Torah not said so. Therefore, we should not fine regarding Demai.

We answer that indeed, they made the child a Mamzer even though there is no reason, only because from a married woman the child is a Mamzer.

Explanation: It mentions that it was written [in front of the Shali'ach] only due to Rabanan (R. Elazar, who holds that a Get must be written Lishmah);

According to R. Meir, he need not say "it was written", for Rav Yehudah said that R. Meir used to say that even if he found [a Get] in the wasteheap, (if witnesses sign it for him,) it is Kosher.

Inference: Since Chachamim did not say "she need not leave him", which is better [than saying that the child is not a Mamzer], this implies that they hold that she must leave, even though the child is not a Mamzer.

Explanation #1: According to Rabanan, what should [the Shali'ach] do if she married, so [her husband] will not need to divorce her?

Explanation #2: According to R. Meir, what should [the Shali'ach] do before she marries, so she will not need another Get?

However, after she married, it seems that according to R. Meir there is no solution.

Question: He should be able to say Befanai Nichtav v'Nechtam when it is in her hand!

Suggestion: He must say it before giving it.

Rejection: It says in Gitin (5a) "the case is, he gave it to her and did not suffice to say [Befanai Nichtav u'Befanai Nechtam] before he became deaf." (This implies that if he were still healthy, he could say so even after giving it!)

Answer: He must say it [before giving it, or] immediately after giving it, once she was divorced, while they are still engaged in the matter.

Question: Since the Tana taught that we redeem silver [coins of Ma'aser Sheni of Demai] on silver, even though it is forbidden with Vadai [Ma'aser] even in pressed circumstances, all the more so silver on copper is permitted;

Even with Vadai [Ma'aser, silver on copper] is permitted in pressed circumstances, like it says below!

Answer: Since it taught copper on Peros, which R. Meir and Rabanan argue about, for parallel structure it taught also silver on copper, which is also currency on Peros.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [R. Meir holds that] one must [redeem them], for we require "V'Tzarta ha'Kesef b'Yadecha.". Chachamim say, if he wants, he can take the Peros themselves up [to Yerushalayim].

We ask that surely silver on copper is forbidden not in pressed circumstances, and here, regarding Demai, [R. Meir] permits [l'Chatchilah]!

Question #1: We could have brought from several places that we find that Demai is more lenient than Vadai!

Citation (Demai 1:2 - Mishnah): Chomesh and Bi'ur do not apply to Demai.

Strengthening of Question #1: Also our Mishnah teaches that one adds a Chomesh to Ma'aser Sheni, but it did not teach that one adds a Chomesh to [Ma'aser Sheni of] Demai, like it taught regarding one who eats Terumas Ma'aser (even of Demai, he adds a Chomesh). There was no need to bring the Mishnayos in Demai and Ma'aser Sheni!

Question #2: Since it says "only in pressed circumstances, but not in pressed circumstances, no" connotes that the rest of the Mishnah is fine;

We could have asked stronger. One may not [redeem] silver on silver even in pressed circumstances, since he does not stipulate about one of the Sela'im (that if it is the Chulin, the Ma'aser is redeemed on it)! Regarding Demai, this (silver on silver) is permitted!

Question #3: [Rashi] explained that it is better to redeem the Peros than to bring them up [to Yerushalayim]. In several places it connotes oppositely, e.g. in Ma'aser Sheni (3:10) regarding something bought with Kesef Ma'aser Sheni that became Tamei...

Citation (3:10 - R. Yehudah (to Chachamim)): No. If you said [regarding Ma'aser Sheni itself], for it is redeemed when it is Tahor when it is far [from Yerushalayim], will you say about something bought [with Kesef Ma'aser], which is not redeemed when it is Tahor when it is far?!

Inference: Something bought, one must bring it up. Also in several places [it connotes like this].

Explanation #2: According to R. Meir, if he wants, he returns and redeems the Peros. Chachamim say, he must bring [them] up.

We challenge Shmuel's answer that R. Meir is more stringent about Demai than Chachamim, for here R. Meir is more lenient than Chachamim.

Implied question: Why didn't he ask why he adds a Chomesh to Terumas Ma'aser of Demai, like Vadai, but he is not stringent about Pidyon [of Ma'aser Sheni of Demai, to add a Chomesh]?

Answer: Only regarding eating, in which he transgresses, he is stringent about Demai like for Vadai, but Pidyon, in which he does not transgress, they were not stringent.

He needed to bring our Mishnah that we redeem silver on copper in pressed circumstances, lest you say that similarly, R. Meir is lenient about Vadai, and if so, he equates Demai to Vadai, just like for Terumas Ma'aser;

Therefore he brings that for Vadai, we do not redeem silver on copper not in pressed circumstances. If so, this is difficult, for he is lenient about Demai in contrast to Vadai more than Chachamim are.

Answer (cont.): Below, Abaye holds that perhaps regarding Misah R. Meir is stringent about Demai like for Vadai more than Chachamim are, and regarding a Lav, he is not stringent [for Demai] like for Vadai;

Rabanan, even though they are stringent about a Lav, regarding Terumas Ma'aser, for which [for Vadai] there is Misah, they did not deem proper to fine a Chomesh, like I explained above (DH v'Chi), for even regarding Vadai, they would not have fined had the Torah not commanded.

Question: In the text of the Mishnah, R. Meir says "as long as he redeems the Peros"!

Answer: So we redeem silver on silver even to return and redeem that silver on something else, and similarly copper on Peros, like we explained silver on silver;

"As long as he redeems" means as long as he intended from the beginning, when he redeemed the copper on Peros, to redeem the Peros again. Then it is permitted;

However, if then he intended to bring them up, and [later] he reconsidered to redeem them, he must bring them up.