(Mishnah): If Reuven took a rock or beam of Hekdesh, he was not Mo'el;

If he gave it to Shimon, Reuven was Mo'el, but Shimon was not Mo'el.

If Reuven (kept it and) built it into his house, he is not Mo'el until he gets a Perutah's worth of benefit from it through living in the house.

If Reuven took a Perutah of Hekdesh, he was not Mo'el;

If he gave it to Shimon, he was Mo'el, but Shimon was not;

If he gave it to a bathhouse attendant (to pay for a bath he will take), he is Mo'el immediately, even before he bathes, for he may bathe whenever he wants.

What Reuven eats or benefits from joins with what (he gave to Shimon and) Shimon eats or benefits from to obligate Reuven for Meilah, even over a long period of time.

(Gemara) Question: When Reuven takes Hekdesh there is no Meilah. Why is there Meilah when he gives it to Shimon?

Answer (Shmuel): The case is, Reuven is a Gizbar (treasurer of Hekdesh) who oversees the objects of Hekdesh. (As long as he has it, it did not leave the Reshus of Hekdesh. Ra'avad - every person is considered the Gizbar over what he was Makdish until the Gizbar of Hekdesh receives it).

(Mishnah): If he built it into his house, he is not Mo'el until...

Question: He should be Mo'el right away, for he changed it (e.g. smoothed it, or cut it to size) in order to build it into his house!

Answer (Rav): (He did not change it.) He merely affixed it on top of a skylight (opening in the roof).

Version #1 (Tosfos) Inference: After building it into his house, Meilah applies to it. (Meilah does not apply to anything attached. We must say that a house is not considered attached, for it was initially detached.)

This supports Rav, who says that if one bowed to (worshipped) a house, it becomes forbidden (even though attached things do not become forbidden due to idolatry)!

Rejection (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): (Really, a house is considered attached;)

Because the skylight cover is visible from the outside, Meilah applies to it. (Pirush Kadmon (B) - since the beam was Hekdesh before it was attached, mid'Rabanan) we are concerned for Mar'is Ayin. (People might think that there is Meilah.)

Version #2 (R. Gershom) Inference: Even after building it into his house, he is not Mo'el until he benefits from it. (We do not say that attaching it is a change. We must say that a house is not considered attached).

This supports Rav, who says that if one bowed to a house, it becomes forbidden.

Rejection (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): Really, a house is considered attached. Meilah applies only to blatant benefit. (end of Version #2)

Support (for Rav's law about idolatry - Beraisa): If one lived in a Hekdesh house and benefited from it, he was Mo'el.

Rejection (Reish Lakish): (Really, a house is considered attached.) The Beraisa discusses a house made from Hekdesh materials.

Question: This implies that if it was made from Chulin and then made Hekdesh, Meilah would not apply;

If so, why does the Seifa say that if one lived in a (Hekdesh) cave and benefited, he was not Mo'el? Even regarding a house (which was initially detached), Meilah does not apply to it if it was Hukdash after it was built!

Answer: The Tana prefers to teach a uniform law. (Meilah never applies to a cave.) The law of a house is not uniform.

(Mishnah): If a Shali'ach fulfilled his mission (and caused a loss to Hekdesh), the sender was Mo'el. If he did not fulfill his mission, he was Mo'el.

For example, if Reuven told Shimon to give meat to guests, and Shimon gave liver, or vice-versa, (and the meat was found to be Hekdesh,) Shimon was Mo'el;

If he told him "give one piece of meat to each guest," and Shimon told the guests to take two each, and the guests took three each (and the meat was found to be Hekdesh), Reuven, Shimon and the guests were all Mo'el.

(Gemara) Question: (Meat and liver are similar enough that if a Shali'ach was asked to buy meat, and found only liver, he would ask the sender if he wants liver. Nevertheless, the Mishnah says that Shimon was Mo'el, i.e. it is considered that he did not fulfill his mission.) Who is the Tana of the Mishnah, who says that if a Shali'ach was told to buy "A," and he would ask before substituting "B" for it, this shows that "B" is considered a different species than "A"?

Answer #1 (Rav Chisda): It is unlike R. Akiva:

(Mishnah): If one vowed not to eat vegetables, gourds are permitted to him;

R. Akiva forbids. (Chachamim permit because if a Shali'ach was sent to buy vegetables and found only gourds, he would ask the sender before buying them. R. Akiva says this shows that gourds are in the category of vegetables. He would not ask whether he should buy legumes!)

Answer #2 (Abaye): The Mishnah can be R. Akiva. R. Akiva agrees that the Shali'ach must ask the sender! (Since he did not ask, he acted on his own accord. Pirush Kadmon (B) - mid'Oraisa, R. Akiva admits that they are different species. Regarding vows, he is stringent mid'Rabanan.)

(Rava): Abaye is correct.

Question: Who are the Chachamim who argue with R. Akiva?

Answer: They hold like R. Shimon ben Gamliel:

(Beraisa): If one vowed not to eat meat, all types of meat are forbidden to him -- the head, legs, chest, innards, liver, heart, and fowl;

Fish and grasshoppers are permitted.

R. Shimon ben Gamliel permits the head, legs, innards, liver, heart, and fowl (and fish and grasshoppers. Shitah deletes this.)

R. Shimon ben Gamliel: The innards are not considered meat. One who eats them (even though he could buy other meat for the same price) is not a (normal) person.

Question: Presumably, the first Tana forbids fowl because a Shali'ach would ask whether he should buy it in place of meat;

He would also ask whether he should buy fish in place of meat. Also it should be forbidden!

Answer #1 (Rav Papa): The Beraisa discusses a vow on the day of bloodletting. One does not eat fish that day. (One who vows intends to forbid only foods that he might want to eat that day.)

Objection: If so, the same should apply to fowl!

(Shmuel): If one let blood and eats fowl, his heart will flutter like a bird.

(Beraisa): One does not eat fish, fowl or salted meat on the day he lets blood.

Answer #2 (Rav Papa): His eyes were hurting when he vowed (one does not eat fish then).

(Mishnah): If he told him "give one piece... "

Inference: When a Shali'ach does more than he was told, he fulfills the Shelichus and adds to it. (We do not say that he uprooted the Shelichus and acted on his own accord.)

Rejection (Rav Sheshes): No, the case is, Shimon explicitly said "take one piece due to Reuven, and one due to me";

One might have thought that he uprooted the Shelichus and Reuven is not Mo'el. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.