Explanation #1 (Rashbam in Bava Basra 79a): Me'ilah applies to a pit, e.g. he hid items in it.

Objection: We say below (18b) that Me'ilah does not apply to what is attached!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): The case is, he uprooted a ring [of earth] and benefited from it, for it is detached [so Me'ilah applies].

Explanation: He does not acquire due to Hefker, for a Chatzer was included due to a Yad (Gitin 21a), and Hekdesh has no Yad;

And regarding a tree and it became full, [there is no Me'ilah in what grew] because Me'ilah does not apply to Gidulei Hekdesh;

R. Yosi says... He holds that Me'ilah applies to Gidulin.

Explanation: It was born before its mother entered the pen to be tithed, and the child is Chulin. Therefore, it says that it may not suckle from the Ma'aser, like the Gemara explains the reason from a verse.

Explanation #1: There are people who volunteer and stipulate before it enters the pen "on condition that it nurse its child, which is Chulin." (Tosfos will bring another Perush in the coming Dibur.)

Vlad Mukdashin that is Chulin is when it was born before he was Makdish the mother.

Implied question: [In a person's field,] a worker may eat both from what is detached and what is attached, like it says in Bava Metzi'a (87a)!

Answer: In any case, from Hekdesh he may not eat, like we derive in the Gemara from a verse.

Explanation: And similarly, a [threshing] cow may not eat vetch of Hekdesh, and it is permitted to muzzle its mouth.

Question #1: This is difficult for what [Rashi] explained that others volunteer and stipulate "on condition that it nurse", for the words do not connote so. It should have said "others stipulate about this"! (Hagahah in Pirchei Kehunah - it seems that everything Tosfos brought from the beginning of DH Vlad was from Rashi, just Tosfos did not say so, or the reference to Rashi was omitted.)

Question #2: In the Tosefta, this was taught regarding workers and a cow. There, how does a stipulation help for something that is already Hekdesh?!

Explanation #2: Others volunteer... i.e. other generous people (who own animals) volunteer so, i.e. to nurse those children [of Ma'aser] from their animals, which were Chulin;

And similarly workers and a cow, because they work for Hekdesh, rich people volunteered to feed them.

Explanation: This refers to workers, that they may not eat. "Disho" is your [threshing], and not of Hekdesh, and a worker is equated to an ox, like it says in Bava Metzi'a (89a) that Chosem (one who muzzles, i.e. a person) is equated to Nichsam (one who is muzzled, i.e. an animal) and vice-versa.

Explanation: This is a kind of legume.

Explanation: This is because Me'ilah does not apply to attached land.

Explanation: The dust of the ground, which is detached, improves the legume. When it threshes on Hekdesh land, the dust rises from the ground.

Explanation: It is written regarding Bechor "v'Ha'avartem Kol Peter Rechem." Regarding Ma'aser Behemah it says "Kol Asher Ya'avor Tachas ha'Shevet";

Implied question: "Just like Bechor, Me'ilah applies to it" does not refer to milk, for suckling [from] a Bechor does not apply, for a Bechor is a male!

Answer: It means as follows. Just like Bechor, Me'ilah applies to all of it, also Ma'aser, Me'ilah applies to all of it, and even nursing its child.

Observation: "Mo'alin" is not precise, for we said above (12a) that Me'ilah does not apply to milk of Mukdashim!

Rather, it means that the milk is forbidden to nurse from it. Also milk of [other] Kodshim, our Mishnah forbids nursing from it for we learn "Imo-Imo" from Bechor;

It is written regarding Bechor in Parshas Mishpatim "Shiv'as Yamim Yihyeh Im Imo", and regarding Kodshim it is written in Parshas Emor "Shiv'as Yamim Tachas Imo."

Question: Why do we need a verse to forbid milk of Kodshim? We should know from what we expound in Bechoros (15a) regarding Pesulei ha'Mukdashim "Basar", and not milk [and all the more so, milk of proper Kodshim is forbidden]!

Implied suggestion: That is only after it separated [from the mother], but nursing would not be forbidden, if not for the verse here.

Answer #1: Some explain that the Torah forbade milk of Pesulei ha'Mukdashim, i.e. to eat it, for it says "v'Achalta Basar", and not milk, but one may benefit from it. Therefore, we need a Gezeirah Shavah here "Imo-Imo" to forbid benefit of a child suckling.

Rejection: This is wrong, for we say in Chulin (36a) that since shearing and working are forbidden, one might have thought that its blood must be buried;

Inference: Even milk is Asur b'Hana'ah and must be buried, for surely we compare blood to milk, and not to shearing and working, like I explained in our Mishnah above (12b DH Chalav);

Answer #2 (Tosfos' Rebbi): If not for the verse here, which forbids milk of Kodshim, we would not expound regarding Pesulei ha'Mukdashim that "Basar" comes to exclude milk. We would not know what "Basar" comes to exclude;

However, now that milk of Kodshim is forbidden, "Basar" comes to teach that milk keeps its status (it is forbidden in Kodshim, even after it got a Mum).

Proof: [The Torah] needed to write "v'Lo Sagoz Bechor Tzonecha" to forbid Gizah of Kodshim;

Question: Why is this needed? I should already know, since it says about Pesulei ha'Mukdashim "Tizbach", but not Gizah! (Acharonim ask that perhaps v'Lo Sagoz is a Lav to obligate lashes.)

Answer: Rather, surely we would not know what "Tizbach" comes to exclude. However, now that Gizah of Kodshim is forbidden, if so "Tizbach" comes to teach that Gizah keeps its status (it is Asur in Kodshim, even after it got a Mum).

Question - Citation (Bava Kama 77b): Wherever it says "Seh", it is only to exclude Kil'ayim (a crossbreed). For what is this needed?

Citation (cont.): If it is for Bechor, we learn "Ha'avarah-Ha'avarah" from Ma'aser, and Ma'aser [we learn from] Tachas-Tachas from Kodshim;

Summation of question: Why do we need to learn Bechor from Ma'aser, and Ma'aser from Kodshim? We should learn Bechor from Kodshim from the Gezeirah Shavah "Imo-Imo"!

Answer: We expound [the Gezeirah Shavah] only regarding something that depends on the mother, like here, and like the case of birth, in Nidah (40a). However, it was not given to expound about another matter.

Support: This answer answers another question that one could ask;

Question: How can we learn [Ma'aser and Kodshim] from Bechor, that [a Kadosh mother] may not nurse [its child]? We do not judge possible from impossible, e.g. from Bechor, which cannot nurse, for it is a male!

Answer: According to what I explained, it is fine. You are forced to learn [Kodshim] from Bechor regarding nursing from the Gezeirah Shavah "Imo-Imo", for it is not feasible to expound anything else;

And even though we learn Bechor from Ma'aser regarding Kil'ayim from the Gezeirah Shavah "Ha'avarah-Ha'avarah" (so we are not forced to learn anything else) , since we can learn Kodshim from Bechor only regarding nursing, even though it is possible from impossible...

Likewise for Ma'aser, we say that we properly learn [nursing] from Bechor. So my Rebbi was meticulous to fully resolve Tosfos' opinion.

Objection #1: All this is very difficult.

Objection #2: Obviously, the child of Ma'aser may not suckle from Ma'aser, since it is Chulin! It was already taught above (Mishnah, 12b) that one may not benefit from milk of Kodshim!

Objection #3: It says that others volunteer... and in our Mishnah (13a DH ha'Po'alin), I explained that rich people volunteered their animals to nurse the offspring. What Nedavah is this, since there is no benefit to Hekdesh?!

Answer #3 (to Question (e) - Tosfos' Rebbi, R. Peretz): Our Mishnah discusses the child of Ma'aser - the child of Kodshim that gave birth when they were Kodshim. The Chidush is that even so, it is forbidden to nurse the child from them;

This is why it says that others volunteer. Because the animals were of Hekdesh, people volunteered their animals to nurse them;

The Gemara asks what is the source that it may not suckle from its mother? It is written "Tachas Imo", which connotes that if its mother was Kadosh, in any case it suckles from it. We learn [unlike this] from a Gezeirah Shavah "Ha'avarah-Ha'avarah" from Bechor. (We are forced to say that Tachas Imo applies only when its mother is Chulin);

Just like Me'ilah applies to Bechor - i.e. one may not nurse a Bechor from an animal of Ma'aser or Kodshim, for [the verse does not permit this, for] we do not find Bechor of an animal of Ma'aser or Kodshim, for they [such mothers] are exempt from Bechorah - also Ma'aser;

Explanation: Also a child that has Kedushas Ma'aser, that it was born to an animal of Ma'aser, one may not nurse it from its mother, which is Ma'aser.

Also milk of Kodshim, we learn from "Imo-Imo" from Bechor. Just like Imo mentioned regarding Bechor is not Kadosh, for a Hekdesh animal (mother) is exempt from Bechorah...

Also Imo mentioned regarding Kodshim, that it says Shiv'as Yamim Tachas Imo", which the simple meaning connotes that offspring of a Kadosh animal, one may nurse them from their mother, this is not so;

Surely, Imo (in the verse) means a Chulin mother, therefore one may nurse [the child] from its mother. However, if [the mother] is Kadosh, it may not nurse it.

Support #1: Now it is fine. We properly need the Gezeirah Shavah for this, that even when the child is Hekdesh, one may not nurse it from the mother.

Support #2: Also it is fine that we do not learn there from this Gezeirah Shavah Imo-Imo, for we expound this Gezeirah Shavah only to learn that Imo regarding Kodshim refers to a Chulin mother, just like the mother of Bechor, like we explained.

Reference: In Bava Basra (26b) it properly explains this. (It asks the Reisha against the Seifa. It answers that it discusses roots that grew after the tree was made Hekdash; the Tana holds that Me'ilah does not apply to Gidulei Hekdesh. Alternatively, Ravina answers that roots within 16 Amos belong to the tree's owner, and those past 16 Amos belong to the owner of the field.)

Explanation: It discusses Simchas Beis ha'Sho'evah. They used to fill [a Kli] with water the day before from the Shilu'ach and put it in a barrel that is not Mekudash, lest it be disqualified through Linah, like it says in Sukah (48b);

And Kad [in our Mishnah] is Chavis [mentioned in Sukah, for these are interchangeable - Bava Kama 27a].

Explanation: That flask was a Kli Shares. Therefore, Me'ilah applies to [the water].

Explanation: [The Aravah] with which they circled the Mizbe'ach, one may not benefit, but Me'ilah does not apply to it, since it was not made Kadosh.

[Chachamim put from the Aravos] with their Lulavim [for Mitzvas Arba'ah Minim. R. Eliezer b'Ribi Tzadok] holds that Mitzvos Lav Leihanos Nitnu (fulfillment of Mitzvos is not considered benefit).

Explanation #1: We are thinking that this refers to the Reisha of our Mishnah. It says that water in the Kad, one may not benefit, but Me'ilah does not apply. [Reish Lakish] teaches that Me'ilah applies to three Lugim;

Therefore, [the Gemara] asks that the Seifa taught "if he put it in a Tzeluchis, Me'ilah applies to it", but in the Reisha Me'ilah does not apply, for the Kad was not made Kadosh.

[It answers that] rather, it was taught [as follows]. Reish Lakish said, it was taught about a Tzeluchis that Me'ilah applies to it, only for three Lugim. If there are more than three Lugim, Me'ilah applies only to three Lugim. Only the amount of water needed for Nisuch ha'Mayim becomes Kadosh. However, if he drinks from the last three Lugim, he will be Mo'el (for surely, some of what he drank was Kadosh. Olas Shlomo - he intended that the extra water is for Achrayus. As long as three Lugim remain, they will be for Nisuch ha'Mayim, and what he drank was Chulin.)

Explanation #2: Some say that there was much water in the Kli, and he said that he is not Mo'el until he drinks three Lugim, for this is the Shi'ur.

Explanation: [It says] "u'Nsacheha". It does not say Niskah, rather, u'Nsacheha, which connotes two Nesachim, and it equates Nisuch ha'Mayim to Nisuch ha'Yayin, since we learn them from one verse;

Just like Nisuch ha'Yayin, one who pours it [l'Shem Hakravah] outside [the Mikdash] is liable, also Nisuch ha'Mayim one who pours it outside should be liable, and Reish Lakish said that just like wine, the [minimal] Shi'ur is three Lugim, also water, the Shi'ur should be three Lugim!

And in Zevachim (110b) it concludes after this 'he said "Mei ha'Chag"!' This is the conclusion of the question. I.e. if you will say that indeed [the Shi'ur is three Lugim], [R. Eliezer] said "Mei ha'Chag", which connotes that there is no Shi'ur for the water!

Inference: Reish Lakish holds that there is no Shi'ur for the water.

Source: If he held that there is a Shi'ur, if so, what did he ask "if just like wine is three Lugim, also water is three Lugim!"? He himself holds like this!

Explanation #1: It answers that he said according to Menachem Yudfa'ah. I.e. Reish Lakish himself holds that there is a Shi'ur. What he asked there "if just like Nesachim of wine..." was according to Menachem Yudfa'ah's reasoning;

[Menachem] explained R. Eliezer's reasoning, that R. Eliezer holds that there is no Shi'ur for the water. Therefore, [Reish Lakish] asked, since R. Eliezer equates water to wine, if so, why does he hold that there is no Shi'ur for the water?

Explanation #2: Some explain that what was taught above that Me'ilah applies to three Lugim is according to Menachem, who learns from a verse that Nisuch ha'Mayim is equated to Nisuch ha'Yayin. If so, there is a Shi'ur for the water.

Rebuttal #1: Here, who mentioned Menachem Yudfa'ah?! (He is brought only later in the Sugya. We cannot say that Reish Lakish taught according to him!)

Rebuttal #2: In Zevachim (110b) it concludes that Menachem does not require a Shi'ur, and Reish Lakish's question against him was unfounded. (Menachem meant only that R. Elazar holds that it is mid'Oraisa, like R. Akiva, but not that he learns from the Hekesh. Rather, it is a tradition from Sinai.)

Remark: The Gemara properly explains this.

Explanation: He does not ascend [on the tree] and take them in his hand, for if so, he benefits from the Asheirah! Rather, he shakes it through the stick, and it falls.

Explanation: [Choresh] is the translation of forest.