Explanation: This excludes Pogem, for he does not benefit. If not for the Hekesh to Terumah, we would obligate him, like it says at the beginning of the Beraisa - it said "one might have thought that Pegam without Hana'ah..." because we learn from idolatry, like we explained above.

Implied question: Why is the Hekesh to Sotah different, that it obligates, and the Hekesh to Terumah exempts?

Answer: This is like is proper for it, and this is like is proper for it. The Hekesh to Sotah comes to obligate Neheneh without Pegam in something that has no Pegam. If not for the Hekesh to Sotah, we would have exempted every Neheneh without Pegam, from Terumah, like I explained above;

And the Hekesh to Terumah exempts Pegam without Hana'ah, for if not for the Hekesh to Terumah, Pegam without Hana'ah would be liable, from idolatry, like we explained above.

Question: Why didn't [the Gemara] mention also the exemption of Hana'ah without Pegam regarding Terumah, for also this we derive from Terumah, like it says above (18b) "one might have thought that Neheneh without Pegam..." like I explained above?

Answer: It is because it is not uniform (always true), for there is Neheneh without Pegam that is liable, e.g. in a matter without Pegam, for we learn from Sotah.

Question: The following is difficult! Regarding idolatry, it learns the Hekesh to exempt. Rather than learning to exempt, it should have learned it for Chiyuv, for from idolatry we learn the Chiyuv of Me'ilah for removing from Reshus Hekdesh to Reshus Hedyot, e.g. selling, a gift or lending, also without Hana'ah!

[We must learn this from idolatry,] for we do not learn it from Sotah, and not from Terumah, for both of them have Hana'ah!

Answer: Indeed, this is what it means. The Torah equated [Me'ilah] to idolatry [that one is not liable] until there is Shinuy. I.e. from idolatry we derive that one is liable for Shinuy Reshus without any Hana'ah;

By the way, it teaches that it is not called Shinuy through removing from Reshus Hekdesh alone, until it enters Reshus Hedyot and the person acquires it, like I explained above, and it teaches a Chidush according to Rav Huna [who says in Bava Metzi'a (99a) that a lender can take back the item before the borrower used it. Meshichah alone is not Shinuy Reshus until he uses it - Tosfos R. Peretz.]

Explanation: "Ki Yochal" excludes one who damages. Also Hekdesh, something edible, if one damages it, he is exempt.

Question: Here it connotes that only something edible, one who damages it is exempt;

In Bava Kama (9b), a Mishnah teaches [that one is liable for damaging] "property without Me'ilah." This implies that if there is Me'ilah, i.e. Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis or Kodshei Kodoshim, he is exempt!

This applies to the four Avos (primary) damagers of the Reisha, to teach that in those properties damagers are exempt, and it taught among [the four] ha'Mav'eh, which is a person who damages;

And even according to the opinion that ha'Mav'eh is Shen (animals eating), in any case we do not find that they argue about this (liability for damaging Hekdesh)!

Answer (ha'Kadosh R. Nesanel): It mentioned something edible to teach that also when he eats in a damaging way, e.g. Achilah Gasah, or drinks Terumah oil, he is exempt, like it says in Brachos (35b).

Explanation: This is said in astonishment, regarding our Mishnah of a gold cup. It calls it a matter without Pegam.

Explanation: This is the culmination of the question. I.e. if [gold] is a matter without Pegam, the gold of the Kalah of Nun, i.e. the gold of the daughter-in-law of that rich man named Nun, where did it go?!

[Rav Zevid] answers, perhaps the gold went [to the same place] d'Ramyan your daughters-in-law! I.e. perhaps she did with her gold like your daughters-in-law did - they cast it in windows or other places where it is not guarded properly, and it decreased much. D'Ramyan means "they threw."

Explanation: Since they were Temimim, there is no Pegam, for even if they weakened, there is no loss, for we offer them and one is Yotzei;

Pegam applies only to something destined [to be sold] for its value, that if he comes to sell it, its value decreases. However, something destined to be offered, and it is not lost through this from Hakravah, this is not a matter with Pegam.

It answers that it discusses a Ba'al Mum. Now it is destined to be sold, and its value decreases due to the Pegam.

Explanation: And in the Gemara it explains the reason, that we learn from Terumah, that in the matter in which there is Pegam, he benefits.

Question: A Tosefta teaches that if one chopped with a Hekdesh ax, and his friend came and chopped, and his friend came and chopped, all of them were Mo'el!

Suggestion: Perhaps we discuss an ax that is a Kli Shares.

Rejection: It teaches there in the Seifa "if he gave it to his friend, and his friend to his friend, the first was Mo'el and the second was not Mo'el, and regarding an Olah, all of them were Mo'el!

Answer #1 (Tosfos' Rebbi): There, what is the case? After he chopped, he returned it. What he returned, it is of Hekdesh, as if they were not Mo'el.

Answer #2 (Ri): There it discusses Gizbarim. They never become Chulin through any Me'ilah, until he takes it out of his Reshus.

Remark: The Gemara explains this.

Explanation: It is written "Asher Yechaper Alav b'Eil ha'Asham", and this is extra, for another verse is written, and it could have written [only] Asher Yechaper Alav;

Rather, this shows that [b'Eil ha'Asham] comes for a Drashah, that there is Me'ilah only with the Asham ram, but not with Kli Shares.

Explanation (Tosfos' Rebbi): We must explain that Rabanan hold that it becomes Chulin through Me'ilah, and if so it has Pidyon, for if there is no Pidyon, it does not become Chulin. Why are they not Mo'el in it after one was Mo'el? It is unreasonable to say "the Torah revealed about this" (only the first, that he was Mo'el)!

Explanation: The Kli Shares is Mekadesh what is in it. It itself, all the more so!

Explanation: [It itself] should not become Chulin through Me'ilah, but in any case he agrees that it has Pidyon! However, Me'ilah is different, due to the Kal v'Chomer.

Regarding Pidyon, perhaps this Kal v'Chomer does not apply, and he needs "b'Eil ha'Asham" for a different Drashah.

Reference: It explains there in Menachos (20b) that according to Rebbi, wood needs Kemitzah, like a Minchah, and it needs wood to make a Ma'arachah and burn [the wood] on [the Ma'arachah];

Now, Rebbi and Rabanan argue in our Mishnah as follows. Rebbi holds that anything without Pegam, such as wood, it has Mo'el Acher Mo'el, just like an animal or Kli Shares, for wood is a full Korban;

Rabanan hold that it is not a Korban, and it does not have Mo'el Acher Mo'el.

Explanation: This is said b'Nichusa (not in astonishment). Rebbi says that they are buried, for he holds that they need Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah. Rabanan say that they are redeemed, for they hold that they do not need Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah.

Now Rebbi and Rabanan argue like this in our Mishnah. According to Rebbi, who says that they need Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah, if so their Kedushah is strong, for they are not redeemed easily. Therefore, they have Mo'el after Mo'el;

It is called something without Pegam, for from the beginning, when they were Temimim, they did not have Pegam.

Rabanan hold that Ein Mo'el after Mo'el, for their Kedushah is not strong, for they are redeemed without Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah.

Reference: In the Gemara we establish this to discuss rocks handed over to the Gizbar, because he does not remove them from Reshus Hekdesh through taking them, for as long as they are in the Gizbar's Reshus, they are in Reshus Hekdesh, until he removes them from his Reshus.