Explanation #1: [It is redeemed] even in Yerushalayim if it became Tamei, like we expound from "Lo Suchal Se'eiso" - Seis refers to eating;

What is bought with Kesef Ma'aser cannot be redeemed according to R. Yehudah. This shows that there is Tefel that is more stringent than Ikar (what is primary)! Rashi explained so.

Explanation #2 (Sifri, Parshas Aser Ta'aser): R. Yehudah's reason is due to "ha'Kesef" - the first money, and not second money.

Implied question: It says in Bava Metzi'a (45a) about converting Sela'im [silver coins of Ma'aser Sheni, to gold] Dinarim, that "Kesef... Kesef" is an inclusion [for second money]!

Answer: We can distinguish. Here, the redemption was totally completed, and he acquired Peros from Ma'aser coins. If it was Tahor, it could not be redeemed;

Source - Citation (Ma'aser Sheni 3:10 - Mishnah): They told R. Yehudah "if Ma'aser Sheni itself became Tamei, it can be redeemed. What was bought with coins of Ma'aser and became Tamei, all the more so it can be redeemed!"

Citation (cont. - R. Yehudah): No. If you say about Ma'aser Sheni itself, which can be redeemed when it is Tahor when it is far [from Yerushalayim, that if it is Tamei it can be redeemed even in Yerushalayim], will you say so about what was bought with coins of Ma'aser, which cannot be redeemed when it is Tahor when it is far?!

Alternative text: Some texts say here "if it became Tamei, yes (it can be redeemed), but not if it did not become Tamei." It brings a proof from Rabanan that there is Tefel that is more stringent than Ikar;

Explanation: What became Tamei can be redeemed according to Rabanan, but what did not become Tamei cannot be redeemed, even outside Yerushalayim, even though Ma'aser itself can be redeemed, i.e. outside Yerushalayim, for in Yerushalayim, Tahor Ma'aser cannot be redeemed.

Support (for Explanation #1): The Tosefta asks about R. Yehudah's opinion that he makes what is Tefel more stringent than Ikar;

Citation (Tosefta): What was bought with coins of Ma'aser... they told R. Yehudah "you are more stringent about the Tefel than about Ikar!"

According to [the other] text in Seforim "if it did not become Tamei, not", and it proves that also Rabanan hold that Tefel is more stringent than Ikar regarding Tahor Ma'aser outside Yerushalayim, this is difficult;

Rather than Rabanan challenging R. Yehudah, they should challenge themselves, since [they] call "Tefel is more stringent than Ikar" this that what is bought cannot be redeemed while Tahor, and Ma'aser itself can be redeemed!

However, according to Rashi's text it is fine. We can say that this is not called "Tefel is more stringent than Ikar", for Tahor Ma'aser itself may be redeemed when it is far in order to buy with the money in Yerushalayim cattle, flock, wine and strong drink, like it says "v'Nasata ha'Kesef b'Chol Asher Te'aveh Nafshecha";

However, if he bought Peros outside Yerushalayim in order to eat them in Yerushalayim, he cannot redeem them, just like he could not redeem what he bought in Yerushalayim.

Question: According to [the other] text in Seforim "if it did not become Tamei, not", it is difficult for Rashi's Perush in Bava Metzi'a (55b) regarding "we can profane [Kesef Ma'aser] silver [coins] on copper and copper on Peros, and he returns and redeems the Peros. R. Meir says so";

Chachamim say, he takes the Peros up, and eats them in Yerushalayim.

Rashi explained that Chachamim do not obligate him to profane the Peros [onto coins] like the first Tana does. Rather, if he wants, he brings up the Peros themselves, for [Chachamim] are lenient.

Inference: R. Meir is stringent. He permits profaning copper on Peros only if he will return and redeem the Peros and bring the Peros up to Yerushalayim;

Here it connotes that it is a leniency when he returns and redeems the Peros. It even connotes that there is an Isur, according to the text "if they did not become Tamei, no", for they are not redeemed when Tahor and far away!

A Mishnah in Ma'aseros (3:10) explicitly teaches this. I elaborated in Bava Metzi'a (55b).

Question: The 11th [animal to leave the pen, which he mistakenly] called Asiri requires Nesachim, and the 10th, which he [properly] called Asiri, does not require Nesachim;

We find that Tefel that is more stringent than Ikar, like we say in Menachos (91b) "we do not find anywhere [else] in the entire Torah that Tefel is more stringent than Ikar"!

Answer: We can answer like we answer here, that Mosar Pesach is a Shelamim. Also [there], the 11th is a Shelamim. It has all laws of Shelamim, like it connotes in Bechoros (61a).

Implied question: [If it is a full Shelamim,] why do we need a verse [to teach that the 11th requires Nesachim]?

Answer: Also Mosar Pesach needs a verse, like we expounded above (9a) "Im Kesev" to include Pesach whose year passed, and a Shelamim that comes due to Pesach, for all Mitzvos of Shelamim. They require Semichah, Nesachim and Tenufah of Chazah v'Shok;

This that it is called Tefel is not precise.

Question: We do not know [a source] that it is Me'akev that the Mekabel [be in the north].

Observation: This that Chatas Metzora requires Nesachim, and other Chata'os do not require Nesachim, this is not considered a Chidush;

Similarly, Ov and Yid'oni, which have Kares, unlike other witches, since [other Kishuf] is not taught among the 36 Kerisos (Kerisus 2a), and even so we learn stoning from Ov and Yid'oni to other witches, in Yevamos (4a) and in Sanhedrin (67b);

If Kares written regarding Ov and Yid'oni were considered a Chidush, how could we learn from them stoning, according to the opinion (Reish Amud B) that [also] we do not learn from the Klal from [the Chidush]? The Ri of Orlins asked this.

Explanation: Something is called a Chidush only if it contradicts its Klal, like here, that in other Ashamos, all the blood goes on the Mizbe'ach, and in Asham Metzora, we put [some] from it on the Behonos...

Also Eshes Ach, in Yevamos (7a), for all Arayos are forbidden, and this is permitted. This is a Chidush that contradicts its Klal.

However, this that Chatas Metzora requires Nesachim does not contradict its Klal. Rather, it is an addition to the Korban.

Question: According to the opinion that we learn the Klal from [the Chidush], all Ashamos should require putting blood on the Behonos, and we should learn all Arayos from Eshes Ach!

Answer: We learn from it only something that was not a Chidush in it, e.g. Shechitah in the north. However, we do not learn the Chidush from it, like Rashi explained. If we did, it would not be a Chidush (for it would apply to the Klal)!

Also, if "something that left [its Klal] to teach a new matter" would be just like [something that was in a Klal, and left the Klal] to teach about the entire Klal. (R. Yishmael counts these as two separate Midos. Surely they are not the same!)

Question: How can we learn other Ashamos from Asham Metzora? Asham Metzora is different, for it comes to permit [the Metzora to the Mikdash and Kodshim]!

Question #1: The Torah should not have written the Chatas!

Question #2: And if something learned from a Hekesh returns to teach through a Hekesh, what was it equated to Olah at all? We should know from ka'Chatas ha'Asham - just like the north is Me'akev Chatas, also Asham!

Answer: Had it not written the north, we would not think that the Torah returned it for something that does not require Kehunah, and we would not expound at all "ha'Asham" - it will be like other Ashamos, for it did not write ka'Asham, which would connote that this is like a regular Asham for [Shechitah in] the north;

However, "ha'Asham" connotes that this Asham is like a Chatas for Matanos Dam on the Mizbe'ach.

Question: Similarly, we can ask if something learned from a Hekesh returns to teach through a Hekesh, the Torah should not write the north at all, and we would learn [other] Ashamos from ka'Chatas ka'Asham, just like we learn from it Semichah above (11a)!

Also, we should learn other Ashamos from Asham Metzora, and Asham Metzora from the Hekesh ka'Chatas!

Answer: I would not think that the verse returned it for Shechitah in the north, and we would not expound "ha'Asham" - it is like [any] other Asham, since the north is not written explicitly about other Ashamos.

Question: We need this like we expound in Chulin (117a) "this comes to teach, and it turns out it is learned! Just like Me'ilah applies to Par Kohen Mashi'ach, also Shor Zevach ha'Shelamim has Me'ilah!"

Answer #1: [The Torah] could have made a Hekesh to Zevach ha'Shelamim, and not written Ka'asher Yuram, for Ka'asher Yuram connotes that it comes to include something else that is taken off.

Answer #2: The Gemara in Chulin is like Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael, who learns the Drashah here from "v'Asah la'Par" - this is Par Helam, like it says above (41a);

However, according to Tana d'Vei Rav, who says that "v'Asah la'Par" - this is Par Yom Kipur, we need Ka'asher Yuram for this Drashah.

Question: It says above (41a) that a parable for this is a mortal king who became angry at his dear friend. He abbreviated [the record of] his wrongdoing due to his dearness! (This is why the Torah did not write explicitly regarding Par Helam!)

Answer: [Yisrael's] dearness is not a reason to go roundabout with these Drashos and learn from a Hekesh.

Implied question: If so (the reason it is not written directly is not due to their dearness), how do we learn their dearness?

Answer: Since [the Torah] did not teach elsewhere that something learned from a Hekesh does not return to teach through a Hekesh [and it taught specify regarding Par Helam, this shows their dearness].

Question: Since we learn them from each other through a Gezeirah Shavah, why do we need the Hekeshim above "ka'Chatas ha'Asham"?