- אונאה אין להם ביטול מקח יש להם
Rebbe Ami was quoted as asking: אונאה אין להם – the Mishnah taught that certain categories are not subject to אונאה; ביטול מקח יש להם או אין להן – are they subject to the law of voiding the sale for a discrepancy greater than a sixth, or not? He was later quoted as having concluded that they are subject to ביטול מקח. Rebbe Yochanan ruled similarly, but Amoraim argued about which category he was discussing. Rebbe Yonah said: אהקדשות – he was speaking about hekdesh, and Rebbe Yirmiyah said: אקרקעות – he was speaking about land. The Gemara explains that according to Rebbe Yonah, that he included even hekdesh in ביטול מקח, the same certainly applies to land. However, according to Rebbe Yirmiyah, that Rebbe Yochanan’s ruling included land in ביטול מקח, it does not apply to hekdesh, because Shmuel said: הקדש שוה מנה – hekdesh property worth a maneh, שחיללו על שוה פרוטה – which one deconsecrated on something worth only a perutah, מחולל – it is deconsecrated, despite the discrepancy being greater than a sixth.
- Exchanging hekdesh for something less valuable
A Mishnah teaches that if someone is mechalel a hekdesh animal (which is blemished, and invalid as a korban) with an animal of lesser value, יצא לחולין וצריך לעשות לו דמים – it becomes chullin, but he must make up its full value. Rebbe Yochanan says the chilul is Biblically effective, and he must make up the difference Rabbinically. Reish Lakish says he is Biblically required to make up the difference. The Gemara first explains the machlokes in a case of ביטול מקח (i.e., a discrepancy greater than a sixth). According to Rebbe Yonah (above), that Rebbe Yochanan holds ביטול מקח applies to hekdesh, these opinion must be reversed. Two explanations are given for their argument: (1) they argue about Shmuel’s principle, if hekdesh worth a maneh which was deconsecrated on a perutah’s worth becomes chullin. (2) All agree with Shmuel’s principle but argue if one is permitted to do so. Alternatively, the Gemara says their argument is where the discrepancy was a sixth (and the opinions are not reversed). The opinion which Biblically requires full payment holds like Rav Chisda, who interpreted the Mishnah’s statement to mean hekdesh does not have the normal laws of אונאה; rather, even less than a sixth must be returned.
- רבית דהקדש
A Baraisa taught that the prohibition of רבית – interest does not apply to hekdesh. The Gemara wonders what the case is. If the treasurer lent someone one hundred coins of hekdesh to repay one hundred twenty, the treasurer committed me’ilah by lending the money, which then becomes chullin and is subject to רבית!? Rav Hosyaha explained the case is where someone agreed to supply fine flour to the Mikdash at a price of four סאה per sela (before a market price was established), and the price went up to three סאה per sela, giving the impression that the buyer (hekdesh) received a better price for his advance payment. This is prohibited for ordinary people, but permitted for hekdesh. Rav Pappa explains that the Baraisa refers to an actual loan: הכא באבני בנין המסורות לגזבר עסקינן – here we are discussing stones used for Mikdash construction, which were given to the treasurer, before they were made hekdesh, as Shmuel said: בונין בחול – they initially build structures for the Mikdash with stones of chullin, ואחר כך מקדישין – and afterwards are makdish them. In order to avoid people transgressing me’ilah from the stones during the construction, they did not purchase materials with hekdesh funds, but bought them on credit, and were makdish them after construction was complete. Such stones can be lent with רבית without violating me’ilah.