Clarification: Rashi explains that we force the seller to return the money, since it is an erroneous sale ...

Reason: Because had he (the purchaser) realized that it is Ma'aser-money, he would not have purchased it (the animal), seeing as it entails the trouble of taking it to Yerushalayim

Reason (cont.): And he would have preferred to take the money.

Question: How is this a K'nas for the seller? On the contrary, he benefits from it, inasmuch as he becomes Patur from going to Yerushalayim, seeing as, having ruled that the money must be returned, he no longer has possesion of the Ma'aser Sheini money?

Answer: To make return the money to the purchaser is certainly a K'nas, since without retrning it, we could have exempted him from taking it to Yerushalayim ...

Answer (cont.): By requiring the purchaser to redeem the Kedushah of the Ma'aser-money in the hands of the seller, seeing as he (the seller) is in front of u. and he (the purchaser) would then have had to take it up to Yerushlayim.

Conclusion: And that is in fact, what the Gemara means when it asks 'Why not penalize the purchaser?' - to make him eat food corresponding to the money, in Yerushalayim - by transferring on to it the Ma'aser-money in the hands of the seller.

Question: Who is the author of the Beraisa - if it is the Rabbanan, they say (in Sukkah, 42b) 'Ein Mischal'lin' even Bedi'eved, whereas if it is Rebbi Meir, he holds 'Mechal'lin' even Lechatchilah ...

Source: As the Tosefta states in Maseches Shevi'is (Perek 6), where it says that 'One may redeem both Shevi'is and Ma'aser Sheini on a Chayah, Beheimah or Of, or on an animal that is blemished'.

Implied Question: And the reason that the Tana mentions earlier in the opinion of Rebbi Meir 'Mischal'lin', implying Bedi'eved is ...

Answer: Because the Chidush of the Rabbanan - to teach us even Bedi'eved they are not redeemed.

Answer to Main Question: The Ri answers that it goes like the Rabbanan, and the reason that it is Mischalel here on an animal is - becasuse it is speaking about one that is unblemished, which is fit to bring as a Shelamim, which he brings to Yerushaslayim and eats there as such ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas there it is speaking about an animal that is blemished, which is not fit to be brought as a Shelamim, and can therefore not be redeemed even Bedi'eved, a decree in case he raises herd upon herd of animals.

Proof: And so it also says in the Tosefta of Ma'aser Sheini, in the Beraisa in connection with the words of Rebbi Yehudah - 'If the animal was blemished, or his fruits Tamei, then whether be'Shogeg or be'Meizid, the money must be returned to its place'.

Implied Question: And as for the case in 'ha'Gozel Kama (Bava Kama, Daf 97b), where it is says that he should purchase an animal (with the money of Bavel) and bring it' ...

Answer #1: Presumably that goes according to Rebbi Meir, who says that one may redeem it Lechatchilah.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it goes like the Rabbanan, and even Lechatchilah - in order to rectify the money of Bavel, which cannot otherwise be spent in Yerushalayim (above, 23b).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that he purchased it with the intention of eating it outside Yerushalayim.

Explanation #1: 'Bein Shogeg' does not refer to 'Miskaven Lehotzi le'Chulin', because if it did, it would not be Shogeg.

Explanation #1 (cont.): And 'Miskaven' refers to 'Meizid', and what it means is that - If he purchased it as Chulin, and his Meizid is that he had the intention of taking the Ma'aser out to Chulin ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): 'Whether Shogeg or Meizid, the money must be returned to its place'

Reason: Shogeg - because it is an erroneous sale; Meizid - because we penalize the seller, as the Gemara will say further on 'It is not the mouse that is the thief but the hole'.

Question: But, asks the Gemara, did Rebbi Yehudah not say in the Mishnah 'be'Meizid Kidesh'?, meaning that, since there is no error, merely on the basis of a K'nas, the Rabbanan did not declare Bitul, like we just said here - in that 'the money must be returned to its place'?

Answer: 'Rebbi Elazar says' that in our Mishnah, we cannot penalize him at all, because - 'Every woman knows ... ', and she had no intention of taking it out to Chulin; Whereas the seller (in the Beraisa) knows that the money is transferred on to the animal, and is therefore Chulin in his hands, in which case he is guilty of "Lifnei Iver Lo Siten Michshol" ...

Answer (cont.): Since he knows that the purchaser intends to eat it in his home town (Rashi).

Question #1: There are many questions on this; Firsdtly, are we speaking about Resha'im - inasmuch as Rashi explains that the purchaser intends to eat the animal outside Yerushalayim?

Question #2: Moreover, how does "Lifnei Iver Lo Siten Michshol" apply here, seeing as if he will not purchase the animal from the seller, somebody else will? ...

Reason: And "Lifnei Iver' only applies on two opposite sides of a river or - where one hands over a cup of wine to a Nazir, or by Eiver min ha'Chai to a ben No'ach, as the Gemara explains in the first Perek of Avodah Zarah (Daf 6b)?

Question #3: And furthermore, it implies from his explanation that the animal adopts the Kedushah and the money becomes Chulin - Is it because of a K'nas that we obligate the money to be returned to its place and the seller should be permitted to eat the animal outside Yerushalayim?

Refuted Answer: And one cannot answer that the purchaser must then transfer the Kedushah of the animal on to the money ...

Refutation: Since we are currently holding like Rebbi Yehudah, who maintains that 'Something that is bought with the money of Ma'aser Sheini, cannot be redeemed, since the Kedushah is not powerful enough to be transferred (Zevachim, Daf 40a).

Question #4: And finally, what is the Kashya from Rebbi Yehudah in the Mishnah, who says "Kidesh"? the cases are not comparable, seeing as here the purchaser explicitly states that he will not take the animal to Yerushalayim, whereas in the Mishnah, the woman says that she will?

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains 'Aval be'Miskaven Lehotzi Ma'os Ma'aser le'Chulin' to mean that - he stipulated with the seller that the Kedushah of the money would not take effect on the animal, but that the money would retain its Kedushah and the seller would take it to Yerushalayim ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): And what 'Miskaven Lehotzi Ma'os Ma'aser Sheini le'Chulin' means is that its Kedushah should not take effect on his animal; 'The money must be returned to its place' ...

Reason: Because we are afraid that the seller will spend the money outside Yerushalayim, thinking that the Kedushas Ma'aser Sheini has left them ...

Implied Question: In spite of the purchaser's stipulation ...

Answer: Because he thinks that he cannot remove the Kedushah of the money (from the animal) ...

Reason: Seeing as he sold him something that is eligible to transfer the Kedushah on to it.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Now the Gemara's Kashya 've'Ha T'nan be'Meizid Kidesh?' is justified ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Since there the Kedushah of the money is not transferred, yet we leave it in the hands of the woman, and rely on her to take it to Yerushalayim

Explanation #2 (cont.): Here too, why is the sale Bateil? Let the seller likewise take the money to Yerushalayim and spend it there with the Kedushah of Ma'aser?

Explanation #2 (cont.): And the Gemara answers 'A woman knows ... ' , whereas here the seller does not know

Explanation #2 (concl.): He thinks that because he sold him something that is eligible to transfer the Kedushah on to it, the purchaser's condition does not take effect, and the money goes out to Chulin; so if we tell him to take it to Yerushalayim, he will not believe it.

Clarification: On which the money is not fit to be transferred, yet the Tana says 'He should eat corresponding to it (the money [Yochal ke'Negdan])', and not 'A man knows ... ', in which case by a woman too, he ought to have said that the husband must eat corresponding to the money in Yerushalayim?

Explanation #1: Rashi interprets 'Yochal ke'Negdan' to mean that the purchaser must take his own money and declare that 'Wherever the money in the hands of the seller is, it should be redeemed on this money', and take it to Yerushalayim and spend it there.

Question: The Riva queries this however, from the fact that the Gemara will shortly establish it where the purchaser fled, in which case how can the purchaser redeem it, seeing as one cannot redeem something that is not in his domain? ...

Source: As the Gemara says in Merubeh (Bav Kama, Daf 69a) in the Sugya of 'Tzenu'in', where the Gemara asks on Rebbi Yochanan, who says that 'Gezel on which the owner has not been Meya'esh, neither of them can declare it Hekdesh; the one because it is not his, the other, because it is not in his domain' ...

Source (cont.): And the Gemara asks from the Tzenu'in, whi would say 'Whatever has been picked from this tree will be redeemed on this money? And it answers by changing the text to 'Whatever will be picked ... ' ...

Source (cont.): From which we see that one can be redeem Hekdesh ... ' (See Tosfos ha'Rosh).

Explanation #2: The Riva therefore explains that it is merely a K'nas, in that the Chachamim penalized the purchaser, but the money remains Kadosh in the hands of the seller.

Reinstating Explanation #1: ha'Rav R. Meir however, explains that it is different here, inasmuch as the purchaser is able to redeem the Ma'aser in the hands of the seller ...

Reason: Because it is a Z'chus (a benefit) for the seller, and 'Zachin le'Adam she'Lo be'Fanav (One can benefit a person even not in his presence)' ...

Reason: Since 'Zechiyah' is based on Shelichus (See Masores ha'Shas), in which case he is like a Shali'ach.

Proof: And so the Gemara says in Nedarim (Daf 36b), where the Gemara asks whether someone who takes Terumah on behalf of his friend needs the knowledge of the owner or not ...

Proof (cont.): Whether we say that it is a Z'chus on behalf of the owner, and 'Zachin le'Adam she'Lo be'Fanav', or whether perhaps 'A person prefers to perform a Mitzvah with his money personally' (Nicha leih le'Inash le'Me'ebad Mitzvah be'Mamoneih)'?

Proof (cont.): And the Gemara only asks the She'eilah there because of the possibility that 'Nicha leih le'Inash le'Me'ebad Mitzvah be'Mamoneih'; but where there is only a Z'chus, such as in our case, we will do it on his behalf.

Proof (cont.): But in the case of the Tzenu'in we cannot say that, seeing as the Gazlanim themselves are not able to rectify that what they have in their hands, seeing as it is not their's ...

Proof (concl.): And it is a case of 'Gezel ve'Lo Nisya'ashu ha'Ba'alim', and since they can do nothing, neither can their Sha'li'ach.

Conclusion: Now we can understand why when the money is in the hands of the seller, it goes out to Chulin in the event that the purchaser spends the money corresponingly, even though it is not in his possession ...

Conclusion: Because seeing as it is a Z'chus for the seller, the purchaser becomes his Shali'sach to redeem it.

Clarification: This refers to the case of 'Ein Lokchin Avadim',

Clarification: Like the case cited earlier, which said that 'The money must be returned to its original owner ...

Reason: Who wants to sell his animal outside Yerushalayim, so it is a K'nas when it is returned to him.

Clarification: This means that he must spend money correspondingly in Yerushalayim, and the sale is not Bateil.

Clarification (cont.): This goes nicely according to the Ram (See Amud Alef, DH 'Maskif lah') - in that the money that is in the hands go out to Chulin via the purchaser ...

Question: But according to the Riva, what is the Gemara's Kashya? On the contrary, surely it is better to penalize the seller - to remove the Isur from him, than to penalize the purchaser - and for the Osur to remain in his hands ...

Question (cont.): with reference to the money that was not redeemed, which he might then go and eat outside Yerushalayim, thinking that it was?

Answer: According to him (the Riva), the Gemara is asking that we ought to penalize the purchaser by making him go to seller's house and say to him 'The money that is in your hands that is Kadosh is hereby redeemed on to this money', at which point it goes out to Chulin.

Clarification: And this is the seller, seeing as the money of Ma'aser is in his domain ...

Clarification (cont.): That is why they penalized him by returning the money to its place - in other words, his animal is not sold.

Refutation: This is a Dochek according to the explanation of the Riva (on Amud Alef). who explains that the money in the hands of the seller retains the Kedushah of Ma'aser, and he is obligated to to take it to Yerushalayim ...

Refutation: In which case, on the contrary, it is to his benefit to return the money to its place, as he would prefer to get his animal back than to have to take the money to Yerushalayim.

Clarification (cont.): But according to the explanation of the Ram (Ibid.), it is fine.

Question: It poses a Kashya on Rashi's explanation however, who explained earlier by 'Aval Miskaven Lehotzi Ma'os Ma'aser le'Chulin' - that the money goes out to Chulin and the animal is Kadosh, and it is connection with that that the Gemara said 'Yachz'ru Damim li'Mekamom' ...

Question (cont.): According to this S'vara, it is the purchaser who ought to be penalized - in that he should have to spend the money in Yerushalayim, since the Isur - the animal, is in his hands? ...

Question (concl.): Whereas according to the Riva, this is not a problem, seeing as the Isur (the money) is in the hands of the seller.

Question: When the Gemara asked earlier that 'We should penalize the purchaser' - in that he must eat correspondingly in Yerushalayim, what sort of a K'nas is that ...

Question (cont.): Because, even if the money is returned to its place, the purchaser will have to take it to Yerushalayim?

Answer: It is a K'nas, seeing as presumably, he paid a lot of money for the animal with the Ma'aser Sheini money, in order to save himself from having to go to Yerushalayim ...

Answer (cont.): And when he is now told to spend the money correspondingly in Yerushalayim, and that the sale will be valid, he will suffer a big loss in the purchase of the animal that he bought.

Reason: Because it is Asur be'Hana'ah.

Question: Bearing in mind that one is permitted to benefit from it in an unconventional manner, as the Gemar says in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim, Daf 24b), why is she not Mekudeshes?

Answer #1: It speaks here where it is only worth a P'rutah if one uses it conventionally.

Answer #2: Alternatively, even if it is speaking where it is worth a P'tutah either way, nevertheless, since the woman thinks that she has to benefit from it in the conventional manner - even though that is not the case - she does not rely on it, and she is therefore not Mekudeshes.

Question: Why does the Mishnah not mention Pigul, Nosar and Tamei?

Answer: The Tana is not talking about Kodshim.

Implied Question: Nor does he mention Chametz on Pesach ...

Answer: Because he holds like Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili who permits having benefit from it.

Question: And the reason that he does not mention Avodas-Kochavim is ...

Answer: One cannot say regarding it 'Machean ve'Kidesh be Dameihen, Mekudeshes' ...

Reason: Seeing as the Isur of Avodas-Kochavim extends to its proceeds (later, on Daf 58a) ...

Shevi'is: As is the case with Shevi'is after the time of Biy'ur.

Implied Question: Despite the fact that it has aleardy mentioned 'Lo Yeheneh', the Tana needs to mention 'she'Lo Yetzaba ... ' ...

Answer: Because we would otherwise have thought that 'mere appearance is counted as nothing' (See Bava Kama, 101a).

Implied Question: And he needs to mention 'she'Lo Yadlik ... '

Answer: Because we would otherwise have thought that it is permitted, seeing as he destroys it

Answer (cont.): He therefore teaches us that it is Asur under all circumstances ...

Conclusion: Provided one benefits from it in the conventional manner, but in an unusual way, it is permitted Look carefully at Tosfos, Bava Kama, Daf 101a, DH 've'Lo Yetzaba').