Explanation #1 (Rashbam): He transgresses Me'ilah for leaving his items in the pit. (This is benefit from the pit.)

Rebuttal (R. Tam): It says in Gitin (39a) and Sanhedrin (15a) that if one was Makdish his slave, Me'ilah does not apply to his hair, because he is equated to land.

Inference: Me'ilah does not apply what is attached [to the ground].

It says also in Me'ilah (13a) that if one threshes (Chulin) Kala'ilin (a kind of legume) in a Hekdesh field, he is Mo'el (for benefit from the field. Ravina) infers that dust is beneficial for it.

Inference: [He is Mo'el] only in dust that was already detached, but he was not Mo'el due to the field, which is attached!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Me'ilah applies to a pit, e.g. he uprooted a ring [of earth] from a pit and benefited from it.

Explanation: We do not say that a Chatzer of Hekdesh acquires [for Hekdesh], like a person's Chatzer acquires [for him], for a Chatzer was included (that it can acquire) because it is like a Yad, and we do not find that Hekdesh has a Yad.

Assertion: The text does not say so. This is not in the Mishnah in Me'ilah (13a).

Implied question: In the Beraisa, Rebbi says "R. Yehudah's words seem correct"!

Answer: Rebbi knew that it is R. Yehudah's opinion.

Implied question: Why is this fine? [Rebbi] says that [R. Yehudah's opinion] seems correct, which implies that R. Yosi argues with him about a pit and dovecote, and [really,] R. Yosi argues only about a field and tree!

Answer: Surely "R. Yehudah's words seem correct regarding a pit and dovecote" is fine, for we can explain that even R. Yosi argues only about a field and tree;

However, "R. Yosi's words seem correct regarding a field and tree", we cannot resolve this unless we erase "seem correct."

Explanation: Rebbi needed to teach that we should not say that [R. Yosi] said according to R. Yehudah's opinion.

Explanation: All agree that if one sold a tree, he sold the Peros. (Likewise, if one was Makdish a tree, he was Makdish the Peros. Why does R. Elazar say that Me'ilah does not apply?)

Regarding a pit and dovecote, surely [Tana'im] argue about [if one sold them], whether or not he sold the contents, like it says below.

Observation: We could have said all agree that Me'ilah applies to it, but not to its contents, according to the opinion that Me'ilah does not apply what grows.

Implied suggestion: We could not have said that they argue about both, i.e. a pit and dovecote, and a field and tree, when he was Makdish them empty, and they filled up!

Partial rejection: We could not say so according to what the Ri explains below, that he can be Makdish Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam only if he acquired them (the matters that come later) first.

Implied question: We could have said they argue about whether the Peros of the tree or field become Kodesh if they come to his Reshus!

Answer: He did not want to say that they argue about [a tree and field, rather, only about] a pit and dovecote, similar to the Seifa.

Question: Where do we find that R. Meir says that Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam? It is from one who tells a woman "you are Mekudeshes to me after I convert (or I or you are freed)..."

R. Meir says that she is Mekudeshes, like it says in Yevamos (93b). That is not common to occur, for who says that his master will free him?!

Answer #1 (Rashbam): We discuss when his master promised to free him, like it says in Yevamos (35a) that she heard from her master's house (that he will free her).

Answer #2 (Rivan): All the cases [that R. Meir discusses there] commonly come, e.g. a half [male Kena'ani] slave, half free man (Chachamim enacted that his master must free him, to enable him to have children)...

Also a Shifchah, who is half [a female Kena'ani] slave, and half free, and men were wantonly having Bi'ah with her, we force her master to free her, like it says in Yevamos (66a);

[If he was Mekadesh her] "after your husband or sister (my wife) will die (he cannot marry her until they die; these are considered common to come, for it) discusses when they are Goses (about to die);

[If he was Mekadesh her "after] your Yavam will do Chalitzah" (this is considered common to come, for the Tana holds that) the Mitzvah of Chalitzah has precedence over the Mitzvah of Yibum. Alternatively, it discusses a woman who must do Chalitzah, and may not do Yibum.

Question: It says in Kesuvos (58b) that (if one was Makdish his wife's earnings, the excess (what she earns more than the Mishnah on 64b obligates her to produce), R. Meir says that it is Hekdesh;

The Gemara explains that he means that it is Kadosh after she dies, for R. Meir holds that one can be Makdish Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam, even if it is not common to come, that she will die before her husband.

Suggestion: Perhaps this is when she was Goses.

Rejection: We cannot say so, for she works, like the Mishnah teaches "she works and eats"!

Answer: The case is, she is sick or old.

Answer #3 (to Question (a) - R. Eliezer of Plira): Since the body is in the world, just it is not proper for a Kinyan like all the others, it is considered common to come.

Implied question: The excess [earnings] is Kadosh even though it is not in the world, and it is not common to come that she will die first!

Answer: Even so, since extra is common to come, it is considered as if it is already in the world, and if it were in the world, we would not require that it is common that she dies before the husband.

Question: It asks here "who says that it will come?" [According to Answer #3,] we do not require that it is common to come regarding something in the world, and the water is in the world!

Answer: It is not considered in the world, since it is not in front of us.

Answer #4 (to Question (a)): Peros of a date tree and all of them [listed here], there is only one "who says", so it is considered common to come.

In Bava Metzi'a (33b) it does not consider Kefel (that an owner is Makneh to a Shomer) common to come because there are too many "who says", like it says there - who says that [the deposit] will be stolen, and if you will say that it will be stolen, who says that the thief will be found, and if you will say that he will be found, perhaps he will admit and be exempt [from Kefel].

Question #1: Our Gemara is difficult for Answer #4! Even though there is only one "who says", doves of a dovecote and water of a pit are not considered prone to come!

Question #2: Even without this, why aren't they considered prone to come, just like Peros of a date tree?

It is normal that the dovecote fill with doves, and the pit fills with water when rain falls. In all of Eretz Yisrael, they drank only rainwater (it was very common)!

Question #3: It connotes that if they were prone to come, that would be fine. Still, it is difficult why the water and doves are Kadosh, even if one can be Makdish Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam;

They do not become Kadosh through the Chatzer of Hekdesh, for Hekdesh does not have a Chatzer, like I explained above (79a DH v'Ein);

Also due to what he is Makdish, they do not become Kadosh, for how can he be Makdish something that will never come to his Reshus, and he will never acquire it?!

Answer #1 (Ri): Our Gemara means "who says that they will come to his Reshus, and he will acquire it? Surely they will never come to his Reshus;

Why does Me'ilah apply to the contents? He cannot be Makdish it, since they did not come to his Reshus!"

The Gemara answers that they come through the Chatzer to the pit, and through his dovecote to the dovecote [of Hekdesh], so he acquires them first. Therefore, he is able to be Makdish them.

Answer #2 (Rashba): If they were prone to come, it would be fine that he can be Makdish them, for we can explain that he was Makdish a pit or dovecote on condition that he has rights in the pit or dovecote to acquire water and doves for the needs of Hekdesh.

Question (Rashba): How can he make it totally Hekdesh, that Me'ilah applies to them? He does not totally acquire them!

We hold (Bava Metzi'a 102a) that Gezel does not apply to doves (mid'Oraisa, for one does not truly acquire them), only due to Darchei Shalom!

Answer (Ri): One acquires eggs and chicks mid'Oraisa (because they cannot fly away).

Question: Why doesn't it list R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon in Kidushin (62b)?

Abaye said that R. Eliezer ben Yakov, R. Meir and Rebbi, all of them hold that Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam, and we ask that he should list also R. Yehudah ha'Nasi and R. Akiva, and we answered!

Answer (Rashba): We ask only from those. We asked from R. Yehudah ha'Nasi, for he was mentioned in the same Beraisa that mentioned R. Meir;

We asked from R. Akiva, for he was the Rebbi of R. Eliezer ben Yakov, and presumably, R. Eliezer ben Yakov heard from R. Akiva his Rebbi;

It says in Yevamos (93a) that Rebbi holds like R. Meir, and R. Meir like R. Eliezer ben Yakov, and R. Eliezer ben Yakov like R. Akiva.