Text: This is the correct text; what it means is that ...

Clarification: ... the Machlokes about whether wood is subject to the sanctity of Shevi'is encompasses all types of wood ...

Reason: ... because, since the reason of the one who permits it is due to the fact that the Hana'ah comes after it has been destroyed, Rebbi Yossi, who does not hold of the D'rashah 'Hana'asan u'Biy'uran Shaveh' with regard to the fruit of Sh'mitah

Reason (cont.): .. will also Darshen it with regard to Kedushas Shevi'is taking effect on everything.

Question: According to Rebbi Yossi, how can one permit lighting an oven with the wood in Eretz Yisrael, bearing in mind that it is subject to Isur Shevi'is after the time of Biy'ur?

Answer #1: It becomes Bateil in the wood of the other years.

Answer #2 (Alternative Text): One can also answer according to the text cited in the Sefarim 'Eitzim de'Hasakah Tana'i Hi' - which means that wood that has the Kedushah of Shevi'is, such as a Lulav, which possesses the sanctity of Shevi'is, because, since S'tam it is designated for sweeping the house, it falls under the category of 'Hana'aso u'Biy'uro Shaveh ...

Answer #2 (cont.): ... whether one is permitted to light an oven with it, where the Hana'ah comes after it has been burned, or not ...

Answer #2 (cont.): As we learned in the Beraisa which prohibits handing over the fruit of Shevi'is ... ; so we see that the Rabanan forbid burning it, whilst Rebbi Yossi permits it ...

Answer #2 (concl.): Both agree however, that other wood is not subject to Kedushas Shevi'is.

Refutation: The reasoning however, does not go well ...

Reason: ... because, just as Rebbi Yossi Darshens "lachem", 'le'Chol Tzorcheichem' with regard to the fruit of Sh'mitah, and he doesn't require "lachem" similar to "le'Ochlah", so too, with regard to Kedushas Shevi'is, should he Darshen on anything which is "lachem"? Why should there be any difference ...

Reason (cont.): ... seeing as it all learned from the same Pasuk - "ve'Haysah Shabbas ha'Aretz lachem le'Ochlah"?

Explanation: Because sometimes Rebbi would learn them not necessarily in the right order, in which case perhaps he cited Bava Metzi'a before Bava Kama ...

Explanation (cont.): Ultimately however, he certainly arranged them in the correct order, as the Gemara explains at the beginning of Shevu'os (Daf 3b) 'Indeed, the Tana has come from Makos ... ' (See Masores ha'Shas).

Question: Why does it refer to the case of 'Kol ha'Chozer bo Yado al ha'Tachtonah' as 'Hilch'sa Pesikta', seeing as in Perek ha'Umnin (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 77b) the Gemara establishes it as an individual opinon - like Rebbi Dosa with whom the Rabanan argue ...

Question (cont.): ... and it is evident there in the case of 'Kol ha'Chozer bo' that Rav does not hold like Rebbi Dosa.

Answer #1: The Gemara here holds like the second answer of the Gemara there, which states that 'Kol ha'Chozer bo Yado al ha'Tachtonah' comes to include (the case cited there in another Beraisa).

Answer #2: Other commentaries explain that the Gemara refers to it as 'Hilch'sa Pesikta' because the Lashon 'Kol ha'Chozer' and 'Kol ha'Meshaneh' imply that it is a P'sak Halachah (See Masores ha'Shas).

Clarification: It speaks where Reuven gave it to Shimon for half the profits - that should there be a loss, then the loss is his, but if there are profits, then they will share them.

Inferred Halachah: One can prove from here that if Reuven gives Shimon money for half the profits, and he stipulates that he is only permitted to lend it against securities of gold or silver, and that he hides it in the ground (See Bava Metzi'a 42a) ...

Inferred Halachah (cont.): ... and that if he negates the conditions, the money will be in his domain to be held liable for whatever happens to it, and that if it is devalued, the loss will be his exclusively - it is not Ribis.

Proof: ... since we see here that if Shimon negates the conditions, then he has to bear the loss, yet if there will be profits, they will be shared, and it is not Ribis ...

Reason: ... This is because, if Shimon does not negate the conditions, it will not be in his domain, and they will share both the profits and the losses equally ...

Precedent: ... like the Din by a half-loan and half deposit.

Clarification: Consequently, if there is a profit, they both share it, since he gave it to him on that condition ...

Clarification cont.): Whereas if it deteriorates, the loss is his ...

Reason: ... because he can say to him 'You should not have deviated from my wishes, and you are the one who was negligent!'

Explanation #1: If what the Gemara means is that it is for this reason that it is not the sender who acquires it but the purchaser - the Shali'ach ...

Question: ... one can also query Rebbi Elazar as to why he does not establish both Beraisos like Rebbi Yehudah, one with regard to eating, the other, with regard to doing business ...

First Beraisa: The Beraisa which states 'Im Pichsu, Pichsu lo, ve'Im Hosiru, Hosiru lo' speaks with regard to eating, since he (the sender) is particular, in which case he (the Shali'ach) did not perform his mission

First Beraisa (cont.): Consequently, he does not acquire it at all on behalf of the owner of the money, due to the reason 'Who informed the owner of the wheat?' ...

Second Beraisa: Whereas the Beraisa which states 'Im Hosiru, Hosiru le'Emtza' speaks with regard to business, because, since he (the owner of the money) is not particular and he performed his mission, he acquires it, in which case, should the price go up, they share the profits.

Second Beraisa (cont.): Nevertheless, if the price drops, the loss is his (the Shali'ach's), since he can say to him 'I sent you to my advantage, and not to my detriment!' (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).

Answer: Only the Kashya is not so strong on Rebbi Elazar as it is on Rebbi Yochanan, which is why the Gemara asks only on Rebbi Yochanan.

Explanation #2: But if the Gemara means when it says 'Who informed the owner of the wheat ... ?' that consequently, neither the owner of the money acquires it nor the Shali'ach ...

Reason: Because, since he did not intend to acquire it for himself, the sale turns out to have been made in error ...

Answer to Implied Question: ... then one cannot ask on Rebbi Elazar ...

Reason: ... since one cannot then establish both Beraisos like Rebbi Yehudah, because, since Shinuy is not Koneh according to him, why does the Beraisa say 'In Pichsu, Pichsu lo, even with regard to eating ...

Reason: Seeing as he is particular and the Shali'ach is not carrying out his mission, and the question arises 'Who informed the owner to acquire the wheat to the owner of the money?' ...

Conclusion: If so, the sale in negated, in which case, why 'Im Pichsu, Pichsu lo, ve'Im Hosiru, Hosiru lo' - which implies that the Shali'ach acquires it?

Question #1: Why does the Gemara see fit to cite the Mishnah?

Question #1 (cont.): ... seeing as the Beraisa itself implies that, when it specifically mentions 'to purchase with them wheat and he purchased barley', implying that in a case of 'wheat and wheat' it takes for granted that 'Im Hosiru, Hosiru le'Emtza'?

Question #2: And this is implied from Rebbi Elazar's answer, that 'One speaks about business' - implying that because it is for business, he is not particular, and it is akin to Chitin and Chitin, in which case 'Im Hosiru, Hosiru le'Emtza'.

Answer: It is possible to establish the Beraisa where he informed him that he is purchasing it on behalf of the owner of the money ...

Implied Question: ... and when the Gemara asks 'Who informed him ... '?

Answer: ... it assumes that in all probability, the Tana is speaking in all cases, even where he did not inform him ...

Answer (cont.): ... and when Rav Shmuel asks 'If so, even Chitin and Chinim too?' - if it speaks where he did not inform him.

Answer (cont. [Gemara's Question]): ... it must therefore be speaking where he did inform him.

Answer (concl. [Gemara's Answer]): And the Gemara answers that 'wheat and wheat' is different, seeing as he carried out his mission, as the Mishnah explains ... ' ...

Answer (concl.): Now it certainly needs to cite the Mishnah, seeing as from the actual Beraisa one cannot extrapolate anything, since one can establish it where he informed him.

Question: How is the proof any better from the Mishnah, bearing in mind that it too, one could establish where he informed the dyer that the wool belonged to his wife?

Answer: The cases are not comparable - because, whereas earlier it is feasible to say that he informed him, so that he should be Makneh the wheat to the owner of the money, why should he inform him here, bearing in mind that he intends to give it to her afterwards, and as for the Hekdesh, he did not yet have it in mind.

Question: What is the Kashya? It will be fine if we hold 'Yesh Sh'vach Sam'manim al Gabei ha'Tzemer', but if we say 'Ein Sh'vach Sam'manim al Gabei ha'Tzemer', what difference will it make if the dyer is not Makneh his dye to the woman?

Answer: The Kashya is that since the dyer is not Makneh his dye to the woman, in which case he is able to claim the Sh'vach from her ...

Implied Question: ... since even if 'Ein Sh'vach Sam'manim al Gabei ha'Tzemer ...

Answer: ... nevertheless, she benefits from his work, in which case she is obligated to pay him S'chirus (remuneration) ...

Answer (cont.): ... and seeing as he is able to claim S'chirus from her, the money that he receives from her husband is Hekdesh ...

Reason (cont.): ... because, since the woman is Chayav to pay S'chirus, it (that money) is not (also) S'chirus.

Implied Question: And according to Tosfos' explanation earlier (DH 'Mi Hodi'o ... ') - that, since he did not inform the owner of the wheat to be Makneh the wheat to the owner of the money, the sale is negated ...

Answer: ... the Gemara can only be asking here that the money that the dyer received should be Hekdesh ...

Answer (cont.): ... even if 'Yesh Sh'vach Sam'manim al Gabei ha'Tzemer', neither the woman nor the husband acquires it, and the dye returns to the R'shus of the dyer wherever it is ...

Answer (cont.): ... in which case Hekdesh receives nothing of the dye other than the money that the dyer received, which become Hekdesh since they are returned to the owner, and the dyer goes and claims his remuneration from the woman ...

Conclusion (Gemara's Question): So why does the Tana say 'Ein lo le'Ba'al bi'Kesus Ishto', implying that she gets it for nothing?

Gemara's Answer: The Gemara answers that a person does not generally have in mind to include his wife's clothes in the Hekdesh...

Conclusion: ... therefore he does not intend to declare the money that he gave to the dyer Hekdesh, so he won't go and claim from the woman.

Question: According to this reason, the Gemara ought to have asked 'That is fine regarding Hekdesh, which depends on his intentions, and since he did not intend to declare it Hekdesh, it is not Hekdesh ...

Question (cont.): ... but as far as Erchin is concerned, since he was Ma'arich himself, what difference does it make that he did not intend to include them in the Erech, seeing as whether he likes it or not, everything that he has is included?

Answer: It is only because, since the Gemara had another Pircha that it did not take the trouble to ask this one.