Question (Rav Ami): The Mishnah listed things to which Ona'ah (returning an overcharge or undercharge of a sixth) does not apply. Is the sale invalid if the error was more than this?

(Rav Nachman): He later concluded that the sale is invalid.

(R. Yonah citing R. Yochanan): Ona'ah does not apply to Hekdesh, but cancellation of the sale does apply.

(R. Yirmiyah citing R. Yochanan): Ona'ah does not apply to land, but cancellation of the sale does apply.

R. Yonah said so about Hekdesh (even though only one party, i.e. the person, erred). All the more so it applies to land (in which the buyer and seller erred);

R. Yirmiyah said so about land, but regarding Hekdesh, the sale is never invalid.

(Shmuel): If 100 Maneh (10,000 Dinarim) were redeemed on a Perutah, the redemption works.

(Mishnah): If Reuven said 'this Korban is redeemed onto this animal' if the Korban was blemished, it is redeemed, but Reuven must compensate Hekdesh if the redemption is worth less than the Korban.

(R. Yochanan): Mid'Oraisa, it is redeemed. Mid'Rabanan, Reuven must compensate Hekdesh.

(Reish Lakish): Mid'Oraisa, Reuven must compensate Hekdesh.

Question: What is the case?

If the mistake was a sixth, why would Reish Lakish say that mid'Oraisa, he must compensate Hekdesh? Our Mishnah teaches that Ona'ah do not apply to Hekdesh!

If it was more than a sixth, how could R. Yochanan say that mid'Oraisa, it is redeemed? R. Yonah cited R. Yochanan to say that regarding Hekdesh, the redemption is cancelled!

Answer #1: Really, it was more than a sixth. The opinions must be switched.

Question: What do they argue about?

Answer #1: They argue about Shmuel's law (that any amount of Hekdesh can be redeemed on a Perutah). Reish Lakish holds like Shmuel, and R. Yochanan does not.

Answer #2: Really, both hold like Shmuel. They argue about whether or not l'Chatchilah, one may redeem Hekdesh on less than its value;

Reish Lakish says that it is l'Chatchilah (therefore, only mid'Rabanan he must compensate Hekdesh);

R. Yochanan says that it is b'Di'eved. Therefore, mid'Oraisa he must compensate Hekdesh.

Answer #2: Really, the mistake was a sixth. The opinions need not be switched. They argue about Rav Chisda's law.

(Rav Chisda): The Shi'ur of Ona'ah does not apply to Hekdesh. Even if it was less than a sixth, Hekdesh must be compensated.

Question (Beraisa): Ribis and Ona'ah apply to people, not to Hekdesh.

Answer: We can answer like we answered our Mishnah. This means that Ribis and the Shi'ur of Ona'ah do not apply to Hekdesh.

Question (Seifa): Here, a commoner in more stringent than Hekdesh. (According to Rav Chisda, Hekdesh is more stringent!)

Answer: That refers to Ribis, regarding which a commoner is more stringent.

Question: The Beraisa should also teach (regarding Ona'ah) 'here, Hekdesh is more stringent than a commoner'!

Answer: No. Ribis is the only stringency of a commoner above Hekdesh, so it is proper to say 'here, a commoner is more stringent.' Hekdesh has many stringencies over a commoner.

Question: What is the case of Ribis regarding Hekdesh?

If the Gizbar lent 100 on condition to get back 120, the Gizbar transgressed Me'ilah, and the money is his (and he owes Hekdesh. This is Ribis of a commoner!)

Answer #1 (R. Hoshaya): The case is, Reuven accepted to supply Hekdesh with flour for four Sa'im per Sela, and the price rose to three Sa'im per Sela. He supplies like he stipulated. (One may not contract with a commoner until the price stabilizes, i.e. many people are selling it in the market.)

(Beraisa): If one accepted to supply Hekdesh with flour for four Sa'im per Sela, and the price rose to three Sa'im per Sela, he supplies for four;

If he accepted to supply for three Sa'im per Sela, and the price declined to four Sa'im per Sela, he supplies for four, because Hekdesh has the upper hand.

Answer #2 (Rav Papa): The case is, the Gizbar lent 100 rocks used for building on condition to get back 120;

(Shmuel): The building materials are Chulin. We give what is built to Hekdesh only after finishing (to avoid accidental Me'ilah).

(Mishnah): One who steals them does not pay Kefel.

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (Beraisa): "Al Kol Devar Pesha" is a Klal. "Al Shor Al Chamor Al Seh Al Salmah" are Peratim. "Al Kol Aveidah" is another Klal;

A Klal u'Frat u'Chlal teaches everything similar to the Prat, in this case, something movable that has intrinsic value;

This excludes land, slaves (which are equated to land), and documents (their value is not intrinsic).

Hekdesh is excluded, for it says "l'Re'ehu".

(Mishnah): He does not pay four or five...

This is because the Torah discusses four or five, not three or four. (Four or five is the total of principal, Kefel, and another two or three; we expounded that he is exempt from Kefel.)

(Mishnah): A Shomer Chinam does not swear...

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (Beraisa): "Ki Yiten Ish El Re'ehu" is a Klal. "Kesef Oh Kelim" are Peratim. "Lishmor" is a Klal;

The Klal u'Frat u'Chlal teaches everything similar to the Peratim, i.e. something movable that has intrinsic value;

This excludes land, slaves and documents;

Hekdesh is excluded, for it says "Re'ehu".

(Mishnah): A Shomer Sachar does not pay.

(Beraisa): "Ki Yiten Ish El Re'ehu" is a Klal. "Chamor Oh Shor Oh Seh" are Peratim. "V'Chol Behemah Lishmor" is another Klal;

The Klal u'Frat u'Chlal teaches everything similar to the Peratim, something movable with intrinsic value;

This excludes land, slaves and documents;

Hekdesh is excluded, for it says "Re'ehu".