Question: 'Rebbi' asks why the husband should be Madir Hana'ah, since he did nothing wrong?

Question (cont.): He is not asking his wife to claim from Hekdesh, and it is therefore the wife whom we ought to penalize when she does?

Answer: Since it is him whom we suspect of conspiring against Hekdesh or against the guarantor whom he appointed, we do not penalize her ...

Reason: He is the one who must swear, to clarify whether it is indeed his intention to trick Hekdesh, and his intention will not help him now that they ordered him to make her swear.

Question: In last Perek of Bava Basra (Daf 175a) the Gemara establishes the ruling of Rav Huna where the claimant is holding a Sh'tar; so how can there possibly be a Kenunya here, seeing as he is holding a verified Sh'tar and is definitely telling the truth?

Answer: Clearly, a suspicion of Kenunya applies - seeing as if he would not say 'Manah li'Peloni be'Yadi', in spite of the Sh'tar, he could only claim with a Shevu'ah ...

Answer (cont.): And it is only because he said 'Manah li'Peloni be'Yadi that he can claim without a Shevu'ah.

Proof: Similarly, we find in Perek Shevu'as ha'Dayanim (Shevu'os, Daf 42b) where regarding the Mishnah 'Nishba'in le Katan u'le'Hekdesh' the Gemara explains 'to claim from the property of Hekdesh' ...

Proof (cont.): And in answer to the Gemara's question from the Mishnah that 'One may can only claim from Nechasim Meshubadim with a Shevu'ah, so why should it make a difference whether it is Meshubad to a Hedyot or to Hekdesh? the Gemara answers ...

Proof (cont.): We would otherwise have thought that a person will make a Kenunya against a Hedyot, but not against Hekdesh. Therefore it teaches us that he will.

Proof (cont.): And when Rav Huna said that a 'Sh'chiv-M'ra who declares all his property Hekdesh and then says 'Manah li'Peloni be'Yadi' is believed ...

Proof (concl.): This refers specifically to a Sh'chiv-M'ra - because 'A person does not sin with money that is not his', but a Bari (a healthy person) will indeed make a Kenunya against Hekdesh ...

Conclusion: So we see there that one makes a Kenunya regarding a Shevu'ah; in the same way one makes a Kenunya here, too (See Avodah Berurah).

Introduction to Question: The question remains however, that, according to the Maskana there, it is specifically in connection with a Sh'chiv-M'ra that Rav Huna holds 'Ein Adam Oseh Kenunya le'Hekdesh', but by a Bari, he does ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): Whereas here regarding a Bari, the Gemara cites a Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua - and the latter holds 'Ein Oseh ... ' ...

Question: Does this mean that Rav Huna holds not like Rebbi Yehoshua?

Answer: A minor Kenunya - such as to exempt himself from a Shevu'ah even a Bari will do against Hekdesh ...

Implied Question: Nevertheless, the Gemara cites the ruling of Rav Huna on the Mishnah with a Kal va'Chomer ...

Answer: Since Rav Huna holds 'Ein Adam Oseh Kenunya le'Hekdesh' even with regard to a Shevu'ah, how much more so the Kenunya of the Mishnah with regard to divorcing his wife.

Clarification: That is why he is believed to claim it without a Shevu'ah, even though otherwise, one can only claim from Meshubadim or from Hekdesh - which is like Meshubadim, as it states in Perek Shevu'as ha'Dayanim (Shevu'os, Daf 42b & 43a) - with a Shevu'ah.

Clarification (cont.): And just as we do not suspect that he made a conspiracy when admitting how much he is Chayav, so too do we not suspect him here of divorcing his wife in order to take her back ..

Reason: Since there is no more logic in making a conspiracy against Hekdesh by Gerushin any more than by a Sh'chiv-M"ra.

Question: Granted, it is subject to annulment, nevertheless since we rule that one must specify the Neder, when he comes before the Chacham, he will refuse to annul it?

Answer: One does not need to specify the details of the Neder, only the Lashon by which he declared it - but not why he declared it.

Implied Question: And it is not therefore comparable to the case in Perek ha'Shole'ach (Gitin, Daf 35a) in the case of a Kohen who married a woman be'Isur - about which the Gemara says that 'He makes a Neder, serves, descends and divorces' ...

Implied Question (cont.): On which it explains that 'He is obligated to specify the Neder', in which case the Chacham will refuse to annul it ...

Answer: Because there he made a Neder not to benefit from his Pasul wife, so when he appears before the Chacham and specifies his Neder, the Chacham will not nullify it ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas here even when the Chacham hears the wording of his Neder, he will not refuse to annul it.

Clarification: Because, since Rebbi Yehoshua holds that one can be Mtir the Neder, it is not necessary to be Madir his wife Hana'ah should he divorce her ...

Reason: In that we no longer suspect that he is divorcing his wife as a conspicy to claim from Hekdesh ...

Reason (cont.): Why divorce her, when he can be Matir the Hekdesh, turning it into Hekdesh be'Ta'us, which is not Hekdesh.

Introduction to Question: Seeing as we Pasken like Beis Hillel, that Hekdesh be'Ta'us is not Hekdesh ...

Question: How can Rav Huna say that a healthy person makes a conspiracy against Hekdesh, seeing as he is able to be Matir the Hekdesh - just as Rebbi Yehoshua says?

Answer: According to what Tosfos wrote earlier on the Amud (DH 'Ela'), the Kashya falls away - that a conspiracy regarding a Shevu'ah, which is 'light', a person will do and not be Matir the Hekdesh ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas in the current case, regarding divorcing one's wife in order to take her back, that he will not do, since he is able to be Matir the Hekdesh.

Question: Why does the Gemara not ask all the current questions on the Mishnah?

Answer: It does not want to ask on the Mishnah, because it is obvious to Rava that one can establish the case where he had fields but they became swamped.

Question #1: 'Rebbi' asks - Did he not know that throughout Shas a woman may claim her Kesubah from the purchasers?

Question #2: Moreover, how can Rav Papa rule that 'She cannot claim'? Why should she not claim from the purchasers?

Answer: Perhaps we can answer that it speaks where he divorced her immediately after selling his property ..

Reason: Hence he suspected a 'conspiracy'; but if the sale took place a long time before the divorce, that he divorced her much later, we would not worry about that.

Refuted Explanation: According to Rashi, it implies that this is synonymous with the Mishnah's ensuing statement 'Hikdish Tish'im, ve'Hayah Chovo Me'ah Manah, Mosif Od Dinar'.

Refutation: The Lashon however, does not imply this (See Avodah Berurah).

Authentic Explanation: The Mishnah must therefore be speaking where the debt is not equal to the property that he was Makdish ...

Authentic Explanation (cont.): Where he was Makdish a hundred Manah whereas the debt (or the Kesubah) was only ninety ...

Authentic Explanation (cont.): And what the Tana means is that when the husband redeems it from Hekdesh, he gives Hekdesh the amount that corresponds to the excess over the debt ...

Authentic Explanation (cont.): Thereby enabling all the property to go out to Chulin, seeing as the Hekdesh is anyway not effective on the amount that corresponds to the debt ...

Reason: This conveys the impression that he redeemed the entire amount, and people will not say that Hekdesh went out to Chulin without Pidyon.

Authentic Explanation (concl): And the husband then gives the woman her Kesubah or the creditor his debt.

Refuted Explanation: Rashi explains that 'the creditor lends the debtor an additional Dinar, and he redeems the property' ...

Implication: Implying that it is the creditor himself who redeems ...

Refutation: The Lashon of the Mishnah however, does not imply this, since it says ' ... in order (for the debtor) to give' .

Authentic Explanation: What the Tana therefore means is that the borrower borrows another Dinar and redeems the property, in order to pay the woman her Kesubah and the creditor his debt.

Proof for Sugya in Kesuvos: Rashi proves from here that Rava's ruling in Kesuvos (Daf 59b) that 'Hekdesh takes overrides a Shibud' is confined to Kedushas ha'Guf, due to its structness, and does not extend to Kedushas Damim ...

Proof for Sugya in Kesuvos (cont.): Because here where, min ha'Din, Hekdesh does not take effect on the property - seeing as it is Meshubad, and it only requires Pidyon on account of Rebbi Avahu - 'In order that people should not say ... ' ...

Quandry re. Hekdesh: 'Mori' has a Safek as to whether, assuming the borrower only has Metaltelin - which are Kedushas Damim, if he declares them Hekdesh, the Hekdesh takes effect or not ...

Sale: Because if he sold them, the sale would definitely be effective, and the creditor would not be permitted to claim them from the purchaser ...

Reason: Since the Shibud of the creditor does not extend to Metaltelin ...

Quandry (cont.): But he is in doubt as to whether Hekdesh does (Se Avodah Berurah).

Refuted Resolution: Nor can one prove that it does from Rashi, who, commenting on Rava in Bava Kama (Daf 33b) that 'If a person declared his ox first an Apotiki and then Hekdesh, the creditor cannot claim from it' ...

Refuted Resolution (cont.): Since that is speaking specifically about Kedushas ha'Guf, which overrides the Shibud, implying that by Kedushas Damim, that will not be the case ...

Refuted Resolution (concl.): Implying that Hekdesh does not take effect even on Meetaltelin, if they Kedushas Damim.

Refutation: This is not a proof, since one could establish the case where he was Makneh the Metalt'lin together with Karka, in which case the creditor's Shibud takes effect on them ...

Source: As the Gemara explains in Chezkas ha'Batim (Bava Basra, Daf 44b) ...

Refutation (cont.): In fact, he can then claim them even from the purchaser.

Resolution: It seems that the Mishnah speaks by all property, both Larka and Metaltelin, by which the Tana rules that Hekdesh does not take effect, and they only require Pidyon on account of Rebbi Avahu.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains ' "ve'Im La'av" - that his debt exceeds the Hekdesh, in which case, he did not have in mind when he lent him the money, that he would repay the loan from that money ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): Consequently, the creditor cannot claim from Hekdesh.

Explanation #2: A second Lashon: 've'Im La'av, Eino Podeh' - And he may take it without Pidyon.

Preferred Choice: I heard the first explanation, and it is thr correct one' (Until here are the words of Rashi).

Refutation: However, the Tosefta in our Masechta (4:3) implies like the second Lashon, when it explicitly states 'And if not, his Hekdesh is meaningless.

Explanation #1: This can be explained in two ways: One - Because seeing as it is only worth less than half (See Rashash), he definitely did not lend him with that in mind.

Explanation #2: Two - since the debt is more than double Hekdesh does not take effect on it ...

Reason: And the fact that 'people may say Hekdesh goes out without being redeemed' does not apply.