Question #1: This Pasuk is written in connection with a Cherem that is given to the Kohanim

Proof: Since the Pasuk concludes "Lo Yimacher ve'Lo Yiga'el", whereas Chermei Bedek ha'Bayis are subjedct to redemption like Hekdesh ...

Question #1 (cont.): How can the Mishnah then say 'And if what belongs to Gavohah ... ' - seeing as it does not belong to Gavohah but to the Kohanim?

Question #2: Furthermore, the Gemara in Perek ha'Shole'ach (Gitin, Daf 38b) after interpreting "me'Adam" with reference to one's Cana'ani Avadim and Shefachos, queations Rav, who holds that 'If someone is Makdish his Eved, he goes out free, because what he means is that he should be part of the Am Kadosh' ...

Question #2 (cont): Seeing as by Charamim, there is no Kedushas ha'Guf, and it is not comparable to Makdish, w what is the problem with saying the he should become part of the Am Kadosh?

Answer: There is Kedushas ha'Guf even by Charamim that are given to the Kohanim ...

Source: As the Beraisa will learn later in the Perek (Daf 29a) 'As long as Charamim are in the owner's house, they are like Hekdesh in all regards; once they have been given to the Kohanim, they become Chulin'.

Source (cont.): So we see that they are have Kedushas ha'Guf.

Question: Sadeh Achuzah is not his to sell permanently, because if the owner sells it, it returns to him in the Yovel?

Answer #1: Nevertheless, he has permission to take it out of his domain permanently - by being Makdish it, in which case if someone else redeems it (See Avodah Berurah), it is divided among the Kohanim in the Yovel.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it means that 'Just as one is permitted to sell an animal, and to sell a Sadeh Achuzah as long as it is in his hands, which is not the case with his daughter, whom he is forbidden to sell once she becomes a Gedolah.

Refutation: This is not the main D'rashah ...

Proof #1: Since we need the Pasuk for the D'rashah cited later - 'Once he gives it to a Kohen, it is Chulin in all regards - as the Torah writes "Kol Cherem be'Yisrael l'cha Yih'yeh".

Correct Source: And when the Gemara says here that 'He may give it to any Kohen that he wishes', it is saying that based on logic

Precedent: Like T;rumah, which one is permitted to give to any Kohen, not necessarily to a Kohen from the MIshmar that is currently serving.

Proof #2: Moreover, if it was the main D'rashah, how can the Gemara ask shortly why we do not compare Metalt'lin to Karka? - seeing as it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv.

Conclusion: Clearly then, it is not the main D'rashah.

Clarification: This is not learned from the Beraisa, but from the words of Rebbi Chiya bar Avin Amar Rav Chisda.

Introduction to Question: When the Gemara says earlier 'It's in order that Kohanim are not Machrim, since Charamim belong to them' ...

Question: But, seeing as Charamim need to be given to a Kohen in that Mishmar, why should a Kohen who is Machrim his field not in his Mishmar, not be Chayav to give it to a Kohen in that Mishmar?

Answer: We therefore have to say that the Gemara made that statement tongue in cheek

Answer (cont.): And the real reason that a Kohen's declaration that his field is a Cherem is not valid is - because the Torah writes "Achuzas Olam hu lahem".

Implied Question: And even though that Pasuk is written in connection with the Levi'im ...

Answer: Presumably it incorporates Kohanim too

Halachah: If a Kohen is Machrim Metalt'lin, it is obvious that, according to the opinion that compares (Metalt'lin to Karka) he cannot be Machrim ...

Halachah (cont.): But even according to the opinion that does not compare, he may retain the Cherem, as the Gemara states 'He gives it to any Kohen that he wishes'.

Clarification: And it is also clear what the Gemara said earlier 'Bishelama Kohanim, like we said' - Because it said that in connection with Metalt'lin, since, even though we do not compare them (See Avodah Berurah) ...

Clarification (cont.): Nevertheless, the Charamim belong to them ...

Clarification (concl.): Whereas by Karka'os, the Torah writes "Achuzas Olam" b y the Levi'im, and the same applies to the Kohanim.

Definition: i.e. Charamim that have been given to Kohanim ... 'are not subject to redemption' ...

Source: As the Pasuk states (in Vayikra 27) "It cannot be sold and cannot be redeemed" ...

Proof: And this can only be referring to Chermei Kohanim - in spite of the fact that it is written S'tam (See Avodah Berurah) ...

Reason: Because it is obvious that Chermei Bedek ha'Bayis can are redeemable, in order to use them (i.e. their proceeds) for the needs of Bedek ha'Bayis.

Definition: This means that he is not obligated ...

Source: Like "Nosheh" (Sh'mos 22), which Unklus translates "Rashya".

Inference: According to this, Rebbi Ya'akov bar Shimon explains, when the Gemara says in the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 33a & 33b) 'Ein Ba'alei-Umniyos (craftsmen) Rashai'Fenei 'in La'amod bi'Fenei Talmidei-Chachamim be'Sha'ah she'Oskim bi'Melachtan' ...

Inference (cont.): is speaking where they are self-employed, and 'Rasha'in' means obligated - like 'Af-al-Pi she'Eino Rashai' in our Sugya ...

Inference (concl.): Which means that he is not obligated.

Alternative Explanation: If however, it is referring to employees, then 'Rasha'in' can be explained literally (as not permitted).

Clarification: The Tana could not have said 'to his son or to the son of his brother ...

Reason: Bccause, since they are eligible to receive it, it is akin to 'a Kohen assisting in the granary' ...

Source: As the Gemara states in Perek Ad Kamah (Bechoros, Daf 26b) ...

Support: And that is also how Rashi explains it.