1)

(a)The Beraisa teaches us that "Nefesh" (in the Pasuk "Nefesh ki Sim'ol Ma'al) incorporates Nasi and Mashu'ach - which at first glance seems obvious.

(b)We answer that we need that D'rashah on account of the Pasuk "va'Asher Yiten mimenu al Zar" - which is written in connection with the Shemen ha'Mishchah.

(c)This solves our problem - inasmuch as, if not for Nefesh, we would now have good reason to preclude a Nasi and a Mashu'ach from Me'ilah for using the Shemen ha'Mishchah, since they were anointed with it and should not therefore be considered Zarim.

2)

(a)Earlier in the Sugya, we compared Me'ilah to Sotah, Avodah-Zarah and Terumah. We compared it ...

1. ... to Sotah, inasmuch as - like Sotah (who was a Be'ulah to begin with, as we already explained), she is Chayav even though she did not depreciate.

2. ... to Avodah-Zarah, in that - like Avodah-Zarah (where the sinner changed from Hash-m to Avodah-Zarah), one is only Chayav if there has been a change (if it depreciated).

(b)There is no discrepancy between the two Limudim - because the comparison to Sotah speaks where for example, one wore a golden ring, which does not depreciate, whereas the comparison to Avodah-Zarah speaks where he chopped wood with an ax of Hekdesh, which tends to depreciate easily (as we learned on the previous Daf).

(c)Whereas from Terumah we learn that - in the case of a food, one is only Chayav Me'ilah for eating it, but not for damaging or destroying it.

(d)Similarly, regarding other articles of Hekdesh that are not food - one is Chayav only after benefiting from them but not for damaging them (and the Tana only mentions food because the Chiyuv by Terumah is confined to eating).

3)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that articles made of gold do not depreciate. The problem Rav Kahana has with that is - from the daughters-in-law of Nun, who seemed to have lost the fortune in gold and golden ornaments that they received from their wealthy father-in-law, due to depreciation.

(b)Rav Z'vid answered him on two scores. First of all, for gold not to depreciate, one needs to look after it carefully, which Nun's daughter's-in-law did not do - and he cited Rav Kahana's own daughters-in-law, who did not look after their ornaments properly either.

(c)Moreover - although gold d not depreciate immediately, it does depreciate with the passing of time.

4)

(a)The problem we have with the Mishnah's final ruling, which restricts the Chiyuv on a live Chatas to where the animal depreciates is that - if the Tana is talking about a Tamim, whose monetary value is irrelevant (since it is due to be brought as a Korban), what is the Tana adding to the gold cup (which does not stand to depreciate and) which the Tana has already mentioned?

(b)We answer - by establishing the animal as a Ba'al-Mum.

(c)The Seifa however, 'ke'she'Hi Meisah, Keivan she'Neheneh, Ma'al' - can speaks either by a Ba'al-Mum or by a Tamim (since either way, a dead Chatas cannot be redeemed, due to the principle 'Ein Podin es ha'Kodshim ... ') as we explained in the Mishnah.

5)

(a)Our Mishnah that rules that someone who wears a garment of Hekdesh to the value of half a P'rutah ...

1. ... and tears it to the value of half a P'rutah - is not Mo'el.

2. ... and pours out liquid belonging to Hekdesh to the value of half a P'rutah - is not Mo'el either.

(b)The Tana draws a distinction between Beheimah (of Kodshei Mizbe'ach) and K'lei Shareis on the one hand - which are subject to multiple Me'ilos, and all other Mukdashin on the other - which are not (because the first Me'ilah takes them out to Chulin).

(c)The reason for this distinction is - because whereas the former constitute Kedushas ha'Guf, which go on the Mizbe'ach or are used as they are, and are therefore not affected by the depreciation, the latter are Kedushas Damim, and depreciation takes them out of the realm of Kodesh to that of Chol.

(d)Based on this distinction, the Mishnah rules that in a case where three people one after the other ...

1. ... ride on an animal that is Kodshei Mizbe'ach - all three are Mo'el.

2. ... drink from a gold cup belonging to Bedek ha'Bayis - all three are Chayav, and the same will apply to a case where three people...

3. ... detach hair from a Chatas one after the other.

6)

(a)Rebbi rules that a Hekdesh article that is not subject to P'gam (depreciation [such as the Beheimah and K'lei Shareis mentioned by the Tana Kama]) - is subject to multiple Me'ilah.

(b)The problem with Rebbi's statement is that - he appears to be repeating the ruling issued by the Tana Kama. (We will address this problem shortly).

7)

(a)We establish the author of our Mishnah (which includes K'lei Shareis in the Din of multiple Me'ilah) as Rebbi Nechemyah in a Beraisa. The Rabbanan - confine the ruling to Beheimah exclusively.

(b)They learn this from the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with the Korban Me'ilah) "be'Eil ha'Asham" - which is superfluous, and which therefore teaches us that the Asham that one brings will atone for someone who uses an Eil Asham, even after a hundred times (and this is written exclusively in connection with a Beheimah).

(c)Whereas Rebbi Nechemyah includes K'lei Shareis in this Din - from a Kal va'Chomer, from the fact that they render whatever is placed in them, Kodesh, in which case, they certainly ought to render themselves Kadosh.

8)

(a)To answer the Kashya and explain the Machlokes between Rebbi and the Rabbanan in our Mishnah, we cite a Beraisa, which discusses the wood that a person who undertakes to donate wood to Hekdesh, must give. The Tana is talking about - someone who donates wood for the Ma'arachah.

(b)He is obligated to donate - two logs.

(c)The Machlokes between Rebbi and the Rabbanan is - whether those logs are considered a Korban (Rebbi) or not (the Rabbanan).

(d)According to Rebbi, due to the fact that it is a Korban, the wood requires - salt and Tenufah (waving).

(e)Rava says that it also requires wood (with which to burn it), as well as - Kemitzah (and the Kometz must be burned separately).

9)

(a)Consequently - according to Rebbi, if three people sit on these logs of wood one after the other, each one of them is Mo'el, whereas according to the Rabbanan, the second and the third one are not.

(b)Rav Papa establishes their Machlokes by Kodshei Mizbe'ach Termimim which obtained a blemish, and which someone then went and Shechted, and which according to Rebbi, must now be buried - because he holds that even Kodshei Mizbe'ach require Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah (standing up to be assessed [see Cheishek Shlomoh]) before they can be redeemed (which is not possible once the animal has died).

(c)Whereas the Rabbanan hold that - Kodshei Mizbe'ach do not require Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah, in which case ...

(d)... they are redeemable, and are not subject to multiple Me'ilos; whereas according to Rebbi, who holds that they are not redeemable, they are subject to multiple Me'ilah, like Kodshei Mizbe'ach.