Explanation: The Nochri who serves it says "it did not save itself. Will it save me?!" Therefore, it is known that he was Mevatel it.

Explanation: [The bird] broke sticks and made the nest from the Asheirah itself, and [the Mishnah] says that he knocks it [down] with a stick, and the nest itself is permitted. This shows that idolatry that broke by itself is permitted!

It answers that no, [the bird] brought from elsewhere. I.e. the nest was made from other sticks, and not from the tree itself. (The Chidush is that we do not decree to forbid due to when it is from the tree itself.)

[It asks] if so, [for a tree] of Hekdesh, why "one may not benefit, but Me'ilah does not apply"? It asks that since the nest is not from the tree of Hekdesh, why may one not benefit? Rather, [sticks] were broken from the tree itself.

Question: Why is there no Me'ilah?

Answer: Here it discusses Gidulim, and he holds that Me'ilah does not apply to Gidulim.

[The Gemara says that] presumably this is correct, i.e. that it discusses when it broke from the tree itself, for if you will say that it brought from elsewhere, why does he knock with a stick? He should take it, i.e. take the nest with his hand, without a stick!

Conclusion: Rather, this shows that it discusses when it broke from [the tree] itself. Therefore he may not take it in his hand, lest he come to take from the Asheirah, which was not broken, for the sticks that were broken resemble those attached to the Asheirah;

However, if it discussed when they came from elsewhere, which do not resemble the Asheirah itself, it is not applicable to decree lest he take from the Asheirah itself! Rather, surely it discusses when it broke from [the tree] itself.

Question: Still, why did it need this proof that it discusses when it broke from [the tree] itself? It is already proven properly from what it says about [a tree of] Hekdesh that one may not benefit!

Answer: The first proof is only through comparison - just like [a tree] of Hekdesh discusses when it itself broke, since it says that one may not benefit, also the case of an Asheirah is when it itself broke;

However, now we bring a proof from [the clause of] Asheirah itself, since it says that he knocks with a stick, that it discusses when it itself broke, and it is difficult for R. Yochanan, who says that idolatry that broke by itself is forbidden.

R. Aba answers in the name of R. Yochanan that really, it brought from elsewhere. What is "he knocks"? He knocks the chicks;

I.e. our Mishnah discusses every case, and even when it came from elsewhere, and we cannot ask anything, for this that it says that he knocks does not refer to the nest. Surely the nest is Asur b'Hana'ah, both regarding Hekdesh and an Asheirah;

And what is "he knocks"? He knocks the chicks, for one may benefit from the chicks, both regarding Hekdesh and an Asheirah, like it says below.

Support: Now everything is fine. One cannot ask that he should take it by hand, for there is concern lest he ascend on the Asheirah.

Question: When we were thinking that "he knocks" refers to the nest itself, it was difficult to him, why doesn't he take them by hand, and it did not say lest he ascend, and here [in the conclusion] we are concerned. What is the difference?

Answer: Surely, initially that [we thought that] it says that he knocks the nest itself, there is no concern lest he ascend, for he can take the nest in his hand without ascending on the Asheirah;

However, now that "he knocks" refers to the chicks, surely there is concern lest he ascend, for it is not so convenient to take the chicks without the nest, unless he ascends, for they evade here and here. Therefore he needs to knock the chicks with a stick;

Since he knocks with a stick, he need not ascend on the Asheirah in order to knock with a stick, for it is easy to knock them with a stick even when he stands on the ground.

Question: Still, why may one not benefit [when the tree is] of Hekdesh even from the nest, since we discuss when it brought from elsewhere?

Answer: We decree lest he confuse this with sticks attached to the tree.

Question: Since it is applicable to decree even when it brought from elsewhere, due to those attached to the tree, if so, initially, what did he ask "of Hekdesh, why may he not benefit?" It is properly applicable to decree, like I explained!

Answer: He properly knew that it is applicable to decree, like I explained. Initially, he asked "of Hekdesh, why may he not benefit?", just like regarding an Asheirah, that we do not decree;

Initially, he thought that "he knocks with a stick" refers to sticks of the nest, which are Mutar b'Hana'ah, and we do not decree about them at all. Therefore, he asked why we are concerned about Hekdesh more than about an Asheirah;

However, now that an Asheirah and a tree of Hekdesh are the same, for the nest itself is forbidden here and here, and even the eggs, like it explains below, but the chicks are permitted here and here;

This that the Mishnah says that he knocks on chicks of the Asheirah, the same applies to [a tree] of Hekdesh, like I will explain below;

Therefore, there is nothing to ask, for Hekdesh and Asheirah are equal. Here and here we decree lest he come to confuse it with sticks attached to the tree, like I explained. So it seems to my Rebbi R. Peretz to explain this Sugya from the beginning to the end.

Explanation: [They are permitted] both in an Asheirah, and in Hekdesh, since they are alive, and they do not need their mother, like it explains below.

This that [the Mishnah] says "he knocks with a stick" refers to chicks, and the same applies to [a tree] of Hekdesh;

However, "one may not benefit" applies to the nest and eggs, and the same applies to an Asheirah.

Question: Why does the Mishnah teach Heter regarding an Asheirah, and Isur regarding Hekdesh? (The law of both is the same!)

Answer: The reason it teaches "one may not benefit" regarding Hekdesh is because it needs to teach that Me'ilah does not apply to it;

And "he knocks with a stick" was taught about an Asheirah, for even though it is very despised, for it is of idolatry, even so one may knock chicks. So it seems to my Rebbi, R. Peretz.

Explanation: When they built, they bought through credit. They did not give to them Hekdesh coins. They volunteered to make the building, until all the building was done.

What is the reason? I.e. why was he not Makdish beforehand the structure of rocks?

Answer: One who volunteers coins is Makdish them and says "the Kedushah of these coins should take effect on the building", and he gives [the coins] to the workers for their wages;

I.e. and if he was Makdish the rocks before building, if so he could not pay the workers' wages from Hekdesh coins, for Hekdesh is not profaned onto work.

However, now that he builds with Chulin, he profanes the Kedushah of the coins onto the entire building, and afterwards they pay the workers' wages from those coins that were profaned and became Chulin, and he pays coins to one who sold rocks, like [the same price for which] they bought them.

Question: We say in Kesuvos (106a) that people who proofread Seforim in Yerushalayim are paid from Terumas ha'Lishkah. Why is this unlike workers' wages here? (Here we say that Hekdesh is not profaned onto work!)

Answer: Terumas ha'Lishkah is different, for it comes from the Tzibur's Nedavah, and Lev Beis Din stipulates about [the coins, that they may be profaned onto work];

However, one cannot say that Lev Beis Din stipulates about an individual's Nedavah, even if he was Makdish it in order to hand it over to the Tzibur.

Explanation: They used to compose at once 365 Manos, like the number of days in a [solar] year, every day they burn half a Maneh of Ketores in the morning and half a Maneh in the afternoon, and another three Manos for the need of [an additional double handful on] Yom Kipur;

There was left over from the Ketores, like it says there (Kerisus 6b) that once in 60 or 70 years they would compose half. I.e. the leftovers amounted to half [a batch of 368, i.e. 184 Manos] of Ketores.

Note: An average year is really 365 and a quarter days, so the excess in 60 years is 165 Manos less 60 double handfuls. (Calculations of the double handful range from a fifth of a Maneh to a half-Maneh; if a Kohen has abnormally small hands, this is a Mum! Even based on the first opinion, at most 153 Manos remained.) Due to this, the Rosh (in Shitah Mekubetzes Kerisus 6b) rejected this text. Some defend the text. (Normally there should be 22 or 23 leap years in 60 years between half-batches, with three days less or 27 days more than average. If there were only 21 leap years, there are 33 days less than average, so 186 Manos would remain. To allow for a bigger double-handful, we can say that there was a big excess after the last half batch. E.g. the previous year 218 Manos remained, but they made a full batch (lest it and the next year will be leap years of 385 days, we will need 771 Manos, and there are only 552 in one and a half batches), and it was a simple year, and almost 234 remained, and after making a half batch the next year, almost 64 remained. Perhaps 60 years later a smaller excess suffices to make a half batch, e.g. the next two years will be Yovel and Shemitah, which cannot be leap years. However, both of these are difficult to say if there were only 21 leap years in the 60 years. I prefer to say that the weight of a batch was really more than 368 due to ingredients whose weight the Gemara ignored (e.g. wine absorbed by the Tziporen, salt... ) and/or Hachra'os (we give slightly more of each ingredient to make its side of the balance scale go below the weight).

Our Sugya refers to this - what did they do with that excess? They separated wages for the workers from coins of the Lishkah, and they are Mezakeh them through others for the workers, and they redeem the Ketores on those coins that they were Mezakeh for the workers;

The coins get Kedushah of the Ketores, i.e. Kedushah of the old Terumah (of the Lishkah), and the Ketores becomes Chulin, and they give the Ketores to the workers for their wages, and they buy it back from the workers from the new Terumah;

It was needed to do so because one cannot burn Ketores from the old Terumah in the coming year.

Question: Why did they need to do so, that they redeemed the Ketores on coins of the workers? They should have [given the Ketores directly to the workers for their wages,] and profaned coins of the new Terumah on the Ketores that became Chulin!

Answer #1: It is better like this, for it is truly like a sale, and it is more covert.

Answer #2: If they would not do so, they would come to be negligent, and forget that one must return to profane the Kedushah of coins of the old Terumah on the Ketores;

However, now that he separates [coins] for the workers, they will not come to be negligent.

Explanation: If Shmuel is correct, who said that we build when it is Chulin, why did they do all this? They should redeem the Ketores on the building, and it will become Chulin, and they can return and redeem coins of the new Terumah on that Ketores! Why did they need to separate their wages and redeem [on them]?

It answered that there is no building [to redeem on].

It asks that the Beraisa taught "money of the Umnin (craftsmen)", which connotes that they engage in building, and answers that the value of the Binyan is less than that of the Ketores.

Explanation: Indeed, surely there is Chulin building, since it taught "the Umnin", but the Binyan is not [worth] the coins of the Ketores. Therefore, we must separate coins from Terumas ha'Lishkah like the [value of] the Ketores for the workers' wages.

Question: Is it possible that the wages for the building is worth more than the building?!

Answer #1: We find this through the craft of making pictures. The craftsmen's wages are more than the money of the building. (Chidushei Basra - the picture is not worth anything until it is finished.)

Answer #2: There is not in the building the value of the coins of the Ketores, if not for the workers' wages together with the building. This requires investigation. (Esh Kodesh - this answer holds that they redeemed on the wages and the building. This requires investigation, for the Gemara connotes that they redeemed on the wages alone.)

Answer #3: Some say that we discuss wages that they owe the workers for work that was not yet done, but there is some building;

Therefore, since there is not yet built Binyan worth the value of the Ketores at the end of the year that they want to be Mekadesh, it is impossible to redeem on it. Rather, they separate the entire wages of the workers that they will give to them in the future to do the work that they already began;

Explanation #1: Therefore, it mentioned in this matter that there is some Binyan, for if there is no Binyan at all, it is disgraceful to separate coins from Terumas ha'Lishkah for future wages of workers;

Explanation #1: Rather, since they needed to separate for the sake of workers for their small wage [owed already], it is not disgraceful to separate much for the future.

Explanation #2 (R. Peretz): Since they began, it is as if they finished, for they cannot retract.

Explanation: What does it matter if the Binyan is not worth the coins [of the Ketores]? We answer that [Shmuel taught] b'Di'eved, but not l'Chatchilah, due to loss of Hekdesh.

Limitation: This is only at a time when the Mikdash stands, that there is a loss to Hekdesh. However, when the Mikdash does not stand, one may redeem l'Chatchilah [any amount] on a Perutah.

Question: Also here there is no loss to Hekdesh, for this leftover Ketores returns to Hekdesh!

Answer: In any case, since the Mikdash stands, and if they would redeem on a Perutah elsewhere, that there is a loss to Hekdesh, even though here there is no loss, in any case it would not be redeemed, for we decree due to most places, that there is a loss to Hekdesh in such a case.

This is unlike the case there, that it says that while the Mikdash does not stand, one can redeem, for there it is not feasible in any way a loss to Hekdesh.

Explanation: It is impossible to be careful not to benefit from the wall when it is not made b'Chulin, lest he come to lie on them, for sometimes the workers need to lean on the rocks, and it turns out that they transgress Me'ilah.

Explanation: [If we discuss] wood bought to build it on the day it was bought, in a small time, they can be careful not to lie on them.