Question: In Avodah Zarah (68b), it says according to R. Shimon, Heter and Isur should join to forbid, and answers that R. Shimon holds like he taught elsewhere, like the Mishnah teaches that Orlah and Kil'ai ha'Kerem, R. Shimon says that they do not join;

Inference: "They do not join" truly means that they do not join (and not that there is no need to join)!

Answer: What it cites in Avodah Zarah is not this [Mishnah] here, rather, "they do not join" at the end of another Mishnah brought in Shabbos (89b), about spices of two or three Shemos;

It teaches at the end of it "R. Shimon says, two Shemos from one species, or two species from one Shem, do not join." It means that they do not join because they are not one Isur from one species. The Gemara abbreviated it, and brought only part of the Mishnah.

Question: What joining is needed there? R. Shimon holds that one is lashed for any amount!

Answer: That is only when the Isur is intact and he eats it. However, there we discuss when it is amidst a mixture, e.g. Orlah and Kil'ai ha'Kerem that became mixed together. In such a case R. Shimon did not say that one is lashed for any amount.

Proof: If not, why do we need a verse in Nazir (35b) and in Pesachim (43b) to teach that Heter join with Isur? There I explained.

Answer (cont.): The case in Shabbos (89b) is when they were mixed together, like it teaches in the Yerushalmi in the case of Terumah and Terumas Ma'aser of Demai are Batel in 101 (times the amount of Isur), and they join with each other;

However, here we discuss when they were not mixed, for it did not teach "they are Batel in 101."

Explanation: It is the way of a weaver, that there is a worn-out garment in her hand, so she will not slip too much, and similarly people who detach figs.

Reference: The Gemara explains that R. Akiva agrees about something that has Pegam, and explains what R. Akiva and Chachamim argue about.

Explanation: Katla is a chain. In the Yerushalmi, Etz'adah (bracelet) is translated Katla (Targum Yonason on Bamidbar 31:50).

Explanation: This is because it is a matter without Pegam.

Explanation: Something that has Pegam, one is not Mo'el until he makes Pegam.

Remark: The Gemara explains this.

Explanation #1: These exclude an outer garment, which decreases immediately, and similarly an undergarment that is next to the flesh decreases greatly due to sweat of the flesh, and he does not need [to wait] until there is Pegam. However, the middle garment is not Pogem now. Only after a long time it is Pogem.

They argue about the following. Rabanan hold that since later it will decrease, it is something with a Pegam, and there is no Me'ilah until there is Pegam. R. Akiva holds that since now there is no Pegam, it is [considered] something without Pegam.

Explanation #2: Some explain that the middle garment has a Pegam immediately, but it is not noticed until later. They argue about the following. Rabanan hold that since there is Pegam, even though it is not noticed, it is called something with a Pegam, for it normally decreases a little. Therefore, there is no Me'ilah until there is Pegam;

R. Akiva holds that it is a matter without a Pegam.

Remark: This is unlike Rashi explained. Explanation #2 is primary.

Support (Tosfos' Rebbi): [The latter Meforshim] are correct, for when there is no Pegam now, and later it will decrease, this is a matter without Pegam according to everyone, like it says below;

[The Gemara] questions the case of one who drank from a gold cup "does gold not decrease?!", in astonishment, until it concludes "granted, there is no Hana'ah and Pegam immediately. Is there never a Pegam?!"...

Explanation: I.e. later there is a Pegam, and even so our Mishnah calls a gold cup a matter without Pegam, and no one argues.

Explanation: In Gitin (59a) it explains that this is a thin garment. [When it is compressed,] it is like [the volume of] a nut and a half nut. Regarding something with a Pegam, it is like a middle garment.

Explanation: [This is Shinuy] from Kodesh to Chulin (i.e. what is for use of Hekdesh is used for Chulin), or from Reshus to Reshus, from Reshus Kodesh to Reshus Chulin.

He brings a proof from Sotah. She makes a Shinuy - she abandons her husband and engages and clings with something profane and disgraceful for her.

Question: Why do we need another verse?

Answer: If we learned only from Sotah, one might have thought that only one who benefits, like Sotah, who enjoys the Aveirah [is Mo'el];

However, Shinuy without Hana'ah, like Hekdesh coins that he profanes them to Chulin, that he buys an item with them for himself, or like our Mishnah teaches about a rock or beam of Hekdesh and gave it to his friend, he was Mo'el, that his body does not benefit from the Hotza'ah itself, I would say that this is not Me'ilah. [The latter verse] teaches that [also this is] Me'ilah.

Source: Regarding idolatry, which is Shinuy Reshus without Hana'ah, that he changes himself from Hash-m's Reshus and service to the Reshus of idolatry, that he does not benefit from it...

I bring also in Me'ilah, when he changes from Reshus Hekdesh to Reshus Hedyot, e.g. he buys, sells or lends Hekdesh items to a commoner, that he was Mo'el, even though he does not benefit.

Question: He should bring [the source for] Me'ilah from idolatry, and not mention Sotah!

Answer: He needs to learn from Sotah to teach that even without Shinuy Reshus, e.g. a Gizbar of Hekdesh, if he benefited, even without Pegam, e.g. a necklace or bracelet of our Mishnah;

We cannot learn this from idolatry, for in idolatry there is Shinuy Reshus. He abandons Hash-m's Reshus and serves idolatry. Therefore he needs [to bring] from Sotah.

Question: How can he learn, from Sotah, Hana'ah without Shinuy Reshus? In Sotah there is Shinuy - she changes from Reshus of her husband to Reshus of the Bo'el!

Answer: In Sotah there is no Shinuy Reshus, for she does not abandon her husband through being Mezanah under (while married to) him. However, from Avodah Zarah [the Tana] brings, that he abandons Hash-m's service and serves idolatry.

Question: Since Me'ilah of Sotah is not called Shinuy Reshus, why does the Beraisa say that Me'ilah is only Shinuy, and so it says "Ish Ish Ki Sishteh Ishto v'Ma'alah..."?

Answer: He relies primarily on Me'ilah of idolatry that he brings at the end, and in any case Agav he brings Me'ilah of Sotah to teach that Me'ilah applies in Hekdesh when he benefited without Shinuy and without Pegam, like Sotah, like we conclude below.

Answer #2: Granted, there is no Shinuy Reshus in Sotah, like I explained, that she does not abandon her husband through [Zenus]. In any case, there is some Shinuy;

The Beraisa says as follows. Me'ilah is only Shinuy, i.e. in two ways;

One is Shinuy of Hana'ah, like one who benefits from Hekdesh even without Shinuy Reshus, e.g. a Gizbar, and without Pegam, for in any case there was Shinuy, since all Hana'os of Hekdesh are forbidden to people;

And we find Me'ilah like this regarding Sotah, that it is written "Ki Sishteh Ishto...", and like I explained.

And there is another Shinuy without any Hana'ah, e.g. Shinuy that removes from Reshus to Reshus. He removes from Reshus of Hekdesh and enters into Reshus Hedyot, e.g. buying, selling or lending;

Once he changed to Reshus Hedyot, i.e. the person did an act that is considered like Zechiyah or Kinyan from a person to a person, even though he did not benefit. Regarding this Shinuy, we bring from va'Yim'alu of idolatry that it suffices like Shinuy from Reshus to Reshus, like I explained. So deduced my Rebbi.

Explanation: Neheneh without Pegam, we are thinking that we learn it from Sotah. Through the Bi'as Zenus that she does, she is not Pogem her husband. We can say similarly about Hekdesh.

Question #1: Why does it say "perhaps"? (We truly learn this!)

Question #2: What do we bring from Terumah to exempt Hana'ah without Pegam, and we do not learn Me'ilah from Sotah? Our Mishnah teaches this! If she put on a necklace or ring on [she was Mo'el], for Neheneh without Pegam is liable!

Answer: Our Mishnah discusses a matter without Pegam. The way to use it and benefit from it is without Pegam. Here we discuss a matter with Pegam;

It means as follows. One might have thought that Neheneh without Pegam is liable in everything, even in a matter with Pegam;

We bring also from Terumah, that the way to benefit from it is through Pegam, i.e. eating, to exempt also in Hekdesh benefit without Pegam in a matter with Pegam, and we discuss something that is used in a way [that makes a] Pegam, e.g. an ax or garment.

Question: Since we discuss a matter with Pegam, how could we think to obligate him from Me'ilah of Sotah? Sotah resembles only something without Pegam, like I explained!

Answer: In any case, if not for an exclusion, that we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah of Terumah, we would have learned from Sotah any benefit without Pegam, even in a matter with Pegam, even though it is unlike Sotah;

This is because it is reasonable to say that since the verse is adamant about Hana'ah to obligate him, if so there is no difference whether there is no Pegam or there is a Pegam. Therefore, we need Terumah to distinguish.

And regarding Pegam without Hana'ah, that we explained that one might have thought to learn from Me'ilah [written about] idolatry, that he overtly throws it to be lost, e.g. the Gizbar takes Hekdesh items and casts them to a fire or water or breaks them;

You are forced to say that Pegam that it says is like I explained, for one cannot explain that he removes from Reshus Hekdesh and enters to Reshus Hedyot through selling or a gift, and it is called Pegam because Hekdesh loses and is lacking through this;

You cannot say so, for if so, how does he bring from Terumah to exempt? Surely, since there is Shinuy Reshus, i.e. removal from Reshus Hekdesh and entrance to Reshus Hedyot, he is Mo'el, for this itself we learn from Me'ilah of idolatry!

Also a Mishnah teaches "if he gave to his friend, he was Mo'el"! Rather, surely he discusses damage without Shinuy Reshus, like I explained.

Question: This itself, how did he want to learn from idolatry? In the Pegam of idolatry, there is also Shinuy Reshus, like I explained above!

Answer: In any case, one might have thought that the verse's primary adamancy is not due to Shinuy Reshus. Rather, the Torah is concerned for Pegam and loss to Hekdesh. If so, even without Shinuy Reshus, also one might have thought to obligate. Therefore, we need Terumah to distinguish. So deduced my Rebbi.

Explanation: It says "Ki Yochal", and it is impossible to eat without Pegam, for he makes the Kohen lose the Terumah. Also Pegam without Hana'ah is exempt for Terumah, like we expound "Ki Yochal" to exclude one who damages.

Also Hekdesh, [one is liable only for] Pegam and Hana'ah. This excludes Hana'ah without Pegam for something that has Pegam, and excludes Pegam without Hana'ah when there is no Shinuy Reshus, e.g. one who damages.

Remark: Do not ask that the Torah should have written Terumah and omitted the others (Sotah and idolatry). Below (19a), the Gemara shows why [all] are needed.

Explanation #1: This discusses that he fed his friend. He put in his friend's mouth.

Implied question: Perhaps "his friend's eating" is through Shelichus, that he commanded his friend to eat!

Answer: This cannot be. Even though there is Shali'ach li'Dvar Aveirah regarding Terumah, like we learn [from the Gezeirah Shavah] Chet-Chet from Terumah, this refers only to Me'ilah that comes through Hotza'ah [from Reshus to Reshus];

However, it does not apply to Me'ilah that comes through Hana'ah, like we say in Kidushin (43a) that we do not find in the entire Torah that one benefits, and someone else is liable, regarding one who tells his friend "go eat Chelev." So it seems to my Rebbi.

Explanation #2: Perhaps it can be also through Shelichus, e.g. he commanded his friend to take and eat, and from when he lifted it he acquired it and he was Mo'el before eating, like Tosfos explained there. So it seems to my Rebbi.