Explanation: A Gizbar (was Mo'el if he gave it to his friend), because it went out to Chulin once he removed it from his Reshus.

Remark: The Gemara explains that the case is, he did not change it. Rather, he placed it on a skylight. Had he changed it, the Gizbar acquired through Shinuy, and it became Chulin.

Reference: In Bava Metzi'a (48a), it brings from this a support for Reish Lakish, who says that Meshichah is explicit in the Torah, and the Gemara infers only a bathhouse attendant, for no Meshichah is lacking, but [if one gave Hekdesh coins] to other professionals, he was not Mo'el until he did Meshichah;

And in any case, he does not challenge from it R. Yochanan, who says that mid'Oraisa coins acquire, for we can establish it to discuss a Nochri bathhouse attendant. There, surely with other professionals, he was not Mo'el until he did Meshichah;

Since for a Yisrael coins acquire, a Nochri acquires through Meshichah, like it says in Bechoros (13a) "la'Amisecha" - to a Yisrael you sell through one [Kinyan], and to a Nochri through one (a different Kinyan).

Even so, it is a support for Reish Lakish, for seemingly, it does not discuss a Nochri bathhouse attendant, similar to above, that it taught "if he gave it to his friend." There it discusses a Yisrael, for it says "his friend."

Explanation: The bathhouse attendant says "I am not Me'akev [you]"; everything is ready. If so, the coins acquire.

Explanation: He eats for a half-Perutah, and feeds his friend for a half-Perutah. His Hana'ah and his friend's Hana'ah [is a case like] he anoints himself with Hekdesh oil for a half-Perutah, and anoints his friend for a half-Perutah. They join with each other, even for a long time.

Explanation: [We ask why] when he took it, he was not Mo'el, and when he gave it to his friend, he was Mo'el? [We answer that we discuss] a Gizbar to whom were handed over... like I explained in our Mishnah.

Explanation: Since he built it, he was Mo'el. We are thinking now that he quarried it and fixed it. He made a Shinuy, he acquired it;

It answers, Rav said that he put it on a skylight when it was fixed beforehand. He did not make any change, just he put it on a skylight and plastered it with mud until it was attached well.

Note: Shitah Mekubetzes says that the following begins a new Dibur.

Citation: And since he built it, he was Mo'el.

Explanation: This is said b'Nichusa. I.e. after he built it, he is Mo'el if he lives under it Shaveh Perutah.

Implied question: Me'ilah does not apply to something attached to the ground!

Answer: This was detached and later attached. He holds that it is [considered] detached.

Explanation: He holds that something detached and later attached is [considered] detached. (If not, it would not be forbidden due to idolatry.)

Observation: Likewise, [the Gemara] could have rejected that he worshipped the rocks of the house when they were detached.

Explanation (continued): [The Gemara] rejects this [support], and says that the Torah forbade visible Hana'ah. I.e., really, something detached and later attached is [considered] attached. Here is different, for it is visible Hana'ah, for the skylight is visible from the outside.

Inference: Something detached and later attached is [considered] detached.

He answers that Reish Lakish taught that there, he was Makdish it and later built it. There, even according to the opinion that it is [considered] attached, he was Mo'el, since he was Makdish it beforehand.

Question: If so, above, that it says "since he built it, he was Mo'el. Let us say that this supports Rav!" why didn't we reject it, and establish our Mishnah when he was Makdish it and later built it?

Answer: We can say that the answer "visible Hana'ah", this is when he was Makdish it and later built it, but if he built it and later was Makdish it, this reason does not help.

Support: Now it is fine that we bring a support from one who lives in a Hekdesh house, and we cannot reject that visible Hana'ah is different, for now we are thinking that we discuss when he built it and later was Makdish it, that this reason does not help;

When Reish Lakish rejects that he was Makdish it and later built it, it is due to the reason of visible Hana'ah.

Explanation: This is like we said above (18b), that we learn [from a Gezeirah Shavah] "Chet-Chet" from Terumah.

Explanation: [He was Mo'el] because he did not do the Shelichus that the Ba'al ha'Bayis commanded him.

Explanation: E.g. liver and meat, that when a Ba'al ha'Bayis commanded his Shali'ach to bring meat, the Shali'ach would consult - if he wants [even] liver, he will bring [it], but without consulting, he would not bring;

And in our Mishnah, that the Ba'al ha'Bayis said "bring meat", and he brought liver, our Mishnah already taught that he did not do his Shelichus, if so they are two species!

Rav Chisda said, it is unlike R. Akiva, for a Mishnah (Nedarim 54a) teaches that one who vowed from Yerek, he is permitted gourds, for Rabanan hold that gourds are not Yerek. R. Akiva forbids, for he holds that they are Yerek;

There it explains their argument. They said to R. Akiva, one says to his Shali'ach "buy Yerek for me", and he says "I found only gourds"!

I.e. this shows that it is a different matter. If it were Yerek, why does the Shali'ach answer "I found only gourds"? He should not have returned to consult, rather, he should have bought immediately! Rabanan hold that anything a Shali'ach would consult about it, it is another (different) matter.

He told them, this is so! I.e. R. Akiva answered them, you said correctly! I.e. from there I bring a proof to my words. Would he say "I found only pulse (a legume)"?! Does he say so?!

Why doesn't he respond so? It is because this is not the way of the world. If one asks for one species, we do not answer him about another species! Rather, gourds are in the category of Yerek, and pulse is not in the category of Yerek;

I.e. you are forced to say that therefore, he answers I found only gourds, because gourds are in the category of Yerek, and he does not answer him about pulse, for it is not in the category of Yerek.

Inference: R. Akiva holds that anything a Shali'ach would consult about it, it is not a second matter. If so, our Mishnah is not R. Akiva.

Explanation: Since he did not consult and brought liver, which he was not commanded, he deviated from the Ba'al ha'Bayis' intent. Therefore, regarding Me'ilah he did not do his mission.

Consequence: The relevance of this is that if they were proper to eat only for dogs, (Me'il Aharon - if someone bought them and they were spoiled so that people would not eat them, but dogs would), this is not a Mekach Ta'os, for it is not normal for a person to eat them. "Those who eat them are not people" means that one who eats them is not a [normal] person.

Explanation: One does not eat fish [when his eyes hurt].

Question: It says in Nedarim (54b) that fish are a medicine for the eye!

Answer: There it asks this, and answers "here is at the beginning of Uchla. Here is the end of Uchla";

Some explain [that "the beginning of Uchla"] is the beginning of the eye illness. And some explain that "Uchla" is the meal. Here fish comes at the beginning of the meal, and here it comes at the end of the meal.

Reference: In Kesuvos (98b) this question is asked. It says there that they asked, if one told his Shali'ach "buy half a [Beis] Kor for me", and he bought a Kor, what is the law?

Did he add to his words, and he acquired a half-Kor? Or, perhaps he switched from his words, and he did not acquire even a half-Kor?"

Likewise, in our Mishnah, when he told his Shali'ach "give to them one [each]", and [the Shali'ach] told them "take two" - if the case in Kesuvos is switching his words, why was the Ba'al ha'Bayis Mo'el? He did not do his Shelichus!

There in Kesuvos we bring the case here.

Citation (Rav Sheshes): The Shali'ach said "take based on my volition."

Explanation: He specified to them "the first is due to the Ba'al ha'Bayis, like I was commanded." The second is based on [the Shali'ach's] intent. And they took three - the first was Shelichus of the Ba'al ha'Bayis, the second was Shelichus of the Shali'ach, and the third was based on their intent, and so they specified when they took.

One might have thought that the Shali'ach uprooted the Ba'al ha'Bayis' Shelichus, i.e. even when he said "according to my intent." [Rav Sheshes] teaches that this is not so.