Explanation: He did not specify which window or which bag, and there were many windows or bags, even though the Ba'al ha'Bayis said "I did not intend only for this, rather, for this", i.e. I did not intend only for that window [from which you brought], rather, for the other, in any case the Ba'al ha'Bayis was Mo'el;

This is because his Shelichus was done, for Devarim sheb'Lev (intents that were not spoken) are void.

Explanation: [The Shali'ach was Mo'el] when the Ba'al ha'Bayis spends it, and we discuss when the Ba'al ha'Bayis is the Gizbar, and it did not leave Reshus Hekdesh until he spends it.

Remark: The Gemara asks that they cannot be Sheluchim.

Explanation: This is because Me'ilah does not apply to a Cheresh, lunatic or child. Therefore, the Hekdesh did not become Chulin until it comes to the hand of the grocer, and the grocer spends it;

Also "the grocer was Mo'el" means when he will spend it.

Explanation: [We ask] what can the Ba'al ha'Bayis do, so the grocer will not be Mo'el.

Explanation: A Ner is an iron or earthenware pot in which one puts oil and wicks. [The Shali'ach] went and brought him Neros with half [the coins], and wicks with half.

Explanation: [The Shali'ach] deviated from the Ba'al ha'Bayis' intent, for he went to buy Neros from a different place that he was not commanded.

Remark: The Gemara explains their argument about a robe, and they argue similarly about an Esrog.

Explanation: [A gold Dinar] is [worth] 24 silver [Dinarim].

Explanation: Since the Ba'al ha'Bayis is pleased with what the Cheresh, lunatic or child did, he is like a Shali'ach;

A Mishnah teaches, from when are olives Mekabel Tum'ah? It is from when they emit Zei'ah in the Ma'atan. Ma'atan is the Kli in which one puts them. Zei'ah is the liquid that comes out of them (initially);

It says in the Gemara that the Zei'ah they emitted in the Ma'atan is considered a liquid, for he is pleased with it, but not Zei'ah of the basket. I.e. it is not considered a liquid, for he is not pleased with it, since it is lost.

Question: Do not we not hear this Drashah from many places, Yutan (liquid will be put) similar to Yiten (he will put)? Since he is pleased with it, even though he did not put it, it is considered a liquid!

Why must he bring this Mishnah? He should have brought also "while the dew is still on it, if he was happy, it is Ki Yutan (it is Machshir)!

Answer: Perhaps there, there is an action bi'Ydei Shamayim. Therefore he brings the case of Zei'ah of olives, which is by itself, similar to sending through a Cheresh [lunatic or child], which is like by itself, since they are not Bnei Shelichus.

Question (R. Efrayim): In Eruvin (31b) we say that it is not an Eiruv!

Answer #1 (R. Efrayim): There we discuss when the monkey itself places it for the sake of an Eiruv. Here, he told a person to teach that take it from the monkey or elephant when it gets to the place, and place l'Shem Eiruv.

Question: If so, we do not bring any [proof] from here, since someone with intelligence placed it!

Answer #2: Here we discuss when he stands and sees that the elephant left the bread in a place proper to put the Eiruv, and he seized "the bread should acquire [Shevisah] for me." This shows that his Shelichus was done, even though the Shali'ach, i.e. the elephant, has no Da'as.

Also here, the Cheresh of Me'ilah, his Shelichus was done!

Question: Just the contrary, we should learn from Shelichus of Me'ilah from Shelichus of Terumah. Regarding Terumah we require a Shali'ach with Da'as!

Just the contrary, it is better to learn from Terumah, for the entire concept of Shelichus of Me'ilah is learned from Terumah!

Answer: Since a Shelichus of Me'ilah is through Hotza'ah and Shinuy Reshus, and here there is Shinuy Reshus through Shelichus of one without Da'as like through Shelichus of one with Da'as. Therefore, it is reasonable to compare it to these that we bring, for there is no adamancy about a Bar Da'as;

Regarding matters of Hana'ah, Shelichus does not help in a place where Me'ilah comes through Hana'ah, like it says in Kidushin (43a), that we do not find in the entire Torah this one benefits and this one is liable;

In any case, we need to learn from Shelichus of Terumah, like we say that Ein Shali'ach l'Devar Aveirah.

Explanation: [He bought it for] three Sela'im, and it turns out that the Shali'ach profited for him three Sela'im;

We ask from the Seifa. "R. Yehudah says... and you brought me a small, bad cloak." We ask now, what is bad, for according to the answer, that he bought one worth six for three, it is big!

It answers that he says "had you given to him a Dinar..." i.e. the entire gold Dinar, you would have brought me [one] worth two. I.e. all the more so I would have profited more, for they would have given to you, according to the calculation that you brought, [they would have given one] worth 12 for six, and it turns out I would have profited twice from what I profit now.

So the text is here. In Kesuvos (99b) the text says "if in a place where they sell by estimation, i.e. much together, is it not worth more?!" This means the same [as the text here];

It means as follows. We are thinking now that we discuss a place where they sell by estimation, i.e. much together. Therefore, it asks, why does R. Yehudah agree? Also there, it is normal that based on how much the buyer buys, the seller gives a lower price!

Rav Papa answers, in a place where they sell Kani Kani, i.e. by measure. It is not by estimation, like you thought. Rather, it is bit by bit. The matter is uniform. The seller does not give a lower price [for one who buys more].

Question: This requires investigation in Bava Metzi'a (43a), for it brings the [Mishnah] here, but it does not bring like the text taught here!

Implied question: It is a Safek whether or not he benefited from Hekdesh!

Answer: R. Akiva teaches like he taught elsewhere. He obligates Asham Taluy for Safek Me'ilah, in Kerisus (22a).

Question: The Perutah of Hekdesh that fell should be Batel (in the majority)!

Suggestion: It is Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin (it can be permitted) through redemption, and [therefore] it is not Batel even in 1000.

Rejection: We cannot say so, for Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin [is never Batel] is only mid'Rabanan [so it cannot cause Me'ilah mid'Oraisa]!

Answer #1: We must say that [before the Hekdesh coin fell,] there is only one coin in the wallet.

Answer #2: A coin is important, and [mid'Oraisa] it is not Batel.

Explanation: The last one will be of Hekdesh. The Gemara asks what is the difference between the Reisha and the Seifa.

Explanation: This wallet is not exempt, to be able to spend all of it, without a Perutah being Hekdesh;

This expression surely connotes that Hekdesh is at the end.

Explanation: Also in the Seifa of our Mishnah, he should say that the choice coin is of Hekdesh;

However, he does not challenge the Reisha, for perhaps the wording of the Reisha does not connote so (that the biggest is Hekdesh).

One cannot say that he challenges also the Reisha (for there is no difference between the connotations of the Reisha and Seifa), for if so, he should ask what is the difference between the Reisha and the Seifa!