Clarification: This means that the Pasuk implies that he must pay the Kohen something that is fit to become Kodesh, like what he ate.

Clarification (cont.): In that case, what he ate must have been fit to become Kodesh, and Chametz on Pesach is not fit to become Kodesh, as we learned above 'But everybody agrees that if someone designates T'rumas Chametz (on Pesach), it is not Kodesh'.

Clarification (cont.): Even though he is Patur from paying in any case, even if it had a Sha'as ha'Kosher (i.e. there was a time where it was permitted).

Implied Question: Whereas later (on Daf 33.), the Gemara will establish the Beraisa 'that everyone agrees that it is not Kadosh' specifically where it did not have a Sha'as ha'Kosher?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam establishes that statement like Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili (who holds that Chametz on Pesach is Mutar be'Hana'ah), but according to Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov (who holds that it is Asur), even if it had a Sha'as ha'Kosher, it is considered unfit to become Kadosh, seeing as there is no Nesinah (giving [See Maharsha]).

Conclusion: And this is what Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov said to Rebbi Eliezer Chisma 'What benefit does get from it?' - in other words 'Seeing as he is not permitted to derive benefit from it, it is precluded from the Pasuk', as we explained.

Clarification: And the Rabbanan too, only argue because the Torah writes 'Achilah'.

Question #1: But we Pasken in Chulin (Daf 137:) that one grain exempts the entire pile (from Ma'sros), even though the Torah writes there 'Nesinah'- "Titein lo"?

Question #2: Likewise, in ha'Zahav (Bava Metzi'a 47.) the Gemara says that 'One can acquire with a vessel even if it is not worth a P'rutah - despite the fact that the Torah writes there "Venasan le'Re'eihu"?

Question #3: And again with regard to Gitin, the Gemara says in Gitin (Daf 20.) that 'If one writes a Get on Isurei Hana'ah, it is Kasher', even though it writes there "Venasan be'Yadah"?

Answer: The reason that we need a Shaveh P'rutah here is because Nesinah is written in connection with the payment ...

Precedent: Similar to returning a stolen article which may not be less than the value of a P'rutah - because it writes there "Venasan" (by the payment), which implies a significant Nesinah.

Conclusion: But other things, even though the Torah writes by them 'Nesinah', do not require a Shaveh P'rutah.

Question #1: The Ri asks from the beginning of K'risus (Daf 6:) where the Gemara Darshens from the Pasuk "va'asher Yiten mimenu al Zar"- a k'Zayis, which it learns via a Gezeirah Shavah from T'rumah.

Question (cont.): Why does it not rather learn from all other Nesinos le'Chumra - that one is Chayav on a Kolsh'hu, like Matan Damim and Matan Behonos, which have no Shi'ur

Question #2: Moreover, it is like anointing (regarding T'rumah itself),which is be'Cholsh'hu?

Answer: According to the opinion there that Nesinah is a Kolsh'hu, the question falls away.

Implied Question: Even though we learn 'Davar ha'Ra'uy Lih'yos Kodesh' from "es ha'Kodesh" ...

Answer: We still need "ve'Nasan", because had it only written "es ha'Kodesh", we would have thought that it only comes to exclude money, but that he may pay with any fruit ...

Conclusion: Therefore the Torah writes "Venasan", which implies that the fruit that one pays must also be fit to become Kodesh.

Question #1: Perhaps that is why? Precisely because other Mitzvos carry the stringency of Kareis, that is why their Meizid is not subject to Kaparah; whereas the Meizid of Me'ilah, which is more lenient in that it is not Chayav Kareis, is?

Precedent: Indeed, the Gemara uses this very S'vara in Makos (Daf 2:), where it says 'Kal-va'Chomer - If already someone who performed an act be'Meizid does not go into Galus, witnesses, who did not, ought certainly not to go into Galus?

Precedent (cont.): And the Gemara answers: 'That is why! The one who performed an act be'Meizid does not go into Galus so as not to allow him a Kaparah, whereas they (the witnesses), who did not, should go into Galus, in order to attain a Kaparah.

Question #2: Moreover, the four people who bring a Chatas on a Meizid (somebody who has relations with a Shifchah Charufah, a Tamei Nazir, and someone who swears a Shevu'as ha'Eidus or a Shevu'as ha'Pikadon) will prove otherwise - since they are not subject to Kareis, yet they are Chayav even be'Meizid?

Answer: The Ri answers that the Gemara queries the statement anyway (i.e. it could have asked these questions too).

Question: The Ri asks why the Gemara in K'risus (Daf 9.) needs the Pasuk "asher Chata" and "Pis'om" to include Zadon by Shifchah Charufah and Nazir respectively?

Suggested Answer: If it is to preclude prevent learning from Me'ilah that Meizid is Patur ...

Refutation: On the contrary, we should rather learn from Shevu'as ha'Eidus and Pikadon that they are Chayav ...

Source: Due to the principle 'that wherever there is a choice, we learn a Hekesh le'Chumra.