Jewish Audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be in מסכת בבא קמא דף י״ב, we will start on דף י״א עמוד ב׳, eight lines from the bottom of the עמוד. And the גמרא here quoted many דינים in the name of עולא in the name of רבי אלעזר. The גמרא says: ואמר עולא אמר רבי אלעזר, also did עולא in the name of רבי אלעזר say, הלכתא, the הלכה is, גובין מן העבדים, that you collect a חוב from the עבדים. If a person owes money to a בעל חוב, when the בעל חוב comes to collect, he's able to collect from the עבדים, from the גויישע slaves. Since the גויישע slaves is considered the property of the person, so when he comes to collect, he's able to collect from the עבדים. אמר ליה רב נחמן לעולא, so רב נחמן said to עולא: אמר רבי אלעזר אפילו מיתמי, did רבי אלעזר say the same דין even from יתומים? If the person who owed the money died and now his יורשים, the יתומים inherited his עבדים, his property, can the בעל חוב come and collect from the עבדים that the יתומים inherited? Because the דין is that if a person dies, so then only his קרקע, only his real estate is משועבד to the בעל חוב. But the מטלטלין, the unmovable objects that the children ירשנ׳ט, that is not משועבד to the בעל חוב. The בעל חוב cannot collect from the property that they inherited if it is not קרקע. So when עולא said in the name of רבי אלעזר that you could collect from עבדים, so רב נחמן asked him: Did that mean that also if they inherited עבדים that the בעל חוב could collect the עבדים? What he really meant to ask was, does he consider עבדים like קרקע, and therefore, even if he died and the יתומים ירשנ׳ט, the בעל חוב could collect from the עבדים just like he could collect from the קרקע? So he said to him: לא, no, מיניה, only from him. Only from the לוה himself the בעל חוב could collect from the עבדים, but if he died and the יורשים inherited the עבדים, the בעל חוב cannot collect. In other words, the עבדים don't have a דין of קרקע, they have a דין of מטלטלין. So he asked him back: מיניה, if all you're saying is that he collects from him, אפילו מגלימא דעל כתפיה, from him you could collect anything, you could even take off the coat from his shoulders. Everything a person owns is משועבד to the בעל חוב. So if you're saying that only from the לוה himself the בעל חוב could collect from עבדים, that's no חידוש, he could collect anything, any מטלטלין that the לוה has. And the תוספות explains that doesn't mean that you could actually take off the coat off his shoulder if he doesn't have any other coat, it means that if he has two coats, so the extra coat you could collect for the חוב. Or as תוספות says, that if he owns a coat which is very expensive, we take away that coat and we buy him another coat which is not that expensive and the difference goes to the בעל חוב. But anyway, the question that he asked was that how can you say that what רבי אלעזר meant was that you only collect from the עבדים from himself, from the לוה himself? That's no חידוש, because you collect anything that a לוה owns. So he answered:

הכא במאי עסקינן, we're talking here in a case שעשאו אפותיקי, that he made the עבד an אפותיקי. And as רש״י explains, אפותיקי is made up of three words: אפי תהא קאי, here it should be. That means that when he borrowed the money, he specified that this thing should be specifically משועבד to your חוב. So here we're talking in a case where he made the עבד an אפותיקי for the בעל חוב. And the חידוש is כי דרבא, like רבא said, דאמר רבא, רבא said: עשה עבדו אפותיקי, if a person makes his עבד as an אפותיקי for the חוב ומכרו, and then he sold his עבד, בעל חוב גובה הימנו, the בעל חוב will collect that עבד, even though the עבד was sold, the בעל חוב is able to go to the לוקח, to the buyer, and take away the עבד for his חוב because the עבד was the אפותיקי. But if he made שורו אפותיקי, if he made his ox as an אפותיקי ומכרו, and he sold it, אין בעל חוב גובה הימנו, the בעל חוב cannot collect from the שור because when he sold the שור that שיעבוד fell off and the בעל חוב cannot come and collect. So that's what רבי אלעזר meant, that you could collect from עבדים, and as רש״י says, it means that even if the עבדים were sold, but since the עבדים were made אפותיקי, so then the בעל חוב could collect from the לוקח, he could take away those עבדים.

תוספות adds that באמת, when he answered him that we're talking in a case where he made him an אפותיקי, he didn't mean only that The חידוש is that if he sold the עבד, you could take him away from the לוקח. The same דין would actually apply if the עבד fell to the יורשים. If the עבד was made as an אפותיקי while the person was alive, so then when he died, the בעל חוב could come and collect that עבד from the יורשים. Even if we say that עבדים really are considered like מטלטלין, and therefore the כלל is that מטלטלי דיתמי לא משתעבדי לבעל חוב, the מטלטלין that fall to the יתומים are not משועבד to the בעל חוב, so normally the בעל חוב could not come and take the מטלטלין that they inherited, but since the father made the עבד an אפותיקי, so then the בעל חוב could collect this עבד, similar to the דין of a לוקח, that just like we said that if he sells the עבד, the בעל חוב could collect that עבד from the לוקח, being that he made him an אפותיקי, the same דין would be by יתומים. And תוספות says that wherever we find that the דין is that you could collect from the לוקח, you could take it away from the one that bought it, you also could collect from the יתומים, you could take away from the יתומים. Even in a case where the reason why you're able to collect from the לוקח does not apply to the יתומים, nevertheless the דין in both cases are equal. And תוספות gives an example that we know that only if you have a מלוה בשטר, a loan written in a document, that's when the קרקע is משועבד to the בעל חוב, that even if the לוה sold the קרקע, the בעל חוב could come to the לוקח, to the buyer, and take away the קרקע. But if it's a מלוה על פה, if it wasn't written in a document, it was only a loan orally, so then if the לוה sold the קרקע, then the בעל חוב cannot come to the buyers and take away the קרקע. The same דין would apply to יתומים, that if it's a מלוה בשטר, so then the בעל חוב could come to the יתומים and take away the קרקע that they inherited, but if it would be a מלוה על פה, so then the בעל חוב cannot come to the יתומים and take away the קרקע. And תוספות says that even though the reason why there is a difference between a מלוה בשטר and a מלוה על פה only applies to לוקח, that same reason does not apply to the יתומים, as תוספות explains in detail, and nevertheless we see that the same דין as we have it by לוקח is by יתומים, because whenever we say that you could collect from a לוקח, you could also collect from the יתומים. And therefore here too, when he said that if you made your עבד an אפותיקי, and you sold him, the בעל חוב could come to the לוקח, to the buyer, and take away the עבד, the same would apply to יתומים, that if he made his עבד an אפותיקי and he died, the בעל חוב could come to the יתומים and take away that עבד. So it comes out according to this פשט, that even though he said to him that when רב אלעזר said the דין that you could collect from the עבדים, he did not mean from the יתומים, he only meant מיניה from himself, after he answered that it's speaking in a case where he made him an אפותיקי, it means even in the case of יתומים. So when he said that he only meant from him, it's only if there wasn't wasn't an אפותיקי. In a case where he didn't make him an אפותיקי, so then he cannot collect from the יתומים. But after we explained that the חידוש of רב אלעזר is in the case where he made him an אפותיקי, so that חידוש applies not only concerning a לוקח, that the בעל חוב could take it away from the buyer, but that he could also take it away from the יתומים. And the גמרא explains what is the difference why if you made your עבד an אפותיקי and you sold him the בעל חוב could take him away, but if you made your שור an אפותיקי the בעל חוב can't take it away? And he says מאי טעמא, what is the reason? הא אית ליה קלא. This one, the עבד, has a קול. Everyone knows that it was an אפותיקי for the בעל חוב, so the buyer shouldn't have bought it. But הא לית ליה קלא, but in the case of the שור no one knows that this שור was an אפותיקי, there is no קול, and therefore we can't blame the buyer for buying it, and therefore the בעל חוב cannot take it away from him. And the גמרא continues, לבתר דנפק, after רב נחמן left, אמר להו עולא, so עולא said to the תלמידים that were sitting there, הכי אמר רב אלעזר, this is what רב אלעזר said, אפילו מיתמי, that you could collect from the יתמי, from the יתומים. When רב נחמן asked him, did רב אלעזר mean that you could collect from the יתומים too? In other words, does רב אלעזר hold that עבדים are like קרקע? So he answered him no. But after רב נחמן left, he told the people around there that רב אלעזר did say it by יתומים, because רב אלעזר holds that עבדים are like קרקע. אמר רב נחמן, so later רב נחמן said when he heard what עולא said, he said, אישתמיט עולא. עולא slipped by. עולא was afraid to tell me the truth that רב אלעזר said even concerning יתמי, because he was afraid I would ask him questions and he wouldn't have what to answer. Therefore, he told me that ר' אלעזר said it only the case of מיניה, concerning himself, concerning אפותיקי, and not the case of יתמי. Then the גמרא says, הווה עובדא בנהרדעא, there was a story in נהרדעא, ואגבו דייני דנהרדעא, and the דיינים of נהרדעא did make the בעל חוב collect from the עבדים in the case of the יתומים. הווה עובדא בפומבדיתא, there was a story in פומבדיתא, ואגבי רב חנא בר ביזנא, and רב חנא בר ביזנא made the בעל חוב collect from עבדים from יתומים. אמר להו רב נחמן, so רב נחמן said to them, זילו אהדורו, go and give back, ואי לא, if you're not going to return it, מגבינא לכו לאפדנייכו, I will take away your homes, I will take away your palaces, because רב נחמן felt that you're not allowed to collect from עבדים from יתומים, and therefore he said to them, when you did make him collect, you better return it, if not I'm going to take the money away from you. אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן, so רבא said to רב נחמן, הא עולא, here we see what עולא holds, עולא holds that you could collect from the עבדים from יתומים. הא ר' אלעזר, here we have ר' אלעזר, he also holds the same way because עולא said it in the name of ר' אלעזר. הא דייני דנהרדעא, here we see that the דיינים of נהרדעא also hold the same way, because they לכתחילה said that the בעל חוב should collect from the עבדים from the יתומים. והא רב חנא בר ביזנא, here we see that רב חנא בר ביזנא holds the same way, because that's what he פסקנ'ט in פומבדיתא. מר כמאן סבירא ליה? So you, the רבי, who do you hold like? You hold different than them all, why do you hold different than them? אמר ליה, he said to him, אנא מתניתא ידענא, all I know is a ברייתא. I have a ראיה from a ברייתא that עבדים are like מטלטלין, and therefore I פסק'ן that you cannot collect from עבדים from יתומים. Which ברייתא? דתני אבימי, אבימי learned, פרוזבול חל על הקרקע, a פרוזבול is a document that הלל הזקן was מתקן. The דין is that on שמיטה you're not allowed to collect any חוב. If someone owes someone else money and שמיטה passes, so then he is not allowed to collect that חוב anymore. So

הלל הזקן saw that because of that, when it got close to שמיטה, people stopped lending money because they were afraid that they will never get it back. And he saw that they were עובר on the פסוק where it says that if שמיטה comes, you should not hold yourself back from lending, and people did hold themselves back from lending, so they were עובר on this עבירה. So therefore הלל was מתקן a תקנה that you should be able to collect the חוב even if שמיטה passes. What was the תקנה? He made a פרוזבול, that you would have to write a document, or as the גמרא says in גיטין, it might be enough if you say it, that you give over all your loans to the בית דין. Because the דין is that this דין of שמיטה, that you're not allowed to collect any חוב, is only if the חוב is a private חוב. But if it's the בית דין that has the חוב, so then you are allowed to collect, because when it's in the hands of בית דין it's as if it's collected already, and only a חוב that you still have to collect you're not allowed to, but a חוב which is as if it was collected already you are allowed to collect. So therefore if you give it over to בית דין, so then you're allowed to collect the חוב. So what הלל did was he was מתקן that you write in the פרוזבול or you say it בעל פה that I give over all the חובות that I have, all the money that people owe me I give over to the בית דין. So then you are allowed to ask for those חובות back. But there is a condition that the only time you can write a פרוזבול is if the לוה, the one that borrowed the money, has קרקע. Because then we could say that since you have from where to collect, because קרקע is משועבד to the חוב, so then the person, the מלוה, could write the פרוזבול. So the

ברייתא says that פרוזבול חל על הקרקע, the פרוזבול is חל on קרקע, ואינו חל על עבדים, it's not חל on עבדים. In other words, if he has עבדים but not קרקע, you cannot write a פרוזבול on those עבדים. And also, מטלטלין נקנין עם הקרקע, מטלטלין you could acquire together with קרקע, ואינן נקנין עם העבדים, and you can't acquire מטלטלין together with עבדים. There is a דין which is called קנין אגב, that when a person buys קרקע, and he makes a קנין on the קרקע, the proper קנין, one of the three of כסף, שטר, חזקה, or by paying money, or by making a חזקה, doing something to the קרקע, or by שטר, by writing a document, and that's how you are קונה קרקע. So if you buy קרקע, and you are קונה קרקע with one of these קנינים, so then you could automatically be קונה מטלטלין that you buy along with it, and that is called קנין אגב. You don't have to make a special קנין on the מטלטלין, but since you make the קנין on the קרקע, so automatically the מטלטלין that you bought along with it automatically are נקנה to the person who made the קנין. So the ברייתא says that you could be קונה מטלטלין אגב קרקע, together with קרקע, but you cannot be קונה מטלטלין together with עבדים. If you make a קנין on the עבדים, and at the same time you want to be קונה the מטלטלין, you are not קונה the מטלטלין. So this is the ברייתא that רב נחמן brought. And he says that from this ברייתא we see that עבדים are not like קרקע, עבדים are like מטלטלין, and therefore you cannot write a פרוזבול on the עבדים, therefore you cannot be קונה מטלטלין אגב the עבדים. So we see that עבדים are like מטלטלין, and therefore he says, I hold that you cannot collect from the עבדים from the יתומים, because only קרקע of the יתומים is משועבד to the חוב, but מטלטלין of the יתומים is not משועבד, and since עבדים are like מטלטלין, they are not משועבד to the חוב. Then the

גמרא says, לימא כתנאי, let us say that this דין, whether עבדים are considered קרקע or considered מטלטלין, is really a מחלוקת, an argument between תנאים. Because we learned in a ברייתא, מכר לו עבדים וקרקעות, if someone sells someone else עבדים and קרקע, החזיק בעבדים לא קנה קרקעות. If you make the חזקה, the קנין in the עבדים, you do not automatically get a קנין in the קרקע. בקרקעות לא קנה עבדים, if you make a קנין in the קרקע, you don't automatically have a קנין in the עבדים. קרקעות ומטלטלין, if you buy קרקע and מטלטלין, החזיק בקרקע קנה מטלטלין, if you make a חזקה, a קנין in the קרקע, you are automatically קונה the מטלטלין because of קנין אגב. ובמטלטלין לא קנה קרקע, if you make a קנין in the מטלטלין, you are not automatically קונה the קרקע, because there is no such thing as אגב that you are קונה קרקע אגב the מטלטלין, that through מטלטלין you should be קונה קרקע. עבדים ומטלטלין, if you're buying עבדים and מטלטלין, החזיק בעבדים, if you make a חזקה, a קנין in the עבדים, לא קנה מטלטלין, you are not קונה the מטלטלין. ובמטלטלין לא קנה עבדים, if you make a קנין in the מטלטלין, you are not קונה the עבדים. So from this ברייתא it seems that עבדים have a דין like מטלטלין, since it says that if you make a קנין in the עבדים you are not קונה the מטלטלין, so obviously עבדים don't have a דין of קרקע. Because if עבדים would have a דין of קרקע, then the דין should have been that if you make a קנין in the עבדים you are קונה the מטלטלין. But one might ask, if so, that this ברייתא holds that עבדים are like מטלטלין, why does the beginning of the ברייתא say that if you make a קנין in the קרקע you are not קונה the עבדים? If עבדים are like מטלטלין, the דין should be you should be קונה the עבדים, just like if you make a קנין in קרקע you are קונה other מטלטלין, you should be קונה the עבדים too. And רש"י says that the גמרא later on will explain it. The גמרא will make a difference between מטלטלי דניידי and מטלטלי דלא ניידי, which means a difference between מטלטלין that move and מטלטלין that don't move. The מטלטלין that don't move by themselves, they are נקנה בקנין אגב. If you make a קנין in the קרקע, you are automatically קונה the מטלטלין. But מטלטלין that do move, like עבדים that do move, that has a special דין, and if you make a קנין in the קרקע, you are not automatically קונה those מטלטלין, unless those מטלטלין are standing inside the קרקע. But if the מטלטלין, the עבדים are not standing in the קרקע, then you are not קונה the עבדים אגב the קרקע. But in the meantime we see from this ברייתא that this ברייתא holds that עבדים are מטלטלין. ותניא, and we learned in another ברייתא, החזיק בעבדים קנה מטלטלין. If you make a קנין, a חזקה in the עבדים, you are קונה automatically the מטלטלין. So obviously this ברייתא holds that עבדים are like קרקע, and therefore you could be קונה מטלטלין אגב the עבדים. So the גמרא says, מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי, don't we think that this is the מחלוקת, דמר סבר, that one holds עבדים כמקרקעי דמי. The second ברייתא holds that עבדים are like קרקע, and therefore if you make a קנין in the עבדים, you are automatically קונה the מטלטלין. ומר סבר, and the other ברייתא that says that if you make a קנין in the עבדים you are not קונה the מטלטלין, because that ברייתא holds עבדים כמטלטלי דמי, עבדים are like מטלטלין, and therefore you cannot be קונה other מטלטלין אגב the עבדים. אמר רב איקא בריה דרב אמי, so רב איקא בריה דרב אמי said, no, we cannot prove that this is a מחלוקת between these two ברייתות, because we can say דכולי עלמא, everyone holds, both ברייתות hold, that עבדים כמקרקעי דמי, that עבדים are like קרקע. והא דתניא קנה, שפיר, and therefore the one ברייתא that says that if you make a קנין in the עבדים you are קונה the מטלטלין, that's good, because עבדים are like קרקע. והא דתניא לא קנה, and the other ברייתא where it says that if you make a קנין in the עבדים you are not קונה the מטלטלין, it's for a different reason, not because עבדים don't have a דין of קרקע, but בעינן קרקע דומיא דערים בצורות ביהודה. We need קרקע. When is there a דין of קנין אגב? Only if the קרקע is similar to the fortified cities of יהודה, דלא ניידי, which means a קרקע that does not move. Why do we compare it to the fortified cities of יהודה? Because that's the source where we know this whole דין of קנין אגב. דתנן, because we learn in a משנה, נכסים שאין להם אחריות, property that has no אחריות, which means מטלטלין, property which you're not guaranteed with, because it could be stolen, could go away, could be taken away. So נכסים, which are מטלטלין, נקנין עם נכסים שיש להם אחריות. You could be קונה them together with property which is guaranteed, which means together with קרקע, בכסף ובשטר ובחזקה. If you make a קנין on the קרקע through כסף, through paying money, or through writing a document, or through making a חזקה, which are the קנינים of קרקע, so when you make that קנין on the קרקע, on the נכסים שיש להם אחריות, you are automatically קונה the נכסים שאין להם אחריות. And we explained מנא הני מילי, where we know this from? אמר חזקיה, חזקיה said, דאמר קרא, because the פסוק says, ויתן להם אביהם, their father gave them מתנות רבות לכסף ולזהב ולמגדנות, many presents, silver and gold and all kind of precious things, עם ערי מצורות ביהודה, together with fortified cities of יהודה. So on this פסוק, we see that you are able to acquire מטלטלין together, אגב, fortified cities of יהודה, which means

together with קרקע. So since the פסוק, where we learn out this whole דין of קנין אגב, that you could be קונה מטלטלין together with קרקע, mentions a specific kind of קרקע, the fortified cities of יהודה, so over there we know that what kind of קרקע could be used for קנין אגב? Only if it's קרקע that does not move. And therefore, even though עבדים are considered קרקע, nevertheless, לגבי קנין אגב, it is a special דין that we cannot be קונה אגב the עבדים because of this פסוק. איכא דאמרי, some said that when רבי איקא בריה דרב אמי answered the סתירה between the two ברייתות, he answered it differently. אמר רבי איקא בריה דרב אידא, רבי איקא, the son of רב אידא said that דכולי עלמא עבדי כמטלטלין דמו, that both ברייתות hold עבדים are like מטלטלין. Before the גירסא was that both ברייתות hold that עבדים are like קרקע, and he answered the difference between the ברייתות the way he did before. The איכא דאמרי say that he answered that both ברייתות hold עבדים are like מטלטלין. והא דתניא לא קנה, and therefore this one ברייתא that says that if you make a קנין on the עבדים, you are not קונה מטלטלין, שפיר, that is good, because עבדים are like מטלטלין. הא דתניא קנה, but that ברייתא where it says that if you make a קנין on the עבדים, you are קונה the מטלטלין, and the question is, if עבדים are like מטלטלין, how can you be קונה the מטלטלין by making a קנין on the עבדים? The answer is בעודן עליו, the מטלטלין were on top of the עבדים. And you are

not קונה the מטלטלין with the קנין אגב, but you are קונה the מטלטלין with קנין חצר. The דין is that if someone has מטלטלין in his yard, in his חצר, in his רשות, so then he is automatically קונה those מטלטלין. So here too, if you put the מטלטלין on top of the עבד, and he is קונה the עבד, the עבד becomes like his חצר, since it belongs to him. So anything that's put on the עבד, which is like in his חצר, he is automatically קונה it with a קנין of חצר. But the גמרא asks, וכי עודן עליו, even if they are on him, מאי הוי, what is it? How could you be קונה with a קנין חצר? חצר מהלכת היא, it's a חצר, a yard that's walking, וחצר מהלכת לא קנה, a yard that could walk is not קונה. This דין, that you are able to קונה מטלטלין with a קנין חצר, is only in a חצר that's standing in one place, but a movable חצר, a movable רשות of a person is not קונה for the person with קנין חצר. So how can you say you are קונה the מטלטלין that are on top of the עבדים as a קנין חצר when the עבד is a חצר מהלכת, a movable חצר? וכי תימא, ah, you might answer, בעומד, that here we're talking in a case where the עבד is standing in one place, he is not moving, but והאמר רבא, didn't רבא say, כל שאילו מהלך לא קנה, any case that if he would be walking, he would not be קונה, עומד ויושב לא קנה, so also when you stand or when he's sitting, you're also not קונה. Since he is able to move, already he cannot be קונה with a קנין חצר. So the question is, how can we say that the reason you are קונה the מטלטלין on top of the עבד is because of קנין חצר when he is a חצר מהלכת, and a חצר מהלכת is not קונה? But the גמרא says, והלכתא, the הלכה is בכפות, it's a case where the עבד is tied up. And since he is tied up, he cannot move, so he could be a חצר, and therefore you are ק... the מטלטלין which are on top of the עבד with a קנין חצר. But

here תוספות says that it's not enough for the עבד just to be כפות, just to be tied, he also has to be sleeping. And he brings ראיות from different גמרות, and the reason is because there is another problem with חצר. The only time a חצר is קונה, if it is a חצר המשתמרת לדעתו, if it's a חצר which is being watched for the דעת of the person who owns the חצר. But if it's a חצר that is not being watched for that other person, the person who owns the חצר, so then that חצר is not קונה for the person. So if the עבד is awake, so then the עבד is watching himself, and it is not for the sake of his owner, so then for a different reason it shouldn't be קונה with קנין חצר, because it's not a חצר המשתמרת לדעתו. Therefore you must say that he is also sleeping, and when he's sleeping, and the owner is standing there and watching him, he is משתמר for the דעת of the owner. So therefore you have to have both. You have to have כפות, he has to be tied, otherwise he would be a חצר המהלכת, a walking חצר, and he has to be sleeping, because otherwise he would not be משתמר לדעתו. This is the opinion of תוספות. But the

רמב״ם holds that it is enough if he is כפות. Then the גמרא asks another קשיא: והתניא החזיק בקרקע קנה עבדים, didn't we learn in a ברייתא if you make a חזקה קנין in the קרקע, you are קונה the עבדים? And in the ברייתא before we learned that if you make a קנין in the קרקע, you are not קונה the עבדים. And the גמרא answers: התם over there, בעומדים בתוכה. The ברייתא where it says that if you make a חזקה in the קרקע you are קונה the עבדים, is because the עבדים are standing inside the קרקע. But the גמרא asks, מכלל so that proves, דהאי לא קנה, that that ברייתא where it says that if you make a קנין in the קרקע you are not קונה the עבדים, כשאין עומדים בתוכה, that's when the עבדים are not standing inside? So the difference whether you are קונה the עבדים through the קרקע or not would depend whether you are stand עבדים are standing inside or not? So הא ניחא, that would be good להך לישנא, דאמר רב איקא בריה דרב אמי עבדי כמטלטלי דמו, according to that לשון that רב איקא בריה דרב אמי said that the ברייתא mentioned before holds עבדים are like מטלטלין, which is the second לשון in the גמרא, so according to that, היינו therefore we understand why דאי עומדים בתוכה אין, if the עבדים are standing inside you are קונה the עבדים, אי לא לא, if they're not standing inside you're not קונה. Because at this point the גמרא thought that when you are קונה מטלטלין אגב קרקע, it is only if the מטלטלין are laying in the קרקע. And therefore the גמרא says since עבדים are like מטלטלין, so if the עבדים are in the קרקע you are קונה the עבדים אגב קרקע. If the עבדים are not in the קרקע, then you are not קונה the עבדים אגב קרקע, because they're not inside. אלא להך לישנא, but according to the other לשון, דאמר that he said עבדי כמקרקעי דמו, that the ברייתא before holds that עבדים are like קרקע, למה לי עומדים בתוכה, why do we have to have the עבדים stand inside? Why is the דין that only if the עבדים are inside that's when if you make the קנין on the קרקע you're קונה the עבדים? The דין should be that even if the עבדים are not inside, still if you make a קנין on the קרקע you should be קונה the עבדים, since the עבדים are also like קרקע. Because הא אמר שמואל, didn't שמואל say, מכר לו עשר שדות בעשר מדינות, if one sold another ten fields in ten different countries, כיון שהחזיק באחת מהן, as soon as he makes a חזקה, a קנין in one of the ten, קנה כולן, he's קונה them all. So here too, as soon as he makes the קנין in the קרקע, he should automatically be קונה the עבדים even if they're not inside. Because just like by קרקע when you make a קנין on one you're קונה the rest, so too here if you make a קנין on the קרקע you should be קונה the עבדים which are like other קרקעות. So he asks him back: ולטעמיך, now according to you, you're trying to say that if we hold that עבדים are like מטלטלין, we know why you have to stand inside, why if the עבדים did not stand inside you are not קונה. בהך לישנא דאמר עבדי כמטלטלי דמו, even according to that לשון that says that עבדים are like מטלטלין, למה לי עומדים בתוכה, why do you have to stand inside? Why shouldn't be the דין that if you make a קנין on the קרקע you should be קונה the עבדים even if the עבדים are not inside? Because הא קיימא לן, don't we פסקן דלא בעינן צבורין, that when it comes to... are like מטלטלין, we know why if the עבדים are not standing inside you cannot be קונה the עבדים through the קרקע? Why not, you should be קונה the עבדים through the קרקע בקנין אגב without them standing inside! אלא מאי אית לך למימר, so but what could you tell me, what answer will you give me according to you why he has to stand inside? Because שאני מטלטלי, that an item of מטלטלי ד- דלא ניידי, because even when it comes to קנין אגב, where we say that you do not have to have the מטלטלין in the קרקע, there is still a difference what kind of a מטלטלין it is. מטלטלין that do not move, they do not have to be in the קרקע in order to be קונה them בקנין אגב. But מטלטלין that do move, which means עבדים, even though they're מטלטלין, the only way you could be קונה them בקנין אגב is if they are in the קרקע. So you

yourself must make a difference between מטלטלין that move and מטלטלין that don't move, הכא נמי so too I could answer you the same. You asked a question on me: why, if you make a קנין on the קרקע, are you not קונה the עבדים unless the עבדים stand inside? And your קושיא was, since the דין is by קרקע if you make a קנין on one קרקע automatically you're קונה all the other קרקעות, so the דין should be that if you make a קנין on the קרקע you should automatically be קונה all the עבדים. So we could make the same difference: שאני מקרקע דניידי ממקרקע דלא ניידי. There is a difference between קרקע that moves and קרקע that doesn't move. Just like you made a difference between מטלטלין that moves and מטלטלין that don't move, I can make the difference between קרקע that moves and קרקע that don't move. And עבדי, עבדים are קרקע דניידי הוא, עבדים are קרקע that move. So there we do not say the דין that if you make a קנין on one קרקע, automatically the עבדים wherever they are are also נקנה because they are like קרקע. Because התם סדנא דארעא חד הוא, the reason why by a regular קרקע if you make a קנין on one קרקע, automatically all other קרקעות wherever they are are נקנה is because the land is all one. The whole world is one big block, and therefore they're all connected. You make a קנין in one, automatically the קנין is also for the others. But in the case of עבדים, even though it has a דין like קרקע, but it is not connected to the קרקע, and therefore when you make a קנין in the קרקע, it doesn't automatically help for the עבדים. But if the עבדים are standing in the קרקע, then it does help, and therefore if you make a קנין in the קרקע, you are קונה the עבדים. Then the

גמרא continues to explain the משנה. It taught in the משנה: בנכסים שאין בהם מעילה וכולי, that when are you חייב for the damage that you caused? Only if the damage was caused to such property that you are not מועל if you have any use from it. Because the דין is that if a person has any use from property that belongs to הקדש, he is considered a מועל בהקדש. So the דין is that if you cause damage to such property that a person is able to be מועל on them, you are not חייב, because you are not חייב for damage done to הקדש. But if it is property that a person could not be מועל in those property, so then if you damage such property, you are חייב. So the גמרא is מדייק: מעילה הוא דלית בהו, הא מקדש קדשי. From the way the משנה expresses this דין, the משנה doesn't say that you are only חייב if it's property which are not הקדש. The משנה says you are חייב if it's property which you are not מועל in, as if the משנה is saying that there is a possibility for property to be הקדש and nevertheless you should not be מועל, and in that case you would be חייב. Because if there would be no such possibility, the the משנה should have said very clear that only if it is נכסים which is not הקדש. Since it doesn't say that, it is trying to tell us that it doesn't depend on whether it is הקדש or not, it depends on whether you are מועל or not. That even if it is הקדש, but as long as it's a kind of הקדש that a person cannot be מועל in, you are חייב for the נזקין. So the גמרא says: מאן תנא? Who is this תנא? Who holds that there is a possibility for something to be הקדש and nevertheless a person should not be מועל in them?

אמר רבי יוחנן, so רבי יוחנן said: בקדשים קלים, ואליבא דרבי יוסי הגלילי דאמר ממון בעלים הוא. So this would fit if the case would be קדשים קלים. In קדשים, in קרבנות, we have two categories: we have קדשי קדשים, which is the holiest, and then we have קדשים קלים, which means easier types of קרבנות. For instance, a קרבן עולה or similar things is קדשי קדשים, and a קרבן שלמים, or בכור, or מעשר, or פסח, that is called קדשים קלים. And there are differences in the דינים between קדשי קדשים and קדשים קלים. קדשי קדשים must be eaten in the עזרה, in the בית המקדש, while קדשים קלים could be eaten in the whole of ירושלים, and many other דינים where we find the difference between קדשי קדשים and קדשים קלים. So concerning קדשים קלים, רבי יוסי הגלילי says that they are considered ממון בעלים, they're considered property of the owner. When a person makes an animal into קדשי קדשים, then then that is not considered his anymore, now it belongs to השם, and therefore if a person would have any use from it, he would be מועל בקדשים. But קדשים קלים, if a person has use from it, he is not considered מועל בקדשים, because the קדשים קלים are still considered ממון בעלים, they are still considered that they belong to the owner. So here we have an example of something which is קדשים, and nevertheless you are not מועל in it. And that's what the משנה means, that as long as you are not מועל, you would be חייב for the היזק. And we asked, where do we find something that should be הקדש, should be קדשים, and you still shouldn't be מועל? And the answer is, it is קדשים קלים, according to רבי יוסי הגלילי. Where do is do we see the דין of רבי יוסי הגלילי? דתניא, we learn in a ברייתא, the פסוק says ומעלה מעל בה' that if a person will sin, it says, and he will transgress against ה', and the פסוק continues וכיחש בעמיתו, and he's going to deny in his friend, and then he swears false, so the end is that he must pay and bring a קרבן אשם. So since the תורה says ומעלה מעל בה' that by doing this עבירה, by denying the money that he owes his friend, he is doing an עבירה against ה', לרבות, this comes to include קדשים קלים, that even if this transgression, this denial, was concerning קדשים קלים, still he is considered that he denied his friend's money, and he would be חייב in the שבועת הפקדון. Why? שהם ממונו, because they are his money, they're still the money of the friend, דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי, that's what רבי יוסי הגלילי says. So רבי יוסי הגלילי says that if someone denies money of his friend, even if the money is קדשים קלים, it is still considered that he denied the money of his friend, because רבי יוסי הגלילי holds that קדשים קלים is money of his friend because it is ממון בעלים. Then the

גמרא asks, והתנן, didn't we learn in a משנה: המקדש בחלקו, בין בקדשי קדשים, בין בקדשים קלים, אינה מקודשת. If someone is מקדש a woman with his portion in the קרבן, whether it is his portion in קדשי קדשים, or it is his portion in קדשים קלים, she is not מקודשת, the woman doesn't become his wife, because the דין is that you're only able to מקדש a woman with your money, but if the money is not yours, the קידושין is not valid. And this is what the משנה says, that if a person is מקדש with his part in a קרבן, whether it is קדשי קדשים or קדשים קלים, the קידושין is not valid because it is not considered his money. So לימא, let us say, דלא כרבי יוסי הגלילי, that this משנה will not fit according to רבי יוסי הגלילי. Because according to רבי יוסי הגלילי, we just said that קדשים קלים is considered his money, so the דין should be that if someone is מקדש a woman with קדשים קלים, she should be מקודשת. And in this משנה it says that even with קדשים קלים, she is not מקודשת. And the גמרא answers, אפילו תימא רבי יוסי הגלילי, really you could even say that the משנה goes according to רבי יוסי הגלילי. איי רבי יוסי הגלילי holds קדשים קלים is his money, and this משנה says that if you're מקדש with קדשים קלים she is not מקודשת, because כי אמר רבי יוסי הגלילי, מחיים. When did רבי יוסי הגלילי say that it is ממון בעלים? That is only when the קדשים קלים, that קרבן is still alive. So then we say it's still considered the ממון, the money of its owner. So therefore, if he would be מקדש a woman with that animal which is קדשים קלים while it's alive, she would be מקודשת. אבל אחר שחיטה, but after you שחט the קרבן, and then you get your share of the קרבן, אפילו רבי יוסי הגלילי מודה, even רבי יוסי הגלילי admits דכי קא זכו, משולחן גבוה קא זכו, that those that are זוכה, those that get a share in the קרבן, get from the table of ה'. In other words, then, when you שחט it, it becomes a קרבן, then you lose your ownership, then it becomes ה''s, and anybody who gets a share in the קרבן only gets a share in ה''s קרבן, so it's not really his. And therefore, you cannot be מקדש with your share in קדשים קלים because that share is not yours, it is ה''s. And that's why the משנה says that if you're מקדש with your share in קדשי קדשים or in קדשים קלים, she is not מקודשת, and this fits even according to רבי יוסי הגלילי. But then the גמרא asks: ומחיים מי אמר? And while the animal is alive, did רבי יוסי הגלילי then say that it is ממון בעלים? In other words, we said before that at least when the animal is alive, רבי יוסי הגלילי holds that it's ממון בעלים, and the גמרא is going to prove that according to רבי יוסי הגלילי, it never is ממון בעלים, not even when it's alive. והתנן, didn't we learn in a משנה: בכור, if you have a בכור, that is a firstborn animal, and a firstborn animal is really supposed to be set aside as a קרבן, and you're supposed to give it away to the כהן, so the

משנה says, מוכרין אותו תם חי, that while it's alive, you're allowed to sell it if it doesn't have a blemish. And as רש''י says, the גמרא will explain soon that this is talking in a case of בזמן הזה, nowadays when we cannot bring it as a קרבן anyway. So what you do with a בכור is you must wait till it gets a blemish and then you're able to שחט it. So, as long as it didn't get a blemish blemish, you're also allowed to sell it, because the person who will buy it will just have to wait till it gets a blemish and then he'll be able to use it. But if while it was a תמים, not a בעל מום, it was שחוט, if someone שחט it while it was a תם, then you can't use it at all, because you weren't allowed to שחט it, and therefore all you could do with it is bury it. But while it's alive, you could sell it if it's a תם. ובעל מום, if it has a מום, you could sell it חי ושחוט, you could sell it or alive or after you שחט it, because you're allowed to eat a בכור that has a מום if you שחט it. ומקדשין בו את האשה, and you could be מקדש a woman with this בכור. That's what it says in the משנה. ואמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה, so רב נחמן in the name of רבה בר אבוה explained פשט in this משנה that לא שנו, this דין was not learned, אלא בכור בזמן הזה, only concerning a בכור nowadays. דכיון דלא חזי להקרבה, since you cannot be מקריב it anyway because we have no בית המקדש, אית להו לכהנים זכייה בגווייהו, so the כהנים have a זכות in it, so the כהנים own it. Since a בכור has to be given away to the כהנים, so at the time of the בית המקדש, the כהנים had to use it as a קרבן, so it wouldn't be considered the כהן's property. But nowadays, when the כהן can't bring it as a קרבן anyway, so now we say it's considered the כהן's property, and therefore the כהן could use this בכור to be מקדש a אשה with it because it is his money. אבל בזמן שבית המקדש קיים, but in the time of the בית המקדש, דחזי להקרבה, that you were able to be מקריב it, לא. So then the כהן could not be מקדש a woman with this בכור, because it is not considered his property. ואיתיביה רבא לרב נחמן, and רבא asked a קושיא to רב נחמן: How can you say that in the time of the בית המקדש, since you were able to use it as a קרבן, the כהן could not use this to be מקדש a אשה? Didn't we learn the ברייתא where it says, ומעלה מעל בה' לרבות קדשים קלים שהם ממונו, דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי? That since the פסוק says ומעלה מעל בה', concerning the person who denied money, the תורה says that he denied in ה'. So from here רבי יוסי הגלילי learns out that even if it's קדשים קלים, it is also considered his money. That's why the דין of שבועת הפקדון will apply to קדשים קלים, too. So we see that רבי יוסי הגלילי holds that קדשים קלים, and one of them is a בכור, is considered money of the owner. And we cannot say that רבי יוסי הגלילי is speaking only in the time

when there was no בית המקדש, בזמן הזה, because he learns it out from the פסוק ומעלה מעל בה'. And the פסוק is definitely speaking in the time of the בית המקדש. So we see that רבי יוסי הגלילי holds that even in the time of the בית המקדש, קדשים קלים was considered the money of its owner. So how could רב נחמן say before that this דין that a כהן could be מקדש with a בכור, which is קדשים קלים, only apply בזמן הזה, but not in the time of the בית המקדש, when we see that רבי יוסי הגלילי holds that even in the time of the בית המקדש, קדשים קלים was considered ממון בעלים? ומשני רבינא, and רבינא had answered, בבכור בחוץ לארץ, ואליבא דרבי שמעון, that when רבי יוסי הגלילי said that קדשים קלים is ממון בעלים, is also in a case where it doesn't really have to be a קרבן. It is definitely speaking in the time of the בית המקדש, because he learns it out from the פסוק, but nevertheless, it is in a case where even in the time of the בית המקדש, it wasn't necessarily a קרבן, and that is why he says it is ממון בעלים. But something which is definitely a קרבן, even רבי יוסי הגלילי will admit that it's not ממון בעלים. Now, what kind of קדשים קלים could it be in the time of the בית המקדש that doesn't necessarily have to be a קרבן? So he

says it goes according to רבי שמעון, דאמר, that רבי שמעון said, אם באו תמימים יקרבו, that a בכור that was born in חוץ לארץ, it was born outside of ארץ ישראל, so רבי שמעון says that if it came to ירושלים without a blemish, then you could be מקריב it as a קרבן. So we see from here that he holds, אם באו, and, if it came, if someone brought it to ירושלים, then you are מקריב it as a קרבן. But לכתחילה לא, לכתחילה you do not have to bring it to ירושלים to be מקריב as a קרבן. So here we have an example of קדשים קלים, because a בכור is קדשים קלים, and that it is in the time of the בית המקדש, and nevertheless, it is not necessarily a קרבן. And that's the kind of קדשים קלים that רבי יוסי הגלילי meant that is ממון בעלים. And that's the answer he gave why it doesn't contradict what רב נחמן said, that this whole דין that he could be מקדש a אשה with it is only בזמן הזה, and this doesn't contradict what רבי יוסי הגלילי said, because רבי יוסי הגלילי is also talking in a case where it is not a real קרבן. Now the

גמרא asks: After all this, ואימא, say, if it is true דכי אמר רבי יוסי הגלילי ממונו הוא מחיים, that while the animal is alive רבי יוסי הגלילי definitely holds that it is ממון בעלים, לשני, why didn't he answer, why didn't רבינא answer, הא רבי יוסי הגלילי הא רבנן, that the ברייתא of ומעלה מעל בה', where we quoted רבי יוסי הגלילי who said that קדשים קלים is ממון בעלים, that's the opinion of רבי יוסי הגלילי. What רב נחמן said, that the משנה says that you could be מקדש with your בכור is only בזמן הזה, but not in the time of the בית המקדש, he said that according to the רבנן. And since we do not answer that, that shows that even according to רבי יוסי הגלילי, we do not say that he holds that under normal circumstances קדשים קלים is ממון בעלים even while it's alive. In other words, what the גמרא is trying to say is very simple. The גמרא is really asking a simple question. When רבא asked to רב נחמן, when רב נחמן said that בזמן of the בית המקדש you were not able to be מקדש a אשה with בכור, and רבא asked him a קשיא, how does that fit with the ברייתא where it says ומעלה מעל בה' that קדשים קלים is ממון בעלים according to רבי יוסי הגלילי, why didn't the גמרא answer, very simple, that there is a מחלוקת between רבי יוסי הגלילי and the רבנן? That the ברייתא of רבי יוסי הגלילי is the opinion of רבי יוסי הגלילי, and when רב נחמן said that בזמן הבית המקדש you were not able to be מקדש an אשה, that is according to the רבנן. It's a very simple question. We could answer, one is רבי יוסי הגלילי, one is the רבנן. And the only reason we could find why the גמרא did not answer that is if the truth is that even according to רבי יוסי הגלילי the דין is that under normal circumstances it is not considered ממון בעלים. And therefore the גמרא couldn't answer that that according to רבי יוסי הגלילי it is ממון בעלים, and according to the חכמים it's not, because even according to רבי יוסי הגלילי it is not truly ממון בעלים. And that's why the גמרא had to find that according to רבי יוסי הגלילי it is only ממון בעלים if it is concerning a בכור that came from חוץ לארץ. So if we're going to say that, that that is the reason the גמרא did not answer that one is רבי יוסי הגלילי, one is the רבנן, that proves that according to רבי יוסי הגלילי, also he holds that קדשים קלים is not ממון בעלים. So according to that, the גמרא asks, how could we say before that רבי יוסי הגלילי holds that while the animal is alive, the קדשים קלים is alive, it is considered ממון בעלים? And therefore if someone would cause damage to that animal, he would have to pay because it's ממון בעלים, when from this whole discussion we see that even according to רבי יוסי הגלילי it is not really considered ממון בעלים, and that is why the reason why the גמרא did not answer that one is רבי יוסי הגלילי and the other thing is according to the חכמים? The גמרא says, no, really according to רבי יוסי הגלילי it is ממון בעלים. The reason the גמרא did not say that the ברייתא is according to רבי יוסי הגלילי and רב נחמן was speaking according to the רבנן, because מתנות כהונה קאמרת, you're talking about מתנות כהונה? We're

not talking about regular קדשים קלים. We're talking about בכור. בכור is one of the מתנות כהונה. There are 24 מתנות כהונה. There are different things that you're supposed to give to a כהן, and one of the things you're supposed to give to a כהן is בכור. By מתנות כהונה, there's a special דין: שאני מתנות כהונה, מתנות כהונה are different, דכי קא זכו, משלחן גבוה קא זכו, that when the כהן gets his מתנות כהונה, he is זוכה, he gets it from השם. And that is not considered ממון בעלים. So a regular קדשים קלים like שלמים is considered ממון בעלים. But when it comes to מתנות כהונה, when the כהן gets his share, his מתנה, so that is not considered ממון בעלים. And therefore the גמרא couldn't say concerning a בכור that רבי יוסי הגלילי holds it's ממון בעלים and the רבנן hold it's not, because concerning בכור, which is from the מתנות כהונה, even רבי יוסי הגלילי holds that it is not ממון בעלים. And the only possibility we found to explain that even by בכור according to רבי יוסי הגלילי it is ממון בעלים is only if it is a בכור that came from חוץ לארץ that cannot be brought as a קרבן, there it would be ממון בעלים. But a regular בכור in the time of the בית המקדש, רבי יוסי הגלילי would admit that it is not called ממון בעלים. But a שלמים, another kind of קדשים קלים, רבי יוסי הגלילי does hold that it is ממון בעלים as long as it is alive. But then one could ask, so before when רבינא answered the קשיא that רבא asked to רב נחמן, why didn't he answer the קשיא different? Why did he have to say that רבי יוסי הגלילי is speaking in the case of בכור בחוץ לארץ, why didn't he say very simple, that רבי יוסי is speaking in the case of שלמים? When רב נחמן said that in the time of the בית המקדש you cannot be מקדש with קדשים קלים, that is not שלמים, that is concerning בכור. When רבי יוסי הגלילי said that קדשים קלים ממון בעלים, that is concerning שלמים. And that would be an easier answer than to say that רבי יוסי הגלילי is speaking about a case of בכור בחוץ לארץ. Now רש"י

says, because we see from the end of that ברייתא that רבי יוסי הגלילי is speaking about בכור, because later in the ברייתא בן עזאי comes to explain רבי יוסי הגלילי and he says, לא אמר בן עזאי אלא בבכור. So we see that we're talking about בכור. Therefore, we have to find that even by the case of בכור, רבי יוסי הגלילי holds that it's ממון בעלים. And since בכור is from the מתנות כהונה, and מתנות כהונה is different as the גמרא says, there רבי יוסי הגלילי admits that it's not ממון בעלים, so the only way the גמרא could find that even by בכור, according to רבי יוסי הגלילי it should be מתנות כהונה, was if it is בכור בחוץ לארץ. And that's why when רבינא answered the קשיא, the only way he could answer it is by saying that רבי יוסי הגלילי is speaking by a בכור בחוץ לארץ. When the גמרא quoted the opinion of רבי שמעון concerning a בכור בחוץ לארץ, that if it came from חוץ לארץ as a תמים, without a blemish, then you are מקריב it, but לכתחילה you don't have to bring it from there. So תוספות says that this is a מחלוקת between רבי שמעון and רבי עקיבא. רבי עקיבא holds that even if they brought it from חוץ לארץ, you still are not מקריב a בכור of חוץ לארץ. And he learns it out because we compare it to מעשר שני, and we say that from those places that you have to bring מעשר שני, you have to be מקריב the בכור that comes from there. But those places where you do not bring מעשר שני, so then you do not bring the בכור to be מקריב. And since from חוץ לארץ you do not bring מעשר שני, so too, you are not מקריב a בכור that comes from חוץ לארץ. Then

תוספות asks a קשיא: according to that, when the גמרא said that according to רבי יוסי הגלילי a בכור is ממון בעלים if it came from חוץ לארץ, when you don't really have to be מקריב it, and according to רבי שמעון who says that לכתחילה you don't have to bring it, is משמע that this only fits according to רבי שמעון. Since רבי שמעון says that לכתחילה you don't have to bring it to be מקריב, so according to רבי שמעון we understand why רבי יוסי הגלילי holds that this בכור would be ממון בעלים. But according to the other opinions, it's משמע then we couldn't understand why it should be ממון בעלים. לכאורה, it's just the opposite, that certainly it should be according to the other opinion! The other opinion, as we said, is רבי עקיבא, who holds that you don't even bring it as a קרבן even if you brought it to ירושלים. So according to רבי עקיבא, it certainly is ממון בעלים. So why did the גמרא say that רבי יוסי הגלילי says it's ממון בעלים if it comes from חוץ לארץ according to רבי שמעון, which is משמע that not according to רבי עקיבא, when really according to רבי עקיבא it certainly is ממון בעלים? And תוספות answers, the reason the גמרא picks according to רבי שמעון is because, since we talk about קדשים קלים, which is similar to שלמים, and שלמים you are מקריב, so he wants to pick an example of something that you are מקריב, but something that is not a real קרבן. And therefore he says, according to רבי שמעון we understand: since it is a קרבן, because if you do bring it you are מקריב it, so it's דומיא דשלמים, and nevertheless, it is ממון בעלים because you do not have to bring it. And another תירוץ תוספות gives that we couldn't say that it goes according to רבי עקיבא, since we need a פסוק to tell us that this is called ממון בעלים, now according to רבי עקיבא we wouldn't need a פסוק. Since according to רבי עקיבא you are not allowed to be מקריב it as a קרבן, so it is definitely ממון בעלים. Why do we need the פסוק? Since we need the פסוק, obviously it is something that is a חידוש that it is ממון בעלים. And that is only according to רבי שמעון. Since if you do bring it it is a קרבן, so if not for the פסוק we would not know it's ממון בעלים, and that's where the פסוק comes in and tells us that this קרבן, since if you didn't bring it you don't have to bring it, it is not a real קרבן, therefore it is considered ממון בעלים.