(Seifa): Its offspring may not be redeemed Tam. One may not be Matpis them for any Korban.

Inference #1: Its offspring may be redeemed with a Mum;

Inference #2: One may not be Matpis them for any Korban, but one may be Matpis them for the same Korban;

One is Matpis them for the same Korban. They are redeemed with a Mum.

Question: This refutes Rav Huna (15b, who said that we leave it to starve, for there is no other solution)!

Answer (Rav Huna): No, its offspring may not be redeemed even with a Mum. (The inferences were wrong);

The Seifa mentions Tam for parallel structure with the Reisha (which permits Pidyon even for a Tam).

Since the Reisha permits Hatpasah (Hekdesh) to any Korban, the Seifa forbids Hatpasah to any Korban (even for the same Korban).

(Beraisa): One who slaughters it outside is exempt. (Rashi explains that this is an explicit clause of the Seifa, i.e. a Tam that was Hukdash and later developed a Mum.)

Rav Huna's text in the Beraisa reads "he is liable." He establishes the case to be Dukin in the eye (a film over the eye, or a Mum in the eyelid);

The Beraisa is like R. Akiva, who says that if a Korban with such a Mum was brought up the ramp, it is offered. (Therefore, it is considered fitting for the Mizbe'ach, so one is liable for Shechutei Chutz.)

(Mishnah): Both before and after Pidyon it makes Temurah.

(Rav Nachman): If Temurah was made after Pidyon, the Temurah must die.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: There is no solution;

It cannot be offered, for it comes from a Kedushah Dechuyah;

It cannot be redeemed, for its Kedushah is too weak to be Matpis Pidyono.

Question (Rav Amram): The owner should be allowed to eat it after it gets a Mum, just like Temurah of Bechor or of Ma'aser!

(Mishnah): Temuras Bechor or Ma'aser and all its descendants for all generations are like Bechor and Ma'aser. The owner eats it after it gets a Mum. (The Kohen is considered the "owner" of a Bechor.)

Answer (Abaye): In both cases, descendants are attributed to their mother (or grandmother... ):

Descendants of Temuras Bechor and Ma'aser are like Bechor and Ma'aser, the owner eats it after it gets a Mum;

A descendant of Temuros of other Kodshim is like the original Kodshim. It may not be eaten until it is redeemed;

A Temurah made after Pidyon cannot be redeemed.

Support (for Rav Nachman - Beraisa #1) Question: What is the source that Temurah of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin must die?

Answer: "Mi'Ma'alei ha'Gera... Tamei (Hu Lachem)" (teaches that there are animals with Simanei Kashrus that are forbidden, i.e. Temuras Pesulei ha'Mukdashin).

Question: This is needed to forbid the five Chata'os that must die (because they cannot be offered, e.g. if the owner died, Temuras Chatas, etc.)!

Answer #1: We learn those from "umi'Mafrisei ha'Parsah... Tamei."

Support (Beraisa #2): Question: What is the source that the five Chata'os must die?

Answer: It says "umi'Mafrisei ha'Parsah... Tamei."

Answer #2 (and Rebuttal of Answer #1 and Beraisa #2): A tradition from Moshe from Sinai teaches that the five Chata'os must die!

Correction: Rather, "umi'Mafrisei ha'Parsah... " teaches about Temuras Asham. (It is Ro'eh until it becomes "Tamei," i.e. gets a Mum - Rashi. Alternatively, that it must die - Shitah Mekubetzes.)

Question: A tradition from Sinai teaches that whenever a Chatas must die (and this includes Temuras Chatas), the corresponding case of Asham is Ro'eh! (R. Tam - mid'Oraisa, it becomes an Olah. Mid'Rabanan, it is Ro'eh.)

Defense #1 of Beraisa #2: Really, "umi'Mafrisei... " teaches that the five Chata'os must die. Both the verse and the tradition are needed:

If we only had the verse, we would have thought that it is Ro'eh (i.e. the verse forbids eating it without Pidyon). The tradition teaches that it must die;

If we had only the tradition, we would have thought that one who ate it transgressed, but there is no Lav. The verse teaches that he transgressed a Lav.

Defense #2 of Beraisa #2: "Umi'Mafrisei... " refers to the five Chata'os. It equates what is learned from "mi'Ma'alei ha'Gera" (Temuras Pesulei ha'Mukdashin) to Mafrisei ha'Parsah (the end of the verse, which alludes to the five Chata'os). Also it must die.

(If Reuven gives animals to Shimon to be "Tzon Barzel," we assess their value. Shimon has a set time to pay, and until then Reuven gets half of the offspring. We will call the animals given "mothers.")

(Mishnah): If Shimon received Tzon Barzel from a Nochri, the Vlados (offspring) of the mothers are exempt from Bechorah. Vladei Vladoseihen (grandchildren) are liable.

Version #1 (Rashi): If Shimon gave the Nochri the right to collect from the Vlados in case the mothers will die, Vladei Vlados are exempt, and Vladei Vladei Vladoseihen are liable.

Version #2 (Tosfos): If the mothers died and the children were designated to be in place of them, Vladei Vlados are exempt, and Vladei Vladei Vladoseihen are liable. (end of Version #2)

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, even 10 generations are exempt, for the Nochri has Acharayus. (He may collect from them.)

If a sheep gave birth to a goat, or vice-versa, it is (a Nidmeh. It is) exempt from Bechorah;

If the child resembles its mother in some ways, it has Kedushas Bechor;

(Gemara) Inference: Because the owner did not receive money for the animals, it is as if they still belong to the original owner (the Nochri. Therefore, they are exempt.)

Contradiction (Mishnah): Reuven may not receive Tzon Barzel from Shimon, for it is Ribis. (Shimon, the original owner, receives half of the offspring because he lent animals. Rashi - this is Ribis mid'Rabanan; Tosfos - it is mid'Oraisa.)

(This would not be Ribis if the animals still belonged to Shimon. Rather,) this shows that the animals are considered to belong to the receiver!

Answer #1 (Abaye): Here, the investor accepted (any losses due to) Ones or Zol (a drop in price), so they are considered his. In our Mishnah he did not, so they belong to the receiver.

Objection #1 (Rava): If he accepted Ones or Zol, this is not called Tzon Barzel! (The name means that the investment is solid like iron. It is guaranteed not to decrease.)

Objection #2 (Rava): Both Mishnayos simply say Tzon Barzel. We cannot say that each refers to a different agreement!

Objection #3 (Rava): The Seifa of that Mishnah permits receiving Tzon Barzel from a Nochri;

If it were true that when Shimon accepts Ones or Zol, they are considered his, so it is not Ribis, the Mishnah should make this distinction, to show that sometimes one may accept from a Yisrael, rather than distinguishing between Yisraelim and Nochrim!

Answer #2 (Rava): In both Mishnayos, the investor did not accept Ones or Zol;

(In our Mishnah), they are exempt from Bechorah because if the Nochri demands his money and the Yisrael does not give, the Nochri will take the animals. If he needs, he will take the children.

Whenever a Nochri has rights to collect from animals, they are exempt from Bechorah.

(Mishnah): If he designated Vlados in place of their mother, Vladei Vlados are exempt.

(Rav Huna): (In the Reisha, without designation,) Vlados (of the mothers) are exempt from Bechorah (a firstborn male is not Kadosh, nor the firstborn of a female Vlad), but a firstborn of Vladei Vlados gets Kedushas Bechor.

(Rav Yehudah): Vladei Vlados are exempt, but a firstborn of Vladei Vladei Vlados is Kodesh.

Question (against Rav Yehudah - Mishnah): If he designated Vlados in place of their mother, Vladei Vlados are exempt.

Inference: Had he not designated them, Vladei Vlados would be liable!

Answer: No, even had he not designated them, Vladei Vlados would be exempt;

The Mishnah teaches that designation does not change anything. With or without designation, the Nochri normally collects from the grandchildren if he needs to. Therefore, Vladei Vlados are exempt, but Vladei Vladei Vlados are liable.