1)

(a)Initially, to reconcile the three Beraisos, one which holds that they must all graze, the second that they must be sacrificed, and the third, that they must die, according to Rava, who learnt earlier that if the owner calls the tenth and the eleventh animals the tenth, then the tenth and the eleventh are mixed together - we establish the Beraisa which holds that the animals graze until they become blemished, like the Rabbanan, who hold that, because one needs to bring both animals as Shelamim, the Beraisa which permits them to be eaten (with the Chumros of a Shelamim) and to give the breast and the right calf to the Kohen, something that one does not do with Ma'aser Beheimah, which can be eaten by anyone; the second Beraisa - like Rebbi Shimon, who permits one to cause Kodshim to be burnt. And the third Beraisa, which requires them both to be burnt - like Rebbi Yehudah, who maintains that a mistake in Ma'aser is a Temurah, and Rebbi Yehudah also holds that Temuras Ma'aser has to die.

(b)The reason of the Rabbanan in the first Beraisa is - because one now increases the possibility of having to burn the breast and the right calf of the Ma'aser (due to the fact that the Kohanim (who now receive the breast and the right calf of the Ma'aser - since it is not known which animal is Ma'aser and which is Shelamim) may not manage to eat them within the allotted time of two days and one night, in which case they will have to be burnt. Ma'aser after all, is Kodshim, so by bringing the animal as a Shelamim, and giving the breast and the right calf to a Kohen, one is creating the possibility of causing Kodshim to be burnt - should the Kohen not manage to finish them within two days. i

(c)We try to prove from our Mishnah that, according to Rebbi Yehudah, Temuras Ma'aser is brought as a Korban, from Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah who said that - if the eleventh animal was a Temurah of Ma'aser, it would not be sacrificed, implying that Rebbi holds that it is sacrificed.

(d)And we answer that - Rebbi Meir could be following his own reasoning, and is not referring to Rebbi Yehudah.

(e)And what Rebbi Meir is saying is that, according to him who holds that the eleventh animal can make Temurah (as well as being sacrificed), that is only because it is not a Temurah; because if it would be, it would not be sacrificed on the Mizbe'ach either.

2)

(a)We nevertheless prove that Rebbi Yehudah holds that Temuras Ma'aser is sacrificed from the Beraisa ...

1. ... where he rules that the only difference between an eleventh animal and a Shelamim, is that, whereas a Shelamim makes another animal Kadosh to be sacrificed, an eleventh animal does not - implying that the eleventh animal itself is Kadosh to be sacrificed.

2. ... which specifically includes an eleventh animal to be brought as a Shelamim from "Im mon ha'Bakar" - whose author is Rebbi Yehudah, since it is a Sifra, and the author of every anonymous Sifra is Rebbi Yehudah.

(b)And the third Beraisa, which rules that both the tenth animal and the eleventh have to be burnt - is referring to nowadays, and it holds that Ma'aser Beheimah applies nowadays (not like Rav Huna, above [53a] who holds that it does not).

(c)And Chazal decreed that the eleventh animal must die - in order to avoid a Takalah, that one may come to shear its wool or to work with it.

(d)And the reason that the Beraisa presented this Din with regard to two animals is - because we might have thought that, since the loss is so great, this decree would not apply there, and that it would be permitted to eat it when it becomes blemished.

3)

(a)According to Rav Papi in the name of Rava, if a Shali'ach calls the ninth animal the tenth - it is effective, since there is no real loss incurred, and it is only a matter of the owner waiting for it to obtain a blemish, when he will be able to eat it. Whereas if he calls the eleventh animal the tenth - he will have caused the owner a real loss, inasmuch as the breast and the right calf must be given to a Kohen; and what he did is therefore ineffective.

(b)Rav Papa (in the name of Rava) says that - even in the former case, since in fact, the owner has to wait for the ninth animal to obtain a blemish, as well as not being permitted to work with it or to obtain its wool, he can say to the Shali'ach "I sent you for my benefit and not to cause me a loss".

(c)We query Rav Papa however, from a Mishnah in T'rumos, which rules that, in a similar case, where a Shali'ach, who assessed the owner to be a generous man, and subsequently gave Terumah in his name to the tune of one fortieth (the amount that a generous man normally gives). Even if it later transpires that the owner is an average giver (who gives a fiftieth) or even a miserly man (who gives a sixtieth - and the same Din would apply if it were the reverse), his Terumah is Terumah. Why can the owner not claim there too, that he sent the Shali'ach for his benefit, and not to cause him a loss?

(d)And we answer that - whereas in the case of Ma'aser Beheimah, there is no justification for the Shali'ach to have made the mistake of calling the ninth the tenth, since that is not what the Torah says. Whereas in the case of Terumah, there are people who give a fortieth, the Shali'ach is perfectly justified in assessing the owner to be a generous man. Therefore, his Terumah is valid.