Implied question: Shelamim requires Semichah, and Ma'aser does not require Semichah, like a Mishnah (Menachos 92a) teaches! (In Semichah, one presses on the Korban with all his strength, and it holds him up. One may not do so amidst Safek, lest he was exempt, and he transgresses benefiting from a Korban!)

Answer: Since Semichah is not Me'akev, we are not concerned.

Support #1: Similarly, in several places we find that [Chachamim] were not concerned for Semichah, like we say in Pesachim (62a). It says that an Arel or Tamei may send all Zevachim [through a Shali'ach, even though Semichah will not be done]!

One cannot establish it to discuss Bechor and Ma'aser (which do not require Semichah), for it says "all Zevachim"!

Support #2: And in Kerisus (23a), a Mishnah teaches that two may bring one Chatas (when we are unsure which of them is liable. Neither may do Semichah!)

Support #3: Also in Nazir (57a), a Mishnah teaches that two may bring a Korban on Tenai!

Support #4: Also in Shekalim (11b), a Mishnah teaches that an animal found between Yerushalayim and Migdal Eder, males are Olos, and females are Shelamim, and they [normally] require Semichah (yet the finder offers them without Semichah)!

Implied suggestion: Perhaps it discusses when the owner found it.

Rejection: It taught about this that initially, they would take a security from the finder to bring the Nesachim [that must be brought with it. If the owner found it, he is like anyone who brings a Korban. We need not take a security from him!]

Support #5: An heir brings his father's Korban, even though he does not do Semichah.

Support #6: Also in Zevachim (76a, a Safek Metzora) brings his Asham [and stipulates that if he is not a Metzora, it is a Shelamim] and his Log of oil, and that Asham needs without pressing, for it is not proper Semichah according to the opinion that Semichah on Asham Metzora is not mid'Oraisa;

(Do not say that it discusses a woman, who is exempt from Semichah.] It discusses a man, like is proven in the Tosefta.

Support #7: In Mo'ed Katan (15b) it says that an Avel may not send his Korbanos, for it says "Shelamim" - when he is complete, and not when he is lacking. However, if not for the verse, he could send!

Support #8: And it says there "may a Menudah (someone excommunicated) send his Korbanos? We learn from the following. All the year that Yisrael were in the Midbar, they were Menudim [to Hash-m], and they sent their Korbanos.

Support #9: And in Menachos (107a), a Mishnah teaches that if one said "I specified to bring [an Olah] from [a particular kind of] cattle, and I do not know which", he brings a bull and calf, and in the Gemara (107b) regarding six [boxes in which people leave coins, and Kohanim buy Korbanos with them and offer Olos Nedavah], one is for bulls, one is for calves...

Note: Mayim Kedoshim did not understand the support from the Mishnah. There, the owner does Semichah on both! Yad Binyamin - indeed, the support is only from the case of boxes in the Gemara, i.e. if it discusses Olos Yachid. Tosfos brought the Mishnah on which this Gemara was taught, for it discusses Olos Yachid, so presumably, also the boxes refer to such a case. Later, Tosfos rejects the support; I can say that the Gemara discusses Olos Nedavah of Tzibur, unlike the Mishnah.

Support #10: In Menachos (62b), one who sends his Korbanos from overseas, the Kohen would do Tenufah (wave) for him. Since it says that he waves, this shows that it discusses Shelamim, which requires Semichah!

You cannot establish it to discuss a woman's Korban, for the Reisha taught that a woman, the Kohen waves for her!

Question #1: In all of these, it connotes that we are not concerned for Semichah. This is difficult, for in Gitin (28b) regarding one who sent his Chatas for overseas, the Gemara asks that it requires Semichah, and answers that it discusses [Chatas] ha'Of, or a woman's Korban!

Question #2: In Pesachim (89a) a Beraisa teaches that if the skins of Pesachim of five groups became mixed, and a wart was found on one of them (it is a Mum, so its group was not Yotzei), they are exempt from doing Pesach Sheni;

They do not bring Mosar Pesach on condition [that if we were already Yotzei, this is a Shelamim] due to Semichah, for Pesach does not require Semichah, and Mosar Pesach requires Semichah. Chachamim did not permit to offer without Semichah, even though there is a Chiyuv Kares for [neglecting to offer Korban] Pesach!

Question #3: Also in Zevachim (74b), a Mishnah teaches that if Kodshim became mixed with Kodshim Min b'Mino, we offer for the sake of whoever [is the owner]. The Gemara asks that Semichah is needed, and answers that it discusses the Korban of women!

Answer: We must say that a Korban that has no solution through Re'iyah (it grazes until it gets a Mum; we redeem it, and buy another Korban with the money), and it will be left to die if they do not offer it without Semichah, one may offer it without Semichah;

However, if it has a solution through Re'iyah, one may offer it without Semichah.

Consequence: Therefore, the case in Shekalim, and an heir, is offered without Semichah. However, if Kodshim were mixed with Kodshim, there is a solution through Re'iyah.

[The Gemara] distinguishes there like this regarding an Asham, which has a solution through Re'iyah.

The case of one who brings his Asham and his Log - it says there that fixing a person is different. (If he may not offer without Semichah, he may never become Tahor!)

The case of an Avel and a Menudah, we can establish it to discuss birds, or the Korban of women.

Yisrael in the Midbar sent their Korbanos - this discusses the Tamid of every day (it, like almost all Korbanos Tzibur, does not need Semichah).

The case of a bull and calf [offered from coins in the boxes] discusses Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach (Olos Nedavah of the Tzibur).

And Arel or Tamei discuss those who cannot do Semichah, e.g. an Arel who cannot wait until he circumcises, e.g. his brothers died due to Bris Milah (he never circumcises, for it is mortal danger);

Tamei is someone like a Zav or Metzora (who cannot become Tahor until the emissions stop or the Tzara'as goes away, which is not b'Yado), or a Korban with a fixed time, such as Olas Re'iyah or Chagigah, that he transgresses Bal Te'acher [if he does not offer it].

The case of a Kohen who waves [for one who sent his Korban from overseas] discusses an Arel, Tamei or heir, and like R. Yehudah, who says that an heir does not do Semichah.

Implied question: In our Sugya, and two who bring one Chatas, and the case of Nazir, they bring on condition [without Semichah]!

Answer #1: There is different, for from the initial separation of the Korbanos, they were not proper for Semichah, for it is impossible to do Semichah to them.

Answer #2: In our Sugya, each one, at the time he offers, perhaps he is not obligated in Semichah. This is unlike a Korban proper for Semichah.

Question: How can they offer here, since the Matanos [of blood] of Ma'aser and Shelamim are not the same? [Shelamim has] four Matanos (two that are four), and [Ma'aser] has one Matanah!

Answer: We can say that it is an argument in Zevachim (80a) if a Korban of [two that are] four Matanos became mixed with a Korban of one. R. Eliezer says, they put four Matanos;

R. Yehoshua says, they put one, for any Korban that needs [two that are] four Matanos, if he put one Matanah, he atoned. Therefore, according to R. Yehoshua he puts one Matanah. And R. Eliezer holds that holds that puts [the extra Matanos] l'Shem water (not for Kaparah).

In that Perek (76b) it connotes that R. Shimon holds like R. Eliezer regarding "the next day, he brings his Asham. He puts [oil] l'Shem Etzim." (If he is a Metzora, the Haza'os of oil are Mechaper, and he is Maktir a Kometz of oil l'Shem Etzim. If he not is a Metzora, the oil is Nedavah, he is properly Maktir a Kometz, and the Haza'os are l'Shem Etzim.)

Observation: Above (53a) we concluded that [Ma'aser Behemah] does not apply nowadays due to Takalah. Even so, if he tithed, the name "Asiri" takes effect on it.

Implied question: (Why is it Kadosh?) Rav Papi should agree that "I sent you to help me, and not to harm me!" (Since the Shali'ach's mistake is detrimental for the Meshale'ach, he was not a Shali'ach for this!)

Answer #1: Since [the owner] can eat it when it is blemished (this is not considered detrimental), even though he must wait for it to get a Mum, and it is forbidden to shear it or work with it.

Answer #2: (Rav Papi holds that the Shelichus is valid even if it harms the Meshale'ach.) The reason why the 11th is not Kadosh according to Rav Papi is because from when the 10th left, the Shali'ach finished his Shelichus, for the 10th is Kodesh automatically. (Reishis Bikurim - he agrees that normally, if a Shali'ach's mistake harms the Meshale'ach, the Shelichus is Batel. Here is different, for Ma'aser Behemah becomes Kadosh without the owner's Da'as, and even mistakenly.)