(Mishnah): If Reuven gave the money to division Yehoyariv...

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah): If he gave the Asham to division Yehoyariv, and the money to Yadayah (the next division to serve), the money reverts to the division that received the Asham;

Chachamim say, the Asham reverts to the division that received the money.

Question: What is the case?

If each division was serving when it received the offering or money, each merits to keep what it got! (Even if Chachamim would fine Yehoyariv for taking the Asham before the money, R. Yehudah would not fine Yadayah, they did nothing wrong!)

Answer (Rava): The case is, both were given when Yehoyariv was serving.

R. Yehudah fines Yadayah for taking the money during the week of Yehoyariv (so they must give it to Yehoyariv);

Chachamim fine Yehoyariv for taking the Asham before the money.

(Beraisa - Rebbi): According to R. Yehudah, if Yehoyariv offered the Asham, Reuven must bring another Asham, which Yadayah offer; Yehoyariv do not lose what they have.

Question: They have an invalid offering, it is useless!

Answer (Rava): They can keep the skin.

(Beraisa #1 - Rebbi): According to R. Yehudah, if the Asham is still around, the division that has the money offers it.

Question: R. Yehudah holds that the money goes to the division with the Asham!

Answer: The case is, Yehoyariv did not claim the money during its week, and thereby waived its privilege.

(Beraisa #2 - Rebbi): According to R. Yehudah, if the Asham is still around, the money reverts to the division with the Asham.

Question: This is obvious (this is what R. Yehudah taught)!

Answer: Rebbi teaches about when neither division claimed from the other during its week;

One might have thought that each waived its privileges and allows the other to keep what it has. Rebbi teaches that this is not so;

Rather, Yehoyariv demands the money and brings the Asham the next time it serves.

(Mishnah): If one gave the money before offering the Asham (he was Yotzei, but if he offered the Asham first, he was not Yotzei).

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (Rava): "The Asham that is returned to Hash-m, to the Kohen, aside from the ram of atonement, with which he will atone" implies that the money must be returned first.

Question: If so, you should also expound "aside from the morning Olah (Tamid offering)" to teach that the Musaf offering precedes the Tamid (but this is not so)!

(Beraisa): No Korban may be brought before the morning Tamid - "he will arrange on (the woodpile) the Olah".

(Rava): "The Olah" connotes the first Olah.

Answer (Rava): I learn from "with which he will atone" - when he gives the money, the Asham has not yet been offered.

(Mishnah): If he gave the principal...

(Beraisa) Question: (If one transgressed Me'ilah,) what is the source that if he brought only the payment or Asham (but not both), he was not Yotzei?

Answer: "With the ram of the Asham, he will be forgiven."

Question: What is the source that if he brought the Asham before the payment, he was not Yotzei?

Answer: "With the ram of the Asham (principal)" (implies that the principal was already brought).

Suggestion: Perhaps just like if he omitted the ram or principal, he was not Yotzei, also if he did not pay the Chomesh!

Rejection: "With the ram of the Asham, he will be forgiven" - the ram and principal are needed for atonement, but the Chomesh is not.

We learn about (one who stole from) Hekdesh from (one who stole from) a commoner (i.e. convert), and vice- versa.

Just like regarding Gezel ha'Ger, "Asham" refers to principal, also regarding Me'ilah;

Just like regarding Me'ilah, the Chomesh is not needed for atonement, also regarding Gezel ha'Ger.

(Mishnah): If Reuven stole and fed the theft to his children or left it intact in front of them, and died, they are exempt from paying;

If it was something with Achrayus (a lender can collect it from one who bought from the borrower, e.g. land), they are liable (this will be explained).

(Gemara - Rav Chisda): If Shimon stole from Yehudah, and Yehudah did not despair of getting it back, and Levi came and ate it, Yehudah may collect from either one, whomever he wants.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: As long as Yehudah did not despair, it belongs to him. (Also Levi stole from Yehudah.)

Question (Mishnah): If Reuven stole and fed the theft to his children or left it intact in front of them, and died, they are exempt from paying.

This refutes Rav Chisda. (He says that it still belongs to the owner!)

Answer (Rav Chisda): The Mishnah discusses after the owner despaired.

Version #1 (Mishnah): If he left it intact in front of them, they are exempt.

(Rami bar Chama): This teaches that heirs are like buyers. (Inheritance is considered a change of Reshus (after there was despair), so they acquire, but their father did not acquire.)

(Rava): Heirs are unlike buyers. The case is, they ate the theft.

Question (Seifa): If it was something with Achrayus they are liable.

This implies that in the Reisha, the theft is still around!

Answer (Rava): The Seifa means that if their father left to them other property with Achrayus (i.e. land), they are liable.

Question: Rebbi taught to his son R. Shimon that the Mishnah does not really mean land, rather, an animal that he works with;

They must return for the sake of their father's honor (lest people see the animal and recall the theft).

Rava: I explain the Mishnah like R. Oshiya's Beraisa;

(R. Oshaya - Beraisa): If Reuven stole and fed the theft to his children, they are exempt;

If he left it intact in front of them, they are liable. If not, they are exempt;

If he left them property with Achrayus, they are liable.

(R. Oshiya's Beraisa): If the stolen object is not intact, they are exempt.

Question: This refutes Rav Chisda!

Answer (Rav Chisda): This is after the owner despaired.

(R. Oshiya's Beraisa): If the stolen object is intact, they are liable.

Suggestion: This refutes Rami bar Chama!

Answer (Rami bar Chama): This is before the owner despaired.