1)

(a)When Rav Menashya bar Gada asks whether one can be 'Miskaper be'Kinus Chomshin' or not he means - whether someone who uses an Asham worth two Sela'im four times, so that the accumulation of fifths add up to two Sela'im, is now permitted to purchase his Asham Me'ilos with them or not.

(b)We connect this with the She'eilah of whether or not Adam Miskaper bi'Shevach Hekdesh - if someone purchases an Asham for one Sela, and he exercises the animal until its value increases to two Sela'im, whether he is now permitted to benefit from the improvement, and bring the animal as his Asham.

(c)Assuming that ...

1. ... Adam Miskaper bi'Shevach Hekdesh, we might nevertheless hold Ein Miskaper be'Kinus Chomshin - because, as opposed to Sh'vach Hekdesh, he did not work on the animal to improve it.

2. ... Ein Adam Miskaper bi'Shevach Hekdesh, we might nevertheless hold Miskaper be'Kinus Chomshin - because, unlike Sh'vach Hekdesh, he designated all the fifths from his purse as Hekdesh.

2)

(a)We try to resolve the She'eilah regarding Sh'vach Hekdesh from the Reisha of our Mishnah 'ha'Mafrish Sh'nei Sela'im le'Asham ve'Lakach bahem Sh'nei Eilim le'Asham, Hayah Echad meihem Yafeh Sh'tei Sela'im, Yikarev la'Ashamo' - based on the assumption that he improved the animal until its value increased from one Sela to two, proving the point admirably.

(b)We refute this proof however - by pricing the animal at two Sela'im, and it was the seller who sold it to the owner at half price (in which case, it is not a case of Sh'vach Hekdesh (see Rabeinu Gershom).

(c)And we refute the proof from ...

1. ... the Beraisa, which permits someone who purchases a ram for one Sela, and fattens it until it is worth two, to bring it as an Asham - on the grounds that since he fattened the animal until it became worth two Sela'im, we assume that the fattening process cost him a Sela, in which case he actually spent two Sela'im on the animal.

2. ... the Seifa of the Beraisa, which validates an Asham that one purchased for a Sela, and that is now worth two - by establishing it in the same way, where he spent the balance on fattening the animal.

(d)To differentiate between the Reisha and the Seifa - we establish the Reisha where he paid four Zuzim for the animal and four to fatten it and improve it, whereas the Seifa speaks where he paid four Zuzim for the animal and only three to feed and improve it (even though it ended up being worth two Sela'im).

3)

(a)Seeing as we just established the Seifa where the owner already paid seven Zuzim, when the Tana obligates him to pay another Sela - he must mean the amount that completes the Sela (one Zuz).

(b)To resolve the discrepancy between the Reisha and the Seifa, we cannot simply establish the Seifa where the shepherd sold it to him for less than the price - because then there would be no reason for him to make up the difference to Hekdesh (any more than if he had given it to him as a gift).

(c)We finally prove from there that Adam Miskaper bi'Shevach Hekdesh - since he only paid seven Zuzim for the ram and not for the eighth (which he paid Hekdesh).

(d)The Tana nevertheless requires him to pay the extra Zuz - so that people should not say that a ram worth less than two Sela'im atones.

4)

(a)We ask Mai Havi Alah?, in spite of having just proved conclusively that Adam Miskaper bi'Shevach Hekdesh - because it is a Dochek (illogical) to make him pay the extra Zuz to Hekdesh, if we hold Adam Miskaper bi'Shevach Hekdesh (see also Rabeinu Gershom).

(b)And we resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa, which specifically states that - if the value of a ram has risen to two Sela'im by the time the Kaparah takes place, the owner is Yotzei.

(c)When Rebbi Elazar (who had not heard the previous Beraisa) asked whether Adam Miskaper bi'Shevach Hekdesh or not (and later, when he asked whether Ba'alei Chayim Nidachim [livestock can be permanently rejected], or not), Rebbi Yochanan reacted - by expressing surprise that after all the years Rebbi Elazar had learned in his Chaburah (group of Talmidim), he did not know this Halachah ...

(d)... which Rebbi Yochanan referred to it in connection with a Mishnah in Menachos, where the Tana rules that the V'lad or the Temurah of a Todah, or the replacement of a Todah which got lost - do not require loaves.

5)

(a)Rebbi Chanina in the name of Rebbi Yochanan qualifies the Mishnah in Menachos - confining it to where the Kaparah has already taken place where the mother has already been sacrificed, but before that he may bring the V'lad ... in its place, in which case it requires Lechem ...

(b)... a proof that Rebbi Yochanan holds Adam Miskaper bi'Shevach Lechem (since the V'lad is Sh'vach Hekdesh).

(c)The She'eilah whether Ba'alei Chayim Nidachim or not affects the two goats on Yom Kipur - because, whether or not, if one of them dies, one can bring the other one with a new partner (because it is Nidcheh) depends on it.

(d)We cannot prove from the Din Chatas she'Kipru Ba'alehah, Meisah that Ba'alei Chayim Nidachim - because it is a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai, which does not extend to other area of Halachah.

6)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan rules that, if a partner declares his half of a shared animal Hekdesh, and then buys out his partner before declaring the other half Hekdesh too - it is Kadosh but cannot be brought on the Mizbe'ach ...

(b)... because when the partner declared his original half, Hekdesh, seeing as the Kedushah could not possibly spread to the rest of the animal - it only adopted Kedushas Damim.

(c)This proves that - Ba'alei Chayim Nidachin.

(d)We can also extrapolate from Rebbi Yochanan's ruling - that ...

1. ... Dichuy Me'ikara (initial Dichuy (initial Dichuy, as opposed to Nir'eh ve'Nidcheh [where ir became Nidcheh only after being initially fit] which is certainly Nidcheh) - Havi Dichuy.

2. ... Dichuy be'Damim (where the Dichuy is caused by the Damim, even though the Guf remains completely eligible) - Havi Dichuy.

(e)Yesh Dichuy be'Damim and Kedushas Damim Madcheh - are one and the same thing.

7)

(a)Rebbi Elazar also asked what the Din will be if lambs become cheap, until they cost less than two Sela'im - whether we follow the Pasuk "Mivchar Nidreichem", which the best ones still are, or that of "Kesef Shekalim", which they are not.

(b)Initially, we cite Rebbi Yochanan's response to Rebbi Elazar's She'eilah as being that - although Rebbi Yochanan had learnt so many years in the Beis Hamedrash, he had never heard this She'eilah before.

(c)We reject this statement however, based on another statement of Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai, who explained that the Torah did not give a minimum value to the animals of Mechusrei Kaparah (Zav, Zavah, Metzora and Yoledes) - due to the concern that the price of animals would drop to below that amount, and they would have no way of becoming permitted to eat Kodshim.

(d)We also refute the second suggested version of Rebbi Yochanan's response to Rebbi Elazar's She'eilah (that he never taught this Halachah) on account of Rebbi Chiya bar Aba - who used to revise all the previous thirty days learning before Rebbi Yochanan, and there is no way that he would have failed to teach him this Halachah.

(e)So we finally cite Rebbi Yochanan's real response to Rebbi Elazar's She'eilah as being that - nobody had ever posed this She'eilah to him before.

8)

(a)With regard to Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Shimon bar Yochai's explanation as to why the Torah did not give a fixed price for the Mechusrei Kaparah ...

1. ... Abaye queries him from Chatas Cheilev - which has no fixed minimum price either (even though it does not permit him to eat Kodshim).

2. ... Rava queries it from Asham Nazir (which is unique in that it serves no known function) - yet it too, has no fixed minimum price.

(b)We comment on the Kashyos of Abaye and Rava - 'Kashya!'

9)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that if someone designated his Chatas and died - his son is not permitted to use that Chatas, even for himself ...

(b)... and certainly not to bring it on behalf of his deceased father - since dead men are not subject to performing Mitzvos and bringing Kaparos.

(c)Our Mishnah learns from the Pasuk "Korbano al Chataso" that - one is not permitted to bring a Korban that one designated for one sin, in order to atone for another one ...

(d)... not even to bring the Chatas that one designated for Cheilev that he ate yesterday, to atone for the Cheilev that he ate today.

10)

(a)The Torah writes the word "Korbano" with regard to Chatas - three times (which will explain the multiple D'rashos that follow, all from "Korbano"), once by the Korban of a Nasi and twice by that of a Yachid.

(b)The Beraisa learns that one is not Yotzei by bringing the Korban that one's father designated for his small sin (meaning one for which one is only Chayav Kareis) to atone for one's own ...

1. ... big sin (one for which one is Chayav Misah at the hand of Beis-Din), or vice-versa from - "Korbano".

2. ... small sin (and likewise if they are both big sins) from "Korbano".

(c)We might we have thought that, in spite of these rulings, a son can nevertheless be Yotzei with the money that his father designated for his Korban (even for a small sin on his big one, or vice-versa) - because a son can shave (be Yotzei his Korban Nezirus) with the money that his father designated for his own Nezirus (even though he is not permitted to do so with the animals that his father designated for his Nezirus) ...

(d)... though this only applies to money that is as yet unspecified (which one is designated for the Chatas and which one for the Olah), but not once it has been specified.

(e)And we learn that he cannot in fact do so from - "Korbano".

11)

(a)Until now, we have discussed a son being Yotzei with the Korban or the money, designated by his deceased father. We already learned in our Mishnah from "Korbano" that the same applies to switching a designated animal even from Cheilev to Cheilev. We initially confine this to changing the designated animal from one sin to another, because 'she'Kein Lo Ma'al ve'Lo Kipar', which Rav Shmuel bar Shimi explained in front of Rav Papa to mean that - because Kodshei Mizbe'ach are not subject to Me'ilah, one cannot switch them from one sin to the other one.

(b)On that basis, we think that one is permitted to change the money that one designated even from a small sin to a big one, or vice-versa - seeing as it is subject to Me'ilah.

(c)We know however, that he may not in fact, do so - because of the Pasuk "Korbano al Chataso", implying that one may only use the money for the Chatas for which it was designated, and not for anything else.

12)

(a)Our Mishnah - permits switching for a goat, the money that one designated for a lamb, or vice-versa.

(b)And when the Tana speaks about switching the money for ...

1. ... a sheep or a goat, for pigeons or young doves, or the money for pigeons or young doves, for flour - he is referring to someone who was Chayav a Korban Oleh ve'Yored, and who became poor after designating money for a Beheimah, or who became very poor after designating money for an Of - and the balance is Chulin.

2. ... flour for a pigeon or a young dove, or the money for a pigeon or a young dove for a sheep or a goat, he is referring to someone - who became less poor after designating money for flour, or who became rich after designating money for an Of.

(c)We learn from the Pasuk written (in connection with Korban Oleh ve'Yored)...

1. ... by Korban Beheimah, "me'Chataso" that - should the originally wealthy sinner then become poor, he may deduct from the money that he designated for the Beheimah, and purchase an Of instead.

2. ... by Korban Of, "me'Chataso" that - if the originally poor sinner then became very poor, he may deduct from the money and purchase a Minchah instead.

3. ... by Korban Minchah "Al Chataso" that - if after designating a Minchah, he became less poor, he is obligated to add the money and purchase a Korban Of, and that if he became wealthy, he must add the money that is needed to purchase a Beheimah.

(d)Regarding a Korban Oleh ve'Yored, the Beraisa rules that in a case where one's designated ...

1. ... Beheimah obtained a Mum, assuming that the owner had since become poor - he may redeem it and purchase a Korban Of with the proceeds.

2. ... a bird obtained a Mum, assuming that the owner had since become very poor - he is not permitted to redeem it and purchase a Minchah (because a Korban Of is not subject to Pidyon).

(e)Consequently - he brings the flour from his house, and the bird must die.

13)

(a)In spite of having written "me'Chataso" by Beheimah, the Pasuk sees fit to repeat it by Of - because we would otherwise have thought that it is one thing to switch from Damim to Damim (Beheimah to Of), but another to switch from Damim to flour.

(b)If not for this Pasuk, the sinner would fulfill his obligation - by bringing a fresh Minchah from his house.

(c)Whereas the money that he designated for the Korban Of - goes to Nedavah.

(d)The Torah writes "Al Chataso" specifically by the Minchah and not by the Korban Of, because had it written it by Korban Of, we would have thought that - it is one thing to switch the money from Damim to Damim, but another, to switch from Minchah to Damim (like we learned earlier by the D'rashah of 'me'Chataso).