Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the animal itself one can certainly not bring, and it speaks where he is coming to obligate himself to bring their value - in other words, the man who found it undertook to rectify all the S'feikos connected with it, and to take it out to Chulin (in the process) ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): And what the Gemara means is - that we suspect that perhaps it is an Olah; So he brings two animals or money for two animals, and declares 'If it is an Olah, then it will be transferred to this one (or the money) and the other one will be a Shalmei Nedavah ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): And if it is a Shelamim, then it will be transferred (Mechuleles) to the second animal, and the first one will be a Nidvas Olah' ...

Explanation #1 (concl.): 'And the author is Rebbi Meir, who says that Hekdesh ... '.

Inference: Rashi's explanation implies that the finder needs to transfer the Kedushah of the found animal on to the one that he brings, specifically by way of Chilul (transferring the Kedushah) ...

Inference (cont): And Rebbi Meir holds that they can be redeemed Temimim (without a blemish).

Question: Nowhere do we find that Rebbi Meir holds that Temimim can be redeemed any more than other Tana'im, and this has nothing to do with his Machlokes with Rebbi Yehudah?

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains that Temimim, according to Rebbi Meir cannot be redeemed by way of Chilul ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Only it speaks here where the finder intended to steal it and to acquire it from the domain of the one who was Makdish it, to own it and to change it, in which case it is permitted ...

Explanation #1 (concl.): And after he took it out to Chulin, it occurred to him to obligate himself to bring their value, as Tosfos explained.

Clarification: Two Me'ilos cannot occur one after the other on one 'object' of Hekdesh, Rashi explains ...

Reason: Because, as soon as the first person is Mo'el it goes out to Chulin ...

Clarification (cont.): Only by animals and K'lei Shareis.

Introduction to Question: We learned in the Tosefta (Perek 2) that 'someone who chops with an ax of Hekdesh and his friend then comes and chops with it ... , they are all Mo'el ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): But if he gave it to his friend and his friend to his friend, then he is Mo'el, and his friend is permitted to chop with it Lechatchilah'.

Question: How is that speaking - If that ax is a K'li Shareis, then when he gives it to his friend, why is the latter not Mo'el, when we just said 'Yesh Mo'el achar Mo'el bi'Chelei Shareis'?

Question (cont.): Whereas if it is not a K'li Shareis, then why (in the Reisha) does it say that they are all Mo'el, seeing as 'Ein Mo'el achar Mo'el ela Beheimah u'K'lei Shareis bi'Levad'?

Answer: It speaks where the ax is not a K'li Shareis, yet there is no Kashya ...

Answer (cont.): Because we only say 'Ein Mo'el achar Mo'el' when he (the first person) gives it to his friend, or when he thinks that it belongs to his friend and has the intention of stealing it ...

Source: Like the Din of Shelichus Yad on a Pikadon (using it for oneself), because there where one has the intention of taking a Pikadon out from one domain to the other, he is termed a Gazlan on the entire Pikadon, even though he only took part of it out its domain (See Masores ha'Shas) ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas in the case of the Tosefta, where it says 'His friend came and chopped with it, and his friend came and chopped with it, they are all Mo'el' - each one thinks that that it belongs to him, and he intends, not to take it out of its domain, but to benefit from it and to then replace it ...

Answer (cont.): In that case, when he uses it he is only Mo'el to the value of the benefit that he derives from it, which is why we say that it does not go out to Chulin completely and they are all Mo'el.

Answer (concl.): But there where he gives it to his friend and his friend gives it to his friend, only the first one, who took it out from one domain to another, is Mo'el - because even though he thought it belonged to him, he nevertheless had in mind to take it out from his domain to that of his friend.

Inference: Consequently, one must say that in the case where 'his friend came and rode on it, and his friend and rodde on it, they are all Mo'el - speaks even where he intended to steal it and to take it from one domain to another ...

Proof: Because otherwise, why does it specifically mention 'Beheimah and K'lei Shareis' ...

Proof (cont.): Even Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis are subject to Me'ilah after Me'ilah, there where he did not intend to take it out of one domain to another, but just to benefit from it and to put it back, as Tosfos explained.

Proof (concl.): It must therefore be speaking where he intended to steal it, and nevertheless we say that they are all Mo'el, as Tosfos just explained.

Proof #1: And proof to distinguish between benefiting from something that one thinks is one's own and something that belongs to others - lies in the Gemara in Me'ilah (Daf 20a) where the Gemara rules that someone who takes a stone or a beam belonging to Hekdesh is not Mo'el but ...

Proof #1 (cont.): If he then gives it to his friend, he is Mo'el but his friend is not. And in answer to the question that, having taken the stone, what difference does it make whether he just takes it himself or gives it to his friend? ...

Proof #1 (cont.): The Gemara establishes the Reisha - that 'He is not Mo'el' - by stones that are handed to the treasurer (of Hekdesh) , which do not leave the domain of Hekdesh, and also the treasurer did not intend to steal them, only to benefit from them thinking they were his ...

Proof #1 (concl.): Whereas the Seifa which states that 'He is Mo'el' speaks where he intended to take them out of one domain to the other, as the Tana says 'If he gave them to his friend, he is Mo'el'.

Proof #2: And another proof is from the case in Perek Eilu Na'aros (Kesuvos, Daf 34b) where the Gemara says, in connection with a 'Yesomim whose father left them a borrowed cow - if they Shechted and ate it assuming that it belonged to their father, they must pay the value of cheap meat ...

Proof #2 (cont.): But that if they Shechted and ate it knowing that it was a Pikadon, they must pay the full value of the cow ...

Proof #2 (concl.): A proof that there is a distinction between whether one thinks that it is one's own or one knows that it belongs to others.

Clarification: If it is Kodshim Kalim, how can one rectify it, seeing as even if he has in mind to steal it, it will not go out to Chulin, since they are not subject to Me'ilah?

Clarification: (cont.): If it was Kodshei Kodshim - such as Bedek ha'Bayis or a Chatas, there would be no problem, since it would go out to Chulin via Me'ilah.

Question: What is the problem - Don't take it out to Chulin, but rather bring another animal and declare 'If this animal is an Olah, I am stealing it, and this one will be an Olah in its place ...

Question (cont.): Whereas if it is Kodshim Kalim, such as a Shelamim, then it will itself be brought as a Shelamim

Question (concl.): And he brings it as a Shelamim and the other one as an Olas Nedavah (continued on Amud Beis) .

Answer: it is not possible to do that - because the Safek includes the possibility that the found animal is a B'chor or Ma'aser (Beheimah) ...

Reason: Whose Matanos (of blood) are not the same as those of a Shelamim, which requires two Matanos, whereas they require only one (Zevachim 56b).

Refuted Answer: And the Gemara did not want to answer that the finder should wait until it obtains a blemish, and that he should then declare 'If it is a Shelamim, it should be redeemed by this money' ...

Refuted Answer (cont.): Because although Kodshim Kalim cannot be redeemed, that is only as long as it does not have a blemish ...

Refutation: Because Rebbi Oshaya maintains that when the Tana says 'Zecharim Olos u'Nekeivos Zivchei Shelamim', he means straightaway, that as soon as he finds the animal he is able to do it without having to wait until it obtains a blemish.

Question: Why must he bring a different animal as a Todah? Why not make a stipulation on the animal that he brings as a Shelamim that 'If it (the found animal) is not a Shelamim, it (the animal that he is bringing) should be a Todah'.

Question (cont.): Because as far as the Matanos are concerned, they are the same ...

Introduction to Refuted Answer: And if it is because their eating times are different, inasmuch as Shelamim can be eaten for two days and a night, and a Todah for one day and a night (Zevachim, 55a) ...

Refuted Answer: And 'One is not allowed to cause Kodshim to become Pasul' (when they must be burned [Ibid. 75b]) ...

Refutation: This Tana holds that one is allowed to do so, seeing as he will shortly say 'Pesach not in its time is a Shelamim' - despite the fact that the Pesach can only be eaten for a (day and a) night, whereas a Shelamim can be eaten for two days and a night ...

Refutation (cont.): So we see that we are not concerned about the eating [differences].

Answer: Because the Todah requires bread.

Question: `Why not bring the bread and stipulate 'If it is a Todah, here is its bread; and if it is a Shelamim, then the bread will be a Nedavah'?

Answer: Bread cannot be brought as a Nedavah; in fact it is bringing Chulin into the Azarah

Source: As the Gemara says in Perek ha'Todah (Menachos, Daf 80b).

Question: Why can he not simply stipulate on the animal of Shelamim, seeing as their Matanot are equal?

Refuted Answer: If it is a question of Semichah - since Shelamim require Semichah, whereas an Asham does not ...

Refutation: Semichah is not crucial (Zevachim, 6a).

Refuted Answer: And as for the eating (Shelamim must be eaten in two days, and an Asham in one) ...

Refutation: The Tana holds that one is allowed to cause Kodshim to become Pasul.

Answer: One cannot stipulate for a Shelamim to be an Asham, since Shelamim require Nesachim whilst an Asham does not (Menachos, 90b).

Implied Question: And one cannot stipulate on the Nesachim and say that 'If it is a Shelamim then that's fine, whereas if not the Nesachim will be a Nedavah' ...

Answer: Because Niskei Chovah and Niskei Nedavah are not the same, since the former are poured into the bowls (on the Mizbe'ach), whereas the latter are sprinkled on the fire-offerings (See Masores ha'Shas).

Question: Why not at least stipulate on an Asham Metzora from the Shelamim, seeing as the Nesachim are the same (Menachos 90b)?

Answer #1: The basic Kashya is from the Asham Nazir, and it only mentions Asham Metzora on account of the Asham Nazir.

Answer #2: Moreover, by the Asham Matzora there is another problem - in that one has to place some of its blood on the right thumb and big toe of the Metzora, and in our case there is no Metzora.

Answer #3: And besides, says ha'Rav Shimshon from Coucy, one cannot stipulate an Asham on the Shelamim, because perhaps today or tomorrow, when the owner realizes that his Asham is lost, he will bring another one in its stead, not knowing that it was found ...

Answer #3 (cont.): And the one that he subsequently brings will be Chulin in the Azarah, since it is an Asham whose owner has been atoned with a substitute and which therefore goes li'Re'iyah (into the meadow until it obtains a blemish ... [Temurah 20b] ).

Answer #3 (concl.): Now everything is fine, and there is nothing to ask.

Conclusion: But by an Olah there is nothing to worry about if he brings another Olah - since an Olah can be brought as a Nedavah.

Question: Since people tend to be careful concerning the Pesach, how does a 'Pesach she'Lo bi'Zemano' come about?

Answer #1: Sometimes the Pesach is sick, so he designates another one ...

Answer #2: Or it speaks about a Pesach whose owner became Tamei.

Answer #3: Alternatively, he designated two Pesachim, one for Achrayos (in case the other one gets lost or dies), in which case he brings one of them and the other one is still there after Pesach.

Refuted Question: Earlier, by Asham, the Gemara could not have asked what the Din will be if it turns out to be in its second year ...

Refutation: Because it could have answered by citing the possibility of 'Re'iyah', since whevever a Chatas has to die, the equivalent by Asham is 'Ro'eh'.

Refutation (cont.): In which case the animal would graze in the meadow until it obtains a blemish, and the proceeds would go for Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach (as Olos Tzibur Nedavah [Temurah 20b]) ...

Refutation (concl,): Whereas in the case of Chatas there is no Takanah at all, which is why the Gemara asks what one should do.

Question: Above when the Tana says 'Zecharim Olos', why are we not concerned that perhaps they are the goats of Yom-Tov or Rosh Chodesh, which are males ...

Question (cont.): So why does the Gemara not ask there 'Perhaps they are Chata'os', like it asks here?

Answer: We have to say that we are not concerned with that, since Beis-Din automatically stipulate that in the event that they get lost, they will become Chulin (See Shevu'os 11b).

Clarification: Outside Yerushalayim, Rashi explains ...

Reason #1: Because the Torah writes (in Devarim 14) "ve'Tzartaa ha'Kesef be'Yad'cha" - so the Torah is particular on Kesef Tzurah minted coins).

Reason #2: Moreover, perhaps it will become weak on account of the journey.

Question: But this is not correct, since minted money only applies by way of redemption - such as purchasing something with it that is not a food, which one will later need to resell ...

Question (cont.): But to purchase an animal, to take it to Yerushalayim to eat it there, is permitted, and minted coins are not required.

Support: And this is what the Gemara says in 'ha'Gozel Kama (Bava Kama, 97b) - 'Someone who has money in Bavel which is not currency in Yerushalayim my buy an animal in Bavel and take it to Yerushalayim' ...

Support (cont.): From which we see minted money is not necessary.

Partial Answer: According to the answer 'Perhaps it will become weak' however, the Kashya is not so strong ...

Partial Answer (cont.): Because one can answer that it is preferable to purchase an animal and to take it to Yerushalayim - even if it becomes weak from the journey, than to bring Babylonian money that is not currency in Yerushalayim.

Conclusion: But according to the answer of minted money, the Kashya is strong, as Tosfos explained.

Reason #3: Therefore the Ri explains that the reason one cannot purchase animals ... ' is on account of a decree that he may raise herd upon herd of animals' ...

Proof: And so the Gemara explains in Perek Lulav ha'Gazul (Sukkah, Daf 40b) where it states ...

Proof (cont.): That according to Rebbi Meir, 'One may redeem money of Ma'aser Sheini on a Beheimah or a Chayah, whether alive or Shechted; whereas the Chachamim say 'On Shechutim one may, but not on live ones'.

Proof (cont.): And the Gemara there establishes the Machlokes by males, but by females both agree that one cannot redeem it on live animals - in case one rears hered upon herd' ...

Proof (concl.): And regarding males, they argue over whether they issued a decree on males on account of females or not - Rebbi Meir holds they did not, the Rabbanan hold they did.

Conclusion: And when our Gemara says 'Ein Lokchin', it is a decree males on account of females.

Question: Seeing as the reason is because of a decree, why does the Gemara there say 'Ein Mischal'lin', implying that even Bedi'eved it is ineffective ...

Question (cont.): When we always say that whatever is de'Rabbanan, Bedi'eved is effective, in which case it ought to have said 'Ein Mechal'lin'? ...

Support: Like the Gemara says in Perek ha'Zahav (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 45b) - 'What then, de'Rabbanan! In that case it should have said, not 'Ein Mischal'lin' but 'Mechal'lin and 'Ein Mechal'lin'?

Answer: Seeing as, in the case in Lulav ha'Gazul, there is a Takanah (a way out) - to return the money to the seller, as the Gemara says here ...

Answer (cont.): That's why it says that even Bedi'eved it is not effective, because if it was, there would be no difference between Di'eved and Lechatchilah.