Implied Question: Even though ostensibly, the Mishnah mentions it to teach us that there is such a thing as a Temurah that cannot be brought ...

Answer: Nevertheless, it is not necessary to tell us this.

Clarification: Now it is not possible to say that the Pasuk is merely an Asmachta ...

Reason: Because if it is, then what is the Pasuk really coming to teach us.

Question: According to the first Lashon, how can Abaye query Rabah from this Beraisa ...

Question (cont.): Seeing as the Seifa specifically supports him.

Conclusion: And it is very difficult to suggest that Abaye did not know the Seifa of the Beraisa from which he asked.

Clarification: Shmuel holds like Rebbi Zeira who maintains that 'Chatzos fixes'.

Clarification: Since Rebbi Yochanan says that 'A Pesach is not brought as a Shelamim unless it is found after the Shechitah.

Proof: And this what the Gemara extrapolates later (on Amud Beis).

Question: The Gemara asks on the Seifa from 'Kol she'be'Chatas Ro'ah' ...

Question (cont.): When in fact, it could just as well have asked on the Reisha, bearing in mind that Temuras Chatas or where the owner died goes to Misah, whereas in our Mishnah we say that 'Temuras Pesach is Ro'eh, there where it is found before Chatzos', because Chatzos fixes it?

Conclusion: Similarly 'Meisu Ba'alav' the Gemara will say later (on 98.) that if he died after Chatzos, Chatzos fixes it?

Clarification: The Gemara gives this example because the Dechiyah of a Beis-ha'Kevaros is not a real Dechiyah ...

Conclusion: And in the same way Avrah Shenasah is not a real Dechiyah either, in the way that the owner's death and where the owner obtained a Kaparah independently are.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that, based on the D'rashah of Yehoyada ha'Kohen, the money is used to purchase Olos for Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach.

Refutation: The Ri does not agree however, because the Medrash of Yehoyada only pertains to where one designated money for one's Chatas or Asham and some money for his Chatas or his Asham remains ...

Refutation (cont.): Or to where the money is lost and after the owner has designated other money, it is found, in which case what is left goes to Nedavah.

Refutation (cont.): But in our case - where the owner has not yet received his atonement, the Din will be 'that it is sold and one brings another Korban with the proceeds.

Proof: And the Ri supports his opinion from the Mishnah in Perek V'lad Chatas (Temurah, Daf 21:) 'And one that gets lost, if after it is after the owner has received his atonement ... ; But if it is after before the owner has been atoned for, it must graze in the meadow until it obtains a blemish, when it is sold and an other Korban is purchased with the proceeds'.

Proof (cont.): Now if already where it is a real Dechuyah such as Avdah, where Resh Lakish concedes that if it is found after the Kaparah, it must die, yet the Tana rules 'Before the Kaparah, one brings another Korban' ...

Conclusion: By 'Avrah Shenasah', which is not a real Dichuy, seeing as even if it is found after the Kaparah it does not die, how much more so, that if obtains a blemish before the Kaparah, must one bring another Korban with the proceeds!

Clarification: And Shmuel is not speaking about such a case ...

Conclusion: Since we learned that Shmuel is referring exclusively to 'Avudin'.

Refuted Answer: One cannot answer that it got lost at nighttime ...

Refutation: Since lost at night is not considered lost.

Conclusion: And Shmuel is referring exclusively to 'Avudin', as we just explained.

Explanation #1: What Rashi explains that the Gemara could have asked 'But this is not Avud?', only it opted to ask a different question ...

Refutation: Does not seem correct, since it is not the way of the Gemara - that when it states 'Like the statement of Rebbi Oshaya', it does not answer the Kashya as to how Shmuel will establish the case of Ro'eh by Avudah?

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains that when Rebbi Oshaya rules that 'the second one is Ro'eh', he speaks in all cases, even if it subsequently becomes lost, since it is not comparable to other cases of Avudin, which must die according to Rebbi.

Explanation #2 (cont.): This is because regular Avudin are initially designated to be brought on the Mizbe'ach. Consequently when they become lost they are rejected from going on the Mizbe'ach, and must therefore die.

Conclusion: Not so where one designates two Chata'os for Achrayus, where they are initially designated for rejection, in which case, just as they are subject to Ro'eh when they are not lost, so too, are they subject to Ro'eh when they are.

Explanation #3: Alternatively, one can say that even if it not lost it is considered as if it is, bearing in mind that when the owner designated it, it was not fit to be brought as a Korban.

Explanation #3 (cont.): And it cannot be compared to one that is lost at nighttime, because there it is not rejected at a time where it is fit to bring, and it is therefore constantly considered as being fit to go on the Mizbe'ach.

Conclusion: Whereas in our case, one of them is definitely not fit to be brought.

Question: The Riva asks how this speaks. Because if he said 'Harei Zu Chatas' and then said again 'Harei Zu Chatas' ...

Question (cont.): Kedushah will not take effect on the second animal, seeing as one cannot bring two Chata'os for one sin.

Question (cont.): Whereas if he said 'Harei Eilu Beheimos Chata'os ...

Question (cont.): Rabah said in 'Mi she'Hotzi'uhu' (Eruvin, Daf 50.) that 'Whatever cannot take effect one after the other, cannot take effect simultaneously either, in which case, once again, neither of them is Kadosh?

Conclusion: So the only possible case is where he said 'One of them is a Chatas and the other one, for Acharayus'.

Question: That being the case, why, where the one animal did not get lost, is the other animal Ro'eh ...

Question (cont.): After all, it was only sanctified as Achrayus for the Chatas, should it get lost. But should it not get lost, it was not sanctified?

Answer: The Ri therefore explains that the Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai is that in such a case the animal is Ro'eh.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that according to Rebbi what sort of Si'man is Shmuel giving, seeing as even where a Chatas is Ro'eh, the equivalent by Pesach is brought as a Shelamim.

Refutation: The Ri does not agree however. By Avudah, he asks, we do not find Avudah, according to Rebbi, since where one designated two Chata'os for Acharayus, Rashi himself explains that it is not called 'Avud'?

Qualification: However, according to Rabeinu Tam, who establishes Rebbi Oshaya even by Avudah, this is no problem.

Explanation #2: The Ri explains that even according to Rebbi Shimon it can only be established by Avudin, since otherwise one can ask from where it is lost before Chatzos and found before Chatzos, where by Pesach we rule 'Ro'eh, whereas by Avudas Laylah, which is not considered Avudah, like a Pesach before Chatzos, Rebbi Shimon holds 'Meisah'?

Implied Question: And even though Rebbi Shimon holds later (on Daf 98.) that 'Live animals are not subject to Dichuy'. And that a Pesach whose owner dies after Chatzos is brought as a Shelamim, even though it was Nidcheh?

Answer: Shmuel does not hold like Rebbi Shimon in this point.

Explanation #3: Whereas the Rashbam explains that the Gemara original answer 'that Shmuel is talking about Avudin and not about Dechuyin', is a forced answer.

Explanation #3 (cont.): So when the Gemara answers that 'he holds like Rebbi Shimon', it is reestablishing him like we understood him initially - that he is speaking both by Avudin and by Dechuyin.

Consequently: Now it is no longer possible to establish Shmuel like Rebbi, since, if one did, there would be a problem from a 'Chatas which passed its first year and one then designates two Chata'os for Achrayus. According to Rebbi, it does not die, yet by Pesach it is brought as a Shelamim.

Conclusion: That is why the Gemara establishes it like Rebbi Shimon, who holds that five Chata'os must die under all circumstances, whereas by the Pesach they are brought as a Shelamim.

Implied Question: Even though a Pesach that was lost and is found before Chatzos is Ro'eh according to Shmuel, seeing as it is specifically mentioned in the Mishnah?

Answer: There is however, one side of Avad that is brought as a Shelamim - there where it is found after Chatzos ...

Answer (cont.): And what the Gemara is therefore saying is that any case where a Chatas dies, there is one side of a Pesach that is brought asw a Shelamim.

Conclusion: And he is coming to preclude Rebbi Yochanan ...

Proof: Since in any other case, he would not be teaching us anything, seeing as there are other cases learned either in a Mishnah or in a Beraisa where the Pesach is brought as a Shelamim.

Query: The Ri does not know why the Gemara takes for granted that Rebbi Shimon's ruling that five Chata'os must die, applies under all circumstances.

Resolution: One can however, deduce it from a Beraisa cited in the second Perek of Temurah (Daf 15.) where Rebbi Shimon says that 'Five Chata'os must die - V'lad Chatas, Temuras Chatas ... '.

Resolution (cont.): The Tana there does not draw any distinctions there, as it does at the beginning of 'V'lad Chatas' (Ibid. 21:) in the Mishnah concerning Avdah, where it draws a distinction between where the owner has been atoned and where he hasn't.

Conclusion: Whilst he (Rebbi Shimon) draws neither this distinction not any other one, implying that he speaks under all circumstances.

Clarification: Rabeinu Tam explains that when the Mishnah says 've'Yavi be'Damehah Shelamim' - this refers to where it is leftover after Pesach, like the entire earlier section.

Clarification (cont.): But before Pesach, one uses proceeds to purchase a Pesach.

Support: In fact a Beraisa in Temurah, in 'Eilu Kodshim' (Daf 19.) draws this distinction.

Clarification: But the animal itself cannot be brought as a Shelamim, since the value is subject to Dichuy, as the Gemara explains, seeing as to begin with it was not sanctified to be sacrificed.

Question: Why can one not sell it as it is without a blemish, bearing in mind that it has not been sanctified with a Kedushas ha'Guf?

Answer: It is not necessary to mention where one is Makdish a Nekeivah as a Pesach, and a Pesach is brought as a Shelamim after Pesach, and the animal itself would have been fit to bring as a Shelamim, had it been sanctified as such ...

Answer (cont.): But even if one is Makdish it as an Asham, the Gemara rules in 'Eilu Kodshim (Ibid. Amud Beis) 'Tir'eh ad she'Tista'ev ve'Timacher ve'Yavi Asham'.

Answer (cont.): Moreover, even Rebbi Shimon, who says there that 'It may be sold without a blemish', may well concede here that a blemish is required, as Tosfos already explained.