Version #1 (Beraisa - R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah): He transgresses even for Kabalah.

Question: What is his reason?

Answer #1: "U'Ma'uch v'Chasus... (Lo Sakrivu)" forbids Kabalah.

The first Tana learns Zerikah from "Lo Sakrivu".

Question: Above, the Beraisa learned this from "Al ha'Mizbe'ach"!

Answer: Really, it is learned from "Lo Sakrivu." It is normal to say "Al ha'Mizbe'ach", so we do not expound a law from it.

Question: R. Yosi should agree that it is normal to say "Al ha'Mizbe'ach." If so, what is his source for Zerikah?

Answer #2: Rather, R. Yosi learns Kabalah from "umi'Yad Ben Nechar Lo Sakrivu".

Question: How do Chachamim expound this?

Answer: It is needed to forbid offering a Ba'al Mum of a Nochri;

One might have thought since Nochrim may offer a Ba'al Mum as long as it is not lacking a limb, we may offer it on our Mizbe'ach. The verse teaches that this is not so. It is permitted only on their own Bamos.

Version #2 (Beraisa - R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah): He transgresses even for Kabalah.

Question: What is his reason?

Answer #1: "U'Ma'uch v'Chasus... (Lo Sakrivu)" forbids Kabalah.

He learns Zerikah from "Al ha'Mizbe'ach".

Question: Also the first Tana should learn Zerikah from "Al ha'Mizbe'ach"!

Answer: Indeed, he does!

Question: How does he expound "Lo Sakrivu" (in the verse "u'Ma'uch v'Chasus")?

Answer: This forbids Zerikah on a Bamas Yachid.

Question: R. Yosi should also need "Lo Sakrivu" to forbid Zerikah on a Bamas Yachid!

Answer: Indeed, he does.

Question: (We retracted from Answer #1, so Question (h) returns.) What is his source for Kabalah?

Answer #2: He learns from "umi'Yad Ben Nechar Lo Sakrivu".

Chachamim use this to forbid offering a Ba'al Mum of a Nochri;

One might have thought that since Mechusar Ever is the only Mum forbidden to Nochrim, we may take other Ba'alei Mumim from Nochrim and offer them. The verse teaches that this is not so. (end of Version #2)

Question (Reish Lakish): Perhaps one transgresses (Rashi - for making Hekdesh; Tosfos - for Zerikah and Haktarah of) a Ba'al Mum only if it was born Tam, but not if it was born blemished, for that is like a date tree! (It was never a potential Korban.)

Answer (R. Chiya bar Yosef): The Torah forbids "Saru'a (one limb of a pair is bigger than its counterpart) v'Kalut (its hooves are not cloven)," even though these are from birth.

Question (Reish Lakish): Perhaps one transgresses only if they were Hukdash through Temurah!

(Mishnah): A stringency of Temurah not found in regular Kodshim is that Temurah gives Kedushas ha'Guf to a Ba'al Mum Kavu'a (it has a permanent blemish).

Answer (R. Yochanan): R. Yanai taught that they voted and concluded that one who is Makdish (and offers) a Ba'al Mum transgresses five Lavim;

If one transgresses only through Temurah, there is a sixth Lav, i.e. Temurah! (R. Yochanan answered from this teaching, and not from the Beraisa, because it connotes that they were meticulous to find all Lavim.)

Question (Reish Lakish): If it was not Hukdash through Temurah, why is one lashed? It is like a date tree!

Version #1 - Answer (R. Yochanan): If one is Makdish a tree, it is no disgrace to be Makdish a date tree. If one is Makdish an animal, it is a disgrace to be Makdish a Ba'al Mum instead of a Tam. Therefore, he is lashed.

Version #2 - Answer (R. Yochanan): Both of these are a disgrace;

One who is Makdish a date tree is not lashed, for the entire species is not Kosher for Korbanos. If one is Makdish a Ba'al Mum, he is lashed, since Tamim are Kosher for Korbanos.

(Rava): Since we say that one is lashed because it is a disgrace to be Makdish a Ba'al Mum, he is lashed even if he was Makdish it to sell it and buy Nesachim (the Minchah and wine offered with a Korban).

Tana'im argue about Rava's law. (We adopt the text of Shitah Mekubetzes);

(Beraisa): "Nedavah Ta'aseh Oso" (permits to be Makdish a Ba'al Mum) to Bedek ha'Bayis;

Question: This teaches about Nedavah ("this is Hekdesh Bedek ha'Bayis"). What is the source that one may (and should) fulfill a Neder ("I will give to Bedek ha'Bayis") with a Ba'al Mum?

Answer #1: "Ul'Neder" (the next word in the verse) includes this.

Suggestion: Perhaps (one may be Makdish a Ba'al Mum) even for (a Neder to bring) Kodshei Mizbe'ach!

Rejection: "Ul'Neder Lo Yeratzeh" forbids.

Question: This forbids (to be Makdish a Ba'al Mum) only for a Neder of Kodshei Mizbe'ach. What is the source to forbid to be Makdish a Ba'al Mum for a Nedavah (for the Mizbe'ach)?

Answer: "Nedavah" (in the beginning of the verse applies also to the end, "ul'Neder Lo Yeratzeh").

Rebbi says, "Lo Yeratzeh" refers to something that is itself offered (on the Mizbe'ach).

Question: Rebbi is just like the first Tana!

Answer: They argue about Rava's law. The first Tana obligates even for something Hukdash to sell it and buy Nesachim, and Rebbi obligates only for Hekdesh of something that it itself will be offered.

Question: What do we learn from "Oso"?

Answer (Beraisa): "Nedavah Ta'aseh Oso" permits to be Makdish a Ba'al Mum to Bedek ha'Bayis, but not a Tam;

This teaches that one who is Makdish a Tam to Bedek ha'Bayis transgresses an Aseh.

Question: What is the source that he transgresses a Lav?

Answer (R. Yehudah): "Va'Yedaber Hash-m El Moshe Leimor" teaches that there is a Lav for making it Hekdesh.

Question (Rebbi): How do we learn this from the verse?

Answer #1 (Bar Kapara): We read "Leimor" like 'Lo Ne'emar' (a Lav was said) about thee matters.

Answer #2 (Bei Rav): We read it like 'Lav Amur'.

(Rava): One who offers limbs of a Ba'al Mum on the Mizbe'ach is lashed for total Haktarah and partial Haktarah.

(Abaye): One is not lashed (more than once) for Lav shebi'Chlalos (multiple Lavim that are learned from one verse).

Question (Beraisa): One who is Makdish (and offers) a Ba'al Mum transgresses five Lavim. (It counts total Haktarah and partial Haktarah like two!)

Answer (Abaye): We must substitute Kabalah in place of partial Haktarah.

Question: The first Tana said that there are five Lavim. He is not Mechayev for Kabalah. Only R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah is!

Version #1: This is left difficult.

Version #2: The latter Tana is R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, so he cannot be the first Tana. Abaye is refuted.

(Mishnah): Kohanim can make Temurah in their Korbanos. (It is forbidden. The Mishnah teaches that if they made Temurah, it takes effect.) Yisrael can make Temurah in their Korbanos;

Kohanim cannot make Temurah in Chatas or Asham (given to them to be offered) or Bechor.

Question (R. Yochanan ben Nuri): Why can't they make Temurah in Bechor?

Answer (R. Akiva): Bechor is Matanos Kehunah, just like Chatas and Asham;

Just like they cannot make Temurah in Chatas or Asham, they cannot make Temurah in Bechor.

Question (R. Yochanan ben Nuri): We cannot learn from Chatas and Asham. Kohanim cannot make Temurah from them, for they acquire them only after Hakravah. They acquire Bechor while it is alive!

Answer (R. Akiva): "V'Hayah Hu u'Semuraso Yihyeh Kodesh" teaches that just like (initial) Kedushah takes effect in the owner's premises, also Temurah (takes effect only in the premises of the one who made the initial Hekdesh).

(Gemara - Mishnah): A Bechor Tam may be sold alive. A Bechor Ba'al Mum may be sold alive or slaughtered.

(Rav Nachman): This is only nowadays (after the Churban), because the Kohen acquires it while it is alive;

When the Mikdash stands, since a Tam must be offered, a Tam may not be sold alive.

Question (Rava - Mishnah): A Bechor Tam may be sold alive.

Inference: It may not be sold slaughtered.

Question: When does this apply?

It cannot be nowadays. Nowadays we may not slaughter a Tam!

Answer: It must be when the Mikdash stands!

Answer: The Mishnah does not explicitly forbid selling a slaughtered Bechor. (Rava inferred this, in order to prove that it discusses when the Mikdash stands);

Rather, it teaches that a Tam may be sold even nowadays. (One might have thought that it cannot, for the Kohen cannot benefit from it until it gets a Mum, so it is as if he does not own it yet.)