(Mishnah): Temurah cannot make Temurah.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: "(Hu) u'Semuraso (Yihyeh Kodesh)", but not Temurah of the Temurah.

(Mishnah): Vlados Kodshim do not make Temurah.

That is because it says "Hu". It (initial Hekdesh) makes Temurah, but its child does not.

(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): Vlados Kodshim make Temurah.

He expounds "Yihyeh" to include the child;

Chachamim expound "Yihyeh" to include Shogeg like Mezid. (If he made Temurah on a different animal than intended, it takes effect.)

(Mishnah): Birds and Menachos do not make Temurah. The Torah says only that "Behemah" makes Temurah.

The Tzibur or partners cannot make Temurah. "Lo Yachalifenu v'Lo Yamir" (singular) teaches that only an individual can make Temurah;

Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis cannot make Temurah.

Question (R. Shimon): Why is Temurah repeated in the Parshah of Ma'aser Behemah? (The Torah already taught that Kodshim make Temurah. Ma'aser is included!)

Answer: (It equates Temurah to Ma'aser.) Just like Ma'aser is a Korban Yachid and Kodshei Mizbe'ach, also Temurah applies only to them, but not to Korbanos Tzibur or Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.

(Gemara - Beraisa #1) Suggestion: Perhaps Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis can make Temurah!

Rejection: "Korban" excludes Bedek ha'Bayis, which is not called Korban.

Contradiction (Beraisa #2) Suggestion: It says "Korban" (regarding Shechutei Chutz). Perhaps one is liable even for Bedek ha'Bayis, for it is called Korban - "va'Nakrev Es Korban Hash-m"!

Rejection: "V'El Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Lo Hevi'o" obligates only for something that may be offered in the Mikdash.

Summation of question: Beraisa #2 says that Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis are called Korban!

Answer #1 (R. Chanina): Beraisa #1 is like Chachamim (who do not need a Hekesh to teach that Bedek ha'Bayis cannot make Temurah). Beraisa #2 is like R. Shimon.

Question: Chachamim should agree that they are called Korban, for it says "va'Nakrev Es Korban Hash-m"!

Answer: They are called "Korban Hash-m". They are not called "Korban la'Shem" (i.e. a standard Korban, that is offered to Hash-m).

(Beraisa) Question: (Why does it say regarding Ma'aser) "Lo Yevaker Bein Tov la'Ra v'Lo Yemirenu"? It already says (regarding Kodshim) "Lo Yachalifenu v'Lo Yamir Oso Tov b'Ra"!

Answer: "Lo Yachalifenu v'Lo Yamir" could apply to Korbanos Yachid and Korbanos Tzibur, to Kodshei Mizbe'ach and Bedek ha'Bayis. Therefore, it says "Lo Yevaker";

R. Shimon: The Parshah of Temurah already applied to Ma'aser. It is repeated regarding Ma'aser to equate Temurah to Ma'aser;

Just like Ma'aser is a Korban Yachid, Kodshei Mizbe'ach, a Chovah (this will be explained) and partners do not bring it, also Temurah applies only to such Korbanos.

Rebbi says, Parshas Temurah is repeated regarding Ma'aser to teach that Temuras Shemo (a different animal, i.e. the ninth or 11th, was called Asiri instead of the tenth) and Temuras Gufo (regular Temurah, i.e he said 'this animal is Tachas Ma'aser') both apply to Ma'aser;

Temuras Shemo is offered (the 11th is like Shelamim in every way). Temuras Gufo is not offered (but in all other ways it is like Ma'aser);

Temuras Shemo may be redeemed. Temuras Gufo may not be redeemed;

Temuras Gufo takes effect (makes full Kedushah) on a Tam or Ba'al Mum. Temuras Shemo takes effect only on a Tam.

Version #1 (R. Gershom) Question: Why does Temuras Shemo take effect only on a Tam? Because an additional kind of Temurah applies to Ma'aser, should it be less inclusive (than Temuras Gufo, which takes effect even on a Ba'al Mum)?!

Answer: Yes! We would say that only what is written about Temuras Shemo (it takes effect on an animal Kosher for Shelamim) applies to it. (Tzon Kodashim explains that the first explanation of Rashi is like Version #1. We explain the two versions in Rashi like Tosfos.)

Version #2 (Rashi) Question: Why must a verse teach that Temuras Gufo of Ma'aser takes effect even on a Ba'al Mum? Because Temuras Shemo applies to Ma'aser, should we say that Temuras Gufo applies to Ma'aser less than other Korbanos?!

Answer: Yes! We would say that only what is written about Ma'aser (Temurah (e.g. Shemo) takes effect on a Tam) applies to it.

Version #3 (Rashi) Question: Why must a verse teach that Temuras Gufo applies to Ma'aser? Because Temuras Shemo applies to Ma'aser, would we say that Temuras Gufo (which applies to all other Korbanos) does not?!

Answer: Yes! We would say that only what is written about Ma'aser (Temuras Shemo) applies to it. (end of Version #3)

Question: Why would we think this?

Answer: Whenever the Torah gives new laws to a particular case which was part of a general rule, the laws of the general rule no longer apply.

Question (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): R. Shimon said that Temurah applies only to Chovah. Does Olas Chovah make Temurah, but not Olas Nedavah?!

Answer (Rava): Once someone makes a Nedavah, it becomes a Chovah (he must offer it to avoid transgressing "Bal Te'acher"), it makes Temurah;

R. Shimon means that Olah that comes from Mosaros (e.g. of Asham) is Nedavah, and does not make Temurah.

Question: What is R. Shimon's opinion about an Olah from Mosar?

If he holds like the opinion that it is Nidvas Tzibur, obviously it cannot make Temurah!

Answer: He holds like the opinion that it is Nidvas Yachid.

Question: R. Eliezer holds that it is Nidvas Yachid. R. Eliezer explicitly says that it can make Temurah!

Answer: He agrees with R. Eliezer that it is Nidvas Yachid, but argues with him about Temurah.

Question: R. Avin asked (according to the opinion that one cannot make Temurah more than once on one animal), if Reuven was Makdish "A" for his Asham and made "B" Temurah on it:

Question #1: If "A" got a Mum, he redeemed it onto "C", can "C" make Temurah?

Question #2: If he lost "A" and brought "C" for his Asham, and "A" was found and Nitak to Olah, can it make Temurah?

Question: According to whom does R. Avin ask? (We understood that it is according to R. Shimon, who holds that an animal cannot make Temurah more than once.)

It cannot be according to R. Shimon. He holds that an Olah from Mosar cannot make Temurah!

Answer: R. Avin asks, if there is a Tana who holds like R. Shimon that an animal cannot make Temurah more than once, and holds like R. Eliezer, that Olah from Mosar makes Temurah:

After Temurah was made (on the first animal,) can a second animal of the same Kedushah make Temurah?

If you will say that it cannot, can the same animal make Temurah again when it gets a new Kedushah?

His questions are not resolved.