Question: The Beraisa needs "Rak" to teach that we do not offer Vlados of all Korbanos;

Question: Vlados of which Korban are not offered?

It need not teach about Olah. It is male!

It need not teach about Chatas. A tradition teaches that Vlados must die! (Note: the tradition teaches only about four of the five that must die. However, we were unsure about for which there was a tradition. I.e. we cannot derive from the Beraisa that there is no tradition about Vlad Chatas! R. Noson holds that the tradition teaches only about one of them. In any case, the Gemara must answer for Reish Lakish, who holds that the tradition is for four of them.)

Suggestion: Perhaps it teaches about (Shitah - Vlados of Temuras) Asham!

Rejection: Tradition teaches that in every case that a Chatas must die, the corresponding case of Asham is Ro'eh!

Answer #1: Really, it teaches about Chatas;

The tradition teaches that it must die. The verse teaches that it may not be offered.

Objection: Obviously, if it must die it may not be offered!

Answer #2: It teaches that Temuras Asham may not be offered;

Question: Tradition teaches that it must Ro'eh, i.e. it itself cannot be offered!

Defense of both answers: The verse teaches that if one offers it, he transgresses an Aseh.

(Beraisa - R. Akiva): We need not learn from there. "Asham Hu" teaches that it is offered, but its Temurah is not offered.

Question: Why does he need a verse? Tradition teaches that in every case that a Chatas must die, the corresponding case of Asham is Ro'eh!

Answer: Indeed, the verse really teaches Rav Huna's law:

(Rav Huna): If an Asham (that cannot be offered, e.g. she'Kipru Ba'aleha) was Nitak (given to a shepherd) to be Ro'eh, and was slaughtered Stam (without special intention), it is (an Olah, it is) valid.

Inference: Before Nituk, it may not be slaughtered! (R. Tam deletes this from the text.)

Question: What is the reason?

Version #1 (Rashi) Answer: "Hu" - it is in its original status (Asham, until Nituk. An unneeded Asham is Pasul).

Version #2 (R. Tam): Answer: "Hu" - it is (immediately) in its (ultimate) status (an Olah, mid'Oraisa. Mid'Rabanan, we do not offer it itself. Rather it is Ro'eh.)

Question: R. Yishmael learns about Temuros and Vlados from "Rak Kodoshecha... " What does he learn from "Im Zachar Im Nekevah"?

Answer: He learns about Temuros and Vlados of Ba'alei Mumim.

Question: If he expounds it (like Beraisa #1, 17b), he should learn from it Temuros and Vlados of Tamim and Ba'alei Mumim!

Answer: He does not expound "Im," rather only "Zachar" and "Nekevah."

Question: How does the Tana of Beraisa #1 expound "Tisa u'Vasa"?

Version #1 - Answer: It teaches that one must bring them even mi'Mir'aihu. (Rashi - they are in the pasture and it is an exertion to get them. Tosfos - they are in Chutz la'Aretz, where one may graze them, but Chachamim decreed not to raise animals in Eretz Yisrael.)

Version #2 - Answer: It teaches that one must bring them even mi'Mor'gaihu. (R. Gershom - on its own, the Korban was threshing; Rashi - it was a Chulin animal that you planned to be Makdish and bring for a Korban, and it is threshing when you are about to go to the Mikdash for the festival; Tosfos - it is thin now.)

(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): Vlad Shelamim may not be offered for Shelamim;

Chachamim say, it is offered.

R. Shimon: They do not argue about Vladei Vlados Shelamim or (Vladei - Shitah deletes this from the text) Vlados Temurah, that they are not offered;

They argue about Vlad Shelamim. R. Eliezer says that it is not offered, and Chachamim say that it is.

R. Yehoshua and R. Papeyas testified that a Vlad Shelamim is offered for a Shelamim.

R. Papeyas testified '(in my family) we offered a Shelamim on Pesach, and offered its Vlad for a Shelamim on Chag (Sukos).'

(Gemara - R. Ami) Question: What is R. Eliezer's reason?

Answer #1 (R. Ami): We read "v'Im Zevach Shelamim Korbano" like "v'Em" (the mother is offered), but not the Vlad.

Objection (R. Chiya bar Aba): If so, he should expound similarly "Im Al Todah" - "Em," and not the Vlad!

Suggestion: Perhaps he does!

Rejection (Beraisa) Question: What is the source that Vlad, Temuras and Chalifas (an animal brought to replace a) Todah may be offered?

Answer: We learn from "Im Al Todah." (R. Eliezer does not argue with this!)

Answer #2 (R. Chiya bar Aba): Rather, he decrees to forbid offering the Vlad, lest people delay bringing Shelamim in order to raise flocks of Shelamim. (Todah is not common, so he does not decree about it.)

(Mishnah - R. Shimon): They do not argue...

Question: What does R. Shimon mean?

Does he mean "they do not argue (about Vladei Vlados, that anyone holds) that they are not offered. Rather, all agree that they are offered";

Or does he mean "they do not argue (i.e. no one holds) that they are offered. Rather, all agree that they are not offered"?

Answer #1 (Rabah): Presumably, he means that all agree that they are offered.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: They argue about the Vlad, for it is common. It is rare that Vladei Vlados would be born. (normally, the Vlad is offered before it is old enough to bear offspring), so no one decrees about them.

Answer #2 (R. Yehoshua ben Levi): He holds that all agree that they are not offered.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: Chachamim permit the Vlad only because it is not clear that he intended to raise flocks of Shelamim. If a second generation is born, it becomes clear that he intended to raise flocks.

Support (for R. Yehoshua ben Levi - Rav Chananya - Beraisa): "Im Kesev Hu Makriv" teaches that the first Vlad is offered, but not the second (generation) Vlad;

"Hu" (Vlad Shelamim) is offered, but not Vlados of all Kodshim.

Question: Vlados of which Korban are not offered?

It need not teach about Olah or Asham. They are males!

It need not teach about Chatas. A tradition teaches that Vlados must die!

Answer (Ravina): It teaches about Ma'aser.

Question: Why do we need a verse for Ma'aser? We should learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Avarah-Avarah" from Bechor (we never find Vlados Bechor offered, for it is male. Likewise, Vlados Ma'aser are not offered!)

Answer: We need the verse, for one might have thought we do not learn Efshar (possible, i.e. Vlad Ma'aser) from Iy Efshar (Vlad Bechor).

(Mishnah - R. Papeyas): (We offered a Shelamim on Pesach, and its Vlad on Chag.).

Question: According to Rava, who says that one who does not bring a Korban on the first possible festival transgresses every day, they should have brought it on Shavu'os!

Answer #1 (Rav Zevid citing Rava): The case is, it was sick on Shavu'os. (Therefore it was permitted to delay until Sukos);

Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): (Indeed, they offered it on Shavu'os.) Here, "Chag" refers to Shavu'os.

Rav Zevid disagrees. If the Tana called Pesach "Pesach," he would call Shavu'os "Atzeres," and not "Chag."

Question: If so (Rashi - according to both of them), what do we learn from his testimony?

Answer: It is unlike R. Eliezer, who forbids offering Vlad Shelamim.

(Mishnah): Vlad or Temurah of Todah, and their Vlados, and their Vlados for all generations are like Todah, except that they are offered without bread (Lachmei Todah).

(Gemara) Question: What is the source of this? (Vayikra 7:12 says "Im Al Todah Yakrivenu v'Hikriv Al Zevach Todah.")

Answer (Beraisa) Question: What do we learn from "Yakrivenu"?

Answer - Question: If one was Makdish a Todah, and it was lost, and another was Hukdash in its place, and the first was found, what is the source that one may offer either?

Answer: It says "Todah Yakriv". (This is not an exact quote. "Yakrivenu" is unnecessary, we first expound the root, and later the suffix).

Suggestion: Perhaps when we offer the second, women bring bread with it!

Rejection: "Yakrivenu" (singular) alludes to one, and not two.

Question: What is the source to include (offering) Vlad and Temuras Todah?

Answer: Its "Im Al Todah."

Suggestion: Perhaps all of them require bread!

Rejection: "Al Zevach Todah" teaches that only Todah requires bread, but not its Vlad, Temurah or Chalifah.

(Mishnah): Temuras Olah, and its Vlados and Vladei Vlados for all generations are like Olah. They require Hefshet and Nitu'ach, and they are Kalil (entirely burned on the Mizbe'ach);

If one was Makdish a female for an Olah and it gave birth to a male, the Vlad is Ro'eh. We offer an Olah with its Damim (redemption money. Every mention of a female or Vlad Olah (or Asham or Pesach) refers to such a case. We adopt the text of Shitah Mekubetzes, who changes many occurrences of "R. Eliezer" to "R. Elazar" - see Background to the Daf.)

R. Elazar says, it itself is offered for an Olah.

(Gemara) Question: Why do Chachamim argue in the Seifa, but not in the Reisha?

Answer #1 (Rabah bar bar Chanah): Indeed, Chachamim argue also in the Reisha. (The Mishnah gives only R. Elazar's opinion);

Answer #2 (Rava): Chachamim agree in the Reisha;

They argue only in the Seifa, regarding the Vlad Olah, because its "Em" (the initial Hekdesh from which it comes) was unable to be offered;

They agree that Temurah and its Vlados are offered, because their "Em," a (male) Olah, could have been offered.

Question: Does R. Elazar really hold that we offer Temuras Olah and its Vlados?!

Contradiction (Mishnah): Temuras Asham, and its Vlados and Vladei Vlados for all generations are Ro'eh. We bring Nedavah (Olos Tzibur) with the Damim;

R. Eliezer says, they must die;

R. Elazar says, the owner brings Olos with their Damim.

Summation of question: R. Elazar does not permit offering the Temurah and Vlados themselves!

Answer #1 (Rav Chisda): R. Elazar addresses Chachamim according to their reasoning:

I hold that even Vlad Asham is offered for an Olah;

You hold that it is Ro'eh. You should say that the owner (and not the Tzibur) brings an Olah with the Damim!

Chachamim: No, Mosar Asham is for Nidvos Tzibur.

Answer #2 (Rava): R. Elazar says that Vlad Olah is itself offered for an Olah, because Shem Olah Al Imo (it is the same Kedushah as its "Em"; Rashi - alternatively, because Kedushas Olah applies to female birds);

Vlad Asham is not offered for an Olah, for Ein Shem Olah Al Imo (its Em was an Asham. Alternatively, Kedushas Asham never applies to females), so it is Ro'eh.