Question (Abaye): R. Elazar does not require Shem Olah Al Imo!

(Beraisa): A female Pesach is Ro'eh. We bring Pesach with its Damim;

Vlad Pesach is Ro'eh. We bring Pesach with the Damim;

If the initial Hekdesh was still around after Pesach, it is Ro'eh. We bring Shelamim with the Damim;

If the Vlad is around after Pesach, it is Ro'eh, We bring Shelamim with the Damim.

R. Elazar says, it itself is offered for Shelamim.

Even though the Em was not Shelamim, R. Elazar says that the Vlad is offered for Shelamim!

Answer (Rava): After Pesach is different, for Mosar Pesach itself is offered like a Shelamim.

Question (Abaye): If so, R. Elazar should also argue in the Reisha! (Even before Pesach, if Pesach was slaughtered l'Shem Shelamim it is a valid Shelamim.)

Answer #1 (Rava): Indeed, he also argues in the Reisha.

Answer #2 (Abaye): No, he agrees in the Reisha. He has a tradition that the Vlad is like Mosar;

After Pesach, Mosar Pesach is Shelamim, so also Vlad Pesach is Shelamim;

Before Pesach, the Em has Kedushas Damim for Pesach, so the same applies to the Vlad.

Question (Rav Ukva bar Chama): We do not say that because the Em has Kedushas Damim for Pesach, the same applies to the Vlad!

(Beraisa): A female Pesach and its Vlados are Ro'eh. We bring Pesach with the Damim;

R. Elazar says, the Vlad itself is offered for Pesach.

He does not apply the law of the Em to it!

Answer (Ravina): The case is, he was Makdish a pregnant animal;

R. Elazar holds like R. Yochanan, who holds that one can be Meshayer (stipulate that the fetus be Chulin or a different Korban), and Ubar Lav Yerech Imo (a fetus is considered an independent animal. It is not just a part of the mother);

The mother does not get Kedushas ha'Guf, but the Vlad does!

Support (Mar Zutra brei d'Rav Mari): Presumably, the Beraisa discusses Hekdesh of a pregnant animal, for it says "it and its Vlados". (It does not mention that it gave birth.)

(R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): R. Elazar admits that Vlad Asham is not offered for an Asham.

Objection: This is obvious! R. Elazar says only that Vlad Olah is itself offered for an Olah, because Shem Olah Al Imo. This does not apply to Vlad Asham. Surely he agrees that it is not offered for an Asham!

Answer: Had R. Yosi not taught this, one might have thought that R. Elazar's reason is not because Shem Olah Al Imo, rather, because the Vlad is Kosher to be offered, and this applies also to Vlad Asham.

Question: If so, rather than teaching that Vlad Asham is not offered for an Asham, he should have taught that it is not offered for an Olah!

Answer: Had he taught that that, one might have thought it is not offered for an Olah because its mother was not Hukdash for an Olah, but it is offered for an Asham. R. Yosi teaches that this is not so.

(Mishnah): If one was Makdish a female for an Asham, it is Ro'eh until it gets a Mum. We bring an Asham with its Damim;

If another animal was already offered for the Asham, the Damim goes to Nedavah;

R. Shimon says, it may be sold without a Mum.

(Gemara) Question: Why must it get a Mum? Since we cannot offer it, this should be like a Mum to permit selling it!

Answer (Rav Yehudah): Because it gets Kedushas Damim, it gets Kedushas ha'Guf.

(Rava (Tzon Kodashim's text - Rabah)): This teaches that if one was Makdish a male for its value (to buy an Olah), it gets Kedushas ha'Guf (it itself is offered for an Olah).

(Rav Kahana): If one was Makdish a male for its value, it gets Kedushas ha'Guf.

(Rava): It does not get Kedushas ha'Guf.

Rava retracted due to Rav Yehudah's teaching.

(Mishnah - R. Shimon): It may be sold without a Mum.

Question (R. Chiya bar Avin): He should say that because it gets Kedushas Damim, it gets Kedushas ha'Guf!

Answer (R. Yochanan): This is as he holds elsewhere, that something that cannot be offered does not get Kedushas ha'Guf.

(Beraisa): If a second year ram was brought for an Asham that must be a yearling, or if a yearling was brought for an Asham that must be in its second year, it is valid, but the owner was not Yotzei;

R. Shimon says, it is not Kodesh at all.

Question: R. Shimon says that Mechusar Zeman (an animal that cannot be offered now) gets Kedushas ha'Guf!

Answer #1: There is different, for it can be offered later.

Objection: If so, also a yearling Hukdash for a second-year Asham should get Kedushas ha'Guf!

Answer #2: Rather, R. Shimon learns from Bechor:

(R. Shimon ben Yehudah citing R. Shimon): An animal less than eight days old enters the pen for Ma'aser even though it is Mechusar Zeman (no animal may be offered before eight days);

We learn from Bechor. It becomes Kodesh (at birth) before it can be offered, and it is offered in the proper time (after eight days).