ANIMALS HUKDASH FOR ACHARAYUS
(R. Hoshaya): If one was Makdish two Chata'os for Acharayus, he offers one for his Chatas, and the other is Ro'eh.
Question: Like which Tana is this?
Suggestion: It is like Chachamim.
Rejection: According to Chachamim, this is obvious! They hold that Hekdesh l'Ibud is not like the lost Chatas (it is Ro'eh). All the more so, Hekdesh l'Acharayus is Ro'eh!
Answer #1: It is like Rebbi.
Rebbi said Yamus only regarding a Chatas Hukdash l'Ibud. He agrees regarding Acharayus.
Question (Mishnah): If a Chatas was Hukdash and it has a Mum, it is sold. We bring another Chatas with the money;
R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon says, if the new Chatas was slaughtered before the first, the first must die, for this is like after Kaparah.
We are thinking that R. Elazar holds like Rebbi, and that Rebbi says even regarding Acharayus that the extra animal must die.
Answer: No. R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon holds like his father, who says that five Chata'os always die (and Acharayus is included in the case of she'Kipru Ba'aleha).
Question (Mishnah): (A goat that will not be used on Yom Kipur does not die) because a Korban Tzibur is never left to die.
(Rav): Living animals cannot become Nidchim. The goat from the first pair is offered. The goat from the second pair is Acharayus for it. (This is according to Hagahos ha'Gra.)
The Mishnah clearly implies that such a case of a Korban Yachid would die! (According to R. Hoshaya, when one separates an extra Chatas for Acharayus, the one he does not offer is Ro'eh!)
Answer: This is as Rav holds elsewhere, (like R. Yosi who says that if a Korban Pesach was lost and another was Hufrash l'Ibud,) that l'Chatchilah one must offer the lost Korban. (Therefore, it is as if the latter was not Hukdash to be offered, rather, to die. Our Mishnah is like Chachamim, who permit offering either one.)
(Rav Simi bar Ziri - Beraisa): If a lost Chatas was found after a replacement was Hukdash:
According to Rebbi, the lost Chatas must die. According to Chachamim it is Ro'eh;
If it was found after a replacement was offered --
According to Chachamim the lost Chatas must die. According to Rebbi it is Ro'eh.
Objection (Rav Papa): A Kal va'Chomer refutes this!
When it was found after Hafrashah, Chachamim say that it is Ro'eh, and Rebbi says Yamus. When it was found after Kaparah, Chachamim say Yamus. All the more so, Rebbi says Yamus!
Correction (Rav Papa): The Beraisa should say if it was found after Hafrashah, Chachamim say that it is Ro'eh, and Rebbi says Yamus;
If it was found after Kaparah, all agree that it must die.
DISGRACE TO PESULEI HA'MUKDASHIM
(Mishnah - R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon): If the new Chatas...
(Beraisa): One may not be Margil (flay an animal from the legs, in order that the skin be connected, to make a bellows or pouch) on Yom Tov;
Similarly, one may not be Margil a Bechor or Pesulei ha'Mukdashim.
Question: We understand why it is forbidden on Yom Tov. Even though one may flay on Yom Tov in order to eat, flaying in this way is an exertion not needed for Yom Tov;
Which Tana forbids being Margil a Bechor?
Answer (Rav Chisda): It is Beis Shamai, who say that Bechor keeps its Kedushah, even after Shechitah:
(Mishnah - Beis Shamai): A Kohen may not invite a Yisrael to eat Bechor (even if it is a Ba'al Mum).
Question: Which Tana forbids being Margil Pesulei ha'Mukdashim?
Answer (Rav Chisda): It is R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon (who holds that it keeps its Kedushah, even after Shechitah):
(Beraisa): If Reuven had two Chata'os (for Acharayus; in case one will be lost, he will offer the other), and one became a Ba'al Mum:
He offers the Tam, and redeems the Ba'al Mum (the money is used for Nidvos Tzibur);
If the Ba'al Mum was slaughtered before Zerikas Dam of the Tam, it is permitted;
If the Ba'al Mum was slaughtered after Zerikah, it is forbidden;
R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon says even if the meat of the Ba'al Mum was in a bowl and Zerikah (of the Tam) was done, it is forbidden.
Question: Why didn't Rav Chisda establish the entire Mishnah to be like Beis Shamai?
Answer: Perhaps Beis Shamai hold that only Bechor keeps its Kedushah, for it is Kodesh from birth, but other Pesulei ha'Mukdashim do not.
Question: Why didn't Rav Chisda establish the entire Mishnah to be like R. Elazar?
Answer: Perhaps R. Elazar holds that Pesulei ha'Mukdashim keep their Kedushah after Shechitah, for their Kedushah is strong enough to be Matpis Pidyono (transfer its Kedushah to something else, i.e. it can be redeemed);
The Kedushah of Bechor is too weak to be Matpis Pidyono. It does not keep its Kedushah after Shechitah.
Question: Does R. Elazar argue with the following Mishnah?
(Mishnah): All Pesulei ha'Mukdashim (except for Bechor and Ma'aser) may be slaughtered and sold in the Itliz (meat market).
(Even though this is a disgrace to Hekdesh,) it is permitted for this causes them to be redeemed for more money. (R. Elazar forbids Margil, even though it increases the redemption value!)
Answer #1 (Rav Mari brei d'Rav Kahana): R. Elazar could agree with our Mishnah. Margil increases the value of the skin, but not the total (redemption) value, for it cuts the meat, and decreases its value.
Answer #2 (Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael): He could agree with our Mishnah. Margil is forbidden for it is a big disgrace, it looks like working with Kodshim (flaying in order to make a bellows while the skin is still on the animal).
Answer #3 (R. Yosi bar Avin): He could agree with our Mishnah. He decrees to forbid Margil, lest one delay slaughtering Pesulei ha'Mukdashim (until he finds someone who wants to buy the skin), and grow herds of them. (Perhaps he will come to shear them or work with them.)
UPROOTING KEDUSHAS BECHOR
(Mishnah) Question: How may one scheme to uproot Kedushas Bechor?
Answer: If his animal is Mevakeres (will give birth for the first time), he says "if there is a male inside, it is an Olah";
If his animal gave birth to a male, it is offered for an Olah.
If one said "if there is a female inside my animal, it is a Shelamim," and it gave birth to a female, it is offered for a Shelamim.
If one said "if there is a male inside, it is an Olah; if there is a female inside, it is a Shelamim" --
If it gave birth to a male and female, they are offered for Olah and Shelamim, respectively;
If it gave birth to two males, he offers one for an Olah and sells the other to one who will offer it for an Olah. The money is Chulin;
If it gave birth to two females, he offers one for Shelamim and sells the other to one who will offer it for a Shelamim. The money is Chulin.
R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if it gave birth to a Tumtum or Androginus, they do not get Kedushah.
Gemara (Rav Yehudah): It is permitted to blemish a Bechor before it is born. (It is Chulin until it is born.)
Question (Mishnah): He says "if there is a male inside, it is an Olah."
Inference: He may Makdish it to be an Olah, which is more Kodesh than Bechor, but not Shelamim. All the more so he may not blemish it to totally uproot its Kedushah!
Answer (on behalf of Rav Yehudah): The Mishnah discusses when the Mikdash stands;
My law applies after the Churban. Since we cannot offer Korbanos in any case, it is permitted to uproot Kedushah.
Question: After the Churban, obviously one may uproot the Kedushah! (Rav Yehudah would not need to teach this.)
Answer: One might have thought that we decree lest one blemish it after (unbeknown to him) the majority of the head came out.
Question: Why don't we make such a decree?
Answer: It is better that he (try to) blemish it before birth (so it can be slaughtered promptly. If it is born Tam, we will have to wait until it gets a Mum), lest someone come to shear it or work with it.
(Mishnah): "If there is a female inside, it is a Shelamim."
Question: Why does he stipulate about a female? It does not get Kedushas Bechor!
Answer: This clause discusses Vlados Kodshim (e.g. the mother is a Chatas. He does not want the Vlad to get Kedushas Chatas, for then it would have to die.)
(Mishnah): If it gave birth to two males... (he offers one for an Olah, and the other is sold for an Olah. Presumably, also this clause discusses Vlados Kodshim, for he stipulated also about a female.)
Question: He was Makdish only one of them. The other should get the Kedushah of its mother!
Answer: This clause discusses a Chulin mother (a Mevakeres).