1)

(a)We establish our Mishnah 'Ein T'rumah Achar T'rumah' like Rebbi Akiva, who says in a Beraisa that if two partners both give T'rumah, even the T'rumah of the first one is not valid - because by giving T'rumah as well, the second partner demonstrated that he did not consent to the T'rumah of his partner.

(b)According to Rebbi Eliezer, both T'rumos are valid - the Chachamim agree, provided the T'rumah that the first one gave was less than the Shi'ur (one fiftieth).

(c)We know that the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Akiva, and not the Rabbanan - because the Tana said S'tam 've'Ein T'rumah Achar T'rumah', whereas according to the Rabbanan, he ought to have qualified this, confining it to where the first one gave the full Shi'ur.

2)

(a)In the Pasuk in Bechukosai "Vahayah Hu u'Temuraso Yih'yeh Kodesh", we learn from ...

1. ... "u'Temuraso" - 've'Lo Temuras Temuraso'.

2. ... "Hu" - 've'Ein ha'V'lad Oseh Temurah'.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah learns from "Yih'yeh that a V'lad is subject to Temurah. The Rabbanan learn from there - that a Temurah that one declared unintentionally is valid.

(c)The case is - where for example, he meant to specify a black animal, and by mistake, he specified a white one.

(d)If he did the same thing by Hekdesh - it would not be valid.

3)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that a Temurah on birds and Menachos is not valid - because the word "Beheimah" precludes them.

(b)The Mishnah also rules that the Temurah of a Tzibur and Shutfin - is not valid.

(c)The Tana Kama learns this from the Pasuk "Lo Yachlife*nu* ve'Lo Yamir" - which is written in the singular to preclude them.

(d)And he learns that Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis are not subject to Temurah - from the fact that the Torah inserts the word "Korban", and Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, in his opinion do not fall under the category of Korban.

4)

(a)Rebbi Shimon precludes a Korban Tzibur and Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis - from Ma'aser Beheimah ...

(b)... which the Torah specifically mentions in connection with Temurah, even though it is included together with all the other Korbanos, to preclude Korban Tzibur and Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis (neither of which are subject to Ma'aser Beheimah).

(c)This Limud is based on the principle - Davar she'Hayah bi'Chelal, Veyatza min ha'Kelal Lelamed, Lo Lelamed al Atzmo Yatza, Ela Lelamed al ha'K'lal Kulo Yatza.

(d)And he declines to learn Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis from the same source as the Tana Kama - because in his opinion, they also fall under the category of Korban (as we will now see).

5)

(a)The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Matos (in connection with the booty that the soldiers brought back from Midyan) "va'Nakreiv es Korban Hash-m" that - Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis falls under the category of Korban.

(b)And the Tana learns from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "ve'el Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Lo Hevi'o" that - Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis are not subject to Shechutei Chutz.

(c)We would otherwise have thought that they are - because Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis are included in Korban (as we just explained).

6)

(a)Rebbi Chanina reconciles what we just learned with another Beraisa, which precludes Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis from Temurah, from the fact that the Torah inserts the word "Korban" in the Parshah - by establishing the latter Beraisa like the Rabbanan, and the former, like Rebbi Shimon.

(b)The Rabbanan will refute Rebbi Shimon's proof from the Pasuk "va'Nakreiv es Korban Hash-m" that Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis are called Korban - by pointing out that the Torah refers to them as "Korban Hash-m", and not "Korban la'Hashem".

(c)Another Beraisa discusses the Pasuk in Bechukosai "Lo Yevaker Bein Tov la'Ra ve'Lo Yemirenu". In this Tana's opinion, "Lo Yachlifenu ve'Lo Yamir oso" incorporates Korban Yachid and Korban Tzibur, Kodshei Mizbe'ach and Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis. The author of this Beraisa is - Rebbi Shimon ...

(d)... who now learns from Ma'aser (besides Davar she'Eino be'Chovah and Davar she'Eino be'Shutfus which we will be explained later) that - only a Korban Yachid and a Korban Mizbe'ach are subject to Temurah (but not a Korban Tzibur and not Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, as we explained earlier).

7)

(a)Rebbi, the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, who already knows all four of Rebbi Shimon's Limudim from Ma'aser from other sources most of which we have already discussed), cites two kinds of Temurah by Ma'aser. T'muras Gufo is a regular Temurah, whilst T'muras Sh'mo' is - where the owner becomes confused and declared the tenth animal the ninth, and both the ninth and the eleventh, the tenth, in which case, all three animals are considered Ma'aser ...

(b)... and we learn this from the word "ve'Chol" (in the Pasuk in Bechukosai "ve'Chol Ma'asar Bakar va'Tzon").

(c)We now need "Lo Yevaker ... " to teach us that Ma'aser Beheimah is subject to Temuras Gufo, because otherwise - we would have applied the principle Kol Davar she'Hayah bi'Chelal, ve'Yatza Lidon be'Davar he'Chadash, I Atah Yachol Lehachziro li'Chelalo ad she'Yachzirenu ha'Kasuv li'Chelalo be'Feirush, and precluded Ma'aser from it altogether.

8)

(a)Nevertheless, Rebbi draws three distinctions between T'muras Sh'mo and T'muras Gufo. Unlike T'muras Sh'mo (and most other Temuros) - T'muras Gufo is not brought on the Mizbe'ach, is not subject to Pidyon (if it obtains a Mum) and takes effect on something that is unfit (such as a Ba'al-Mum).

(b)This latter ruling is based on the fact that - the initial Ma'aser also takes effect on a Ba'al-Mum.

(c)And its ramifications are that - it must be treated like a B'chor Ba'al-Mum, which cannot be sold in a butchery or weighed on regular scales.

9)

(a)The reason that T]muras Gufo of Ma'aser is different than most other Temuros is - because we learn a Gezeirah-Shavah "Ha'avarah" "Ha'avarah" from B'chor (as we learned in the previous Perek).

(b)We ask whether the fact that the Torah includes T'muras Sh'mo justifies the need to require a special Pasuk to include T'muras ha'Guf. Alternatively, we might mean to ask - why the Chumra pertaining to T'muras Gufo, should not also extend to T'muras Sh'mo (seeing as it is itself a Chumra).

(c)We resolve this by saying 'Mai de'Rabi Rabi, u'Mai de'Lo Rabi, Lo Rabi', which Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua explains to mean that - Davar ha'Ba Lidon be'Davar he'Chadash is confined to the Chidush only, and if not for the additional Pasuk, would preclude T'muras ha'Guf.

10)

(a)What Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua is saying according to the alternative interpretation of the Kashya is that - we can only apply the initial Ribuy to what is fit to bring as a Shelamim (since, as we have learned in Bechoros, the eleventh animal is brought as a Shelamim).

(b)The problem with ...

1. ... this is that - the source Pasuk for T'muras Sh'mo "ve'Chol Ma'asar Bakar va'Tzon" draws no distinction between a Tam and a Ba'al-Mum (and the Pasuk that we quoted "ve'Chol Bakar ... " is referring to the Hakravah, and not to whether the Temurah is effective or not).

2. ... the wording of the question that we ask on the initial answer 'Mai de'Rabi Rabi ... , ve'Ha me'Heicha Teisi'? is that - it is not appropriate (having said with certainty, 'Mai de'Rabi Rabi ... '). What we ought to have asked is 'Mina lach Ha?' (to have asked for the source of the statement, rather than to query it).

(c)This is not a problem according to the first Lashon - since we are then querying a principle (the fact that the inclusion of T'muras Sh'mo can preclude T'muras Gufo, and not a Gezeiras-ha'Kasuv).

(d)All this proves that - the first version of the Kashya is the correct one.

11)

(a)When Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak asked Rava whether Rebbi Shimon, who confines Temurah to Davar ha'Ba be'Chovah, precludes an Olas Nedavah from the Din of Temurah, he replied that - he certainly does not, since once a person obligates himself to bring a Korban, it enters the realm of Chovah ...

(b)... and Davar ha'Ba be'Chovah comes to preclude Mosros ...

(c)... with reference, for example, to the leftovers of the money that has been set aside for a Chatas or an Asham - which is then used to purchase an Olah.

12)

(a)There is a Machlokes whether Mosros goes to Nidvas Tzibur or Nidvas Yachid. Based on this Sugya ...

1. ... Rebbi Shimon must hold that - they go as a Nidvas Yachid (since he has already precluded Korb'nos Tzibur from Temurah).

2. ... Rebbi - who disputed Rebbi Shimon's D'rashah from Ma'aser, holds that it goes to Nidvas Tzibur.

(b)We query this however, from Rebbi Eliezer later, in a Mishnah in the third Perek, who holds that Mosros go to Nidvas Yachid - and that they are therefore subject to Temurah.

(c)So we conclude that - Rebbi Shimon concurs with Rebbi Eliezer with regard to Mosros going to Nidvas Yachid, but not with regard to rendering them subject to Temurah.

13)

(a)The problem this create for Rebbi Avin, who asked above (regarding Mamirin ve'Chozrin u'Mamirin), what the Din will be in the case of Hifrish Asham Lehiskaper bo, ve'Humam ve'Chil'lo al Acher, I Nami Niskaper be'Asham Acher ... ve'Nitak Zeh le'Olah ... is that - according to Rebbi Shimon, who holds that Mosros are not subject to Temurah, the She'eilah (regarding Guf Echad u'Shetei Kedushos) ought to be invalid.

(b)We focus specifically on the opinion of Rebbi Shimon - because Rebbi Avin's She'eilah concerns Rebbi Yochanan's opinion according to Rebbi Shimon (who holds there Ein Mamirin ve'Chozrin u'Mamirin).

(c)We nevertheless justify Rebbi Avin's She'eilah - on the assumption that there is a Tana who holds, on the one hand, Ein Mamirin ve'Chozrin u'Mamirin (like Rebbi Shimon), and on the other, Olah ha'Ba min ha'Mosros, Osah Temurah (like Rebbi Eliezer).