1)

(a)Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah learns from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "Yih'yeh Kodesh" - that a Temurah be'Shogeg takes effect.

(b)Chizkiyah explains 'Shogeg' to mean that the owner thinks that it is permitted to be Meimar. The equivalent case by Hekdesh will be - where he thinks that it is permitted to be Makdish a Ba'al-Mum (see Rabeinu Gershom).

(c)The principle that governs the lenient ruling by Hekdesh is - the principle 'Hekdesh Ta'us Lo Havi Hekdesh'.

(d)According to the first Lashon, he will receive Malkos for being Meimar, but not for being Makdish. in the second Lashon however - the Temurah is effective (but there is no Malkos), whereas the Hekdesh is not (see Tosfos DH 'Gabei Temurah')

2)

(a)In the first Lashon, Rebbi Yochanan (as opposed to Chizkiyah) explains 'Shogeg' as where he meant to say 'Temuras Olah', but said instead 'Temuras Shelamim'. In the second Lashon, he explains - that he meant to say a black animal (should it emerge first from the house), but said instead a white one.

(b)Resh Lakish explains 'Shogeg'where the owner said (or thought) 'Teitzei Zu ve'Tikanes Zu'. This case is more radical than the previous ones - because he does not intend to make a Temurah at all unless the initial Kodshim animal goes out to Chulin (which it doesn't).

(c)The most radical explanation of all however, is that of Rav Sheishes, who establishes Temurah be'Shogeg - by where the owner first stated that he would enter his house and declare a Temurah intentionally, and then he entered the house, and not realizing what he was doing, he declared a Temurah unintentionally.

3)

(a)We already discussed in the previous Perek, Rebbi Elazar in our Mishnah 'ha'Kil'ayim, ve'ha'Tereifah ... Lo Kedoshin ve'Lo Makdishin'. The only Kedushah that is effective on these Pesulin is - Kedushas Bedek ha'Bayis.

(b)Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, explains that these animals must be subject to Kedushas ha'Guf, and he extrapolates that it must be possible - from the Lashon of Rebbi Elazar 'Lo Kedoshin ve'Lo Makdishin', because if an animal is not Kadosh, it goes without saying that it cannot create a Temurah.

(c)He therefore explains that it is possible in the case of a T'reifah which occurred only after the animal had been declared Hekdesh, in the case of ...

1. ... a Yotzei Dofen - where he was Makdish an Ubar, which was subsequently born by means of a cesarean, and ...

2. ... Kil'ayim, Tumtum and Androginus, in a case where he was Mekadesh an Ubar ...

(d)... like Rebbi Yehudah, who maintains that one can.

(e)He did not explain Kil'ayim, Tumtum and Androginus in the same way as he explained T'reifah - because they are all blemishes from birth (and the Hekdesh cannot possibly have preceded the Mum).

4)

(a)Rav Papa explains Rebbi Elazar's ruling - by comparing it to a Beheimah Temei'ah, which cannot become a Temurah because it cannot be brought on the Mizbei'ach; and it is for the same reason that the five cases that he mentions cannot become Temuros.

(b)Rav Papa objects to ...

1. ... his own source from - a Ba'al-Mum, which can become a Temurah even though the animal is not brought on the Mizbe'ach.

2. ... Rava's answer to his question from Ba'al-Mum, ascribing it to the fact that other animals of the same species (of Ba'al-Mum) at least, are brought on the Mizbe'ach - from T'reifah, which cannot become a Temurah, even though other animals of the same species go on the Mizbe'ach.

(c)So Rava compares it to a Beheimah Teme'ah, which cannot become a Temurah, because it is a P'sul ha'Guf, unlike a Ba'al-Mum, which is only a P'sul Chesaron (missing something [as is the case by most Mumin]). Rav Ada queries this however - from Saru'a (where one limb is longer than the other) ve'Kalut (meaning hooves that are not split [both of which are Pasul, not because of Chesaron, but because of P'sul ha'Guf]), yet they make a Temurah.

(d)So Rava concludes that Rebbi Elazar bases his ruling on Beheimah Teme'ah, because none of its species go on the Mizbei'ach, whereas those of a Ba'al-Mum do. And he overrides Rav Papa's objection from T'reifah, which cannot make a Temurah even though others of its species can - because whereas a T'reifah is not Kasher, a Ba'al-Mum is (in other words, we cannot query Rebbi Elazar from a Ba'al-Mum, which can become a Temurah because it has two points in its favor).

5)

(a)We object to Shmuel, who rules that if someone declares Hekdesh a Ba'al-Mum, it requires a fixed blemish in order to redeem it - on the basis of the ruling that Kodshim cannot be redeemed merely to feed the dogs (since there is nothing else that one can do with a Kodshim Ba'al-Mum that has been redeemed).

(b)What Shmuel therefore said was - that the Kedushah takes effect purely for the animal to die (to which end it is placed in the Kiyfah [a small room]) and not fed.

(c)Rebbi Oshaya disagrees with Shmuel. In his opinion, it is comparable to declaring Hekdesh wood and stones, in which case the animal does not even need to be redeemed.

6)

(a)We query Shmuel from Rebbi Elazar in our Mishnah. The problem with Shmuel, based on his own interpretation of Rebbi Elazar, plus Rebbi Meir in the Beraisa (both of whom we quoted earlier on the Amud) - is that according to them, if the animal was a T'reifah to begin with, Kedushas ha'Guf (in the form of a Temurah) does not take effect at all.

(b)Shmuel will answer - that this is the opinion of Rebbi Elazar, whereas he holds like the Rabbanan.

7)

(a)We query Shmuel again from a Mishnah later in the sixth Perek, where the Tana states that Kodshim which become T'reifah - cannot be redeemed, due to the principle 'Ein Podin es ha'Kodshim Le'ha'achilan li'Kelavim' ...

(b)... implying that if the T'reifus preceded the Hekdesh, then they can be redeemed.

(c)Shmuel will answer here, like he answered the previous Kashya - by establishing that Mishnah like Rebbi Elazar, whereas he holds like the Rabbanan.

8)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that the V'lad and the Temurah - of a Shelamim have the same Din as the Shelamim itself ...

(b)... with regard to Semichah, Nesachim and Tenufas Chazeh ve'Shok.

(c)This ruling extends - to the animals descendants to the end of time.

9)

(a)We query the excessive Lashon used by our Mishnah, which mentions - the animal's children, and grandchildren right down to the end of time.

(b)We answer by citing Rebbi Eliezer, who rules (in the following Mishnah) - that V'lad Shelamim is not brought as a Shelamim.

(c)This explains why our Tana saw fit to stress - that not only are the animal's children and grandchildren Shelamim, but so are its descendants to the end of time.

10)

(a)The Beraisa learns V'lad Shelamim from the word "Zachar" (in the Pasuk in Vayikra "Im Zachar Im Nekeivah"). Initially, we consider this unnecessary, because we can learn it with a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from Temurah - which is not a direct offspring of the Shelamim (whereas a V'lad is).

(b)We query the 'Kal-va'Chomer' however - from the fact that Temurah also has an advantage over V'lad, in that whereas Temurah applies to all Kodshim (male and female alike), V'lad is confined to female Korbanos.

(c)The Tana learns the Din of Temuras Shelamim from the word "Nekeivah", and from the two words "Im (Zachar)" and "Im (Nekeivah)" - he learns the V'lad of a Ba'al-Mum and the Temurah of a Ba'al-Mum, respectively.

11)

(a)When Rav Safra proposed that the D'rashos be reversed, Abaye understand that he wanted to learn V'lad Ba'al-Mum from "Im Nekeivah", and Temuras Ba'al-Mum from "Im Zachar".

(b)So he replied that it is logical to learn the Din of V'lad Ba'al-Mum from the same Pasuk as we learn V'lad Tam, and Temuras Ba'al Mum from the same Pasuk as we learn Temuras Tam.

(c)And when Rav Safra explained - that what he really meant to ask was that we should switch the main D'rashos and learn Temuras Temimah from "Im Zachar" and V'lad Temimah from "Im Nekeivah" ...

(d)... Abaye pointed out - that 'V'lad' is masculine, and 'Temurah', feminine.

12)

(a)Despite the fact that a Ba'al-Mum is not brought on the Mizbe'ach, Shmuel explains that the Ribuy from "Im" to include the V'lad of a Ba'al-Mum - actually permits it to be sacrificed.

(b)And he establishes this ruling like Rebbi Elazar, who rules in a later Mishnah that the V'lad of a female animal that someone designated as an Olah - is brought directly on the Mizbe'ach.

(c)We might otherwise have thought that this only pertains to an Olas Nekeivah - which exists in the form of an Olas ha'Of, but not to a V'lad Shelamim Ba'al-Mum - which is non-existent (since there is no such thing as Shalmei Of).

13)

(a)bar Pada disagrees with Shmuel, establishing the D'rashah from "Im" even according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Elazar, and when the Tana says that the V'lados are Kadosh, he means - that they require 'Re'iyah' (in the meadow ...).

(b)Rava learns like Shmuel (according to Rebbi Elazar) - whilst Rav Papa learns like bar Pada (even according to the Rabbanan).

(c)Whereas the Tana, he says, learns the above Halachah from the words "Rak Kodoshecha" (in the Pasuk in Re'ei, "Rak Kodoshecha asher Yih'yu lach"), which pertains to Temuros and from " ... asher Yih'yu lach", which pertains to V'lados ". Based on the continuation "Tisa u'Va'sa", we might have thought - that one takes the Temuros and V'lados of Kodshim to the Beis-Hamikdash and leaves them there (without food and water) to die.

(d)And he learns from "ve'Asisa Olosecha ha'Basar ve'ha'Dam" - that one actually brings the Temuros of the Olah and the Tumuros and V'lados of Shelamim on the Mizbe'ach, like the mother Korban from which they came.

14)

(a)Rebbi Yishmael learns from the word "Rak" (Ibid) - that the above ruling pertains to Shelamim and Olos, but not to other Korbanos.

(b)Rebbi Akiva disagrees, based on the words "Asham hu" (in the Pasuk in Tzav "Asham hu, Asham Asham la'Hashem") - which already teaches us that one brings an Asham on the Mizbe'ach, but not its Temurah.

(c)We query the Tana's original proposal, to leave the V'lad and Temuras Kodshim to die in the Beis Hamikdash, from the five Chata'os that must die - implying that other Kodshim, aside from Chata'os, are not subject to the Din of Misah.

(d)And we answer - that what the Tana is suggesting is that, if not for "ve'Asisa ha'Basar ... ", we would have thought that whereas the five Chata'os can die anywhere, the ones under discussion must die in the Beis-Hamikdash.

15)

(a)Rebbi Yishmael precludes V'lados and Temuros of other Kodshim from the word "Rak". We reject the suggestion that he is referring to ...

1. ... Olah - since Olos cannot have children (so V'lados cannot pertain to them).

2. ... Chatas - because we already have the 'Halachah' that five Chata'os must die.

3. ... Asham - because of the accompanying Halachah that whenever a Chatas dies, the equivalent case of Asham is 'Ro'eh'.

(b)And as for the suggestion that the Halachah teaches us that V'lad and Temuras Chatas le'Misah, whereas the Pasuk precludes ...

1. ... them from Hakravah - surely the latter is an automatic off-shoot of the former.

2. ... Asham from being brought even Bedieved (see Shitah Mekubetzes 4) - because the dual Halachos takes care of that too.

(c)So we conclude that we need the learn from "Rak" that - in addition to the Halachah, anyone who brings on the Mizbe'ach a Chatas that is supposed to die, has also transgressed an Asei ("ve'Asisa Kodoshecha ha'Basar ve'ha'Dam").