1)

(a)Abaye queries Rava from a Beraisa, which rules that if someone designates a female animal for his Korban Pesach, it requires Re'iyah - and with the proceeds, one buys a Pesach.

(b)The Tana Kama rules in a case where the animal ...

1. ... then gives birth - that the V'lad follows the same procedure as its mother.

2. ... is still alive after Pesach - 'Tir'eh', and with the proceeds one purchases a Shelamim.

(c)A Korban Pesach after Pesach - normally becomes a Shelamim.

(d)Nevertheless, in the latter case, the animal is not brought directly as a Shelamim - because it comes from a rejected Kedushah (since, before Pesach, it was not fit to go on the Mizbe'ach as the Pesach it was designated for).

(e)If the animal gave birth to a male V'lad after Pesach, the Tana Kama rules 'Yir'eh' and the proceeds are used to purchase a Shelamim. Rebbi Elazar says - that it is brought directly as a Shelamim.

2)

(a)The problem Abaye has with Rava's previous interpretation of Rebbi Elazar (where he requires the mother to be called an Olah) is - that here, the mother is not called a Shelamim, so why is the V'lad brought directly as a Shelamim?

(b)To which Rava answers - that here too (even though the mother is not really called a Shelamim), nevertheless since Mosar Pesach automatically becomes a Shelamim after Pesach, it is as if it was.

(c)In that case, we ask, why does Rebbi Elazar not argue in the Reisha, where, according to Rebbi Elazar, the V'lad to which the Pesach Nekeivah gave birth before Pesach ought to be brought directly as a Shelamim. Rava replies - that Rebbi Elazar does indeed argue in the Reisha too.

(d)According to Abaye, Rebbi Elazar concedes that in the Reisha, the V'lad is Ro'eh - because he maintains that the V'lad always follows the mother (as does the Temurah earlier in the Sugya). Consequently, after Pesach, where the Mosar ha'Pesach is brought as a Shelamim, the V'lad is brought as a Shelamim too; whereas before Pesach, so is the V'lad.

3)

(a)Rav Ukva bar Chama queries Abaye from another Beraisa, where the Tana Kama rules that in a case where the female lamb that someone designated for his Pesach gave birth, both it and its V'lados 'Yir'u'. Once it obtain a blemish - the proceeds of the animal are used to purchase a Korban Pesach.

(b)Rebbi Elazar says that the V'lad - is brought as a Korban Pesach directly.

(c)Rav Ukva bar Chama now asks on Abaye - that according to him, since the mother is not called a Pesach, the V'lad ought not to be brought as a Pesach.

4)

(a)Ravina answers Rav Ukva bar Chama's Kashya by establishing the Beraisa where the owner designated a pregnant lamb, and Rebbi Elazar (ben Shamu'a, the Tana) holds like Rebbi Yochanan, who says in such a case 'Im Shayro Meshuyar' meaning that 'Ubar La'av Yerech Imo' and the V'lad can therefore be designated as a separate Korban (as we learned in the first Perek).

(b)Mar Zutra b'rei de'Rav Mari supports Ravina from the Lashon of the Beraisa - which says 'Hi u'Veladosehah Yir'u' (rather than 'Yaldah Zachar') implying that the lamb was already pregnant when it was designation.

5)

(a)Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina states - that Rebbi Elazar concedes that the V'lad of a female animal that has been designated as an Asham is not brought directly on the Mizbe'ach.

(b)The problem with this is - 'P'shita!' (seeing as Rebbi Elazar specifically referred to an Olah (which has the name of an Olah, as we explained), why does he finds it necessary to teach us that he does incorporate an Asham, which does not).

(c)And we answer - that if not for Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, we would have attributed Rebbi Elazar's reason to the fact that the V'lad is eligible to go on the Mizbe'ach, in which case, there is no difference between the V'lad of an Olah and that of an Asham in this regard.

6)

(a)In that case, we ask, why Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina did not rather teach us that the V'lad is not brought as an Olah - since the essence of Rebbi Elazar's ruling is the fact that although the mother has the Kedushas Damim of an Olah, it does not go on the Mizbe'ach as an Olah.

(b)And we answer that had he done so - we would have thought that it cannot be brought as an Olah, because its mother was not designated as an Olah, but that it should indeed be brought as an Asham, since its mother was designated as an Asham.

7)

(a)The Tana Kama of our Mishnah rules that the Din of a female animal that is designated as an Asham is 'Yir'eh ... ' - and that the proceeds are used to purchase an Asham, assuming he has not yet fulfilled his obligation, and 'Nedavah', assuming that he has.

(b)'Nedavah' - means Nidvas Tzibur (which is synonymous with the Olas Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach).

(c)Rebbi Shimon permits the owner to sell the animal and use the proceeds to purchase his Asham, without waiting for it to obtain a Mum - because he considers the fact that the Asham is a female to be in itself a Mum ...

(d)... unlike the case of someone who designates a female as an Olah, where Rebbi Shimon concedes to the Tana Kama that the Din is 'Yir'eh'- because there, we have a precedent of a female Ba'al-Mum, in the form of a bird (as we already explained), which we do not find by an Asham.

8)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav explains that the Tana Kama disagrees with Rebbi Shimon's S'vara (that we just presented) - because he holds that since ('Migu') Kedushas Damim takes effect on the female animal, Kedushas ha'Guf takes effect too (at least to the extent that it requires a Mum).

(b)Rabah therefore extrapolated from the Tana Kama, that if someone is Makdish a male animal Kedushas Damim - then due to the same 'Migu', Kedushas ha'Guf will take effect, and it will be brought directly on the Mizbe'ach (since unlike the previous case, there is nothing to prevent it from doing so).

(c)Rav Kahana concured with Rabah's ruling. Rava initially - disagreed...

(d)... until he learned Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's statement.

9)

(a)Rebbi Chiya bar Avin asked Rebbi Yochanan why, in light of Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's 'Migu', Rebbi Shimon still permits the female Asham to be sold without a Mum, to which he replied that - wherever an animal is unfit to go on the Mizbe'ach, Kedushas ha'Guf cannot take effect ('Migu' notwithstanding).

(b)And he based this on a ruling of Rebbi Shimon regarding a sheep of the wrong age that one brought as an Asham. The age sheep that is required for ...

1. ... an Asham Nazir and an Asham Metzora is - in its first year (when it is a "Keves").

2. ... the remaining Ashamos - in its second year (when it is called an "Ayil").

(c)The Tana Kama of the Beraisa rules that if one brought a ram as an Asham Nazir or Metzora, or a lamb for another Asham, it is Kasher, though the owner has not fulfilled his obligation. Rebbi Shimon holds - that the animal is not Kadosh (in which case, he has brought Chulin to the Azarah).

10)

(a)Rebbi Shimon rules in Chulin that someone who Shechts a lamb of less than eight days old (a 'Mechusar Z'man') that one declared Hekdesh, outside the Azarah, is Chayav because of 'Shechutei Chutz (despite his current ruling) - because there it will be fit to go on the Mizbe'ach tomorrow.

(b)The problem with this explanation is - that the same reasoning applies to the case of an animal in its first year that one designated as an Asham, yet Rebbi Shimon disqualifies it (as we just learned).

(c)To explain Rebbi Shimon's ruling by Mechusar Z'man - we therefore cite B'chor (which is Kadosh even before it is born, even though it is Mechusar Z'man), which serves as Rebbi Shimon's precedent to consider Mechusar Z'man subject to Kedushas ha'Guf, even though other Pesulei ha'Guf are not.