1)

(a)The current Mishnahs discuss the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yossi as to whether T'fos Lashon Rishon or T'fos Lashon Acharon). According to Rebbi Yitzchak b'Rebbi Yosef Amar Rebbi Yochanan, both Tana'im will agree in a case where the Noder said ...

1. ... 'Tachol Zu ve'Achar-Kach Tachol Zu' that - T'fos Lashon Rishon.

2. ... 'Lo Tachul Zu Ela-im-Kein Chalsah Zu' that - both Kedushos take effect (because they hold T'fos Gam Lashon Acharon).

(b)And they argue exclusively in the case in our Mishnah ('Harei Zu T'muras Olah, T'muras Shelamim'). What prompts Rebbi Meir to compare this to 'Tachol Zu ve'Achar-Kach Tachol Zu' is the fact that - the Noder repeated the word 'T'muras', when he could have said 'Harei Zu T'muras Olah u'Shelamim'.

(c)Rebbi Yossi counters Rebbi Meir's argument in that the Noder would be afraid to declare 'T'muras Olah u'Shelamim' - for fear that the animal would then adopt Kedushas Shelamim, but would not be brought (See Tosfos).

2)

(a)A Beraisa discusses a case where someone declares half an animal T'muras Olah, and half, T'muras Shelamim. Rebbi Meir rules that - the animal becomes an Olah.

(b)According to the Chachamim, the animal is Ro'eh - and when it obtains a blemish and is sold, half the proceeds go towards a T'muras Olah, and half towards a T'muras Shelamim.

(c)Rebbi Yossi repeats what he says in our Mishnah 'Im le'Kach Niskaven bi'Techilah ... '. We think that Rebbi Yossi is saying the same as the Chachamim - because the Chachamim would be unlikely to refer to a case where the owner changed his mind (as we explained earlier).

(d)So we reconcile the two opinions - by merging them and declaring that Rebbi Yossi is synonymous with the Rabbanan.

3)

(a)In another Beraisa, Rebbi Meir rules that if someone declares an animal half Olah and half Chatas, it is brought as an Olah - because of a. T'fos Lashon Rishon, and b. Hispashtus (the Kedushah spreads to the remainder of the animal.

(b)We reconcile this with the fact that Rebbi Meir does not hold Hispashtus in the case of 'Raglah shel Zu Olah' - inasmuch as there the life of the animal does not depend on its leg, whereas it does depend on half of itself (whichever half it may be).

(c)Rebbi Yossi holds Tamus - since the Makdish is not Chayav a Chatas (in which case it is a Chatas which has no owner).

4)

(a)The Beraisa states that in the reverse case, where he said 'Chetzyah Chatas, ve'Chetzyah Olah' - they concede that 'Tamus'.

(b)The problem with this latter ruling is - that seeing as it can only be Rebbi Meir (who says in the Reisha Tikareiv') who concedes this, it is obvious that in a case were the owner first mentioned Chatas, that the Din is Tamus, since Rebbi Meir anyway holds 'T'fos Lashon Rishon.

(c)We try to solve the problem - by suggesting that Rebbi Meir's reason in this case, is not 'T'fos Lashon Rishon' - but because he also mentioned Olah, which it is fit to be brought as.

5)

(a)Another Beraisa rules in a case where someone declares 'Beheimah Zu Chetzyah Olah, Chetzyah Shelamim' that - the animal is Kadosh, but that it cannot go directly on the Mizbe'ach (as we already learned).

(b)The Tana continues 'Osah Temurah - u'Temuraso ke'Yotzei-bo'.

(c)The Reisha, which goes like Rebbi Yossi, is obvious, and the Tana is coming to teach us that - its Temurah cannot be brought on the MIzbe'ach ...

(d)... because it comes from a rejected Kedushah.

6)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan rules that, if a partner declares Hekdesh his half of the animal, and then buys out his partner and declares Hekdesh the second half - the animal is Kadosh, but cannot be brought on the Mizbe'ach.

(b)And if he then makes a Temurah on it - then it too, is Kadosh but cannot be brought on the Mizbe'ach.

7)

(a)One of the three things that we learn from Rebbi Yochanan's ruling is Ba'alei Chayim Nidachin (animals can become permanently rejected) - otherwise, when he subsequently purchases the second half of the animal and declared it Hekdesh, the Hekdesh ought to permit the animal to be sacrificed.

(b)The second thing is that Kedushas Damim is Madcheh - when the Kedushah took effect on the first half of the animal, seeing as it could not be brought on the Mizbe'ach, the Kedushah was no more than Kedushas Damim - causing the animal to become permanently rejected.

(c)The third thing that we learn from Rebbi Yochanan is that - Dichuy Me'ikara (Dichuy that comes together with its Kedushah) is Dichuy, even though the Kedushah did not precede it ...

(d)... as opposed to others, who hold that Dichuy is only effective regarding Kedushah that was initially fit for the Mizbe'ach and then became rejected.

8)

(a)Abaye explains that everyone agrees in a case where the owner declares 'Chetzyo Olah, ve'Chetzyah Ma'aser', that the animal is brought as an Olah - because this is not how one generally declares Ma'aser Kadosh (only by counting every tenth animal). Consequently, the Ma'aser does not take effect.

(b)And he would say the same about a case where he declared 'Chetzyo Olah, ve'Chetzyah Temurah' - since this is not the way that one normally declares a Temurah Kadosh (only by means of another Hekdesh animal).

(c)He is not certain however, what the Din will be if the owner declares 'Chetzyah Temurah ve'Chetzyah Ma'aser', which might be brought as ...

1. ... a Temurah (and not Ma'aser) - because it pertains to all Kodshim.

2. ... Ma'aser (and not a Temurah) - because it has the power to render the animal before it and the animal after it, Kadosh, too.

(d)The outcome of the She'eilah is - Teiku.

9)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that ...

1. ... 'Harei Zu Tachas Zu', 'Zu T'muras Zu' and 'Zu Chalipas Zu' - are all Leshonos of Temurah.

2. ... 'Zu Mechuleles al Zu' - is not.

(b)The latter Lashon is effective however - to redeem a Kodshim animal that is a Ba'alas-Mum from Hekdesh.

(c)When the Tana concludes 've'Tzarich La'asos lo Damim', he means that - in the latter case, if the second animal is worth less than the first, he must add the difference out of his own pocket).

10)

(a)Atfusi means that - the Chulin becomes Hekdesh, but the Hekdesh does not go out to Chulin (such as Temurah) and Achuli that - the Chulin redeems the Hekdesh (which goes out to Chulin, such as a Kodshim animal that obtains a Mum).

(b)We extrapolate from the fact that the Tana includes 'Tachas' in the list with regard to Temurah - that it belongs to the group of Atfusi.

(c)The Beraisa rules that if someone declares (regarding Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis) ...

1. ... 'Chalipei Zu' or 'T'muras Zu' - it is not effective (since they fall under the category of Atfusi and not of Achuli, and redeeming Bedek ha'Bayis requires Achuli).

2. ... 'Tachas Zu' - it is effective.

(d)The problem with this is that - we now see that 'Tachas' fits into the category of Achuli, whilst in our Mishnah, it is considered Atfusi.

11)

(a)Abaye solves the problem with an answer based on two Pesukim. He extrapolates from the Pasuk in ...

1. ... Tazri'a "ve'Im Tachtehah Sa'amod ha'Baheres" that - sometimes 'Tachas' has connotations of remaining in its place (Atfusi), and from ...

2. ... Hoshe'a "Tachas ha'Nechoshes Avi Zahav" - that it also has connotations of switching one thing for another (Achuli).

(b)Consequently - when 'Tachas' is used in connection with Kodshei Mizbe'ach (which make a Temurah), it is a Lashon of Atfusi; whereas when it is used in connection with Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis (which do not) it is a Lashon of Achuli.

(c)Rava teaches us that the Lashon of Achuli can even apply to Kodshei Mizbe'ach - there where the animal is a Ba'al-Mum, which one is redeeming with a Chulin Tam.

(d)Rav Ashi comments on this that sometimes the Lashon Atfusi applies even to a Ba'al-Mum - there where one places one's hand on the Chulin Tam animal when declaring 'Zu Tachas Zu' (in which case his intention is clearly to be Makdish the Chulin without redeeming the Kodshim one).