1)

(a)When our Mishnah says that one cannot change ...

1. ... Kodshei Mizbe'ach from one Kedushah to another, it means that - one cannot change an Olah into a Shelamim or vice-versa (and certainly not Kodshei Mizbe'ach into Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis).

2. ... Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis from one Kedushah to another, it means that - one cannot change Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis into Kodshei Mizbe'ach.

(b)When the Tana says 'u'Makdishin osan Hekdesh Iluy' - he is referring to someone who declares on Kodshei Mizbe'ach 'Harei Zu le'Bedek ha'Bayis'.

(c)Hekdesh Iluy with regard to ...

1. ... a Neder means - to pay its real value to Bedek ha'Bayis (seeing as, should the animal die or is stolen, he is obligated to replace it).

2. ... a Nedavah - to pay to Bedek ha'Bayis Tovas Hana'ah (what somebody might give him to receive the Shelamim for the skin, or to give the Olah to his daughter's son who is a Kohen, so that he will bring it on the Mizbe'ach, and take the skin).

(d)And when the Mishnah says 'u'Machrimin osan', it means that - the same will apply to someone who declares on Kodshei Mizbe'ach 'Harei Zu Cherem'.n

2)

(a)Kodshei Mizbe'ach that die (even assuming that they have obtained a blemish) - must be buried, because they require Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah (placing and assessing, before they can be redeemed).

(b)And this applies even according to those who otherwise permit redeeming Kodshim in order to feed them to the dogs.

(c)Rebbi Shimon - permits the redemption of Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis that died (because in his opinion, Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis do not require Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah).

3)

(a)Chermei Kohanim (S'tam Charamim), refers to - someone who declares his property Cherem, which goes to the Kohanim. If he were to declare 'Harei Zeh Cherem le'Bedek ha'Bayis' - then it would go to Bedek ha'Bayis.

(b)Rav Huna learns from the Pasuk "Kol Cherem Kodesh Kodshim hu la'Hashem" that if someone is Matfis Kodshei Mizbe'ach as Chermei Kohanim - his declaration is invalid (because any Kodesh Kodshim that one declares Cherem, must go to Hash-m, and not to the Kohanim).

(c)We query Rav Huna from a Beraisa which invalidates Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis that one is Matfis as Kodshei Mizbe'ach or Chermei Kohanim, and likewise - Chermei Kohanim that one is Matfis as Kodshei Mizbe'ach or Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.

(d)The reason for the two above rulings is - because the original owner has no Tovas Hana'ah in Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis or in Chermei Kohanim, since even the latter goes to the Kohanim of the Mishmar that is serving at the time.

4)

(a)We now extrapolate from the fact that the Tana does not insert Kodshei Mizbe'ach that one is Matfis as Chermei Kohanim in the list that - it is indeed valid (a Kashya on Rav Huna).

(b)And we answer that we can only extrapolate from the Beraisa that - Kodshei Mizbe'ach that one is Matfis as Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, are valid (as we already learned in our Mishnah), but no more.

(c)The Tana could not have inserted 'Kodshei Mizbe'ach she'Hitfisan le'Chermei Kohanim' in the Beraisa together with the other cases - because he only inserts those cases which disqualify two declarations, not just one.

5)

(a)We now query Rav Huna from our Mishnah, which states 'u'Makdishin osan Hekdesh Iluy u'Machrimin osan'. Initially, we explain 'u'Machrimin osan' to mean - Chermei Kohanim (a Kashya on Rav Huna).

(b)To answer Rav Huna however, we interpret it to mean - Chermei Bedek ha'Bayis ...

(c)... which at first, we tried to avoid (learning that way) - because then there is virtually no difference between it and Hekdesh Iluy (which also refers to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis).

6)

(a)We finally disprove Rav Huna however, from two Beraisos. One of them explicitly interprets 'u'Machrimin osan' with regard to Chermei Kohanim, the other - validates Kodshei Mizbe'ach which one is Matfis as Chermei Kohanim.

(b)Ula explains the word "ve'Chol" (in the Pasuk "ve'Chol Cherem Kodesh Kodashim hu la'Hashem", which served as Rav Huna's source) to mean that - Cherem takes effect on everything, even on Kodshei Kodshim (see also ha'Gahos ha'G'ra).

(c)Rav Huna's mistake was that - he ignored the word "ve'Chol" in his D'rashah.

7)

(a)We query Ula however, from another statement of his, where, with reference to someone who is Matfis an Olah to Bedek ha'Bayis, he rules 'Ein bah Ela Ikuv Gizbarin bi'Levad', meaning that - the only relevant Halachah that pertains to such a case, is to bring it on the Mizbe'ach when the Gizbar comes to stand by it (precluding any obligation to pay anything, even to Bedek ha'Bayis, and certainly not to the Kohanim).

(b)We reconcile this with his previous statement, validating Hekdesh Iluy from the Pasuk "Kol Cherem ... " - by establishing his earlier ruling as a de'Rabbanan, and the Pasuk as an Asmachta.

(c)And the Pasuk is coming to teach us that - Chermei Kohanim are Kodesh Kodshim, rendering them subject to Me'ilah.

(d)The problem with Ula's need to learn the Din of Me'ilah by Charamim is - why this should be necessary, seeing as the Pasuk in Bechukosai specifically refers to them as Kodshei Kodshim?

8)

(a)And we counter this from a comment by Rebbi Yanai, who comments, based on the words "mi'Kodshei Hash-m" (in the Pasuk in Vayikra "Nefesh ki Sim'ol Ma'al, ve'Chat'ah bi'Shegagah mi'Kodshei Hash-m") - 'Kodshim that belong exclusively to Hashem' ...

(b)... to preclude (even) a Chatas and an Asham (even though they too, are Kodshei Kodshim) from Me'ilah.

(c)Rebbi Yanai learns the Din of Me'ilah by other Kodshei Kodshim from the Pasuk cited by Rebbi "Kol Cheilev la'Hashem" - who learns from there the Din of Me'ilah by Eimurei Kodshim Kalim.

(d)Rebbi confines the Pasuk to Kodshim Kalim - because, unlike Rebbi Yanai, he learns Me'ilah by Chatas and Asham from "mi'Kodshei Hash-m" (incorporating all Kodshei Kodshim, since the owner may not partake of them).

(e)In any event, we see that Rebbi Yanai requires a Pasuk for Me'ilah by Chatas and Asham, even though the Pasuk in Tzav refers to them as Kodshei Kodshim, justifying Ula doing the same with Charamim.

9)

(a)The Beraisa - forbids Shechting an Olah that someone has been Matfis to Bedek ha'Bayis, until it has been redeemed.

(b)To reconcile it with Ula's second statement (ha'Matfis Olah le'Bedek ha'Bayis Ein bah Ela Ikuv Gizbarin Bil'vad'), we establish this Beraisa - mi'de'Rabbanan (like we answered earlier in connection with his first statement).

(c)And we support this answer from the Seifa of the Beraisa, which rules that if someone actually Shechted it - the Shechitah is valid (and the Olah brought on the Mizbe'ach), a proof that Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis can only be effective mi'de'Rabbanan.

(d)We query this from the Seifa 'u'Mo'alin bah Sh'tei Me'ilos' however, which apparently means - that it incorporates both Kedushas Mizbe'ach and Kedushas Bedek ha'Bayis (a Kashya on Ula).

(e)We nevertheless reconcile this with what we just proved conclusively, that the Kedushas Bedek ha'Bayis, is only mi'de'Rabbanan - by explaining the Beraisa to mean that had the latter Kedushah taken effect mi'd'Oraysa, then there would be two Me'ilos.

10)

(a)According to Rebbi Yochanan, when the Tana Kama says 've'Im Meisu Yikaveru', he is referring both to Kodshei Mizbe'ach and to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis - because he holds that both require Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah.

(b)According to Resh Lakish - he is referring specifically to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, which require Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah, but not to Kodshei Mizbe'ach (which don't).

(c)Both agree however, that according to Rebbi Shimon, Kodshei Mizbe'ach require Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah, but not Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.

(d)Both Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish also agree that a Ba'al-Mum me'Ikara of Kodshei Mizbe'ach does not require Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah.

11)

(a)From the fact that Rebbi Shimon needed to say 'Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis she'Meisu Yipadu', we try to prove that - the Rabbanan must also be referring to Kodshei Mizbe'ach (like Rebbi Yochanan), because if their statement was confined to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, (like Resh Lakish), then they ought to have omitted the words 'Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis', and just said 'Im Meisu Yipadu'.

(b)Resh Lakish explains that - Rebbi Shimon, uncertain exactly what the Rabbanan meant, thought that they might have been referring to both Kodshei Mizbe'ach and Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, so he said to them that if they were, he agreed with them regarding Kodshei Mizbe'ach, but not regarding Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.

(c)We cite a Beraisa in support of Rebbi Yochanan. The Tana quotes a Pasuk "ve'Im Kol Beheimah Temei'ah asher Lo Yakrivu mimenah Korban la'Hashem" - in connection with the redemption of a Ba'al-Mum.

(d)The Tana knows that the Pasuk is not referring literally to a Beheimah Temei'ah - because it has its own Pasuk there "ve'Im ba'Beheimah ha'Teme'ah ... ".

12)

(a)The Tana learns from " ... asher Lo Yakrivu mimenah ... " that - the Pasuk is talking about an animal with a permanent blemish (which has been completely disqualified from the Mizbe'ach).

(b)The Beraisa concludes that this is what requires Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah. We know that ...

1. ... the Tana must be referring to Kodshei Mizbe'ach - because as far as Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis is concerned, there is no difference between a Tam and a Ba'al-Mum (since even wood and stones are eligible).

2. ... the author of the Beraisa is not Rebbi Shimon - because this is a Sifra, and the author of a S'tam Sifra is Rebbi Yehudah (who is a regular disputant of Rebbi Shimon).

(c)And we know that the Rabbanan hold that Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis also require Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah (like Rebbi Yochanan) - from our Mishnah, from the fact that Rebbi Shimon argues and says that they don't.