Explaining the Question: If the owner makes the Temurah, we find the Tzibur and partners making a Temurah - i.e. where they appointed a Shali'ach to be Makdish it on their behalf, and the Shali'ach makes the Temurah, even though it is a Korban Tzibur.

Explaining the Question (cont.): Whereas in this Perek we learned in a Beraisa - 'to preclude Korb'nos Tzibur, on which even a Yachid cannot make a Temurah?

Refuted Explanation: But we cannot say that if the person being atoned for makes the Temurah, we find the Tzibur and partners making a Temurah - i.e. where he declared Hekdesh an animal on behalf of a single person (See Shitah Mekubetzes, Hashmatos) ...

Refutation: Because since it is a single person who is receiving the Kaparah, it does belongs, not to the Tzibur, but to the Yachid.

Clarifying Identity: This refers to bar Pada, the son of bar Kapara's sister ...

Proof: As we find in the Gemara in Me'ilah (Daf 4a) 'bar Kapara said to bar Pada "My sister's son, See what you will ask me tomorrow in the Beis-ha'Medrash" '.

Refuted Identity: It is not ben P'das, who is alias Rebbi Elazar ben P'das.

Clarification: Inasmuch as if one is Makdish an Ubar in its mother's womb, it is Chulin, and not Kadosh to be brought on the Mizbe'ach, and if one brings it after it is born without declaring it Hekdesh, one is bringing Chulin into the Azarah.

Clarification (cont.): Also, if one designates a pregnant Chatas, it is not considered two Chata'os regarding the Din of Achrayos ...

Clarification (cont.): Since the fetus is Hekdesh on account of its mother and not in its own right ...

Clarification (concl.): Bu it is the baby of a Chatas, which must die.

Clarification: And so in all regards it has the Din of a V'lad Chatas and not of a newly-appointed Hekdesh animal.

Clarification: If one is Makdish a fetus inside the womb of a Chulin animal, the Kedushah takes effect; and if one designates a pregnant Chatas it is akin to designating two Chata'os for Achrayos.

Clarification (cont.): It is ot like a V'lad Chatas, only the baby is Kadosh Kedushas ha'Peh (by verbal declaration) via the owner and not via its mother.

Conclusion: And we do not find a V'lad Chatas that dies unless one declares Hekdesh a Chatas which subsequently became pregnant.

Authentic Explanation: And it is not necessary to declare another Kedushah - It is as if he designated two Chata'os for Achrayus ...

Authentic Explanation (cont.): So we see that Rebbi Yochanan holds that Kedushah takes effect on Ubrin.

Proof: Because if he held that it does not, it would require another Kedushah after it was born.

Refuted Explanation: But one cannot explain that the fact that it does not die proves that the Kedushah takes effect ...

Refutation: Since one can say (See marginal note) there that even if the Kedushah does not take effect on an Ubar, the baby does not die ...

Reason: Because Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Shayrei Meshuyar' (If one leaves over the Kedushah, it is left over' ...

Reason (cont.): And if one declares on a Chulin animal 'It is Kodesh and its baby Chulin', this is permissible - because 'A fetus is not part of the mother' ...

Proof: And this is what the Gemara says later on in Perek Keitzad Ma'arimin (Daf 25a).

Authentic Explanation (cont.): The chief proof is from the statement 'Ratzah bi'Veladah Miskaper', implying that it is not necessary to declare it Kadosh again after it is born - because that once he was Makdish the mother, the baby became Kadosh via his declaration, and not via its mother.

Introduction to question: Rashi explains that, according to bar Pada, who says that 'Kedushah does not take effect on Ubrin' ...

Introduction to question (cont.): The ramifications of which are that if he separated a pregnant Chatas, the fetus has the status of the baby of a Chatas and must die.

Question: From where does he know this? It may well be that although the Kedushah does not take effect, it does not die - Perhaps he holds 'Shayro Meshuyar', and it is not part of the mother, as Tosfos just explained?

Answer: bar Pada has to hold 'Shayro Eino Meshuyar' ...

Reason: Because otherwise, we can query him from the Mishnah in Keitzad Ma'arimin (Daf 24b) - ' "V'ladah shel Zu Shelamim ve'Hi Olah", Devarav Kayamin; "Hi Shelamim u'V'ladah Olah", harei Zeh V'lad Shelamim' ...

Answer (cont.): Because if bar Pada held 'Shayro Meshuyar' why (in the latter case) is the baby a Shelamim - bearing in mind that, had he wanted, he could have left over the baby as Chulin?

Answer (cont.): It would be fine according to Rebbi Yochanan, who holds 'Kedushah takes effect on Ubrin' - the moment he declares 'Hi Shelamim', he has in mind to sanctify the baby (too) as a Shelamim and it is a Shelamim via his declaration, and not on account of its mother ...

Answer (cont.): But according to bar Pada, who holds that 'Kedushah does not take effect on Ubrin', the baby is sanctified, not via his declaration but via its mother

Answer (cont.): So if he were to hold 'Shayro Meshuyar', why would the baby not be an Olah?

Conclusion: This is therefore a proof that we need to say (that, according to him) as soon as the mother becomes sanctified, the baby becomes sanctified via the mother.

Question: Seeing as Kedushah is not effective on the Ubrin, how can the Tana say 'V'ladah Olah ve'Hi Shelamim, Devarav Kayamin'?

Answer: He means for its monetary value.

Question #1: How can Kedushah take effect on Ubrin, bearing in mind that one cannot declare Kadosh a Mechusar Z'man (before the allotted time)?

Introduction to Question #2: Later, in answer to the question how one is Ma'arim ('cheats') on a B'chor, the Gemara answers 'If an animal is pregnant with a firstborn animal, the owner declares "If the fetus is a male, it is an Olah!" - from which we see that it is permitted, even Lechatchilah, to declare it Hekdesh ...

Question #2: How does this differ from Mechusar Z'man?

Answer: Before it is born, one is permitted to declare it Hekdesh ...

Source: As the Gemara in Bechoros (Daf 14a) learns from a Pasuk.

Question #1: Tosfos' Rebbe asks why we need the Tzerichusa; why can we not simply say that, had Rebbi Yochanan only learned the first case, we would have thought that 'Shayro, Eino Meshuyar' ...

Question (cont.): And that he therefore needs to state 'Ratzah bi'Veladah Miskaper' to teach us that 'Shayro Meshuyar', as the Gemara explains?

Question #2: Moreover, how can the Gemara say that it is not Kadosh together with its mother - seeing as the Mishnah in Perek Keitzad Ma'arimin (on Daf 25a) specifically states ' "It is a Shelamim and its baby, an Olah", the baby is a V'lad Shelamim' ...

Question #2 (cont,): From which we see that it is Kadosh together withy its mother?

Answer: What it means is that it is not Kadosh together with its mother, not via the verbal declaration, but via its mother ...

Reason: Because 'Ubar Yerech Imo Hu' and 'I Shayro, Eino Meshuyar' ...

Conclusion: That explains why, in the latter statement, he needs to teach us that the baby is Kadosh also via the verbal statement and not just via its mother (ha'Ram).

Question: In that case, what does the Seifa of the same Beraisa say in Perek Keitzad Ma'arimin (later, on Daf 24e) - 'If it gave birth to two males, one of them is brought as an Olah' ...

Question (cont.): Seeing as it only has Kedushas Damim, how can one bring it as an Olah?

Refuted Answer: And if you will explain it to mean that it should be sold for the needs of an Olah ...

Refutation: It states there that 'The second one should be sold for the needs of an Olah'; What is then the difference between the first animal and the second one (See Shitah Mekubetzes, Hashmatos)?

Answer: We must therefore say that, since there falls on the first one Kedushas Damim, there also falls on it Kedushas ha'Guf.

Clarification: Because if they would not be Kadosh, it is obvious that one could not declare whole animals a Temurah on them, seeing as they are Chulin.

Refuted Answer: And one cannot answer here 'Kedushas Damim', like the Gemara answered earlier ...

Refutation: Since they would then not be subject to Temurah (See Shitah Mekubetzes, 39).