Alternative Text: Some texts read 'Gabei (by) Temurah Kadosh ... '.

Implied Question:: According to the initial text, a Shogeg by Temurah receives Malkos ...

Answer: Because it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv - since the Torah writes "Yih'yeh", to include Shogeg like Meizid.

Dispute: In fact Rabeinu Baruch and Rabeinu Shimshon from Shantz argue over whether Shogeg by Temurah is subject to Malkos - and they found conflicting texts here.

Reference: And Tosfos explained it at the beginning of the Masechta (See Daf 2a, DH 'Ha Gufa').

Refutation of Text: The Gemara shortly however, in connection with 'They thought that Kodshim that developed a blemish can be eaten without being redeemed', we cannot rea 'Gabeo Kodshim Lo Kidesh' ...

Reason: Seeing as they are already Kadosh to begin with ...

Correct Text: Te text there must therefore be 'Gabei Temurah Laki, Gabi Temurah Lo Laki'.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that he was a man with disturbed thoughts, who did not know what he was saying.

Question: Then why did he say 'I will enter this house ... '?

Explanation #2: We therefore need to explain that 'I will enter this house' means 'When I enter this house, this animal will immediately be a Temurah and this one will be Kadosh - with his knowledge ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): And he then entered the house and made a Temurah and Hekdesh without his knowledge ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Since neither did he say anything after entering nor did he think about what he said earlier ...

Conclusion: In which case the Temurah and the Hekdesh take effect without his knowledge.

Implied Question: It does not ask from the other cases, because ...

Answer: Tumtum and Androginus are freaks, and it is considered as if he did not bring from their species ...

Answer (cont.): And in the same manner people are astonished at them, and it is as if he did not bring from their species ...

Answer (concl.): Kil'ayim too, are uncommon, and it is as if he did not bring from their species

Support: And that is also how Rashi explains it.

Question: Let it lean 'ad Sof ha'Olam' and not 'V'ladan u'V'lad V'ladan'?

Answer: It is applying the principle 'Not only this but also that', which the Mishnah commonly uses.

Question: At the beginning of 'ha'Koseiv' (Kesuvos, 83b) the Gemara asks whether ' "Peirei Peiros" or "Sof Kol ha'Olam" is Davka, or whether both are necessary', whereas here the Gemara does not ask that?

Answer: The Gemara there is discussing the Lashon written in a Sh'tar, and in a Sh'tar one does not insert anything that is not necessary ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas one does not tend to be so fussy regarding the Lashon of a Mishnah.

Implied Question: At the beginning of Maseches Yevamos (Daf 2a), the Gemara does not comment 'Since the Tana states "Tzaroseihen ve'Tzaros Tzaroseihen", why add "Ad Sof Kol ha'Olam"?' like it comments here ...

Answer: Because it takes for granted that both statements are necessary ...

Reason: Since we would not have known that Tzaros and Tzaros Tzaros are Patur, had it not done made both statements.

Implied Question: Even though the Pasuk has already written (in Vayikra 27) that "It together with its Temurah shall be Kodesh" ...

Answer: We need a Pasuk to teach us that it is brought on the Mizbe'ach.

Question: Why is it that here, we need a Pasuk to teach us that it is brought on the Mizbe'ach, whereas by B'chor and Ma'aser the Torah writes "Heim", which we Darshen "Heim", 've'Lo V'lados ve'Lo Temuraso'?

Answer: It is after the Pasuk precludes it by B'chor and Ma'aser that we need the Pasuk here to include it.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the concept of a Nekeivah is applicable to an Olah - since we find a female Olah by a bird, seeing as the requirement of Tamus (having no blemish) and Zachrus (being a male) does not apply to a bird ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): Whereas with regard to the babies of a Shelamim that is blemished, the term 'Kodshim' is not applicable to their mother, since there is no such thing as a bird Shelamim (Until here is the wording of Rashi).

Quotation: 'Bar Pada says that it must graze according to all opinions' ...

Clarification: Because even Rebbi Elazar, who says, in connection with 'Someone who designates a female for an Olah and it subsequently gives birth' that 'The animal itself is brought as an Olah ...

Reason: That is because there the term Kodshim is applicable to the mother - i.e. by an Olas ha'Of.

Introduction to Question #1: According to Rashi, it transpires that the term Olas ha'Of helps from the mother to the baby; in that case if someone designates a female Ba'alas-Mum as an Olah, and it gives birth, we ought to say that the baby itself is brought as an Olah ...

Introduction to Question #1 (cont.): Seeing as the term Olas ha'Of applies to its mother ...

Question #1: Whereas it implies that he (Rebbi Elazar) preclude all the babies of Ba'alei-Mumin?

Question #2: Moreover, the Gemara says later that the term Olah by a bird of the mother only help for the baby to 'empower' the female itself, for Kedushas ha'Guf to take effect on it?

Explanation #2: ha'Rav R. Mordechai that 'The term Olah applies to its mother' means that if one designates a female as an Olah it is Kadosh Kedushas ha'Guf ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Since it is not subject to Pidyon to go out to Chulin as it is, but it must obtain a blemish in order to be redeemed ...

Reason: Because Nakvus (the fact that it is a female) is not considered a blemish on which to redeem it.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And that is why the baby itself is brought on the Mizbe'ach ...

Explanation #2 (conl.): Whereas Ba'alei-Mumin, on which there is no Kedushas ha'Guf at all, the babies are not brought on the Mizbe'ach but must graze (ha'Rav Mordechai Tosfos' Rebbe).

Answer to Implied Question: And if it is referring to the Temurah of an Olah - it is definitely brought on the Mizbe'ach;

Quote from the Gemara: And if it is referring to the of an Asham, it is a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai that it must be let to graze until it gets a Mum.

Implied Question: It could just as well have said 'An Asham is a male and cannot have children, as the Gemara said with regard to an Olah ...

Answer: But it prefers to give a different reason.

Question: According to Rabeinu Tam, who says that Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai 'Whatever must die by a Chatas, by an Asham is brought as an Olah' (and it was the Rabanan who instituted that the Asham must be let to graze, and not brought as an Olah - see Tosfos 18a DH Nitak), why does the Gemara not establish that the Beraisa is discussing an Asham (since it is not let to graze according to the Torah, but rather it is sacrificed as an Olah)?

Answer: It cannot be that the Beraisa is discussing the (Temurah of child of) an Asham, since it is obvious that one cannot actually bring it as an Asham (but, if anything, as an Olah), and "Rak" implies that one does not bring it like the Kodshim from which it came ...

Answer (cont.): And it is not necessary to teach us that point, since it is obvious that it is not brought as an Asham.