Clarification: 'Since the status of Olah pertains to its mother' (Rashi) ...

Reason: 'Since the status of Olah pertains to its mother'.

Implied Question: Even though it is a female ...

Answer: Nevertheless, the term 'Olah' applies to it ...

Reason #1: Since we find a female by Olas ha'Of.

Reason #2: Moreover, when it is sold, the proceeds go towards an Olah - hence it has 'the status of an Olah'.

Clarification (cont.): Whereas the V'lad of a Temuras Olah does not have the status of an Olah, since its mother is mother is not an Olah - neither it nor the proceeds of its sale (till here are the words of Rashi).

Refutation: It is impossible to reconcile Rashi's first reason - 'the status of Olah pertains to its mother' with the Sugya later ...

Conclusion: As Tosfos will explain there.

Accepting Rashi's Two Reasons: Here it is possible to accept both of Rashi's reasons (see previous Dibur) ...

Reason: Because Since a. there is no Shelamim by birds and b. the initial Hekdesh was not designated as a Shelamim.

Clarification: Rashi explains that if it gave birth before Pesach, why does Rebbi Eliezer not say that it itself is brought as a Pesach ...

Clarification: Seeing as the status of Pesach pertains to its mother, even though it cannot be brought on the Mizbe'ach?

Rashi's First Reason: And here one cannot establish the first reason of Rashi cited earlier ...

Reason: Since in this case, a Pesach cannot be a female ...

Rashi's Second Reason: The second reason however, fits nicely ...

Reason: Seeing as it was initially designated as a Pesach, in which case he ought indeed to have said that the baby is brought as a Pesach?

Question: Why does the Gemara not answer that we need the term Pesach to apply to it in some manner, which is not the case here - since the term Pesach does not apply to a female for it itself to be brought as a Pesach ...

Question (cont.): And that is why the V'lad itself cannot be brought as a Pesach?

Answer: ha'Rav Mordechai extrapolates from here that we will never say that the term Olas ha'Of of the bird will help to validate the V'lad itself ...

Conclusion: Wherever we find this Lashon, Tosfos will explain it be'Ezras Hash-m.

Reference: Tosfos explained it well at the beginning of the Perek (See Tosfos 17b, DH 'de'Ika').

Question: How does 'If so' fit into this context? ...

Question: Seeing as one can ask the same question directly from the Mishnah - Why in the case of Mafrish Nekeivah le'Olah ve'Yaldah does Rebbi Eliezer say that 'the baby itself is brought as an Olah', whereas here by Pesach he says 'Yir'eh'?

Answer: The explanation is as follows - It would be fine in that, without the Rava's answer, we could not have asked from the Mishnah - since it is different there ...

Reason: Because if the V'lad is brought as an Olah, the status of Olah is not uprooted from the mother - since aa person may bring an Olah every day ...

Reason (cont.): Whereas here, in the event that the V'lad is brought as a Pesach, it turn out that the status of Pesach is uprooted both from the mother and from the proceeds of her sale - seeing as one is only able to bring one Pesach (See Shitah Mekubetzes 30) ...

Reason (concl.): Consequently, one may not bring the V'lad on Pesach, to uproot that which it(s mother) was designated.

Answer (cont.): Whereas according to Rava, the Gemara justifiably asks that now that he holds that since the Mosar ha'Pesach is brought as a Shelamim, it is as if the mother has the status of a Shelamim ...

Answer (concl.): By the same token, he (Rebbi Eliezer) should have said that before Pesach too, the V'lad should be brought as a Pesach.

Refuted Explanation: And not like Rashi, who explains that he ought to argue in the Reisha too, and say that the V'ad itself should be brought as a Shelamim before Pesach ...

Reason: Because before Pesach too, if one Shechts a Pesach as a Shelamim it is Kasher, since a Pesach during the rest of the year, other than on the fourteenth of Nisan, is brought as a Shelamim ...

Reason: Hence its mother has the status of a Shelamim.

Clarification: Abaye is coming to explain the entire statement of Rebbi Eliezer, in connection with 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Olah ve'Yaldah' and 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Pischo ve'Nishtayrah (and it remained alive after Pesach)'

Clarification: In these two cases he says that 'The V'lad itself is brought' - seeing as the V'lad itself is brought, because the mother is not uprooted from its Kedushah.

Case #1: By 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Olah' - since its proceeds are not rejected from being (used for) an Olah ...

Case #2: And similarly 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Pesach ve'Nishtayrah ve'Yaldah', if the V'lad is brought, the mother is not rejected from (being brought as) a Shelamim - because, once Pesach has passed, it is only fit to be brought as a Shelamim.

Clarification (cont.): But in the case of both Temuras Asham 'Hifrish Nekeivah le'Pischo ve'Yaldah Kodem Pesach', Rebbi Eliezer says that the V'lad is Roe'h ...

Reason: This is because if the V'lad of the Temuras Asham were to be brought, the mother would be uprooted from what it was originally designated as - an Asham, seeing as one cannot bring two Ashamos.

Clarification (concl.): And the same applies to 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Pesach ve'Nishtayrah ve'Yaldah', if the V'lad itself is brought, both the mother and the proceeds will be uprooted from being brought as a Pesach - since one can only bring one Pesach per year - So Tosfos heard.

Refutation: However the Lashon of the Gemara does no go well with this explanation.

Support: Nor does Rashi learn that way.

Clarification: Even though by 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Olah' he said that the V'lad itself is brought as an Olah ...

Clarification (cont.): By 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Asham' he concedes that its V'lad is not brought, even before the Kaparah.

Refuted Explanation: We cannot explain this according to Rashi's second reason (cited on Amud Alef), to say that initially the mother was designated as an Olah ...

Refutation: Since by 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Asham' too, the mother was designated as an Asham ...

Refutation (cont.): In which case the Gemara ought to have ruled that the V'lad must be brought as an Asham ...

Authentic Explanation: Consequently, we must explain it according to Rashi's first reason, and to say that the mother has the status of an Olah due to Olas ha'Of.

Question #1: How can we simply learn it from there -bearing in mind that up until now, we have not cited one Tana or Amora who holds that the status of Olah takes effect due to Olas ha'Of?

Question #2: Moreover, earlier Tosfos explained that the 'Olas ha'Of' of the mother does not help to render the V'lad Kasher ...

Answer: Tosfos' Rebbe therefore explains that it is considered 'Shem Olah al Imo' because - at the end of the day, the mother is not rejected in that its proceeds are used for an Olah, since an Olah can be brought as a Nedavah ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas by 'Nekeivah le'Asham', once the V'lad is brought as an Asham, it will no longer be like its mother, since its mother is rejected as an Asham - because an Asham cannot be brought as a Nedavah

Answer (concl.): Consequently, the proceeds will be used for an Olah - and one cannot draw a distinction between the V'lad and the mother.

Implied Question: Even though above, Rava concluded, in connection with 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Pischo' that Rebbi Eliezer argues on the Reisha - inasmuch as if it gave birth before Pesach, the V'lad itself is brought as a Pesach, in spite of the fact that the mother is uptimately brought as a Shelamim ...

Answer: That is because the leftover Pesach is brought as a Shelamim, and Rava considers them one and the same.

Explanation #1: The explanation according to Rashi, is - If it is not an Olah, even though the status of Olah pertains to its mother by Olas ha'Of ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): How much more so will it not be an Asham, where its mother does not have the status of Asham.

Explanation #2: Whereas according ha'Rav Mordechai the explanation is that - If it is not an Olah even after the Kaparah, even though the mother will ultimately be an Olah ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): How much more so will it not be an Asham before the Kaparah, since its mother will not be an Asham if the V'lad is brought as one.

Implied Question: The reason that Rebbi Shimon does not also argue by 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Olah', and say that it must be sold without a blemish ...

Answer: Now according to the opinion in the Gemara that, according to Rebbi Shimon it is specifically 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Olah' that makes a Temurah, but not 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Asham' ...

Answer (cont.): It is in order why he does not argue by Olah like he does by Asham ...

Reason: Since an Olah has more Kedushas ha'Guf than An Asham, precisely because it makes a Temurah, whilst an Asham does not.

Implied Question: But according to Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah, who maintains in Rebbi Shimon that one cannot make a Temurah for one's Olah either ...

Implied Question (cont.): In which case 'Mafrish Nekeivah (le'Olah)' too, ought to sell it without a blemish?

Answer: we will have to say that he argues by Asham, and by Olah as well.

Implied Question: And the Tana only mentions it by Asham ...

Answer: To teach us that nevertheless, the proceeds go to Nedavah (which is an Olah) See Shitah Mekubetzes 29.

Question: Tosfos Rebbe ha'Rav Shmuel asks why this is different than 'Makdish li'Demei Nesachim', about which the Gemara says in the first Perek of Shevu'os (Daf 11a) that it is not Kadosh Kedushas ha'Guf according to Rava (See Tzon Kodshim)?

Answer: It may well be that that Sugya goes according to Rebbi Shimon, who will shortly say here that 'Whatever is not intrinsically fit to go on the Mizbe'ach is not subject to Kedushas ha'Guf (See footnote).

Question: In Perek ha'Techeiles (Menachos, Daf 48b) the Beraisa rules that it is Pasul and requires Ibur Tzurah (to be left overnight), and is then taken to the Beis ha'Sereifah?

Answer #1: Some commentaries explain that that goes like Rebbi Shimon, who says here that they are not Kadosh at all ...

Answer #1 (cont.): And it speaks there that they brought it into the Azarah and Shechted it - and it is like Shechting Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis in the Azarah, which renders them Pasul.

Implied Question: And the reason they require Ibur Tzurah, even though only Kodshei Mizbe'ach require Ibur Tzurah ...

Answer: This is in order to confuse it with oter Passul Kodshim which require it.

Answer #2: Rav Efrayim answers that it is Kasher here because it is speaking in a case of li'Shemo - and that is why it is Kasher, whereas there it is speaking she'Lo li'Shemo (See Shitah Mekubetzes Hashmatos).

Precedent: Similar to this we find in the last Perek of Zevachim (Daf 114b), where the Gemara says that 'Mechusar Z'man by the owner is Patur' - meaning that if he Shechted it outside ...

Precedent (cont.): And Rav Chilkiyah bar Tuvya explained that 'That speaks specifically where he Shechted it li'Shemo, but she'Lo li'Shemo he is Chayav because of Shechutei Chutz - since it is fit to be brought inside' ...

Precedent (concl.): So we see that if one Shechts an Asham in its first year, which is Mechusar Z'man, she'Lo li'Shemo (he is Chayav) - because it is fit to be brought inside.

Question: Since it is speaking here about she'Lo li'Shemo, why does it need to say that the owner is not Yotzei because 'it changed to in its first year from in its second'? Why does it not rather say 'because it is she'Lo li'Shemo'?

Answer: It is teaching us that it is Kasher even though there are two shortcomings.

Answer #3 (to original question): Here it is speaking after it was sent into the meadow to graze, whereas there (in Menachos) where it was not, in which case it is a Pasul Asham.

Source: In Perek Oso ve'es B'no (Chulin 81a [See Hagahos ha'Gra]) when Rebbi Shimon says 'Someone who Shechts whatever is fit to be brought later outside the Azarah transgresses a Lo Sa'aseh'.

Question #1: The Gemara, in the third Perek of Bechoros (Daf 21b) asks 'Let us learn (B'chor) from Kodshim that they are not Kodesh?' - implying that Kodshim before their time are not Kadosh?

Question #2: Moreover, the Gemara says elsewhere (Zevachim, Daf 12a) 'The night (of the eighth) for the Kedushsah to tsake effect, the day to be sacrificed' - implying that it is specifically on the eighth that it is Kadosh, but not before?

Answer: That is speaking with regard to declaring Lechatchilah an animal Kadosh before its time ...

Answer (cont.): However if one transgressed and did declare it Hekdesh, it is Kadosh ...

Source: Since we learn it from B'chor (See also Tosfos, Bechoros 21b DH 'Af'' etc.).