Clarification: This means that it is Kadosh Kedushas ha'Guf, in that if it not fit to go on the Mizbe'ach, it cannot be sold without a Mum, but must graze ...

Clarification (cont.): Consequently, Rebbi Shimon holds by Asham and Pesach that, since they do not take effect on a female, they are sold without a Mum - therefore they cannot make a Temurah ...

Clarification (concl.): Whereas by Olah, since it has the status of an Olah by a bird, he holds that it grazes and makes a Temurah (Rashi's words).

Question: What is the Gemara saying? Earlier, it implies that Temurah is dependent upon Re'iyah, whereas here it implies that Re'iyah depends upon Temurah?

Answer: What the Gemara seems to be saying is that - since they go to Nidvas Tzibur, and there is no Temurah by a Tzibur, we cannot say that the fact that Mosar Asham is brought as an Olah helps for Mafrish Nekeivah le'Asham to be Kadosh Kedushas ha'Guf ...

Reason: Seeing as the Din Temurah regarding the two differs

Reason (cont.): Because Mosar Olah makes a Temurah, which Mosar Asham does not, since it is brought as a Nidvas Tzibur, which cannot make a Temurah.

Nekeivah le'Pesach: And it is not comparable to 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Pesach', since Mosar ha'Pesach is a Shelamim, which makes a Temurah like the Pesach itself ...

Nekeivah le'Pesach (cont.): Consequently, it is correct for Kedushas ha'Guf to take effect on a Nekeivah that one designated as a Pesach

Reason: Seeing as there is no difference whether one designates it as a Pesach or as a Mosar ha'Pesach, which is Shelamim, and both of them make a Temurah.

Clarification #1: By a poor man, who brings an Olas ha'Of.

Clarification #1 (cont.): According to what the Gemara currently thinks, 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Olaso' is referring to an obligatory Olah - such as a rich Metzora, who is obligated to bring a male Olas Beheimah ...

Clarification #2: And the reason that it says that Mafrish Nekeivah le'Olaso makes a Temurah is ...

Clarification #2 (cont.): Because the obligation that he must now bring would incorporate a female - if he would be a poor man, who designates an Olas ha'Of, which can come as a female ...

Reason: Seeing as there is no Din of Tamus (perfection, without blemish) and Zachrus (a male) with regard to birds.

Implied Question: And the reason that it gave the example of 'Ani Metzora' - and not 'Shem Olah be'Zav' - with reference to Olas Nedavah ...

Answer: Because it wants to find that by the Chiyuv that he is obligated to bring, a Nekeivah by the Olah is applicable.

Question #1: According to what Tosfos just explained - that the Gemara wants to find that by the Chiyuv that he is obligated to bring, a Nekeivah by the Olah is applicable, that does not apply here, since there is no such obligation on a Kohen?

Question #2: Moreover, why does the Gemara say 'Paras Chatas', seeing as most Chata'os that go on the Mizbe'ach are females?

Answer: The Gemara is asking on the basis of a Kal va'Chomer - Since even if he designated a female as an Olah, where the animal itself is not fit to be brought as an Olah, it nevertheless says that it can make a Temurah, seeing as it has the status of an Olah by Olas ha'Of ...

Answer (cont.): How much more so if one designates a cow as one's bull, where the cow itself would be fit as a Paras Chatas - if it would be red, ought we to say that it is Kadosh.

Implied Question: The Gemara could equally well have asked from the Beraisa itself cited above - in a case where 'instead of an Asham in its first year, one brought one in its second year, Rebbi Shimon rules that it is not Kadosh.

Implied Question (cont.): Why is that, seeing as it is fit to be brought as an Asham Me'ilos or Gezeilos ...

Implied Question (concl.): And the same answer that the Gemara gives here applies there?

Explanation #1: A Yachid and an Ani (Rashi) ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): However, Se'ir Chatas is not applicable to the body of the Yachid, nor the Se'irah, to the body of the Nasi ...

Explanation #1 (concl.): - Whereas Olas Nekeivah is applicable (to each one), seeing as he could declare his property Hefker and bring an Olas ha'Of (Until here are the words of Rashi).

Refutation: This is not correct however, because what does the Gemara ask shortly, 'If so, here too, he does not bring an Olas ha'Of?' The two cases are not comparable ...

Refutation (cont.): Since he himself is fit to bring an Olas Nekeivah - should he declare his property Hefker?

Explanation #2: The correct explanation therefore is "These are two different bodies' - Because the Yachid is not eligible to become a Nasi as long as the present incumbent is still alive;le to nor is the Nasi able to adopt the Din of a Yachid ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas an Ani and an Ashir are like one body - inasmuch as ythe rich mancan become poor, and the poor man, rich.

Clarification: Now the Gemara's Kashya 'If so ... ' is valid ...

Clarification: In that it says - 'He did not sin and he is not therefore Chayav to bring a Sa'ir' ...

Implied Question: Even though his body it eligible to become a Nasi ...

Answer: Seeing as, the moment that he sinned, he was not Chayav to bring a Sa'ir, it is not considered one body...

Clarification (cont.): In our case too, the moment that he sinned, he was not Chayav to bring an Olas ha'Of and he could not exempt himself with it.

Clarification #1: He brings a pigeon or a young dove' ...

Clarification #1 (cont.): And since he is able to exempt himself with a bird even after having designated an animal (See Olas Shlomoh), as it states in Perek Merubeh (Bava Kama, Daf 78), It is indeed fit for an Olas Nekeivah.

Clarification #2: And Rebbi Shimon's statement regarding 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Olaso' must now be speaking where he declared 'Harei alai Olah'

Reason: In which case he can exempt himself with a female Olas ha'Of even after designating an animal, as the Gemara states in Merubeh (Ibid.).

Reason: Since Rebbi Eliezer holds 'S'tam Hekdesh is meant for Bedek ha'Bayis' ...

Precedent: And it is therefore as if one is Makdish Temimim (animals without a blemish) to Bedek ha'Bayis - which never leave the realm of the Mizbe'ach.

Reason: Because he holds that, as far as something that is fit to go on the Mizbe'ach is concerned, a person will not leave Kodshei Mizbe'ach and be Makdish to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis

Reason (cont.): And S'tam, a person has an Olah in mind ...

Reason: Because it all goes to Hash-m.

Clarification: If the owner of the leftover is a Kohen, he himself may bring it and retain the skin - even though he does not belong to the particular Mishmar that is serving that week ...

Source: Because so we learned in a Beraisa - From where do we know that a Kohen who comes with his own Korbanos may bring them whenever he wishes? ...

Source: Therefore the Torah writes "u'Ba be'Chol Avas Nafsho ve'Sheireis" (in Perek ha'Gozel Kama, Bava Kama, Daf 109b) - The wording of Rashi.

Question: Is this V'lad better than its mother, who is not brought as an Asham ...

Reason: Since it is Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai that a Temuras Asham is not brought as an Asham?

Answer: Perhaps he (Rabah bar Avuhah) that the proceeds of a Temuras Asham that is a Nekeivah - before the Kaparah, are brought as an Asham.

Answer (cont.): Though after the Kaparah everyone agrees that it itself is brought as an Olah.

Reason: Since he holds that the Temurah also stands to be brought as an Olah.

Clarification: And a Temurah is 'Ba'ah ba'Aveirah' - since he transgressed "Lo Yachlifenu".

Implied Question: And even though the Temurah of an Olah and a Shelamim are brought ...

Answer: They do not come to atone, but merely as a gift (the wording of Rashi).

Clarification: The V'lad of a Temurah is considered a V'lad Sheini.

Question: Tosfos' Rebbe ha'Rav Mordechai queries the Gemara's Kashya ...

Question: Bearing in mind that Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi is speaking according to Rebbi Shimon, and the Rabbanan disagree with him and say that 'All the V'lados until the end of time, are brought?

Answer: The Kashya is on what he says 'Divrei ha'Kol', even according to Rebbi Eliezer, who says that, even according to the Rabbanan 'the first V'lad is brought, but not the second'.

Answer (cont.): From which we see thar the second V'lad is inferior to the second one.

Refuted Explanation: Here we cannot ascribe the reason to the fact that 'the status of Olah is not applicable to its mother by Olas ha'Of' ...

Reason: Since the status of Olah is indeed applicable to its mother by Olas ha'Of.

Authentic Explanation: But the reason is because 'Its mother was not initially sanctified as an Olah' ...

Reason: But as an Asham.

Question: Tosfos' Rebbe ha'Rav Mordechai asked - What is the Gemara asking, considering that the reason here that 'it itself cannot be brought is because one may come to confuse them, as the Gemara explained earlier (See Olas Shlomoh) ...

Question (cont.): And that reason is not applicable by 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Asham'.

Answer: And he answered that it would seem that the Gemara only gave the reasons mentioned earlier with regard to the Temurah itself, but the V'lad is rejected with its mother; so how can the Gemara say by 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Asham' that the V'lad itself is brought as an Olah?

Precedent: And the same explanation we need to give earlier in the Perek, when the Gemara asks (on Daf 18b) from this Mishnah on Rebbi Eliezer, who said in the case of 'ha'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Olah ve'Yaldah' that it itself is brought as an Olah.