Clarification: This is how Rebbi Yitzchak bar Yosef learns ...

Rebbi Meir: Rebbi Meir's reason is not because of 'T'fos Lashon Rishon' ...

Rebbi Meir (cont.): And that if he says 'Temuras Olah u'Shelamim', even Rebbi Meir will concede that both take effect - and he only argues by 'Temuras Olah Temuras Shelamim' as he explains ...

Reason: Since he ought otherwise to have said 'Temuras Olah u'Shelamim' ...

Rebbi Yossi: Whereas Rebbi Yossi holds that he (the owner) thinks 'If I say "Temuras Olah u'Shelamim" it will be Kadosh but cannot be brought on the Mizbe'ach' - that he will not be able to bring it because it is half a Temuras Olah and half a Temuras Shelamim ...

Rebbi Yossi (cont.): I will say "Temuras Olah Temuras Shelamim", And I will be able to bring it' ...

Rebbi Yossi (concl.): That is why it takes effect on both of them - since he has both of them in mind.

Question #1: According to Rebbi Yitzchak bar Yosef (See previous Dibur) who says that Rebbi Meir's reason is because of 'mi'de'Havah leih Lemeimar ... ' (See previous Dibur), and not because of 'T'fos Lashon Rishon' ...

Question #1 (cont.): Here 'mi'de'Havah leih Lemeimar' is not applicable, so why should it be brought as an Olah?

Question #2: Likewise in the Mishnah, where it says 'Hi Shelamim u'Veladah Olah', and where Rebbi Meir rules that it is a V'lad Shelamim, it is not applicable either?

Answer: It is specifically where he said 'Temuras Olah, Temuras Shelamim', which appears contradictory, that we need to come on to the reason of 'mi'de'Havah leih Lemeimar' ...

Reason: Because, if not for that reason, we would have thought that he had both in mind, since it is not human nature to speak in such contradictory terms ...

Answer (cont.): That is why we need the reason of 'He ought to have said "Temuras Olah u'Shelamim", and instead said "Temuras Olah, Temuras Shelamim", hye has the intention that first one takes effect, then the other ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas in our Mishnah, where they are two different entities, there is no contradiction - and one can say that his intention is that both of them should take effect.

Precedent #1: And in our case too, where there is no contradiction - since he specifically states 'half of them', we do not need the reason of 'mi'de'Havah leih Lemeimar', since without it, one can say that his mind is on both of them - and as soon as he says 'Chetzyah Temuras Olah', it takes effect on the entire animal.

Precedent #2: And similarly in our Mishnah, as soon as he says 'Hi Shelamim, the Kedushah takes effect on the V'lad.

Query: And the Sugya of 'ke'Zayis u'ke'Zayis' in Zevachim (Daf 30b) needs to be looked into.

Question: How can Rebbi Meir say that 'It is brought as al Olah', seeing as in the first Perek (Daf 11b) he concurs with Rebbi Yehudah there, who says 'Raglah shel Zu Olah, Ein Kulah Olah'?

Refuted Answer: And if it is because Rebbi Yehudah concedes by a part of the animal on which its life depends - and 'Chetzyah' is in that category ...

Refutation: The Gemara says in the first Perek (Ibid.) that that speaks specifically by the initial Hekdesh, but regarding Temurah, it does not take effect even by a part of the animal on which its life depends ...

Reason: Since 'One cannot declare limbs a Temurah on a whole animal'.

Answer #1: Rebbi Meir holds like him in one point but argues with him in another ...

Answer #1 (cont.): He holds like him - inasmuch as, if one declared 'Raglah shel Zu Olah', the entire animal is not an Olah ...

Answer #1 (cont.): But he argues with him - in that, just as by the initial Hekdesh the Hekdesh on a limb on which the animal's life depends takes effect on the entire animal, so too is the Din by a Temurah ...

Precedent: Like Rebbi Yossi, who compares Temurah to the initial Hekdesh ...

Source: As the Mishnah (Ibid., Daf 10a), citing Rebbi Yossi, states 'Just as we find that someone who declares "Raglah shel Zu Olah", all of it is an Olah, so too, if someone declares "Raglah shel Zu Tachas Zu", the whole of it is a Temurah in its place' ...

Answer #1 (cont.): And tis too, is how Rebbi Meir takes on - that just as the beginning of Hekdesh takes effect on the entire animal - regarding a limb on which the animal's life depends, so too will Temurah take effect on the entire animal.

Answer #1 (concl.): Whereas according to Rebbi Yehudah, Temurah does not take effect on a limb at all, even it the life of the animal depends on it - even though he concedes that at the beginning of Hekdesh it does.

Reason #1: And the reason is - as Tosfos explained in the first Perek (Daf 11a, DH 'Ha Mani') either because he Darshens "Beheimah" "Beheimah"

Reason #2: Or because he compares Temurah to Ma'aser - 'Just as Ma'aser is a Korban Yachid ... '.

Answer #2: Alternatively, when the owner declares 'Chetzyah', even Rebbi Yehudah will concede ...

Reason: Because one can draw a distinction between Chetzyah and a limb on which the animal's life depends ...

Precedent: Since we must make a similar distinction according to Rebbi Yossi, who says 'And not whole animals on them (limbs), yet he concedes that one can declare a Temurah on Chetzyah, as Tosfos will explain shortly ,be'Ezras Hash-m.

Refuted Explanation: Rashi explains that 'A person is also taken to task on the end of his statement', and he is not Chayav a Chatas; hence it must die.

Refutation: How can the Kedushah of a Chatas take effect at all - when the Gemara in Nedarim (Daf 6a) says that 'Even if someone who is not Chayav a Chatas declares on an animal "Harei Zu Chatas", he has said nothing'?

Proof: And that is indeed the text in the Tosefta (Perek 3, see inside) 'Beheimah Zu Chetzyah Tachas Olah ve'Chetzyah Tachas Chatas, Tikarev Olah; Rebbi Yossi Omer Tamus'.

Reason: Rebbi Yossi's reason is because both take effect, and since there is on it the status of Temuras Chatas, it must die.

Question: How can one even think to say that the Temurah is stronger than the animal that it comes to replace?

Answer: Because we would have thought that he does not intend the animal to be half Olah, half Shelamim, but that it should be a complete Temurah instead of either the half Olah or the half Shelamim - and is therefore brought on the Mizbe'ach.

Implied Question: And even though in the first Perek (Daf 10a) Rebbi Yossi said that 'One cannot declare a complete animal a Temurah on limbs' - as the Mishnah says 've'Lo Shelamim bahen be'Chetzyah' ...

Answer: He concedes that if one says 'Beheimah Zu shel Chulin Tachas Chetzyah shel Zu' it takes effect ...

Answer (continued): One needs to differentiate between half of it (a whole animal) and other limbs.

Conclusion: Consequently. We would have thought that its Temurah is brought even though it is not - therefore it teaches that it is not ...

Reason: Since it comes from a rejected Kedushah.

Alternative Text: There are texts read 'Sh'ma Minah Kedushas Damim Madcheh'.

Refuted Explanation: Some commentaries explain that it pushes away the Temurah so that it cannot be brought - as it says 'And its Temurah is like it'.

Introduction to Refutation: This is not correct however, since in the last Perek in Kerisus (Daf 27b) in connection with 'A wealthy Metamei Mikdash who designated birds for his lamb, and then became poor, the Gemara rules that, since it was rejected, it remains rejected ...

Introduction to Refutation (cont.): And the Gemara there (on Daf 28a) concludes 'Sh'ma Minah T'las: Sh'ma Minah Kedushas Damim Madcheh' ...

Refutation: And one cannot explain there that it pushes away the Temurah, since there is no Temurah by birds.

Authentic Explanation: The explanation must therefore be the same as that of 'Yesh Dichuy be'Damim' - meaning even something that is only subject to Kedushas Damim.

Question: However, the Gemara there remains unanswered, seeing as Kedushas Damim too, does not apply by birds, since we Pasken (in Menachos, Daf 100b) that 'Birds are not subject to Pidyon'?

Answer: What the Gemara there means is 'A proof that there is Dichuy even by something that is subject to Kedushas ha'Guf - even though it is not subject to Kedushas Damim either

Precedent: Like the case of Metamei Mikdash Ashir who designated birds ... '.

Question: What is Rebbi Yochanan coming to teach us? We learn all three things in Perek Mi she'Hayah Tamei, (Pesachim, Daf 98a) in connection with 'Someone who designates a Nekeivah for his Pesach', when the Gemara says 'Sh'ma Minah T'las ... ', so what is Rebbi Yochanan teaching us?

Answer: Because Tana'im argue as to whether live animals can be rejected or not, and he is concurring with the opinion that they can.

Question: Why does he say both 'Sh'ma Minah Yesh Dichuy be'Damim' and 'Sh'ma Minah Dichuy Me'ikara havi Dichuy' - seeing as once we know 'Dichuy Meikara', it is Kedsushas Damim?

Answer: We do find cases of Dichuy Me'ikara that are Kadosh Kedushas ha'Guf, such as ...

Example #1: A Mumar (who ate Cheilev, designated a Korban on it and did Teshuvah - which is Dichuy Me'ikara and at the same time, Kadoshy Kedushas ha'Guf, seeing as the Dichuy did not come about on account of the Korban itself.

Example #2: Alternatively, like the case in Perek ha'Ta'aruvos (Zevachim, 78a) where, commenting on the Mishnah 'Blood (of a Korban) that became mixed up with water, is Kasher as long as it has the appearance of blood' ...

Example #2 (cont.): Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan comments 'That speaks specifically where the water falls into the blood, but where the blood falls into the water, it becomes Bateil drop by drop ...

Example #2 (concl.): Even if it still has the appearance of blood ...

Introduction to Question: Since Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Dichuy Me'ikara havi Dichuy', why does he himself say in the first Perek of Zevachim (Daf 12b) and in Perek Nigmar ha'Din (Sanhedrin, 47a) - that if someone ate Cheilev, designated a Korban, converted and did Teshuvah 'Ho'il ve'Nidcheh Yidacheh' ...

Question: Why did he not rather present a case where he ate Cheilev, converted and then designated a Korban, seeing as he even holds 'Dichuy Me'ikara havi Dichuy'?

Answer: Due to Rebbi Yochanan's other statement there - that 'If someone ate Cheilev, designated a Korban, became insane and recovered', it states the above case in this manner - because in the latter case it could not have (inverted the order and stated that) 'he became insane and then designated a Korban', since the designation of a Shoteh is invalid.

Introduction to Question: How can we say that Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Dichuy Me'ikara havi Dichuy' - seeing as in Perek Sh'nei Se'irei (Yoma, Daf 64a) the Gemara gives the reason of those who hold 'Ba'alei Chayim Einan Nidachin' as the fact that we learn it from Mechusar Z'man; and their disputants hold that whereas a Mechusar Z'man was never fit, Ba'alei-Chayim were ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): Implying that what he holds that 'Ba'alei-Chayim Nidachim' only applies where they were unfit to begin with ...

Question: If so, from where does he know that 'Dichuy Me'ikara havi Dichuy'?

Answer: There is another explanation there that the one who holds 'Ba'alei chayim Ein Nidachin' learns it from the Pasuk "Mum bam Lo Yeratzu", and not from Mechusar Z'man ...

Conclusion: That being the case, we can say that he holds Dichuy Me'ikara havi Dichuy' - and when the Gemara says there 'Mechuser Z'man Lo Ichzi', that speaks before it knew about the Pasuk "Mum Bam".

Introduction to Questions: The case in the last Perek of Kerisus (Daf 27b & 28a), where Rebbi Oshaya says that, in the case of a rich Tamei Mikdash who designated birds for his lamb and became poor - ho'il ve'Nidcheh Yidacheh', and the Gemara comments there 'Sh'ma Minah T'las ... ', like it does here ...

Introduction to Questions (cont.): And the Gemara queries him from Rebbi Shimon, who says in the case where 'Someone designates a Nekeivah for his Pesach and it gives birth to a Zachar, that it itself is brought as a Pesach' - Why do we not say there too 'Ho'il ve'Nidcheh Yidacheh'? This gives rise to many questions ...

Question #1: Firstly, why does it ask on Rebbi Oshaya and not on Rebbi Yochanan?

Question #2: Secondly, instead of querying him from Rebbi Shimon, why not support him from the Rabbanan, who argue with Rebbi Shimon, and who say 'Let it graze until it obtains a blemish, and it is the sold and the proceeds used for to purchase a Pesach' ...

Question #2 (cont.): Granted, that is what the Gemara answers, but what did the Maksheh think? Why did he not know that that is what the Gemara would answer?

Question #3: And thirdly, why does it ask from Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa and not from Rebbi Eliezer in the Mishnah in the previous Perek 've'Eilu Kodshim' (Daf 18b), where (in a similar same case) of 'Someone who designates a Nekeivah for his Olah ... ', in reply to the Tana Kama's 'Yir'eh', he rules 'Hu Atzmo Yikarev Olah'?

Answer: The Maksheh holds that Rebbi Shimon, who says 'ha'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Pischo ... Hu Atzmo Karev Pesach' is following his reasoning (above) in Perek 'Eilu Kodshim, where, in connection with 'ha'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Asham', in reply to the Tana Kama's 'Yir'eh', he rules 'Timacher she'Lo be'Mum' (See Masores ha'Shas) ...

Answer (cont.): The Gemara asks there why the Tana Kama needs 'Yir'eh'? Why not simply sell it without a Mum, because, the fact that it is not fit for its normal usage is in itself a Mum? And Rav answers - because 'Since Kedushas Damim takes effect on it, so does Kedushas ha'Guf' ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas according to Rebbi Shimon, anything that is not fit to be intrinsically Kadosh, Kedushas ha'Guf will not take effect on it ...

Answer to Question #2: And this explains why the Gemara asks from Rebbi Shimon on 'Metamei Mikdash Ashir she'Hifrish Kein', which does not have Kedushas ha'Guf ...

Answer to Question #2 (cont.): And one cannot retort 'Support him from the Rabbanan' - Because until now the Rabbanan only argue with Rebbi Shimon by 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Pischo' and by 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Asham based on the S'vara that 'Since Kedushas Damim takes effect, so does Kedushas ha'Guf' ...

Answer to Question #2 (concl.): Whereas by the case of 'Tamei Mikdash' this is not applicable - since they are not subject to Kedushas Damim, seeing as birds are not subject to Pidyon, and they are uprooted from Kedushas Mizbe'ach, as neither they nor their proceeds are brought - and even the Rabbanan concede to that.

Answer to Question #1: It also explains why the Gemara does not ask on Rebbi Yochanan - because according to him, 'Migu de'Nachsa ... ' is more applicable, and had it asked on him, we would have argued that rather than query him from Rebbi Shimon, support him from the Rabbanan ...

Answer to Question #3: And that is why we can now justify the fact that it asked from Rebbi Shimon in thye Beraisa and not from Rebbi Eliezer in the Mishnah - because he assumed Rebbi Shimon's reason to concur with the reason mentioned in our Masechta (in Perek Eilu Kodshim, Daf 19a) ...

Answer to Question #3 (concl.): And the Gemara answers that there the Machlokes is not regarding 'Migu de'Nachsa ... ', but over whether 'Ba'alei-Chayim Nidachim' or not - our statement goes according to the Rabbanan, and it is Rebbi Shimon who holds 'Ba'alei-Chayim Einan Nidachin'.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it speaks even if he initially had that in mind, since the last part of his statement is not significant ...

Reason: Because Ma'aser is not Kadosh unless it is done via counting, and it is the tenth one ...

Precedent: And the same applies where he declared 'Chetzyah Olah ve'Chetzyah Temurah, that the Temurah does not take effect with regard to the Olah ...

Reason: Since there is no animal standing there on which to declare a Temurah ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): And it is only regarding Chetzyah Ma'aser ve'Chetzyah Temurah that it takes effect, seeing as they are both equal (until here are the words of Rashi).

Question #1: Even if he declared it completely Ma'aser, his declaration would be invalid?

Question #2: Moreover what does the Gemara mean when it says 'Or perhaps, the Ma'aser is brought ...' - when in fact, it is neither brought nor is it even Kadosh other than via counting (See Shitah Mekubetzes 15)?

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains that it is speaking about a person who 'passed his sheep underneath the staff', and who said 'When the tenth one leaves the pen, it should be half an Aloah and half Ma'aser, and everyone agrees that it is brought as an Olah ...

Reason: Since the verbal Kedushah withy which he sanctified the Olah is stronger than the Kedushas Ma'aser which cannot take effect other than by means of counting ten and passing under the staff ...

Reason (cont.): Olah and Shelamim that Rebbi Yossi argues and maintains that both take effect ...

Reason (con.): Because the Kedushah of the one is not that much greater than the Kedushah of the other ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): But by Olah and Ma'aser - where the Kedushah of the Olah is that much greater thyan that of Ma'aser, they all agree that he has the Olah in mind.

Question: Why do we not say 'Divrei ha'Rav ve'Divrei ha'Talmid, Divrei Mi Shom'in?', as the Gemara said earlier at the beginning of the Perek regarding B'chor? ...

Question (cont.): And Ma'aser ought therefore to take effect and not Olah?

Answer: There it is speaking where he said regarding the B'chor that 'When the majority of it emerges it should be an Olah', whereas here it speaks where he said that it should be an Olah and Ma'aser when a minority of it emerges', and Kedushas Ma'aser does not take effect until the majority emerges.