Implied Question: He could have asked the same She'eilah by one Kodesh animal that is a Ba'alas-Mum and one that is a Chulin Temimah ...

Answer: And he only asked it in this way because the Gemara will shortly ask other She'eilos in connection with two sets of animals.

Question: Why is the Gemara so long-winded - it could have said briefly 'Ba'alas-Mum Tachas Ba'alas-Mum La'achuli, O Dilma ha Nami le'Atfusi?

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that a Ba'alas-Mum cannot take effect instead of a Ba'alas-Mum - because one bad animal cannot become a Temurah for another bad animal ...

Reason: Because one can only declare a good animal a Temurah for a bad one or vice-versa, a bad one for a good d one.

Question #1: This is not correct however, since we do not find this anywhere! (See Shitah Mekubetzes 25)?

Question #2: Moreover, the Gemara in the first Perek (Daf 9a) implies the opposite - that a bad animal does take effect on a bad one, when it says 'If so, why does the Torah not write "Tov be'Ra O Ra Bo"? - implying that Ra takes effect on Ra?

Supporting Explanation #1: On the other hand, the current Sugya supports Rashi's explanation - since the She'eilah cited above refers to two animals of Chulin that are Tamim, and not a Ba'al-Mum.

Explanation #2: The Ri however, learns that a Ra can can be a Temurah on a Ra ...

Refutation: Only it is more logical to transfer than it is to declare a Temurah ...

Reason: Because what is the point of declaring a Temurah, seeing as it too, is not fit to bring on the Mizbe'ach?

Clarification: And it will not go out to Chulin until he evaluates it.

Clarification of Mishnah: What the Mishnah therefore means when it states 'Yotzei le'Chulin ve'Tzarich La'asoso Damim' is - that it only goes out to Chulin after he has evaluated it.

Implied Question: And the reason that it finds it necessary to mention that 'it goes out to Chulin' is ...

Answer: Because it mentioned earlier cases where 'They do not go out to Chulin, but are subject to Temurah, and both are Kadosh - therefore it mentions here a Lashon of Chulin.

Authentic Explanation: Rashi explains that 'If he has the intention of transferring the Kedushah, it is definitely transferred - meaning that if he had in mind to transfer the Kedushah for less than its value, it is certainly transferred ...

Authentic Explanation (cont.): And when Resh Lakish says 'Tzarich La'asos Damim D'var Torah' - that speaks when he does not have that in mind, but where he intends the Chulin to be equivalent in value to the Hekdesh ...

Authentic Explanation (concl.): Whilst according to Rebbi Yochanan, he does indeed have that in mind' (Until here are the words of Rashi).

Clarifying Sugya: And this is the explanation of the Sugya: 'Ki Amar Shmuel Di'eved' - i.e. Something that one is not permitted to do Lechatchilah, only Bedi'eved, i.e. where he deliberately transferred it for less than its value ...

Clarifying Sugya (cont.): 'Aval Lechatchilah' - Something that one is permitted to do Lechatchilah - i.e. where he did not have in mind to transfer it for less ... , only where he thought that the Chulin was equivalent in price to the Hekdesh, but it transpired that he erred -'He (Shmuel) did not say' that the Hekdesh will take effect.

Clarifying Sugya (concl.): Whereas 'Rebbi Yirmiyah holds even Lechatchilah' - i.e. Something that is permitted Lechatchilah - i.e. where he did not intend to transfer the Kedushah for less than its value, there 'Shmuel said' - that it is transferred.

Refuted Explanation: One cannot however explain 'When did Shmuel say that it is transferred? Bedi'eved, but not Lechatchilah' - as it would appear at first glance ...

Refutation #1: Because in that case, seeing as, when the Gemara says in the name of Rebbi Yochanan 'Bitul Mekach Yesh Ka'an', it refers to Lechatchilah, how can he say that they are not subject to Ona'ah? Since when is it permitted to overcharge Hekdesh Lechatchilah?

Refutation #2: Furthermore, how can Rebbi Yirmiyah say that Shmuel permits transferring even Lechatchilah Hekdesh worth a Manah for a Shaveh P'rutah, when 'she'Chilelo' that Shmuel said means 'Bedi'eved?

Refutation #3: Moreover, the Gemara says in the first Perek of Sanhedrin (Daf 14b) that to transfer Hekdesh requires nine Yisre'eilim and one Kohen - and it learns this from a Pasuk (See following Dibur)?

Conclusion: Therefore we must concur with Rashi's explanation (See Masores ha'Shas).

Clarification: When the Gemara said 'Pachos K'dei Ona'ah Chozer' - it means that the Hedyot must return to Hekdesh the value of the Ona'ah, but the Chilul is valid.

Introduction to Question #1: The Gemara in Perek ha'Nechnakin (Ibid, Daf 88a), in connection with a Zaken Mamrei, implies that even a pipe belonging to Hekdesh requires ten people to redeem it, and the Gemara concludes that the Zaken Mamrei and the Sanhedrin are arguing over the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan regarding the status of the Hekdesh ...

Introduction to Question #1 (cont.): The Gemara explains there he (the Zakein Mamrei) is not Chayav unless he argues with the Sanhedrin over a matter on which is Chayav a Chatas ...

Introduction to Question #1 (cont.): And it explains there that, if it is redeemed with three people, it is not redeemed; it remains Hekdesh and if one subsequently betroths a woman with it, she is not Mekudeshes ...

Introduction to Question #1 (concl.): Whereas according to the Rabbanan, it is redeemed; it goes out to Chulin and if one subsequently betroths a woman with it, she is Mekudeshes ...

Question #1: So we see that three and ten (according to the two respective opinions) are crucial, whereas here it seems that Hekdesh can be redeemed with two?

Question #2: Moreover, how can Shmuel say that it can be redeemed on a Shaveh P'rutah?

Answer: We must therefore say that here it is speaking about a private individual who is redeeming his Hekdesh, and it is in such a caser that Shmuel permits redeeming for less than its value ...

Answer (cont.): But a Gizbar (treasurer of Hekdesh) who sells Hekdesh requires three or ten (according to the above respective popinions).

Explanation #1: Because the Mishnah says "Tachas Chatas, Tachas Olah", Lo Amar K'lum' ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): But since Rebbi Meir holds 'Ein Adam Motzi Devarav le'Vatalah', here too, what he said pertained to the Chatas or the Olah that he has in the house.

Explanation #2: Others explain that it refers to the statement in the Mishnah 'Im Amar al Beheimah Teme'ah ve'al Ba'alas-Mum "Harei Eilu Olah", Lo Amar K'lum' ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Which does not go like Rebbi Meir - because since 'Ein Adam Motzi Devarav le'Vatalah', he meant to say 'Harei le'Olah', and he made his declaration for the proceeds.