Implied Question: And one cannot say the other way round (See Tzon Kodshim) ...

Answer: Because the Pasuk "asher Lo Yakrivu" implies that it is only Pasul to bring on the Mizbe'ach, but that it is Kasher for a Hedyot.

Explanation #1: Since in this Pasuk of "asher Lo Yakrivu" the Torah writes "ve'He'emid" and "ve'He'erich", and S'tam Sifra is Rebbi Yehudah ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): So we see that generally the Rabbanan hold that Ha'amadah is required both by Kodshei Mizbe'ach and by Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis ...

Explanation #1 (concl.): Posing a Kashya from the Mishnah, where Rebbi Shimon says 'Yipadu', implying that according to the Rabbanan, Lo Yipadu.

Explanation #2: Alternatively his Kashya is from Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis - since the Torah writes "ve'He'emido ha'Kohen bein Tov bein Ra"; What is it that makes no distinction between good and bad? Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis. (Rashi [See Masores ha'Shas]).

Clarification: It speaks where he is Matfis chickens to the Mizbe'ach (See Rashash).

Implied Question: And when the Gemara says in Menachos (Daf 100b) that 'Birds are not subject to Pidyon' ...

Answer: That is when one declares them Kedushas ha'Guf for the Mizbe'ach.

Clarification: Now the Gemara thinks that it is because Kodshei Mizbe'ach were not included in Ha'amadah ve'Ha'aracah ...

Clarification (cont.): And 'Temimim Yikaveru' - because they are unblemished, and one is not allowed to redeemthem without a Mum.

Clarification: Because even if Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis were not included (in Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah), as the Gemara will explain later, the reason is because they were fit to go on the Mizbe'ach.

Clarification: Nevertheless, Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis must be buried, because in all cases they were (included in Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah) ...

Reason: Seeing as one cannot differentiate between an animal that was a Tam to begin with and one that was a Ba'al Mum, since they only stand to be redeemed for their value.

Clarification: And the earlier Beraisa was erroneous - but both Temimin and Ba'alei Mumin must be buried, and it is speaking about Bedek ha'Bayis and goes according to the Rabbanan, who say that they were included ... '

Clarification (cont.): 'Rebbi Simon says "Temimin Yikaveru", as the Gemara will explain later - because they were fit to go on the Mizbe'ach. (cont. on Amud Beis)

Overview of Text: 'When does that speak? By Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis' - goes according to the Tana Kama; therefore it says 'Yikaveru; but by Kodshei Mizbe'ach ... ' ...

Overview of Text (cont.): 'Rebbi Shimon Omer "Temimin Yikaveru, but Ba'alei Mumin, Yipadu" - since they were not included in Ha'amadah ...

Overview of Text (cont.): A Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan?

Overview of Text (concl.): Rebbi Yochanan will answer ... A Kashya on Resh Lakish? ... Rebbi Shimon does in fact argue'.

Question: Rashi asks that we can say the same thing with regard to the first Beraisa, so what does the latter Beraisa add?

Answer: They are not comparable; we cannot say this on the first Beraisa ...

Reason: Because if Ba'alei Mumin of the Tana Kama is speaking after the declaration of Hekdesh, and with regard to Kodshei Mizbe'ach ...

Reason (cont.): There is no S'vara to say that when Rebbi Shimon says 'Echad Kodshei Mizbe'ach ve'Echad ... , be'Ba'alei Mumin Yipadu' - is referring to those Kodshei Mizbe'ach Ba'alei Mumin about which the Tana Kama is speaking - i.e. which became blemished after being declared Hekdesh ...

Reason (cont.): Whereas in the latter Beraisa, where Rebbi Shimon does not mention Kodshei Mizbe'ach in his statement at all, and in the statement of the Rabbanan, who say 'Aval be'Kodshei Mizbe'ach Ba'alei Mumin Yipadu', it is speaking where the Hekdesh preceded the Mumin - and Rebbi Shimon argues with them.

Conclusion: That explains why the Tana repeats what he said, but without mentioning Kodshei Mizbe'ach, and without even indicating what he holds regarding them.

Clarification: It is about Kodshei Mizbe'ach, because he holds that they are subject to Ha'amadah ... , like Rebbi Shimon, and according to Rebbi Yochanan, even like the Rabbanan.

Clarification (cont.): This goes nicely according to Resh Lakish, inasmuch as this is synonymous with the Rabbanan in the Mishnah, who say that Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis were ... , Kodshei Mizbe'ach were not' ...

Clarification (concl.): But according to Rebbi Yochanan, who says that both the Rabbanan and Rebbi Shimon agree that 'Kodshei Mizbe'ach were ... ', who are the Rabbanan here?

Refuted Answer: And one cannot say that it speaks where the Mum preceded the Hekdesh, and that their Machlokes is the same Machlokes as that of Tana de'bei Levi cites above ...

Refutation: Because at the end of Perek haNeheneh min ha'Hekdesh (Me'ilah, Daf 19b) the Gemara specifically states that in a case of 'Kodshei Mizbe'ach Temimim which became Ba'alei Mumin, and one transgressed and Shechted them, Rebbi says 'Yikaveru', and the Chachamim, 'Yipadu'.

Alternative Text: The Sefarim have the text 'Rebbi holds like Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan here like the Rabbanan there. Is this a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan?

Alternative Text (Answer): Rebbi will say to you that the Rabbanan here are independent of the Rabbanan there'.

Alternatively: Here one could actually avoid the Kashya by saying that it is speaking about Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, and that the Chachamim are Rebbi Shimon.

Reverting to Answer: However in Perek ha'Neheneh (Ibid.) the Beraisa says 'Kodshei Mizbe'ach Temimim, Rebbi Omer Yikaveru, va'Chachamim Omrim Yipadu' ...

Reverting to Answer (cont.): And based on thaty Beraisa, one can certainly answer that the Rabbanan here are independent of the Rabbanan there.

Question: One cannot ask why Rebbi Yochanan say that there are three opinions? ...

Question (cont.): Why does he not simply say that the Rabbanan there hold that Kodshei Mizbe'ach were not included ... '?

Answer: Because he had a problem with the Mishnah - in that Rebbi Shimon says 'Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis Im Meisu, Yipadu' - Since he saw fit to specify 'Bedek ha'Bayis', we can extrapolate that the Tana Kama is also speaking about them, as Tosfos explained at the beginning of the Sugya (on Daf 32b).

Introduction to Question: If so, what does the Gemara say in the first Perek of Shevu'os (Daf 11b) in connection with 'Parah he'Nishchatah Tipadeh' - on which it asks 'But it needs Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah' ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): And it establishes it like Rebbi Shimon, who say that 'Kodshei Mizbe'ach Lo Hayu ... '

Question: What answer is that? It is Tamim, in which case it ought to have said 'Yikaver'?

Answer #1: There is a difference between the cases - Certainly, someone who is Makdish Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis Temimim has transgressed 'Bal Takdishu', he has changed their status to declare them Hekdesh against the Din - since the Mitzvah is to bring Temimim on the Mizbe'ach, they must therefore be buried when they die ...

Answer #1 (cont.): Whereas in the case of the Parah, where he did not change its status, it is redeemed (So why bury it

Answer #2: Moreover, Temimim of Bedek ha'Bayis, which stand to go on the Mizbe'ach, we need to be more stringent, like Kodshei Mizbe'ach)

Question: This needs looking into - We can understand it by K'lai ha'Kerem, since the Torah writes "Pen Tikdash ha'Mele'ah" - 'Lest it is burned in fire'; But why Orlah needs to be burned needs looking into?

Answer: Rashi explains that it is because it is compared to K'lai ha'Kerem.

Question: We need to look into the reason why?

Answer: Tosfos Rebbe ha'Rav Mordechai explains that since the Torah commanded Nisrafin to be burned, once one has carried it out, its Mitzvah has been performed ...

Source: And 'There is nothing whose Mitzvah has been performed that is subject to Me'ilah' - Here too, since its Mitzvah has been performed, the Isur has departed.

Implied Question: And the reason Chazal say that 'Asheirah is forbidden permanently', even though the Torah requires it to be burned is ...

Answer: Because the Torah writes (in Devarim 13) "Nothing from the ban (Avodah Zarah) shall stick to your hands".

Answer to Original Question (cont.): Whereas regarding Nikbarin, which the Torah does not necessitate burning, the Isur remains attached to them forever.