Inference: According to R. Yochanan, an heir can make Temurah.

Question: In Eruvin (46b), R. Yochanan said that when R. Meir and R. Yehudah argue, the Halachah follows R. Yehudah;

In Temurah (2a) and Erchin (2a), R. Meir and R. Yehudah argue, and R. Yehudah says that an heir cannot make Temurah!

Answer: R. Yochanan [says that he can] because he holds that the Halachah follows a Stam Mishnah, and at the beginning of Temurah and Erchin, [the Stam Mishnah] says that "anyone can make Temurah" includes an heir.

Implied question: A Beraisa in Temurah (9a) teaches that [the Lav] "Lo Yachalifenu" applies to another's [Korban]! (Here we say that one can make Temurah only through a Korban that will atone for him.)

Answer: It explains there that the case is, the owner of the Hekdesh animal said that whoever wants to make Temurah with his animal, can make Temurah.

Question: In Temurah (10a), we learn that the Miskaper makes Temurah from Nazir, and that refers to a proper Kaparah!

Answer: We learn from Nazir only that the one who separated the Korban cannot make Temurah (if he is not the Miskaper), but the Miskaper makes Temurah, even [if he gets only] a small [Kaparah]!

Question: An heir gets only a small Kaparah, and he is called Miskaper and he can make Temurah. When there are two heirs, they are called partners, and they cannot make Temurah;

In Yoma (50b), it asks about Par Kohen Gadol [on Yom Kipur]. His brethren the Kohanim are Miskaper. Do they get a big Kaparah, and they are partners, and they cannot make Temurah;

Or, do they get a small Kaparah, and it is totally the Kohen Gadol's, and he can make Temurah, for it is a Yachid's [Korban]?

Inference: He is not considered Miskaper when it is a small Kaparah, since the Kohen Gadol can make Temurah. His brethren (the Kohanim) who get a small Kaparah are not called partners!

Answer: In our Sugya, both heirs get a small Kaparah, therefore they are called partners and they cannot make Temurah;

However, there, since there is in this Korban the big Kaparah of the Kohen Gadol, his brethren are not considered partners through a small Kaparah.

Question: This is astounding. One may volunteer many Korbanos and bring one after the other immediately, even though the first atoned, for it was done Lishmah!

Answer #1: He asks why he is obligated to bring the second.

Question: What was the question "why does the second come?" Perhaps it comes to atone for the intent Lo Lishmah, which is considered an Aseh after Shechitah, just like Semichah below!

Answer: Intent depends on the one who does the Avodah. The Korban atones only for the owner. (A Yisrael may slaughter his own Korban. However, we obligate a second Korban even when the owner did not engage in the Avodah. Therefore, we cannot say that it is to atone for the intent.)

Answer #2: It seems that we infer from an Asham, which may not be brought for Nedavah. (We ask why he brings a second Asham.)

Question: This was Reish Lakish's question! If they are Kosher, they should be Meratzeh. If they are not Meratzeh, why do they come? (After he expounded Motza Sefasecha, this is no longer difficult!)

Question: We should resolve from our Mishnah in Shevuos (2b) that even R. Shimon, who does not hold that Lev Beis Din stipulates about [Korbanos Tzibur], a goat (Chatas Tzibur) that was not offered this festival, is offered on another festival;

Even though from the previous festival they already atoned for Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodoshav before separation, this goat atones for Tum'ah afterwards!

Answer: Since it was lost and another was offered in place of it, it is revealed that the separation was not [for] until the festival during which it was slaughtered.

Implied question: In Pesachim (59b), we say that as long as Kohanim do not eat the meat, it cannot atone, for it says "v'Achu Osam Asher Kupar Bahem" - this teaches that Kohanim eat, and the owner gets Kaparah!

Answer: Even so, the primary Kaparah is only through the blood.

Observation: At the end of the Sugya, R. Yirmeyah asks about even after Shechitah.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He brings another Log [of oil] and puts on the head. And according to R. Akiva, he must begin with the Behonos (ear, thumb and toe).

Question: In Yoma (61a) it connotes that all agree that Matanos on the head (after putting on the Behonos) are not Me'akev!

Even when the Log spilled, about which R. Elazar and R. Shimon and Rabanan argue, is when he put of the Matanos on the Behonos, and the Log spilled!

And the Seifa teaches that if he finished the Matanos on the Behonos and the Log spilled, all agree that Matanos on the head are not Me'akev at all, and he need not bring more [oil];

It is impossible to explain otherwise. This is unlike the Tana'im here!

Answer: We must say that also according to R. Yochanan ben Nuri, [the Matanos on the head] are not Me'akev at all, and he need not do them;

Initially, [Rav Huna bar Yehudah] thought that he was not Mechaper with respect to Shamayim, even for what he already did, e.g. Matanos on the Behonos themselves. Even if he put them, there is not full Ritzuy, since he omitted the Matanos on the head, even though they are not Me'akev.

This is like it says above, that the Korban that he offered was not Mechaper with respect to Shamayim, because he did not do Semichah, even though it is not Me'akev.

He later concludes that Matanos on the Behonos that he already did were totally Mechaper. There is full Ritzuy. However, Matanos on the head were not Mechaper with respect to Shamayim, and he need not do them, for it is written "veha'Nosar..."

Similarly, the Korban is Kosher and it atoned for everything that he did before. However, it did not atone for Semichah, which is after separation, until he brings another Korban.

Question: He should have answered only "there, it is written veha'Nosar, and regarding Semichah it is not written veha'Nosar"!

Answer: There it means as follows. Matanos on the head are not Me'akev. Since he received from the blood of the Asham and from the oil on the Behonos, he is no longer called Mechusar Kipurim. Rather, he may eat Kodshim and enter the Mikdash;

This is because Matanos of oil are also called Korban, like it says below (44b) "l'Chol Korbanam" includes the Log of oil of a Metzora. Therefore, at least he must put [oil] on the Behonos before he is permitted Kodshim. This is from R. Baruch.

Implied question: Why didn't he ask that he should say that the verse obligates bringing two only when he separated one after the other, but if he separated two at once, he need not [offer both]?

Answer: This is not difficult. Even if he separated two at once, granted, when he offers the one, the second that he separated with it does not help. In any case, he can separate afterwards, and it will help! The Torah always commanded to offer two.

Explanation: Rather, he asks as follows. Will he say to him that the verse, that the Torah obligates two, is [only] when they were not separated at once?!

It is astounding if Lev Beis Din helps for this. Will he say that the verse discusses through Lev Beis Din?!"

Answer: [Even] without the verse, it would be difficult for him from the goats of Shavu'os. [We know that while the Mikdash stood,] we offered them every year. It is difficult to establish and say that they used to separate them one after the other.

Reference: In Shevuos (12b), we say that Shmuel holds like R. Yochanan's teaching there, and it is brought below here (6b-7a). R. Yochanan said that Temidim that the Tzibur does not need, according to R. Shimon we do not redeem them if they are Temimim.

Explanation: Rather, we offer them themselves for Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach, like it says there according to R. Shimon.

Rashi explained there that Shmuel holds like R. Yochanan taught that according to R. Shimon, they are not redeemed if they are Temimim, and we offer them themselves for Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach;

Source: Shmuel holds like the knife pulls them to what they are. I.e. a knife that slaughters then Stam causes them to be the Korban for which they were initially separated, e.g. Olas Tamid for Olas Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach, even though it is not the same [exact] Korban, since initially it was an Olah and now it is an Olah.

Question #1: Now it is difficult, that it brings there this Beraisa for a support. It should have brought the Mishnah there (Shavu'os 2b)!

Question #2: It is explicitly proven in our Sugya that Shmuel's teaching is only like Rabanan. R. Shimon argues with him, for he holds that Lev Beis Din stipulates about them!

Explanation #2: Some texts of Rashi's Perush were corrected to say "it seems to me that the text here does not bring Shmuel's teaching, for in Shevuos we establish it like the opinion that does not hold that Lev Beis Din stipulates."

Objection #1: It is difficult to erase Shmuel's teaching from Seforim!

Objection #2: Rashi contradicts himself! He explained that the knife that slaughters them causes them to be the Korban for which they are proper and destined, e.g. Temidim that the Tzibur did not need that were bought from the old Terumah (last year's half-Shekalim) and Nisan came, we use them for Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach;

Even though they were bought for Temidim, and not for Olos Nedavah of the Tzibur, since they are no longer proper for the Tzibur, they are offered for what they are proper, for Lev Beis Din stipulates about them. If they are needed, they are needed. If not, they are used for Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach.

Inference: According to his Perush, Tenai Beis Din does not help to offer them afterwards for Temidim.

Afterwards, he explained that according to Chachamim, they are redeemed while Tam, for they hold that Lev Beis Din stipulates about them to make them Kosher for Temidim for the coming year;

If they are not needed, they are [Kodesh] for their value. They are redeemed with Chulin coins, without a Mum, and they become Chulin, and their [redemption] money goes to Mosar Terumah. Afterwards, we buy [the same lambs] from the new Terumah, and they are Kosher for Temidim.

Explanation #3: It seems that the Aruch's Perush is correct. The knife pulls them to what they are, i.e. to what they are. Whether they are Temidim or Musafim, the knife pulls them to be so;

However, before the knife pulls them, we cannot say which is a Tamid and which is a Musaf. Rather, their status is suspended through a Tenai of Lev Beis Din, for so Lev Beis Din stipulates about them;

Even though they said that they are Temidim, if they want to offer them for another Korban, they may, for when the knife of (i.e. to slaughter) the Tamid pulled it, it is a Tamid, and when the knife of the Musaf pulled it, it is a Musaf.

This supports R. Yochanan, who said that if they are not needed, according to Rabanan they are redeemed while Tam, for the knife never pulled it.

Consequence: Now, according to this Perush, the text does not say "also a Beraisa teaches so", for Shmuel's teaching is like Rabanan. Rather, the text says "a Beraisa teaches that R. Shimon agrees..." (This Dibur continues on the next Daf.)