Answer: Here, since there is a solution through grazing, we should not [offer] without Semichah.

Support #1: We distinguish like this below (76a) regarding Asham, because it has a solution through grazing.

Support #2: Now, we do not need the reason I gave for the case in Gitin (since there is a Safek, we should not offer without Semichah. Rather,) also there, since it is possible to fulfill the Mitzvah of Semichah, that he will bring it himself, he should not offer it without Semichah.

Question: In Pesachim (88b), it says that if the skins of Korban Pesach of five [groups] became mixed, and a wart (a Mum) was found on one of them, they are exempt from offering Pesach Sheni;

They could bring it through Mosar Pesach (if the group was already Yotzei, it is a Shelamim), and not do Semichah. Even so, they are exempt (from doing so, lest they omit Semichah), for Pesach does not require Semichah, and Mosar Pesach requires Semichah.

Why are we concerned for this (and exempt them, lest they offer a Korban without Semichah)? An Arel and Tamei send their Zevachim (and do not do Semichah)!

Answer: Since it is a Safek [about each group], for perhaps it is exempt from Pesach, Chachamim did not make an enactment, for it is impossible to fix [the Safek] without [some groups] transgressing the Mitzvah of Semichah.

Question: Why is it different than what was taught in Kerisus (23a, when we are unsure which of two people ate Chelev) that both of them bring [together] one Chatas? This shows that he brings a Korban without Semichah to exempt himself!

And in Nazir (57a, when we are unsure which Nazir became Tamei), they bring a Korban on condition (that it is for the one who became Tamei)!

Answer: Even though Chachamim enacted that he bring a Korban due to Safek without Semichah, in order to exempt [himself from his obligation]...

In any case another Korban, which Vadai requires Semichah, e.g. Mosar Pesach, they did not permit him to bring without Semichah in order to exempt himself.

Question: A Mishnah in Shekalim (7:4), and it is brought in Kidushin (55a), teaches that if an animal was found between Yerushalayim and Migdal Eder, males are [assumed to be] Olos and females are Shelamim. [Chachamim] did not obligate Semichah!

Suggestion: That is when the owner found them, and he can do Semichah.

Rejection: It does not connote like this, for a Beraisa teaches there "at first they used to take a security from the finder to bring its Nesachim..."

Answer: There is different, for there is no solution for those Korbanos other than to offer them without Semichah. It is better to offer without Semichah than to say that they die.

Remark: We can say the same about an heir. He offers his father's Korban even though he does not do Semichah. We do not say "[he should not offer it, for] it requires Semichah!"

Question: We say below (76b) that the next day, [the Safek Metzora] brings his Asham and Log [of oil], and that Asham requires Semichah;

You are forced to say that that Semichah is with loose hands (he does not press with all his strength) and it is not a proper Semichah according to the opinion that Semichah on Asham Metzora is not mid'Oraisa;

How can he offer without Semichah? Semichah is required [lest he was not a minor, so the Korban is a Shelamim]. We discuss a man, like is proven in the Tosefta.

Answer: Fixing a person is different (he cannot eat Kodshim until he brings his Asham), like it says there about this teaching.

Implied question: It says in Mo'ed Katan (15b) that an Avel may not send his Korbanos because it is written "Shelamim" - when he is complete, but not when he is lacking. If not for the verse, he would be allowed to send [and not do Semichah! The Griz asks why he could not do Semichah (after the first two days. Until then, he may not enter Har ha'Bayis - Midos 2:2.)]

Answer: We can establish it to discuss birds, or the Korban of women.

Implied question: Likewise [it is difficult] the question there whether or not a Menudah may send his Korbanos, and [Rav Yosef] brought a proof from the years that Bnei Yisrael were in the Midbar. They were Menudin, and they sent their Korbanos! (A Menudah cannot do Semichah, for he may not enter the Mikdash - Me'iri there, Turei Even Hilchos Chagigah 1:1 DH v'Al.)

Answer: This refers to the Temidim every day. (Korbanos Tzibur do not need Semichah.)

Question: A Mishnah in Menachos (107a) teaches that if one said "I separated from cattle [for a Korban], and I do not know which", he brings a [male] bull and calf;

It says in the Gemara regarding the six [boxes in which people put coins] for Nedavah (we buy Korbanos Nedavah with the coins and offer them) that one [box] was for a bull, and one was for a calf. How could they do so? Semichah is required!

Answer: There it discusses Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach, which is a Nedavah of the Tzibur, and does not require Semichah.

Question: It is difficult from Menachos (62b). It says that one who sends his Korbanos from overseas, the Kohen does Tenufah for [the owner];

How can he do so? It requires Semichah! Since it teaches Tenufah, this connotes that it discusses Shelamim!

We cannot say that it discusses women's Korbanos, for the Reisha taught "a woman, the Kohen does Tenufah for her"!

It is difficult to say that it discusses the Korban of an Arel or Tamei.

Answer #1: These other questions that I asked are not difficult according to the first reason that I explained, that Chachamim were concerned for Semichah only when there is another concern, lest [the owner] is not alive;

This applies only to Chatas, for if the owner died, it must die, but not to other Korbanos.

However, according to the latter reason I explained, that whenever one can fix the matter and fulfill the Mitzvah of Semichah, he should not [offer] without Semichah, this is difficult!

Answer: They discuss an heir, according to R. Yehudah, who says that an heir does not do Semichah.

Implied question: Why didn't the Gemara answer here that [our Mishnah] discusses an heir?

Answer: It taught similar to the case of Chatas (which an heir does not bring).

Also in Gitin it teaches one who sends his Chatas.

Question: Why may an Arel or Tamei send his Korbanos? The Arel could wait until he circumcises, and the Tamei could wait until he becomes Tahor, and they will do Semichah!

Answer #1: We discuss those who have no solution, e.g. an Arel whose brothers died due to Milah, who can never circumcise, and a Tamei like a Zav or Metzora, whose cure is not in his hand (he cannot make the Zivah stop or the Tzara'as go away).

Answer #2: We discuss a Korban with a fixed time, e.g. Olas Re'iyah and Chagigah. He would transgress Bal Te'acher (if he waits until he can do Semichah).

Question: Granted, Semichah is not Me'akev. Even so, for an Arel or Tamei who cannot do Semichah, we should say that "Ein Ra'uy l'Bilah, Bilah Me'akeves Bo"! (Normally, if the flour was not mixed with the oil, the Minchah is Kosher. However, if it was so big that it could not be mixed, mixing is Me'akev. Also here, since they cannot do Semichah, Semichah should be Me'akev for them!)

The same applies in the cases in Shekalim, Kerisus and Nazir. Also all these who cannot do Semichah due to Safek, they are properly considered Ein Ra'uy l'Bilah, like we find in Bava Basra (81b) regarding Bikurim!

Answer #1: We learn from what it says in Mo'ed Katan (16a) "uv'Yom Bo'u El ha'Kodesh El ha'Chatzer ha'Penimis Leshares ba'Kodesh Yakriv Chataso" - this is Asiris ha'Eifah that a Kohen brings when he first comes to serve;

R. Shimon expounds there (16a) b'Vo'u Yakriv - at a time when he is proper to come (enter the Mikdash), he is proper to offer. When he is not proper to come, he is not proper to offer, e.g. he is Tamei Mes or a Metzora;

Inference: This is only Asiris ha'Eifah, but other Korbanos he may send!

Rebuttal: This is not such a proof. Perhaps he sends other Korbanos, i.e. those that do not require Semichah, just like Asiris ha'Eifah!

Answer #2: We expound in Toras Kohanim (regarding Taharas Metzora) "mi'Tum'aso", and not mi'Zovo (i.e. even though he is a Zav). This shows that a Tamei may send his Korbanos, for it discusses bringing a Korban!

Also, in Chagigah (4b) we exclude a Tamei from Re'iyah, since it is written "u'Vasa Shamah v'Haveisem Shamah" - whoever may come (into the Mikdash) has a Mitzvah to bring ["Oloseichem v'Zivcheichem..."];

Inference: He may send other Korbanos, and we are not concerned that he be proper for Semichah!

Objection: According to the opinion above (32a) that a Tamei can do Semichah, for [partial Bi'ah is not considered Bi'ah, so] he can enter his hands and do Semichah, we cannot infer from these verses that in a case that he cannot do Semichah, that Semichah is not Me'akev due to 0rl.

Defense: Perhaps the one who holds that partial Bi'ah is not considered Bi'ah, he holds that one who does Semichah must [press with all his strength, and] enter his head and the majority of his body, or he holds that the north is far [from the entrance to the Azarah. Therefore, all agree that a Tamei cannot do Semichah. Above, the Gemara was Docheh and said that he can do Semichah; no one explicitly said that he can);

The one who does not require his head and the majority of his body [for Semichah], he holds that partial Bi'ah is considered Bi'ah.

Question: It is still difficult if Tekef l'Semichah Shechitah (one must slaughter right after Semichah) is not [a Chiyuv] mid'Oraisa. He can do Semichah outside [the Azarah]!

Answer: Above (33a) we conclude that Tekef l'Semichah Shechitah is mid'Oraisa.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He does two Matanos from this one, and two from this one.

Objection: If he does one from this one, and one from this one, it suffices!

Implied suggestion: [This Beraisa] is like Beis Shamai, who say that regarding Chatas, two Matanos [are Me'akev].

Rejection (Seifa): If he did one Matanah from each of them he was Yotzei.

Explanation #2: This refers to all four Chata'os - two of individuals, and two of the Tzibur, and now there are four cups. Therefore it says that if he gave four Matanos he was Yotzei, i.e. one Matanah from each of them.

Note: The Beraisa mentions three mixtures of two Chata'os each! L'Shem Zevach answers that the third "mixture" means that the first two mixtures (two Chata'os of individuals, and two of the Tzibur) became mixed with each other. Chak Nasan asks that we find two Chata'os Tzibur only on Yom Tov (Rosh Hashanah or Shavu'os), and then one may not offer an individual's Chatas! He answers that it could occur at Chanukas (ha'Mishkan). Cheshek Shlomo says that it discusses if the Chata'os Yachid were slaughtered b'Shogeg, i.e. they forgot that it is Yom Tov.

Explanation: There is no required Shi'ur that must come on the person, but there is a required Shi'ur in the Kli, like it says in Nidah (9a) and Yoma (14a).

Implied question: A Mishnah in Temurah (21a) teaches that all Kodshim have Pidyon, and their Temuros have Pidyon, except for Bechor and Ma'aser!

Answer: [One could explain that except for Bechor and Ma'aser teaches only that they themselves have no Pidyon, but] it does not refer to their Temuros.

Question: Regarding what did he ask whether Temuras Bechor has Pidyon?

It cannot be for shearing and working, for even if it has Pidyon, it is forbidden, like Pesulei ha'Mukdashim (blemished Korbanos, even after redemption)!

He cannot ask whether he must give it to a Kohen, for a Mishnah (Temurah 21a) explicitly teaches that the owner eats it with its Mum!

Suggestion: He asks whether it must be eaten roasted and with mustard, like we expound "l'Mashchah" - for grandeur.

Rejection: Since it is not a gift to Kohanim, "l'Mashchah" does not apply. (The verse says that Hash-m gave from Kodshim to Aharon and his sons l'Mashchah.)

Suggestion: He asks whether we buy a Korban with the [redemption] money.

Rejection: The Temurah itself is not offered even when it is Tam, like we said above (37b) "they are offered, but their Temuros are not offered." (Obviously we do not offer a Korban with the money!)

Answer: He asks whether or not Kedushah takes effect on the coins when he redeems it.

Suggestion: If the law that it may not be weighed normally were mid'Rabanan, this would be fine. (There is an implied question. If the Torah forbids, obviously we do not permit it in order to benefit Hekdesh!)

Rejection: However, it is explicitly proven in Sanhedrin (112b) and Temurah (8a) that it is mid'Oraisa!

[The Gemara] expounds "Behemtah" - [we must destroy animals of an Ir ha'Nidachas]. This excludes Bechor and Ma'aser, which are not eaten like one's animal, for a Mishnah (Bechoros 31a) teaches that all [blemished] Kodshim are slaughtered in the market and weighed normally, except for Bechor and Ma'aser.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): It will become Chulin to permit shearing and working.

Question: Even through this Pidyon, it does not leave [these Isurim], just like we find regarding other Pesulei ha'Mukdashim!

Answer #1: We discuss a Bechor that was a Ba'al Mum from the beginning.

Answer #2: One might have thought that it becomes Chulin more than other Pesulei ha'Mukdashim, because in other Pesulei ha'Mukdashim, their redemption money is used for Avodah. This does not apply to Bechor and Ma'aser.

Implied question: [If a goat was slaughtered l'Shem Asham,] why do we say in Menachos (3a) that the action does not prove [that he did not intend for Asham], because people will say that it is a black ram? (Here we say that the color shows that it is a goat!)

Answer: In any case, when one is meticulous, he can clarify [what it is].

Implied question: In Kidushin (55a), regarding an animal that was found between Yerushalayim and Migdal Eder, [the Gemara] asks "perhaps it is a Chatas", and answers that a Chatas is a yearling, and a second year animal was found!

Answer: It is not precise to say that it is a second year animal. Rather, it is three or four year old. It is properly evident [that it is not a yearling].

Explanation (Rashi): Terumah may be eaten forever, but Shevi'is may be eaten only until it is finished for Chayos in the field. This will cause Terumah to be eradicated [if it is not finished before the time of Bi'ur].

Implied question: A Mishnah (Shevi'is 9:8) teaches that after the time of Bi'ur, we apportion three meals to Aniyim. R. Yosi says, both rich and poor may eat! (According to R. Yosi, it should be permitted to buy Terumah with Demei Shemitah.)

Answer: In any case, he diminishes its edibility after apportioning three meals, and he does not find anyone else to give to.

Implied question: It should be forbidden to make Terumah Chametz before Pesach, for he diminishes its edibility!

Answer #1: He prefers [to eat it Chametz], and it is permitted because it says "l'Mashchah";

This is unlike one who cooks vegetables in Terumah oil (below, 76a). The vegetable is fixed (improved) through the oil, but the oil is not fixed through the vegetable.

Answer #2: The dough becomes Chametz automatically. And even if he mixes in Se'or (sourdough), in any case even without it, it would have fermented a little.