Answer: (Yes!) In the Reisha, one animal equals the Keren and Chomesh, therefore the Tana calls it Me'ilaso, to teach that it pays for his theft;

In the Seifa, the Chulin animal is not equal to Keren and Chomesh. (Rather, it is more.) It does not pay for his theft. Therefore, Me'ilaso refers to Asham Me'ilah. He brings with it Keren and Chomesh.

Question (Rav Menasya bar Gada): Can an Asham be considered payment for multiple Chomshim? (E.g. two Sela'im were Hukdash for Asham, and Reuven was Mo'el in them four times. In all, the four Chomshim are two Sela'im. Can he use the two Sela'im to buy his Asham Me'ilah, and give the Keren for Nedavah, like Mosar Asham? The Gemara procedes to show that this question does not depend on the question of whether or not one may be Miskaper (buy and bring an obligatory Korban) with Shevach (increased value of) Hekdesh.)

If you will say one may be Miskaper with Shevach Hekdesh, perhaps that is because he toiled (to increase the value of Hekdesh). Here, he did not toil!

If you will say Ein Miskaper with Shevach Hekdesh, perhaps that is because the Shevach was not Hukdash for Kaparah. Here, the Chomshim were Hukdash for Kaparah!

Question: May one be Miskaper bi'Shevach Hekdesh?

Answer #1 (Mishnah): If one was Makdish two Sela'im for an Asham and used it to buy two rams, if one of them is worth two Sela'im, he offers it for his Asham, the other grazes.

Suggestion: It was worth one Sela when he bought it, later it increased to two Sela'im, and he is Miskaper with it!

Rejection: No, the case is where it was worth two Sela'im when he bought it, the seller sold the animals cheaply.

Answer #2 (Beraisa #1): If one bought a ram for a Sela and fattened it, and now it is worth two Sela'im, it is valid (for a two Sela'im Asham).

This shows that one may be Miskaper bi'Shevach Hekdesh!

Rejection: The case is, he spent a Sela to fatten it (two Sela'im in all). It is not considered Shevach Hekdesh.

Answer #3 (Seifa of Beraisa #1): If one bought a ram for a Sela, and behold, now it is worth two Sela'im, it is valid (for a two Sela'im Asham).

Note: This shows that one may be Miskaper bi'Shevach Hekdesh!

Rejection: The case is, he spent money to fatten it.

Question: Surely, the Seifa does not teach the same thing as the Reisha!

Answer: In the Reisha, he bought it for a Sela (four Zuz) and spent a Sela to fatten it. In the Seifa, he bought it for a Sela and spent three Zuz to fatten it, in the end it is worth eight Zuz. (For now, we accept this answer, that the Tana holds that one may not be Miskaper bi'Shevach Hekdesh, and ask a "side" question. Later, we will directly challenge the answer.)

(Side) question: The Seifa says that he must pay a Sela. If he spent seven Zuz, why must he pay another Sela?

Answer: It means, he must pay the remainder of the second Sela (the Shevach he did not pay for, one Zuz).

(Direct) question: If one may not be Miskaper bi'Shevach Hekdesh, it should not help to pay extra money. He must pay two Sela'im for the Korban itself!

Retraction: Really, the Tana holds that one may be Miskaper bi'Shevach Hekdesh.

Question: If so, why must he pay (what remains from) a Sela?

Answer: Chachamim decree that he must pay, lest people say that the ram need not be worth two Sela'im.

Question: What was the conclusion? (Rashi - the Gemara is not very satisfied with the above answer.)

Version #1 (our text) Answer (Beraisa): (If it was worth) one Sela at the time of Hekdesh and two Sela'im at the time of Kaparah, he was Yotzei.

Version #2 (Shitah) Answer (Beraisa): (If it was worth) two Sela'im at the time of Hekdesh and one Sela at the time of Kaparah, he was Yotzei;

(If it was worth) one Sela at the time of Hekdesh and two Sela'im at the time of Kaparah, he was not Yotzei. (Shitah - here, we cannot say that it was fattened, for it does not say "and behold... .")

Question (R. Elazar): May one be Miskaper bi'Shevach Hekdesh?

R. Yochanan: He has learned so many years in our Beis Medrash. How is it possible that he never heard this from me?!

Inference: R. Yochanan taught this law!

Affirmation: Yes, he taught it regarding the following Mishnah:

(Mishnah): The following are offered without bread:

Vlad Todah, Temuras Todah, Chalifas Todah (an animal designated to replace a lost Todah; later, the Todah was found and offered).

(R. Chanina citing R. Yochanan): This law (Korbanos due to Todah are offered without bread) applies only after Kaparah (Zerikah of the Todah). If they were offered before Kaparah, they require bread (for he is Yotzei his Chiyuv to bring Todah with it. Vlad Todah is Shevach Hekdesh!)

Question (R. Elazar): Can living animals be Nidachim (permanently disqualified for Korbanos)?

R. Yochanan: He has learned so many years in our Beis Medrash. How is it possible that he never heard this from me?!

Inference: R. Yochanan taught this law!

Affirmation: Yes!

(R. Yochanan): If one of two partners in an animal was Makdish his half, bought his partner's half, and was Makdish that also:

The animal is Kodesh, but it cannot be offered; if one makes Temurah on it, the Temurah has the same law as it.

We learn three laws from this (according to Rashi's Girsa):

A living animal can be Nidcheh;

Dichuy from the start is considered Dichuy (and it can never be offered);

Dichuy applies to monetary Kedushah (Rashi - the animal can never be offered, even if it becomes fitting; R. Chananel (cited in Tosfos to Zevachim 12a) - when redeemed, the money cannot be used for the purpose for which it was Hukdash).

Question (R. Elazar): If rams were cheap (the best rams sold for less than two Sela'im), what is the law?

If the concern is "Mivchar Nidreichem," it suffices to bring a ram of the highest quality. (The verse teaches about all Korbanos);

Or, perhaps we must fulfill "Kesef Shekalim," and this is not fulfilled!

R. Yochanan: We have learned so many years, but we never heard this law!

Objection: R. Yochanan himself taught this!

(R. Yochanan citing R. Shimon): The Torah did not fix a (minimal) price of Korbanos brought by a Mechusar Kipurim, lest the price of lambs (e.g. Asham Metzora, or birds for a Zav) decline, and they will be unable to (bring the Korban and) eat Kodshim!

Correction: Rather, R. Yochanan said "... we never taught this law (to someone)!"

Question: R. Chiya bar Aba would review all of R. Yochanan's teachings in front of him every 30 days. (Surely, R. Yochanan taught this to him!)

Correction: Rather, R. Yochanan said .".. no one ever asked about this law (until now)!"

(R. Yochanan citing R. Shimon): There is no fixed price for Korbanos Mechusrei Kaparah, lest the price of lambs decline, and people will be unable to eat Kodshim!

Objection #1 (Abaye): If so (this is the only reason), the Torah should have fixed a price for Chatas Chelev (or other Kerisus), since it is for Kaparah. It is not Me'akev eating Kodshim!

Objection #2 (Rava): If so, the Torah should have fixed a price for Asham Nazir, for it is l'Vatalah! (It does not Machshir or atone for anything.)

(R. Yochanan citing R. Shimon): The only Korban that is l'Vatalah is Asham Nazir.

These are left difficult.

(Mishnah): If one was Makdish a Chatas and died, his son may not bring it (for his own Chiyuv, all the more so not for his father's);

If one was Makdish a Chatas, he may not bring it for a different transgression;

Even if he was Makdish for Chelev that he ate yesterday, he may not bring it for Chelev that he ate today. (Rambam - in this case, if it was brought, it was Mechaper. If it was brought for a different Chet, it was not Mechaper.)

We learn from "Korbano... Al Chataso" - the Korban must be l'Shem the Chet.

(Gemara) Question: What is the source of this? (It says "Korbano" three times in the Parshah.)

Answer (Beraisa): "Korbano" teaches that he is Yotzei with his Korban, but not with his father's Korban;

Suggestion: Perhaps he is not Yotzei with his father's Korban if his Chet was more severe (Chayav Misah, and his father's was only Chayav Kares) or vice-versa, but if they are of the same severity, he is Yotzei!

Rejection: "Korbano" teaches that he must bring his own Korban.

Suggestion: Perhaps he is not Yotzei with his father's Korban, even for a Chet of the same severity, for a Nazir may not be Megale'ach on (bring for Korbanos Nezirus) animals that his father was Makdish for his own Nezirus, but he is Yotzei with (a Korban bought with) money that his father was Makdish for his own Chatas, even for a Chet of different severity, for a Nazir may be Megale'ach with money that his father was Makdish for his own Nezirus if it was Sasum (he did not specify which coins will be for each Korban), but not if he specified!

Rejection: "Korbano" teaches that he must bring his own Korban.

Suggestion: Perhaps he is not Yotzei with money his father was Makdish, even for a Chet of the same severity, but he is Yotzei with a Korban he was Makdish for himself for a different transgression, even of different severity!

Rejection: "Korbano... Al Chataso" teaches that the Korban must be l'Shem his Chet.

Suggestion: Perhaps he is not Yotzei with a Korban that he was Makdish for himself for a different transgression, even of the same severity, for if he was Makdish a Chatas for (eating) Chelev and offered it for blood or vice-versa, he was not Mo'el and it did not atone (this will be explained), but he is Yotzei with money he was Makdish for a different transgression, even of different severity, for if he was Makdish money for Chatas Chelev and offered it for blood or vice-versa, he was Mo'el and it atones!

Rejection: "Korbano Al Chataso" teaches that the Korban must be l'Shem his Chet.

Question: What is the meaning of "he was not Mo'el and it did not atone"?

Answer (Rav Shmuel bar Simi): Since he cannot be Mo'el (change the Kedushah), it did not atone (Rashi. Rambam - since it did not atone, he was not Mo'el).

However, regarding money, since if he changes the Kedushah (it takes effect), he is Mo'el (and brings an Asham Me'ilah - Rashash deletes this), one might have thought that it is permitted to do so l'Chatchilah. The Beraisa teaches that this is not so.

(A regular Chatas is a (female) lamb or goat. Regarding Oleh v'Yored, if one is poor, instead he brings two Torim or two doves, for Chatas ha'Of and Olas ha'Of. If he is very poor, instead he brings Minchas Chotei, Asiris ha'Eifah (the volume of 43.2 eggs of Soles (fine flour).)

(Mishnah): Money Hukdash for a lamb (for a Chatas) may be used to bring a goat, and vice-versa;

Money Hukdash for a lamb or goat may be used for Torim or doves. Money Hukdash for Torim or doves may be used for Asiris ha'Eifah;

The case is, he was Makdish money for a lamb or goat, then became poor. He brings birds (from the money). If he became very poor, he brings Asiris ha'Eifah. (Rashi - the extra money after buying the cheaper Korban is Chulin; R. Gershom - the case is, he was not Makdish more than is needed for the cheaper Korban.)

If one was Makdish money for Asiris ha'Eifah, then became less poor, he (adds money and brings) birds. If he became rich, he brings an animal.

(Gemara) Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (Beraisa) Question: In the Parshah of Oleh v'Yored it says twice "me'Chataso," and once "Al Chataso". What do these teach?

Answer - Question: What is the source for the following?

Money Hukdash for a lamb may be used to bring a goat, and vice-versa;

Money Hukdash for a lamb or goat may be used for Torim or doves. Money Hukdash for Torim or doves may be used for Asiris ha'Eifah.

The case is, he was Makdish money for an animal, then became poor. He brings birds (from the money); if he became poorer, he brings Soles;

If he was Makdish money for Soles, then became less poor, he (adds money and) brings birds. If he became rich, he brings an animal.

If he was Makdish an animal, and it became blemished (and he became poor), if he wants, he may use its (redemption) money to bring birds;

If he was Makdish a bird, and it became blemished, he may not use its money for Soles, because birds cannot be redeemed.

Answer: We learn these from "me'Chataso" (this connotes that one may bring a Chatas from (some of the) money for his Chatas, and "Al Chataso" (one may add money upon what he initially was Makdish for his Chatas).

The Torah needed to write "me'Chataso" regarding an animal, and also regarding birds:

Had it written it only regarding an animal, one might have thought that money Hukdash for an animal may be used for birds, because (they are similar;) both have blood;

(One would think that) money Hukdash for birds may not be used for Soles, for (they are very different.) Soles is a bloodless Korban. he would have to bring Asiris ha'Eifah from other money, and the money for the birds would go for Nedavah! (R. Shimshon - if an Oni brings Korban Ashir, he will be blessed. Rashash asks, if so, why would an Oni spend additional money for Asiris ha'Eifah? He can bring the birds without any additional expense, and get a Berachah! We can answer like R. Gershom. The case is, he was Makdish only part of the money necessary for birds, and Asiris ha'Eifah costs less than the additional money needed for birds.)

Therefore, it writes "me'Chataso" also regarding birds.

This teaches that if he was Makdish money for Soles, then became less poor, he brings birds. If he became rich, he brings an animal.

Question: Why does it say "Al Chataso" regarding Asiris ha'Eifah? (text of Shitah)

Answer: Had it been written regarding birds, one might have thought that money Hukdash for birds may be used for an animal, for both have blood,

But money Hukdash for Soles may not be used for birds or animals. If he became richer, he would buy the new Korban from new money, for Soles has no blood. The old money would go to Nedavah!

Therefore it says "mei'Chataso" for a bird and for an animal and "Al Chataso" for Asiris ha'Eifah.