R. Yehudah: R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua agree that if it was slaughtered and found to be Treifah or Ba'al Mum, the bread is not Kadosh. If it was slaughtered Chutz li'Zmano, the bread is Kadosh;

They argue about Chutz li'Mkomo. R. Eliezer says that the bread becomes Kadosh, and R. Yehoshua says that it does not.

R. Eliezer: Chutz li'Zmano and Chutz li'Mkomo are both Pesulim. Just like the former is Mekadesh the bread, also the latter;

R. Yehoshua: Chutz li'Mkomo and Ba'al Mum are both Pesulim. Just like the latter is not Mekadesh the bread, also the former.

R. Eliezer: Chutz li'Mkomo is more similar to Chutz li'Zmano, for these Pesulim are due to intent. A Mum is a physical Pesul.

R. Yehoshua: No, Chutz li'Mkomo is more similar to a Mum, for these Pesulim do not have Kares, but Chutz li'Zmano has Kares;

Further, we can learn Chutz li'Mkomo from Lo Lishmah, which is also Pasul due to intent, and it does not have Kares!

R. Eliezer did not respond.

Question: Why does (R. Eliezer, according to) R. Meir consider Treifah to be a Pesul before Shechitah (the bread is not Kadosh), and Ba'al Mum to be a Pesul after Shechitah (the bread is Kadosh)?

Answer: The Mum is Dukin (a film) in the eye, according to R. Akiva, who says Im Alah Lo Yered (if such a Ba'al Mum was brought on the Mizbe'ach, we offer it. We do not take it down.)

R. Yehoshua argues. Granted, the animal itself is not taken down, but it is not Mekadesh bread.

If a Chatas (R. Tam - Todah, and the same applies to all Kodshim Kalim) was slaughtered Chutz li'Zmano, Im Alah Lo Yered;

(Rabah): If it was slaughtered Chutz li'Mkomo, Yered. (We adopt the text of Rashi Kesav Yad and Shitah. Rabah preceded Rava, so presumably his opinion is given first.)

(Rava): Lo Yered.

Rabah holds like R. Yehoshua, and Rava holds like R. Eliezer.

Version #1: Rava retracted and adopted Rabah's opinion, for R. Eliezer retracted and adopted R. Yehoshua's opinion.

Version #2: Even though R. Eliezer retracted, Rava did not retract;

R. Eliezer retracted because Chutz li'Mkomo is more similar to Lo Lishmah (the bread is not Kadosh);

Regarding the Korban itself, even if we learn from Lo Lishmah, (even though Chatas Lo Lishmah is Pasul,) Lo Yered (since some Korbanos are Kosher Lo Lishmah).

(Mishnah): If it was slaughtered Lo Lishmah...

Question (Rav Papa): Why does our Tana teach about the Milu'im (which do not apply to all generations) and omit Eil Nazir, which applies to all generations?

Answer: Our Tana teaches about the first Korban (Rashi - that was Mekadesh bread. Other Korbanos can be learned from it.)

(Mishnah): If Nesachim were Mekudash in a Kli and the Zevach was found to be Pasul:

If there is another Zevach without Nesachim, these are offered for that Zevach;

If not, we allow them to become Pasul through Linah.

(Gemara - Ze'iri): Shechitah of the Zevach is the only thing that is Mekadesh Nesachim (Rashi - to become Nifsalim through Linah or Yotzei; Tosfos - to obligate them to be brought with a particular Zevach). We learn from "Zevach u'Nesachim."

Question (Mishnah): If Nesachim were Mekudash in a Kli and the Zevach was found to be Pasul:

If there is another Zevach without Nesachim, these are offered for it. If not, they become Pasul through Linah.

Suggestion: The Zevach became Pasul through Shechitah. (This shows that Nesachim become Mekudash without (a Kosher) Shechitah!)

Answer: No, the Zevach became Pasul through Zerikah. (Shechitah was Kosher, and it was Mekadesh the Nesachim.)

Suggestion: This is like Rebbi, who says that if one of two Matirim were offered, it is partially Mekadesh.

Rejection: It is even like R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon (who says that one of two Matirim does not Mekadesh at all). The case is, Kabalas ha'Dam was Kosher, and then the blood spilled;

R. Elazar holds like his father, who says that since the blood was ready for Zerikah, (in some respects) it is as if Zerikah was done.

(Mishnah): If there is another Zevach without Nesachim, these are offered for it.

Question Rav Chisda taught that if oil was designated for a Minchah, it may not be used for another Minchah! (Similarly, we cannot use Nesachim for another Zevach!)

Answer (R. Yanai): Beis Din (of Kohanim) stipulate that Nesachim (for Korbanos Tzibur) are Kodesh on condition that if they are not needed, they may be used for a different Zevach.

Question: If so, they should stipulate also about oil!

Answer: Oil is different. It is part of the Minchah itself. (Therefore, it would not help to stipulate.)

Question: (The Mishnah says, if there is not another Zevach without Nesachim, they become Pasul through Linah.) They should stipulate that if the Nesachim are not needed, they are Chulin!

Answer: We decreed not to do so, lest people think that something that was in a Kli Shares remains Chulin (without stipulating).

Question: We should decree not to use Nesachim for a different Zevach, lest people think that this may be done without stipulating!

Answer: Matisyahu ben Yehudah taught that the case is that there was another Zevach (without Nesachim) slaughtered at the time. (People will think that the Nesachim were for that Zevach from the beginning.)

Inference: If there was not another Zevach slaughtered at the time, the Nesachim are Pesulim.

Question: Why does the Mishnah say 'if there was no other Zevach, the Nesachim are Pesulim'? It should say 'if there was no other Zevach slaughtered at the time, they are Pesulim'!

Answer: Indeed, the Mishnah means this;

If there was another Zevach slaughtered at the time, the Nesachim are offered with it. If not, it is as if they became Pesulim through Linah.

Question: R. Shimon does not say that Beis Din stipulates!

(Rav Idi bar Avin): According to R. Shimon, Temidim that will not be needed this year can be redeemed (in order to buy them back with next year's Shekalim to use for Temidim of next year) only if they have a blemish;

Chachamim permit redeeming without a blemish (because Beis Din stipulated)!

Answer: He holds that Beis Din stipulates only when there is no other solution. (There, without stipulating, the extra Temidim are Ro'eh (graze until they get a Mum, and then they are redeemed).)

(Mishnah): The following are offered without bread:

Vlad (the child of a) Todah, Temuras Todah (if one said 'this animal is in place of this Todah, it gets some Kedushah of Todah), and Chalifas Todah (an animal designated to replace a lost Todah, and later the Todah was found and offered).

We learn from "v'Hikriv Al Zevach Todah." Todah requires bread, but its child, Temurah or Chalifah does not.

(Gemara - Beraisa) Question: Why does it say "Todah Yakriv"?

Answer - Question: What is the source that if a Todah was lost, a replacement was designated, and the Todah was found, either may be offered l'Shem Todah with bread?

Answer: 'Ha'Todah Yakriv'.

Suggestion: Perhaps also the second animal to be offered requires bread!

Rejection: "Yakrivenu" (singular) teaches that only one requires bread.

After the Torah permitted (offering either l'Shem Todah), it excluded (bringing bread with the other. This is like the text of Rashi and R. Gershom; there is no 'Vov' before 'Mi'et'.)

Question: What is the source that Vlad, Chalifas and Temuras Todah are offered? (Really, we only ask about Vlad and Temurah. Above, we gave the source for Chalifah. Chalifah is merely mentioned along with them.)

Answer: It says "Im Al Todah."

Suggestion: Perhaps they require bread!

Rejection: "V'Hikriv Al Zevach ha'Todah" teaches that Todah requires bread, but its Vlad, Chalifah or Temurah does not.