WHAT WE DO WITH THE MONEY [last line of previous Amud]
(Mishnah): If money was designated for the Korbanos Stam, it goes to Nedavah.
Question: Money for the Chatas is mixed in (and it must go waste. How can we use all the money for Olos?)!
Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): This law is a tradition from Sinai regarding a Nazir.
Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): "For all their Nedarim (commitments to bring a Korban) and Nedavos (animals declared to be Korbanos)" teaches that excess Nedarim are Nedavah.
Question: We understand R. Yochanan. He holds that the tradition applies only to Stam money.
According to Reish Lakish, the verse should apply even to specified money!
Answer (Rava): We learn from Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael that it does not apply to specified money:
(Beraisa - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): "Only your Korbanos that will be to you and your Nedarim" discusses Vlados (the offspring of) Korbanos, and Temurah (an animal onto which one tried to transfer the Kedushah of a Korban);
The Torah commands "you will bring them to the Mikdash."
Suggestion: Perhaps we bring them to the Mikdash, and deny them food and water, so they will die!
Rejection: "You will offer your Olos, the meat and the blood" teaches that the Temurah of an Olah is (offered) like an Olah, and Vlad Shelamim is like a Shelamim.
Suggestion: Perhaps also Vlad Chatas and Temuras Asham are like a Chatas and Asham, respectively!
Rejection #1 (R. Yishmael): "Only (Olos and Shelamim" teaches that this does not apply to other Korbanos).
Rejection #2 (R. Akiva): You need not expound "only". "Asham Hu (it is an Asham)" teaches that we offer the Asham itself (and not its Temurah).
ASHAMOS THAT CANNOT BE OFFERED [line 19]
(Beraisa): One might have thought that we bring them to the Mikdash, and deny them food and water, so they will die. "You will offer your Olos" teaches that we do not.
Question: Why would one think they must die? The tradition from Sinai applies only to Chata'os!
Answer: If not for the verse, one might have thought that Vlad Chatas can die where it is, but Vlados of other Korbanos must be brought to the Mikdash to die.
The verse teaches that this is not so.
(Beraisa): One might have thought that Vlad Chatas and Temuras Asham are like a Chatas and Asham. "Only (Olos and Shelamim)" teaches that they are not.
Question: Why is a verse needed? A tradition from Sinai teaches that Vlad Chatas must die!
Answer: Indeed, the verse is needed only to teach about Temuras Asham.
Question: (The verse is not needed!) There is also a tradition from Sinai about Ashamos: in any case in which a Chatas must die, an Asham grazes (until it gets a Mum. Then it is redeemed, and the money is used for Nedavah!)
Answer: If we had only the tradition, one might have thought that one may not offer it, but one who offered it is exempt;
The verse teaches that one who offers it transgresses an Aseh.
(Beraisa - R. Akiva): You need not expound "Only". "Asham Hu" teaches that we offer the Asham itself (but not its Temurah)
Question: The verse is not needed! A tradition teaches that in any case in which a Chatas must die (e.g. a Temurah), an Asham grazes!
Answer: Indeed, the verse ("Asham Hu") is not needed to teach that it grazes. Rather, it teaches Rav's law:
(Rav): If an Asham was Nitak (given to a shepherd to graze) and was slaughtered for an Olah, it is Kosher.
If it was not Nitak, it is Pasul. "Hu" teaches that it remains an Asham (until Nituk).