Explanation: "For my Nezirus" properly connotes "for part of [the Korbanos needed for] his Nezirus.

Distinction: However, when he died and he had Ma'os Stumim, which fall to Nedavah, [we can say that] we discuss when he separated coins and said "these coins are for the Korbanos of my Nezirus";

He cannot bring one Korban with all of them, for he said Korbanos;

Therefore, there is in these coins money of Chatas. Therefore, we ask how all can go to Nedavah, for money of Chatas is mixed with them.

Support: Our Mishnah in Me'ilah says "one who separates coins for Nezirus, Me'ilah does not apply to them, for it is proper for all of them to be for Shelamim." The Mishnah discusses Stumim;

Afterwards it teaches "if he died and had Ma'os Stumim..."

Question: It was discussing Stumim! It should have said "if he died, they fall to Nedavah"!

Answer: Rather, here we discuss when he said specifically "for my Nezirus." Then he can bring from all [the coins] one of his Korbanos, for it does not connote all his Korbanos.

Therefore, the Seifa teaches "if he died and had Ma'os Stumim, and even if he said "for the Korbanos of my Nezirus", they all go to Nedavah.

Proof: Below (26b), [if one said] "these are for my Chatas, and the rest is for the rest of my Nezirus" and he died, the Chatas money goes to the Dead Sea, and of the rest, [the heir] brings Olos with half, and Shelamim with half.

Inference: Because he said "the rest is for the rest of my Nezirus", we consider it as if he said "for the Korbanos of my Nezirus", but if he said "the rest is for my Nezirus", and not "for the rest of my Nezirus", he may use all of them for the Olah or all for the Shelamim. So explained the Ri. This is a comment.

Explanation: All Korbanos Nazir come through a vow to be a Nazir, and even the Chatas.

It is reasonable to establish it to discuss the excess in such a case (Stumim of a Nazir), for we do not find other cases of leftover;

If he separated coins for an Olah, and there were leftover, for animals became cheaper, he can offer Olos from them. The same applies to Shelamim, like he separated from the beginning;

It is reasonable to establish it to discuss leftover Stumim like this, in which Chatas, Olah and Shelamim are mixed together.

Explanation: [You cannot say that specified coins] fall to Nedavah, for Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael already ruled that the child of a Chatas must die. It does not go to Nedavah;

We similarly say that [if one bought a Chatas for less than the amount he separated for it], its excess goes to waste (to the Dead Sea), and not to Nedavah;

This is because all [these cases] are called Mosar (excess) Chatas, i.e. Vlad (the child of a) Chatas, Temuras Chatas (an animal onto which one tried to transfer the Kedushah of his Chatas), and the case here, that she separated specified [coins], and her husband annulled her...

Or, the case taught in the Mishnah in Me'ilah (11a) where he separated coins for his Nezirus, and died, and had specified coins, all these cases that are not Chatas themselves, they are called excess.

Implied question: He could have said that a tradition from Moshe from Sinai teaches that the Chatas must die!

Answer: He prefers to bring Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael, who taught that the Chatas must die, and the Olah and Shelamim are offered each like its law, just like in our Mishnah, which says that the Olah is offered for an Olah.

Citation (Temurah 17b): "Rak Kadasehcha" refers to Temuros. "Asher Yihyeh Lecha" refers to Vlados;

We do not need it for Olah and Shelamim themselves, for already in [Parshas] Vayikra the laws of Olah and Shelamim are explicit.

Explanation: It comes to teach about [Temuras] Asham, that it is not offered for an Asham.

Citation of Gemara: Any case in which a Chatas dies, [the corresponding case of] an Asham is Ro'eh (grazes until it gets a Mum, then it is redeemed).

Explanation: Also according to R. Tam, who explained that any case in which a Chatas dies, [mid'Oraisa, a corresponding] Asham is [offered for] an Olah, we ask properly;

[The Beraisa] connotes that if not for the verse, one might have thought that we conduct with Temuras Asham the law of Asham, like we conduct with Temuras Olah the law of Olah.

This is wrong. The Halachah is, Temuras Asham is not offered for an Asham, rather, for an Olah!

Explanation (cont.): We answer that surely, [we know from tradition that one may not offer them for Chatas or Asham. However,].we need a verse for [Asham, and] also Chatas, to teach that if he offered it for a Chatas or Asham, he transgresses an Aseh;

The verse connotes that Temuras Olah and Vlad Shelamim, each is offered like its Mitzvah, this one for an Olah, and this one for a Shelamim, like [the end of the verse Rak Kadasehcha] says "Tisa u'Vasa...; V'Asisa Olosecha ha'Basar";

We infer that Vlad Chatas and Temuras Asham you do not carry and offer [Vlad Chatas] for Chatas and Temuras Asham for an Asham;

Rather, Vlad Chatas dies, due to a tradition from Moshe from Sinai. A tradition teaches that Temuras Asham is offered for Olah, according to R. Tam. A Lav (against offering them for Chatas or Asham) derived from an Aseh (they must die and be offered for an Olah, respectively) is an Aseh.

If we had only the tradition, one might have thought that the tradition forbids offering [Vlad Chatas] for a Chatas, or [Temuras Asham] for an Asham, but if one offered it, he is not liable. The verse teaches that this is not so. (Rather, he transgresses a Lav derived from an Aseh.)

Question: He should answer him that we need the verse to put an Isur Aseh [on offering Temuras Asham, like we answered above according to R. Yishmael!

Answer: "Hu" does not connote an Aseh as much as "Rak", which is an exclusion.

Question: Why did R. Akiva say to R. Yishmael 'we do not need the verse ("Rak" to forbid offering Vlad Chatas for a Chatas, and Temuras Asham for an Asham]'? We properly need the verse according to R. Yishmael for an [Isur] Aseh, which we do not infer from "Hu"!

Answer: We must say that R. Akiva erred about R. Yishmael' words. He thought that R. Yishmael has no tradition of five Chata'os [that must die];

R. Yishmael does not bring the verse "Rak" to teach an [Isur] Aseh, rather, to exclude, that one may not offer [Vlad Chatas for a Chatas, and Temuras Asham for an Asham].

Question: Still, why did R. Akiva say to him "we do not need [the verse]?" R. Akiva himself does not expound it for this Drashah, rather, he holds like Rav Huna taught in the name of Rav! (If an Asham was Nitak, i.e. given to a shepherd to graze and was slaughtered for an Olah, it is Kosher. "Hu" teaches that it remains an Asham until Nituk.)

If so, also R. Yishmael needs it for Rav Huna's teaching. Why did R. Akiva say to him "we do not need "Rak"? It is truly needed, since "Hu" is needed for another Drashah, like Rav Huna [expounded]!

Answer: According to what I explained, this is fine. R. Akiva erred about R. Yishmael' words. He thought that R. Yishmael has no tradition of five Chata'os, and [R. Yishmael] brings the verse "Rak" only to exclude offering;

Therefore, he said "according to you, who have no tradition, and you need "Rak" to teach that it is not offered, [really] you do not need "Rak". We can properly expound this from "Hu" in [the verse of] Asham itself;

This is fine for me. I have a tradition of five Chata'os that must die. I do not need the verse "Hu" for Asham to teach that it is not offered, for the tradition teaches that it is not offered for an Asham;

We expound "Hu" like Rav Huna. The verse "Rak" teaches an Aseh.

However, according to you, who have no tradition, rather you expound from the verse "Rak" to forbid offering, you do not need "Rak";

It would be better that you expound the law of Temuras Asham from "Hu", which is written regarding Asham itself, rather than to expound it like Rav Huna.

Explanation: We hold that a Chatas whose owner died, or the owner atoned through another animal, or [the Chatas] is over a year old, it must die, and any case in which a Chatas dies, [the corresponding case of] an Asham is Ro'eh;

This is Nitak l'Re'iyah. It is handed over to a shepherd [to graze], e.g. an Asham was lost and the owner atoned through another animal, and afterwards [the Asham] was found. It is Ro'eh;

It is Kosher for an Olah, since it must graze until it gets a Mum, and we bring an Olah with its [redemption] money;

Rav Huna taught that if after it was Nitak and left to graze, he took it and slaughtered it Stam, it is Kosher, and it is an Olah, since in the end its money goes to [buy an] Olah.

Explanation: It is a Pasul Asham. "Hu" connotes that it comes to teach that it requires Nituk.

Question #1: This text is difficult. Why do we need the verse "Hu"? A tradition from Moshe from Sinai teaches that any case in which a Chatas dies, i.e. [including] when the owner atoned [through another animal, the same case of] an Asham is Ro'eh. This shows that it requires Nituk!

Question #2: In Shevuos (12a) we ask "if so, even if it was not Nitak!" We answer that we decree after Kaparah due to before Kaparah;

Inference: Nituk is only mid'Rabanan. Here we learn from the verse "Hu"!

Question #3: Also there is difficult. A tradition obligates Nituk! (Why do we say that it is a decree?)

Answer (R. Tam): The tradition teaches that any case in which a Chatas dies, an Asham is an Olah, without any Nituk;

The Gemara there says that an Asham is Ro'eh because Chachamim decreed to require Re'iyah. This is a decree after Kaparah, due to before Kaparah.

Assertion (R. Tam): Here, the text does not say "if it was Nitak, yes (it is Kosher for an Olah). If it was not Nitak, no." Surely, the need for Nituk is not from the verse, rather, Rabanan decreed to require Nituk to Re'iyah;

This is proven in Shevuos. It says that this is a decree after Kaparah, due to before Kaparah.

Citation: In Pesachim (73b), there is an opinion that Rav Huna obligates Akirah, and in his text of Rav Huna's teaching it says "if he slaughtered it for an Olah, it is Kosher." The text says "what is the reason?"

According to this opinion. It means as follows. What is the reason to require Akirah, that one must slaughter it explicitly l'Shem Olah? In the end, its money is destined to be for an Olah, when it will get a Mum!

[The Gemara answers] it says "Hu". It remains in its status. It is an Asham until he explicitly uproots it to be an Olah;

If we had only the tradition, also without Akirah, it would be Kosher for an Olah.

The other opinion there in Pesachim holds that Rav Huna does not obligate Akirah. His text of Rav Huna's teaching says "if he slaughtered it Stam, it is Kosher for an Olah. Also according to him, the text says "what is the reason?"

It means as follows. What is the reason not to require Akirah, since it was called an Asham?

Do not say that we learn from the tradition, which teaches that it is offered for an Olah. Perhaps this is only through Akirah!

The Gemara answers 'it says "Hu" - it remains in its status. After Kaparah it is set to be an Olah even before Akirah, like it will be in the future when it gets a Mum, i.e. it will be an Olah, [even now it is an Olah] without any Akirah.

Conclusion: According to both opinions, the need for Nituk to Re'iyah is only mid'Rabanan, like we explained. (They argue only about whether Akirah is needed.)

Explanation: Stumim go to Nedavah.

Explanation (cont.): [The Gemara asks] are there no other cases? A Beraisa teaches that others who are obligated a Ken, e.g. a Metzora, who brings for his Taharah Chatas ha'Of and Olas ha'Of, if he is poor, and he separated coins while he was poor, and he became rich...

If he wants, he may bring from all [the coins] Chatas Behemah, and the Olah he will bring from other money in his house.

Comment: You must say that at the time he separated the coins initially, he said "these are for my Tzara'as", and he could have brought one bird for a Chatas or Olah;

Therefore, also when he became rich, he may bring from all [the coins] Chatas Behemah, or Olas Behemah, like I explained above (24b DH Hayu);

However, if he said "these are for the Korbanos of my Tzara'as" at the time of separation, immediately some of the money is designated for Chatas, and some for Olah. When he became rich, he may not bring from all [the coins] Chatas Behemah or Olas Behemah;

We say [that there is no Me'ilah] because it is proper to bring Shelamim with all of them only when he said "for his (really, 'my') Nezirus";

However, if he said "for Korbanos of Nezirus", he cannot bring Shelamim with all of them.

Implied question: In Yoma (41a), it says [that if an Oni separated money for a Ken for Tum'as Mikdash, and later designated some for the Chatas and some for the Olah, and he became rich,] "he adds and brings his obligation (Chatas Behemah) from the money of his Chatas. He does not add and bring his obligation from the money of his Olah.

Inference: He cannot bring Chatas [Behemah] from all [the coins]! (Griz - Tosfos asked from 41b, which holds that if one bought Chatas ha'Of from some of the money, the rest becomes Demei Olah. What is the reason? The rest could be used for Chatas, e.g. if the first will be lost, or he will buy another for Acharayus!)

Answer #1: We discuss when he said "for the Korbanos of his Tum'ah."

Answer #2: He separated some for his Chatas, and some for his Olah. Until here is a comment.