Question (Rav Simi bar Aba - Beraisa): A Kohen may offer (for David, who is Mudar Hana'ah from him) the blood of David's Chatas or Asham. (This shows that he is Hash-m's Shali'ach!)

Answer: This refers to the Chatas and Asham of a Metzora (Mechusar Kipurim);

"Zos Toras ha'Metzora" - whether he is an adult or a minor. (Since we bring for children, this shows that his consent is not needed.)

(Mishnah): If a Kohen was Mefagel (offered a Korban with improper intent, e.g. to eat it after the allowed time) intentionally, he must compensate the owner of the Korban.

Inference: If he did so unintentionally, he need not pay, but the Korban is Pigul (disqualified).

We understand according to the opinion that a Kohen is a Shali'ach of Hash-m. (Hash-m made him a Shali'ach in every case.)

Question: According to the opinion that he is a Shali'ach of Yisrael, why is it Pigul?

(Regarding an Isur that depends on intent, a person cannot forbid what is not his. Here, the Kohen is not the owner's Shali'ach, for) he made him a Shali'ach to help him, not to hurt him!

Answer: Even though he is a Shali'ach of Yisrael, Pigul is an exception. It says "(ha'Makriv Oso) Lo Yechashev" - in any case (even if the one who offered it had Pasul intent).

(R. Yochanan): Every Korban requires the consent of the one for whom it is brought, except Mechusar Kipurim, for a man may bring these for his minor children.

Question: If so, if Levi ate Chelev, David should be able to bring a Chatas for him, just like a man brings this for his insane wife, according to R. Yehudah!

But R. Elazar said that if David separated a Chatas Chelev for Levi, this has no effect!

Answer: (One does not bring Chatas Chelev for an insane wife. R. Yehudah meant that he brings Chatas Yoledes for her;)

Question: In which case would one bring Chatas Chelev for an insane wife?

If she was insane when she ate, no Korban is brought for this!

Answer: She ate while sane, and later became insane.

Rejection: R. Yochanan taught that if a (sane) man ate Chelev, separated his Chatas, became insane, and returned to sanity, the animal is disqualified. Since it was unfitting to bring while he was insane, it is forever unfitting.

Question: According to R. Yochanan, David should be able to bring a Korban Pesach for Levi, for one can bring it for his minor children!

But R. Elazar taught that if David separated a Korban Pesach for Levi, this has no effect!

Answer (R. Zeira): "A lamb for the household" is not mid'Oraisa. (Minors need not own a share.)

Question: How does he know this?

Answer (Mishnah): If a man told his children 'I will slaughter the Pesach on behalf of whoever is first to ascend to Yerushalayim', once one of them enters, he acquires his portion, and acquires on behalf of his siblings.

If minors must be counted on the Korban mid'Oraisa, the acquisition could not work after Shechitah!

Question: If so, why did he tell his children that the acquisition will be through the first to ascend?

Answer: This was to train them to zealously perform Mitzvos.

(Beraisa): It happened that the daughters ascended before the boys. They were zealous, and the boys were lowly. (The Beraisa does not say that the girls acquired on behalf of the boys.)

(Mishnah): He may separate Terumah for him...

Question: Does one need Shimon's consent to separate Terumah for him?

Since this is advantageous for Shimon, his consent is not needed;

Or, perhaps he prefers to do the Mitzvah himself!

Answer (Mishnah): He may separate Terumah and Ma'aser for him with his Da'as (will).

Question: What is the case?

Answer #1: Reuven separates part of Simchah's produce to be Terumah to exempt the rest of Simchah's produce.

Objection: Whose Da'as does he need?

If Reuven acts on his own Da'as, the separation is invalid, for he was not made a Shali'ach!

If he has Simchah's Da'as, Reuven fulfills his mission. This gives Simchah pleasure!

Answer #2: Rather, we must say that Reuven separates his own produce to be Terumah to exempt Simchah's produce.

Question: Whose Da'as does he have?

If he has Simchah's Da'as, Reuven fulfills his mission. This gives Simchah pleasure!

Answer: Rather, Reuven acts on his own Da'as. This shows that Simchah's consent is not needed.

Rejection: Really, he took the Terumah from Simchah's produce;

The case is like Rava said (elsewhere). Simchah said 'whoever wants to separate Terumah may do so'.

Question (R. Yirmiyah): If Reuven separates his produce to be Terumah to exempt Simchah's, who has Tovas Hana'ah (decides which Kohen receives it)?

Reuven should have it, for without his produce, Simchah's produce would be untithed!

Or, Simchah should have it, for without his produce, Reuven's produce would not become Terumah!

Answer #1 (R. Zeira): "All the produce of your seed you will give" (the giving is dependent on the owner of the produce being exempted).

Question (Mishnah): He may separate Terumah and Ma'aser for him with his consent...

If Simchah has Tovas Hana'ah, Reuven benefits Simchah (since the Terumah was from Reuven's produce).

Rather, we must say that Reuven has Tovas Hana'ah!

Answer: Really, the Terumah was from Simchah's produce. The case is, Simchah said 'Whoever wants to separate Terumah may do so.'

Answer #2 (R. Avahu): The one who made an object Hekdesh adds the fifth when he redeems it. The one who gets atonement from a Korban can make Temurah from it. If Reuven makes his produce Terumah to exempt Simchah's produce, Reuven has Tovas Hana'ah.

(Mishnah): Reuven may teach Simchah Medrash, laws and Agadeta, but not written Torah.

Question: Surely, he may not teach him written Torah because he benefits him. The same should apply to Medrash!

Answer (Shmuel): The Mishnah discusses a place where people take money for teaching written Torah, but not for Medrash.

Question: Why does the Tana assume that this is the case (without specifying)?