Clarification: This falls under the category of 'Nir'eh ve'Nidcheh'.

Observation (Part 1): In fact, R. Yochanan could have taught us a bigger Chidush, that even if he first Sh'mad himself and then designated the Korban, it would be considered Dichuy - as we learn from R. Yochanan in the first Perek of Kidushin, with regard to the case of an animal belonging to two partners.

Observation (Part 2): And 'Dichuy Me'ikara' would be a bigger Chidush, as is evident from Perek Lulav ha'Gazul, where even those who do not consider 'Dichuy Me'ikara' to be Dichuy concede that ' ... Nir'eh ve'Nidcheh' is!

Implied Question: Then why did R. Yochanan present a case of 'Nir'eh ve'Nidcheh'?

Answer #1: Because it is more common, since it is not the way of a Mumar to designate a Korban.

Answer #2: And besides, the case of 'Nishtateh (that follows), can only speak where he designated the Korban before becoming demented, because afterwards, the Halachah is that if a Shoteh designates a Korban, it is not valid.

Clarification (Part 1): The Gemara does not mean literally like 'Yashein', seeing as Yashin is considered fit even whilst he is asleep, as we learned in the Mishnah in 'Kol ha'Get' - 'A Chatas that somebody sends from overseas is sacrificed on the assumption that he is still alive, and the Gemara is not worried that maybe he is asleep.

Clarification (Part 2): What the Gemara therefore means is that he is compared to somebody who is asleep, who, even if he was not considered fit, he would not fall under the category of Dachuy, seeing as he will wake up automatically - and so it is with the person who became demented and then recovered automatically.

Implied Question: Why does the Gemara then say in 'Cheilek' that the inhabitants of the Ir ha'Nidachas do not receive a portion in the World to Come?

Answer: Because it is referring to a case where they were not put to death, but where they judged them and sentenced them to death, they do receive a portion.

Clarification (Part 1): Rav Yosef holds like R. Yochanan, who explains in 'Cheilek' that the reason (that 'Kodshei Mizbe'ach Yamusu') is on account of the principle "Zevach Resha'im To'eivah".

Clarification (Part 2): Whereas according to Resh Lakish, who establishes it by Kodshim Kalim, like R. Yossi ha'Gelili, who holds that Kodshim Kalim are the property of the owner, it would have nothing to do with 'Dichuy', but because of the principle 'Mamonam Avad', since they (the Kodshim) are the property of the owner.

Question: In the cases of 'Heimir Daso' and 'Nishtatah', 'Re'ayah' (letting the animal graze until it obtains a blemish and selling it for its value) ought not to be permitted (see Maharam), like by Ir ha'Nidachas. In other words, even the Damim should be Nidcheh as well.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this refers to the board that covers the Aron, whereas those at the side are called 'Dofek'.

Question #1 (Part 1): Rabeinu Tam queries Rashi however from the Gemara in Perek Mi she'Meiso, where R. Elazar b'R. Tzadok (who was a Kohen) relates how they used to jump over the Aronos of the Meisim to greet the kings of Yisrael.

Question #1 (Part 2): And if the cover of the Aron is a 'Golel', then it would have rendered them Tamei, as we Darshen in Shabbos "And all that touch the surface of the field", 'to include the Golel and the Dafek' - even if it was buried underground, because since a Golel is Metamei be'Ohel, the Tum'ah rises vertically through the earth?

Answer #1: Some commentaries explain that despite the fact that the Golel is Metamei be'Ohel, they were nevertheless permitted to render themselves Tamei by jumping over it, because it is not a Tum'ah for which a Nazir is obligated to shave, and we have learned in Mesaches Semachos that any Tum'ah for which a Nazir is obligated to shave, is not forbidden to a Kohen.

Disproof: Rabeinu Tam however, considers this statement an error, for we find a Revi'is of blood from a Meis, which a Nazir is not obligated to shave, yet a Kohen is prohibited from touching it.

Refutal: This is not a Kashye however, since what the Beraisa in Semachos means is 'Sheim Tum'ah' (the category of Tum'ah), since a Nazir does shave for a half a Log of blood; And the Tana is only coming to preclude vessels that touched a Meis, on which a Nazir does not need to shave and a Kohen is not warned.

Question #2: Rabeinu Tam asks another Kashya on Rashi, in that since we learn Golel from the words 'al-P'nei ha'Sadeh', this implies that it is in the open, whereas the cover of the Aron is concealed under the ground?

Answer (Part 1, to Question 2): Some commentaries explain that we only include Golel as the cover for the Aron if it is open, but not if it is concealed.

Answer (Part 2, to question 1): This also answers the first Kashya from 'Medalgin Hayinu' (which is speaking where the Golel is concealed).

Question: The Gemara says in the first Perek in Eruvin that one may not any living creature as a Golel for a grave - an it is not customary to use animals to cover graves?

Answer: That is not a problem however, since the Gemara does sometimes present the most unusual cases, such as the Gemara in 'Beheimah ha'Maksheh', which refers to a case where one stuck the wombs of two animals one to the other, and a baby moved from one to the other'.

Explanation #3 (Part 1): Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that, based on the Pasuk in Vayeitzei (in connection with Ya'akov and the shepherds) "and they would roll the stone", 'Golel' is a large stone which one places on the grave as a marker. In fact, it is what is known as a 'Matzeivah' (a monument), as the Pasuk in Vayishlach writes "that is the Matzeivah of Rachel's grave ... ".

Explanation #2 (Part 2): Whereas the stones that one places beside the grave on which the large stone rests, to prevent it from weighing too heavily on the corpse, are called 'Dofek'.

Explanation #3 (Part 3): Sometimes one ties an animal there temporally, until one finds an appropriate stone to replace it, to prevent the location of the grave from getting lost in the interim.

Explanation #3 (Part 4): And the graves (in the Sugya of B'rachos) over which they jumped did not have a Matzeivah.

Implied Question: The question then arises, if there is no Golel, when does the period of Aveilus begin?

Answer: To which the answer is from the time that the grave is properly filled in.

Clarification #1: The Gemara thinks, Rashi explains, that the same will apply if he digs the grave for anybody else.

Clarification #2: The reason for this is probably because, if Mechubar would not be generally Asur, then it would not be forbidden because of Kavod Aviv either.

Question #1: Even if we do learn from Eglah Arufah, but R. Yochanan holds in Perek Oso ve'es B'no that it is the breaking of its neck which renders it Asur, and Rava himself rules there like R. Yochanan.

Question #2: Furthermore, the Riva asks why the Gemara does not ask why Rava does not learn like Abaye, in the way that it generally does?

Answer (Part 1): What the Gemara means to ask therefore is why Rava does not learn from Eglah Arufah according to his reasoning (that it becomes Asur only later, when breaking its neck).

Answer (Part 2): And likewise, when the Gemara asks why Abaye does not learn from Avodah-Zarah, it means that it should then be forbidden immediately, like Avodah-Zarah.

Partial Refutation: Rashi however, establishes "Asher Avdu" not by actual Avodah-Zarah.