Question: This is difficult. The Gemara should have said that the Ketores does not have the solution that the extra Temidin have (a much better solution). In other words, it should have said that they do not have the ability to become extra Korbanos that are brought on the Mizbe'ach. This solution is done with the extra Temidin, as stated nearby in the Gemara.

Answer: It is possible to answer that the Gemara specifically said this to show that Ketores does not even have a small solution such as being put out to pasture.

Question: Rabah earlier (10b) asked Rav Chisda a question from the Mishnah regarding the leftover Ketores (that is given as payment to the workers). Why doesn't the Gemara give this as an answer?

Answer: It is possible to say that Rav Chisda understands that Beis Din never makes a stipulation to take away Kedushas ha'Guf.

Question: This is difficult. Even if it is according to Rebbi Yehudah, it is possible to say that a Chatas Tzibur is different, as it has no ability to be fixed through grazing (until it receives a blemish). Rebbi Yehudah is the one who said earlier that all of these Chataos must die (and this is why he says Beis Din must be able to make a condition in this case).

Answer: However, the Gemara said a better reply that perhaps it is Rebbi Meir, and even regarding the Chitzonim that are common Rebbi Shimon would not say that Beis Din makes a condition.

Question: This is difficult. In Menachos (79b), the Gemara implies that these Temidin go to pasture (until they receive a blemish). The Gemara asks, does Rebbi Shimon indeed hold that Beis Din makes a condition regarding these Korbanos? Doesn't Rav Idi bar Avin say in the name of Rebbi Yochanan that Temidin that are not required for the public are not redeemed when they are without a blemish according to Rebbi Shimon? The Gemara answers, this case is different as it is possible to set them out to pasture (and eventually they receive a blemish and can be redeemed). (This implies that Rebbi Shimon holds they can end up being redeemed if they receive a blemish, unlike our Gemara's conclusion that they end up having to be brought as extra Korbanos for the Mizbe'ach).

Answer: It is possible to answer that the Gemara (Rebbi Yochanan) there is addressing Chataos (not Olos). Rebbi Yochanan is deducing from the Mishnah that Rebbi Shimon does not hold that Beis Din make conditions. Despite the fact that Rebbi Yochanan says that he has a tradition, he only means according to the Rabbanan who hold that the extra Temidin can be redeemed even if they do not have a blemish. However, according to Rebbi Shimon he only deduces this from the Mishnah.

This is also implied from the fact that he says, "According to Rebbi Shimon" and not "Rebbi Shimon says." Once he was saying his law according to Rebbi shimon, he also said his law according to the Chachamim.

Question: How can this be deduced from our Mishnah? Perhaps Rebbi Shimon did not reply that Beis Din makes a condition because it is not necessary (not because he holds they do not make such conditions)!

Answer: Being that Rebbi Yochanan knew that the Rabbanan held that Beis Din does make such conditions, if we would not know Rebbi Shimon holds such conditions are not made, we would not ask according to Rebbi Shimon how they can be brought.

Explanation: This implies that after atonement it is permitted even before it actually goes to pasture. This is evident from the fact that the Gemara did not say that there is a decree after it would be set out to pasture because of a case where it was not yet set out to pasture. This implies that there is only a prohibition before atonement.

Implied Question: The Gemara says in many places that there is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai that if a Chatas must be put to death, an Asham in a similar situation must be put out to pasture. (This implies that it must be put out to pasture according to Torah law, regardless if there was atonement or not, unlike Tosfos' previous statement.)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam says that the entire concept of being put out to pasture (to receive a blemish) is Rabbinic in nature. The Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai is in fact that if a Chatas must be put to death, an Asham in a similar situation should be brought as an Olah.

When the Gemara says it must be put out to pasture, it is because the Chachamim decreed this and said it should be so. It is only a Rabbinic decree, as is implied here.

Proof: This is also implied in Pesachim (73a). Rav Huna says in the name of Rav that an Asham that was put out to pasture and was slaughtered without having intent as to what Korban it should be is considered to be a valid Olah. This implies that one does not have to consciously (possibly even verbally) uproot its name of an Asham and transfer it to being an Olah in order for it to be a valid Olah.

The Gemara continues to ask that if this is the case, even if it was not put out to pasture it should also be so! The Gemara means that it is understandable if it requires being taken away from being an Asham. This is why it would require being put out to pasture, as the Rabbanan would be making a sign for a person, reminding him that he must take it away from being called an Asham. (This is Rabeinu Tam's proof that being put out to pasture is a Rabbinic institution.) However, being that it does not have to be taken away from being called an Asham, it should also not require being put out to pasture! The Gemara answers that being put out to pasture is a decree before atonement is achieved, lest this happen before atonement is achieved (through another Korban).

Question: This is difficult. In Zevachim (5b) and Menachos (4a), Rav Huna says that an Asham that was put out to pasture...implying only if it was put out to pasture, not if it was not put out to pasture. Why? The Pasuk says, "It" implying it should be as it is. Rashi explains that this means it should maintain its status until it is put out to pasture. This implies it is an actual derivation from a Pasuk, making it a Torah law. This is also evident from the fact that the Gemara there says, "Why does the Torah state "Hu" -- "It?" (This implies that this is literally the teaching of the Torah from the word "Hu.")

Answer: Rabeinu Tam says that we do not have the text there, "If it was put out to pasture, yes, otherwise, not." In Temurah (18a) this text does not appear in any edition. Even if this would be the text, the derivation from the Pasuk is not to explain why without being put out to pasture it is prohibited (according to Torah law). Rather, it is coming to explain why it is a valid Korban when it was slaughtered without intent and without being changed to an Olah. The answer is that the Pasuk says, "Hu", implying it should stay this way. In other words, it should stay the way it was supposed to end up, meaning as an Olah. This is as we know that an Asham put out to pasture becomes an Olah. It should stay this way without having to be verbally reassigned as an Olah.

Question: This is despite the fact that the Pasuk seems to be brought regarding the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. (How can we say that the Pasuk instead is referring to the Korban being valid? We do not find a Pasuk that teaches us the same lesson as a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai!)

Answer: We indeed find such a thing in Bechoros (16a). The Gemara there compares something which comes from an animal that chews its cud, meaning in exchange for Pesulei ha'Mukdashin, to something that has split hooves, meaning one of the five Chataos that must be put to death. The Gemara derives from there, just as there they are put to death etc. even though this teaching is actually a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. (We see therefore that a Pasuk can teach us the same lesson as a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai.)

Explanation: It appears that the proof is that we indeed make a decree because of a case where atonement was not yet achieved. This is apparent from the fact that the Beraisa did not say, "What do they do with the extra ones?" Rather, the Beraisa said, "What do they bring from the extra ones?" This implies that they bring something else with the money, but they do not bring these animals themselves.

This is referring to a leftover Chatas or Asham, not a leftover Olah. This is because the general term "leftover" regarding Korbanos and Temurah is regarding a Chatas or Asham.

Explanation: This implies that "Bnos Shuach" -- "white figs" are good. The Pasuk also states, "That the tree was good for eating" (Bereishis 3:6) referring to white figs, as implied by the Medrash Rabah in Bereishis which says they are called this because, "They caused "Shuchah" -- "bending down" for a person." Alternatively, they are called "Bnos Sheva" because they caused the seven days of mourning (i.e. death).

Question: Rabeinu Tam asks that in Avodah Zarah (14a) the Gemara implies that they are not very edible. This is as the Beraisa states there that they added regarding the laws of Shemitah the Alachsusin, Itztrobalin, Muchsasin, and Bnos Shuach. (The Gemara there discusses at length what exactly these words mean, besides for Bnos Shuach which are merely defined as white figs.) However, originally Shemitah clearly did not apply to them, implying that they are inferior.

Answer #1: Rabeinu Tam answers that the reason Shemitah did not apply was not because they are inferior. Rather, we were taught in Shevi'is (5:1) that the Shevi'is of Bnos Shuach is actually the second year after Shemitah. This is because they only produce fruit after three years. When the fruit starts blossoming in Shemitah, it is not finished until the second year after Shemitah. Originally the Tana held that Shemitah for this fruit is determined by the year in which it is picked, and eventually he held that it is determined by the year in which it blossoms.

Answer #2: Rabeinu Tam also answered that the text in Avodah Zarah (ibid.) is Muchasasin Bnos Shuach without a vav ("u'Bnos"). Muchsasin Bnos Shuach is the name of one low quality fruit. It is not the same fruit as Bnos Shuach.

The fact that they are two different fruits is also implied in Bechoros (8a). The Gemara there says that a female wolf and lioness have pregnancies of three years. A similar rate of development is found by the Bnos Shuach (whose fruits take three years to grow). A snake's pregnancy is seven years, and we do not find anything similar. Some say Muchsasin Bnos Shuach are similar. (This clearly indicates that Bnos Shuach and Muchsasin Bnos Shuach are different.)

Implied Question: However, in Berachos (40b) the Gemara implies that Bnos Shuach are of low quality. The Gemara states that Amei ha'Aretz are not suspected of being lax in taking Ma'aser from them, and it is therefore listed as one of the fruits that are lenient regarding Dmai. (This Gemara indicates that Bnos Shuach are indeed low quality fruits. Can we reconcile this with Rabeinu Tam's explanation above?)

Answer: Perhaps Bnos Shuach is a fruit that grows in the forests, like Uzradin (the fruit of the hawthorn) which it is mentioned together with in Berachos (ibid.). Being that it is commonly found growing wild, Amei ha'Aretz are not suspected of being lax in taking Ma'aser from this type of fruit, as it grows in their gardens and orchards. However, it is not because these Bnos Shuach are a low quality fruit.

Question: This is difficult. How can we think that we could use an Olas ha'Of for Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach? Doesn't the Mishnah in Shekalim (6:6) state, "This teaching was taught by Yehoyada ha'Kohen. The leftover Chatas and Asham should be for a donated Olah. This is as the Pasuk says, "To Hash-m, to the Kohen." What is something that is both for Hash-m and for the Kohen? I would say it is an Olah, as the meat of the Olah is totally for Hash-m, and the shearings and the skin is for the Kohen." However, the Kohen receives no part of an Olas ha'Of! (Why, then, does Rava act as if this statement is devoid of any source?)

Answer: It is possible to answer that the Mishnah in Shekalim (ibid.) is referring to leftover money. For example, in a case where he separated money for a Chatas and Asham, as the Pasuk states, "Money for an Asham, money for a Chatas." In our case, we are referring to an animal that was dedicated to be brought as an Asham, and that was leftover.

Explanation: This is because it says, "soul" implying an individual.

Question: Doesn't the Gemara in Yoma (41b) say that if he buys a single bird, if it was an Olah it can become a donation (implying that it can be a Korban Tzibur)?

Answer: It is possible to answer that one should not buy an Olas ha'Of with the money that is leftover. However, if a bird was already brought before us, we do use it for Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach, as what else will be done with it? (See also TOSFOS in Temurah (23b) , DH V'SHISHAH.)

Opinion #1: Rashi explains that according to Rebbi Shimon who holds that the leftover animals can be used for Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach, this is as Shmuel explained that the knife pulls them in. This means that when the knife slaughters in general, it pulls the Korban towards the proper intent. For example, it pulls the leftover Olas Tamid towards an Olas Kayitz (ha'Mizbe'ach), even though this is not the exact Korban for which this animal was dedicated. However, being that it originally was an Olah and this is an Olah, it is valid.

Question #1: This is difficult. In Zevachim (3a), it is apparent that Shmuel holds like the Rabbanan who argue on Rebbi Shimon, and say that Beis Din does make conditions with these animals.

Question #2: The text in our Gemara, "We also see a Beraisa that states this" is difficult. It should have quoted our Mishnah (2b)! (Being that our Mishnah also quotes Rebbi Shimon as saying that being that the Si'eerim are brought for the same purpose, an animal dedicated for one can be brought for the other type of Korban, why did the Gemara have to quote a Beraisa to show this?)

Opinion #2: It therefore appears that the Aruch is correct. He explains that "the knife pulls them in" means that it pulls them towards their dedication. Whether they are Temidin or Musafin, the knife pulls them in to be whatever they supposed to be. Before they are pulled to the knife, we cannot say which is a Tamid and which is a Musaf, but rather they are suspended as part of a condition of Beis Din.

Even though they said that they are Temidin, if they want to offer them as another Korban they can. This is because when the person pulled the knife to slaughter the Korban Tamid, it is a Tamid. If he pulled it to slaughter a Musaf, it is a Musaf.

This is a proof to Rebbi Yochanan, who says that Temidin who are not needed by the public, according to the Rabbanan they can be redeemed while without a blemish. This is because they were still not pulled towards the knife with intent to slaughter it as a specific Korban.

According to this opinion, we do not have the text, "We also see a Beraisa that states this" but rather we merely have the text, "The Beraisa states."

Opinion #3: Some say that the Beraisa is bringing proof to Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak who says that Rebbi Shimon admits that leftover Si'eerei Chatas themselves do not become Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach. This is as the Beraisa states, "If it is not brought during the Regel etc." meaning Pesach, "it should be brought on Rosh Chodesh etc. If it is not brought on Yom Kippur it should be brought on the Regel" meaning Sukos. "If it is not brought on this Regel" meaning Sukos, "it should be brought on another Regel" meaning Shemini Atzeres, which is its own Regel.

However, more than this Regel, meaning next Pesach, it cannot be brought as itself, as it is considered an old Terumah. It cannot be a Kayitz l'Mizbe'ach itself, as it originally was only dedicated to atone for the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon. This means that it was originally a Chatas. One cannot change that into a donated Korban. This implies that Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach is not done with the animal itself, but rather with its value.

Question: However, this is difficult. Why did the Gemara wait to say this until now? It should have said this earlier!

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Mishnah explains that the Korban is atoning for Tumas Mikdash v'Kadashav. (How can this Beraisa say it atones for the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon?)

Answer: Both are required, the atonement for Mikdash v'Kadashav and the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon. This excludes the Sa'ir ha'Pnimi.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that earlier the Gemara implies that if it were not for the decree regarding before atonement, they would even use the leftover Chatas Pnimis.

Answer: This is because the tradition is that the leftover Chatas of the public becomes an Olah.

Implied Question: This is not two atonements. (The Gemara (8b) derived that this Korban cannot atone for two separate things. Why isn't this two atonements?)

Answer #1: It is only considered two atonements if it also atones for a sin that a different Korban already atones for, as I explained earlier (TOSFOS (7b) DH YESH).

Answer #2: Alternatively, there is one atonement for accidental sin and one for a sin done on purpose (this is not called for two sins, see Tosfos ha'Rosh that this is derived from the Pesukim).

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Mishnah states in Yoma (85b) that repentance atones for transgressing a positive or negative commandment. The Gemara in Chagigah (5a) additionally states that if someone sins and regrets doing so, he is forgiven immediately, even if he did other sins. (These Gemaros are seemingly unlike our Gemara!)

Answer: These Gemaros do not mean to say that there is a complete repentance, but rather that his judgement is lessened. However, if he transgressed a positive commandment, he indeed is forgiven immediately.