(Mishnah): Temurah takes effect in the following cases. (Rashi - "A" on "B" means that he tries to transfer the Kedushah of "B", the initial Hekdesh, onto "A", the Nitfas; this is like Abaye (below). Our text of Tosfos, and the Gemara and Rashi in Bechoros (14b) explain oppositely. Shitah Mekubetzes changes all of them to conform with Rashi here);

Tzon (goats and sheep) on Bakar (cattle), sheep on goats, males on females, a Tam on a Ba'al Mum, and vice-versa of all of these.

We learn from "Lo Yachalifenu v'Lo Yamir Oso Tov b'Ra Oh Ra b'Tov";

Question: What does "Tov b'Ra" refer to?

Answer: The initial Hekdesh became blemished after it was Hukdash.

(Gemara) Question: What is the reason?

Answer (Beraisa): "Behemah bi'Vehemah" teaches that Temurah takes effect on Tzon on Bakar (cattle), sheep on goats, males on females, a Tam on a Ba'al Mum, and vice-versa of all of these.

Suggestion: Perhaps it applies even if the initial Hekdesh was blemished before it was Hukdash!

Rejection: "Lo Yachalifenu... Tov b'Ra Oh Ra b'Tov";

Question: What does "Tov b'Ra" refer to?

Answer: The initial Hekdesh became blemished after it was Hukdash.

Question: How do we learn this from the verse?

Answer #1 (Abaye): It could have said "... Tov b'Ra Oh Ra Bo"; it repeats "b'Tov" to teach that the initial Hekdesh must be good (Tam) from the beginning.

Answer #2 (Rava): Both occurrences of "Tov" are extra. It could have said "Lo Yachalifenu v'Lo Yamir Oso b'Ra Oh Ra Bo";b v

One "Tov" teaches that one is lashed even for Tam b'Tam. The other teaches like Abaye.

Abaye does not require a verse to teach Rava's first law, he learns it from a Kal va'Chomer:

One is lashed for Tov b'Ra, even though he tried to transfer the Kedushah onto a better animal. All the more so he is lashed for Tov b'Tov!

Rava disagrees, for we do not punish due to a Kal va'Chomer!

Abaye says that the Kal va'Chomer merely shows that Tov b'Ra forbids also when the initial Hekdesh is Tam.

(Beraisa): "Lo Yachalifenu" (do not make Temurah) with another person's animal. "V'Lo Yamir Oso" with your own animal.

Question: It would have sufficed to say "Lo Yachalifenu", and all the more so it is forbidden with one's own animal!

Version #1 - Answer: Had it said only "Lo Yachalifenu", we would have thought that one is lashed for Temurah with another's animal, for then the Korban becomes Chulin and the Nitfas becomes Hekdesh, but when one makes Temurah with his own animal, in the end both animals are Kodesh, he is not lashed. The verse teaches that this is not so.

Version #2 (Shitah Mekubetzes) Answer: Had it said only "Lo Yachalifenu", we would have thought that one is lashed only if he intended that the Korban become Chulin, but if he intended that it remain Hekdesh, and to be Mekadesh another animal through Temurah, he is exempt. The verse teaches that this is not so. (end of Version #2)

Question: What is the case of making Temurah on another person's animal?

Suggestion: Reuven tries to transfer the Kedushah of his Korban onto Shimon's Chulin animal.

Rejection: One cannot be Mekadesh another person's property. "Ish Ki Yakdish Beiso Kodesh" teaches that one can be Makdish only things like his house, which are in his Reshus.

Answer: Rather, he tries to transfer the Kedushah of Shimon's Korban onto his own Chulin animal.

Objection: Temurah does not take effect in this case!

Answer: It takes effect if Shimon authorized people to make Temurah on his Korban.

(Mishnah): One can make Temurah in the following ways:

Two (Chulin) animals Tachas (in place of) one (Korban), or one Tachas two; 100 Tachas one, or one Tachas 100.

R. Shimon says, Temurah is only one Tachas one - "v'Hayah Hu u'Semuraso Yihyeh Kodesh";

Version #1 (Rashi): Just like the initial Hekdesh is only one, also the Temurah (Nitfas).

Version #2 (Ba'al ha'Ma'or, cited in R. Akiva Eiger): (The verse cited is Vayikra 27:33, which discusses Ma'aser Behemah.) Just like Ma'aser is only one (if two animals are called "Asiri", only one becomes Ma'aser), also Temurah is only one.

(Gemara) Question: What is the source for this?

Answer (Beraisa): "Behemah bi'Vehemah" teaches that one can be Memir two animals Tachas one, one Tachas two, 100 Tachas one, or one Tachas 100.

R. Shimon says, Temurah is only one Tachas one, for it says "Behemah bi'Vehemah", not "Behemah bi'Vehemos" or "Behemos bi'Vhemah".

Chachamim: We find that "Behemah" can refer to many animals - "u'Vehemah Rabah"!

R. Shimon: Many are called "Behemah Rabah". They are not called (simply) Behemah.

Question: R. Shimon does not learn from "Behemah bi'Vehemah", rather, from "Hu" - just like it is only one, also the Temurah!

Version #1 (our text) Answer: At first, R. Shimon learned from "Hu". When he heard that Chachamim learn from "Behemah bi'Vehemah", he answered that he could also learn from that verse.

(Reish Lakish): R. Shimon agrees that one can make Temurah more than once on the same Kodesh animal.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: The Korban retains its Kedushah.

Version #2 (Rashi) Answer (Reish Lakish): R. Shimon agrees that one can make Temurah more than once on the same Kodesh animal (just not at the same time). He learns this from "Behemah bi'Vehemah", (Temurah works only one at a time.) (end of Version #2)

(R. Yochanan): R. Shimon holds that just like one cannot be Memir two animals on one, one cannot make Temurah more than once on one animal.

A Beraisa (#1) supports R. Yochanan, and another (#2) supports Reish Lakish.

(Beraisa #1): Just like one cannot be Memir one animal on two, one cannot make Temurah more than once on one animal.

(Beraisa #2) Suggestion: Perhaps R. Shimon holds that just like one cannot be Memir two animals on one, one cannot make Temurah more than once on one animal!

Rejection: "V'Hayah Hu u'Semuraso (Yihyeh Kodesh)" (it is Kodesh like it used to be, to make Temurah), even 100 times.

Version #1 - Question (R. Avin): According to the opinion that one cannot make Temurah more than once on one animal, if Reuven was Makdish animal "A" for his Asham, made "B" Temurah on it, and "A" got a Mum, and he redeemed it onto "C", (lost "C" and) brought "D" for his Asham, and "C" was Nitak to (automatically became) an Olah, can it make Temurah? (Acharonim - this must be according to the opinion that an Asham is Nitak to an Olas Yachid, for Korbanos Tzibur do not make Temurah. Mar'eh Kohen amends Rashi's text to say so.)

Question (Abaye): What is R. Avin's question?

If he asks whether a second animal of the same Kedushah can make Temurah (after the first did), why did he say that "D" was offered in place of "C"? (He should ask directly about "C", without Nituk!)

If he asks whether the same animal can make Temurah again when it gets (through Nituk) a new Kedushah, why did he say that "A" got a Mum (and was redeemed onto "C")? He should ask directly about "A" after Nituk!

Answer: R. Avin asks two questions. (Can a second animal of the same Kedushah can make Temurah after the first did?);

If you will say that a second animal of the same Kedushah cannot make Temurah, perhaps that is because Temurah was already made from that Kedushah, but perhaps a second animal of a different Kedushah can make Temurah!

This question is not resolved.

Version #2 - Question #1 (R. Avin): According to R. Yochanan, who says that one cannot make Temurah more than once on one animal, if Reuven was Makdish "A" for his Asham, made "B" Temurah on it, "A" got a Mum, and he redeemed it onto "C", can "C" make Temurah?

Question #2 (R. Avin): (According to R. Yochanan,) if he was Makdish "A" for his Asham, made "B" Temurah on it, (lost "A" and) brought "C" for his Asham, and "A" was Nitak to an Olah, can it make Temurah?

Question (Abaye): What is R. Avin's primary question?

If he primarily asks whether a second animal of the same Kedushah can make Temurah, why did he ask Question #2?

If he primarily asks whether the same animal can make Temurah again when it gets a new Kedushah, why did he ask Question #1?

Answer: R. Avin asks about both of these;

If (after making Temurah) an animal became blemished and was redeemed, can the second animal make Temurah? Perhaps only the first animal cannot make Temurah again. Or, perhaps only one Temurah can be made from one Kedushah!

If you will say that the second animal cannot make Temurah, because it is the same Kedushah, if (after making Temurah on "A") he lost "A", brought "C" for his Asham, and "A" was Nitak to an Olah, can it make Temurah again? Perhaps only the same animal with the same Kedushah cannot make Temurah again, but if it has a new Kedushah it can. Or, the same animal cannot make Temurah again, even if it has a new Kedushah!

These questions are not resolved.

(R. Yehoshua ben Levi): One adds a Chomesh when redeeming initial Hekdesh, but not on secondary Hekdesh (Rashi - Temurah or an animal onto which a Ba'al Mum was redeemed; Gra - anything Nitfas (made Hekdesh like an existing Hekdesh)).

(Rav Papa): He learns from "v'Im ha'Makdish Yig'al Es Beiso v'Yosaf Chamishis" - one who made (initial) Hekdesh adds a Chomesh, not one who was Matfis.

Version A (most Mefarshim except for Rashi) - Version #1 - Question (R. Avin): If Reuven was Makdish "A" for his Asham, it got a Mum, he redeemed it onto "B", adding a Chomesh, (lost "B" and) brought "C" for his Asham, and "B" was Nitak to an Olah (and got a Mum), must he add a Chomesh when redeeming it?

Question (Abaye): What is R. Avin's question?

If he asks whether a second Chomesh is added for a second animal of the same Kedushah, why did he say that "C" was offered in place of "B" (he should ask directly about "B", without Nituk)?

If he is asks whether Chomesh is added for the same animal when it gets a new Kedushah, why did he say that "A" got a Mum (and was redeemed onto "B") - he should ask directly about "A" after Nituk, perhaps it is considered secondary Hekdesh!

Answer: R. Avin asks two questions:

If you will say that a second Chomesh is not added for a second animal of the same Kedushah, perhaps that is because Chomesh was already added for that Kedushah, but perhaps it is added for a second animal of a different Kedushah!

This question is not resolved.

Version B (Rashi) - Version #1 - Question #1 (R. Avin): If Reuven was Makdish "A" for his Asham, it got a Mum, he redeemed it onto "B", adding a Chomesh, must he add another Chomesh when redeeming "B" (if it gets a Mum)?

Question #2: If he (lost "A" and) brought "B" for his Asham, and "A" was Nitak to an Olah (and got a Mum), must he add a Chomesh when redeeming it?

Question (Abaye): R. Avin should ask only his primary question (and from its answer, he can answer his other question)!

If he primarily asks whether a second Chomesh is added for a second animal of the same Kedushah, why did he ask Question #2?

Note: (If so, he must explain R. Yehoshua ben Levi's teaching to apply when a Ba'al Mum of Bedek ha'Bayis was redeemed onto a Ba'al Mum, for then the second Hekdesh is no better than the first - but here, the first animal was Pasul for Hakravah, the second is Kosher!)

If he primarily asks whether one adds a Chomesh for the initial animal if it got a new Kedushah, why did he ask Question #1?

Answer: R. Avin asked a double question:

If you will say that a second Chomesh is not added for a second animal of the same Kedushah, perhaps that is because Chomesh was already added for that Kedushah, but perhaps it is added for a second animal of a different Kedushah!

This question is not resolved.

Version #2 - Question #1 (R. Avin): If Reuven was Makdish "A" for his Asham, it got a Mum, he redeemed it onto "B", adding a Chomesh, (and "B" got a Mum), must he add a Chomesh when redeeming "B"?

Question #2: If Reuven was Makdish "A" for his Asham, (lost it and) brought "B" for his Asham, and "A" was Nitak to an Olah (and got a Mum), must he add a Chomesh when redeeming it?

Question (Abaye): What is R. Avin's primary question?

If he primarily asks whether a second Chomesh is added for a second animal of the same Kedushah, why did he ask Question #2?

If he primarily asks whether one adds a Chomesh for the initial animal if it got a new Kedushah, why did he ask Question #1?

Answer: R. Avin asks about both of these;

If you will say that one does not add a Chomesh for the initial animal if it got a new Kedushah, perhaps he does for a second animal, even though it is the same Kedushah - or, perhaps Chomesh is never added for the same Kedushah;

If you will say that one does not add a second Chomesh for a second animal of the same Kedushah, perhaps that is because he already added a Chomesh for that Kedushah, but if the initial animal has a new Kedushah, he adds - or, perhaps he does not add, for it is the same animal.

These questions are not resolved.