1)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that if one is Meimir a sheep for cattle or for goats, males for females, Temimim for Ba'alei-Mumin, or vice-versa - the Temurah is valid.

(b)When the Pasuk in Bechukosai writes ...

1. ... "Tov be'Ra", it means that - one declares a Tam a Temurah for a Korban that is a Ba'al-Mum.

2. ... "Ra be'Tov" - that one declares a Ba'al-Mum a Temurah for a Korban that is a Tam.

(c)One can declare a Temurah on a Ba'al-Mum - provided the Hekdesh preceded the blemish.

2)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk there "Beheimah bi'Veheimah" that - all of the cases in the Mishnah are included in the La'av of Temurah.

(b)Abaye suggests that had the Pasuk written "Lo Yachlifenu ... Tov be'Ra O Ra bo" - it would have implied that one is forbidden to switch a Ba'al-Mum for either a Tam or a Ba'al-Mum ...

(c)And it inserts "be'Tov" to teach us that - Temurah only applies to a Ba'al-Mum whose Kedushah preceded the Mum.

3)

(a)According to Rava, both "Tov" and "be'Tov" are superfluous. The Torah ought to have written - "Lo Yachlifenu ve'Lo Yamir oso be'Ra O Ra bo" ...

(b)... because "oso" itself implies a Tam).

(c)He therefore learns "be'Tov" like Abaye, whereas "Tov" comes to teach us that - one may not even switch a Tam for a Tam.

4)

(a)Abaye learns the prohibition of a Tam for a Tam from a Kal-va'Chomer from a Tam for a Ba'al-Mum (which is forbidden even though he improves the Korban).

(b)Rava counters that with - the principle Ein Onshin min ha'Din (one cannot learn Malkos from a Kal-va'Chomer).

(c)Abaye too, holds of Ein Onshin min ha'Din - but not in this case, since, seeing as a Tam of Kodesh and a Ba'al-Mum of Kodesh are both Kodesh, once one knows one, one knows the other (and it is not considered a Kal-va'Chomer).

5)

(a)The Beraisa explains that - whereas "Lo Yachlifenu" refers to switching somebody else's Korban, "Lo Yamir oso", refers to switching one's own.

(b)Despite having written "Lo Yachlifenu", the Torah needs to add "ve'Lo Yamir oso" to teach us that - even if he intends to retain the original animal Hekdesh, he still receives Malkos (see Rabeinu Gershom).

(c)In trying to establish Beheimah shel Acherim, the problem in establishing the Hekdesh as belonging to ...

1. ... himself and the Chulin to somebody else is - how one can be Makdish something that is not his ("Ish ki Yakdish es Beiso Kodesh").

2. ... somebody else and the Chulin to himself is - how he can even attempt to switch with someone else's Hekdesh animal against the owner's will.

(d)We conclude like the latter case, which speaks - where the other person actually announced that whoever wishes to declare a Temurah on his Kodshim animal may do so.

6)

(a)Our Mishnah validates two Temuros for one Korban or vice-versa - and even a hundred Temuros for one Korban or vice-versa.

(b)Rebbi Shimon disagrees. He learns from "Vehayah Hu u'Semuraso Yih'yeh Kodesh" - just as Temurah is only effective on one Korban (because "Hu" implies one), so too is only one Temurah effective (because the Torah here compares Temurah to the Korban.

(c)Whereas the Tana Kama in a Beraisa learns from "Beheimah bi'Veheimah" that - any amount of animals can become Temurah on any amount of Korbanos (since "Beheimah" implies the plural as well as the singular).

7)

(a)Rebbi Shimon there counters the Tana Kama - in that, since the word "Beheimah" implies the singular, one can only declare one animal a Temurah on one Korban.

(b)And he counters their counter-argument from the Pasuk in Yonah "u'Veheimah Rabah", which refers to many animals - by conceding that whereas "Beheimah Rabah" implies the plural, "Beheimah" on its its own does not ...

(c)... and Rebbi Shimon in the Beraisa cites "Beheimah" (despite the fact that in the Mishnah he learned it from "Hu") - to inform the Rabbanan (who cite "Beheimah" there as their source) that he is able to learn his ruling from the same souyrce as they learn theirs.

(d)According to another text, Resh Lakish reconciles the two D'rashos - by learning from "Beheimah" (see Tosfos DH 've'Ha') that as long as one is Meimar one animal at a time, Rebbi Shimon concedes that it is possible to declare even a hundred Temuros on one Korban

8)

(a)According to our text, Resh Lakish comes to qualify Rebbi Shimon. In his opinion, Rebbi Shimon will concede that one can be Meimar a number of animals on one Korban one after the other - based on the S'vara 'Where has the Kedushah gone?' In other words, why should one not be able to do so, seeing as the Kedushah of the Hekdesh is still intact?

(b)According to Rebbi Yochanan - Rebbi Shimon does not make the distinction that Resh Lakish claims he does.

(c)We support each opinion with a Beraisa. In the Beraisa that supports Resh Lakish, the Tana learns from "Vehayah hu u'Semuraso" that - one transgresses a separate La'av each time one is Meimir even on the same Korban.

9)

(a)Rebbi Avin asks what the Din will be according to Rebbi Yochanan ('Ein Mamirin ve'Chozrin u'Mamirin'), in a case where Reuven designated an Asham for his atonement, and declared a Temurah on it. Then, after the first Asham became blemished (Humam), he transferred the Kedushah on to another animal, which got lost. And after he brought a third animal on the Mizbe'ach as his Kaparah (Niskaper), the second one was found, upon which he sent it out to the field to graze (Ro'eh), to be redeemed as an Olah after obtaining a Mum. His She'eilah is whether - here too, Rebbi Yochanan will hold Ein Mamirin ve'Chozrin u'Mamirin, or whether, here it is different - because, as opposed to the case of Rebbi Yochanan a. there are two different bodies (Niskaper), and b. because there are two different Kedushos (Asham and Olah [Humam]) involved.

(b)Abaye queries Rebbi Avin inasmuch as, had he meant to ask from ...

1. ... two bodies and one Kedushah, he ought to have closed the case - after the owner had transferred the Kedushah on to the second animal (Humam [and omitted Niskaper]).

2. ... one body and two Kedushos - then he ought to have omitted the fact that the first animal became blemished (Niskaper).

(c)We answer that he really meant to ask one She'eilah that stems from another, meaning - firstly that of two bodies and one Kedushah (Humam), and then, assuming that the Temurah is not effective there, seeing as it is still the same Kedushah, then what will be the Din in a case where he brought another animal in its stead (Niskaper), and there are two Kedushos as well? Perhaps there, Rebbi Yochanan will agree that the Temurah is effective.

(d)On the other hand, Rebbi Yochanan might still hold that he cannot be Meimar - because both the second animal and the second Kedushah stem from the original animal and the original Kedushah, on which he already declared a Temurah.

10)

(a)In the second Lashon (the Lashon Yerushalmi) Rebbi Avin asks - first about Humam alone (one body but two Kedushos), and then about Niskaper alone (one body but two Kedushos), in quick succession.

(b)Abaye explains the sequence of the two She'eilos. The second She'eilah assumes that in a case of two bodies and one Kedushah (Humam) - Rebbi Yochanan will still hold 'Ein Mamirin ve'Chozrin u'Mamirin'.

(c)And the She'eilah is that - perhaps in the case of one body and two Kedushos (Niskaper), Rebbi Yochanan will concede that, since it is a different Kedushah, Chozrin u'Mamirin.

(d)The outcome of Rebbi Avin's She'eilah in both Leshonos is - Teiku ('Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos ve'Ibayos').

11)

(a)Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi confines the Din of the owner adding a fifth - to where one redeems Hekdesh Rishon (the original Hekdesh) but not where one redeems Hekdesh Sheini ...

(b)... which means - either where the initial animal obtained a Mum, and the owner transferred the Kedushah on to another animal, or with regard to a Temurah.

(c)Rav Papa extrapolates Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi's ruling from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "ve'Im ha'Makdish Yigal es Beiso, ve'Yasaf Chamishis ... " - implying that it is the Makdish (as opposed to the Matfis) who has to add a fifth.

12)

(a)Rebbi Avin repeats his double-barreled She'eilah, regarding whether the owner needs to pay an extra fifth for redeeming the animal in question, with reference to an Asham. The case of ...

1. ... two bodies and one Kedushah is - where the owner declared an animal an Asham, and after it became blemished, he added a fifth and redeemed it, and purchased a replacement which also became blemished.

2. ... two bodies and two Kedushos is - where after the replacement got lost, he brought a third animal to atone for him, and when the second one was found, he sent it into the field until it obtained a blemish, and he now wants to redeem it to buy an Olah with the proceeds.

(b)Abaye asked what Rebbi Avin meant by these She'eilos - because he thought that he was asking two independent She'eilos, one regarding two bodies and one Kedushah, and one regarding one body and two Kedushos. So he wanted to know why he did not ask one of them, and automatically imply the other.

(c)Assuming that the case of two bodies and one Kedushah is subject to a fifth - will we reconcile this with Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who rules that Hekdesh Sheini does not add a fifth - by establishing Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi by someone who declared a Ba'al-Mum to Bedek ha'Bayis (where the second Kedushah does not add anything), whereas the current case is speaking where the first body was a Ba'al-Mum which he declared Kodshei Mizbe'ach (which adds a new Kedushah).

(d)The case of two bodies and one Kedushah must be speaking where the first animal became blemished - because it is forbidden to redeem Kodshei Mizbe'ach as long as they are Tamim.

13)

(a)In the second Lashon, from the fact that Rebbi Avin inserts 'Humam, Abaye extrapolates that - he cannot have been asking about one body.

(b)And what he is asking is - firstly about two bodies and one Kedushah (Humam without Niskaper), and then, assuming that Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi will still hold that the owner need not add a fifth (since it is the same Kedushah), what the Din will be if, in addition, it is also two Kedushos; whether he will not then agree that he adds a fifth.

(c)The outcome of the She'eilah is - Teiku.