1)

(a)When Rami bar Chama asked whether the Makdish or the Miskaper pays the fifth when redeeming Hekdesh, he meant to ask - which of the two is considered the owner (since we already know that it is the owner who pays the Chomesh).

(b)Rava resolved the She'eilah from the Pasuk in Bechukosai (in connection with the Din of Chomesh) "ve'Im ha'Makdish Yig'al es Beiso" - implying that the Makdish is the owner, not the Miskaper.

2)

(a)Rami bar Chama asked a similar She'eilah with regard to Temurah - whether it is the Makdish or the Miskaper whose Temurah is effective.

(b)Rava proved that it must be the Miskaper who makes a Temurah from a Korban Tzibur - because otherwise, if a Tzibur or Shutfin appointed a Shali'ach to designate a Korban on their behalf, he would be able to declare a Temurah on it, contravening the rule that the Korban a Tzibur or Shutfin is not subject to Temurah.

(c)And he brought a second proof from Rav Nachman quoting Rav Huna. The problem the Beraisa (cited by Rav Huna) has with the Pasuk in Naso "Korbano la'Hashem al Nizro Mil'vad asher Tasig al Nizro" is that - a Nazir does not bring a Korban Oleh ve'Yored, in which case he is not subject to Heseg Yad.

(d)As the Beraisa therefore concludes, "Korbano la'Hashem al Nizro" refers to the Korban Nezirus that the Nazir designates - and "Mil'vad asher Tasig al Nizro", to the Korban that somebody else designates on his behalf.

(e)Rav Huna proved from there that it is the Miskaper who makes a Temurah - because that is what the Pasuk is coming to teach us (that not only does the Miskaper make a Temurah on the Korban that he designated, but he also does so on the Korban that someone else designated on his behalf).

3)

(a)Rav Huna initially rejected the suggestion that the Pasuk is coming to validate a Korban Nezirus that is donated by someone else - because he thinks that this is obvious, and does not require a Limud.

(b)We reject Rav Huna's proof however - by accepting after all, the suggestion that he rejected, because we do in fact, need the Pasuk to validate a Korban Nezirus that is donated by someone else.

4)

(a)Having refuted the second proof, the She'eilah remains unresolved (see Chok Nasan). So we resolve it from a statement by Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan, who specifically stated - that it is the Miskaper who makes a Temurah.

(b)He also ruled that it is the Makdish who pays the Chomesh (as we already learned above), and that if Reuven Ma'asers from his own crops on behalf of Shimon - he has the Tovas ha'Na'ah (as we have already learned).

(c)And he extrapolated it from the Pasuk in ki Savo "Ki Sechaleh Le'aser es Kol Ma'asar Tevu'ascha, ve'Nasata ... " - which implies that it is the one who Ma'asers (and not the one on behalf of whom he is Ma'asering) who has the choice of which Kohen to give his Terumah.

5)

(a)The Tana Kama of our Mishnah rules that if one is Meimir limbs on fetuses or vice-versa, or either of them on a complete animal or vice-versa - his Temurah is invalid.

(b)Rebbi Yossi validates a limb that one declares a Temurah on a fully grown animal ...

(c)... because the Hekdesh spreads to the rest of the animal, just like it does when one declares it Hekdesh.

(d)He concedes however, that vice-versa is not effective - because the Kedushah of a limb is too weak for its Kedushah to be transferred on to a complete animal.

6)

(a)bar Pada rules that Kedushah does not take effect on an unborn fetus. The ramifications of this ruling as regards ...

1. ... bringing it to the Beis-Hamikdash after it is born are that - unless the owner declared it Kodesh a second time, he is Chayav for bringing Chulin into the Azarah.

2. ... a Chatas that gave birth are that - the baby must die (as we will see shortly).

(b)Rebbi Yochanan ruled that if someone declares a fetus Kadosh - the Kedushah takes effect.

(c)This ruling is based on another statement of his, where he rules that if someone declares Kadosh a pregnant Chatas which subsequently gives birth - the owner has the option of bringing whichever animal he wishes as his atonement.

(d)The source of these rulings is - the Din that if someone designates two animals as a Chatas, one of them for Acharayos (as a back-up), he may bring whichever of the two he pleases as his atonement.

7)

(a)We reconcile Rebbi Yochanan's latter ruling with the Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai that the baby of a Chatas must die - by establishing his latter ruling by a Chatas that was pregnant when he designated it, and the Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai by one that became pregnant only afterwards.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan needs to issue both rulings, because, had he taught us ...

1. ... the former ruling(with regard to declaring a fetus Hekdesh), we would have thought that it does not apply to the latter one (with regard to declaring Hekdesh a Chatas) - since he did not designate the fetus specifically.

2. ... the latter ruling, we would have thought that it does not apply to the former one - because he did not designate a live animal together with it for the Kedushah to take effect.

8)

(a)In the second Lashon, we learn two related principles from Rebbi Yochanan. One is that if one specifically precludes the Ubar from the Kedushah of the mother, then it is precluded. ('Im Shayro, Meshuyar'). The other - that a baby is not considered part of the mother ('Ubar La'av Yerech Imo hu').

(b)Besides the fact that if the owner specifically precluded the unborn fetus from the Kedushah of the mother, his condition is accepted (and it must die), we also learn from Rebbi Yochanan - that if he declared the fetus to be an Olah, say, that is accepted too.

(c)Whereas bar Pada holds - 'Ubar Yerech Imo hu'. Consequently, the owner's stipulation is Bateil, and the V'lad Chatas must die.

(d)According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Hekdesh takes effect on the unborn fetus - either immediately or only after it is born, depending on a Machlokes Amora'im, as to whether ...

(e)...'Vlados Kodshim be'Me'ei Iman hein Kedoshim' or 'be'Havayasan (when they are born) hein Kedoshim'.

9)

(a)Here too, we ask why Rebbi Yochanan needs to issue both rulings. Having taught us ...

1. ... the latter ruling (with regard to declaring Hekdesh a Chatas), he found it necessary to issue the former one (with regard to declaring a fetus Hekdesh) - since, unlike there, we cannot apply the S'vara that since the Kedushah takes effect on the mother, it also takes effect on the fetus.

2. ... the former ruling, why did he find it necessary to issue the latter one - to teach us that the Kedushah takes effect on the fetus, even though the owner did not specifically so.

(b)When Rebbi Zeira repeated the Machlokes between bar Pada and Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Yirmiyah queried bar Pada from a Beraisa, where the Tana advises someone who wants to get out of giving a B'chor to the Kohen - to declare it an Olah.

(c)To reconcile the Beraisa with bar Pada - Rebbi Zeira establishes it by Kedushas Damim (which means that the animal will be sold, and it is from the proceeds that the Olah will be purchased).

(d)And when Rebbi Yirmiyah asked Rebbi Zeira whether Kedushas Damim has the power to prevent the Bechorah from taking effect, he replied - that indeed it does, as we shall see shortly.

(e)There is no problem with the fact that the Kedushas B'chor preceded the Kedushas Olah - because even those who hold that the Kedushah of S'tam Kodshim takes effect immediately, concede that the Kedushah of a B'chor only comes into effect after it is born.

10)

(a)Rebbi Zeira bases his answer on a Mishnah in Bechoros, which subjects female Kodshim whose Mum preceded their Hekdesh, and which were redeemed, to the Bechorah and Matanos, from which he extrapolates - that if they had not been redeemed, then the Kedushas Damim would indeed prevent the Bechorah from taking effect.

(b)The Tana must be speaking about Kedushas Damim and not Kedushas ha'Guf - because Kedushas ha'Guf cannot take effect on a Ba'al-Mum.

(c)The Beraisa rules in a case where someone sanctified an unborn fetus as an Olah, that ...

1. ... shearing the wool of the mother - is permitted, whereas ...

2. ... working with the mother - is prohibited, because it will weaken the fetus.

(d)When Rebbi Zeira established this Beraisa too, by Kedushas Damim, Rebbi Yirmiyah asked him - whether we find such a prohibition as working with Kedushas Damim.

11)

(a)Rebbi Zeira replied with the same Mishnah in Bechoros. Still discussing Kodshim whose Mum preceded the Hekdesh and which he redeemed, the Tana states 'Yotz'in le'Chulin li'Gazez ve'le'Aved', from which he extrapolated - that had they not been redeemed, they would be forbidden to work with, even though they are only Kedushas Damim.

(b)Rebbi Yirmiyah then queries bar Pada from our Mishnah 'Ein Mamirin Lo Eivarin be'Ubrin ... ' - implying that Hekdesh is effective (otherwise it would not be necessary to inform us that Temurah is not effective) a Kashya on bar Pada.

(c)Rebbi Yirmiyah objects to Rebbi Zeira's answer ...

1. ... that the Tana is referring to the babies of Kodshim - because this implies that once they are born they can make a Temurah, contradicting a Beraisa which specifically rules that they cannot.

2. ... that the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Yehudah, who validates a declaration of Temurah on a born baby of Kodshim - inasmuch as we will have a problem with the inference from our Mishnah, that once they are born, they are subject to Kedushah (because the Kedushah spreads to the entire animal), whereas Rebbi Yehudah says in a Beraisa 'Evarin Lo Kodshi'.

(d)To answer this Kashya, Rebbi Zeira establish our Mishnah by major limbs, on which the life of the animal depends, in keeping with a statement by Rav Chisda, who said - that Rebbi Yehudah will agree that such limbs are subject to Kedushah.

12)

(a)Finally, Rebbi Yirmiyah queries bar Pada from another Beraisa 'Makdishin Evarin ve'Ubrin, Aval Lo Mamirin'. He objects to Rebbi Zeira's establishing this Beraisa too, by the babies of Kodshim - because then they are already Kodesh, and what does the Tana mean when he says 'Makdishin'?

(b)Rebbi Zeira answers by amending the Beraisa to 'Makdishin Evarim u'Mamirin bahen' - in which case the Tana is not talking about being Makdish Ubrin at all and our previous Kashya has dissipated).

(c)When the Tana says ...

1. ... 'Makdishin Evarim', he means - that the limb becomes Kadosh and the Kedushah then spreads to the rest of the animal.

2. ... 'u'Mamirin bahen', he means - that one can be Meimir on the animal after the Kedushah of the limb has spread to it.

(d)He cannot mean literally what he says - because even Rebbi Yossi, who holds that one can be Meimir a limb on a complete animal, agrees that one cannot be Meimir a complete animal on a limb, so how much more so can one not be Meimir a limb on a limb.