Question: Why do we need "Ish Ish" to teach us that B'nei No'ach can bring Nedarim and Nedavos like a Yisrael (Chulin, Daf 13b)? Why can we not learn it from this Pasuk ...

Question (cont.): Because, since it says "Lo Takrivu es Eileh", it implies that they cannot bring these, but that they can bring animals without a blemish?

Implied Question: One cannot however, ask the reverse - 'Why we need "mi'Yad ben Neichar"? Why can we not learn it from "Ish Ish"? ...

Answer: Since we need "ben Neichar" to teach us the D'rashah cited here 'That there is no difference between their Mizbe'ach and ours ...

Question (cont.): But why do we need "Ish Ish"? (See Shitah Mekubetzes, 32, and Ein Mishpat).

Answer: Rebbi Shimshon bar Avraham answers that e need it regarding the Machlokes between Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili and Rebbi Akiva in Perek Eilu Menachos (Menachos, Daf 73b) ...

Answer (cont): 'Why does the Torah say "la'Olah"? To preclude Nezirus, says Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili; Rebbi Akiva says "Olah", to preclude other Korbanos'.

Reason: 'Because one can say that since it was initially without blemish, he thinks that "Even though it obtained a blemish, I will declare it Hekdesh and sacrifice it" ...

Reason (cont.): And since he has the intention of sacrificing it and bringing it on the Mizbe'ach, he will receive Malkos for declaring it Hekdesh ...

Reason (concl.): Whereas in the case of an animal that was born blemished, it is no different than a stick, and one can assume that it never crossed his mind to sacrifice it' (Rashi's words).

Question: ha'Rav Rav Mar queries this however, in that how can one say that he did not intend to sacrifice it ...

Question (cont) : Seeing as they warned him 'not to declare a Ba'al-Mum Hekdesh to go on the Mizbe'ach', and he accepted the warning, announcing 'That is precisely what I am going to do!' ...

Question (concl.): Otherwise he would not receive Malkos?

Answer: Therefore the Ram explains that Resh Lakish is referring, not to the La'av not to declare Hekdesh, but to that of not to burn on the Mizbe'ach and not to sprinkle the blood ...

Clarification: And what the Gemara means is 'They only said that one transgresses Bal Taktiru and Bal Tazriku if one declared Hekdesh a Tam which became a Ba'al-Mum ...

Reason: Because, since the Kedushah of the Mizbe'ach took effect on it before it obtained a blemish, he intended to bring it on the Mizbe'ach

Clarification (cont.): But an animal that was initially blemished before it was sanctified, is no more than a stick, and it would not occur to him that it is fit to bring on the Mizbe'ach, in which case he will not receive Malkos.

Clarification: And all the more so if he is Makdish it for the value of an Olah or of some other Korban.

Clarifying the Sugya later: When the Gemara says later (on Daf 18b) that if someone declares a female animal an Olah, it should be sold, and the proceeds used to purchase an Olah - we must say that he receives Malkos, according to Rava

Clarifying the Sugya later (cont.): Though not according to Rebbi, who says only if he is Makdish it for the animal itself (but not for its value).

Clarifying the Mishnah later: And the same applies to the Mishnah later in Perek Keitzad Ma'arimin (on Daf 27b) Where he declares on a non-Kasher animal and on one that is blemished 'Harei Eilu Olah'. His declaration is not valid, but if he says 'Harei Eilu le'Olah', it is ...

Clarifying the Mishnah later (concl.): They are then sold, and with the proceeds, he purchases an Olah ...

Conclusion: There too, we must say that he receives Malkos.

Clarification: Rashi explains that when Abaye says 'Ein Lokin', he means that he does not receive two sets of Malkos, but one, he does - according to the opinion that that one receives one set of Malkos for a La'av she'bi'Kelalos ...

Source: In Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim Daf 41b) - Rashi's words.

Proof: And this is evident in the Sugya, when it says shortly 'Take out "a partial burning" and replace it with 'Kabalas ha'Dam' ...

Proof (cont.): And if he did not receive Malkos at all, there would still be one case missing.

Question: If they acquire them in their lifetime, how can they declare a Temurah, according to the opinion that one goes after the one who is being atoned?

Answer: The Gemara means also after the one who is being atoned (and not exclusively).

Inference: This implies that a B'chor nowadays belongs to the owner.

Introduction to Question: In Perek Shor she'Nagach ha'Parah (Bava Kama, Daf 53b) Abaye says that an ox and an ox that is Pesulei ha'Mukdashin gore, he (the ox) pays Chatzi Nezek; and the Gemara establishes it by a Mu'ad ...

Contradiction: But the Pesulei ha'Mukdashin ox is Patur - so we see that it is not considered "Re'ehu" ...

Contradiction: And it also says there that a Shor of a Hedyot that gores a Shor Pesulei ha'Mukdashin is Chayav from which we see that it is considered "Re'ehu"?

Resolution: We are therefore forced to say that the first ruling is speaking about a firstborn ox, which cannot be redeemed, whereas the latter case is speaking about other Kodshim, which can be redeemed when they obtain a blemish.

Introduction to Question (cont.): And the Gemara there is referring to nowadays - since the Amora'im in question did not live in the time of the Beis-ha'Mikdash ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): Yet the Gemara says that it is not his Mamon ...

Question: Whilst here the Gemara maintains that nowadays it is his Mamon?

Answer: We therefore need to say that here it speaks according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, and there, according to the Rabbanan (See Shitah Mekubetzes, Hashmatos).

Implied Question: Even though in the first Perek of Bava Kama (Daf 12b & 13a, DH 've'Im') asks 'Let it answer that one goes according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, and the other, according to the Rabbanan?'?

Answer: We have to say that according to that, the Sugya in Perek ha'Parah is not correct.