Clarification: "Tov" that is Kodesh with "Ra" that is Chulin ...

Sequence: The rule is that the first-mentioned is Hekdesh.

Clarification: This is the opposite of the others (mentioned in the previous Dibur), since it is the first one mentioned that adopts the Kedushah (See Olas Sh'lomoh.

Clarification: And according to Rava, both of them - since it could have written "ve'Lo Yamir Oso be'Ra O Ra".

Introduction to Question: The Gemara says in the second Perek of Bechoros (Daf 14b)states 'Now that you said that Ra of Kodesh cannot be exchanged with Tov of Chulin, need it mention Tov of Kodesh with Ra of Chulin?' ...

Introduction to Question: Implying that "Tov be'Ra" is superfluous - to preclude where the blemish preceded the Hekdesh, that one cannot substitute them with a Temurah ...

Question #1: Which goes neither like Abaye nor like Rava?

Question #2: Furthermore, how can the Gemara say 'Tov be'Ra Miba'i?', seeing as we need it to teach us that (Bedi'eved) Ra of Chulin can be substituted for Tov of Kodesh?

Answer: What the Gemara there means is that - the Torah should write "ve'Lo Yamir Oso Ra be'Tov O be'Ra" - and why does it see fit to write "Tov be'Ra"? ...

Answer (cont.): Meaning in turn, why write "Tov"? - not that it should omit Tov be'Ra" ... but just "Tov" - like Abaye.

Explanation #1: In the first Lashon Rashi explains that this is an answer, and that is why he learns "Beheimah bi'Veheimah".

Refutation: This is a Dochek however, since on the contrary, Rebbi Shimon's words imply that "Behimah" means one and not two ... so how can he (Resh Lakish) say that he learns from it that one may be Meimar and Meimar again?

Explanation #2: In the second Lashon, Rashi has the text that initially Rebbi Shimon cited "ve'Hayah Hu u'Semuraso"; but when he saw that the Rabbanan Darshened from "Beheimah bi'Veheimah", he said to them that he too can learn his reasoning from there ...

Conclusion: Resh Lakish then made his own statement, not to answer the Kashya.

The two Leshonos: There are two Leshonos in the Gemara.

Rashi: Rashi explains (the first Lashon) based on the second Lashon of the Yerushalmi ...

The First Lashon: The basic explanation is as follows: Where it became blemished, he redeemed it on another animal and then obtained atonement via another Asham i.e. where the first one got lost and was subsequently found and was then switched to an Olah - that is 'Sh'tei Gufin u'Shetei Kedushos'.

The first Lashon (cont.): If it became blemished and he redeemed it on another animal but he was not atoned via another Asham - that is 'Sh'nei Gufin u'Kedushah Achas'.

The first Lashon (concl.): If it did not become blemished but he attained atonement via another Asham and it (the first Asham) was switched to an Olah i.e. if it got lost and he brought another Asham - that is 'Sh'tei Kedushos ve'Guf Echad'.

The Second Lashon: And according to the second Lashon 've'Niskaper be'Asham Acher' means 'Alternatively, he obtained atonement via another Asham, and they are two separate She'eilos.

Conclusion: And the Gemara asks the same two She'eilos (later on the Amud) with regard to 'Mosif Chomesh'.