Rebuttal (R. Yehudah ha'Kohen): This is a question in Menachos (87a) whether or not one is lashed for a Ba'al Mum for [Nisuch of] wine Pasul for Nesachim. It was not resolved.

Answer #2 (Tosfos): Menasech of water Yochi'ach. One is liable for this outside, even though we do not find that one is lashed for Menasech of a Ba'al Mum.

Question (Tosfos): How can we say that we learn from a Tzad ha'Shavah of Shechutei Chutz, Ha'alah and Menasech?

We can ask that one is liable for these for idolatry!

Answer: The Gemara did not literally mean to reveal about Kabalah, so we not learn it from a Tzad ha'Shavah. We do not need this for Kabalah;

Rather, it reveals about Kemitzah, so we not learn it from a Tzad ha'Shavah. We cannot refute this like we asked, for one is liable for it for idolatry, just like one is liable for Shechitah,

Kemitzah of a Minchah is in place of Shechitah of a Korban in every way.

Question: We can ask similarly about Kemitzah! One is liable for the other [Avodos] Al Chametz, but not for Kemitzah, like Pesachim 63b connotes!

Answer: Menasech Yochi'ach. One is exempt for Menasech Al Chametz, but liable for Menasech b'Chutz.

Question: In the end, we do not learn [Kemitzah] from them, unless we say that Menasech is Yochi'ach;

Why must we say that we learn [from a Tzad ha'Shavah] from them? We can learn from Menasech itself, for there is nothing to ask against this!

Answer: We can ask that [a place for] Menasech was fixed, on top of the Mizbe'ach. We cannot learn to Kemitzah [which is Kosher in the entire Azarah] or Zerikah, in which one stands on the floor and throws blood below Chut ha'Sikra.

Note: Si'ach Yitzchak says that Shechitah Yochi'ach (one may slaughter on the floor), so we can learn from Menasech and Shechitah or Zerikah...

Question (R. Moshe of Pontaiza): In Chulin (81b), a Mishnah says that one who slaughters Parah Adumah, Shor ha'Niskal or Eglah Arufah is liable [for Oso v'Es Beno], and R. Shimon exempts;

R. Shimon exempts because the Shechitah is improper (it does not permit the meat).

Citation (82a) Question (Mishnah): If the murderer was found before Arifah, the calf may graze with the herd.

Citation (cont.) Inference: Eglah Arufah is not forbidden in its lifetime. Why does R. Shimon exempt [for Shechitah? Only Arifah forbids it!]

Summation of Tosfos' question: Due to this, we said that Eglah Arufah must be deleted from the text of the Mishnah. Why didn't we say that "Shechitah" in the Mishnah refers to Arifah?

R. Shimon exempts because one may not eat it. Chachamim obligate, because its Arifah is its Shechitah, just like we say here that pushing Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach off the cliff is its Shechitah!

Strengthening of question: In Zevachim (70b), we say that Arifah is Metaher from [Tum'as] Nevelah!

Answer (R. Tam): If so, the Mishnah should not have taught "ha'Shochet", rather, "ha'Oref".

Rebuttal: This is difficult. Perhaps the Tana taught "ha'Shochet" due to Parah Adumah and Shor ha'Niskal, which were taught with it!

Support #1 (for Rebuttal): We find (Chulin 29a) "the Seifa discusses Kodshim." We ask "if so, why does it say their Shechitah is Kosher? It should say "their Melikah is Kosher"!

The Gemara answered that since it previously discussed animals, it says "their Shechitah is Kosher" (even though really, it discusses Melikah).

Support #2: It was taught there "If one slaughtered a Chayah or bird and no blood came out..." The Gemara asked "if it discusses Kodshim, do we find a Chayah of Kodshim?!"

It did not ask "if it discusses Kodshim, do we find Shechitah of birds?!" Rather, it mentions Shechitah due to Behemah and Chayah [even though it discusses Melikah of birds].

Assertion: [Mechusar Zeman may be offered later] even according to R. Yochanan, who holds (Kidushin 7b, Zevachim 12a) that Dichuy me'Ikaro (from the beginning) is Dichuy;

He says so even regarding Ba'alei Chayim, regarding an animal of partners. If one was Makdish his half, and later bought the other half and was Makdish it, it is [fully] Kodesh but he cannot offer it.

This is unlike Mechusar Zeman. There, from when he was Makdish it, it was Nidcheh.

Note: The Maharsha asks that also the animal of partners was Nidcheh when he first was Makdish his half! He says that Tosfos (Pesachim 98a DH Minah) says that Mechusar Zeman is different, for the Torah decreed that it is not proper until then. Therefore, we cannot learn from there to elsewhere. If so, there was no question from there! Karnei Re'em says that Hekdesh of Mechusar Zeman is like a stipulation to become Hekdesh afterwards, when it is proper, so Dichuy does not apply. Hekdesh of a partner is different. It took effect right away, and it was Nidcheh. Tosfos' next question is that also Mechusar Zeman of the previous night takes effect right away!

Implied question: Also regarding Mechusar Zeman, we say that it may become Kodesh on the night [before its eighth day], and it is offered during the [eighth] day;

Even though when he was Makdish it, it was not possible to offer it, when it becomes possible the next day, he offers it. We do not say that this is [permanently disqualified due to] Dichuy me'Ikaro;

Question #2: The same applies to every Korban that one was Makdish during the day and a night passed, i.e. he did not offer it during the day. Why don't we say that he can no longer offer it, for it is Nir'eh v'Nidcheh?

Suggestion: Night is not Mechusar Zeman, and it is not considered Nidcheh.

Rejection: Here it is considered Nidcheh, even though it becomes proper again during the day!

Answer: Since it is not Mechusar Ma'aser b'Gufo (nothing must be done to the animal itself to be Machshir it), it is not considered Nidcheh.

Also, night is not proper to offer any Korban. However, here we must bring two others and do a lottery on them. This is like Mechusar Ma'aseh.

Also, it is time of offering, and even so he may not offer it. Therefore, it is considered Dichuy.

Explanation #1: He holds like R. Eliezer.

Explanation #2: He can hold even like Rabanan. Even though Rabanan argue there with R. Eliezer in a Beraisa, Rabanan of the Mishnah permit mid'Oraisa.

Support: The words of the Mishnah connote like this. Rabanan forbid only the remaining limb. Those that were offered on the Ma'arachah are not brought down;

Mid'Rabanan they forbid l'Chatchilah [to offer the last limb], like the Mishnah connotes. "Even if they offered all of them except for one, it goes to Beis ha'Sereifah" [but not what was offered].

Explanation: There are three Drashos:

If the Mum passed, Yirtzu (they are acceptable);

Anything Nidcheh, once it was Nidcheh, is [permanently] Nidcheh.

They are acceptable amidst a mixture.

Implied question: Why don't we bring there (Zevachim 77b) the Drashah of R. Yochanan? (We explain like the Maharsha, unlike the Hagahah in the margin.)

Answer: We wanted to bring only the other two Drashos that even Rav admits to them.

Implied question: There it connotes that R. Eliezer's Drashah is from the "Hei" in Bahem! (Here we say that Rav holds like R. Eliezer, and he does not expound the Hei.)

Answer: One need not be concerned for this. The Gemara was not meticulous about this.

Opinion #1: Also in our Mishnah, this is true. (If the second is nicer, we use it.)

Opinion #2: Perhaps this applies only to Korbanos that are eaten (e.g. Korban Pesach), or what is done in the Azarah;

However, the Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, and the inner goat, which is burned outside of three Machanos, even if the second is nicer, we offer the first.

Suggestion: Above, when we said that R. Yochanan's reason is because it says "Bahem", we could have said that it is due to "Ya'amad Chai", and not that it already stood;

Implied question: He did not know the Beraisa!

Answer: Even so, we can say that his reason was from this verse.

Regarding other Korbanos, he agrees to Rav that we learn from a temporary Mum.

Rejection: Even regarding other Korbanos, R. Yochanan argues with Rav and holds that Ba'alei Chayim can be Nidchim;

Even Dichuy me'Ikaro is Dichuy, like the case of an animal of two partners.

Conclusion: We must say that the Beraisa supports R. Yochanan, but not for his reason. R. Yochanan learns from "Bahem", like above. He holds that Ba'alei Chayim Nidchim;

This Tana holds that Dichuy applies only to slaughtered animals.

He learns from a temporary Mum like Rav regarding other Korbanos, like Rav, except for here, for "Ya'amad Chai" teaches that there is Dichuy.

Question: Also a Mishnah connotes like R. Yochanan, and it is [a] better [support] than the Beraisa. It shows that even Dichuy me'Ikaro is Dichuy!

Citation (Pesachim 97b - Mishnah): If one separated a female for his Korban Pesach, it is Ro'eh (grazes) until it gets a Mum, then it is sold, and Shelamim is brought with the money.

Citation (cont.): We learn three things from this. Ba'alei Chayim are Nidchim, Dichuy me'Ikaro is Dichuy...

Answer: There is different. It is total Dichuy. A female is never proper for the Korban for which it was separated, i.e. Pesach.

Support: This also answers what some ask about an animal of two partners. What was R. Yochanan's Chidush? The Mishnah of a female separated for Pesach teaches this!

Suggestion: We could say that R. Yochanan comes to teach that its Temurah is like itself. The Mishnah did not teach this.

Rejection: The Gemara said that we learn three laws from R. Yochanan. It should have derived [them] from the Mishnah. Why did it need to derive from R. Yochanan?

Conclusion: Rather, we cannot learn from the Mishnah, for one might have thought that there is different, for it is never proper for Pesach, for which it was separated.

Therefore, it is permanent Dichuy. It itself is not offered even for Mosar Pesach, which is a Shelamim. Only its value is offered.

Question #1: Why do we say that it is like Rav? We should ask it against R. Yochanan, for we cannot establish it like him at all!

Question #2: Why did we initially err and say that it is good for R. Yochanan? We cannot establish it like him at all "and R. Yehudah said further..."!

Question #3: The second version below concludes that it is difficult for R. Yochanan, but the first version does not!

Answer: Initially, we said that it is good for R. Yochanan, before we anticipated that "and R. Yehudah said further..." is difficult;

We could explain that they argue about two matters. Firstly, the first Tana says that it (the unneeded animal) grazes, and R. Yehudah says that it dies;

The Mishnah then says "R. Yehudah said further..." I.e. he heard that the first Tana says that if the goat for Azazel died... the second grazes;

Inference: The case is, the goat for Azazel died before the goat for Hash-m was slaughtered.

We can say that it died before Viduy. This is only because it died before Viduy, but had it died after Viduy, we would not need to bring another two and cast a lottery;

Regarding this, he holds like R. Shimon, who said above (40b) that it must be alive until verbal Kaparah (Viduy);

R. Yehudah comes to argue with this. If the Mishtale'ach died, we spill the blood and bring two others;

He teaches that it depends on Kaparah through blood (Zerikah);

This is like R. Yehudah taught above, that it must be alive until Matanos Dam of its counterpart;

It does not depend on Viduy at all. Even if he did Viduy on the Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach before Matan Dam of the inner goat, and the Mishtale'ach died, he spills the blood.

This explains why R. Yehudah said "and further."

Conclusion: In any case, we retract and say that our Mishnah connotes like Rav, for we do not want to explain "and further" this way, for the Mishnah does not connote that it comes to teach this;

Since we can say this way, or we can say like the Makshan initially thought, we do not conclude that this is difficult.

However, the second version did not initially say "this is good for R. Yochanan." Rather, it immediately challenged him.

It is totally unwilling to explain "and further" like I explained in the first version according to the Makshan, who said "this is good for R. Yochanan." Therefore, it concludes that this is difficult for him.