1)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan permits two sons to bring the Korban that their father left when he died, but not to declare another animal a Temurah (an exchange) on it - because Shutfin cannot make a Temurah ...

(b)... which we learn - from the fact that the Parshah of Temurah throughout is written in the singular.

(c)This seems to contradict Rebbi Yochanan's previous statement (regarding a father who dies, leaving two sons and a Minchah) - in that there he seemed to hold that heirs do not acquire the Korban that they inherit, whereas here he seems to say that they do (otherwise why should they not be permitted to make a Temurah?).

(d)When we reply Sha'ani Hasam, de'Amar K'ra "Im Hamer Yamir", 'Lerabos es ha'Yoresh', we mean - that this is a Gezeiras Hakasuv, precluding Shutfin from bringing their father's Korban, even though they do not acquire it.

2)

(a)Rebbi Ya'akov from Nehar Pakud asked (based on the Pasuk [also in Bechukosai, in connection with Ma'aser Sheini]) "ve'Im Ga'ol Yig'al" that - by the same token, heirs who inherit their father's Ma'aser Sheini should not be permitted to redeem it (whereas in fact they can).

(b)And we answer that - Ma'aser Sheini is different, inasmuch as even their father would have been permitted to redeem Ma'aser Sheini that he owned be'Shutfus.

(c)In a case where Reuven designated an animal to fulfill Shimon's Neder, Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules that ...

1. ... Reuven (the Makdish) adds a fifth (should he come to redeem it), but that ...

2. ... Shimon (the owner) is able to make a Temurah.

(d)In the same vein, in a case where Reuven separates Terumah on behalf of Shimon - Rebbi Yochanan ascribes the Tovas Hana'ah (the right to choose the Kohen) to Reuven.

3)

(a)This proves - that in order to make a Temurah on a Korban, one has to actually own it ...

(b)... and it prompts Rav Asi to ask Rav Ashi on our previous conclusion, that heirs do not own the Korban that they inherited from their father.

(c)Rav Ashi answered mi'Kiv'a Lo Mechapra, mi'Kufya Mechapra by which he meant that - they partially own it, sufficiently to be able to make a Temurah, but not sufficiently to be considered Shutfin.

4)

(a)We learned above that if Kodshim are Shechted she'Lo Lish'man, they are nevertheless Kasher, but the owner remains obligated to bring the Korban again. When we ask whether Kipru O Lo Kipru, we mean to ask - whether the Korban at least atones for the sin for which it is brought, or not.

(b)The ramifications of the She'eilah are that - if it does, he does not need to worry about getting punished for his sin until he brings his second Korban.

(c)Rav Shisha b'rei de'Rav Idi says Mistavra de'Lo Kipru - because otherwise, what is the point of the second Korban?

(d)On the other hand, one might ask, if it does not atone, what is the point of bringing it? Rav Ashi explains why Rav Shisha b'rei de'Rav Idi opted to ask the way he did - because one can answer the latter Kashya in that one brings the first one because it was designated to be brought li'Shemo (so it has to be brought).

5)

(a)If someone sins again after designating his Chatas for a previous sin - the Chatas will not cover his second sin.

(b)We ask whether the same will apply to an Olah with regard to Mitzvos Asei that he transgressed after having designated an Olah. The Olah there might cover his latter sins too - because unlike a Chatas, the Olah is not obligatory (in which case, its designation [Hafrashah] may well not connect it exclusively with the sin for which he initially designated it).

(c)We try to resolve the She'eilah with the Beraisa, where the Tana asks on the Pasuk "Ve'samach ... Ve'nirtzah lo Lechaper alav" - why the Torah connects the Kaparah with the Semichah, when we know that it is really connected with the (sprinkling of the) blood.

(d)The Tana therefore explains that in a case where one failed to perform the Semichah 'Ma'aleh alav ha'Kasuv Ke'ilu Lo Kiper, ve'Kiper', which, we suggest, means that - although the Korban atones for the sin that he committed before the Hafrashah, it does not atone for the Semichah that he transgressed after it.

(e)Bearing in mind that the Pasuk is talking about an Olah - this will resolve our She'eilah.

6)

(a)Rava points out that as long as the animal has not been Shechted, the Mitzvah to perform Semichah still remains - and one only transgresses it after the Shechitah, and it is obvious that the Olah cannot atone for that (see Tosfos DH 'le'Achar').

(b)When, based on a Mishnah in Nega'im, Rav Huna bar Yehudah asked Rava why the Tana cannot mean 'Kiper Gavra, Lo Kiper Kamei Shemaya', he means that - the Olah does indeed atone for sins that he performed after the Hafrashah, but that, since he performed it without Semichah, it lacks perfection.

7)

(a)In the Mishnah in Nega'im, Rebbi Akiva comments (regarding the Pasuk "ve'ha'Nosar asher al Kaf ha'Kohen ... Le'chaper alav Lifnei Hash-m") that - if the Kohen fails to place the remaining oil on the head of the Metzora, his atonement is ineffective ...

(b)... whereas according to Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri, the atonement is effective, but it lacks perfection (the source for Rav Huna bar Yehudah's previous explanation).

(c)He cannot mean to obligate the Metzora to bring another Korban - because he first referred to this Mitzvah as Sheyarei Mitzvah (the mere remnant of a Mitzvah), adding that he receives atonement whether he puts the oil on the Metzora's head or not.

(d)We refute Rav Huna bar Yehudah's proof however, in that what Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri might mean that - he achieves atonement for the placing of the oil on the Metzora's thumbs, but not for placing it on his head.

8)

(a)Rebbi Shimon learned in a Beraisa that the lambs of Shavu'os come to atone for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav (where the sinner had no knowledge of his sin, as we learned in Shevu'os). This statement is unacceptable however - inasmuch as the lambs of Shavu'os were Shelamim, which do not come to atone.

(b)So we amend Kivsei Atzeres to - Se'irei Atzeres.

(c)They brought two goats on Shavu'os - one as part of the Musaf, and the other, together with the Sh'tei ha'Lechem.

(d)Seeing as the first goat atoned for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav - the second one came to atone for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav that occurred from the time that one brought the first goat until one brought the second one.

9)

(a)The Tana states here that the Torah takes pity on the money of K'lal Yisrael - when it extrapolates from here that (were it not for that pity) Yisrael should constantly be bringing Korbanos for their sins.

(b)The Tana refers to Tum'as Mikdash as an Asei de'le'Achar Hafrashah. He calls it an Asei - because besides the La'av, the Torah in Beha'aloscha presents it as an Asei "Vi'yeshalchu min ha'Machaneh ... ve'Chol Tamei la'Nafesh".

(c)Initially, we explain the statement (mentioned earlier) Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav that one perpetrated between the times that one brought the two goats (for which the second goat atones) as - sins that one perpetrated between the times that the two goats were brought even though they were designated simultaneously ...

(d)... a proof that even a Chatas atones for sins that were performed after it was designated (let alone an Olah [see Shitah Mekubetzes]).

10)

(a)to refute the proof, we establish the Beraisa - where they designated the second Chatas after the first one, and the statement Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav that one perpetrated between the times that one brought the two goats really means that - the second goat comes to atone for sins that were perpetrated between the two times that they sacrificed the two goats (but after it was designated).

(b)But if they designated both goats simultaneously - the second goat would be redundant.

(c)The problem with this explanation is - to establish the case in this way, since neither does the Pasuk indicate that one is obligated to designate the animals at two different times, nor does it suggest that it is speaking when they did so Bedieved.

11)

(a)Rav Papa therefore establishes the case even where they designated the two animals simultaneously, and he explains the Beraisa on the basis of a statement of Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, in connection with Temidin that remained after the first of Nisan - the date when Korbanos Tzibur are due to be purchased from the Terumah Chadashah (the new half-Shekalim that the people have just donated).

(b)We would therefore expect such Temidim - to become Pasul (since they were purchased with money that was donated the previous year with the intention of bringing them as Temidin of that year).

(c)When Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel says Sakin Moshchasan le'Mah she'Hein, he means that - in fact, we apply the principle Leiv Beis-Din Masneh aleihen, in which case Beis-Din actually have in mind that in the event that the lambs are not needed as Temidin, they should be used for Olos Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach, and that is indeed what the knife sanctifies them as.

(d)Rav Papa adapts Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel's principle to our case - by making out as if Beis-Din had stipulated that the Hafrashah of the second goat should only take effect when it is needed. Consequently, whenever they bring it, it is as if they had designated it at that moment, in which case, it always atones for Tum'as Mikdash that took place before it was designated.