Reference: Elsewhere, we expound "Echad" - the most special in the herd (Megilah 28a).

Observation: He has no difficulty with Bein ha'Arbayim written regarding the Tamid, like it says in Pesachim (58a) that its time is from when afternoon shadows lean (i.e. the sun is in the west, and shadows lean to the east).

Implied question: Why can't [R. Oshaya] answer that [Rebbi] mentioned that part [of the day] is proper due to R. Yehoshua?

Answer: [The Gemara] asks as follows. What is R. Oshaya's source that Ben Beseira is Machshir Pesach in the morning?

Suggestion: It is because he disqualifies [a Pesach slaughtered then] Lo Lishmah.

Rejection: Perhaps the reason is because part is proper! We find that this is a good reason (Rebbi said so);

However, R. Oshaya holds that it is not a good reason. If so, what was Rebbi's question against R. Yehoshua? The law depends on the entire day being proper!

Implied question: Why is this unlike Mechusar Kipurim (one who must bring a Korban to complete his Taharah)? That is not considered Dichuy before he brings his Korban!

Answer: Its time is not until he becomes Tahor and immerses. (From that time, it was proper);

However, this was not proper for Pesach and Shelamim, even though it was the time for Shelamim!

Implied question: In Menachos (5a) it connotes that Rav Papa holds that Mechusar Zman applies [to what will become proper] the same day!

Answer: We must distinguish between Mechusar Zman of here to there. (Tosfos Menachos 5a DH Ela - Mechusar Zman of the same day applies to offering, but not to being Makdish.)

Reference: It connotes like this in Kerisus (8a), in Chagigah (9b) according to R. Yochanan, and in Menachos (100a), Nazir (18b) and Yoma (29b).

Question (R. Yosef): In Menachos (10a) it connotes that a Tam fetus in a Tam mother is Kadosh, for Kedushah takes effect on a fetus in its mother's womb;

How is it Kadosh, both according to Bar Pada and R. Yochanan? Only the night [before its eighth day] is proper for Kedushah, but not before this! (Some answer that one may not be Makdish it l'Chatchilah, but b'Di'eved it takes effect, or one may be Makdish it in the womb, but not from birth until the eighth day, or the Sugyos disagree.)

Question: Even without this [Drashah], I know from "b'Yom Tzavoso" (that one may offer it only during the day)! Why do we need "ba'Yom ha'Shemini"?

Answer: Had [the Torah] written only "v'Hayah Shiv'as Yamim Tachas Imo", one might have thought that if he slaughtered at night, if [the Chelev or limbs of an Olah] were brought on the Mizbe'ach, they do not descend;

Now, it teaches that it is Mechusar Zman, and they descend, even according to R. Shimon, for Ein Pesulo b'Kodesh.

Support: Also below (112b), it connotes that if it ascended, it is brought down, for a Mishnah teaches that if one slaughtered Mechusar Zman outside [the Mikdash], he is not Chayav Kares;

If the law were that if it ascended, it is not brought down, it is proven there that this is called "it is accepted in Pesach Ohel Mo'ed", and he is Chayav Kares outside!

Implied question: According to R. Yochanan, who says that if one slaughtered at night, if it ascended, it is brought down. (If so, what is the Nafka Minah that it is Mechusar Zman?)

Answer: According to the opinion below (120a) that [the Isur to offer at] night does not apply a Bamah, now that it is Mechusar Zman, if he slaughtered at night after seven days, it is Pasul even on a Bamah.

Question: This is difficult for the opinion that [the Isur of] night applies to a Bamah!

Answer: Even R. Yochanan agrees that on a Bamah, what is slaughtered at night does not descend.

Implied question: This should be like "the leg of this is an Olah." It is sold to one who needs an Olah (but he deducts the value of the leg - Temurah 11b)!

Answer: There it is not Dechuyah (rejected), since it is in his ability to be Makdish it.

Question: What is R. Yochanan's Chidush? Our Mishnah in Pesachim (97b) teaches this! If one separated a female for his Pesach... and it says in the Gemara "we learn from this three matters"!

Suggestion: It is because Tana'im argue about Ba'alei Chayim Nidchin in Yoma (64a). R. Yochanan teaches that they are Nidchin.

Rejection: R. Yochanan already taught this!

Answer: Separating a female [for Pesach] is overt Dichuy. Even Rav agrees there that Ba'alei Chayim Nidchin in such a case. (Here R. Yochanan teaches that Ba'alei Chayim Nidchin even when the Dichuy happened automatically.)

Question #1: If one ate Chelev and became a Mumar, this is overt Dichuy!

Question #2: It was Nir'eh v'Nidcheh. Why must R. Yochanan teach it?

Question: We must be meticulous in all these teachings of R. Yochanan - these three that Ba'alei Chayim Nidchin, and in two places that Rav and R. Yochanan argue - in Yoma and below (59a) regarding the Mizbe'ach becoming dented! (Why didn't Rav argue also about these three? - Chak Nasan)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [There is Dichuy b'Damim, i.e. in a matter that has only Kedushas Damim. Do not say that there is Dichuy Me'ikara only in Kedushas ha'Guf.

Question: If so, Dichuy Me'ikara and Dichuy b'Damim are the same, for every Dichuy Me'ikara has only Kedushas Damim!

Answer: We find this when he received the blood in a Kli that has water. The first drops are Dachuy. Later, (the mixture of blood and water) turned to have the appearance of blood;

Below (78a), we say that blood into water, every amount that falls in first is Batel. (Even if it looks like blood now, it is Pasul.)

Distinction: Regarding covering, it is not so. There is no Dichuy regarding Mitzvos.

Explanation #2 (R. Chayim): "Dichuy applies to Damim", i.e. it is Docheh its Temurah so it cannot be offered;

We do not say that since it is Kodesh only for Damim, it is not strong enough to take effect on the Temurah to be Docheh it from its Kedushah, to make it like itself.

Support: The text of Seforim in Kerisus (28a) connotes like this. It says there that we learn [from R. Yochanan's teaching] that Ba'alei Chayim Nidchin, for he taught that [if one was Makdish his half, even after he buys the other half] it is not offered;

And we learn that Kedushas Damim is Docheh, for he taught that its Temurah is like itself.

And we learn that Dichuy applies to Damim, for he taught that it is Kadosh. For what is it Kadosh? [It is] for Damim.

Observation: It did not teach there Dichuy Me'ikara! (I.e. Dichuy Me'ikara is the same as "Dichuy applies to Damim", and "Kedushas Damim is Docheh" refers to Temurah, like R. Chayim said.)

Disclaimer: However, R. Chayim's text says Dichuy Me'ikara, and does not say "Dichuy applies to Damim." Also several Seforim say so. (If so, Tosfos' question returns, and there is no proof for R. Chayim's answer.)

Question #1: According to his Perush, the case of separating a female for Pesach is difficult. It does not say there that its Temurah is like itself, and we say about [it that it teaches that] Dichuy applies to Damim!

Question #2: In Kerisus (27b-28a), R. Elazar said in the name of R. Oshaya that if an Ashir transgressed Tum'as Mikdash and he separated birds in place of the sheep (that he should bring), and he became poor... we learn three things from this (including that Dichuy applies to Damim);

Temurah does not apply [there], for Temurah does not apply to birds!

Explanation #1 (cont.): Rashi wrote in a Teshuvah like he explained, and wrote that he learned the Perush of this matter from Maseches Kerisus. The text says there "this teaches that Kedushas Damim is Docheh";

I.e. this teaches [that it is Docheh] even if initially he was not Makdish it to offer it itself, rather, Kedushas Damim, e.g. he was Makdish half, and the other half was Chulin.

We similarly explain Dichuy applies to Damim, e.g. [he was Makdish] a female for his Pesach. It itself is not proper for Pesach, only for its value. When he was Makdish it, he was Makdish it for its value;

Since it was Nidcheh, and it itself cannot be offered for what it was Hukdash, we say that it is Nidcheh from ever being offered, even after Pesach, even though every Mosar Pesach is a Shelamim, and a female is proper for Shelamim.

Source: Our Mishnah taught "its value is for Shelamim", but it itself is not [a Shelamim];

Inference: Kedushas Damim is strong enough to apply the law of Dichuy. We do not find Tana'im who argue about this. However, this teaches very much.

Explanation #3 (R. Chananel): Dichuy applies to Damim, i.e. money is rejected not to offer from the money the Korban that he intended to separate;

This is like "Dichuy applies to Damim" in Pesachim (98a). The Mishnah there says about one who separated a female for his Pesach. It grazes until it gets blemished, and we sell it and bring Shelamim with its money.

Support: Also Rashi explained so there. "Dichuy applies to Damim" - even the money is rejected. We do not bring from it Pesach for which he intended at the time he separated.

Rejection: This is not true. He brings Pesach from the money, like the Beraisa in Kerisus (28a) says, that if one separated a female for his Pesach, it grazes until it gets blemished, and it is sold and he brings Pesach with its money.

Remark: Due to this Beraisa, the Rashbam erased "Shelamim" from the text in Pesachim (98a), and wrote "he brings Pesach with its money."

Rejection: This text is wrong. If so (it were right), why does the Gemara say "this teaches that there is Dichuy Me'ikara, and Dichuy applies to Damim, and Ba'alei Chayim Nidchim"?

Even if we would say in general Ein Dichuy, he cannot offer it for Pesach, for it is a female, and it is written about Pesach "Zachar Tamim Ben Shanah"!

Conclusion: You are forced to say that the text there in Pesachim is "Shelamim".

Explanation #4 (R. Tam): We should not erase [the text in] Seforim. In Temurah (19a), we say that if one separated a female for his Pesach, it grazes until it gets blemished and he brings Pesach with its money;

If it remained after Pesach, it grazes until it gets blemished and it is sold and he brings Shelamim with its money;

Our Mishnah in Pesachim discusses such a case, that it remained after Pesach.

The explanation of "Dichuy applies to Damim" is that Dichuy applies to a matter that has only Kedushas Damim, and not Kedushas ha'Guf.

Question: This requires investigation in Kerisus (27b-28a), that R. Elazar said in the name of R. Oshaya that if an Ashir transgressed Tum'as Mikdash...

Rav Ukva challenged him from one who separated a female for his Pesach, it grazes until it gets blemished; if it gave birth to a male, it grazes, and he brings Pesach with its money... R. Shimon says, it itself is offered for Pesach.

Citation (cont.) Answer: [R. Elazar and R. Oshaya] said according to Rabanan. R. Shimon holds that Ein Ba'alei Chayim Nidchim;

Citation (cont. - Beraisa - R. Shimon): If [after the lottery on Yom Kipur,] one of the [goats] died, we bring a replacement without a lottery. (Even though the live goat could not be offered before a replacement was brought, after it is brought we offer it itself.)

Summation of question: What did the Makshan think initially, that he challenged [R. Oshaya] from R. Shimon? He should support him from Rabanan!

Answer: One might have thought that the first Tana agrees that Ein Ba'alei Chayim Nidchim. The reason he said that it grazes is like R. Elazar (some texts - Eliezer) in Temurah (18b);

Citation (18b - Mishnah): If one separated a female for an Olah and it gave birth to a male, it grazes. R. Eliezer says, it itself is offered for an Olah;

The Gemara explains that regarding one who separated a female for his Pesach and it gave birth to a male, R. Eliezer would not say that it itself is offered for Pesach, for we have a tradition that the destiny of Mosar is the destiny of the child;

Before Pesach, the mother has Kedushas Damim for Pesach. He could not wait until it gives birth to a male and offer it for Pesach. Therefore, also its child is for Demei Pesach, even though he holds that Ein Ba'alei Chayim Nidchim. (Tosfos connotes that we discuss when he did not expect it to give birth before Pesach, but if he did, he could offer the child itself for Pesach - PF.)

Question #1: Rather than challenging him from the Beraisa in Kerisus, he should support him from the first Tana of R. Eliezer in Temurah, who holds that Ba'alei Chayim Nidchim. They (Rabanan who argue with him) say that if one separated a female for his Pesach and it gave birth to a male, it grazes...

[And he should support him] from our Mishnah in Pesachim, and the argument of Tana'im in Yoma (64b)!

Question #2: How does he bring [a question] from the case in which one of the [goats] died, that R. Shimon holds that Ein Nidchim? Perhaps there is different, for he was not overtly Docheh it!

Question #3: How does he bring [a question] from the case of R. Eliezer, that it is obvious to him that [he holds that] Ba'alei Chayim Nidchim? Above, this was a question in Kerisus there (27a)!

Explanation #5: In Temurah, I explained in front of Rabbeinu that the Chidush of R. Yochanan is that [there is Dichuy] even though it is b'Yado to fix (the Dichuy) and buy the other half;

Similarly, in the case of R. Elazar in the name of R. Oshaya in Kerisus (27b-28a), it is b'Yado to make his property Hefker, and he will be an Oni, and the birds he separated will be proper;

However, it is not so much b'Yado as when the Mizbe'ach was dented (below, 59a). That is Dichuy Me'ikara, and it is Kosher according to everyone;

We learn that it is Kosher whenever it is b'Yado to fix it, like it says in Sukah (33a);

This is why R. Yochanan mentioned "he ate Chelev and separated a Korban and became a Mumar, and repented, that [the Korban] is Nidcheh", since it was Nir'eh v'Nidcheh;

He did not mention that he separated a Korban after he became a Mumar, for then it is Kosher, since it is b'Yado to fix it easily, like when the Mizbe'ach was dented, and also it is Dichuy Me'ikara, which is Kosher;

Implied question: In Kerisus (28a), why did [Rav Ukva] challenge R. Oshaya from R. Shimon, and did not support him from Rabanan?

Answer: This is because we find that Rabanan argue and say that it is Nidcheh [only] because it is not b'Yado at all to fix at the time of Hekdesh, for it is a female for his Pesach;

However, when it is somewhat b'Yado to fix, e.g. one who transgressed Tum'as Mikdash separated birds, if he wants, he can make his property Hefker, they agree that there is no Dichuy. All of this is from Rabbeinu ha'Kadosh of blessed memory.

Question #1: According to this, what was the question above (12a) "if he separated it in the morning, it is Dichuy Me'ikara!"? He can delay it until midday, just like one who was Makdish an obligation [when the Mishkan was] in Gilgal. They are Kosher (below, 118a)!

Question #2: The same applies to Oso v'Es Beno. (Why is it Dichuy Me'ikara? He can delay slaughtering the latter until tomorrow!)

Question: Regarding myrtle, we say (Sukah 33b) that when [its berries were] black before Yom Tov, Dichuy Me'ikara is not Dichuy!

Answer: There is different, because it is b'Yado to fix it. (He removes berries until there are more leaves than berries.)

Proof: Regarding [a myrtle branch] whose top was Niktam (cut off) before Yom Tov, and a [quasi-]date grew on it on Yom Tov (so now its top is Kosher), the Gemara asks whether or not there is Dichuy, and we do not resolve it from this (case when it was black), because Niktam is not b'Yado to fix it.

Question: What is R. Yochanan's reason to say that Dichuy Me'ikara is Dichuy? He should learn from Mechusar Zman that it is not Dichuy, like it says in Yoma (64a)!

Answer: Mechusar Zman is different, for it returns and is Nir'eh again automatically.

Question: Why did R. Yochanan need an exclusion "Mum Bam" - regarding these (temporary Mumim), when the Mum passes, they are accepted, but anything Nidcheh, [even] when the Mum passes, they are not accepted, for once they are Nidcheh, they are Nidcheh?

We do not learn that a temporary Mum is Docheh. It is not Docheh, for there it is automatic!

Answer: There is a Mum that passes only through a cure (it is not automatic).

Explanation #1: This is worse than when the person is Nidcheh.

Implied question: It connotes oppositely in Horiyos (11a) regarding "is becoming Nasi an interruption?"! (He separated a female when he was a Hedyot, and then he was appointed Nasi, who brings a male.)

Answer: There is different, for the Korban was not Nidcheh from [being offered due to] the Chelev that he ate. He is still obligated a Korban.

Explanation #2: R. Tam explained oppositely. When Beis Din ruled, the Korban is not Nidcheh;

The person is Nidcheh, for he does not know whether or not he is exempt, but the Korban is not Nidcheh, for had Beis Din not permitted, it would have been offered. It turns out that the Dichuy was only through his mistake;

However, here, even the Korban is Nidcheh, since he is a lunatic or Mumar. He is exempt according to everyone.

Remark: Even though the Pesul of Lo Lishmah removes it from becoming Pigul, for [to become Pigul] we require that all the Matirim were b'Kashrus (except for intents Chutz li'Zmano)...

This is unlike what it says in Pesachim (27b) "any Kal v'Chomer that is initially to be stringent, and at the end it is lenient, it is not a Kal v'Chomer." (There, if we learn that Bi'ur Chametz is only through burning, one who has no wood cannot burn it, and definitely he will be exempt. Here, the leniency can be avoided, if all the Avodah is done Lishmah - Chak Nasan, Pirchei Kehunah, Zivchei Efrayim. Ayeles ha'Shachar - some say that the leniency of Pigul is a consequence of the stringency of Lo Lishmah. It is not a law of Lo Lishmah itself. It is better to say that in any case it is Pasul. We are not Mevatel the Kal v'Chomer just because it removes the Chiyuv Kares.)

Question: If Ben Azai expounds "Osah" - it is Kosher Lishmah, and Pasul Lo Lishmah, but other Kodshim (are Kosher even Lo Lishmah), how does the Kal v'Chomer help him?

And if he does not expound it, [Lishmah] should be Me'akev in Asham, due to the Hekesh "ka'Chatas ka'Asham"!

Question: According to R. Eliezer who disqualifies Chatas and Asham, he should disqualify also Olah! He should learn from Chatas, Asham and Pesach!

Answer: Kares applies to an Asham, for there is Asham Taluy;

However, it does not apply as much as to Chatas and Pesach, like is proven above (10b).